Archives for June 2010

Nearly a year after his election to the Chair, it seems Mr Speaker Bercow still has irreconcilable enemies among Tory MPs. He wisely failed to hear the Health Minister Simon Burns calling him a "stupid, sanctimonious dwarf" during health questions yesterday - the offending remark wasn't picked up by the Commons sound system, but was reported everywhere.

Today it resurfaced, to titters, when Labour's Chris Bryant inquired innocently, on a point of order, whether Mr Speaker was worried about being "short with ministers". Mr Bercow replied that he'd "always been short".

Tee-hee. Lots of Conservatives regard Mr Bercow as an apostate, who openly flirted with Labour to win the Chair - and he's treated with much disdain by those critics. But there's a particular history between Mr Burns and Mr Bercow - in the last Parliament Mr Bercow rebuked him on prime-time TV for his heckling during prime minister's questions, calling him boring and boorish.

That stung and has clearly not been forgiven. Before that Mr Burns was the Conservative whip charged with looking after Mr Bercow, and it is safe to say their hearts didn't beat as one. Perhaps it was he Mr Bercow has in mind, when he quipped that he had always had a relationship of trust and respect with his whips - they didn't trust him and he didn't respect them.

Mr Burns, a Conservative colleague tells me, has a reputation for "flamboyant feuding" but adds that no-one should read anything more into the incident. Certainly in the last Parliament many Conservatives began to feel and demonstrate outright contempt for Mr Speaker Martin, to the point where earning a rebuke from him was a badge of honour. As yet, Mr Bercow isn't attracting that level of derision.

In fact, having survived Nigel Farage's UKIP challenge in his Buckingham seat, and then Nadine Dorries abortive attempt to stymie his re-election as Speaker, he's been a bit more genial and a bit less waspish. His rebukes are honeyed with references to their object being "senior and experienced parliamentarians" and so forth, and his supporters have ceased to fear that he would irritate so many MPs he would become a lame-duck Speaker.

UPDATE: Mr Burns has now apologised...to people who suffer from primordial dwarfism. In a short statement issued this afternoon, he said: "If I have caused any offence to any group of people then I unreservedly apologise because that was not my intention."

His insult had been branded "derogatory and deeply offensive" by the charity the Walking with Giants Foundation.

So far no apology to the stupid and sanctimonious community has been forthcoming.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

My Sweet Lord(s)! This afternoon's debate in the Lords on their favourite subject, the reform of their Lordships' House, has so far attracted 70 speakers.

Peers enjoy nothing more than a long bout of constitutional hair-splitting, so we can anticipate one of those marathon debates where, eventually, someone wearily notes that "everything has been said, but not everyone has yet said it..."

But with the Coalition due to publish its proposals for Lords reform by the autumn, there are a lot of markers to be put down in what promises to be a long humid afternoon. Will there be a big-bang change from an appointed, to an elected House? Or, more likely, will the change be phased in slowly, so that peers will not have to vote for their own demise as legislators, but will simply be replaced when they go gently into that good night.

Will we keep the Bishops? Will there be any appointed element? And if so, how big a part of the new House will it be? And the biggest question of all, and the question which should determine the answers to the other points, what exactly will the reformed House do?

The debate is on a general motion taking note of "the case for reform of the House of Lords". But the wily Lord Steel of Aikwood, the artist formerly known as David Steel, has put down an amendment noting the unclear timetable for the sweeping reform planned by the Coalition, and suggesting more rapid action on several "no brainer" issues. These include providing a mechanism for peers to retire from the Lords - at the moment a peerage is for life, not just for Christmas, with the result that the theoretical membership of the Upper House is pushing 750 - with new peers taking their seats every day to add to the figure. Offering a modest retirement package would reduce that figure to something a bit more manageable.

Lord Steel also wants to end the increasingly comic system of by-elections to fill vacancies among hereditary peers - which regularly produces announcements from the Clerk of the Parliaments, that such and such has been elected by five votes to three to sit in the legislature. And he wants Peers who've been convicted of serious criminal offences to be given the boot. And he'd create a statutory appointments commission.

All these are very worthy aims, but they worry those who prefer that the existing system continues to look absurd, the better to make the case for reform. While the Lords looks a bit silly, runs their argument, reformers can make a strong case for sweeping change. Tidy up the most glaring problems and suddenly, change wouldn't seen so urgent. Keep the ogre big and ugly: and you can be justified in slaying it.

But, say Lord Steel's supporters, the Coalition is committed to Lords Reform, and all parties carried the same commitment in their General Election manifesto. True. But solemn 'n binding commitments on Lords reform litter the byways of constitutional history. The Blair government was tied in knots when it held a Commons vote on the best composition for the Lords and the whole project was quietly shelved, despite a commitment to change. Come to that you can find a promise to democratise the Upper House on the face of the Parliament Act, which clipped its wings in 1911. So a bit of healthy scepticism is in order.

We may well get a Lords Reform Bill at some point this autumn, but it's also worth keeping an eye on their Lordships' internal reform process.

Their internal Strengthening Parliament rethink is an informal exercise intended to parallel the Wright Committee process in the Commons, and it's produced reports by Lord Butler on non-legislative business, by Lord Filkin on improving their handling of Bills and by Lady Elaine Murphy on the governance of the House itself - and watch out for the last of those three. Leader of the Lords Lord Strathclyde has spoken approvingly of the first two reports, but hasn't said much about the third.

Perhaps that is because it says the present internal processes operate in the interests of the parties, rather than of Parliament; any reform which gave more power to the Lord Speaker and the House Committee would inevitably mean taking power away from the "usual channels" (the behind the scenes process by which business is agreed between the parties).

That could mean opening up the process of appointment to the Lords Committee structures, and some reform to the Lords' disciplinary body, the Conduct and Privilege Committee. Lady Murphy's report concludes that the obscure internal processes of the Upper House are a problem, in an age which demands greater transparency: "If we are to continue as a self-governing institution, members must have greater confidence than now that they understand in whom they are investing their trust and how the powers exercised on their behalf are discharged by those in leadership roles."

Noble kremlinologists will look very closely at anything Lord Stathclyde or his Lib Dem deputy Lord McNally have to say on that issue.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

"Sturdily independent" was the verdict of one ex-whip as he cast and eye over the composition of the new Commons Backbench Business Committee. And he didn't mean it in a good way. The Chair, Labour's Natascha Engel was elected last week, and the remaining Labour members are being voted on as I write.

But the Conservatives and Lib Dems were elected unopposed, and they're a pretty robust bunch. Heavy metal backbenchers Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone and Philip Davies, plus newly elected Battersea MP Jane Ellison make up the Conservative contingent. The sole Lib Dem will be John Hemming, also a relatively maverick figure within his own party. And Labour members are voting to decide which two of three contenders will take the Labour seats on the Committee - the three are David Anderson, Katy Clark and Alison Seabeck.

Whichever way you slice it, the new line-up does not exactly reek of consensus and establishment complacency. So maybe they'll shake things up a bit - if they can manage to agree on what to do.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Eyebrows were raised to stratospheric heights when David TC Davies (the initials are the Commons officials' way of distinguishing him from the former Tory leadership contender David Davis) was elected to chair the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. They rose for three reasons. First, Mr Davies is a devolution-sceptic who was prominent in the No campaign in the referendum which approved the creation of the Welsh National Assembly 12 years ago, and he was expected to take an equally prominent role in the No campaign in the planned referendum on giving the Assembly full legislative powers similar to those of the Scottish Parliament - so he wasn't exactly in tune with most parties in Wales, who favour the extra powers.

Second, he was not exactly a stalwart of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the last parliament, attending just a tenth of its meetings. Third, he's a political as well as an actual pugilist. He boxes under the title "The Tory Tornado" - while the Chairs of Select Committees are usually expected to be apostles of consensus. But he won the job - allocated to a Conservative - anyway; and in an interview for Friday night's Today in Parliament, he may have managed to lower a few of those quizzical eyebrows.

Firstly, he remains a devo-sceptic and is not about to change his views on the Assembly (on which he served for eight years). But he will not now be a standard-bearer for the No" campaign in the impending referendum. He does not think it would be appropriate for a committee chair to take sides. He doubts the committee will take sides either - but it may look at issues around the timing and conduct of the referendum - and in particular the funding of the opposing campaigns. The scars of the narrow Yes vote 12 years ago are clearly still present, as he complains that the Yes Campaign then was well funded - including, he says, with some indirectly-paid public money - while the No Campaign was run on a shoestring.

On the attendance issue, he points out that he was a member of both the Welsh Affairs and the Home Affairs Committees in the last parliament, and that their meetings usually clashed. He chose the Home Affairs meetings, because he wanted to broaden his experience beyond purely Welsh issues, and he maintains that will make him a better hair now.

And on the pugilism... he agrees he'll have to curb his normal political instincts, a bit, anyway. But he points out that he had cross-party support when he ran for his new job, and colleagues, he says, believe he will be fair and objective. Those MPs who're anticipating fireworks from him will be watching with interest.

NB: Advance warning of a few politics highlights on the BBC this weekend. The Week in Westminster on Radio 4 at 11am: Eleanor Goodman explores the fine art of parliamentary heckling with Labour MPs Mary Creagh and Pamela Nash - who's the youngest member of the Commons.

And Straight Talk with Andrew Neil: the new Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt on the BBC, the licence fee, and giving the Parliament access to the BBC's accounts via the National Audit Office. You can see the interview on the BBC NEWS CHANNEL on Saturday 26 June at 1.30am, 4.30am, 2.30pm and 11.30pm, Sunday 27 June at 1.30am and 11.30pm and Tuesday 29 June at 3.30am.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown's fleeting appearance in the Commons Chamber, yesterday, left me pondering what a former PM should do after leaving No 10.

Both John Major and James Callaghan stayed on as party leader and leader of the opposition while their respective parties dusted themselves down after general election defeat.

So for a while they were prominent in debates, in replying to statements and at prime minister's questions. Margaret Thatcher was ejected by her own party in mid-term, and was fairly quiet thereafter, speaking a couple of times from the backbenches, and turning up to lend her personal support to various causes, such as Richard Shepherd's private member's bill calling for a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.

But what should Mr Brown do? Personally, I would like to hear the architect of the financial policies of the last 13 years get up in the Commons and deliver the case for the defence. His legacy is being trashed at the dispatch box, by every Coalition minister and from the backbenches by every bright-eyed Conservative and Lib Dem newcomer. Even the rival candidates for the Labour leadership - all but one of them ministers in his last cabinet - are mostly edging discreetly away from the Brown legacy.

So is he just going to sit there and glower, or is he preparing some magisterial oration to justify the economic policies that he, above all, masterminded? It would be rather a pity if an awesome parliamentary career that began on 27 July 1983 with a memorable maiden speech simply petered out in occasional fleeting appearances on the backbenches. Let Gordon Brown take on his critics - it would be cathartic, good for the debate on the Budget, good for his party and, I suspect, good for him. Britain in general and Labour, in particular, need to assimilate the Brown legacy. The ex-PM is capable of powerful argument, and, if only for reasons of personal honour, he should deploy his talents.

And just to remind myself of Gordon Brown's powers of debate, I looked up that debut speech, which focused on the social consequences of unemployment, the "new arithmetic of depression and despair" in his (then) Dunfermline East constituency, and ridiculed the Thatcher government's response:

"Where are the jobs that the Chancellor, a member of a government who say that incentives are needed to get people back to work, is talking about? When pressed on this matter in the 1930s, one new Tory member representing a Scottish constituency told the unemployed miners in the upper wards of Lanarkshire that there were plenty of jobs for them in London as domestic servants.

"Perhaps the Minister for Social Security has an answer to the conundrum. Does he still believe what he wrote in "Centre Forward" in 1978? Does he still believe that there are plenty of jobs around for the unemployed as window cleaners? He wrote: 'I shall believe that there is a shortage of jobs when two window cleaners call for my custom in one week, one month or one year.'

Perhaps the government's answer to mass unemployment is for Britain to become a nation of window cleaners. In the same book, Centre Forward, the minister wrote that, to become a window cleaner: 'Little equipment is needed - a bucket, a leather or two and a ladder.'

When the prime minister talked regularly during the election about ladders of opportunity, I had not realised that the next Conservative government would have something quite so specific in mind..."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown made a brief appearance in the Chamber of the Commons today.

The former prime minister sat a couple of rows back from the Opposition front bench beside his long time supporter Anne Coffey - but left after a few minutes. Does this presage a contribution to today's budget debate?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Day two of the age of austerity and belt-tightening has come to the House of Commons.

There will be cuts in travel for select committees and in subsidies to catering. Mindful of public sector pain elsewhere the HoC Commission - its administrative board, chaired by Mr Speaker Bercow - has agreed a £12m cuts package for the current financial year, and will then move forward with a "fundamental review of expenditure" to deliver more savings over the next three years.

Key savings include:

* Cutting £800,000 from the budget for select committee travel.
* Cutting £500,000 from catering subsidies. This will bring cafeteria prices into line with benchmark workplace venues and bar prices into line with a competitively-priced high street pub chain, the Commission says.
* Scaling back a number of programmes and projects, reducing the Parliamentary works programme and freezing all but essential recruitment. That's what it says in the press release - I'm not sure what the implications will be.

The savings to be made this year are nearly 5% more than the Commission originally planned for the year and will reduce estimated spending for 2010/11 to £219m. This action follows the Commission's decision in December 2009 to cut House expenditure by 9% by the end of 2012/13.

Commission spokesman, and senior Labour backbencher Sir Stuart Bell warned that further "hard decisions" will have to be made.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Coalition is promising a smaller House of Commons, but, perhaps because they need to maintain the balance of the universe, they are pre-emptively compensating for the cut in the numbers of MPs by creating lots of new lords...

This week with all due ceremony, a phalanx of new peers are taking their seats. I thought it was worth glancing who our new legislators are.

On Monday two peers took their seats:

Roger Liddle (Lab) now Lord Liddle, can be categorised as an ecumenical politician of the centre-left. In the 1970s he was special adviser to William Rodgers, Secretary of State for Transport, in the Labour government of James Callaghan.

He was then a key figure in the creation of the SDP in the early 1980s, when he was a close advisor to its first leader, Roy Jenkins. In the 1990s he returned to Labour and served as special adviser on European matters to Tony Blair, developing a new UK policy of "positive engagement" in the EU. He then became a member of the cabinet of the European Union Trade Commissioner, Lord Mandelson, and was also adviser to the president of the European Commission. He currently serves as chair of Policy Network, a think-tank promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy.

John Selwyn Gummer (Con), now Lord Deben, was a stalwart of the Thatcher-Major cabinets - serving as Environment Secretary, minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and chairman of the Conservative Party. In Opposition he became one of the Conservatives strongest environmentalist thinkers. He is now chairman of Sancroft International, an environmental consultancy company.

Today's new arrivals are:

Dr Diane Hayter (Lab), an important backroom Labour figure - she was chair of Labour's National Executive Committee, played an important role during the final year of the Labour government, as the NEC reviewed the party's objectives and its work. She has served as chair of the Labour Party from 2007 to 2008, and also as chief executive of the European Parliamentary Labour Party from 1990-1996. She serves as a board member in several organisations including the Determinations Panel of the Pensions Regulator. She has written extensively on the Labour Party's history and its inner-workings.

Tommy McAvoy (Lab) built an awesome reputation as the former government deputy chief whip in the Commons. The late lamented Gwyneth Dunwoody used to speak fondly of her robust exchanges of views with him - other less ironclad Labour MPs were said to tremble and cross themselves at the very mention of his name.

It will be interesting to see how he adapts to the gentler ways of their lordships' House - and somehow the idea of him dressed in ermine produces titters from Labour MPs.

Wednesday's new arrival is:

Jim Knight (Lab) a long-serving mid-ranking minister under both Blair and Brown. He defied political gravity to serve three terms as MP for hyper-marginal Dorset South before succumbing at the last election. He was a minister in the departments for Employment and Welfare Reform, Work and Pensions, Regional Affairs, Children, Schools and Families, Education and Skills, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Health, experience which will make him a handy all-rounder in Labour's Lords team. Conceding defeat at his election count in May, he remarked that the "minister for employment is now unemployed".

On Thursday:

John Gardiner (Con) the deputy chief executive of Countryside Alliance (whose boss, chief executive Simon Hart, became a Conservative MP at the last election).

John Maples (Con) - an astute Tory high flier, who served as shadow health secretary, shadow defence secretary and shadow foreign secretary. He also served as deputy chairman for the Conservative Party, and was the author of a leaked memo warning of the threat Tony Blair posed to Conservative fortunes when he was elected as Labour leader. As a senior Conservative MP, in 2008 he called on leading bankers who were responsible for the financial crisis to resign.

There will be more new peers next week - and I'll try to offer similar thumbnail sketches then.

My thanks to Doyeun Kim for the research behind this post.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Blimey! Just before the budget Speaker Bercow announced that the new chair of the Commons Backbench Business Committee is Labour's Natascha Engel - she beat Sir Alan Haselhust, the veteran former Deputy Speaker by 202 votes to 173.

I suspect that even she didn't expect to win. Sir Alan is an immensely well-liked figure, and most observers, including this one, thought he'd walk it. It is noticeable that 200 plus MPs didn't vote. I wonder if that was because they thought so too?

Natascha Engel sat on the Wright Committee on Commons Reform in the last Parliament - where she irritated a number of colleagues by being a bit of a sceptic about reforms, which she criticised as too process-driven and incremental, and likely to move power from government business managers to a backbench establishment of old hands.

Now, suddenly, she's in the driving seat for reforms she was quite equivocal about. The results could be pretty interesting for the Commons - but the other members of the committee have yet to be elected, so it will be a while before we can make a judgement. More later.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Having brought their Backbench Business Committee into being, with control over 27 days of debates in the chamber of the Commons, plus some Westminster Hall debates, MPs are now turning their mind to what, exactly, the committee should do, and who should be in charge of it.

And I've heard of three runners. Labour's Natascha Engel; the Conservative, Peter Bone, and, by far and away the front-runner, the former Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan Haselhurst.

Sir Alan, who's one of the longest serving deputies in Commons history, is a hugely popular figure. The resounding cheer he received when he was called at PMQs on Wednesday was partly sympathy for the under-dog (since he failed to win the Chair in last year's election for a new Speaker) and partly affection for his genial but firm approach when he presided over the House. There's no question that he would bring vast experience to bear if he was the first Chair of the new committee.

But the critique of the committee among uber-reforming MPs is that it merely transfers a measure of power from the "usual channels" - the backstairs network of whips and business managers that has been quietly sorting out the Commons' agenda for centuries - to the Commons establishment. On the Richter scale of revolutionary events, the critics say, passing power from whips to bigwigs is not exactly the storming of the Winter Palace. Sir Alan could be painted as part of that establishment, simply on length of Commons service - and that may be the only way in which he could be defeated. But the chances are that he will win, and win convincingly - so the task of deciding how the Commons can be sharpened up and freed from the shackles of government will fall to him.

He and his committee will decide which topical subjects are debated, will look at revamping the Commons set-piece general debates and will rethink the handling of private members' bills. If they're seen to be too close to the whips, or too prone to favouring crabbed backbench heavyweights of vast seniority, it won't take long before the murmurs start. A lot of MPs who hope for a sharper, more relevant Commons, which processes legislation more effectively and keeps ministers on their toes, have pinned their hopes on this committee. Its Chair and members serve for a year before facing re-election. So Sir Alan and his colleagues had better deliver.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I've just come back from that Westminster Hall debate on IPSA - and it was pretty lively.

David Winnick, who had initiated the debate, read out the bill of indictment, pausing occasionally to allow colleagues from all parties to add their own charges to the list.

The complaints include:

* An over-complex online system for claiming expenses, which is far too prone to crashes. MPs, he said, were wasting inordinate amounts of time dealing with bureaucracy, rather than serving their constituents.

* Limits for office rental which make it difficult for many MPs to maintain offices in accessible locations - a problem particularly acute in, but not limited to, London.

* New rules on staff cuts which mean pensions and other costs are not met centrally, which effectively cuts the number of staff MPs can employ - which means that a wave of bag-carrier redundancies could soon hit Westminster.

* New limits on expenses for the travel for spouses and children between London and constituencies.

* New rules on maternity pay which could be in breach of equality legislation.

* IPSA's inaccessibility to MPs. Blogging Labour MP Tom Harris complained that journalists could get face time with the top bods at IPSA, while MPs couldn't - another complaint was that when someone was available, they usually turned out to be interns rather than officials, and were seldom able to give useful answers.

The mood was angry, shading into downright nasty. The simple fact that around 50 MPs were present first thing in the parliamentary morning underlines the level of concern. They all piled in. There were growls of anger over IPSA's plans to hire press officers and a communications director. "Why do they need spin doctors at all?" one MP demanded, to vehement "hear-hears" from all around him. There were frequent references to the opulence of IPSA's headquarters and sarcastic glee at claims that their internal expenses regime was far less stringent than the one they operate for MPs.

The biggest gripe was that IPSA is not answerable to MPs. They have no traction over its operations, and they don't like it at all. In his closing speech, the Junior Cabinet Office Minister Mark Harper suggested that the chairman of the Speaker's Committee on IPSA - an oversight body similar to the Committee on the Electoral Commission - might take questions in the House at regular intervals.

Conservative Richard Bacon urged MPs to write to the Government Spending Watchdog, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to demand an investigation into whether IPSA was good value for money - which would lead to IPSA officials facing questions from the feared interrogators of the Commons Public Accounts Committee.

And the senior Tory backbancher Sir John Stanley suggested IPSA's activities could amount to obstruction of MPs' parliamentary duties - in which case they could become a matter of parliamentary privilege and could be referred to the guardian of the Commons rights, the Standards and Privileges Committee. Mr Harper declined to say whether he thought that was a good idea.

But the most striking feature of the 90-minute debate was the kicking given to the former Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, seen as the architect of IPSA and therefore the man many MPs blame for their woes. His attempt to relate the history leading up to the creation of the new independent watchdog - suggesting the Commons failed to take action against what he called "unjustifiably imaginative" expenses claims before the crisis blew up - was greeted with catcalls and derision. Mr Bacon attempted to intervene in his speech, and was told Mr Straw was trying to make progress. "Well you're not making any," Mr Bacon snapped. Mr Straw said he was "trying to put on the record..." "things we already know..." Mr Bacon interrupted.

"Siddown Jack, siddown Jack...just sit down..." called out Labour's Kevan Jones, several times.

"Take your zimmer frame and go...." snarled Barry Gardiner.

All the party leaders had rushed to don an expenses hairshirt, at the height of the crisis, said the senior Labour backbencher Ann Clwyd - who added that the new generation of MPs, and those who were blameless in the expenses scandal, were now paying for the sins of those who had transgressed. It looks as if they are going to continue to do so - although IPSA has announced it will review its operations in the autumn.

And it may be that those who helped set up IPSA will find themselves very unpopular among their parliamentary colleagues.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Commenting on the post below, Johnlbell asks if when I talk about MPs grappling with organisational chores, I mean that they're beavering away to neuter ISPA, the parliamentary ethics watchdog. No. I mean they're sorting out mundane details about offices and computers and which committees, if any, they want to serve on.

But that is not to say that MPs have learned to love IPSA. Quite the reverse. You can hardly venture into Westminster without hearing new complaints about its alleged bureaucracy, inflexibility and absurdity from indignant parliamentarians. And the departure of the interim operations manager for IPSA, Nigel Gooding, who said he was quitting what he called "a challenging work environment" for "the sake of my health and sanity" gives some idea of the tsunami of angst washing around the whole issue of Commons expenses.

A particular bone of contention is that the pensions and national insurance costs of staff members now have to be met from within their individual staffing allowances, rather than being paid directly by the Commons authorities - which has the effect of reducing the number of staff MPs can afford to take on. There's talk of MPs being expected to meet sometimes extensive start-up costs from their own pockets and then claim them back, which requires the act of faith that IPSA will ultimately agree to cough up. Some, it is said, have been offered loans by IPSA.

Some of the wilder tales may turn out to be urban myths - but the growing fury of MPs is undeniable. And the key point is that the fury does not result from a frustrated sense of entitlement to duck islands, porn films or moat clearing. The most vehement complaints are about the sheer difficulty of extracting the funding needed to provide the service their constituents expect. (Any politician mad enough to make indefensible claims after the revelations of recent years would deserve their inevitable fate...)

Tomorrow (Wednesday) the Labour backbencher David Winnick has obtained a Westminster Hall debate on "Government Policy on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority". It should be a lorra lorra laffs, unless, that is, you are the minister who will reply...

It could be Nick Clegg, since the Deputy Prime Minister has been awarded responsibility for IPSA, but normally these kinds of debates are answered by less exalted figures. And in any case the default answer to questions on IPSA is that it is an independent body in which they do not interfere.

Even so, I anticipate 90 minutes of rumbustious discussion, with plenty of angry contributions from the legion of the aggrieved, culminating in a minister looking all innocent and disclaiming any responsibility as everyone else snorts in derision. Should be fun...

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It's just as well most MPs are still grappling with the organisational chores involved in setting up shop as representatives and legislators - and with the seemingly endless rounds of elections needed to set up Commons Select Committees - because there is not yet much in the way of actual legislation for them to chew on.

This week's business in the Commons kicks off with general debates on UK policy in the Middle East and on emerging economies. Interesting and important subjects to be sure - but general debates tend to invite long-playing platitudes, while ministers snooze gently behind attentive expressions.

If it's Tuesday, it must be a day debating "House business"; in this instance the setting up of the long-awaited Backbench Business Committee, and the number of days to be allocated to debate private members' bills. Important stuff, because the long awaited Backbench Business Committee will control 35 days a year of Commons debates (although there's some question about how many of those days will be in the chamber of the Commons, and how many will be relegated to Westminster Hall) and is supposed to be the first step towards the Commons taking far more control over what MPs debate and vote on. Important, but internal - this is not an issue to set pulses racing anywhere outside Westminster.

Wednesday brings an opposition day debate on government support for industry and Thursday a general debate on building a high skill economy. Next Monday there's yet another general debate - this time on the impending Defence Review, so at least a little red meat, and then there's the Budget and the subsequent debate on its contents.

Please note the absence of actual legislation. To be sure, it is only a month since the election, but the only actual bill seen by MPs thus far has been the one to abolish the ID card system - something officials in the Home Office doubtless prepared in advance, to offer their new masters.

Is this a sign that, behind the scenes, Coalition committees are fighting a war of attrition over every clause of every bill? Or that the new team of ministers is so immersed in a cuts-making exercise that they have not yet had a chance to dabble in law-making.

Or both?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The public line of the Commons reformers is that yesterday's first-ever election of the chairs of select committees marks the dawning of the Age of Aquarius - no more will parliamentary scrutiny of the government be conducted by placepersons selected by the whips (with just the occasional awkward-squaddie slipping through).

Brace yourself for hard-edged, tough minded oversight of ministers and all their works.

But behind the all the sunny public optimism a few doubts are beginning to crystallize. Yesterday's results were pretty good for the Commons establishment, the freemasonry of senior backbenchers, former ministers and whips, who exert so much influence in the Commons. No sitting Committee chair who sought re-election lost, and many were unopposed. James Arbuthnot saw off a challenge to his chairmanship of the Defence Committee from two high profile outsiders - Douglas Carswell, who led the insurgency against Speaker Martin in the last parliament, and who would have scared the living daylights out of a lot of big defence industry contractors, and Patrick Mercer, who commanded the Sherwood Foresters in Bosnia before going into Parliament to become one of the most impressive voices on defence and security issues.

Ex-Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell - a veteran of John Major's Cabinet - saw off former nurse Nadine Dorries and practising dentist Sir Paul Beresford, to take the chair of the Health Committee and the massively senior Tory backbencher Bernard Jenkin repelled the challenge of the Sergeant-Major of the Awkward Squad, Christopher Chope, to take Public Administration.

Most of the time seniority won - which is not to suggest that the winners are mere time-servers - only that it seems difficult for even the most high profile insurgents to seize commanding heights in the Commons.

(The exception to the rule appears to be Barry Sheerman, the former Labour chairman of the Education Committee. He was hoping to win the chair of the Business Committee, and has gone public in the Independent today, claiming the "Brown machine" leant on MPs as revenge for his relentless criticism of the former PM, during the last parliament. So there's a revenge factor that can crop up, too.)

Second, there's the thought that elections in which all MPs can vote will mean that cross party-appeal often trumps the normal tribal party allegiances. The prime example pointed to here, is the triumph of Andrew Tyrie in the race for the key Treasury Select Committee. The suggestion is that he is seen as a more "left wing" Tory - he did, after all, manage Ken Clarke's last leadership campaign. His rival, former minister Michael Fallon, who had been the deputy in the last Treasury Committee and who had won rave reviews during the hearings on the banking crisis, may have lost out because he was seen as more "dry" and more of a deficit hawk. Similarly, Tim Yeo's ability to secure backing from influential greens in other parties, including the capital G-Green Caroline Lucas, may have sealed his victory over fellow Conservative Phillip Hollobone.

Third, these elections - and those for the deputy speakerships - have mostly seen the triumph of the clubbable. Those able to reach out to colleagues and other parties on a social level. Friendly chaps with a nice word for everyone, even political opponents, and an ability to accommodate their political needs, did pretty well.

So did the hoped-for competition over who would be toughest and most effective in particular committees materialise? A bit. MPs were deluged with e-mails and manifestos from the rival candidates - although one who promised to maintain the purity of the Conservative party in the Coalition may not have had much appeal to Labour, and still less, Lib Dem MPs. Margaret Hodge's suggestion that the Public Accounts Committee might be a bit less historic in its approach, trying to intervene in current unfolding public spending fiascos, rather than eviscerating civil servants responsible for some debacle five years ago, was much remarked upon, and impressed many colleagues.

But as Tony Blair remarked on taking office, back in 1997, the time for talking is over. Now is the time to do. Soon the individual parties will elect their ordinary members for all the committees, in another orgy of balloting. Then it's down to work.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The 20 MPs who will get the chance to put a private member's bill before the Commons (with no guarantees at all that their bills will make it into law) have been announced.

Private member's bills are an opportunity for backbenchers to try to introduce their own piece of legislation but they have to win government support and then navigate an arcane procedural maze, infested with lurking predators who delight in striking down bills which they think are usually vexatious flabby nonsense.

Although there are 20 names on the list, it's unlikely there will be enough parliamentary time for more than six or seven to get through - although a few more may at least be debated. The winners (sic) include several new MPs - and a controversial name at the top.

1. John McDonnell (Lab) - a consolation prize after he failed to get nominated for the Labour leaderhip election
2. Robert Flello (Lab)
3. Chris White (Con)
4. Rebecca Harris (Con)
5. Greg Knight (Con)
6. Anna Soubry (Con)
7. Harriet Baldwin (Con)
8. David Hamilton (Lab)
9. Joan Walley (Lab)
10. Sharon Hodgeson (Lab)
11. Adrian Sanders (LD) 12. Andrew Bridgen (Con)
13. Mark Lancaster (Con)
14. Jonathan Lord (Con)
15. Therese Coffey (Con)
16. Lorely Burt (LD)
17. Phillip Hollobone (Con)
18. Nigel Adams (Con)
19. Sir Paul Beresford (Con)
20. George Eustice (Con)

And gosh! The winners of the contested elections for the chairs of Commons Select Committees have been announced. They are:

Business: Adrian Bailey (Lab)
Children, Schools and Families: Graham Stuart (Con)
Communities and Local Government: Clive Betts (Lab)
Defence: James Arbuthnot (Con) - held by the "sitting chair" despite a series of very strong challengers.
Energy and Climate Change: Tim Yeo (Con) - Mr Yeo was nominated by uber Tory Green Zac Goldsmith and Green MP Caroline Lucas.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Anne McIntosh (Con)
Environmental Audit: Joan Walley (Lab)
Foreign Affairs: Richard Ottaway (Con) - one of the hottest contests.
Health: Stephen Dorrell (Con) - the former Health Secretary from the Major government.
Home Affairs: Keith Vaz (Lab) - Another "hold". Despite a strong challenge from former Minister Alun Michael.
Political and Constitutional Reform: Graham Allen (Lab) -Labour's ultra constitutional reformer takes over the new committee set up to monitor the constitutional reform brief of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.
Public Accounts: Margaret Hodge (Lab) fought off a series of strong challengers. This powerful committee monitors government spending and follows up reports from the fearsome National Audit Office (NAO).
Public Administration: Bernard Jenkin (Con) - this committee crosses departmental boundaries and has carved out a role in looking at the operation of government - and it deals with issues raised by the Ombudsman, like the case of Equitable Life policy-holders which caused some nasty clashes with ministers in the last Parliament.
Science and Technology: Andrew Miller (Lab) - another cross-departmental committee. With complaints that the new Commons has very few scientists within it, the committee will have a key role. (In comments on a post below, Yamor asked why this committee was listed as a departmental committee, when it does not have a department to shadow...I suspect the answer is that it used to have one - the short-lived Innovation and Science Department which was absorbed into Lord Mandelson's empire, a couple of years ago... it lives on, although its department does not!)
Treasury: Andrew Tyrie (Con). A real surprise. A former Treasury special advisor to Nigel Lawson, Mr Tyrie beat former Treasury Minister Michael Fallon. Both candidates were stalwarts of the committee in the last parliament.
Work and Pensions: Anne Begg (Lab). Likely to be a key committee, given the government's extensive welfare reform agenda.

More thoughts when I have time to ponder - in the meantime, here's the voting breakdown.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

An intriguing little depth charge was dropped by the Speaker, John Bercow, at the end of his fascinating talk to the Hansard Society last night.

Right at the end of the Q&A, after describing how he had acted immediately to end the system which allowed MPs to run up vast tabs at the Parliamentary restaurants, he mentioned that he was soon to announce a clampdown on the funding of All Party Groups (APGs or APPGs) in Parliament, in terms that implied some festering scandal was lurking.

The Vacher's Guide to the last parliament had 60 pages of APGs from a group on Abuse Investigations to one on Zimbabwe. Some are innocuous bands of enthusiasts, the Rugby League APG springs to mind. Others are pressure groups on issues like archaeology or immigration - there are dozens which specialise in particular medical conditions like MS or breast cancer. Still others relate to particular countries. There's even a group on the BBC.

But some critics worry that APGs can be conduits for providing research back-up without individual MPs having to declare it. Or that they use assorted treats and jollies to exert undue influence on parliamentarians.

The fact that Mr Speaker chose to pre-announce an impending clampdown suggests some of those fears may be backed up by evidence. Watch this space.

The Speaker's speech will be shown on BBC Parliament on Saturday at 9pm and it will be available on Democracy Live.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Coalition is still smarting about yesterday's defeat in the Lords, in the very first division of the new Parliament.

One gripe is that Coalition peers are too used to the ways of Opposition - and have yet to realise that they have to turn up day in, day out, to ensure their majority. The second gripe is that a greater proportion of Lib Dem peers showed up, than Conservative peers - which leads to the meditation that the age profile of the Conservative contingent makes it difficult for the Coalition to mobilise its theoretical majority.

"But better to lose on a relatively minor issue," one Lib Dem peer murmured, hoping the early slapping will galvanise his side. Coalition strategists are already looking ahead to the very difficult time they anticipate in getting through key constitutional proposals, like the referendum on changing the electoral system and the promised replacement of the current House of Lords with an elected senate.

Most Conservative peers and plenty of Labour ones are against the second of those - even though Labour promised Lords reform in its election manifesto. Which is why the pro-reform camp is a bit distressed at the first wave of new Labour Peers to be created - four heavy metal Commons stalwarts who voted against Lords Reform in the past: John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, John Reid, the former home secretary, John Hutton, the former defence secretary and John McFall, the former chair of the Treasury Select Committee.

"I call them the Jurassic Johns," sighs my informant.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Several senior MPs have been elected unopposed to an assortment of select committee chairs.

So congratulations to John Whittingdale, re-elected to Culture, Media and Sport; to Sir Alan Beith, re-elected to Justice; to Malcolm Bruce, re-elected to International Development; to Greg Knight, re-elected to the Procedure Committee; Louise Ellman, re-elected to Transport, and to Laurence Robertson, re-elected to Northern Ireland Affairs.

Ian Davidson takes Scotland and David TC Davies (the initials are to distinguish him from the other David Davis, the former Tory leadership contender) is the chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

The remaining results will be announced tomorrow by Mr Speaker, after what could be lengthy AV counts. There are six candidates slugging it out for the chair of the powerful public spending watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee. This post goes to an opposition member, and the rivals are: Hugh Bayley, Brian Donohoe, Margaret Hodge, Michael Meacher, Austin Mitchell and Iain Wright.

There's also quite a smackdown for the Public Administration Committee, where Christopher Chope, Bernard Jenkin and Ian Liddell-Grainger are the candidates. The Treasury Committee chair is being contested by two heavyweight committee members from the last Parliament - Michael Fallon and Andrew Tyrie - and with wide-ranging welfare reform promised by the Coalition, the Work and Pensions Committee, contested by Anne Begg and Karen Buck, could emerge from its torpor and become genuinely important.

As the designers of the new system doubtless hoped, most of the major committees are hotly contested - but will it be horse trading or promises of rigorous scrutiny that win the day? I'll offer my thoughts when the results are out tomorrow...

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Coalition has just suffered its first parliamentary setback. In the Lords, the Labour Peer Lord Howarth of Newport has just derailed proceedings on the Local Government Bill, which changes the structure of local councils in Norfolk and Devon, preventing the creation of new unitary authorities in Norwich, Exeter and Ipswich.

By a four-vote margin Lord Howarth has persuaded peers to refer the bill to the Examiners (the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, who are parliamentary officials). This sounds rather sinister, but means that there is a question about whether the bill affects purely public interests or impinges on private interests too - if the latter, the bill has to be treated as a hybrid, which requires different procedures.

Having won, there was nothing for their lordships to discuss....and the crossbencher Lord Levene, who was due to launch a dinner time debate on UK competitiveness, was nowhere to be found. So the House "adjourned during pleasure" as they say in the Lords. Meanwhile the whips are looking for Lord Levene.

The reorganisation of Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon councils provoked considerable passion in the last Parliament, where Labour and the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives got into a most unseemly row over who was gerrymandering what. Now, it seems, that struggle has spilled over into this Parliament, with uncomfortable results for the Coalition. A taste of things to come?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

* The new House of Commons will give us the first glimpse of its approach to parliamentary work tomorrow (Wednesday), when it elects the chairs of its select committees. I'll be blogging on the outcome of the various contests as soon as I know the results - and have managed to produce some coherent view of their inner meaning. This could take some time.

Voting will be between 10am and 5pm, but since there will be a series of AV ballots. The results will be announced by the Speaker on Thursday.

* In the comments section last week, John Ruddy asked why no Conservative had appeared seeking the chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. Two contenders have now surfaced - Phillip Hollobone and Tim Yeo. Mr Hollobone turns out to be a former member of the Green Party - in its early 1980s incarnation as the Ecology Party. Now he says he approaches climate change not with denial but with "healthy scepticism." Mr Yeo chaired the Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee in the last Parliament - this was the committee set up to examine the environmental impact of public policy across the work of government.

* Meanwhile, the full list of candidates to deputise for Mr Speaker Bercow is here. The results are expected this afternoon.

* Tomorrow's vote will also elect the chair of the new Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Some backbenchers are raising their eyebrows at the sight of a new committee being set up on Monday, with the chair elected just two days later, but that is at least partly down to objections being raised, which forced a debate on the committee's creation on Monday night. But two candidates have already been nominated - former Whip and arch constitutional reformer Graham Allen and former chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee Dr Hywell Francis - who stresses the need for a "progressive consensus" around any reforms.

* Their Lordships are busy electing key committees tomorrow, as well. Lords Committees are typically lower key than their Commons competitors, but the activities of the committees on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, and on the Merits of Statutory Instruments can both provide tripwires for government. Both take a look at the unending stream of orders, instruments and documents laid before Parliament. These may sound like comparatively minor legislative life-forms - but they may be quite controversial things like fleshing out the details of the law. In the last Parliament, they took a critical look at issues ranging from investigatory powers and covert human intelligence, housing-related benefits regulations to the re-organisation of local government in Devon.

The former Conservative Chief Whip, Lord Goodlad, is expected to take the chair of the Merits Committee, and Lady Thomas of Winchester - the doyenne of the Lib Dem backroom operation in the Upper House - is down to chair the Delegated Powers Committee...

Stop Press: Speaker Bercow has just announced the result of the election for his three deputies - after proffering generous thanks to his three deputies, Sir Alan Hazelhurst, who is still in the Commons, and Sir Michael Lord and Sylvia Heal who've retired.

The three elected are:

Lindsay Hoyle (Lab) Chorley (Chairman of Ways and Means - the senior deputy to the Speaker, who chairs proceedings during the Budget).

Nigel Evans (Con) Ribble Valley (First Deputy Chairman of W&M).

Dawn Primarolo (Lab) Bristol South (Second Deputy Chairman).

The full results of the election have been posted.

UPDATE: The newly-elected Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means, Lindsay Hoyle, has wasted no time in starting work. He has just taken the chair in the Commons for the first time to preside over the Second Reading debate for the Identity Documents Bill, which repeals Labours ID Cards legislation, to be greeted by the Home Secretary, Theresa May...

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

"You hardly dare set foot in the tearoom," sighs one new MP.

With elections on for the Labour leadership, the Lib Dem deputy leadership, three deputy Speaker posts and more chairs of select committees than you can shake a stick at, new MPs of no known allegiance find themselves being buttered up by candidates faster than they can butter their crumpets.

And the race for select committee greatness is producing some interesting nuances. It is noticeable how often X nominates Y, and Y then nominates X. So, for example, Tory awkward squaddie Christopher Chope is running for the chair of the Public Administration Committee, (which won such rave reviews under the leadership of the blessed Tony Wright in the last parliament). His supporters include Nick Raynsford, who is being nominated to the chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee by...Christopher Chope.

Similarly Keith Vaz and Patrick Mercer nominate each other for the chairs of Home Affairs and Defence, respectively. Sir Paul Beresford is supported in his bid for the chair of the Health Committee by Labour's Margaret Hodge, and he, in turn, is nominating her to chair the Public Accounts Committee. Rob Wilson wants to chair the Children Schools and Families Committee (soon to be restored to its old title of Education Committee) - his supporters include Labour's Louise Ellman (who he is nominating to chair the Transport Committee), Patrick Mercer (who he is supporting for Defence), Greg Knight (who he is supporting for Procedure)...

Then there's Karen Buck, seeking the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, with the support of Nick Raynsford, who she is nominating for Communities etc...Keith Vaz, who she has nominated for Home Affairs, and Louise Ellman, who she has nominated for Transport. You get the picture. Is it genuine agreement on what the committees should do, or good old fashioned horse-trading? You be the judge...

Meanwhile here's an interesting development. New boy Neil Parish (Con, Tiverton and Honiton) and a farmer by trade, wants to take the chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

His backers - with the exception of Robert Syms (Con, Poole) - are almost all new arrivals. They are Richard Graham (Con, Gloucester), Karen Lumley (Con, Redditch), Dr Sara Wollaston (Con, Totnes), Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con Somerset NE), Robert Buckland (Con, South Swindon), John Glen (Con, Salisbury), Neil Carmichael (Con, Stroud), Christopher Heaton Harris (Con Daventry), Pauline Latham (Con Mid Derbyshire), Oliver Colvile (Con, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport), Sheryll Murray (Con, South East Cornwall), Charlotte Leslie (Con, Bristol NW), Jack Lopresti (Con, Filton and Bradley Stoke) and Jackie Doyle-Price (Con, Thurrock).

Mr Parish agrees it might look a little over-ambitious for a newcomer to aspire to chair a select committee, but he insists he's no novice parliamentarian - he boasts a long career in the European Parliament, and chaired its equivalent committee - so he's well-versed in the intricacies of the Common Agricultural Policy and the like. The other candidates are Stewart Jackson and Anne McIntosh - just back in the Commons after the delayed election in her Thirsk and Malton constituency.

UPDATE: There could soon be another position for MPs to vie for. Tonight MPs will be asked to agree the creation of an extra select committee on Political and Constitutional Reform with the job of scrutinising the ambitious agenda proposed by Nick Clegg. This includes voting reform, Lords reform, the equalisation of parliamentary constituencies and the rest. But the new committee will only be created if no-one shouts out "object." And at Business Questions today, the Conservative Christopher Chope suggested that this should be a joint committee of MPs and Peers, rather than a Commons-only affair. So he might object in order to force a debate.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

As of 10.45 this morning, we're up to 49 new MPs who've made their maiden speech.

In the latest tranche are: Robert Halfon, Con (Harlow); Duncan Hames, Lib Dem (Chippenham); Gavin Shuker, Lab (Luton South); Dr Sarah Wollaston, Con (Totnes); Emma Reynolds, Lab (Wolverhampton North East); Chuka Umunna, Lab (Streatham); Paul Maynard, Con (Blackpool North & Cleveleys); Cathy Jamieson, Lab (Kilmarnock & Loudoun); Neil Carmichael, Con (Stroud); Luciana Berger, Lab (Liverpool Wavertree); David Ward, Lib Dem (Bradford East); Lisa Nandy, Lab (Wigan); Heather Wheeler, Con (South Derbyshire); Paul Blomfield, Lab (Sheffield Central); Chris Pincher, Con (Tamworth); Valerie Vaz, Lab (Walsall South); Simon Wright, Lib Dem (Norwich South); Stella Creasy, Lab (Walthamstow); Gordon Henderson, Con (Sittingbourne and Sheppey); Owen Smith, Lab (Pontypridd); Charlotte Leslie, Con (Bristol NW).

UPDATE: And more.

Mark Garnier, Con (Wyre Forest); Simon Kirby, Con (Brighton Kemptown); Alison McGovern, Lab (Wirral South); Julian Sturdy, Con (York Outer); Julie Elliott, Lab (Sunderland Central); Bill Esterson, Lab (Sefton Central); Mike Weatherley, Con (Hove); Grahame Morris, Lab (Easington); Gareth Johnson, Con (Dartford).

As business is about to start in the Commons on Tuesday, we're now up to 76 maiden speakers. The latest additions are:

Brandon Lewis, Con (Great Yarmouth); Jenny Chapman, Lab (Darlington); Margot James, Con (Stourbridge); Bob Blackman, Con (Harrow East); Tristram Hunt, Lab (Stoke-on-Trent Central); Dominic Raab, Con (Esher and Walton); Ian Swales, Lib Dem (Redcar); Bridget Phillipson, Lab (Houghton and Sunderland S); Nicola Blackwood, Con (Oxford W and Abingdon); Fiona O'Donnell, Lab (East Lothian); Michael Ellis, Con (Northampton North); Robert Buckland, Con (South Swindon); Margaret Curran, Lab (Glasgow East); Nigel Mills, Con (Amber Valley); Michael McCann, Lab (East Kilbride ); Guy Opperman, Con (Hexham); Gemma Doyle, Lab (West Dumbartonshire).

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?