Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I of course gave the hon. Member the right of reply, but I am quoting literally and directly a quote on his website. If those are not his words and are not correct, I leave it up to hon. Members to judge. I am simply quoting his words to the Secretary of State and asking whether that is correct, because we have had a report today that says, in stark terms, that the Department—

[Bob Seely]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a very serious allegation. Corruption has been alleged, but there is no basis for it and it should be withdrawn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This is a serious allegation. I am not in a position right now to weigh up one side of the argument against the other, because I do not have the evidence before me of whatever words were published and whatever words have been said. I ask the hon. Lady —[Interruption.] She cannot possibly be looking at her phone while I am speaking to her. No, no, she cannot possibly be looking at her phone while I am speaking to her! I ask her to get us over this part of the debate, and we can come back to this matter at another time. Will she please withdraw the—[Hon. Members: “ No!”] Do not shout at me when I am speaking from the Chair! Will the hon. Lady please withdraw the allegation of corruption, which is a very serious one, and perhaps find some other words to show that she disagrees with what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said. We can then proceed with the debate and, if necessary, come back to this point at another time.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order, and it may be that you will be good enough to hear one or both of them. The first pertains to how we treat Members of the House of Lords, and I ask this in genuine good faith. There are Members of the House of Lords who may have engaged in ethically questionable practices in relation to work, lobbying or otherwise, for the Russian state or its proxies, formal and informal. We are not—perhaps for good reason, perhaps not—allowed to name those Members of the House of Lords during a debate on, for example, lawfare, lobbying or enabling, and to do so requires some kind of special motion.

In addition, Lords can take leave of absence, which can be open ended. They are allowed to use the Lords facilities and even stationery. They cannot vote, but they then do not have to register their outside interests. That strikes me as being contrary to natural justice and democratic transparency, because we cannot name important players that may be influencing politics, or working for Russian proxies, formally or informally. I would like a ruling from the Chair as to what we can do to enable their participation in a potentially very important part of our national debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that, for a change, actually is a point of order, and I can give him an answer from the Chair. If the situation were as he describes, and it were not possible to question the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords in this place, that would indeed be contrary to our usual democratic practices. [Interruption.]—I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) perhaps listened. If that were the case, it would be contrary to our usual democratic practices, but that is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman has been slightly misinformed.

It is improper and contrary to our rules to raise in a general debate or question, and without notice, the conduct of a Member of either this House or the other place. However, it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to put down a motion before the House, so that the House and the person in question has notice of his, or any Member’s, intention to raise those matters, and of the matters to be raised. That motion would then come before the House. Let me give him an example. An early-day motion is a motion before the House, so if he were to submit an early-day motion, that would be a motion before this House and he could raise questions on it. There are other ways of putting down a substantive motion. For example, he could go to the Backbench Business Committee and ask for time in the Chamber to debate the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords, if it were on a motion before the House.

I very much regret that people now do not understand such matters. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous in his duties, but many Members do not understand what the procedures of this House are, and they do not understand what an early-day motion is. They think it is something to be brought forward by a pressure group, and they get hundreds of signatures, as if that made any difference. An early-day motion is a way of putting a motion before this House, thus giving notice to anyone affected by or interested in it, of the fact that it is a motion before the House. The hon. Gentleman can, of course, get further advice on that from the Table Office, and I am sure the Clerks would be happy to help him draft any motion.

[Bob Seely]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so grateful for that. My worry with the Backbench Business Committee is that it can take a month or two to get a debate, although one could perhaps persuade it of a greater need. An early-day motion—correct me if I am wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have never used early-day motions simply because I think they are PR vehicles—does not result in a debate in the House. We need a debate in the House on these matters, in part because it is covered by privilege, and the importance of using that in the public interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Again, this practice has fallen into desuetude, and it is most unfortunate that Members who have not been in the House for a long time—since the days when things were done properly—do not realise that one way matters used to be raised before the House is that a Member would table an early-day motion. When the Leader of the House answered the business question, once a week, a Member would come into the Chamber and say, “Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion No. 236 in my name and that of 50 other Members, and will he provide time for a debate on that issue? It is extremely important for the following reason.” That way, the matter would be properly raised on the Floor of the House.

It is possible for the hon. Gentleman to do that, and the Table Office will give him advice. If it turns out that he has to wait two months, he should come and see me and we will work out another way of doing it. It is essential that matters of urgency and importance, and topical importance, can be raised on the Floor of this House. It is only because people do not have the proper advice on procedure that that is not being done properly. It is not because any Standing Order or rule of this House prohibits proper debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which he gave notice of his intention to raise, but not long ago. I have not had the opportunity to inquire and cannot answer his question about what the parliamentary processes are to which he refers. I can well understand his concern and his constituents’ concern that this extremely important matter should not be delayed longer than is necessary. I suggest that perhaps he ought to speak to the Clerk of the Journals, who could advise him about the parliamentary processes and, if necessary, how they can be speeded up. We all appreciate the importance of this matter coming before the House as soon as possible.

[Bob Seely]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the debate on lawfare and the debates on Ukraine last week, a number of lawyers have written what I consider to be intimidatory letters to national newspapers, including the Daily Mail. If I understand the letter correctly, one firm, Harbottle and Lewis, has specifically implied that reporting outside the House of our words in debates in Parliament can be “unlawful and seriously defamatory”. That is relating to statements made by me in the House and the good Lord Rooker, if I may name his excellent work. Madam Deputy Speaker, would you like to say anything about that? It seems that we are dealing with an aggressive culture in the law of trying to intimidate not only members of the free press, but now Members of Parliament.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which, again, is a point of order. I have no objection to him raising two proper points of order within a few minutes of one another—it is all the spurious points of order to which we object. I recall very well the lawfare debate to which he refers; indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who brought the debate to the Chamber, has miraculously appeared at the Bar of the House just as this matter is quite properly being raised. My recollection is that it was an important and powerful debate and that few people were present to hear and pay attention to it. It has since become all the more urgent and topical. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it as a point of order.

In technical terms, the point of order that he raises is a matter of interpretation of parliamentary privilege and of when it applies, how it applies and who applies it, which is too complicated to answer immediately. I once again refer him to the Clerk of the Journals. If he and the right hon. Gentleman wish to discuss the matter further, I am quite sure that my office and Mr Speaker’s office would be happy to discuss it with him. It is quite refreshing to have two points of order that are points of order. I thank him for them.

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely]

I will make some progress.

Does anyone here respect Peter Mandelson, or does anyone want to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not directly criticise a Member of Parliament, and that includes peers. I would like him to change his remarks somewhat and make his point without reference to the peer he has just mentioned.

[Bob Seely]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would anyone like to defend the actions of various peers who have defended—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my speech, I was going to name another Member of the House of Lords—I will not do so—who has recently taken leave of the House of Lords to work for Russian interests but does not want to declare what he is doing. Because that person has taken leave, could one mention them in a speech—or despite them taking leave, is one still not allowed to mention them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My immediate answer, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, is that someone who has taken leave is still a Member of Parliament—a Member of the House of Lords—and must be treated as such in a debate here and not criticised directly by name. There are good reasons why we do things in this way. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill: Revival

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

Carry-over motion & Bill reintroduced & Bill reintroduced: House of Commons & motion to revive Bill: House of Commons
Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

One issue that many people like me on the south coast have, which I hope Ministers will look at, is that the average speed from London to Portsmouth and Southampton has not changed since the 1920s. At the moment, we are seeing vast amounts of money going into a project of mixed popularity, to put it mildly, while people in Southampton, Portsmouth and my constituency of the Isle of Wight will be struggling with speeds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are not talking about the Isle of Wight. We are talking about a procedural motion.

Streatham Incident

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I cannot make the clock go slower. I tried to make people speak faster, but that does not seem to work. We have five minutes left and not everyone is going to get a chance. Let us go a little bit faster and see who we can get in.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Is there a case for greater isolation of extremists from the general prison population while in prison, or does the Secretary of State think we have the balance right?

Global Britain and the International Rules-based Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Seely]

The shadow Minister makes an interesting and valid point about moral equality. I accept that, but it is slightly concerning that your side of the House tends to focus on Yemen a great deal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Lady’s side.

[Mr Seely]

I apologise. The right hon. Lady’s side of the House focuses on Yemen a great deal. Does she understand the difference between the Saudis doing something badly and the Syrians, with their Russian support, bombing hospitals as a deliberate policy? There is a moral intent, which is different. One may criticise the Saudis for being sloppy and not valuing human life enough, but there is a difference.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Bob Seely

2nd reading: House of Commons & Allocation of time motion: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading & Allocation of time motion & Carry-over motion & Money resolution
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Seely]

In principle, my hon. Friend makes a very good point and I thank her for her intervention. The problem is this. I return to the profit ratio—or the cost-benefit ratio. If any of us were to go to a Minister or Government Department and say, “This is a fantastic project and it has a ratio of 1:2.3,”—which are the Government’s own figures for HS2—we would get laughed at. To get a project off the ground, according to Green Book assessments, a ratio of 1:5 upwards is needed, and preferably 1:7. So 1:2.3 is a very poor return for Government money by the Government’s own figures. Anything that helps, within reason, expenditure and our economy is to be welcomed, but by the Government’s own figures this cost-benefit is dubious. I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention.

If HS2 will cause no delay to south-west rail projects, will my right hon. Friend commit to prioritising the necessary work on the south-west rail route that could speed up journey times between London and south coast destinations such as Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth and, yes, the Isle of Wight—my constituency? I know that my right hon. Friend is a user of south-west rail and feels the pain of the half a million people who travel in to Waterloo every day. Will he—or will she— consider setting Network Rail and the new franchise a speed target of a 60-minute service to Southampton and Portsmouth? You can get two trains an hour down the main line to Southampton. They take about one hour 17 at the moment. If we are interested in high-speed rail, can we set a new target of getting people to Southampton and Portsmouth within the hour?

In addition, I will write to my right hon. Friend tomorrow in connection with the Island. He has been kind enough to sound positive about the needs of my constituents for better public transport, especially since we get precious little infrastructure money. In my letter, I will ask about the programme of reopening branch lines and investing in the Island line. Earlier this month, Isle of Wight Council voted to support a feasibility study on extending the branch line in possibly two directions and, working with our wonderful heritage line, the Havenstreet steam railway, to get people into Ryde, which would be very important.

My letter will cover support for investment, support for a feasibility study, and, dependent on the results of that study, support for the branch line and capital work on Ryde Pier Head to ensure that the railway line there stays feasible, continues and has a future. I am supportive of my right hon. Friend on his agenda, which is excellent, but will you assure me, considering that you are spending £52 billion on one line, that the Department will not tell me that you cannot afford a feasibility study?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister, he must say the Minister, not you. I apologise for interrupting him, but this is becoming a widespread habit of Members all around the House and it must not go on. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is the person who is hearing this, and I am sure that other people will now be rather more careful. He is not a consistent offender; he is normally very proper in his behaviour.

[Mr Seely]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do apologise; I had noticed that I had written a few yous, and I scrubbed them out and put hes and shes. If my notes still contained a few yous, I apologise. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here, I was trying to work out whether I should be using he or she, or whether we have reached a post-gender age for Ministers as well as for the rest of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. The word “Minister” is very useful, because it covers just about everything and anyone, no matter which gender they might be on that particular day.

[Mr Seely]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On that point, I will wind up.

I am very supportive of the Minister’s agenda, whichever one we are talking about, but given that we are spending a great deal of money, will the Minister assure me that the Department will not be telling me that a feasibility study is not possible because of cost? Will the Minister assure me that if a feasibility study recommends extension of our lines, that will be supported, given that the costs involved, £10 million to £30 million, are margins of error in Government accounting in the Department of Transport? Will the Minister assure me that there will be support for infrastructure projects both for the South Western Railway network and the Island line, notwithstanding the considerable amounts of money that are been spent elsewhere?