After a weekend of grotesquely unfair criticism of the Speaker, I turned up early in the Chamber today to fend off any further criticism. The MP who used foul language last week was not present in the Commons at 3.30 when points of order are made. I was. Surely the honourable thing to do was to repeat the apology he made to the media in the Chamber face to face with the Speaker.
I did not want to embarrass the Speaker by directly raising the details of the confrontation. But as the Speaker had been unfairly accused of denying an MP the chance of asking a question, it was right that I should draw attention obliquely to his supreme achievement.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twenty questions were called today at oral questions. Last Monday 23 questions were called. It is now commonplace at business questions for all those standing to be called; that was once a rarity. As there has been a huge increase in the past 12 months in the number of urgent questions, topical questions, oral questions and business questions that are dealt with, is it not right that we should ask the Procedure Committee to examine why that has happened and why Back Benchers’ opportunities for holding the Executive to account have been greatly multiplied, so that we can have a report, and so that we can ensure that this process continues and express our gratitude to the persons or person responsible?
Mr Speaker:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is, of course, not a matter for me specifically to request the Procedure Committee to conduct an inquiry. It is entirely open to the hon. Gentleman who, as I have remarked before, is the author of a well-read tome on how to be a Back Bencher, to make that request of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). I note with interest and appreciation the observations that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
Passport jobs hope
Good news tonight that the decision to destroy 250 jobs at the Newport Passport Office has been delayed for two months.
While I am not yet throwing my hat in the air, an extra two months employment holds out some hope for those facing possible redundancy. Last week I asked for this concession at oral questions to the Prime Minister. Jessica Morden and I pressed the same point in an EDM.
There is now time to reconsider this unwise decision to unfairly punish Newport and Wales with a major share of job losses. At the start of this campaign I called for a united effort from all concerned - unions, parties, media and the council. This has certainly happened. Sensible cooperation may well pay off.
Lords a leaping
The House of Lords was jump started into new life tonight. They may well sit - and speak - all night.
The Bill is a hybrid one that combines the need for an urgent decision on the AV referendum with a gerrymandering distortion of parliamentary boundaries. There is party advantage in reducing the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 30. This is a profound change that should not be tagged onto a referendum of convenience for the coalition parties. Decisions of this importance must be decided by independent bodies if they are to be acceptable. This has not been done.
It is right for Welsh Lords to speak 'Ar hyd y nos' all through the night.
Sorry to read that you are the victim of the average MP. You could always move to Newport West. An elected second chamber is a (distant) prospect.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | January 19, 2011 at 04:53 PM
For a Tory, Bercow's bearable, and I agree that he's been an excellent speaker - but once a newspaper has decided on a talking point, that's the public perception.
On the Lords: how can the UK be a democracy with 600 elected representatives and 800+ unelected ones. I know the Lords has often done a good job blocking or improving disgraceful legislation, but this situation is disgraceful. (My own MP declined to justify his party's decision - he's lobby fodder).
Posted by: plashing vole | January 18, 2011 at 10:31 AM