Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I of course agree that there is a difference there, but I would not wish to speculate about this particular circumstance, as my right hon. Friend will understand.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Prime Minister is gathering the evidence and asking for more information, what is so wrong with just launching an investigation properly through the correct channels?

[Jeremy Quin]

There is nothing incorrect with the process, which is being conducted properly and professionally. The Prime Minister will gather the information and then decide the next steps. It is very simple.

Livestock Worrying: Sussex

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I was successful in securing this Adjournment debate on livestock worrying, I was questioned by some more metropolitan colleagues about what exactly livestock worrying is, with many references to sheep and Wales that I thought were rather unfair. I can inform the House and colleagues that livestock worrying usually involves dogs chasing and mauling sheep or other animals. The direct attack can cause death or severe injury and, in some cases, miscarriage. The stress of the event can cause great harm to the animals, particularly the young.

It is important to put on the record why I have secured the debate. Not only does Sussex have one of the highest rates of sheep worrying in the country, but my local authority, Brighton and Hove, has a municipal sheep flock, of which I believe the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) is a shepherdess and lookerer. Telscombe, a village in my constituency, also has a municipal sheep flock. The business is not just in private hands but in public hands, private hands and all hands—it affects us all.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear—or perhaps he will not—that I am not standing up to make an impassioned call for the nationalisation of all sheep farming. I congratulate him on securing the debate and he raises an important point; there is more sheep worrying and livestock worrying in Sussex, where both his constituents and mine have the opportunity to walk into open countryside. There is more sheep worrying in Sussex in the average year than there is in the whole of Scotland, and that is not acceptable. I am glad that he secured the debate to raise the concerns of many of our farmers.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I entirely agree. It is also important to put on record the contribution made by farming, not only in Sussex but to our wider economy.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Yes, but the suggested tuition fees amendment was not.

The subject of how we challenge statutory instruments is important in the light of our discussions on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I sat through a lot of those discussions and Government Ministers tried to reassure me time and again—not that they were very reassuring—that we should not worry about processes through the negative procedure. They said that we should not worry about statutory instruments because if the will of the House was clear, the House would have the opportunity to review and rescind, and to ensure that statutory instruments that overstepped the mark would not be allowed on the statute book. However, what we see here is parliamentary jiggery-pokery.

[Jeremy Quin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

No. This parliamentary jiggery-pokery was used not only to ensure that the debate did not come in time to be able to withdraw the statutory instruments, but to prevent a vote in the House. Therefore, the will of the House seems less strong to members of the public. That is the reality of what happened.

If the Government had stood at the Dispatch Box that day and said, “We won’t be calling a vote because we agree on the two issues”, there would be no problem. The problem was that Government Members spent the whole day arguing against the content of the motions, but then did not vote on them. That is the concern. It is fine—in fact, I am more than happy—for the Government to change their mind after listening to our compelling arguments. I applaud them for that, but let us have a statement about how their mind has changed and, therefore, how policy has changed.

It is no good that members of the public are unclear about the position of this House and that people are left in limbo. They need to be able to hold their politicians to account. They need to be able to hold their Government to account, and the Opposition parties and Back Benchers need to be able to do that too. Therefore, I call upon Members of the Treasury Bench to stand up and make a statement about how and when they reflected on the motion passing unanimously, when they will bring forward the changes called for in both motions and the details of how they will do it.