How Speaker Bercow cost Nick Clegg two hours of pain

The bust up between Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin and John Bercow on Monday night (video below courtesy of The Telegraph) was all about the Government’s attempt to limit tomorrow’s debate on tuition fees to three hours.

The Government had put down a motion to achieve that end and Labour MPs wanting to object to it shouted “object” at the wrong time – a few seconds early.

If Bercow hadn’t encouraged then moments later to shout “object” again, the motion would have passed and the debate been limited.

Interestingly, last night the ‘three hour limit’ motion was on the order paper again but, when given the opportunity, the Government whip declined to move it.

Today we find another motion is down to be moved at about 7pm. But this time the motion limits the tuition fees debate to five hours.

That suggests that after the Mcloughlin/Bercow incident negotiations may have taken place and the Government been forced to concede a further two hours on the debate – two extra hours of excruciating discussion for Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem MPs.

Chatting earlier, a Labour MP argued that instead of sticking to rigid rules Bercow used his ‘common sense’ to interpret them – he knew Labour wanted to object, everyone else knew Labour wanted to object, they had signalled their objection and therefore Bercow took the objection.

But then again you might argue that as a direct result of Bercow’s intervention the Government has been put at disadvantage. As one colleague put it: “The Labour objection was outside the rules. If you are not going to obey the rules, why bother having them?”

Mr Speaker's Hot Air: No.2

The next instalment of our regular feature. A response from Speaker Bercow, who often complains that members speak too long, to Chris Bryant MP.

What he said….

Mr Speaker: Well, I think that someone once said of the honourable Gentleman that his mind climbs mountains without any molehills. He is always thinking ahead of himself and I am not surprised, as he has a great elasticity of mind, but he is seeking to draw me into matters beyond where we have reached and he is absolutely right in his initial supposition that we do not discuss security matters on the floor of the House. He has registered his concern that the Home Secretary should be ready to make a statement if the eventuality he fears could happen, but should not, actually happen. I have a strong feeling that her office reads Hansard. I think that will probably do for today.

What he could have said…

Mr Speaker: We do not discuss security matters on the floor of the House. The member has registered his concerns.

A New Blog Feature: Mr Speaker’s Hot Air, No. 1

This was the response of Speaker Bercow (who often chides MPs for talking too long) to a point of order raised by Keith Vaz MP yesterday. It regarded an incident in which technicians mistakenly broadcasted a private session of Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee.

What he said…

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. I understand from the advance notification and from what he has just said that there was a technical problem with the recording of his Committee's meeting last week. There is not really a procedural solution that I can offer him or the House, but I am advised that all necessary steps are being taken to avoid a recurrence. If no harm was done, I am sure that the Committee and its illustrious Chairman will be relieved. In essence, he asked me a hypothetical question-whether it would have been a contempt, and so on and so forth. I think that he is capable of working out such matters for himself. On this occasion, I hope that he will understand it if I adopt the approach of the late Lord Whitelaw, which was that on the whole, judging from experience, he preferred to cross a bridge only when he came to it.

What he could have said….

Mr Speaker: Right now there is no procedural solution to the problem that exists. We’re finding out what went wrong and making sure it doesn’t happen again. If the media were ever to try and broadcast a private committee session to the public, we will deal with the problem at that point.

Nuclear shame...

The story about MPs being barred from discussing the plight of Britain’s nuclear test veterans in Parliament was picked up in the Daily Mail today.

The veterans took part in our nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and now suffer a range of diseases and illnesses as a result of being exposed to radiation.

Other countries like the USA and France – and even China and Russia – have paid out compensation to veterans who served similar roles. Meanwhile the UK Government refuses and is even fighting a court case to avoid doing so.

The Daily Mail story tells how previously veterans had relied on the support of MPs to speak out on the issue in Parliament. But after taking advice from the Ministry of Defence, the Commons Authorities - under the power of John Bercow - effectively barred any discussion on the subject.

The reason was that it would be “sub-judice” as the court battle for compensation is on-going. It’s a rather flimsy excuse because all the evidence has been heard in the case and a decision will be taken by three Appeal Court judges, not a jury, so legally speaking there is no chance of prejudicing the trial.

And anyway, there has already been Parliamentary discussion of veterans’ issues while legal proceedings in the case were active – it’s only since taking this most recent advice from the MoD that restrictions seem to have come into play.

The Mail picked up the story from the campaign website NuclearTestShame, which has been at the forefront on this issue.

Anyone who cares about how the MoD is treating these veterans, and also about freedom of speech, should check the website out and follow developments with them on Twitter.

Straw flops

When Jack Straw stood up at PMQs he resembled a baddy from a cheap Hollywood movie, who does nothing but stare at his opponent with an evil smile on his face.

It felt like he leered, smirking at Clegg and saying nothing for a full five seconds – until the House burst into laughter.

It may even have been a good psyche-out tactic had what followed been an incisive attack. But Straw’s performance, in what was an extremely odd PMQs anyway, was pitiful.

That was lucky for Clegg, who did not shine. But because Straw was so odd, Clegg got away with not being on any sort of form.

Straw was obviously trying to draw attention to Clegg’s handling of the Sheffield Forgemaster’s issue, with an eye on smearing his integrity.

The problem is that no-one outside Sheffield will take notice and PMQs is meant to be a place where you strike a chord with national sentiment.

On top of that Straw waffled awfully in his questions, even more than Clegg in his answers.

Labour MPs were shouting “answer the question” at Clegg – but I’m sure neither they nor he really knew what the question had been.

Straw should have gone for issues that drove a wedge between the coalition partners.

Finally there was this bizarre moment when Bercow called Claire Perry MP to speak, when Straw still wanted to have another question.

Straw simply refused to sit down and clung to the despatch box, doing his staring thing at Bercow as well – with the Commons audibly in chaos this was another black mark against Bercow’s Speakership.

Why is John Bercow trying to kill the Commons?

John Bercow took the Speaker’s chair in the wake of the expenses scandal – having promised to give Parliament back to the people.

But he seems to be a little misguided over what that means.

In his speech to the Centre for Parliamentary Studies yesterday he called PMQs the “shop window” of the Commons and said that because it dominated media coverage and drew viewers, the impression set was crucial.

That led him to the conclusion that it had to change with less “abuse” and more “scrutiny”. PMQs should be less dominated by the leaders, more for backbenchers and there should be fewer planted questions, he said.

The thing is, what Bercow calls abuse others might well call scrutiny. Yes, it’s not picking over the fine detail of policy, but that is work for committees.

The Commons is a forum with free flowing debate at its very core.

If people want to watch that heavy sort of scrutiny they can watch committees on BBC Parliament which is free to view, but I’m pretty sure people aren’t rushing to watch those.

The question is this – If Politician A asks a tough question in a clever way that stumps Politician B and therefore makes him look silly, is that abuse or does it simply show that Politician A had a very good point?

PMQs is the “shop window”, but that is not some sort of coincidence, it is not chance that people happen to be in front of their TVs at noon every Wednesday.

It’s the shop window of Parliament because of the goods on show, because people want to watch that high speed, clever, knock-about debate – because there is demand for it.

It does touch on key policy, but without getting too heavy and gives a wider mass audience – which otherwise might not watch any politics at all – a way to connect with it.

It is dominated by the leaders, but that is because that’s what people are tuning in to see – the PM in PMQs stands for Prime Minister.

The issue over planted questions is a valid one. But until you get rid of party patronage, deconstruct the whips system and remove the executive from the Commons, that’s not going to change.

Bercow should stop tinkering around with the one thing that attracts mass-interest in the daily grind of British politics.

He also made a point about sound bites, claiming there were far too many. He then went on to say of PMQs: "If it is scrutiny at all, then it is scrutiny by screech."

Bercow having a tough time of things in the Commons...

I just wanted to draw attention to this ammusing exchange between the Speaker and the Beast of Bolsover Dennis Skinner in the House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have operated a very considerable latitude in these brief exchanges, and there have already been several-frankly, too many-references to the issue of party funding. The matter upon which we need exclusively to focus is that of the BA strike. I feel sure that a fine example of that focus will now be provided by Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): In any industrial dispute, it takes two sides to cause a row. Will my right hon. Friend draw the distinction between the clean money that is given by the trade union movement to the Labour party, as opposed to a man who refuses to pay tax on £127 million and bankrolls the Tory party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has placed his point firmly on the record, but the Minister requires only the- [ Interruption. ] Order. The Minister requires only the briefest of replies.

Mr. Skinner: Why do you only stop me and not these others?

Mr. Speaker: Order. [ Interruption. ] Order. The House needs to let me address this. I must say in fairness to the hon. Member for Bolsover that I did not stop him. He made his point, I have no objection to him doing so. To be fair, I did not interrupt him. He had his say.

Mr. Skinner: You do plenty of interrupting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do do some interrupting when it is necessary for me to do so.

There was more interrupting from the Speaker to come and more heckling of him from the benches - though the heckles weren't recorded in Hansard.

Knowing that this would be the case the ever helpful Andrew Robathan, deputy chief opposition whip, stood up and put the best heckle on the record...

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the expression "verbal diarrhoea" parliamentary language? I have not heard it used in this House before, and certainly never about yourself or another occupant of the Chair, as it was just now.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the offending expression to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. There is a certain amount of gesticulation now from a sedentary position both from him and from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The written record will tell us all, and I am happy to await it. The hon. Gentleman, who came into the House in 1992, knows-not least from his smile-that what he has just said does not amount to a point of order.

Even Shilpa couldn’t believe it…

From the blog of Bollywood film-star Shilpa Shetty, who recently got married:

“We were back in time to attend our second wedding reception (and finally the LAST!) very kindly thrown by a very dear friend of ours MP Keith Vaz.

“When he told us he wanted to do it at the House of Commons I thought he was joking - but he actually did!”

It turns out Mr Speaker, whom she describes as “articulate” found time to give the actress a tour of his residence. Sally was there too of course.

Shetty even got a signed gift from the PM. Politicians will do anything for a bit of star dust.

Harman's garbble

I thought it might be interesting to actually write out this answer given by Harriet Harman at PMQs to a question about Lord Ashcroft.

“We certainly do need transparency on this issue and as I’ve said we will bring forward legislation – while he’s busy commending the Conservative party, I would like to, at the risk of being partisan, complain about the Conservative party, because their deputy chair of the Conservative party promised, and this pertains to legislation, this pertains to the need for legislation, their own deputy chair of the Conservative party made a promise to the Honours Committee that he would make his tax affairs on shore. And the Foreign Secretary, er, the shadow foreign secretary, the shadow foreign secretary, can tell us what the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury says he knows…”

What? That was also what Speaker Bercow must have thought before he impatiently cut her off in mid-sentence.

Lady Bercow

Sally Bercow was glowing as she watched her Speaker hubby take part in the state opening of Parliament just now.

She tilted her head to one side in pride as she watched him traipse into the Commons in full ceremonial dress.

Either that or the huge fascinator she was wearing – really, it was the size of a second head – was proving too heavy for her neck muscles.

More on the Queen's Speech later.

The mechanics of Legg

It seems that Labour MPs’ support for John Bercow in the Speaker’s election is coming back to haunt them and their wallets.

For many of them, voting for Bercow was a sneaky political act designed to give a black eye to Tories who can’t stand the new Speaker.

But yesterday, to many MPs’ annoyance, Bercow said Sir Thomas Legg could set 'retrospective' limits on spending and that MPs should pay what he’s demanding.

What we’re seeing play out – with expenses, Bercow and Harriet Harman’s assault on the Legg review yesterday – is an extension of a spat that started in the Members Estimate Committee.

The committee is the body that decides matters relating to MPs’ pay and expenses and it set the remit of the Legg review.

It’s made up of six members including Harman and is chaired by Bercow.

When it came to setting Legg’s guidelines Lobbydog has heard that Harman was really pushing for a much more specific, tight remit – and had the support of other members of the committee.

But Bercow, who has the casting vote, decided the remit should be no tighter than the one that was eventually set.

The remit leaves a little wriggle room for Legg, for example, by saying claims should be reviewed against “rules and standards” rather than just “rules” in place at the time.

Accordingly while Bercow’s position is tied to implementation of the Legg review, Harman’s may be tied to batting it away.

With rumours of a plot to oust Brown brewing, it won't damage Harman’s chances to be seen as defender of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Bercow got his worm

Everyone knows that John Bercow had an eye on the Speaker’s chair very quickly after Michael Martin announced his resignation.

He apparently circulated a manifesto for his campaign around fellow MPs within hours of Martin’s official demise.

But Lobbydog got a sniff of the full extent of his machinations earlier today when he was talking with defeated Speaker candidate Margaret Beckett.

She revealed that while she was canvassing support for her campaign MPs told her they’d been approached by Bercow for their backing up to three years earlier.

It seems he had been gathering names, possibly as early as 2006, and was waiting for the opportunity.

Between 2006 and 2009 came the years that Bercow was also active in working with the Labour Government, leading to defection rumours but boosting his cross-party credentials.

It seems the early bird got the worm.

Bercow struggles

What on earth was Bercow doing at PMQs today, he seemed to totally lose it.

It all started to go pear shaped when he asked MPs to be quiet towards the end of Welsh questions.

Rather than shutting their gobs they all cheekily agreed with him very loudly and drowned him out.

The whole incident seemed to knock his confidence because after that things went downhill – Cameron was allowed to speak for ages, so was Brown.

We didn’t get to poor old Nick Clegg till after 20 minutes.

Far from meeting the new Speaker’s promise to streamline everything his performance made the whole event rather stale.

Vaz and Hewitt play role in Bercow campaign

Pat Hewitt has informed Lobbydog that she was one of the MPs who sponsored John Bercow in his campaign to win the Speaker's chair.

Every candidate needed 12 to 15 sponsors, at least three of which must be from a different party.

Tory MP Edward Garnier reckoned there was only one Conservative member on Bercow's sponsor list.

I guess it was Julian Lewis MP as he was dutifully holding up little prompt notes for Bercow while he tried to do the "speaking without notes" trick at the election debate on Monday night.

Meanwhile, I've learnt that the notorious Keith Vaz – who pops up in all sorts of newspaper stories – also played a role in Bercow's campaign, though I’m not sure what yet.

Bitter Dorries

After seeing some Tory MPs’ expressions last night I guess it’s not surprising that there is already talk of an attempt to flush Bercow away after the election.

When he was giving his victory speech Bercow started to say that the first thing he thought of after winning was his “wife”.

But before he could say that last word, a Tory MP – I’m certain it was Nadine Dorries – shouted out “wages”.

She’s just been on the Today show claiming Bercow only got three votes from Tory MPs.

Talk of an overthrow may be sour tittle-tattle that will subside, but it highlights a major obstacle for Bercow in pushing through any reform.

Tories are sickened by Bercow

There were 15 to 20 people on the Tory benches who simply refused to applaud John Bercow when his victory was announced in the Speaker’s election.

The looks on their faces were simply priceless.

When Labour MPs rubbed salt in the wound by making it a standing ovation some gave-in and began clapping, others remained glued to the benches.

Their collective jaws ground as Bercow promised not to launch into a lengthy victory speech – only to then go and do just that.