Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because Question 1 was closed, there was no opportunity to follow up that particular point about the west midlands. Is it possible to put it on the record that, if there had been an opportunity, Labour Members—certainly I and other hon. Members from the west midlands—would have restated that public services have been crippled in the west midlands as a result of the Tory cuts? That should be said, as there was no opportunity to respond to the Prime Minister’s answer.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point with force. It will be recorded in the Official Report and may then, if he so wishes, be more widely disseminated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That is correct. I do not want to have a long debate about this. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) was standing. I did not seek to call a supplementary on the closed question. The Chair makes a judgment about the best means by which to progress the business of the House and to maximise the opportunities for participation at Question Times in general and at the heavily subscribed Prime Minister’s Question Time in particular. I had, of course, given thought to that matter in advance, and I decided that I would move from the closed question to the engagements question from Mr Richard Drax. Believe me, I had made the mental calculations about numbers, and I think it was the right judgment.

There was not an opportunity on the closed question. More widely, I would simply say that colleagues might have noticed that, on this occasion and conscious of the very large number of people wanting to contribute, I ran proceedings on somewhat longer than normal. There is no debate offering the opportunity for valedictory speeches at the end of this Parliament, as there was at the end of the last Parliament. I make no complaint about that; I am simply saying that there is to be, as I understand it, no such opportunity. I thought that the mood of today was that as many Members as could reasonably be called should be called, perhaps particularly, although not exclusively, with regard to those who have announced their intention to leave the House. We ran on a bit, to which I reply, “So what?”

[Mr Winnick]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In order that there should be no misunderstanding, because the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) gave the strong impression that I was not standing, I was desperately trying to catch your eye. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman and I have all the differences in the world, I am sure, but I have always looked on him as a person of integrity. I would be most grateful if he would clarify the position.

Sky/21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No one could accuse the Secretary of State of overstatement.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Even if the notorious phone hacking had never taken place—if we were totally unaware of such events—is the Secretary of State aware that such a concentration of media ownership as is being proposed would be simply unacceptable? Also, is it not interesting that although reference has been made to some kind of witch hunt by Labour Members, there do not seem to be many Tories, except one, willing to defend Murdoch?

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would appear that there has been no change in the processes of the House as a result of the change at the Table—that is, no wigs, which I very much welcome; I wish it had happened a long time ago. With regard to the message received from the Queen—from the Head of State—that occurred at the very beginning of our proceedings, I wonder whether the message could be communicated to the House by you, Sir, instead of the Whip coming in with the stick, and the rest of it.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is that the message that is delivered comes from the Government, and so I do not see that there would be an obvious logic in its being delivered by me. [Interruption.] I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but Her Majesty communicates through Ministers, and that is what has happened. With regard to his other observation, I note what he has said. Without my rehearsing the whole issue, he will know that the request for a change came from the Clerk of the House and his senior colleagues, and it was agreed to unanimously by members of the House of Commons Commission. When I responded to points of order, I made no bones about the fact that I welcomed that change, but it was proposed by others and agreed by the Commission, chaired by me.

[Mr Winnick]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Needless to say, I agree entirely with what you said about the wigs. On the procedure at the beginning, despite the explanation you gave, on the advice of the Clerk, as I understand it, I wonder whether it could be altered so that there is more emphasis on the message from the Head of State—from the Queen—rather than all the attention being on the Whip coming in, whether he will be able to march backwards without difficulty, and the rest of it. It does not give the impression of a modernised House of Commons.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have made the point before, and I am happy to repeat it—I think that most people, certainly including the hon. Gentleman, will accept it—that change in this place comes about by the will of the House, and it is right that that should be the case. If he wishes to initiate a process of attempted change, it is absolutely open to him to do so and for the case to be argued either way. I think we will leave it there for today.

Business of the House

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am always willing to offer birthday congratulations to young people, Mr Speaker, be it to you or your chaplain.

Why is there constant delay and evasion in the Government bringing a motion before the House on the renewal of the parliamentary building? I know about the debate in Westminster Hall next Wednesday, but why is there the delay? Is it not essential for a decision to be reached so that, if a general election is to take place in 2020, those elected will know that they will not be sitting in this building and that the work will be carried out without Members or staff being present, which, hopefully, will mean that it will be completed in a much shorter time than if evacuation does not take place?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be in his place on his birthday, which, if memory serves, is 26 June. We look forward to that and to his undertaking his usual interrogation at that time.

HMP Birmingham

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is very clear that the Prison Service is in a state of acute crisis, and it is a pity that the Secretary of State is not willing to admit that. Why was G4S involved in staffing the prison in the first place? We should look at its past. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), an illustrious Government Whip, is very excited in the approach to his wedding. I advise him that the descent on him of a Zen-like calm will aid his preparations.

[Mr Winnick]

G4S was the organisation that had to pay back £109 million to the Secretary of State’s own Department for overcharging. There were problems in the Medway secure training centre, the Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre and many other cases where this organisation has been involved. It is time that G4S was told very clearly that it is no longer needed in our Prison Service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is very reassuring.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

A person has been convicted and will spend the rest of his life in prison for the murder of four young men. Is the Home Secretary aware of that murder, and is she aware that if the police in London had acted differently, two of those lives might well have been saved? It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Met, when investigating murder, seems on occasions to model itself on Inspector Clouseau.

Point of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you do anything about the fact that the Home Office is not observing named days? On 17 October, the Home Secretary made a statement on the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, in the course of which she said that she had passed on a request that Dame Lowell Goddard should appear before the Home Affairs Committee—as you know, Dame Lowell Goddard had resigned as the inquiry’s chair. I put down a named day written question to the Home Secretary asking if she would put the relevant correspondence with Dame Lowell Goddard in the Library. There was an interim reply saying that the Home Office was unable to answer the question on that particular day. A few days later I therefore put down another question, due for answer yesterday, asking when the Home Secretary would make a substantive reply to the first question. There has been no reply at all.

The Home Office, as I understand the position, seems to be in such a state of crisis about written questions that it is not able to answer them—unless it does not want to provide an answer in the first place. This seems quite simple to me: the Home Secretary could say that she had placed the correspondence in the Library or else say what she meant when she said what she had passed on the information. It is hardly a complex question, so why do I have to raise a point of order with you, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

It is a very curious state of affairs to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. If he has a wider concern about overall response rates to questions it is of course open to him to write to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, which keeps an eye on these matters. In relation to this particular question, the situation seems rather curious. However, experience tells me that when a Member raises his or her disquiet about a lengthy delay in securing a reply to a parliamentary question, that reply is, thereafter, ordinarily forthcoming very quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt on that matter, he can always have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has found it expedient to complain from time to time and has then secured very quick replies. The Leader of the House will have the hon. Gentleman’s interests at heart and I think a solution will be found, possibly within hours.

[Mr Winnick]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will persist if that does not happen.

[Mr Speaker]

If I may very politely say so, that observation was superfluous, in the sense that I do not think that any Member of the House would have expected anything less of the hon. Gentleman. He is nothing if not persistent and tenacious to a fault.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reports have come in that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is standing for the leadership of my party, has had her constituency windows broken, and the police have confirmed that such an incident has taken place. Can we take this opportunity to deplore such hooliganism and thuggery, whoever commits it and whichever party is involved? It is totally unacceptable, and one hopes that the police will apprehend the culprit as quickly as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is not strictly in any procedural sense a matter for the Chair, but it is in one respect because, in common with all colleagues, the Chair believes in democracy and the peaceful exchange of opinion. We are a pluralist society, and if people think that they will get their way through violence, threats and intimidation, they will soon find themselves wrong. If I may say so, no one is more suited to making that point than someone who has served as a democratic parliamentarian for as long as the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Winnick]

It is nice to agree with my hon. Friend for once.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself.

I very much appreciate what the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) has just said. If it is possible for me to pop in, I will try to do so, although I am not sure what the hours of this event are.

Business of the House

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

May I tell the Leader of the House that the contribution of my somewhat younger parliamentary colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), is an illustration of how the “Dad’s Army” here is always willing to give whatever assistance is necessary when firm leadership is lacking on both sides, as it is at present? On a more serious note that arises from various exchanges about the referendum result since Monday, would it not be useful for us to have an early debate on the alienation and resentment that are felt in so many parts of the country—certainly in the black country boroughs—which led, to a large extent, to the slight majority for leaving the EU? In the past few months and perhaps longer, the House of Commons has not understood sufficiently that feeling of resentment and alienation.

[Mr Speaker]

I ought to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, somewhat belatedly, on his recent birthday. Off the top of my head—if I am wrong, he will tell me—I think his birthday was last Sunday.

[Mr Winnick]

Indeed. One more step towards the century.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to say, before the hon. Gentleman develops his case, that although I absolutely understand that he speaks for his party from the Front Bench and is entitled to develop his case, I would gently point out that another seven Members wish to contribute, several of whom sat on the Committee, and I most certainly wish to include the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is not a criticism, but I am sure he will tailor his contribution to take account of that fact.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will there be time for us to have a Third Reading debate and for those of us opposed to the Bill to show our opposition?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we all know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) cannot be vetoed. He never has been, and he never will be.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Earlier questions have referred to the middle east, and to deploring extremism wherever it may be found. Is it not a matter of grave concern that the new Israeli Defence Minister is extremely right-wing and ultra-nationalist? He said last year that what he described as “disloyal” Israeli Arabs should be beheaded. Does that not illustrate how far the Israeli Government have gone in their extremism and their rejection of any idea of a two-state solution, and should that not be condemned?

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have such a person. I can say only that I shall always profit by the counsels of the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it on an unrelated matter?

[Mr Winnick]

The same matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know that there is more to add, but I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt—he is a very experienced Member. I have tried to treat of this matter fairly and factually, but of course I will take a point of order from the hon. Gentleman if he persists.

[Mr Winnick]

The point of order I wish to raise with you, Mr Speaker, is simply this: in view of the obvious contempt that this person has shown for the House of Commons, would it not be appropriate for him to appear at the Bar of the House? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] There have been occasions in the past when that has occurred, and the House of Commons has shown that it will not tolerate such contempt. I put it to you that that could perhaps be considered as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I recognise that there are historical precedents, but it is only right for me to say that it is not for me to make any such decision. If we were to get to that point, and I am not suggesting that we shall do so—I am not seeking to anticipate events—that would be a matter for the House to decide, but I hope that I have dealt fairly, squarely and intelligibly with the important matter that the Chair of the Select Committee and others have raised.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Not yet, says the leader of the Liberal Democrats from a sedentary position. I read the journal myself occasionally when I was a school student, but I readily concede that it has not passed my desk since. If there is confusion about the matter, it is best that that is dispelled. My advice to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) in all seriousness is that he should wend his way to the Table Office and table a written question on the matter. If, when he receives a response, the fog has not lifted, I have a feeling that he will turn up at business questions on a Thursday to press for an early statement or debate on that matter. He is nothing if not dogged, and I feel sure that he will pursue his objective with the fixity of purpose that is required.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If I remember correctly, you said that in your youth you read the Socialist Worker. Would it be right to come to the conclusion that having read that revolutionary journal, you decided to become a Tory?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman may be correct in that surmise. A young lad at my secondary school was a devoted seller of that paper, and another young lad was also a devoted seller of the paper and has since become a distinguished academic, but as far as I know, he no longer adheres to the precepts of the Socialist Workers party. Did reading that paper make me a Tory? Probably. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for his point of order and for his sense of humour.

bill presented

Blood Donor (Equality) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Tim Farron, supported by Michael Fabricant, presented a Bill to make provision about the conditions to be met by male blood donors, including removing the restrictions relating to blood donation from men who have sexual intercourse with men; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 130).

ISIL in Syria

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a number of occasions complaints have been received from the public, particularly about Prime Minister’s questions. What do you think the public make of it when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is shouted down constantly by those on the Government Benches?

[Mr Speaker]

I think what the public want is a civilised, although robust, debate by Members on both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman, a very experienced Member, for that point of order. Let us proceed without fear or favour. I call Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said. I take note of her health advice, but there have to be exceptions and I wanted to be here to hear every speech. I thank colleagues for what overall I must say was the remarkably decent and gracious tone that characterised the contributions over several hours.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put on record that it is unlikely that any previous Speaker has ever done what you have done today: sit throughout without a single break? I think the whole House should congratulate you.

Tax Credits

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The matters that are currently in dispute are inevitably of what I will call a high-octane character. In such circumstances, if I may very politely and respectfully say so to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it helps matters if the Chair adds in substantive terms, without exceptionally good reason, to the total number of evaluative comments that have already been made. I think it would be better not to do so. I do jealously guard the rights of this House, but I have to rest with what I have said—that nothing procedurally improper has taken place. Let us wait to see how matters are taken forward. As I said to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) last week, in the final analysis each House knows what its powers are and are not.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I wonder whether it would be in order for a motion to be debated on the Floor of the House congratulating the House of Lords on what it decided yesterday.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and I do not demur from it. It is an extremely important matter and he is perfectly properly concerned with the rights of Members. If he wants to know, at this time, my own view on the matter, he can of course consult paragraph 21 of the judgment, which reflects my own view based on expert legal advice. If the right hon. Gentleman feels, as I suspect the right hon. Member for Gordon does, that there is still real ambiguity about this matter, they must use their parliamentary wiles to draw Ministers on the matter. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who celebrates this year, I think, 28 years’ uninterrupted service in the House, is very well familiar with all the options open to him. There are Adjournment debates, opportunities for urgent questions and Opposition days. There is a miscellany of ways in which he can pursue this matter, and I have a hunch that he and others will do so.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I could be wrong, but I believe I was in the House when the Wilson doctrine was set out, and I would be very disappointed indeed if the absolute integrity set out by the then Prime Minister were to be changed in any way. I hope you understand the strength of feeling on this issue. We should not be spied on in any circumstances. This is also not just about us, but about recognising our responsibilities as elected representatives. I hope that you yourself, Mr Speaker, can make an input to ensure that the Wilson doctrine is not thrown out, because that would be a grave disservice to Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Of course, I am conscious that he was here at the time of its formulation. He entered the House in 1966 and he and I have often discussed this matter, so he does speak from some considerable personal experience. The fact that I am concerned about the issue is reflected in my letter and submission to the tribunal, so although I am making the point that it would not be right for the Chair to engage in a debate in this Chamber on the substance of the issue, I do have views. I am protective of the rights of Members and any potential threat thereto, and I do communicate as necessary on the matter. I am very open to hearing the thoughts of colleagues, privately as well as in this Chamber, about the issue.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and happen rather strongly to agree with him. For what it is worth, if colleagues are interested, I know from my pretty extensive visits around the country that it is clear that there is a divide at the Beltway, particularly between those who observe our proceedings and would be more than happy for there to be a fistfight as it would lead to a headline but are not remotely interested in the detail of scrutiny, and those who make up the mass of the public, who are interested in robust but respectful exchange of opinion between elected public servants. I am with the hon. Gentleman and I think the bulk of the public are, too, and those who took part in Prime Minister’s questions in that way yesterday. It is important that Back-Bench participation should be maximised, so we have to try to ensure that there is plenty of time for Back Benchers to put their questions and get their answers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by what he witnessed yesterday and by what he has heard from me today.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Without in any way disagreeing with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) or yourself, in view of some of the controversy over PMQs, and making no comment whatsoever about what happened yesterday, may I say—perhaps you will fully agree—that PMQs is a unique feature of our parliamentary democracy? Many countries would for the Leader of the Opposition and Back Benchers to be able to question the Government at least once a week. I, like my hon. Friend, am certainly not happy with the Prime Minister’s response over the years, but we should be very careful not to denigrate this feature of parliamentary life. We should be pleased that it exists, and that should be put on the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I personally see no contradiction between what he has said and some of the criticisms of the way in which PMQs have been conducted in recent years. He knows that we live in a world in which it is often expected, particularly by our friends in the media, that there is a simple yes/no, like/dislike, agree/disagree, black/white attitude to life. In fact, it is perfectly possible enthusiastically to support the idea of a Prime Minister’s question session for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman gives, namely that there are many countries around the world in which the Prime Minister is not required to come to the House each week to respond to questions—I have met people in those countries, politicians and members of civil society, who say that they wish it had to happen as it does here—while believing that the debate should be conducted robustly but in a courteous fashion. I do not think that there is a contradiction between those two things. When I am asked whether I am in favour of PMQs, I say that I am in favour of it but that I would like it to be better. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which requires no response from me.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it possible that we are being unfair to Conservative Members? Is there not a possibility that most of them did not hear the Division bell for various reasons? In those circumstances, is there not a case for the Division to be called again for absolute clarification?

[Mr Speaker]

Far be it from me to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is trying to cause trouble—I would not suggest anything of the kind to such an illustrious and long-serving Member—but he has made his own point in his own way. He has a puckish grin on his face and I think he enjoyed it.

Anderson Report

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are extremely sensitive and often complicated matters of which the House is treating with great care. I point out that we have another statement to follow. I want to accommodate colleagues, but somewhat greater succinctness is required.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The overwhelming majority of the population at the time would no doubt have supported 90 days pre-charge detention. It is the job of the House of Commons to determine what is right—to get the right balance between the acute danger of terrorism and civil liberties, not to talk about what the large majority of the public may or may not want. We are elected to make the decision that we consider to be correct. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary intends to bring in a measure—rightly, in my view, described as the snoopers charter—which the previous Government could not introduce in the last Parliament because their coalition partner would not agree? As far as I am concerned—obviously, there will be a good deal of controversy about this—the snoopers charter is a greater affront to civil liberties than any measure that has been introduced or proposed in recent years.

Undercover Policing

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me first explain that I am taking these points of order untypically now, rather than later, because they spring directly out of the business that we have just dealt with. On the last point from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the short answer is that I do not know, but I feel that I should be made aware. Inquiries can and will be made.

In response to the right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), I think I can offer the assurance he seeks. In response to him and to the right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary, I should perhaps say this, which I think is at least as strong as is sought and possibly stronger. I have no doubt that the permanent authorities of the House—the Clerk and the Speaker’s Counsel—will not wait to be asked, but will proactively take steps to ensure that the concerns of the House are fully understood by Lord Justice Pitchford and his team. This is an extremely serious matter.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe reference has been made so far to the promise made by Harold Wilson when he was Prime Minister that the telephone conversations of Members of Parliament would not be intercepted in any way. May we work on the assumption, bearing in mind what has come out, that this continues to be the position? If the position of Members of Parliament has been undermined in the way we have heard about today, we do not know whether Harold Wilson’s pledge continues to apply.

[Mr Speaker]

In response to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel there is anything more I can add. There is a sense in which his point of order contains a rhetorical question. He has aired his concern, which is widely shared. I am not in a position to allay that concern today, but it is very clear that it is a concern that I share 100% from the Chair on behalf of the House. This matter will not go away.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), but may I just make the point that the more Ministers visit my constituency, the more my support grows? I am making no complaint.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I repeat the point I have often made. The hon. Gentleman has served without interruption in the House since 1979, so it is coming up to 36 years in the House without a break. Before that, he served for four years in a different constituency from 1966 to 1970. The hon. Gentleman is now a celebrated denizen of this House and he must be doing something right.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The day would not be complete without a further point of order.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Oh—without further points of order. We must take them.

[Mr Winnick]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I say, with due modesty—[Laughter.] Characteristic modesty, should I say? Despite my two years’ national service, I do not wish to be referred to as “gallant”?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has never sought any particular acknowledgment. I do not want to embarrass him, because this is something of a tribute to him, but he is the only Member of the House I have ever come across who has phoned the organisers of a parliamentary awards competition to protest at his inclusion on the shortlist and to demand his removal. He certainly cannot be accused of seeking prizes or special recognition, and I respect that.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but he is getting a bit beyond himself. I have said that the debate is about the regulations. I have been very fair and quite fulsome in my responses to colleagues’ inquiries, to try to give straight answers. We should probably leave it there—

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Except, of course, that I cannot refuse to take a point of order from somebody who first entered the House in 1966.

[Mr Winnick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think there is general agreement that what has emerged from these points of order has not in any way improved the reputation of the House of Commons. You said a few moments ago that we should know precisely what we are debating, and that the public outside certainly will not. Do you therefore feel that there is a case for the sitting to be suspended for a short period in order—given the usual way in which these matters are looked on by the usual channels—for us to have clarification before the debate begins? I emphasise that the reputation of the House of Commons is not so high that we should go through this farce.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I always treat what he says with great seriousness and respect. The reason I do not think we should travel that route is first that we are where we are and, as I have said, I think pragmatically that we should deal with the circumstances that exist. Secondly, a business of the House motion will give people the chance to say their piece on the allocation of time and, with latitude, more widely on the handling of these matters—matters to which I think we should now progress.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am always most courteous to the hon. Gentleman as, to be fair, is he to me and to the House, but I think I have indulged him sufficiently for today.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of the exchanges we have just heard remind me of the controversy over whether the House should be televised. I voted in favour of that, and I am glad we did that. Some of the reservations expressed today were not really justified.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I think I will leave it there. In passing, however, I note and congratulate him on what is now 39 years’ service in the House. I think I am right about that—four years from ’66 to ’70, and 35 years since ’79—so unless my arithmetic is flawed, he has only one more year to get to 40.

Point of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

The Minister shakes his head. I can well understand his embarrassment, because we are constantly told that we are all in it together. Why can we not have a statement about what is happening in the banking industry? If the Minister is not willing to respond to my point of order, may I suggest that we should have some opportunity to raise the issue in the Chamber?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand that Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who may be thought to have some interest in the matter, will be answering questions in the Chamber next week, and that the tabling of Treasury questions will take place next Wednesday. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is always useful to have a bit of information, and I therefore proffer that to him and to the House.

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and the Exchequer Secretary has certainly heard it—

[Mr Winnick]

But has remained silent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has not chosen to respond. We do not always have debates by means of point-of-order exchanges. However, the point has been registered very forcefully, and Ministers will be conscious of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The hon. Gentleman is an extremely ingenious character. I feel sure that he will be present at business questions, and—I say this in the friendliest possible spirit—I know that when he has a bone in his mouth, he is inclined to chew on it, and to chew on it relentlessly. I feel sure that that is what he will do in this instance.

If there are no further points of order, we will come now to the ten-minute rule motion, and to the ever-patient Mr Benedict Gummer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Mr David Winnick—[Interruption.] Order. Can we have a bit of hush and a bit of courtesy? The hon. Gentleman happened not to hear me call him, which is perfectly understandable.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Q14. One of the domestic objectives of the second world war was to bring about a fairer society in Britain. Is the Prime Minister aware how wrong it is for him and the Chancellor, who have never had any form of financial insecurity, to pursue policies that hit the most hard-pressed and most vulnerable—the millions of people in our society, many of whom are on low pay, who find it difficult to feed and clothe their children? What is happening is totally unacceptable, and I find it contemptible.

Point of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 September at Defence questions, I asked the Defence Secretary about a UK firm granted a licence to sell chemicals to Syria in 2012. The licence was revoked because of tougher EU sanctions. In reply, the Defence Secretary admitted that the export licences had been granted for some industrial chemicals that could have been used in processes that might be involved in the production of poisonous gases in Syria, but stated that no such chemicals were exported because the licences were revoked.

Yesterday the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who chairs the Committees on Arms Export Controls, wrote to the Business Secretary saying that the Defence Secretary’s statement in answer to my question was in direct contradiction to what the Business Secretary had written previously to the Chairman of the Committee. That letter of 10 April this year said that although the order had been revoked because of tougher EU sanctions, that could not stop shipments of chemicals already sent to Syria.

I put it to you, Sir, that the Defence Secretary inadvertently did not give me accurate information and could inadvertently have misled the House. In those circumstances, I ask for your help so that the position can be rectified and the Defence Secretary may come to the House to explain it.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I feel sure that the point of order will be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State judges that in the circumstances a clarification or, indeed, a correction is required, bearing in mind that each and every one of us is responsible for his or her statements in this House, there are a number of ways in which that can be achieved. I suggest that at this stage, now that the point has been aired and will shortly be heard by the target audience of the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman exercises modest patience and awaits the development of events. Knowing him as well as I do—he is a superb parliamentarian of enormous experience—I feel sure that if he is dissatisfied we will not have heard the last of it. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

While the Leveson inquiry was perfectly justified in view of the scandalous behaviour of some of the press, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a good deal of concern not from the usual quarters but from the regional press, who were not involved in the scandals, from the New Statesman—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am always loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but at this stage we are talking about girls’ participation in sport.

[Mr Winnick]

I thought it was open questions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of getting his thoughts across on the matter in the course of the day.

Mau Mau Claims (Settlement)

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Terrible things were undoubtedly done on both sides, but may I tell the Foreign Secretary that many of us opposed from the start what we considered to be a totally unnecessary colonial war, as, indeed, we opposed what happened in Cyprus at around 1960? Although I would not normally quote Enoch Powell, because of the outburst in 1968 and other matters, in the debate on 27 July 1959 on the murder of 11 African detainees, he said:

“We cannot say, ‘We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home’…We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.”—[Official Report, 27 July 1959; Vol. 610, c. 237.]

For once, Enoch Powell was right.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Foreign Secretary will remember that Denis Healey described the speech in his autobiography as the greatest parliamentary speech he ever heard, carrying all the moral force of Demosthenes.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Would it be appropriate to record the fact that, 100 years ago today, Emily Davison was very seriously injured while campaigning for the right of women to vote? As a result of those injuries, she died four years later. In praising her, should we not also record all who campaigned, including the suffragettes who went to prison and were forcibly fed, simply for the right to have the same vote and democratic rights as men? As far as you know, Mr Speaker, has there been any apology at all from the two political parties that did their best at the time to deny half the adult population their democratic right?

[Mr Speaker]

It was perfectly reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to this very significant anniversary, as he has just done. I think I am right in saying that, in recognition of the significance of the anniversary and of the great contribution to public life of Emily Wilding Davison, an event is to take place in Westminster Hall early tomorrow evening, as a result of the prodigious last-minute efforts of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), of which I was kept well informed. In fact, it is my intention to join in on the occasion.

So far as the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is concerned, I cannot say I am aware of any of the matters he describes, but it would be unseemly of me to comment further.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can help in any way. There have been reports of gruesome practices by the Metropolitan police, which have not been denied, whereby the names of dead children have been used by undercover police agents. I put it to you that this is not simply a matter of applying for an Adjournment debate or even going to the Home Affairs Committee, which I believe is looking into the matter. I would hope that the Home Secretary would come to the House and give an explanation. As I understand it, one of the children who died was a boy of four, and another died in a car crash. Again, I emphasise that the Metropolitan police have not denied that the practice took place, although they have not confirmed it. I believe that the House is due an explanation.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. As an experienced Member he knows that it is for Ministers to decide whether to come to the House to make a statement, but the Home Secretary will, I feel sure, be conscious of these matters and may feel that their seriousness warrants a statement sooner rather than later.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s extreme strength of feeling on this matter, I do not see a point of order there. I also think he is in some danger of veering or trending into areas that are essentially sub judice and I would urge him to be cautious about that. I know that he will find other ways in which to pursue his concerns on this matter and I am sure that will happen.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said that owing to the limitations of time a number of Members could not be called and we all understand that. We cannot change time. You will have heard the strength of feeling, however, on the Palestinian/Israeli issue that was expressed from Members on both sides of the House about what the Israelis intend to do, which is totally unacceptable. Will there be an opportunity before the Christmas recess to raise that question, as the next Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions will take place well into next year?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There are various possibilities. First, there is the business question on Thursday morning, at which Members can seek an assurance from the Leader of the House about debating time before Christmas. Secondly, it is open to any hon. Member to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate in short order. Thirdly, there are other mechanisms open to Members if they seek to engage Ministers in further exchanges on such matters. I say that without prejudice, but I hope that it is a helpful reply to the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly conscious of his strength of feeling and a wider sense of it within the House.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members should calm down. It is impossible for me not to see the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), but because he is so enthusiastic, he will have to curb his enthusiasm. I call Mr David Winnick.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, there is considerable concern about the violence inflicted on Gaza by Israeli forces and about the civilian casualties. In the last few days, we have seen pictures of young children who have burned to death. It is therefore important for this House to debate the issue as quickly as possible. Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Tuesday on this very urgent humanitarian issue?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am happy to confirm that I have been advised that the Foreign Secretary will indeed make a statement on these matters tomorrow. Ordinarily, hon. and right hon. Members might have hoped for a statement today, but it would be fair to say that, as some will know and others might not, the Foreign Secretary is in Brussels today, discussing these very matters. At the first opportunity tomorrow, the House will expect to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, and I feel sure that the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) will be in his customary place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kelvin Hopkins. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask a question. Well, it will have to wait for another time; fair enough. I call Mr David Winnick.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I hope that the nation will appreciate that, Mr Speaker.

Is it not of interest that both United States presidential candidates have emphasised in the debates that took place between them their support for sanctions rather than any military strike against the Iranian regime? Does not that very largely express the mood in the United States, let alone here, that warmongering, which unfortunately some people are involved in—certainly not the Foreign Secretary—would be wrong and counter-productive?

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for his point of order, and for notice of it. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for his follow-up. Let me first say, for the benefit of both the right hon. Member for Neath and the House, that, as he will recall, my concern was that Members who wish to table an early-day motion upon this matter should be free to do so in terms that reflect their beliefs—and it was then up to them to seek support from other Members of the House, which, indeed, was forthcoming in very substantial number. I note the thanks the right hon. Gentleman has given, but I simply thought I was doing my democratic duty by the House.

Secondly, I may disappoint the right hon. Gentleman by saying the following, but it remains a fact: it would not be for me to recommend any such course of action in relation to the ancient offence to which he referred. That is not a matter for the Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman, or any other non-ministerial Member, is free to propose legislation by way of a private Member’s Bill. Moreover, the right hon. Members for Neath and for Haltemprice and Howden and other Members are very well versed in the use of the procedures of this House to highlight what they judge to be a continuing omission or an area of policy that requires, let us say, corrective action. Knowing the right hon. Member for Neath and his track record of public campaigning on matters big and small over four decades, I doubt that he will require any further encouragement from the Chair.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 19 March 1997, the House passed a resolution which said, among other things:

“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.

Recently, I tabled the following question to the Prime Minister:

“To ask the Prime Minister whether he was aware at the time that on 13 December 2010 Rebekah Brooks had discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB.”

If ever there was a question that required a yes or no answer, that was it. I accept entirely that, like your predecessors, you, Mr Speaker, have always said you have no responsibility for ministerial replies—and I am sure you are very pleased about that. However, the Prime Minister replied:

“I had no role in the BSkyB takeover nor did I seek to influence the decision.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 246W.]

I never asked him that; I asked him the question I have quoted. I therefore wonder whether the Prime Minister is in some way in conflict with the resolution passed by the House on 19 March 1997.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that I am not aware that there is any conflict with the terms of the resolution. As the hon. Gentleman also noted in his point of order, the Chair is not responsible for the content of answers. The obligation upon a Minister is to provide an answer to the question posed. Whether it is an answer of sufficient quality to satisfy Members, and in this instance the hon. Gentleman, is, sadly, another matter. However, the hon. Gentleman may wish to return to this matter, and it is open to him to do so in a variety of ways—which, as he first entered the House 46 years ago last March, he will not require advice from me to identify.

Local government Finance Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 10 January 2012 in the last Session of Parliament (Local Government Finance Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the following order: New Clauses and New Schedules relating to council tax; Amendments to Clauses 8 to 12; Amendments to Schedule 4; New Clauses and New Schedules relating to nondomestic rating; Amendments to Clauses 1 to 7; Amendments to Schedules 1 to 3; and remaining proceedings on Consideration.

3. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.—(Robert Neill.)

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The role of the Table Office is to assist the Speaker in upholding the rules of the House. I hope that that is widely understood.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot debate this matter further now, and that it would not be right to do so, but he has made his point very clear. I have heard it, representatives of the office in question have heard it, and I hope that that will suffice for now. I will keep the matter under close review, and I am sure that the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be respected.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a related point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take a point of order from a Member who first arrived in the House four years before the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).

[Mr Winnick]

You have made a point that I was not going to make, Mr Speaker, except perhaps in passing.

I have the highest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). His point of order illustrated that, having been in the House for nearly 42 years, he is still always willing to act on behalf of his constituents, which is highly commendable. I do not think that a single Member in the House would disagree with that.

However, given that my right hon. Friend was highly critical of the Table Office, I wish to put on record that during my years in this place, I have always found those at the Table Office co-operative and courteous. I have never found them rude at any stage. Had I done so, I should have reported the matter to the Clerk of the House or to the Speaker, as the case might be. I look on the Clerks of the House, as on the other Officers, as dedicated servants of the House of Commons who serve the House of Commons, and I think that that should be put on record.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think that the Clerks who serve the House will appreciate it too. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has served for well over 30 years in total, so I am sure that he will observe the precedent even more closely.

[Mr Winnick]

I note that you did not mention the exact years and months, Mr Speaker, and I am pleased about that. I wonder whether I might make a helpful suggestion, arising from what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has said from the Dispatch Box. In order to save parliamentary time on Tuesday, and in view of all the leaks that have occurred, would it not be helpful when the Chancellor stands up to make his autumn statement for him merely to say, “I refer hon. Members to the press releases that have already been issued over the past weekend”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think it would be very sad if we were to reach that situation, but coming from an hon. Member who first came to the House in 1966, I have to say that there is more than a grain of truth and validity in that observation. Members should take account of it.

National Referendum on the European Union

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any reason why the vote is being delayed?

[Mr Speaker]

The Tellers are in. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time—[Interruption.] I do not know why people are referring to three-figure numbers; the hon. Gentleman has not been here that long. His patience will be rewarded. He does not have long to wait and must calm himself. I like to see him in a state of permanent calm. That is my ambition.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have a statement to make. Following it, I will not take questions or points of order.

In July, I instituted an independent review of security arrangements, following the attack on Rupert Murdoch while he was a witness before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have now received a report on the matter and have had an opportunity to consider its findings.

The review found that at the time of the attack none of the security staff in the room was in a position to be able to reach the assailant before he got to Mr Murdoch. Those present commented upon the chaotic nature of scenes inside and outside the Committee Room following the incident. The inadequate security in the room was the result of a serious failure of planning for this event, based upon the wrong assessment of risk. These and other deficiencies should have been recognised and rectified in advance. They were not.

Public access to Committee sessions is of fundamental importance and must be protected. Not only is it a precious freedom, but it provides a valuable opportunity for engagement between this House and the people it serves. Equally important is our duty to protect the personal safety of witnesses appearing before our Committees and to ensure the effective operation of these Committees. Clearly, the personal safety of all involved—witnesses, Members, staff and the public—must be the guiding principle for those charged with security.

The review makes a number of practical recommendations. All of those relating only to this House I have accepted in full, and all of them either have been, or are in the process of being, implemented. In future, risk assessments for the most high-risk events will be reviewed, robustly scrutinised and formally approved by the most senior security official in the House. There will be enhanced physical security arrangements in Committee Rooms for high-risk events, and a regime has already begun to prevent visitors from bringing bags into a meeting room for such an event.

There is a recommendation that the establishment of a post of director of security be reconsidered. I will begin discussions—including with my counterpart in the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker—about whether that merits further attention, and could complement existing roles.

I have placed copies of the recommendations, and of an update on progress in giving effect to them, in the Library, the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.

The safety of those participating in, or visiting, public Committee hearings must not be compromised, and I will do everything I can to ensure that it is not.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

As I have just explained, I am not taking points of order on this matter.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Standing Order and offered his analysis of the situation, and it falls to the Committee to decide what, if any, action it wishes to take. There is no matter of order on which I need rule.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not my wish to extend Prime Minister’s Question Time, and I realise the number of Members who were trying to catch your eye. However, in order that there should not be any misunderstanding, may I say that, although the point of view on Libya put forward from the Front Benches may, for all I know, remain the majority view in the House, there is a different point of view? That is the desire to bring about a genuine ceasefire as soon as possible. It should be understood that the view that has been expressed in the House today is not by any means the view of all of us.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman, in a disorderly but engaging way, has now made the position as far as he and perhaps others are concerned very clear. We are grateful to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is understanable that there is tension and disagreement between the two coalition parties on this issue, and perhaps on other matters, but it was reported last week that during a recent meeting of Tory MPs one Member described the Liberal Democrats as “yellow” followed by a second word beginning with “b” then “a” and ending in “s”. Was the Deputy Prime Minister as shocked as I was by such behaviour?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the House that I do not think he is responsible for what is said at meetings of Conservative Members of Parliament?

Point of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We know that military intervention has started without the House being able to debate or vote on the issue. On 10 March the Leader of the House was asked during business questions by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) whether the House could definitely have a vote before any military action was taken if a no-fly zone was to be imposed. The Leader of the House said yes, that that is now the convention and that it was the Government’s intention to

“observe that convention except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 1066.]

I say to you, Sir, that the vote on military action in Iraq was on 18 March 2003, and that action took place two days later. If the House could not meet to discuss this on Friday, was it not possible for us to meet on Saturday? The convention whereby the House debates military action before such action takes place has not been followed.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Having first entered the House in 1966, he will know that the arrangement of business is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. He has made an important point and it is on the record. If he catches the eye of the Chair, he will have an opportunity to develop that point among others later in the afternoon.

Forestry (England)

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the Secretary of State had started to deliver her statement should not expect to be called?

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If there is any personal sympathy for the Secretary of State today, it is because she has been publicly humiliated by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Can she bring herself to congratulate the many people up and down the country, certainly including my constituents, who fought and campaigned so hard against the selling off of one of our most precious national assets?

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I really do not think that that is a matter for the Chair. I note what the hon. Lady has said about debates before European Councils, which is an important observation. The Leader of the House is in his place and has heard it, and if the hon. Lady wishes to pursue it through the usual channels or with the Leader of the House she is, of course, absolutely justified in doing so.

Earlier, I had an indication that the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) wished to raise a point of order.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No, he does not wish to do so.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Once again—I fear that I am being repetitive, but it is necessary for me to be so—let me say that I have made the factual and legal position clear. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, and it seems to me that the matter that he has raised—a matter relating to what could or could not now ensue—is essentially a hypothetical matter upon which it is neither necessary nor possible for a ruling to be made this evening. I believe that the position is clear: the disqualification has happened. If there are Members who are dissatisfied with the procedure—a very senior Member and others have indicated some level of dissatisfaction—it is perfectly open to them further to pursue the matter through other quarters, on other occasions, but I do not think that there is profit in dwelling further on them this evening.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Much has been said in the past 12 months and more about modernising the House of Commons. You made great reference to this yourself in your campaign speech. I hope that this will not seem too revolutionary, but would it not be appropriate for the Procedure Committee to look into these matters? Why should it be necessary, in the 21st century, to apply for an office of profit under the Crown? Why should not it be possible for an hon. Member to resign his seat? I suggest that there is a case for this matter to be looked at. People watching this might consider it rather farcical.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that he will understand that I respect what he has said, but that it is not for me to speculate from the Chair on what the future position might be. It is absolutely open to the hon. Gentleman and to any other hon. Member to request that the Procedure Committee study this issue and make recommendations. I am not in any sense dying in the ditch as a matter of principle in favour of the status quo; nor am I arguing for a change to it. I am exercising my rather limited responsibility to report to the House what has happened and the facts of the situation. I hope that that is helpful.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is indicating that he wishes further to pursue the matter; I respect that.

[Mr Winnick]

I shall write to the Procedure Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question with some delectation, but sadly it relates not to the policy of the Government but to that of the Opposition. I call Mr David Winnick.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of some of the propaganda put out by the Government and their supporters, saying that unemployed people are reluctant to find work, I should tell the Minister that over the past few weeks the local press in my area has reported that where there are vacancies, more than 100 people have applied for one single vacancy. Does that not demonstrate that up and down the country the unemployed are desperate to find work?

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was not a point of order, but it might be described as a point of courtesy, and the House is grateful for it.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a good deal of disquiet over the proceedings against six demonstrators. The case has been dropped because the police were very reluctant to give information about an undercover agent. It is not unknown, of course, for police officers to act as undercover agents, and in many cases it is perfectly justified, such as in terrorism cases that safeguard our country. It appears that the police constable in this case was not just an undercover agent; he has more or less admitted that he was acting as an agent provocateur—there is no other way to describe it. Is there any way in which the Home Secretary can be asked to make a statement on this case, which as I said is creating a good deal of disquiet?

[Mr Speaker]

It is up to a Minister in the Home Office or another relevant Department to decide whether to make a statement. On the face of it, this seems to be good material for a business question. The hon. Gentleman might want to raise the matter at the appropriate slot on Thursday. That is the best that I can offer him at the moment.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I note his point. Tomorrow he will have served 27 years and five months in the House. Throughout that time he has expressed himself with great force and conviction, and today is no exception. We are grateful to him.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that I did not catch your opening statement, but I have caught up with it since entering the Chamber. I in no way want to mention the details of the case, or defend or otherwise what is alleged, but, as you will no doubt know, the House has always been extremely reluctant to expel anyone. I know that this is not an expulsion made by a decision of this House, but the House has refused to expel Members over the years on the basis that this is not a club, despite what some people might say, and that if someone is elected it should be for the electorate to decide.

There is therefore bound to be concern about whether a court—judges—should decide, and not the electorate. From the moment I heard of the decision, I felt some concern and anxiety that the decision about whether the electorate wanted that particular Member to serve had been taken out of their hands and given to the judges. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, the question does arise about whether in future circumstances an unsuccessful candidate will use any means to say in effect that what happened during the election was unfair, and to take the issue to the judges.

[Mr Speaker]

In so far as the latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order appeared to be a question, I hope that he will understand if I say that I will treat it as a rhetorical question. He has essentially raised a point very similar to that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), and done so in earnest. That is respected, but I do not think that I need to respond to it. It is on the record, and that is important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Leslie. He is not here, so I call Mr David Winnick.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

How many of those who were seriously injured in the 7/7 bombings are still waiting for compensation? Presumably the Department has some responsibility in that regard. As for the claims that have been finalised, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among those who have received inadequate sums, in view of the serious injuries inflicted by the mass murderers?

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, and as others will be conscious, I am not responsible for the content—including the accuracy—of statements by Ministers. That said, if a Minister makes a factual error in a statement to the House, it is preferable, as far as I am concerned, that he or she should correct that error in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity very forcefully to register his point on the record, and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. I do hope that if such instances arise again, the general guidance that I have just offered will be followed, for the simple reason that it makes sense and is fair.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all appreciate what you have just said, but I should like to raise another issue. I received replies on the board yesterday from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to a number of my questions. I shall not go into that, but the replies included a background note. That is quite a novelty, as you will know—it has certainly never happened previously, in all my experience over the years of receiving answers to parliamentary questions. I was given one answer along with a background note, which says:

“Mr Winnick has asked several other questions of IPSA,”

about whether it should do this, that or the other, and the same applied with another answer. I do not mind—presumably the background note is saying, in effect, that I am a nuisance and that IPSA wishes that I would go away—but what I want to know is whether supplying a background note will become standard practice for Ministers. Indeed, I would like to see the background notes provided by civil servants to Ministers who are due to answer my questions, so perhaps on this occasion IPSA should be congratulated on setting a commendable trend.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what is, pretty much, a novel point of order. Whether those who penned the background note ever intended it to be seen by him is something that I rather doubt. I do not think that the Speaker should get into the business of dictating the precise form of answers to questions. However, in general terms, I am inclined to say that the answer should be the answer, and that should be all that is required. The idea that some supplementary text is either required or desirable seems to me to be wrong.

Points of Order

Debate between David Winnick and John Bercow

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is no procedural impropriety concerned. I can almost smell the hon. Gentleman’s anger on behalf of his constituents, but he is seeking to continue the debate. Indeed, many Members might conclude that he has already successfully done so.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are of course the servant of the House of Commons and it could be argued that you should not make any statements without the authority of the House. However, in a rare exception, I ask whether you feel that you could raise your voice about the act of outright barbarism proposed by the Iranian Government. A 43-year-old woman is to be stoned to death. Her son has pleaded for clemency. Her offence is alleged adultery. I know that it is rare to ask the Speaker of the House of Commons to raise his voice, but a number of leading figures in the international community have done so already. We have been discussing civil liberties in our country, but let us imagine a person being stoned to death for an offence that she denies in any case. It is so primitive, so evil. In the circumstances, I wonder whether you could make a rare exception and, as the Speaker, raise your voice in protest.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has served in this House, at this mid-point in his career, for 35 years, if memory serves me correctly, and he knows the real limitations on what the Speaker can say. My concern is that, although the issue that he has raised is a matter of real concern and humanity, it is almost certainly not a point of order. I feel strongly about the protection of civil liberties and human rights, and I take the gravest exception to their abuse.

The hon. Gentleman describes a truly horrific matter. I do not wish to treat anything that he says with levity—and I mean that—but he mentioned how several leading members of the international community had already condemned this prospect. I therefore seek to extricate myself from any difficulty by saying that whatever else the hon. Gentleman thinks of me, I am sure that he would not promote me to the level of a leading member of the international community. He has put his concerns on the record, and I have tried to be as helpful as I can. I hope that we in this House are in favour of human rights, not of their grotesque abuse.