English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Ian C. Lucas and Dominic Grieve

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas]

I do not really understand the intervention, but what I say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am not proposing that we treat MPs in England and Wales differently—this Government are. I am not entitled to make representations or speak on health issues in Wales, which is exactly the same as the hon. Gentleman. Assembly Members speak on such matters, because this Parliament set in place a National Assembly for Wales. It made that decision and it was agreed to, in a referendum, by the people of Wales. Entirely the same option is available to this or any other Government.

[Mr Grieve]

Forgive me but I find it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. There is nothing in these proposals that will prevent him from continuing to make representations to any English health authority or to any English Minister on his constituents’ behalf—absolutely nothing.

[Ian C. Lucas]

What they will prevent me from doing is putting down amendments in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian C. Lucas]

I do not believe that these measures will safeguard the United Kingdom, and I do not believe that they are the same proposals that the Conservative party placed before the electorate. That is why I oppose them so vehemently.

[Mr Grieve]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian C. Lucas]

I will not give way because I have taken up enough time.

I do not believe that constitutional issues of this magnitude should be addressed by Standing Orders, because they go to the heart of the future of the United Kingdom. This United Kingdom is in peril. It frightened me last week at Prime Minister’s questions when the Prime Minister quoted a nationalist in support of his proposals on EVEL.

We have to stand against these amendments to Standing Orders because, contrary to what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, they are not minimal. I hope that I have shown that they will have profound practical implications for my constituents and profound constitutional implications for this place. They go to the heart of the equality of Members in this Chamber, because they will restrict the voting rights of individual Members of Parliament on Committees in a way that has not been done before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian C. Lucas and Dominic Grieve

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I have great sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. In my judgment, this is an area that ought to be looked at and on which there may, indeed, be a degree of consensus across the House. Of course, if we were to do that, we would also have to make sure that such a process operates in a fair and reasonable way, but I have to say that I have listened very carefully to what the director of the Serious Fraud Office has said, and it seems to me that his remarks have considerable force.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Last week, the work of the Serious Fraud Office was severely undermined when a case it was prosecuting was stayed. What discussions has the Attorney-General had with the Lord Chancellor to address that issue?

[The Attorney-General]

The case did not involve the Serious Fraud Office, but the Financial Conduct Authority. In the circumstances, that case is not a matter that I have had to discuss with the director of the Serious Fraud Office.