Business of the House

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can undertake to convey that message to Mr Speaker.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is the point of order directly in relation to this business?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to a point of order that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), I seek your guidance on why a Division was not called yesterday. It was clear that there were shouts of both “Aye” and “No”, and it is clear from the Standing Orders that in such a scenario, a Division should be called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I thank him for his point of order. I will simply say this: at the point just after 7 o’clock last night when Questions were put to the House, the noise and turmoil in this Chamber made it impossible for the then occupant of the Chair, my colleague Madam Deputy Speaker—who was doing her best in very difficult circumstances—to ascertain whether she could hear any calls of “No”. She has told me that she could not hear calls of “No”, and she acted accordingly. It is always very easy to go back in hindsight and examine what each of us might have thought happened, but I can assure the House that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances, and that she thought—and I think, too—that she was carrying out the wishes of the House at the time. I was standing beside the Chair at that moment. I appreciate that other people have different views on the matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will accept my assurance that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) wants to say that he does not believe the Committee was motivated by malice and prejudice, we would warmly welcome that correction.

Our special report makes it clear that it is not acceptable for a Member of this House who does not want a particular outcome to seek, by pressure or lobbying, to influence the Committee’s decision. The House, by supporting this motion tonight, will be making it clear that, in such an inquiry, the Committee’s responsibility is to gather the evidence, and that it is the evidence that must prevail. That is the only basis on which a decision should be made. Members must not try to wreck the process by pressing Committee members to resign.

If members of the Committee are not prepared to undertake such inquiries, the House would have no protection from those who mislead it. I have nothing but admiration for my colleagues on the Privileges Committee, particularly the Conservative Members. Despite the pressure they were subjected to, they were unflinching. They came to each of our more than 30 meetings and persisted to the conclusion of the inquiry with a complete and total focus, which was a credit to the House. They gathered the evidence, analysed it and based their decision on it, exactly in the way that the House requires them to. That was then put to the House.

By supporting this motion tonight, the House will be making it clear that when it appoints members to the Committee, those members will have the support of the House to carry out their work. They are doing a worthy thing by serving on the Privileges Committee.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I appreciate what a difficult job the Committee has—I fully respect that—and, of course, the original Chair did recuse himself from the inquiry. When the original report was put before the House, the right hon. and learned Lady stated that she had received assurances from the Government that she would remain in that position, but she did not elaborate on that at the time. Will she therefore use today as an opportunity to inform the House as to what assurances she had been given and by whom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

As has been expressed already, people may have many views on Boris Johnson, but what we are here to discuss is the special report. For me, this is about the sense of disappointment that I felt at not having the opportunity to see or comment on the report in advance, or to clarify, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and others have clearly said. That is an opportunity we would have welcomed, so to find out from the media before the report was published was very disappointing.

Of course, many also use that as a criticism of the previous report: while it may have run to 30,000 words, many of us felt we had already read them on Twitter. Where that has come from we do not know and we cannot say for sure, but it is disappointing that these things leak out, as it is with any business that should be brought before this House first. Of course, as has been mentioned, many Members are not included in the annex. There have been many comments on the make-up of the Committee, the outcome and the processes. People even suggested that the result would be some Conservative stitch-up for Boris Johnson because there is a Conservative majority on the Committee. It has worked both ways. Many accusations will fly around, but many of them will not be true.

One issue I take with the report is its methodology. Seven people here have been chosen, and we are all Brexiteers or vocal supporters of the former Prime Minister. How was that conclusion reached, and how was the annex formed? I think that we have a little more information on how that could be a sample. I welcome that, because it is important that we clarify it. Some of us wonder whether it was done based on the number of complaints, for example. Some of us made interesting comments on social media and perhaps attracted more complaints than others.

Let us remember that we have been through an unprecedented situation. Those are the circumstances we all found ourselves in and why we are here today. We saw the removal of a Prime Minister with a large majority. He was subject to an inquiry, then a sanction was recommended that ultimately led to his resignation as a Member of this House, and his parliamentary pass was taken from him. Those were unprecedented steps to take against a former Prime Minister.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, we are here to debate the report, and I do not want to diverge too much from that, but many have compared the situation to a court of law. As has rightly been said, many have expectations of natural justice on this, but the Privileges Committee is a Committee of the House, not a court. Parliamentary sovereignty is paramount—although I always make the point that the people are truly sovereign in this country—but it is still important that the process is seen to be fair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said so eloquently and far more entertainingly earlier.

Let me go through some of the comments by Members outlined in the annex. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that:

“questions will need to be asked”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington said:

“When the witch hunt has been forgotten, future generations will look back in astonishment.”

At no point does that comment mention the Committee itself or its individual members. Similarly, although I may have made rather robust comments myself, I did not speak about Committee members specifically, and I just want to clear that up.

Likewise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) commented. One comment of hers that was included in the annex was from 15 June at 10.44 am, nearly two hours after the report was released. The report states that Members are free to make whatever comments they wish once the report is final, so why has that comment been referred to in the annex?

Many of us take issue with the annex. I think that we can appreciate the points that are made in the report. Some of us, myself included, would have preferred the whole matter not to have been referred to the Committee in the first place. That is not, of course, the fault of the Committee members themselves. As I have stated on numerous occasions and in many media interviews, I fully respect the job that they had to do. It was important that they be left to get on with it. I also did not comment specifically on the report until it was published, but my constituents would expect me to question it and to scrutinise the events leading up to it.

At this point, I thank the members of the Committee. Theirs was a thankless task, and whatever decision they came to—be it on this or any other matter—they simply could not win. I thank them for their service in delivering the report, and even though I do not agree with its conclusions or the sanctions, I respect the fact that they were in that position. I urge others outside the House to do the same. I hope that we can bring the matter to a close after this evening.

Any comments that I made with regard to the resignation of the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip were related to comments that he made in his statement, not to the full report itself. I want to clarify that. I did not, of course, have a copy of the report until it was released. At that point, we were free to comment on it. That relates to my tweet of 9 June, which is mentioned in the annex to the special report.

I believe that it was our responsibility as parliamentarians to read and respond to the original report. I have been honoured to be a member of numerous Select Committees in my time, and I would expect to do the same for any such report when it is published, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said. I believe that effective scrutiny is one of the great strengths of this institution. I would not want that to change. The report itself states that its conclusions were not influenced and no intimidation occurred.

On the importance of scrutiny by Members, I hope the House will excuse me if I paraphrase the great quote from “Gladiator”: “Is this not why we are here?” We are here to scrutinise this House; we are here to scrutinise the work that we do. We must do that respectfully. It is the point of our being here. I am not quite in as good a shape as Russell Crowe was in that movie—certainly not since putting on the parliamentary stone.

Although respect for the House and for process is important, we must also be able to engage and scrutinise where relevant. I strongly refute the idea that I or other Members impugned or deliberately impugned the integrity of the Committee. I therefore clarify once again that any comments made prior to full publication were directed not at them or the ongoing inquiry specifically, but at the circumstances surrounding the unprecedented situation that we all found ourselves in.

I want to talk about our international reputation and what it looks like to others. Democracy in this country is very much a beacon—as is this House—and something that people look to and admire, and we should uphold it, with free speech, due process, and free and fair accountability in the face of despotic regimes around the world. I want that to continue. I was very disappointed by one amendment—I am pleased that it was not selected—because that would have set a poor example to people. I found it neither liberal nor democratic. I am proud to be a Member of this House and to serve my Bassetlaw constituents. The events of the last few weeks have left me disappointed that the issues that they care about are being sidelined in order for politicians to criticise other politicians for criticising politicians. We owe it to our constituents to do better.

This week I saw GB News refer to a number of us, with a mocked-up poster, as the “Magnificent Seven”. I suppose one thing that we have in common with the characters in that film is that we all want to keep our villagers happy, and that is certainly a good start. I probably ought to end the comparisons at that point, as I believe that there are only three of them left at the end of the film, and I am hoping that a full seven of us remain by the end of the debate. We have certainly heard some powerful contributions. I respect this House, and I hope now that we can all come together for a far happier ending.

Business of the House

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I happily join the hon. Lady in praising Geraldine and the organisation VASLan. We know that by ensuring that people have that social engagement, we also ensure that they are healthier and we improve their quality of life. It is fundamental that everyone has a social network and support, and I thank her for her work to ensure that that is the case for all her constituents.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to sport and its many benefits, including those linked to health and wellbeing. This is a special weekend in Bassetlaw, as the men’s team for SJR Worksop football club takes on Retford United in a game that we locally call “El Bassico”. SJR Worksop also runs many teams for youngsters in our area, but unfortunately, at this time of year, it faces the challenge of finding suitable all-weather surfaces to play on. Despite its size, many youngsters from Worksop have to travel to neighbouring areas to find a 3G pitch to play on. I am therefore calling on the council to get its act together and help to provide our local youngsters with the leisure facilities that they deserve. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of public sporting facilities and their benefits to health and wellbeing?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an incredibly important point and wish him luck in getting his local authority to focus on that unmet need and to make that investment. It sounds like an excellent topic for an Adjournment debate, for which he knows how to apply.

Business of the House

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Secretary of State’s presence on the Front Bench has saved me a stamp, as he will have heard the hon. Lady’s request.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

We have two outstanding Outwood academies in Worksop, and they are oversubscribed as a result. They are a testament to this Government’s policies, but we also have an outstanding independent school, Worksop College, which does excellent partnership work with many local schools. Many parents are concerned about Labour’s policy to add 20% VAT on fees, effectively mounting an attack on aspiration. Pupils leaving the independent sector will need places in state education, depriving more children of the opportunity to go to a local school. The Independent Schools Council’s report suggests that the policy, which Labour claims would raise £1.7 billion, would actually lose £400 million. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the benefits of independent schools to wider society?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The fact that the issue is being debated and that its profile has been raised as a result of Labour party policy is an opportunity for the independent sector. Some schools do a huge amount for other schools and for their community—this is their opportunity to talk about it.

Business of the House

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue, and I pay tribute to his work; he is a long-standing campaigner on these issues of religious freedom and those who are persecuted around the world. I would give him advice on how to be heard in this Chamber, but he is the master of getting across his message in this Chamber, and I wish him well in continuing to deliver.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party kidney group, I would also like to wish all the best to people celebrating World Kidney Day and raising awareness. I wish to add my voice to the calls for a discussion on bullying in the workplace, which is an incredibly serious issue regarding the former Speaker of this House. I would like to go away from that uncontrollable explosion of negative energy and move to something a little more positive: clean, cheap, renewable, positive energy. Of course, I refer to the STEP— Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production—fusion project, which we want to bring to Bassetlaw and West Burton A. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the STEP project and, ideally, bringing it to north Nottinghamshire?

[Mark Spencer]

Asking three questions is probably testing the patience of the Deputy Speaker. Fusion is potentially a world-changing energy source, which could help to sustain a low-carbon economy of the future. More widely, we are increasing research and development, spending £22 billion by 2026—this is the fastest ever uplift. At the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £120 million for advanced nuclear technologies, through the future nuclear enabling fund. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue championing West Burton at every opportunity so that it can benefit from this investment.

Business of the House

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously the treatment of children is crucially important, and dialysis is a remarkable, successful and now well-established treatment. The specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman sounds very suitable for an Adjournment debate, so I would point him towards you, Mr Speaker.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Tomorrow will see the star-studded extravaganza that is Worksop’s Got Talent, and we even have a member of S Club 7 coming to be one of the judges. Worksop’s Got Talent has raised about £40,000 so far for Retina UK, which helps to support people with inherited progressive sight loss. The organiser, James Clarke, himself has retinitis pigmentosa. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on inherited progressive sight loss, and will he wish Worksop’s Got Talent all the best for tomorrow?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to wish Worksop’s Got Talent every success and every good fortune for tomorrow, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will tune in to find out what happens. I hope that everyone involved experiences an enjoyable as well as a successful event. £40,000 is a great deal of money to raise for an extraordinarily worthy cause. I note from what my hon. Friend said that James Clarke, who is organising the event, is affected by retinitis pigmentosa, and therefore has a strong interest in ensuring its success. I think I understand, Mr Speaker: people have to reach for the stars.

Business of the House

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

This week, I spoke to the landlord of the King William Inn at Scaftworth in Bassetlaw about our plans to allow pubs and restaurants to reopen from 4 July. With social distancing in place, many will find a metre by using a yard. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of our pubs and the measures with which we can help them to bounce back from covid-19?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent question, because I think there is a very easy answer in pubs, and that is that people should go back to drinking a yard of ale. If they drink a yard of ale, they will maintain social distancing while enjoying an extra-large drink to celebrate the fact that they are back in the pub.