Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of water rescue services, especially at this time of year, when people—particularly young people—are out and about. I am pleased to hear he had such a good time visiting the Red Watch firefighting service in his constituency. I think that would actually make a very good topic for debate—maybe when we get back after the summer.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

If I asked the Leader of the House, “1666—what happened in that year?”, I am not quite sure—[Interruption.] There we are: the great fire of London. In fact, it was also the last time anyone in Parliament was fined for lying to Parliament. Of course, there is the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there has not been a fine since that year. For Members and non-Members alike, where is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? Ministers, of course, can be brought back to the House to correct the record, but for people giving evidence to Select Committees, for instance, there really is a gap at the moment. Is it not time we put fines on a statutory basis for Members and non-Members alike so that we can be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth and, should they be tempted not to tell the truth, there is a deterrent?

[Lucy Powell]

The right hon. Member obviously did not see me on last year’s Christmas special of “University Challenge”, where I did answer a question on 1666—which, for the record, I got right. That aside, he raises a very serious issue. He knows that knowingly misleading Parliament and this House carries with it the most serious of consequences. We found that out in the last Parliament, when a sitting Prime Minister found to have misled the House and was forced out of office as a result. No higher punishment could have been found. That investigation was done by the Committee of Privileges. There are many ways for Members to hold Ministers to account for the things that they say at the Dispatch Box, and for other Members to hold people to account—whether that is through points of orders, questions, interrogation, requiring people to correct the record, or, indeed, making complaints to our very high standards regime and, of course, to the Privileges Committee.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I do love the sporting questions from my hon. Friend, for which he gets quite a lot of cut-through. I join him in supporting all those from Beckenham Rugby Club on what sounds like a great day out.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I welcome the UK-US trade deal and congratulate the Prime Minister on it? It is very much in the national interest, although the devil is in the detail. May we have a debate on that trade deal and the concerns of British farmers about chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and antibiotics in pig farming? Will the Leader of the House assure the House, Shropshire farmers and British farmers that British agriculture is safe with this trade deal?

[Lucy Powell]

We can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. There will be a statement to the House later today—these issues are still unfolding—but he is right to praise the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade for the amazing work that they have done to get us to this point. He will be aware that the issues of food standards and agriculture have been red lines for the Government in those trade talks, and he will get the details later today.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

That is a relevant question given the one that came before about the Climate Change Committee report published this week. I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Scottish fire and rescue service. Yes, in winter the danger is perhaps flooding, but these fires and wildfires are a stark reminder that, as we enter the summer months, wildfires are one of the symptoms of climate change, and we need to support our fire and rescue services in tackling those issues, as well as take long-term steps to reduce and minimise the impacts of wildfires.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Thankfully, there is mostly consensus across the House on a two-state solution, but I am not sure that that consensus applies in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. There appears to be a slight emerging difference between the Minister for the middle east, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and the Foreign Secretary on the timing of the recognition of the Palestinian state. The Minister said a few days ago that the recognition needed to consider practical things on the ground such as legal, governance and security, while the Foreign Secretary has suggested over the past 24 hours that recognition should come before a settlement on a two-state solution, so there seems to be some confusion. Given the importance of the Palestinian people having a stable and secure future without Hamas, may we have an urgent debate about the two-state solution, and will the Leader of the House assure us that, when recognition of a Palestinian state comes, we will have a full debate as well as a vote?

[Lucy Powell]

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman: there are no differing opinions on this in Government—we are as one. We absolutely want to see a two-state solution, which is the only-long-term political solution for the middle east, and that includes a recognised and safe and secure long-term state of Palestine. As he says, getting to that recognition will not happen overnight and is not totally straightforward. The Government are absolutely committed—it was in our manifesto—to recognising the state of Palestine. I will ensure that Ministers always come to the House, as they have been doing, to update Members on any developments, with proper debates, statements and votes on these matters where necessary.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituents on working as a community to get the fibre broadband connection that rural communities such as his so desperately rely on—it really is the fourth utility. He is right to point out that the previous Government’s roll-out of broadband in rural communities was far too slow. We have science questions when we return, but I will certainly consider his request for a debate.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Could we have a debate on putting children at the heart of public policy? In her statement, the Leader of the House mentioned children and the emerging Bill. She will know that there is an equality impact assessment in pre-legislative scrutiny, and that there can be no discrimination on the basis of age. There have been two dominant themes in these business questions so far: Herefordshire—as a Herefordshire boy, I am delighted by that—and children. I hope that the Government, across Departments, will consider a potential new policy that will look at policies, Bills and laws and how they impact children.

[Lucy Powell]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. We are absolutely putting children at the heart of our policy. We have a mission to ensure opportunity for all and that every child has the very best start in life, to really galvanise all the different Departments and places across the country, and Secretaries of State, including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, are working closely on a child poverty taskforce. Putting children first is at the forefront of this Government’s mission. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman on delivering that.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will make the hotline numbers available for each Department as soon as we have them—we have most of them already. The other thing to remind right hon. and hon. Members of is that not every question to a Ministry needs to go through the parliamentary question process. Ministries will answer written and emailed inquiries as well. If right hon. and hon. Members have any difficulties getting replies, they should please contact my office, even during the recess, and I will do everything I can to facilitate speedy answers.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has suggested that we will have Second Reading of the immigration Bill on the first day back. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, there of course may be urgent questions or statements on that day about the coronavirus and subsequent updates. Those, however, are often time-limited. Will the Leader of the House consider us having a day, or two days, to discuss the many issues raised on both sides of the House in a general debate, or something similar, on coronavirus, with the Bill perhaps being dealt with later?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the message from the statement that I have made is that there is important and urgent business for Parliament to carry out, and that we need to be back to do that. That will of course include discussing the consequences and the continuation of action needed because of the coronavirus.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point that is certainly worth our looking into in the few days that remain before we go into recess.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Following on from the question of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), can I ask that a statement on the self-employed and freelancers comes forward quickly, given the immediate need of many self-employed people? There are 6,500 self-employed people in my constituency of The Wrekin. Will that statement be forthcoming when the House is sitting, rather than when the House has risen, so that right hon. and hon. Members can constructively interrogate the Government’s suggestions?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on why it is important for the House to be sitting so that the Government can be held to account and so that questions can be asked on statements. I am sure that if there are no statements from the Government within the next few days, there may be a receptiveness to urgent questions, so I think information will be forthcoming.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady always makes the most important points in this House, and I always find myself in agreement with her. It is no different on this occasion; I will take her point up with colleagues immediately after this session.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Many colleagues have constituents abroad, many of whom are desperate to get back home. When can we have a debate on price gouging and bring forward—perhaps in the emergency legislation—price gouging measures? Most airlines are trying to do their bit to help, but there are some examples of egregious price gouging preventing people from coming home. I think that British people might find it very difficult to swallow if the airlines wanted us to bail them out while at the same time they were hiking up prices for people who need to come back home.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a sensible point. The Foreign Office is working closely with the airlines to ensure that people can be brought back home, and the Department for Transport is working closely with them as well. I would make a general point that goes back to what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), which is that businesses are, in some cases, behaving very well. Businesses will want to maintain the support of the community in what they do, so, regardless of Government intervention, they would be well advised to maintain the good will of the British people.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I was making the much simpler point that none of the propositions has carried. The Prime Minister said in her statement that

“the Government stands ready to abide by the decision of the House.”

That is important. She was referring to the indicative votes that may follow the process that we are currently undertaking. In my view, anything that the House indicates it is prepared to support—the difference is that indicative votes are so called precisely because we ask the House to indicate whether it is prepared to move in a given direction—would have to be considered by the Government. If a proposition were adopted, the Prime Minister would have to go to the European Union and seek to change the political declaration. At that point, it would come back to the House, and the test that the Government rightly set in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—the approval of the House for both the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement—would have to be passed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he supports the withdrawal agreement, but he did not vote for it on meaningful vote 3 because of the disaggregation of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Of course, that was not the case in meaningful votes 1 and 2, but he still did not support the withdrawal agreement.

[Hilary Benn]

No, because in meaningful votes 1 and 2 we voted on the package. My objection, as I have made plain in the House many times, is to the political declaration and the complete lack of certainty that it offers. I do not want to stray from the amendment that I have tabled to the business motion, although the hon. Gentleman tempts me to do so.

After the experience of indicative votes rounds 1 and 2, and given that we are making some progress and that we are all being asked to compromise and see what we might be prepared to support, I suggest it would be timely to have the chance to do so again on Monday. I hope that the House will support my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is absolutely the fundamental doctrine. All I am saying to my hon. Friend—I have said it to the House many times—is that when, by a solemn Act of a sovereign Parliament, we transfer a decision to the British people by six to one in this House, that is an act of transferring sovereignty to them so that they can make the decision. It is as simple as that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is it not the case that no Prime Minister, no Member of Parliament and no Parliament is above the people, and that we are all supposed to be servants of the people?

Speaker’s Statement

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry if this disappoints the hon. Gentleman, but it is context-specific, and it is a judgment for the Chair. The Chair seeks to make a judgment on the basis of what will be in the interests of the House. I do not think that I can say fairer than that, or say anything different. I hope that that is useful to colleagues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you clarify a point? Is it the case that you have not ruled out a third meaningful vote, and it is just a matter of that vote’s being conditional on other matters applying, in the motion as well as in the substance?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I explained the position to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). It depends on the specific terms of what is proposed. Forgive me—I do not mean this discourteously in any way—but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here throughout our exchanges. Maybe he was; I do not know. What I was seeking to convey, however, was that a new proposition could be put, but the convention would militate against the same, or substantially the same, proposition being put. So I am not closing the door, and, indeed, I specifically said towards the end of my statement that this ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test that the Government must meet for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held during the current parliamentary Session. I do not see that I can expand on that, nor should I be required today to do so.

[Mark Pritchard]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I think that the Speaker decides. Would your advice to those who are, perhaps, becoming exercised about this be, “Don’t panic”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am always inclined to say, “Don’t panic.” I am not in the business of panicking myself. I think I can safely say that I have never lost a wink of sleep over any work-related matter. There is no merit or purpose in doing so. I think that we should approach these matters with calm, deploy reason, and seek to make sensible judgments, not just in our own interests and the interests of the House, but in the interests of the people whom we are sent here to represent. I have always done that, and I am sure that that is what colleagues think it is right to do, including, most certainly, the hon. Gentleman.

I am most grateful to colleagues for the interest that they have shown and the inquiries that they have put, and I thank them for their involvement.

Business of the House

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful, as I am sure are the Chief Whip and the shadow Chief Whip, for the hon. Gentleman’s advice on how to schedule the business, but he will appreciate that the space Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation that will create highly skilled jobs for the future and provide a huge opportunity for the United Kingdom and it needs to be given a proper hearing in this place.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on Made in Britain? Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the new British passport from 2019, a black passport, not a purple one, could be designed and printed in Germany—made in Berlin rather than made in Britain?

[Andrea Leadsom]

We all support the UK’s stance as a global free-trading nation, but, at the same time, we recognise that Britain has a huge amount to offer in terms of our manufacturing, our food and drink and all manner of services that we provide to the world, and we can compete on a level playing field.