Business of the House

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot recall such a circumstance, but what I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is possible, as I have just been reminded, for the Bill only to be presented tomorrow. However, there is no bar to its being made available to colleagues before then if the Government are so minded. I would add in that context that if the Bill is as short as has been suggested, it should be perfectly possible for it to be made available to Members well before the start of business tomorrow. Given that we are likely to have other business tonight, it would be perfectly possible for the Bill to be made available to colleagues tonight. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I think it would be helpful and solicitous to Members for it to be made available tonight, the short answer is that I do.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing us to make points of order on this very important issue. The Leader of the House did say that amendments would be allowed at Committee stage. Is it your view that amendments will also be allowed on Second Reading? If they are allowed at Report stage, there will be an adequate amount of time between Second Reading changes, potentially, and laying amendments at Report stage that may be required as a subsequent measure to Second Reading.

[Mr Speaker]

There are two points there. In relation to Second Reading, I do not have sight of the Bill, but as the Leader of the House pithily responded to one inquisitor, all Bills—or virtually all Bills—are amendable. Is it possible for someone to table an amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill? The answer is that it almost certainly is—I use that caveat only because new precedents can be created from time to time, but I should certainly imagine that it would be possible for an amendment to be tabled to Second Reading.

So far as Report stage is concerned, I simply advise the hon. Gentleman—I made this point to the Clerk of Legislation, who immediately confirmed it—that amendments at Report stage are perfectly imaginable, but there is a Report stage based upon a Committee stage at which amendments have been made. Amendments at Report stage are imaginable in circumstances in which there is such a stage, and that is contingent upon the sequence of events at Committee stage. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and clear to colleagues. I recognise the concern in the House that has been expressed, to which I am sensitive, and in relation to which I think I have given explicit answers.

Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Russell-Moyle, you are a cheeky chappy, it has to be said. This will be widely acknowledged. You are chuntering from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose, other than to reiterate the point you have already made on your feet. There is no need to repeat it from your seat, but I think you are addicted to so doing.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee in March 2017 produced a report on the UK’s relationship with Turkey. One of its recommendations was for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make a determined effort to persuade Turkey not only to recognise Kurdish territory but to show restraint both in northern Syria and with the Euphrates Shield project. What determined efforts has the Foreign Office made since that report to persuade Turkey to do so?

Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

In the same tone, I would like to say to my hon. Friend—we have been on many delegations together—that we should treat one another with respect across the House. I would also like to say, in the same spirit as your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, that I stand in front of the shield of Jo Cox and I hope that today this Parliament could have a little bit more respect—not just for one another and Parliament, but for the public as well.

Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act was passed by the House and given Royal Assent by Her Majesty the Queen on Monday 9 September and brought in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). That Act clearly says that the Prime Minister must seek an extension to article 50 to 31 January if the Prime Minister is unable to meet one of the two conditions of either having a withdrawal deal passed by this House, or having an affirmative vote by this House to back no deal.

The Minister said in his opening response that there was a range of options. That is the only range of options in that Bill—to pass a deal, to pass no deal, or subsequently to seek an extension. The Supreme Court decision this week and the statement in this House followed by questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday were a national embarrassment. Under any other political equilibrium, this Prime Minister would have seriously considered his position as Prime Minister, and potentially resigned from it. Many people have lost their jobs in government for a fraction of what this Prime Minister has done over the last two weeks.

Yesterday, the Attorney General, at that Dispatch Box, during the urgent question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), said clearly, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), that he would abide by the law of the EU (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. He said that with uncharacteristic clarity when he said simply, “Yes” in response to that question. Last night, the hon. Members for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and many others pressed the Prime Minister to make the same commitment. He did not give the same commitment in this House. And under questioning from myself, very late in the sitting last night, when I asked whether he would fully comply with the provisions of the Act, should he not get a deal through this House, or an affirmative vote for no deal, by 19 October, the Prime Minister answered with one word: he answered, “No.”

I have tabled this urgent question, first, to seek clarity; and secondly, to ask the Minister, in all good faith, to tell us, which he has not done yet, what the Prime Minister meant when he said “No,” because frankly, and with reference to my earlier remarks about respect across this House, I am sure that there are very few people in this House, and very few people in this country, given the events of the last few weeks, who trust the words of the Prime Minister, even when said from that Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister used—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister used, in a direct answer to my question, the word “no,” so I have several questions to ask the Minister, and with this new level of respect I hope he is able to answer them directly.

What does the Prime Minister intend to do if he does not get a deal through this House by 19 October or an affirmative vote for no deal? That is question No. 1.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he must rattle through the remainder of the questions very quickly, without drama? Very quickly—please.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think I can arbitrate between the hon. Gentleman in his question and the Minister in his reply. The hon. Gentleman has put his concern on the record. He is a most perspicacious fellow and I feel sure that he will have recourse to the Table Office if he wishes to table further questions. Knowing the appetite of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) for responding to inquiries, I am sure he will be getting up even earlier in the morning and going to bed even later at night specifically to attend to the inquiries of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). The nodding of the head of the Minister on the Treasury Bench is testament to his acceptance of the point I have just made.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the earlier exchanges, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on a number of occasions that the retail sector was “ready for Brexit”—I think those were the three words he used. The British Retail Consortium has subsequently said that that is not the case and is incorrect. How can we get the record corrected?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation, and he knows that. I say that as much for those attending to our proceedings as for Members. The hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation, and he has done so through the entirely bogus use of a point of order to get his concern across. He is not the first person to do that and he will not be the last. Whether he is satisfied or not, I do not know, but he will have to make the best of what he has done, given the prodigious character of his efforts today.

People are quite understandably in an inquisitive mood. That is entirely to be expected, particularly when we have not been sitting for some time, but we must now move to the next statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Business without Debate

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am certainly very happy to join the hon. Lady in the expression of that request. I make no comment on the other gathering in front of which the Prime Minister may have appeared. Certainly, as far as the House is concerned, the point that the Chair of the Liaison Committee makes is of the highest importance. The role of the Liaison Committee in holding the Executive to account and, in particular, holding the Prime Minister to account can hardly be overstated. The Liaison Committee is a greatly respected body. The custom and practice whereby the Prime Minister regularly appears before it are now very well established. It would seem to me to be highly desirable that an appearance should take place sooner rather than later.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, but further to the point of order from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I want to seek your guidance on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, which is heading for Royal Assent this evening. I want to seek your guidance on the procedures of this House, given the business statement for tomorrow, should there be unusual circumstances and the Bill not receive Royal Assent this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

My feeling is that as long as Royal Assent is given by tomorrow morning, the motion should be unaffected. It would, however, be—how can I put it?—altogether tidier if Royal Assent were achieved tonight. The hon. Gentleman is, in a sense, the opposite of Dr Pangloss: he is working on the basis of the worst case scenario that could arise. What I would say is, it is not that bad.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the House has moved the sittings motion, and I have selected amendment (a) to it in the name of Valerie Vaz. I just thought I would get that on the record.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Leader of the House has given us the business for tomorrow—it is helpful not only that she has read out the motion, but that it has now been circulated—but has there been any indication whether the Attorney General’s legal advice on whether what the Government are doing tomorrow is actually legal could be placed in the House of Commons Library or published for Members before the debate starts at 9.30 am tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

The Attorney General can offer an assurance on that front. I know that he is satisfied, but it is for him to say.

Article 50 Extension

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. It has been confirmed in the last few moments that the Prime Minister is to make a statement in Downing Street at 8 pm this evening. Given that this debate can run until just after 6.20 pm, and there are two other items on the Order Paper that could take up to three hours beyond the moment of interruption, does this House have any mechanism to get the Prime Minister to make that statement to the House, rather than to the public via the media in Downing Street?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I did not have advance notice, about which I do not complain; I am simply signalling that my response to what he has put to me is spontaneous. It would certainly be my expectation, if this debate runs its full length, that the House will be sitting at the time of the announced prime ministerial statement. It would certainly be open to the Prime Minister to come to the House to make the statement here. It is a matter for her to judge whether she wishes to do so. My sense is that that would be well received by the hon. Gentleman and quite possibly, in the light of what has been said, by other people. It is not for the Chair to seek to compel or instruct any Minister, including most certainly the Prime Minister, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. In so far as he is asking, “Can it happen?” the answer is: yes, it can.

I would like to suggest an advisory and voluntary time limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes or thereabouts, but I am not at this stage, particularly as I have not given notice, imposing a formal limit. Let us see how we go. It would be helpful, in the name of maximising participation, if people did not speak for too long, but I will leave it to the wise judgment of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Does it appertain to the exchanges that have just taken place? [Interruption.] Oh, very well, I will indulge the hon. Gentleman. Points of order ordinarily would come later.

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, but this does pertain to the exchanges that we have just had. The Minister confirmed in his answer to my question, and indeed it was confirmed in your intervention in relation to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that, should the Government table a motion before the rise of the House, that indeed could happen at 10.29 pm this evening and therefore no Members of this House will be able to table amendments in the normal fashion. You suggested that the rules of the House would allow you to accept manuscript amendments. Can you inform the House whether you will be able to accept all of the manuscript amendments that come in, how, given the timescale that is available, the House will be able to get cross-party signatures on those manuscript amendments, which give an indication of the support in the House, and what the process will be for our being able to place those manuscript amendments between the rise of the House tonight and the opening bell tomorrow morning?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Happy birthday, Mr Sweeney. I gather it is a significant birthday—30 today and you do not look a day older than 20.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The defence sector is critical for the Scottish economy, but so are other sectors, such as financial services, higher education, food and drink, and fisheries. So will the Minister have a chat with the Secretary of State to make sure that in Cabinet the Secretary of State is insisting that a no-deal outcome is ruled out?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary; he is being incredibly generous. In the last few minutes, he has said that there will be no cap on international students, that the hospitality sector will be fine, that agriculture will be fine and that trade deals will be fine, despite the No. 1 priority for most countries in a trade deal being to loosen up the visa regime. How can any of that—be honest with the public, because it is about time the Government started being honest with the public—be compatible with cutting net migration to the tens of thousands? It is a lie, isn’t it?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting for one moment that a Minister would lie in this Chamber.

[Ian Murray]

No, Mr Speaker. The manifesto pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands seems, on the basis of the answers, to be the lie; it is not the Secretary of State himself. He can clarify that when he comes back to the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that he can clarify the situation, but there is no allegation of personal dishonour against the Home Secretary.

[Ian Murray]

Not at all.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful. I call the Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May I say that I am really looking forward to reading the diaries of the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning)—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that I am.

[Ian Murray]

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of this House, a very merry Christmas? Or that is indeed what I would have done had I made this speech back in December when we were supposed to have concluded this debate. We have done nothing over the past month apart from give the Government an opportunity to ramp up the rhetoric of no deal, which even the Foreign Secretary admitted this morning may not be an advisable choice for this country.

Never in the recent history of this Parliament has the next few days been so important to this country and, indeed, to my constituents. Many in this House forget that they were sent here for two reasons: the first and most important one is to represent their constituents, but the second is to look after the best interests of the country. There has been lots of debate and argument, but never has the sound of the Division bell been held in such significance as it will be on Tuesday as we find out which direction this country will take.

I say to those across this House who know they want to do the right thing, but whom the rules of the game of this House preclude from so doing, that they should do the right thing for the country. Brave politicians break the rules. Brave politicians smash the rules and do what is in the best interests of the country. This Government certainly want to smash the rules. They are in danger of being the first Government in history to wilfully and knowingly make the country poorer. This is the first Government in history who proudly admit that they will make my constituents poorer. Surely that cannot be correct. Surely nobody voted to be poorer. We need to stop this catastrophe now, which means voting against the shoddy, blind, worst-of-all-worlds Brexit deal and putting this back to the people in a public vote. Let us have more democracy, not less.

We are 77 days away—the stakes could not be higher—and all the major questions as to the future are still unanswered. It is time for the Government in particular to start being honest with the country, but the Prime Minister cannot be honest with the country for fear of her own Back Benchers. The Home Secretary today told the House that we can have all the migration we wish for in all the sectors that require it, plus uncapped international student immigration, plus trade deals where migration will be at the top of the agenda, and still cut net migration down to the tens of thousands. That is disingenuous to the people of this country. These deceptions must stop, because they are not in the national interest.

The first thing the Government could do in the national interest is rule out a no-deal scenario. We know that any deal or agreement, in particular no deal and the agreement that is on the table, will make our country much poorer than what we currently enjoy as a member of the EU. That is where the Government’s problem comes in. There are two choices: to leave the EU with no deal or to stick as closely as possible to the EU institutions to reduce the pain, suffering and cost of a no-deal Brexit. What the Prime Minister has done is to set red lines that means she does neither. She has therefore united leavers and remainers in this Chamber against the deal.

Now I come to the vacuous soundbite of taking back control of our borders, laws and money. I wish I had slightly more time, Mr Speaker, because I would like to explain why the deal on the table means that we will cede control of our borders, laws and money more than we have at the moment. The deal does not include the 80% of our economy that is made up by services such as financial services and higher education, which are critical to jobs in my constituency. I say that no unicorns is better than bad unicorns for this country.

This issue goes much wider than the economy. It is about EU citizens; it is about our outlook to the world; it is about driving change in Europe; it is about taking our place in the world as a country that wants to work together with others. We cannot achieve what we want to achieve if we are an isolationist nation. The notion of global Britain—I am glad that a Foreign Office Minister is here—is as empty a slogan as “Take back control.” Let us be bold. Let us take this deal on the table, give it back to the people in a people’s vote and let them decide whether this is the kind of Brexit they wanted. If they want to save the country from the self-harm we are about to inflict on ourselves, they could simply vote remain and keep us in the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The financial services sector is also critical for the Scottish economy and for my constituents in Edinburgh, but none of the Government’s Brexit plans mention this service sector. What can the Minister say to the financial services sector in Edinburgh, and to my constituents whose jobs depend on it, about the Government’s strategy for the service sector post Brexit?

[Mr Speaker]

With reference to whisky.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady used commendable brevity, upon which I congratulate her.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). We sit on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs together and agree on much of its work. However, I am afraid that we agree on nothing when it comes to Brexit, and we have those battles in the Committee.

It is unfortunate that we have been left here this evening with a set of four amendments from the group of Conservative rebels who want to take us off a cliff edge. That is what the amendments are designed to do. We have unconfirmed reports that the Government may accept the amendments. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will nod to indicate that he will accept them, but if he does, I hope he has a match or a lighter in his pocket, because he would do just as well to set the Chequers agreement alight, given the consequences.

On top of all that, the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), must now regret leaving the Government, given that after threatening to resign five times, he finally went through with it by resigning following the Chequers agreement, which is just about to be ripped up by his own Front-Bench team and replaced with a much more hard-line position that will take us off the cliff with a hard Brexit. If he had only stayed on a few more days, he may have been able to see through the proposals that he started.

World Cup 2018: FCO Preparations

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. I propose—with the concurrence of colleagues—that questions from the Front Benchers should come at the end, so we will take Back Benchers first.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May I ask the distinguished Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee to reflect on the issues around future World cups? I was delighted to see that the Committee has asked the Government to produce documentation to go to FIFA and UEFA to see whether countries bidding for these major sporting events, including the World cup, are indeed suitable to host them. I also wish England all the very best in the World cup, partly—or maybe mainly—due to the fact that I have put some money on them. That is my Scottishness shining through. Will the Chair of the Select Committee reflect on whether the Government are doing enough to make the case—not just to UEFA and FIFA, but to other international bodies of major sporting events—that we should not be granting these major, worldwide events to countries that have problems with LGBT rights, black and ethnic minority rights, rights for women and so on?

Sewel Convention

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In a moment, I shall call Ian Blackford to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes—

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the point of order will have to come afterwards. Forgive me—I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman—but I am two thirds of the way across the road, and it is arguably hazardous—[Laughter.] I am saving him up, because I think he can wait.

The right hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make his application. I call Mr Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held on Monday 18 June as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours, and it will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the point of order—now that I have successfully crossed the road.

[Ian Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you managed to get to the other side. With regard to the Standing Order No. 24 application we have just heard, I seek your guidance in the interests of the House. Will you look at the application and see whether there are any Standing Orders that would allow Members to add their names to it in case the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is indisposed come Monday? This is the second Standing Order No. 24 application we were due to have from the right hon. Gentleman in two days, and if the subject of this debate is indeed so urgent, perhaps we should have had it more urgently than Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. My understanding—I will interpret his point of order literally and strictly—is that an application is made in the name of a particular Member and cannot be appropriated by another Member. In that sense, and this is a serious point, it is in a different category from an amendment to legislation or a new clause, which might commonly have a number of lead signatories, meaning that in the absence of one, it can be adopted, moved and spoken to by another. That is not the case in relation to a Standing Order No. 24 application, but it is perfectly open to the House to change the procedure if it wishes.

In response to points of order on Tuesday evening, I made the point that it is very common for people to complain about a procedure—including about a Standing Order, as in this case, or a programme motion—when and only when it adversely affects them. I said that there was merit, if people wanted change, in their seeking change during what might be considered as peacetime, so to speak—I think I used that expression—as opposed to waiting for a situation of conflict and then saying, “Oh, this is all very unsatisfactory.”

Inevitably, procedural change is not achieved overnight. I will leave on one side the hon. Gentleman’s little teasing or ribbing of the leader of the Scottish National party Members. I do not in any way take exception to that; I take the hon. Gentleman very seriously. My honest and sincere advice to him is that if he and others feel that the Standing Order should be more broadly drawn, their best recourse is to write to the Chair of the Procedure Committee to invite consideration of that matter. That would then elicit a response, and matters can flow, or not flow, in one direction or another thereafter.

I know that that is a rather dry response to the hon. Gentleman, but these issues can and probably will arise from time to time, and the Standing Order No. 24 procedure is now being used more frequently than it was in the past. Is that something I regret? Absolutely not. It is a very legitimate mechanism to be used. It is not for me to solicit applications, any more than it is for me to solicit urgent questions. I generally find these days that Members require no particular encouragement. There are plenty of such applications, and it is my privilege to look at them, and then, in the case of a Standing Order No. 24 application, to submit it to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that it is for me to interpret proceedings, and to attempt to place my own construction on motivation not publicly declared, but what I would say to the shadow Leader—I think I can say this without fear of contradiction, because it has the advantage of being true, and demonstrably true—is that the Opposition opposed the programme motion. That is a matter of unarguable, incontrovertible fact. There was a Division on the matter, and I was notified by the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), courteously—he was not obliged to notify me, but he did notify me in advance—of an intention to oppose that motion, so it certainly should not be said that the motion was bought into by or was under the ownership of the Opposition. It was a Government programme motion.

I have tried throughout these difficult altercations of the last 24 hours to be scrupulously fair. As I said to Scottish National party Members last night in the presence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Minister was not guilty of any procedural impropriety yesterday at all. He was entirely entitled to speak for the length of time that he did in setting out the Government’s position and indeed, characteristically, taking a very significant number of interventions, including from people who subsequently complained about the fact that they did not have the chance to speak. He was entirely in order and the Government were procedurally perfectly in order to operate as they did in the construction and submission to the vote of the programme motion. The Standing Order is written in that way presumably for a reason, and it has been written, in a sense, and approved with Government support. There was nothing disorderly about that, but it certainly was not the Opposition’s programme motion. It is abundantly clear to me that the Opposition were opposed to the programme motion. I do not think that I need to add anything more beyond that.

[Ian Murray]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to have caught your eye from such an unfamiliar place in the Chamber. We had lengthy points of order yesterday on what the shadow Leader of the House has just intimated, and we were looking forward to the Standing Order No. 24 application today, so that we could represent our constituents on major amendments relating to devolution and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Given that we no longer have that Standing Order No. 24 opportunity because of the childish antics of certain Members of this House from the Scottish National party, I wonder whether, through you, I could ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in his place, whether he would be willing to bring forward a statement in the House today, or first thing tomorrow morning, so that Scottish Members who are here, with their voice, to represent their constituents can make the points about the Sewel convention that were the basis of the Standing Order No. 24 application and so that the SNP cannot gag us as well as themselves on behalf of the people of Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I simply say to him that I do not think I need to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on this point. There is no possibility of a statement on that matter today, even if the Secretary of State were minded to volunteer it. That would interfere with our proceedings in a way that a lot of Members would regard as frankly unsatisfactory. In so far as the hon. Gentleman is seeking some guidance from the Chair, I would say that that would not be appropriate today. Tomorrow is another day. I simply point out, without wanting to venture further into this otherwise hazardous terrain, that even had an Standing Order No. 24 application been successful, the debate would not have been today—it would have been on a subsequent day. The debate would not have allowed any vote on any propositions appertaining to parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; it would simply have been a debate on a “take note” motion. There could be such a debate subsequent to today; tomorrow is another day and let us wait to see what happens.

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, like many Members in this House, have received hundreds, if not thousands, of communications from constituents on this Bill. As many Members from across the House have said, it is the most important issue this House has dealt with since perhaps the second world war. I seek your guidance, but I also seek to put this on the record. It reflects very badly not only on this House but on all parliamentarians of all colours that I cannot represent the thousands of constituents who have contacted me about significant amendments that have been brought forward from the other place because of the time restrictions put in place by the Government programme motion. I know that is not your responsibility as Chair, but if we want politics and Parliaments in this country to thrive, we have to ensure that we present something to the public that allows them to feel, first, that they are engaged and, secondly, that their representatives can take part in debate to make their representations known. We have been unable to do that this evening, and the Government should reflect on the fact that people will be watching these proceedings and will be very upset that their representatives have been unable to contribute.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for the courtesy with which he raised it. What I want to say succinctly to him, and for the benefit of the House and others interested in our proceedings, is that there are matters that admit of discretion and matters that do not. Where there is discretion that can be exercised by the Chair—I say this in no spirit of self-advertisement and am simply trying to put the fact on the record—my instinct, as I have said to a number of colleagues in conversation today, has always been to allow more debate and more votes. If there is a desire for an urgent question and I think it is urgent, I grant it. I have done that on hundreds of occasions during the past nine years. That will please some people and displease others, but I am trying to do the right thing by the House of Commons.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand—I know Ministers will—when I say that the Standing Orders are not accidental. This is not an inadvertent omission or construction of words on the part of those who drafted the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are as they are for a reason, which is that they were drawn up for a purpose and they have been accepted by the House, and they do not admit of any discretion on my part. If I had discretion, no doubt I would exercise it, but I do not. I entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman is telling me, but my advice to him and to others who are similarly concerned—this is a general piece of advice, not specifically in relation to this Bill—is that if they feel strongly that there is an aspect of our procedures that should be handled differently, it is a good idea to address such matters in what I would call “peacetime”, rather than simply raising them in “wartime”. I have never known any Member previously raise this matter with me by way of complaint. Members are now complaining—I am not complaining that they are complaining, as they have every right to complain if they so wish—because it affects them here and now, or it affects the point they want to make, the subject they want to broach or the amendment they want to put to the vote. I have to work on the basis of the Standing Orders as they exist, and that is what I have done. I am not insensitive to the wider point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in offering me advance notice of his intention to raise it. First, let me take this opportunity from the Chair to empathise with the hon. Gentleman and all decent people across the House on this subject. It was a truly appalling incident. I feel a great sense of shame that such an act could have been perpetrated in our country. The hon. Gentleman’s friend and visitor to Parliament must have been very shaken by his experience. The act can have been motivated only by hatred, ignorance or—more likely— an extremely regrettable combination of the two. The matter is under active consideration by the police. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment in detail upon it. In any case, I would not be able to do myself, although I have received a report of the incident.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I take the matter extremely seriously, as, I am sure, do the House authorities. It is absolutely imperative that visitors to this place are—to the best of our ability and that of the police and security staff here—safe from physical attack and abuse. Moreover, I say to the hon. Gentleman that if I am provided with an address, I would like to write, on behalf of the House, to the hon. Gentleman’s visitor to express our regret about the attack that he experienced. I think that we will have to leave it there for today, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for airing the matter.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a convention in this House when a Member of Parliament visits someone else’s constituency that they should write to them, informing them that they have done so. Many Members of Parliament from England may have stayed and dined—or, indeed, drowned their sorrows—in my constituency on Saturday, after the rugby. Now, I do not really want them all to write to me, but I wondered whether there was a mechanism to find out who they were so that I could write to them in order to remind them of the convention, and also maybe to just about gloat about Scotland’s Calcutta cup success on Saturday.

[Mr Speaker]

Far be it from me to rain on the hon. Gentleman’s parade after he has shown such considerable ingenuity and sense of humour to raise this matter. The convention, of course, applies only to visits that are undertaken on official business, but I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I am pleased to say that, so far, no Member of Parliament representing a Manchester constituency has been so unkind as to raise with me the fact of my own team’s defeat at Wembley yesterday.

Point of Order

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this issue has been raised with you before, but I wish to raise it now while the Leader of the House is in her place. Many constituents come to Parliament to meet Ministers and raise significant issues. Many of my constituents have to travel from Edinburgh to London, but no facility is in place to assist them with travel expenses. Jennifer Stewart and Robert Ure came to see a Health Minister after my Adjournment debate about their son who is dying of a brain tumour, and they had to come to London at their own expense this week. Is there any mechanism to look at this issue again, so that those constituents who live furthest from London are not disenfranchised from meeting Ministers and participating in that process?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I am not aware of any current plan to make such provision. However, I have heard what he said, and I am conscious that in a different context the House does provide support—for example, for schoolchildren who visit this place from considerable distances away—and that a subsidy is in place to enable people who might not otherwise come to do so.

Off the top of my head, my sense is that a generalised provision might not find favour among my colleagues on the relevant Committees, and it is likely to be very expensive. However, where there are particular, pressing reasons for someone to come, and where it could be financially prohibitive or cause considerable disadvantage for them to come without assistance, perhaps my colleagues and I could look at that. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to write to me about the matter, I make a commitment that the relevant body in the House, whether that is the Administration Committee, the Finance Committee or, potentially, the House of Commons Commission, will consider the matter. I hope that is helpful and as much as the hon. Gentleman would reasonably expect me to say today. He has raised an important point, and I thank him for doing so.

If there are no further points of order, we come to the first Select Committee statement. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is poised and perched like a panther ready to pounce, will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, the Chair will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and the hon. Gentleman will respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front-Bench Members may take part in questions. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman completed his speech?

[Ian Murray]

I have.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to him. I call Chuka Umunna.

Business without Debate

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In general terms, we expect that if commitments are made to the House, they will be honoured. However, so far as the pragmatics of the matter are concerned, I would say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues two things. First, there will be an opportunity on Report to question and probe Ministers on their intentions, including why they are doing something or, alternatively, not doing something. Secondly, I do not sniff at the concern that the hon. Gentleman has just aired, but it is open to other Members to table amendments on Report. For example, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he was promised a particular amendment on Report and that it is not forthcoming, it is open to him and his colleagues to table such an amendment or something similar, and thereafter to debate the matter.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. During the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill through Committee, Scottish Conservative MP after Scottish Conservative MP said that clause 11 was deficient, but took the assurances of those on the Treasury Bench that amendments would be tabled on Report. Subsequent to that, at Scottish questions, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an undertaking that amendments to fix the deficiencies would come before the House on Report. I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Secretary of State for Scotland that he will come to the House to correct the record and put us straight about when amendments to the Bill, which everyone has admitted is deficient, will be tabled.

[Mr Speaker]

I have had no such indication from any Minister. I think that both hon. Gentlemen, and indeed the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), have been influenced in their thinking and their points of order by what they have seen in parts of the media today. In other words, this matter has been aired today, but it had not been aired to me today before now. Might it be? It might, but Ministers are not ordinarily in the habit of keeping me informed of their legislative intentions. I would therefore simply say that there are the opportunities to which I have just referred and, prior to that—the Report stage of the Bill in question will take place on 16 and 17 January which, in parliamentary terms, is a little way off—there may be other opportunities for Members who feel strongly about this matter to question Ministers, including perhaps in a particular Question Time, or indeed via the obvious mechanism of the business question on Thursday.

Foreign Affairs Committee

Debate between Ian Murray and John Bercow

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is deeply grateful to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) that, by the form of her reference to him, she promoted him to the status of a military general.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the way in which he has chaired the Committee in his first few months in that position, and, indeed, the Minister for the candid way in which he presented the case of the UK Government when he gave evidence to the Committee.

Does my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee agree that this again shows the bluntness of the UN, and shows that it does not have enough tools available to it to deal with these kinds of international crises?