All 6 Debates between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick

Business without Debate

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick
Wednesday 9th September 2015

(9 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Mr Winnick, you have missed the motion, which is without debate.

David Winnick Portrait Mr Winnick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On motion 3.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - -

You have missed it. I have gone well beyond that. We are actually on the presentation of petitions.

Petition

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick
Wednesday 9th September 2015

(9 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Winnick Portrait Mr Winnick
- Hansard - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could clarify the situation over motion 3 on the Order Paper. I would be grateful for your advice. I was sitting here and waiting for the opportunity to speak. Clearly, the matter went on without my being able to catch your eye. I wanted to object to the method of appointment, to point out the need for elections to that Committee and to put the case accordingly. In those circumstances, I wonder if you can advise me on how I can pursue this, since I was not able to make my remarks today.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard -

First of all, it was not that you did not catch my eye. You caught my eye after we had voted on it and we were on to the next part. I was at the petition when you decided to stand. It is not about catching my eye. You were not on your feet and unfortunately, as one of the most senior Members of the House, you know the rules quite clearly. The bottom line is there is nothing we can do now. It has gone through and I suggest that you take up through other channels the way you feel the Committee should be appointed. As we know, that is not prescribed in the House rules and the rules would have to be changed accordingly.

Refugee Crisis

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick
Wednesday 9th September 2015

(9 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Winnick Portrait Mr Winnick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could clarify the situation over motion 3 on the Order Paper. I would be grateful for your advice. I was sitting here and waiting for the opportunity to speak. Clearly, the matter went on without my being able to catch your eye. I wanted to object to the method of appointment, to point out the need for elections to that Committee and to put the case accordingly. In those circumstances, I wonder if you can advise me on how I can pursue this, since I was not able to make my remarks today.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

First of all, it was not that you did not catch my eye. You caught my eye after we had voted on it and we were on to the next part. I was at the petition when you decided to stand. It is not about catching my eye. You were not on your feet and unfortunately, as one of the most senior Members of the House, you know the rules quite clearly. The bottom line is there is nothing we can do now. It has gone through and I suggest that you take up through other channels the way you feel the Committee should be appointed. As we know, that is not prescribed in the House rules and the rules would have to be changed accordingly.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick
Wednesday 10th September 2014

(10 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Winnick Portrait Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to avoid personalities, and I certainly deplore whispering campaigns. I consider this to be an interesting debate and I am glad that it is being held. However, if we had gone through the usual procedures for appointing a new Clerk as a result of a vacancy, it is most unlikely that we would be having this debate today. For some time, I have considered it rather odd that the House itself has had no say whatever in the appointment of the Clerk. This is no reflection at all on the previous Clerk or his predecessors, but none of those appointments was ever brought before, say, the Public Administration Committee. It has always simply been a question of the Speaker of the day announcing that so-and-so has been appointed, and that has been the end of the matter. What we are doing now, in having the matter thoroughly looked into by a Select Committee, is the right approach in every possible way. I have thought on previous occasions that I should express some concern about the way in which appointments were made for the most senior job—the most senior officer—in the House, but I thought, on reflection, that no purpose would be served by doing so. After all, first and foremost, we are here for political purposes.

I find it difficult to understand why the position of the Clerk—as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) has just emphasised, we are talking about the No.1 authority on procedural rules and on “Erskine May, and the very person who would give advice to the Speaker and to the House—should be combined with that of chief executive, which is entirely a managerial position. It may well be that some very talented people in this world could combine the two position adequately, but I very much doubt it—again, that is no reflection on previous Clerks.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), I do not believe this place has been well managed—to a large extent, the opposite is the case. Indeed, in previous debates on the functioning of the House, I have made sharp criticism of the way in which certain functions and aspects of this place have been managed—or mismanaged, as the case may be. We have to recognise that, as has been said in this debate, there are two separate positions here. It may well be that the Select Committee will not come to that conclusion and will recommend otherwise, but I hope that it will recognise that we have two different and important functions here, those of Clerk of the House and chief executive, and not that of a chief operating officer, as that is a bit of a cop out, to say the least.

We need to recognise that, leaving aside day-to-day management, we are faced with a challenge: the need to rebuild this House of Commons. It is in such a state of decay that it is essential that we accept the challenge, and the work should begin no later than 2020. That challenge, given a recognition that we certainly will not be able to carry out that work while the House is sitting or during the long recess, as the case may be, provides all the more reason for effective managerial authority, which I just cannot recognise as being the work of the Clerk of the House. I therefore hope—

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. I call Michael Fabricant.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick
Friday 13th July 2012

(12 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. I think we are getting away from licensing. Mr Davies, I think you are desperate to get back to where you were and I am sure that you do not want to be distracted.

Assisted Suicide

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Winnick
Tuesday 27th March 2012

(12 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Winnick Portrait Mr Winnick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think that we could all come to the same conclusion. Are we to take it that doctors in Oregon, Belgium or the Netherlands are not concerned about their patients, that they are potential Shipmans and that they could not care less whether or not their patients die? Although I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I must, as my hon. Friend has indicated, accept that some doctors, however much they may be in a minority, take a different view.

I simply say to the House that whether or not we agree to any change in the law, this issue will not go away. The hon. Member for Croydon South said that more than 180 British citizens have gone to Switzerland in these circumstances. Perhaps there are others who would like to go, for they do not want to face an unbearable death, but do not have the financial means to do so. I hope that the House will not only agree to the guidelines, but be willing to explore the dilemma faced by these people. This could happen to any of us, as nobody is exempt from the possibility of having a severe illness of the sort that Anne Turner was facing and was determined to avoid at all costs, and which resulted in her going to the clinic in Switzerland. I hope that we will have a very good debate. The issues are very important and I hope that at the end of it the guidelines which the Law Lords instructed the DPP to produce will be fully supported on all sides and by all the opinions in this House.

Royal Assent

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Health and Social Care Act 2012

London Local Authorities Act 2012.