Business of the House

Debate between Jim Sheridan and John Bercow

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the House that there is a very important statement on flooding to follow and thereafter two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, the first of which is exceptionally heavily subscribed? There is, therefore, a premium upon brevity, which I am sure will now be exemplified by Mr Sheridan.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1046?

[That this House expresses serious concern at the anti-trade union behaviour of INEOS at its petrochemical plant in Grangemouth where it has dismissed Mark Lyon, the UK Vice-President of Unite The Union for carrying out his responsibilities as the elected convener of Unite The Union at the Grangemouth complex; notes that INEOS refuses to accept the Unite shops stewards elected by the workforce to represent them and is acting against the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 1998, particularly ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise 1948, and ILO Convention 98 on The Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949; further notes that INEOS is acting in contravention of the rights set out by the UK Government on the gov.uk website sections on Trade union membership: your employment rights and the role of your trade union rep; is concerned that INEOS is in line to receive £9 million in grants from the Scottish Government and has applied for loan guarantee fund support from the UK Government of £150 million; calls on the Government to make it clear to INEOS that actions in breach of ILO conventions and in contradiction of UK law on the rights of employees to be represented by a trade union and to take part in trade union activities is not acceptable in the UK in the 21st century; and further calls for the reinstatement of Mark Lyon and a negotiated settlement of points of difference between INEOS and trades unionists in its employment.]

Despite the best efforts of the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the local community and the work force of INEOS at Grangemouth, senior management at the plant are behaving like industrial thugs, sacking yet again the Unite convener Mark Lyon on trumped-up charges. As we have given this company £150 million of taxpayers’ money, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to come to this House to explain why this kind of behaviour from senior management is being tolerated?

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Sheridan and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly confess to being a regular reader of The Guardian, among other newspapers. I have received no such indication, but the hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record, and they will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. I think that we will have to leave it there for today.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In late October, I raised a point of order with you about the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer questions from Back Benchers. Twice he refused not only to answer my questions, but to make any reference to them. Instead, he ranted about Unite the union. You gave me some sound advice, Mr Speaker. You told me to write to the Prime Minister, which I did, on 31 October, but I am still awaiting a response. You also suggested that I speak to the Table Office. I have spoken extensively to the Table Office, which, after long discussions, agrees with me, as I understand it, that there is no mechanism in this place, when a Minister either refuses to answer a question from a Back Bencher or makes no reference to the question, to ensure that the question gets answered. If that is the case, is that a concern for the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. All I can say today is that the Prime Minister is answerable to the House for his conduct in government, not for his private life. The hon. Gentleman can pursue the Government through all the procedural channels available to him. He has asked his questions and has received answers that he finds unsatisfactory. I am afraid that he is not the first and is unlikely to be the last hon. Member to have that experience. I can only encourage him to persevere. For today at least, we will have to leave it there, partly because I have nothing to add and partly because there are other points of order with which I need to deal.

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Sheridan and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time in as many weeks, I have had the privilege of asking the Prime Minister a question. On both occasions, however, he did not address the question that I asked in any way whatever. Instead, he answered the question that he thought he was going to be asked. The question I asked him today was about agency workers, but he did not even mention agency workers in his response. How do we go about getting answers from the Prime Minister to the questions that we are asking him?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will know that it is a long-standing practice in the House that considerable latitude is afforded to the Prime Minister of the day to decide in what way to respond to a question. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with an answer—and it is apparent to me that that is so—he has the resources of the Order Paper and the guidance of the Table Office available to him to enable him to pursue the matter until he receives a substantive response to his inquiry. The opportunity therefore exists for written questions, correspondence and other means to extract the information or views that he seeks. I have given the hon. Gentleman a very particular response because I recognise how strongly he feels, but it would not be right for the Chair to interpose himself between a Minister and the hon. Gentleman in circumstances of this kind. I hope that that is helpful. I know that he is a terrier, and that he will pursue his concerns with his usual indefatigability. [Interruption.] The Whip on duty has just said that the hon. Gentleman is a big terrier. He certainly has a big heart, that is for sure.

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Sheridan and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is in a state of high excitement in anticipation of her point of order, which I am keen to hear, but I would like some order in the House first. Members leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly, demonstrating the same courtesy towards other Members that they would want to be extended to them in comparable circumstances. We will take the hon. Lady’s point of order first, because I am saving the hon. Gentleman up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A variety of mechanisms are open to the hon. Lady and other Members to ensure that such rigorous and detailed scrutiny takes place. In the meantime, however, the hon. Lady can satisfy herself with the thought that tomorrow will indeed be the occasion for DEFRA questions; I confidently predict that she will be in her place. Thereafter, all sorts of things can happen. To judge by the experience of the House, they probably will.

[Jim Sheridan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is becoming increasingly clear at Prime Minister’s questions that the Prime Minister refuses to answer the simplest questions. Instead, he answers questions that have not been asked. May I ask you to use your influence to remind the Prime Minister that he is there to answer the questions asked, not those he thinks should be asked?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that attempted point of order. He has put his concerns on the record. I say in all seriousness that I listen intently to everything that is said in this Chamber because that is my duty. From time to time, I will intervene if I think that we are off piste or that exchanges are taking too long. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members will feel confident that I am attending closely. I am aware that the session is entitled “Questions to the Prime Minister”. We all accept and everybody understands that the clue is in the title. We will leave it there for today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Sheridan and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Prime Minister. I do not expect you to know the full details—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must get out of this bad habit of Members using the word “you” in the Chamber. “You” refers to the Chair. Please address the House through the Chair.

[Jim Sheridan]

Mr Speaker, I do not expect the Prime Minister to know the full details, or indeed to be directly responsible, but against the background of “We’re all in this together”, does he think it fair that the lowest-paid workers in this place have been offered a 1% increase, while senior managers have been offered 5%?

Election of Speaker

Debate between Jim Sheridan and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Bercow (Buckingham) (Ind)]

Thank you, Sir Peter, and welcome to your role as Father of the House. It was a privilege to serve as Speaker for the past 10 months and it would be an honour to serve again in this Parliament. I would discharge my duties impartially, not just between parties, but between individual Members. Above all, I would defend the rights of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account and to champion the causes dear to their hearts. For better or for worse, I have become known for insisting on short questions and short answers. Sometimes a short speech is also appropriate, so I shall leave it there in order to demonstrate that once in a while, at least, I do practise what I preach. Colleagues, thank you.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Sir Peter. May I ask a procedural question? This is an extremely important time for this House and for its democratic future. We are in the process of electing a Speaker without having the opportunity of understanding or hearing what his views are on the long-term future of this House. May I therefore ask what safeguards are in place should the Speaker decide to change the constitution of our country, either to consolidate or indeed to stabilise the Opposition or his position? What are the criteria required to support any such moves, for example, the 55% provision that the Government wish to embrace—it is thereby known as the Mugabe question?