Article 50 Extension Procedure

Debate between Mark Pritchard and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

What an unenviable choice between two very fine Members of Parliament! C comes before p in the alphabet; on that basis alone, I call Mr Alex Chalk.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Mark Pritchard and John Bercow

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.

Points of Order

Debate between Mark Pritchard and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, maybe I erred on the side of generosity. I will treat of the point in more detail, because it is of importance to the House, but let me say two things to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

The right hon. Gentleman, the former Foreign Secretary, was absolutely in order to request that he be allowed to make a personal statement, and utterly in order also in its delivery. Secondly—forgive me, colleagues, but it is important for the authority of the House that this point be made—I, too, was absolutely right to allow him to make that personal statement, and it would have been quite wrong for me to seek to stand in his way.

Good order has applied but, in so far as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is interested not in point scoring, as I am sure he is not, but in asking a genuine question of the Chair, let me say to him on the point of procedure that it is the long-standing practice of the House that Members may make a personal statement with the leave of the Speaker. It is not especially common in recent times for such requests to be made, but when they are made, it is right that they should be acceded to by the Chair.

Moreover, I note that the former Foreign Secretary, former Leader of the House and former Deputy Prime Minister, the late Sir Geoffrey Howe, resigned on 1 November 1990—I remember it well—and delivered a personal statement on 13 November 1990, so nothing disorderly, nothing irregular and, in procedural terms, nothing objectionable has occurred. I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and it was perfectly legitimate for him to raise the point of order, but I think it right that I leave it there.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will be generous to the hon. Gentleman, because to stray would be to misbehave, and I do not think he would misbehave. I cannot believe he would.

[Mark Pritchard]

Mr Speaker, you are always generous. You will know there are very clear rules in this House on the issue of sub judice. I seek your guidance on whether that applies to British citizens abroad who are currently going through what I think is a bogus judicial system in Iran. I mention that because the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) suggested the former Foreign Secretary had endangered the life of a British citizen, and you will know that the family of that person are rightly very worried about her fate. It is not the right hon. Gentleman’s place to make party political capital when somebody is facing a bogus judicial system in Iran.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I respect the sincerity with which he speaks and the extensive interest he takes in international affairs. What I would say to him, in all seriousness, is that the responsibility of the Chair for oversight of the sub judice rule applies in the context of cases in the British courts. I am satisfied that nothing disorderly or threatening to a British judicial process has transpired.

In so far as the hon. Gentleman wanted to make a wider point, I think he knows that he has succeeded in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pritchard and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is an extreme case of shoehorning in a particular concern, but it suffers from the disadvantage of bearing absolutely no relation to the question on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own inimitable and mildly eccentric way, and we are grateful to him for doing so. Let us have a question that is in order.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a serious point, many of my constituents were affected by the collapse of Carillion. How confident is the Minister that the big four accountancy firms have learnt their lessons for the future?

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Debate between Mark Pritchard and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope this is a point of order rather than a point of advertisement.

[Mark Pritchard]

Not to correct the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but may I confess that it was not the Whips chuntering? It was my good self, Sir.

[Mr Speaker]

That is both candid of the hon. Gentleman and, arguably, a first.