Points of Order
Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lindsay Hoyle
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that yesterday Mr Speaker received an email from a law firm, Trowers & Hamlins, which represents Octagon Overseas Ltd and Mr John Christodoulou in enforcement action against leaseholders at Canary Riverside in my constituency. The law firm asked for my Adjournment debate scheduled for later today—“First tier tribunals, section 24 powers and enforcement on freeholders”—not to take place, claiming that the debate will be subject to sub judice rules. I have no intention of raising any sub judice matter. My debate is about the weaknesses in the rules concerning both first-tier tribunals and the section 24 powers of the court in general.
Mr Deputy Speaker, can you first confirm that my debate will go ahead, despite the attempted gagging email? Secondly, will you agree such efforts to direct you and Mr Speaker to stifle debates and to prevent MPs from raising matters of concern for their constituents are heavy-handed and wholly inappropriate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. It may be helpful if I first make it clear that the House’s sub judice resolution is not an externally-imposed rule, but a self-denying ordinance by which the House has agreed to limit its freedom of speech by avoiding references in debate to cases that are active before the UK courts. Certain exemptions apply and the resolution is subject always to the discretion of the Chair. It is not always practicable for the Chair or those who advise us to identify all cases that might come up in debate, or to ascertain in a timely way what the current status of those cases is. It can be quite helpful to be alerted to such cases, and there is nothing wrong with outside parties writing to draw our attention to potential sub judice concerns.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I can confirm that his Adjournment debate will go ahead today. I am grateful for his assurance that he has no intention of raising any matter that is sub judice. I would not characterise the letter that Mr Speaker received yesterday as “wholly inappropriate”, though I agree that the final paragraph was ill conceived in arguing that it was imperative that the debate should not go ahead. I hope that this response is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.
Business without Debate
Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lindsay Hoyle
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, I wrongly accused the Deputy Chief Whip of being responsible for blocking the Second Reading of the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill, which stands in my name. I wish to apologise to him for misleading the House, and to apologise to the House for getting that wrong. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has exercised his right to object to the Bill today. The Bill was objected to last Friday and the Friday before that by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). They acted as individuals, and I apologise to the Deputy Chief Whip for saying that he was responsible for something that was clearly nothing to do with him.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That certainly clarifies the situation and sets the record straight.
Illegal Importation of Dogs (Fixed Penalty)
Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lindsay Hoyle(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Gentleman is claiming he is 21, but we are not quite that convinced.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Lindsay Hoyle(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, and I am sure that he will mention that to the House. I am also sure that he will speak only briefly.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said in an intervention that I had been watching the debate from my office, and I apologised to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) for missing his speech. I congratulate him on bringing the Bill to the House. I will speak briefly, because I am in the Chamber principally to lead for the Opposition on the Humber Bridge Bill, which is next on the Order Paper, and which a number of colleagues are keen to get on to.
I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) described the attitude of Opposition Members towards the City of London as “hostile”. There is no doubt that some Opposition Members are hostile to the City, but they are not here tonight and I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Front Bench as he is in favour of the Bill. I do so for several reasons. I acknowledge the contribution that the City makes to the UK economy. I am a constituency MP in the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets, and we benefit greatly from the generosity and support of the City. We appreciate the partnership with the Corporation of London. On a personal basis, as a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, I have had the honour of participating in a ceremony at which I was granted the freedom of the City, although it was pointed out that I do not have the right to drive my sheep across London bridge, were I to have any.
I am a great admirer of the traditions, history and heritage of the Corporation of London. I am pleased to support the Bill, which will now go into Committee. I am also pleased to correct the record in relation to what was said about Opposition Members earlier. I also hope that we will be able to deal with—