Points of Order
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I reiterate—[Interruption.] I am dealing with a Member. I reiterate that I do not care whether it is Ministers, shadow Ministers or Back Benchers, the courtesy is that you must let the Member know before you get to their constituency, unless your visit is on private business. Show courtesy to each other. The public out there expect us to follow the rules, and the rules should be adhered to.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Government brought a statement to the House entitled “Protecting What Matters”. One might think that that could be preserving historic buildings or endangered wildlife, or simply affirming the importance of our Christian heritage. In fact, the statement was about defining anti-Muslim hostility. I am not going to debate that, but I seek your advice on whether a title of that kind is misleading—it cannot possibly have been deceptive, but it is certainly confusing. Is it fair to Members to entitle statements in a way that gives them no chance to anticipate what is going to be debated and prepare accordingly?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member is always here, so he should not have to worry about the titles. In fairness, I take that on board. The fact is that the Government are in charge of the titles of their ministerial statements. They have full responsibility; I have no responsibility for that. That is certainly on the record. I expect those on the Front Bench to have taken it on board that titles should be understandable and not misleading.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Points of Order
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, the High Court ordered a £60,000 cap on contribution to the Government’s legal fees by campaigners seeking justice for the change in the pension age—the so-called WASPI women. This is a major breakthrough for that campaign, which has had support from across the House, including from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who is in his place, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and many others. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that the ombudsman highlighted maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions, and no Government of any party have stepped up to the mark, including this one. Have you had any notice, Mr Speaker, that the Government will make a statement to the House to see whether an appropriate offer can be made to these women to end this injustice?
Mr Speaker
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no notice that the Government will come to the House to make a statement. What I can say is that he has certainly put his points on the record, and I know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he had to say.
Point of Order
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You, like me, have long been a supporter of Britain’s nuclear test veterans, so I wonder whether you could advise me. Given that Government lawyers have finally admitted, after 73 years of denial, that tests may have taken place at the time that those veterans were in the south Atlantic—they say that
“information may have been recorded by scientists carrying out radiation monitoring”—
surely a statement in the House by a Government Minister is required. How can I facilitate that?
Mr Speaker
I do not think I even need to answer that; the right hon. Gentleman is a man who knows how to facilitate that, and I know the matter will not end here. That is not a point of order for the Chair, and I am not carrying on questions, but he has certainly got the matter on the record and I know he will now pursue it in the many ways available to him.
Bill Presented
Chalk Streams (Sewerage Investment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to require water companies to prioritise areas with chalk streams and related habitats when investing in new and upgraded sewerage systems, including foul water leak prevention and the replacement or upgrading of porous sewage pipelines; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July and to be printed (Bill 223).
Business of the House
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful—[Interruption.] Oh, I beg your pardon.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member is a very experienced Member of this House, and he knows that he is meant to address the Chair, not the Front Bench.
Sir John Hayes
Mr Speaker, I know that you, as a man of integrity and honour, will be as disappointed as I am that the Government should promise one thing and then do the exact opposite.
Business of the House
Debate between John Hayes and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Leader of the House needs a few moments to calm down.