Tag: Lindsay Hoyle

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 24 February 2022.

Before we come to the business questions, I wish to say something about the conduct of Prime Minister’s questions. PMQs are an important opportunity for the House to hold the Prime Minister to account. It is important that they are conducted according to the rules of the House, that we have an opportunity for as many Members to question the Prime Minister as possible in the given time, and that the Prime Minister and those asking him questions can be heard. I want to address three issues that were raised yesterday and are relevant to that.

First, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) made criticisms of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer). Those types of criticisms may only be made if the House is considering a substantive motion that deals with them. They may not be made as sideswipes during questions or during debates on other matters. That is to avoid our question times and debates descending into partisan accusations and counter-accusations. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford East understands the issue and that he has apologised to the right hon. Member for Sherwood.

Secondly, I want to address the issue of the length of questions and answers. I wish to call as many Members as possible. Sometimes we have over-long answers, and I often have to interrupt Ministers when that is the case, but sometimes the questions themselves are far too long. They are meant to be questions, not statements followed by a question, and I hope that Members will consider others rather than themselves. We saw a little bit of that yesterday from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Considering that a certain amount of time is made available to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party, the remaining time is limited and I have to make sure it is used as effectively and fairly as possible. If Members take too long with their questions, they take away the opportunity for other Members to ask questions. When a Member is asking an over-lengthy question, I try to give them an opportunity to come to an end before stopping them, as I did yesterday. There is nothing personal about that, and I routinely have to call Members on all sides to account for the length of questions. I plead with all Members to keep questions focused and brief.

Finally, I want to deal with a related issue. It is not always easy to ask short, snappy questions when other Members are shouting and barracking. There was far too much of that yesterday, with a disproportionate amount of it coming from the Government Benches, and particularly from those at the side of the Chair, which made it very hard to hear what was being said. I hope that those on the Government Benches will take this on board, and in particular that the Chief Whip will deal with some of his crowd at the side of the Chair. If Members persist in making excessive noise and barracking colleagues, they will be asked to leave the Chamber.

We want PMQs to be a showcase for this House and for our democracy, so I say to all hon. and right hon. Members: please respect the rules of the House about how we refer to each other; make questions and answers concise; and behave with dignity in a way that allows questions and answers to be heard.

The tribute made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 2 February 2022.

We now come to tributes to Jack Dromey.

Jack made his mark long before he came into this House, in particular as a fearless, energetic trade unionist. I remember campaigning him with him in the ’80s and ’90s to save the Royal Ordnance factory in Chorley. He was positive, down to earth, and determined to help working people—characteristics that remained with him throughout his career. I have to say, as somebody who knew Jack and worked with Jack: he was innovative; he was absolutely visionary. We sat down, upon a closure where thousands of jobs were going to go, and Jack said, “We’re in this together; we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people whose jobs are at risk.” He said, “We’ve got to look beyond what kills people. We can do something different. Let us look for alternatives that save people’s lives.”

The expertise that was in Royal Ordnance Chorley was second to none. Of course we had to fight for the jobs in the first place. It became a choice between Glascoed and Chorley, and Jack said, “With the land values we know where British Aerospace will be.” In the end we came up with real alternatives. We had seen Lockerbie. We had seen the destruction and the loss of life, and in Chorley they designed a cargo that stopped the plane coming down. That was the vision of Jack, who said, “If we can’t save the jobs in making bombs, let us save jobs by finding an alternative to save lives.” So that is my personal experience of Jack Dromey. I knew him on other occasions, but I have to say: he was inspirational to me and he has been inspirational to many others in this House.

Since his election to this House in 2010, he proved to be an exemplary Member of Parliament. He was an assiduous and effective campaigner for his constituents. As a Front Bencher, he was trusted to lead for the party in particularly sensitive areas such as housing, policing, pensions, and, most recently, immigration. While he was a robust Front Bencher, he always demonstrated respect for his opponents and was well like and admired across the House. Nobody could fall out with Jack Dromey.

While we mourn a colleague, it is Jack’s family who will of course feel the loss most deeply. I know the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Harriet, I know that all Members of this House will join me in saying to you and your family that we are so sorry for your loss, and it is a sad loss for this House.

I will now take brief points of order to allow for tributes to an esteemed colleague.

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 31 January 2022 after Suzanne Webb suggested the Opposition were prolonging the debate.

Just a moment. In fairness, the Prime Minister asked to make the statement. I am not going to attack the Prime Minister for making the statement, and I certainly would not expect it from his own side.

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 24 November 2021.

Before we start today’s business, I want to say something about the presence of babies and very young children in this Chamber and the parallel Chamber, Westminster Hall.

It is extremely important that parents of babies and young children are able to participate fully in the work of this House. That is why, to give one example, we have a nursery. The advice given yesterday to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, of which I was not aware until last night, correctly reflects the current rules. However, rules have to be seen in context and they change with the times.

This House has to be able to function professionally and without disturbance. However, sometimes there may be occasions when the Chair can exercise discretion, assuming that the business is not being disturbed. I accept that there are differing views on this matter. Indeed, hon. Members who have babies have contacted me with a range of views.

There are also likely to be some consequential matters. Therefore, I have asked the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), if she and her Committee will look into this matter and bring forward recommendations, which will ultimately be for the House to take a view on.

Thank you. I am taking no points of order on this.

The text of the statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 8 November 2021.

From time to time, we talk about the House being at its best. I regret to say that I do not think that the House has been at its best in the way in which it has handled standards issues over the past week. I would like to make a few points about where we are now and where we might get to if we can approach the issue in a genuinely constructive and non-partisan spirit.

In my role as Speaker, I am required to maintain strict impartiality. That includes, for example, responsibility for giving the House the opportunity to consider orderly amendments that attract considerable support, whatever my own view of them may be. But I also feel a weighty responsibility to ensure that the House deals with these issues effectively and fairly, and that its reputation reflects that.

One issue is clear. Owen Paterson has resigned as an MP, so it no longer falls to the House to decide whether he should be suspended, although I note that the House has not reached a decision on the report of the Select Committee on Standards. I understand that the Committee is nearing the end of its review of the code of conduct. After that report has been published, there may be some way of working with the Committee to build on its work.

On Thursday, the Leader of the House indicated that he believed that there was cross-party support for reform of the standards process, and particularly for looking at a mechanism for appeals. He also said that

“a Committee cannot work effectively without Opposition Members on it”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1056.]

I agree. If the House wishes to review the system, it must do so on a cross-party basis. Opposition parties have made it clear that they will not participate in the Committee established on Thursday. We therefore need to find a different way forward. I would also expect the Chair of the Committee on Standards to be invited to have a role in any process, given the extensive work that his Committee has already undertaken.

In finding that way forward, I want to remind the House of two things. First, I repeat what I have said before about the importance of not criticising officials in this House who are not able to respond. Of course it is possible to make proposals to improve processes and practices, but please do not criticise the Commissioner for Standards, who is doing a job that we have appointed her to do. Secondly, I know that there have been concerns about what recent events mean for the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Let me be clear: the decision taken last Wednesday did not in any way affect the operation of the ICGS or that of the Independent Expert Panel. Let me say to those people who feel that they are not going to come forward because the ICGS will not be there that it is there: do not think that there is a barrier to people coming forward.

Finally, and again in a spirit of finding the best way forward, I say to the House that I will do everything I can to help to ensure that all Members feel confident that we have an effective and fair system, and that those who follow our proceedings feel the same.

I granted the debate today because I thought it was essential to sort out the mess that we are in. We can start to do that today, but it requires two things: for us all to tone down the party political sniping and focus calmly on making sure the system is as effective as it can be, and for everyone to recognise that, if we are going to achieve progress, we will only do so on a cross-party basis. I also want to remind the House that it is not in order to make allegations of impropriety against other named Members, unless the House is considering a substantive motion dealing with the issue directly. There are other routes for raising such claims. So please, use the routes that are available.

I sincerely hope that all Members will take the approach I have recommended, and that by the end of this debate we will have a clearer sense of how we can move forward together on this important subject. Please, let us see the House at its best, as we have certainly seen it at its worst.

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 18 October 2021.

In a moment I will ask the Prime Minister to move a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will give an opportunity for us to pay tribute to Sir David Amess. As I said earlier, the issues raised by the circumstances of Sir David’s death will be looked at urgently and with the utmost priority. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that a police investigation is ongoing, so our focus this afternoon should be on Sir David’s life and his contribution to our democracy.

In nearly four decades in this House, Sir David was second to none in his determined commitment to his constituents, first as the Member for Basildon between 1983 and 1997, and since then as the Member for Southend West. He was tireless in making sure that the voice of Southend West was heard in this Chamber—it is difficult to believe that we will not hear him make the case for Southend achieving city status before the next recess.

Sir David worked equally hard outside the Chamber for his constituents, always going the extra mile to make sure their case was heard and their needs were met. He used his skills as a parliamentarian to pilot numerous pieces of legislation on to the statute book, reflecting his political priorities, such as fuel poverty and, of course, animal welfare. He was a much admired member of the Panel of Chairs, respected across the House for his fairness and expertise.

I would like to thank the Speakers from around the world who have sent messages of support, including—along with many, many more—Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Smith of Australia, who wanted to let us know that Congress and the Australian Parliament are thinking of us, David’s family and all at this time.

On a personal level, David was a lovely man. He was well liked by Members and staff alike, and during his almost four decades here built a reputation for kindness and generosity. Sustained by his faith, David was devoted to his family. As much as we will miss a much loved fellow parliamentarian, the loss felt by David’s wife Julia and their children is unimaginable. I know the whole House will want to join me in sending them our deepest condolences. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I call the Prime Minister.

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 18 October 2021.

I am sorry that the House is returning in such tragic circumstances. Since we last met, we have lost two outstanding friends and colleagues: Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I know that hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House will share my deep sadness at their loss and will want to join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

The circumstances of Sir David’s death were despicable and raise the most fundamental issues about how Members of this House are able to perform our vital democratic responsibilities safely and securely. In light of the ongoing police investigation I will not say more about those events, but I give the House my undertaking that I will do everything within my power to ensure that these issues are treated with the urgency and sense of priority they deserve. I know that whatever political differences there are in the House, all Members want to ensure not just that we and our staff are able to work safely, but that our democracy itself, with the local Member of Parliament at the heart of their constituency, is able to function securely. On that, I know the House is united.

The House will want to pay tribute both to Sir David and to James, and I hope it will be useful if I set out how I expect us to be able to do so. On Wednesday, after Prime Minister’s questions, there will be an opportunity for tributes to be paid to James Brokenshire. Today’s planned substantive business in the Chamber and Westminster Hall will not be proceeded with. Instead, we will have Home Office questions, followed by an opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Amess on a motion for the Adjournment, to be opened by the Prime Minister. At 6 pm today, there will be a service of prayer and remembrance to commemorate Sir David at St Margaret’s church. I expect the House to adjourn at approximately 5.30 pm and for those Members who wish to attend the service then to proceed from this Chamber to St Margaret’s. I know that many Members will want to speak later, and if they bear that in mind, it will help us all to get this on the record. There will also be books of condolence for Members and staff to sign.

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 15 October 2021.

This is an incident that will send shockwaves across the parliamentary community and the whole country. In the coming days we will need to discuss and examine MPs’ security and any measures to be taken, but for now, our thoughts and prayers are with David’s family, friends and colleagues.