´óÏó´«Ã½

It's the last day of term, and MPs are allowed to bring in games, and the whips pass out tins of Quality Street (not really, but I like the idea...)

So what delights await Parliament in 2011? Let me venture a few prognostications.

First, the martyrdom of St Vince at the hands of the may well have rewritten the unwritten rules of engagement between the Westminster press corps and the politicians.

Perhaps I'm a touch paranoid, but even in the few hours after the Telegraph transcripts of the surreptitious recordings made by reporters pretending to be constituents appeared, I thought I detected some MPs scanning me with more than usual suspicion, as if checking for a concealed recording device. A lot of people have long maintained that the relationship between Westminster reporters and the MPs they report on is over-cosy, and that expenses transgressions and the like were ignored to protect valued contacts. Perhaps, but the relationship has now plunged into the deep freeze, and may be some time thawing.

And even after a cooling-off period over the Christmas holiday, Dr Cable can expect to be monstered at his first appearance at the dispatch box. Barring an urgent question (and I wouldn't put it past Labour to put something down to get him in front of MPs on the Monday) or a statement, he will have to appear on Thursday 13 January for his departmental question time. And this could be one of those rare occasions when a real duffing up ends a ministerial career - or when a massively assured display of chutzpah revives one. Either way, a normally humdrum Thursday question time has just become a must-watch Parliamentary set-piece.

On the Parliamentary front there will be a bit of a change in tempo, when both houses return on 10 January. The biggest immediate difference will be a sudden surplus of heavy-duty legislation to process. The (a Behemoth designed to tame Leviathan, according to one Biblically-fixated MP), the Health Bill, which will implement the coalition's planned re-organisation (sorry, de-bureaucratisation) of the NHS, and in the Lords, the Energy Bill, are all highly technical measures which will doubtless require a great deal of intensive scrutiny.

So far in this Parliament, the really big bills have mostly been those generated by Nick Clegg's constitutional reform agenda, and because they are constitutional measures, their . But with the arrival of these huge detail-laden bills, a lot of MPs are going to be spending a great deal of time wielding their legislative fine-tooth-combs on the committee corridor. "You'll know who's really upset the whips, when you see who they've put on the Public Bill Committee for the Localism Bill," smirked one veteran backbencher.

And the coalition whips will have to work hard to make sure those bills survive the committee stage unscathed. Another new feature of the next few months may be the high-profile targeting of Lib Dem MPs who find themselves the swing vote on key Public Bill or Statutory Instrument Committees - who could find themselves being denounced as the one who allowed some cut or benefit change through, if they fail to rebel.

Elsewhere in committeeland, watch out for the activities of the main economic select committees: treasury, business, and work and pensions. It was rather eclipsed by the Telegraph tapes, but Tuesday's comments by the chair, Andrew Tyrie, that the government's strategy to promote economic growth was "insubstantial" almost certainly point to a determined effort to influence policy in the new year. Mr Tyrie - a former special advisor to Chancellor Nigel Lawson - is no lightweight, and the coalition cannot afford to let his comments go unanswered, not least because Labour will be bound to seize on them.

Meanwhile the ramifications of the Cable comments could leave a bit of a policy vacuum into which the committees may be drawn. Can a weakened Vince pursue his clampdown on the banks? Will the second-ranked economic department be a lame duck until he either re-establishes his credibility or goes? And will this make Mr Tyrie and Business Committee chair Adrian Bailey more significant players? It could do if they're smart and nimble enough to seize the opportunity. And as the cuts to public sector pensions, the huge changes proposed for the benefits system and the structure for helping the unemployed into work hove into view, there's a massive task ahead for the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Will its chair, Anne Begg, and her committee members rise to the task?

Another committee chair to profit from Dr Cable's woes could be Culture Media and Sport's John Whittingdale. The competition ruling on the News International bid for complete control of Sky now falls to the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt - and now that the whole issue has been politicised, he will be in need of independent endorsement for whatever decision he takes. A chance for Mr Whittingdale and his committee to exert a bit of leverage?

A final thought. On Tuesday 11 January, MPs start their detailed consideration of the European Union Bill - which is supposed to provide a "referendum lock" on future transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels.

So far there are more than 40 amendments down, and given that they are signed by Conservative backbenchers like Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Nuttall and Chris Heaton-Harris (with a guest appearance by Labour's Gisela Stuart) it looks as if the eurosceptic clans are gathering. On most substantive euro-issues, the government can probably rely on Labour support, but on a measure like this, it may be that Labour, Tory eurosceptics and maybe some queasy Lib Dem europhiles could find common cause and make life rather difficult for the coalition whips.

Parliament, and this blog, will be back in January. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all my readers...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

MPs will be getting back to their constituencies this week - if they can, given the weather - after a long term. It's the final week of business before the Christmas break. What do the last few days have in store?

On Monday, David Cameron will be making a statement to the House on his negotiations at the European Council - will his backbenchers be more interested in his efforts to block future EU budget increases or in the possibility of a new European Treaty to enshrine a bailout mechanism for eurozone states in financial trouble? And after fears emerged at Energy questions on Thursday of an impending oil shortage, watch out for a possible urgent question to Secretary of State Chris Huhne.

The main debate will be on firearms control, but there's no legislation booked in for Monday. The Lords, however, will be plodding through the sixth - yes, sixth: count them - day of the committee of the whole House on the Parliamentary Voting Bill, amidst gloomy predictions of many more such days to come in 2011.

Up on the committee corridor, the continues its inquiry into the ramifications of localism - it will be hearing from organisations representing vulnerable or minority groups. And watch out for the report on the illegal use of firearms - which will examine the implications of recent shooting incidents.

Tuesday sees George Osborne answering Treasury questions, then MPs will launch into their traditional end of term adjournment debate. Normally this is a chance to for an MP to speak about pretty much any topic that takes their fancy - which tends to mean a long series of speeches about local bypasses and hospitals, aimed squarely at local newspapers.

But now the running of the debate's been taken in hand by the Backbench Business Committee, which is trying to arrange that speeches on particular themes that several backbenchers want to raise are grouped together, with a suitable minister in place to respond to that section of the debate. Before this a slightly sheepish minister used to have to wind up the debate with endless promises to get other ministers to write to particular backbenchers...

Not everyone is convinced this will work out - at business questions on Thursday one backbencher, , warned the arrangements were "fast approaching becoming a car crash". But given the meandering nature of the old style debate, this looks like a worthwhile experiment.

And that's it from the Commons, in the main chamber for 2010: although there's some work continuing on committee corridor.

The indefatigable Communities and Local Government Committee will be talking to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles as well as Housing minister Grant Shapps and Decentralisation minister Greg Clarke, on the implications of the Spending Review. And the Home Affairs Committee will be talking to former terrorism watchdog Lord Carlile, about the government's anti-terrorism review, and Bernard Silverman, the chief scientific advisor to the Home Office.

On Wednesday, by way of an early Christmas present, there are a few select committee reports: the dissect the proposed changes to housing benefit - will they lead to an increase in evictions and homelessness? The releases its report looking at the impact of the Severn Crossings toll on the economy of South Wales, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee consider future flooding and water management legislation.

Their lordships soldier on. On Tuesday, they will be examining the Re-export Controls Bill, the Consolidated Fund Bill, Loans to Ireland Bill and Public Bodies Bill. And on Wednesday, both divorce lawyer Fiona Shackleton and the Lib Dems' Dee Doocey will be introduced to the upper House, before the Lords examine the Energy Bill - the measure which is supposed to provide millions of households with a painless way of cutting their fuel consumption, insulation and other improvements, paid for out of the savings on gas and electricity bills. It's a nice simple idea, commanding all-party support, but there are lots complications which will require some intricate drafting - which may well be why their lordships are getting the first crack at this one.

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

Does this week's furore over the failing to sign off on the accounts for MPs' expenses amount to a row of beans? I can't see any great new scandal.

First of all this is an investigation into the accounts for 2009-10, the last year of the pre-IPSA era, and relates to the old system which was the source of so many abuses in the previous parliament. It does not relate to anything which has happened since.

Second, the NAO's refusal to fully approve the accounts was because they didn't meet the standards required for what is known in the trade as a "full scope audit". The problem was that:

"the House authorities were unable to provide evidence to support payments to MPs of £2.6m, including £0.8m that remains unsupported despite a major exercise to obtain evidence retrospectively and £1.8m where evidence is not available for audit because the MPs are under investigation by the police.

"In addition, the evidence supporting £11.3m of costs reimbursed to members was not sufficient for the C&AG to confirm the expenditure had been incurred for Parliamentary purposes. This is despite the evidence having been obtained in accordance with the rules governing the MPs' expenses scheme."

I've been trying to find out exactly what this rather delphic statement actually means. According to John Thurso, the Lib Dem MP who chairs the finance committee of the House of Commons Commission, the administrative arm of the Commons, it boils down to a statement that the old rules applied to expenses claims were rather looser for MPs than for civil servants, and the NAO applied those rather tighter standards for documentation to support expenses claims, and many came up wanting.

For example, MPs may have provided a mortgage statement to back up claims on a second home, but failed to submit the mortgage agreement. So not enough evidence to meet the rules, but evidence that the relevant expense had been incurred. Ho hum. We already knew that the old expenses system relied too much on MPs being "honourable members" and I don't think that the NAO figures reveal some previously undiscovered tranche of fraudulent claims.

But the timing of the report, as David Cameron toys with supporting a reform of the expenses system, and the resulting press coverage, may deter some MPs from putting their heads over the parapet. Wherever two MPs are gathered in one place, they shall moan about IPSA - but they need to beware. To be sure, the price of a latte in Portcullis House has risen. The cost of meals in the parliamentary restaurants and canteens is closer to what might be paid outside the palace of Westminster, and the subsidies are to be cut again soon. The politicians and the bag carriers are feeling the pinch a bit. But so is the rest of Austerity Britain - and parliamentarians really do have to beware of moaning about their privations. There's scant sympathy outside.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A tale of two votes in the Lords yesterday. The Government won on tuition fees, avoiding what would have been a very unwelcome reprise of last Thursday's Commons vote, but lost big on an seemingly easier issue - the proposed abolition of the post of Chief Coroner for England and Wales.

The key to the result lies in the attitude of the Crossbench Peers. It is often said that the Coalition has a political majority in the Upper House, which is to say that there are more Conservative and Lib Dem peers than Labour peers. But that is not a particularly useful fact, since there are also about 180 Crossbenchers, and if they break disproportionately for or against the Government, they can swing any vote.

And that was the difference on Tuesday. The Chief Coroner proposal was part of the Public Bodies Bill, which will give ministers the power of summary execution over every quango in the land. Many of their lordships hate the bill - they dislike giving ministers powers to abolish bodies set up by statute without having to re-legislate. And many of them, be it admitted, serve on many of the quangos the Bill will consign to death row. When the Bill came up for Second Reading there were titters over the number of declarations of interest that would be required....

So plenty of Crossbenchers were prepared to vote against the Government because the Bill raises the kind of process issue they take to heart - and for once the turnout of Lib Dem peers wasn't great. But a few hours later, an anti-Government majority of 112 was transformed into a Government majority of 68, on the tuition fees vote.

Why? "There are a lot of Vice Chancellors and people who want to be Master of their College on the Crossbenches," muttered one unsurprised Labour Peer. But also because the Crossbenchers rather disdain party games and are swayed by different issues, compared to the (sniff) politicians. But the clear lesson is that the Coalition cannot rely on their Lordships tamely rubber-stamping their proposals - and Labour cannot expect them to routinely rally to their standard either. Horror of horrors, the arguments on contentious issues actually matter. And the bad news for the Coalition, as the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill continues its snail-like progress through Committee Stage, is that the Clegg constitutional agenda raises just the kind of issues that those Crossbenchers love to be awkward about.

The issues may not be of the Official Opposition's choosing, but the Coalition can expect more defeats like the one on the Coroner, even if Labour can't engineer similar results on more politically charged issues.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

After the tuition fees dramas, Westminster may be a bit quieter next week. There's plenty of legislation planned for Parliament's last full week before Christmas - but nothing likely to inspire the ructions just seen.

Monday's timetable opens with Defence Questions and after that there's the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, the measure that proposes elected policing and crime commissioners to replace the present appointed police authorities. Will Theresa May be making a statement on the student demonstrations on Thursday - and the attack on Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall's car?

Their lordships will be spending a fourth day of a committee of the whole House on the Parliamentary Voting Bill. And a week of extraordinarily interesting committees begins - Monday sees the questioning Michael Barnier, the European Commissioner for the internal market on the EU's proposals for regulating financial services. This is a crucial area for Britain which is Europe's biggest player in the global financial services sector, by a mile. There are serious worries that the Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority could undermine a key part of the UK economy, if it takes too heavy-handed an approach.

Also on Monday, the Arms Exports Committee examines strategic export control policy. This is an annual exercise in scrutinising the arms trade - with perennial issues about what is exported to whom, and about the extent to which Britain can control the activities of British companies abroad. Should they be allowed to enter deals from other countries which would be illegal if conducted from Britain?

Tuesday involves a spot of mopping up in the Commons: Lords amendments to the Superannuation Bill and the Identity Documents Bill will be considered and the remaining stages of the Terrorist Asset Freezing Bill will be gone through. The Lords - in another committee of the whole House - will be talking about the Public Bodies Bill - the measure that will allow quangos to be abolished at the stroke of a ministerial pen. But the event to watch is the Higher Education (Basic Amount) Regulations - the tuition fees measure that caused so much trouble in the Commons. It is not at all clear that peers will simply rubber-stamp it. Much will depend on whether the crossbenchers gang up against the coalition - as well as on the number of Lib Dem and Tory peers who may rebel.

The committee corridor is jam-packed with ministers and Secretaries of State this week and Tuesday is one of the busiest days. Michael Gove is up in front of the while Theresa May is in front of the . And Minister of State Theresa Villiers is in front of in their inquiry into transport and the economy. Meanwhile, the is looking at progress on the Olympics.

It's PMQs on Wednesday where the two leaders seem to have taken turns to duff each other up, and MPs will rush through the Loans to Ireland Bill. This may not be a completely straightforward exercise. The idea of spending billions of British taxpayers' money on bailing out a euro-zone country is not exactly popular on the Conservative benches, so look out for critical speeches and, maybe, awkward amendments.

The Lords may be thoroughly tired of the Parliamentary Voting Bill by now - but they've got day five of their committee of the whole House. And the VIP queue outside the committee rooms continues: Andrew Lansley will be talking to the about his reforms to NHS Commissioning. Ken Clarke is at the , Chris Huhne at and Liam Fox at And the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be taking evidence on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s annual report from Director-General Mark Thompson and Chairman Sir Michael Lyons - with attention likely to be focused on the implications of the hastily-agreed licence fee settlement, reached as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review..

And that's not all. Former Foreign Secretaries David Miliband and Malcolm Rifkind will be .

By Thursday, it's looking a bit quieter. MPs will be debating Backbench Business in the afternoon - a motion relating to Park Homes and one to the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. Their lordships will be debating the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the reorganisation of the NHS. And on Friday - neither House is sitting.

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

After all the hype, the coalition will probably be quite relieved to have got through the great tuition fees debate without worse damage. The departure of three ministerial bag-carriers, , and , is unlikely to be a death-blow. And even the 21 Lib Dem "no" votes and five abstentions do not appear to have put a permanent dent in Nick Clegg's leadership.

There seems to be no appetite on either side of the Lib Dems to deepen their split into a permanent schism. Some were said to be sobbing in the lobbies as the vote went down. Certainly dissidents have found the whole experience pretty unpleasant - far less agreeable than the still-novel sensation of exercising actual influence on government. So the Lib Dems want to pick themselves up, dust themselves down, and carry on as if nothing has really happened. Is there anything else on the horizon which could re-open the wounds? Perhaps a row about anti-terrorism legislation could surface in the medium term, but, for now, the coalition's next rebellions are more likely to come from the Conservative benches, where the Irish Loans Bill (on Wednesday), and the committee stage of the EU Bill, could see eurosceptic dissidents springing into action. Remember, the coalition's biggest rebellion was not on Thursday, but some weeks ago, when 37 Tory MPs voted against the government on the EU budget.

But the tuition fees saga is not entirely over. On Tuesday, the Lords are due to debate the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010, the order that caused all the fun in the Commons. And I'm far from certain that its passage is a done deal. In the longer term, the rest of the funding package will require a Higher Education Bill, covering the repayment terms for the student loans, the terms on which universities can levy a £9,000 fee and similar issues. And the MPs who agonised long and hard over Thursday's vote will doubtless want to include further sweeteners in this legislation. So students of the future should keep a careful eye on the changing deal that will be offered to them.

For the Lib Dems, the other key lesson will be that they need to handle these things rather better. It's one thing to take an unpopular decision; it's quite another to look like a shower. Too many of their MPs chose to agonise in public, and some even seemed to enjoy it. But I doubt many of those who will lose out from the decision were impressed. The Lib Dems will need to spot these problems earlier, agree their line and spend more time talking to the public and less having their internal dialogue in public.

Meanwhile, only a handful of Conservative MPs rebelled - but the thinking behind their rebellion could be a portent of troubles to come on the Tory side of the coalition. The phrase "the squeezed middle" is starting to be heard more and more. And whatever the quibbles about the location of the middle, Conservative MPs are queasy about the pain they are inflicting on their core voters. Increasingly Tory backbenchers worry that the Lib Dems' buzzword "progressive" is really code for a measure that hurts their people. And that could yet turn into another coalition faultline.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

No rebellion on Tuesday on the European Union Bill - but I doubt the government whips imagine for a minute that their eurosceptic backbenchers have learned to love it.

The bill is supposed to enact the "referendum lock" on further transfers of power from Britain to Brussels, which the Conservatives promised at the last election.

But the backbench awkward squad have collectively decided it is nowhere near tough enough. The key problem is that the bill allows ministerial discretion over what transfers of power are significant enough to merit consulting the voters. In the Commons, the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, told MPs that any extension of the EU's "competence" - its power to act in a particular area of policy - would trigger a referendum. So would any move to give up the UK's veto in a significant area of policy - he listed foreign policy, tax, justice or home affairs as obvious examples.

But he added that the government did not think it would be sensible to require a referendum over - say - a change in the number of Advocates-General in European Court of Justice. He thought that was a matter that could be dealt with by a vote in the Commons. The argument is that that if every minor tweak of a euro-regulation had to be subject to a referendum, we would live in a state of perpetual balloting on trivial issues. But ministers will have to make a statement to the House, explaining any such decision.

The counter-argument is that statements are not normally followed by votes on the issue concerned, so MPs don't get to overturn decisions they don't like. Critics say the bill as drafted would allow powers over far too many significant issues to be passed to the EU with a mere wave of a ministerial hand. They claim the last Labour government argued that the was no big deal - and they suspect that some coalition ministers will similarly seek to present far-reaching euro-reforms as mere "tidying-up exercises".

Their fears were intensified a few weeks back, when resisted an amendment urging the government to negotiate for a cut, not merely a freeze, in the EU budget. That, say the sceptics, illuminated a gap between the government's public rhetoric, and its private willingness to over-compromise in EU ministerial meetings. And, after that, even an earbashing from the chief whip has failed to pacify rebels in the new intake.

So when the EU Bill comes to its committee stage - and as a constitutional bill, it will be taken on the floor of the Commons, rather than being delegated to a committee of MPs - there will be cross-party amendments to toughen the bill up. In particular, they will seek to limit ministers' discretion over what constitutes a significant transfer of power. Foreign Secretary William Hague's assurance to the House that any citizen could seek a judicial review of any decision not to hold a referendum seems to have backfired. MPs think they should have the chance to overturn ministers on these issues - they don't want to shuffle the responsibility off to the judges.

And if the creation of a demanding UK referendum mechanism slowed the workings of Europe to a crawl? "So much the better," chortled one Conservative backbencher. "That's exactly what we want."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Following monstering by the Tories' backbench law 'n' order mob yesterday, the government will offer a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

The sweetener will be dispensed on Monday - in the shape of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill - and its proposals for elected Policing and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales. The thinking behind it is that many police forces do not deliver the kind of policing communities want; elected commissioners will have a powerful mandate and will make them do so.

So, if the bill is passed, the 43 chief constables outside London will each have a powerful new politician breathing down their neck, and while Ken Clarke is taking a distinctly non-populist line on punishment, these newcomers are supposed to inject a bit of populism into tackling crime.

This is a Conservative victory in coalition policy-making. The Lib Dems wanted elected police authorities, and wince slightly about the commissioners. Their hope is that the advisory panels who will work with them will provide sufficient checking and balancing to prevent any of the commissioners going rogue. So as the bill goes through, detailed, rather tekky, points about the powers and make-up of these panels could assume some importance.

Labour doubts about the whole policy revolve around the dangers of concentrating power over policing policies (none, please note, over operations) in a single individual. The result could be policing policies driven by tabloid headlines, and a sacrifice of longer-term endeavours like combating organised crime, in order to "put more bobbies on the beat".

And there's a more subtle point about one individual not being able to bring the same range of experience to bear as a committee with several members from different backgrounds and areas.

So who might these commissioners be? When the Blair government introduced elected big city mayors, and above all, created the mayor of London, the hope was that stars of business would be enticed to running for election, ideally as non-party technocrats. But the anticipated flock of Branson-like figures failed to materialise, and no-one seems to expect legions of non-party contenders to emerge for these posts. Perhaps the most likely source of independents would be retired police chiefs, or high profile officers. (One of the few independent city mayors is - who made his name as a crime-cutting chief superintendent.)

But the Home Affairs Select Committee has reservations about allowing top cops to step out of uniform and into politics. They can see all kinds of conflict of interest issues, and all kinds of dangers of politicised policing - and they've proposed a four year cooling off period, before ex-cops can become Policing and Crime Commissioners - and they will doubtless work to ensure that idea is built into the bill.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As MPs start their consideration of the EU Bill - which aims to enshrine the "referendum lock" promised by the Conservatives during the election - Bill Cash's European Scrutiny Select Committee has rushed out .

So does the bill do what it says on the tin - require a referendum on any further transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels? Some Conservative MPs are pretty unimpressed with it (backbench eurosceptic Douglas Carswell has started keeping a scorecard of transfers of power since the election ) but the committee's criticisms are rather different.

They took evidence from academic legal experts (a pretty terrifying breed) to the effect that the legislative supremacy of Parliament is not, at present, under threat from the EU. In particular, they suggest that the key clause of the bill, clause 18, which is supposed to affirm the supremacy of Parliament over EU law in Britain, is not needed. The argument is that the EU Court of Justice insists on the primacy of EU law, while the British courts maintain that they have primacy over EU law, and passing another British law won't impress the Euro-judges in the least.

Indeed, they worry that a new law insisting on the supremacy of Parliament over EU law could be interpreted as meaning that Parliament doesn't always think it is supreme over the courts...

One witness suggested that the clause as drafted "goes out of its way to invite litigation". Here's their conclusion:

"Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the government, and the whole premise on which it has been included in the bill is, in our view, exaggerated. We are gravely concerned that for political reasons it has been portrayed by the government as a sovereignty clause in correspondence and also in the explanatory notes, which we discuss below. For these reasons we deeply regret that the Secretary of State has refused to come and give evidence himself on these matters."

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

Another day, another senior Conservative turning puce after a rebuke from Speaker Bercow. with has been followed today by a stern admonition to Mr Speaker's current bete noir, . Mr Burns, you'll recall, refused to shake Mr Bercow's hand as he took his MP's oath in May. He was heard to describe the Speaker as a "stupid sanctimonious dwarf" in the Chamber in June, and more recently was the author of another dwarf joke at Mr Speaker's expense.

Today at Health Questions, he had a couple of answers cut short in the Speaker's continuing campaign to ensure pointed questions and brief answers, so that the maximum possible number of MPs have a chance to get in. But Mr Bercow was pretty brusque, telling Mr Burns: "Answers have been excessively long winded and repetitive and it mustn't happen again - I've made the position clear and I hope that the minister will learn from that." Mr Burns briefly turned a rather alarming colour before answering his next question.

Yesterday's clash with the Chief Whip was nastier. Several MPs, including and were unhappy with the proposed time limit for Thursday's debate on the orders to increase the cap on university tuition fees. They had made points of order against time limits which, they argued, would not allow sufficient time for backbench MPs to have their say. The programme motion to give effect to the time limits was on the agenda for decision without debate - and when it was read out, there were shouts from the Labour side of "object".

But the shouters had not quite got their timing right and shouted before Mr Bercow had completed reading out the agenda item. So when he had finished reading it out, he invited the objectors to object again... at which Mr McLoughlin took umbrage.

I'm not quite sure why. It's not unusual for a Speaker or Deputy Speaker to help MPs to get their procedure right...but Mr McLoughlin seemed to think the Speaker was inviting objection where there had been none. My reading is that he was doing what Speakers normally do - but the ugly little spat which followed, with Mr McLoughlin first attempting to walk out, then shouting back as the Speaker attempted to rebuke him was pretty unprecedented. In any event, the programme motion for Thursday will now be debated later tonight, after the debate on the EU Bill - and there are murmurs that it might be a debate that stretches into tomorrow morning.

To be sure, it has been a tough week for Mr McLoughlin, with rebellions brewing on tonight's EU Bill and on Thursday's tuition fee vote. With heavyweight Conservative backbencher announcing his intention to defy the government and vote against the higher tuition fees, followed by another Tory, ; along with what promises to be a significant number of Lib Dem rebels, the numbers are tightening and tempers are shortening. And the wounds left by Mr Speaker's waspish tongue will smart for some time to come.

* Incidentally, sharp-eyed colleagues at Today in Parliament have noted the presence of the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in the chamber. Is he going to break the parliamentary silence which followed his defeat in the Labour leadership election with a speech on this bill?

UPDATE: The Speaker has just been asked if he's received any apology from the chief whip. Apparently not - but Mr Bercow said something soothing about how different people would feel "in the cold light of day".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On Monday, we'll see an opposition day debate in the Commons on the "unfair distribution and impact of cuts to local government funding." It is likely to mean Communities Secretary Eric Pickles will be on his feet - will he be keeping up a recent spate of impressive puns?

The Lords will be hard at work on Monday - it's the second day of the committee of the whole house on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, followed by a short debate on the economic and security implications of the melting of the Arctic ice caps.

An interesting week on committee corridor next week: Robert Chope from the Office for Budget Responsibility will be appearing before the Treasury Committee to answer questions about the Autumn Statement economic forecasts -kicking off a busy week for that committee. There will also be a session on local authority publications - aka council freesheets - with the . There are a host of local newspaper interests represented, as well as officials from the Local Government Association and London Councils. Battle could be joined over one of Mr Pickles's bugbears: council newsletters.

And the will quizzing the Europe Minister David Lidington about the European Union Bill, on the eve of its second reading debate (see below.)

The committee, chaired by veteran eurosceptic Bill Cash, is working flat out to provide an authoritative analysis of the bill in time for the later stages of its Commons consideration.

And so to Tuesday, when we'll see that second reading of the European Union Bill. Expect some markers to be put down by Conservative eurosceptics, who're unconvinced that this measure will do what it says on tin, and provide a real 'referendum lock' on any future proposed transfer of powers to the European Union. The bill also sets out the circumstances under which transfers of competence and/or power to the EU will be subject to a referendum or will require an Act of Parliament. It will be a very bad sign for the coalition, if there's an actual rebellion, with possible rebels likely to be keeping their powder dry until they can put down amendments at committee stage...

The Lords will be discussing the Superannuation Bill and the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grants Bill. There's an interesting question from Lady Boothroyd - on varying the Parliamentary oath of allegiance to enable MPs to take their seats at Westminster.

Another good session on offer from the : Eric Daniels, the Lloyds chief executive, and Stephen Hester, from the RBS, both giving evidence on competition and choice in the banking sector, along with the more upstart figure of Bernie Higgins of Tesco's Bank. The will be questioning the big six energy companies, and the will be starting a new inquiry on the future of CDC, the government body which aims to foster sustainable businesses overseas. Among the witnesses MPs will be calling is the magazine Private Eye - who have written for some time about the organisation.

And there's more. The will be conducting a one-off evidence session on police use of Tasers. The committee is questioning Sue Sim, Northumbria Police's acting Chief Constable, who was in charge during the search for gunman Raoul Moat.

Another witness is Kevin Coles, the managing director of Pro-Tect Systems - and the business partner of Peter Boatman, a former police officer and director of operations for the firm which supplied the Tasers used during the stand-off with Moat. Mr Boatman is believed to have committed suicide in October.

In the Commons on Wednesday, we'll see estimates day debates on police funding 2011-12 and DfID assistance to Zimbabwe. PMQs will go ahead as usual.

In the Lords, peers will be, once again, discussing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in a committee of the whole House.

George Osborne will reappear on committee corridor on Wednesday - this time to answer questions from the Treasury Committee on the Autumn Statement. The will be finding out from the esteemed Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nymphsfield, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary College, London (aka historian Peter Hennessy) and Lord Jay what the Foreign Office actually does.

The Public Accounts Committee revisits one of its favourite subjects - administrative errors in the benefits system. These are estimated at £3.1bn in overpayments and £1.3bn in underpayments. Department of Work and Pensions Permanent Secretary Sir Leigh Lewis will explain......

The will be examining the Common Agricultural Policy and UK agriculture, and the Procedure Committee will be looking at ministerial statements.

Thursday promises high drama in and outside Parliament. Not, perhaps, from the Proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bill, but on motions on increasing the tuition fees cap, which have emerged as a crucial test of the Coalition. Protests have been promised by groups who have been demonstrating in London in the past weeks - and we could see revolts from Lib Dem MPs too.

Their lordships will be debating the role of sport in the health and wellbeing of children and young people and the impact of cuts in grants to local authorities on the provision of social care and other public services.

Committees peter out towards the end of the week - and the two houses are not sitting on Friday. A quiet end to the Westminster week perhaps...

Update: I pointed out that the European Scrutiny Committee would be working flat out to provide an authoritative analysis of the European Union Bill. Well, I understand the committee is planning to rush out a report in time for the second reading tomorrow afternoon. Fast work.

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

The Empire struck back in the Commons yesterday - but will MPs come to regret it?

They passed a motion demanding that their , should streamline its procedures and cut its costs - and do so in time for the start of the next financial year, in April. That requires IPSA to put down Statutory Instruments to amend its rules - and to do so pretty rapidly. The kicker is that the motion instructs the Leader of the House to provide debating time for a bill to do the job, if IPSA fails to comply.

It's all quite a triumph for the Conservative backbencher Adam Afriyie, whose tenacious lobbying and tactical skill have emboldened MPs to intervene in this most toxic of areas. Maybe IPSA will change the rules of its own accord, but maybe they won't... and if they don't, those who supported Mr Afriyie yesterday will face a further test of courage. The press coverage of the latest returns of expenses published by IPSA may not have turned up any publicly funded moat-clearing, but has still managed to be pretty bruising.

And yesterday's debate was not, at times, a pretty sight. Many MPs nurse deep frustrations and genuine grievances against the operation of the expenses system, but I doubt hard pressed taxpayers will have been much impressed by the parade of senior figures who managed to sound self-pitying and self-interested. Mr Afriyie gave a masterclass in striking the right note, but if some future news bulletin features a similar performance, as MPs are seen re-writing their expenses rules, the damage to Parliament's already diminished status could be significant.

And they must beware of the point raised by Labour's John Mann, who has upset colleagues with his warnings about the excesses of the old system. If MPs are seen to take back control of their expenses system they may find they are simply opening a whole new can of worms.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Will the weather scupper the attempt to reform MPs' expenses? A number of MPs left the Commons early to return to their constituencies before the snow closed the roads and railways...

As I write, , is on his feet in the Commons, moving his motion calling for the expenses watchdog, IPSA, to change its ways.

The chamber has filled up a bit after a near-empty House voted through some changes to the system for complaints against MPs. Suddenly heavy metal backbenchers like , , , and have appeared, chortling and murmuring supportive hear hears. Mr Afriyie is "doughnutted" by , chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, and , secretary of the '22. From across the Chamber, the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, , beams benignly. My point is that some months of patient diplomacy have secured real backbench backing for Mr Afriyie.

And his scheme is a cunning one. If IPSA does not come up with proposals to cuts its costs and simplify its workings to come into operation in April, the Commons will act, and the Leader of the House will be instructed to find debating time for legislation to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act. In practice this means that Statutory Instruments would have to be laid before Parliament shortly after Christmas, at the latest. So if this motion is passed, the clock will be ticking.

Mr Afriyie, a millionaire, has never needed to claim expenses. And he insists that his proposals for change would cut costs for the taxpayer. An early sign that his support has been noticed by the government could come tomorrow. His Parliamentary Standards Amendment Bill is on the agenda for the Commons tomorrow (Friday). It is far enough down the agenda that it is unlikely to be debated, but if the whips decide not to shout "object" when the list of undebated business is read out at the close of the main business at 2.30pm, it would be sent forward to its committee stage, and so take its first step towards the statute book.

Anti-IPSA MPs (and I'm not sure there is any other kind) claim they now have the backing of "very senior" government figures. We shall see.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?