(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberI recognise that there is a lot of frustration at the way the motion was dealt with today. However, things have been carried out in order. I am sure that the Leader of the House will reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and think about them, but I am also sure that he will speak to the Committee to see whether there is a way forward for everybody. Hopefully, some amiable agreement can be reached in future, if that is the desire of the Committee.
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does that not demonstrate quite clearly that this set of Government Whips is just as bad as the previous one?
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberOkay. The party that had been second at the general election was not second, and it did not win the seat.
Order. I am not quite sure what is the relevance of Barnsley. The Committee is well aware of the Barnsley result without Mr Davidson going into further detail.
Order. That is a temptation, but this is about the abolition of regional Members. We are in danger of being dragged around Europe, Scotland and the UK, so I think we should get back to new clause 1.
A very bad boy was trying to tempt me down the highway, Mr Hoyle. Earlier, I heard an SNP Member shouting that they wanted Scotland to join the euro as soon as possible, but that is nothing to do with this debate either, and I therefore do not intend to bring it up.
The deal was a backroom deal and the old politics, in exactly the same way as the coalition was the old politics. Just as the Liberals were bought off for the Scottish Parliament, so they have been bought off with the promise of AV for this Parliament. I noticed yesterday a whole string of Liberals wearing “Yes to AV” badges. I will not mention that now, but come back to it in a later debate—
Order. We are going to discuss the abolition of regional Members. We are not going to be dragged back or come back to that other matter later; we will stick to new clause 1. We need to make progress. I think Mark Lazarowicz was about to intervene on you, Mr Davidson. Are you giving way?
Order. We do not need reports on the Labour party conference, so I think we will get back to new clause 1.
None the less, my hon. Friend’s point relates to whether it is possible, without inviting thunderbolts from on high, to consider changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. It seems to me that that is desirable. We regularly examine other elements of the Scottish Parliament and aspects of devolution—I remind hon. Members that devolution is a moving feast and not static—and so we should examine the electoral system.
I do not intend to vote for new clauses 1 and 2, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, because I am not convinced that his proposals are the correct way forward. However, there is something wrong with the existing system, and it needs to be changed.
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberOn a point of order, Mr Hoyle. According to the votes, eight nationalists have been voting on all these things, and now they are down to seven. Has somebody been kidnapped? [Laughter.]
Now, then.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Maximum penalties which may be specified in subordinate legislation
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberIs it appropriate at this point to mention that fifth is actually higher than sixth? I have been approached by a number of Members in the Lobby who have told me that the Liberal Democrats came sixth only because the SNP did not stand—
Order. I think we both know that this is not quite a part of the clause 13 stand part debate. If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not part of that, I call the Minister.