Business of the House

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the phrase “slight whiff of hypocrisy”, when it is implied that it is coming from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in order? I am sure that you will be able to advise me.

[Mr Speaker]

I was diverted by a former Deputy Leader of the House, who was perfectly legitimately whispering into my ear, as colleagues often do when there is a matter of great moment in their minds, and therefore I did not hear it. I am not disputing what the hon. Gentleman has said—

[Ms Dorries]

I am happy to repeat it.

[Mr Speaker]

No, there is no requirement for repetition by the hon. Lady. I think that she was making what I would call a political charge. I find it unimaginable that she would make an accusation of personal dishonour against the right hon. Member for West Dorset. If she were to make such a charge, I feel sure that she would be in a minority of one.

[Ms Dorries]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, and that satisfies me. I think that we will leave it there.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, because other colleagues will want to speak, but I want to make this very simple point: it is not for the Chair—and I absolutely respect what the shadow Leader of the House said—to pronounce on whether a motion, in terms of its effect, is lawful or not. The House makes a judgment on the merits or demerits of a motion and the law is ultimately interpreted by a court if there is a challenge. I am making no assertion of lawfulness or unlawfulness. The Attorney General is entirely comfortable in his own mind and will doubtless articulate that tomorrow. My concern is with the narrow confines of order and procedural propriety. I make no assertion beyond that.

[Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In one breath, the shadow Leader of the House complained that she had not seen the motion until she walked into the Chamber, and in the next, she said that the Opposition would not be supporting the motion. Until they have heard the arguments that can be made to support the motion, how can they so quickly come to a point of view unless they are playing political games with the future of this country and this deal, which delivers on the vote of 17.4 million people? It is game playing, Mr Speaker, and it has to stop.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her own points with conviction, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in accordance with the rules of this House that the Leader of the Opposition takes interventions only from male members of his party?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that there is no breach of rules whatsoever. The hon. Lady has made her own point, in her own way, and I acknowledge it. No breach of rules has taken place. Order has been maintained. That is clear to me and to the professional advisers to the Chair as well, and I think the hon. Lady knows it. However, she has made her own point, in her own inimitable way.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I do believe that the two issues were conflated and that that was used to argue for revealing the legal information on the wrong predication.

I have been in a quandary about the vote today. I would like to see the full legal evidence, as I am sure everybody in the House would, but there are conventions and other people to consider, and civil servants fall into that category. They serve us all with true and absolute independence. I do not know how any Government would ever be in this place if we could not depend absolutely on the impartial legal advice we receive from civil servants. If this motion was passed today, what civil servant or legal adviser would ever want to advise any future Government without first putting in place a filter of self-preservation, by considering the advice they give? Who would want to do that as a civil servant? Although I would love to see this legal advice, we have a duty to consider others: the people who serve both the public and us. I have 100% respect for civil servants. They work amazingly hard; they are truly independent; and they serve us without any political bias, and that should absolutely be considered.

On the public interest and the points the Attorney General made yesterday, none of us, apart from him and a select few, knows whether there are any issues in that legal advice that pertain to intelligence, national security or any other of those issues. I have to assume only that when he spoke yesterday about public interest, he was talking in the much broader context. This is an important issue. As he said yesterday,

“There is no procedure by which this House can have redactions or entertain circumstances in which it could weigh the competing public interest against the interest in disclosure, as a judge would do.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 557.]

Given what happened with the publication of the summary of the legal advice during the Iraq war, this inevitability that is happening today should have been foreseen then. We live in a changing world, one where people demand transparency and have a right to know all the full information. I believe that a resolution should have been passed in this House to give powers to this House—after all, Parliament is a court—and a process in this House whereby this House, probably through the authority of your office, Mr Speaker, via the Clerks and independent judicial advice, should be able to take a decision and redact matters of national intelligence and security from legal advice, so that people in this House can see legal advice. I hope that as a result of what has happened today, and given that demands to see legal advice will be made again in the future, the House will take cognisance of that and decide to pass a resolution that will ensure that we do not find ourselves in this position again.

As far as I am concerned, we have been told the worst; the Attorney General pulled no punches. He said:

“There is nothing to see here.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 557.]

But he told us what needed to be seen, so let me again quote his words. He said:

“There is therefore no unilateral right for either party to terminate this arrangement. This means that if no superseding agreement can be reached within the implementation period, the protocol would be activated and in international law would subsist even if negotiations had broken down.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 547.]

He told us the worst: we will be in the backstop in perpetuity. That was as bad as it gets. If we cannot withdraw from the backstop following the decision of this House, we are trapped, as somebody said from a sedentary position yesterday. I believe that no MP with any conscience, given what the Attorney General told us yesterday, could vote for the withdrawal agreement, because he pulled no punches—he told us the worst it can be. I commend him for that.

I want to finish, because I have to, with a comment about us. I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) when he said what he said at the Dispatch Box. One day, and I hope he is white in hair and long in tooth before he gets there, he may be the Attorney General, and his words may come back to haunt him at some time in the future. I have watched him many times and I could see that thought going through his mind. As a former legal adviser to one of most eminent law firms in the country, he knows full well, when he stands at that Dispatch Box, what he is saying and what he is doing. I hope you never find yourself in the position that you have put our Attorney General in. I would like to finish—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I cannot quite understand why the hon. Lady thinks that someone of my limited capabilities aspires to the high office of Attorney General.

[Ms Dorries]

I should know better, Mr Speaker, and I apologise. I would like to finish by saying that before we are Attorney Generals, Mr Speakers and Front-Bench spokesmen, we are all MPs—we are all elected Members. I believe that the Attorney General came to this Dispatch Box yesterday with honour and in good faith, and he was honest. If this motion is passed, the integrity, reputation and honour of a good man will be traduced. It would be a disgrace for this House to do that, because any one of us may one day be in that position. I hope that this motion does not pass today for that reason.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the First Secretary replies, I am sure that the—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) notified the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) of an intention to refer to her in this question—

[Ms Dorries]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

She did not? Well, that was disorderly—[Interruption.] Order. Nevertheless, the question has been asked and it would be perfectly proper for the First Secretary briefly to reply.

Personal Statement

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On Monday 11 November, the Committee on Standards published a report on my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests which concluded that I had breached the rules relating to how I registered information. Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to the House fully and unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the rules, with which I have at all times sought to comply.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that statement.

Business of the House

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to apply pressure on an issue that has come to my attention over the past 24 hours? A book for sale on Amazon, “To Train up a Child” by Michael and Debi Pearl advocates the beating of children under the age of 12 months, using a switch. The book recommends that a switch be cut from a willow tree, and be no longer than 12 inches in length and 8 cm in diameter. It advocates the use of paddles, rulers and other means to beat children from four months onwards. I have written to the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education, and to the Prime Minister’s Office and Amazon. Given that this issue has come to light only in the past 24 hours, will the Leader of the House advise how we can bring this issue to Parliament and apply pressure on Amazon to remove this book from sale?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is seeking a statement. That is what she wants.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats reneged on a promise to deliver boundary changes in exchange for a referendum on the alternative vote. If the Deputy Prime Minister goes to the Prime Minister and says that he will deliver boundary changes in exchange for state funding of political parties, what will the Prime Minister’s answer be?

Sergei Magnitsky

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the Russian ambassador write to you to try to prevent this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for that point of order. I hope that the clock will be held so that the time available to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) will not be reduced.

I can tell the House that I received a letter from the Russian ambassador, drawing my attention to what he regarded as the errors contained in the motion and the merit of what he thought to be that fact—I emphasise that this was what he thought to be that fact—being communicated to the sponsors of the debate. I replied to the ambassador, noting his letter and underlining to him that he must not expect me, as an impartial Speaker, to comment on the contents of either the letter or the motion. I reminded him of the date of the debate, and indicated that if he wished to communicate his views in writing to the sponsors of the debate, it was open to him to do so. I hope that my meaning was clear—that this House debates what it wants to debate and that if other people wish to send letters, they can send letters, but it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to act as a post person.

[Nadine Dorries]

Mr Putin does not want Russia to be treated any less fairly than any other country in respect of trade, defence or intelligence. That is fair enough, but he cannot expect Russia to be given any special treatment. Criminals—thieves, and those who have committed gross violations of human rights—are not welcome in the United Kingdom, no matter what passport they hold, and such criminals who happened to be British would be pursued to the full extent of the law.

Russia is held in deep affection in my office. Culturally, I am in awe of the country. Ilya Repin is one of my favourite artists. He was introduced to me by a master at Winchester college, Paul Thomas, when I went to speak there some years ago, and ever since then we have taken an interest in Russia—perhaps not quite as deep an interest as is taken in a certain Liberal Democrat Member’s office, but a deep interest none the less. However, that does not blind me to the faults of the Russian Government. What greater fault can a Government have than not only failing to protect their citizens, but being the agent through which they suffer, and protecting those criminals instead of the victims? I support the motion wholeheartedly.

Defence Responsibilities

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I believe that this may be the first time that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), has mentioned a registered interest. If that is the case, I wonder whether he could tell the House how long he has had that registered interest, and why it has not been mentioned before.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question needs to be put to the Secretary of State. However, it is on the record now, and I do not think that the House can wait any longer to hear from Mr Peter Bone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Liberal Democrats make up 8.7% of this Parliament and yet they seem to be influencing our free school policy, health and many issues including immigration and abortion. Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question from the hon. Lady will be heard.

[Nadine Dorries]

Does the Prime Minister think it is about time he told the Deputy Prime Minister who is the boss? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wanted to hear the question, but I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

‘(c) after paragraph (f) insert a new paragraph as follows—

“(g) independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy to the extent that the clinical commissioning group considers they will choose to use them.”.’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2A) After subsection (1) insert a new subsection as follows—

(1A) In this section, information, advice and counselling is independent where it is provided by either—

(i) a private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies; or

(ii) a statutory body.”.’.

Amendment 1221, in clause 14, page 9, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) After paragraph 8 insert—

“Provision of independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting a termination of pregnancy

8A (1) A local authority must make available to women requesting termination of pregnancy from any clinical commissioning group the option of receiving independent information, advice and counselling.

(2) In this paragraph, information, advice and counselling are independent where they are provided by either—

(a) a private body that does not itself refer, provide or have any financial interest in providing for the termination of pregnancies; or

(b) a statutory body.’.

Amendment 1252, page 9, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) After paragraph 8 insert—

“Provision of advice relating to unplanned pregnancy

8A The Secretary of State must ensure that all organisations offering information or advice in relation to unplanned pregnancy choices must follow current evidence-based guidance produced by a professional medical organisation specified by the Secretary of State.”.’.

Amendment 1180, in clause 240, page 226, line 31, at end insert—

‘(1) Regulations must require NICE to make recommendations with regard to the care of women seeking an induced termination of pregnancy, including the option of receiving independent information, advice and counselling about the procedure, its potential health implications and alternatives, including adoption.

(2) The regulations must require health or social care bodies or any private body that provides for the termination of pregnancies to comply with the recommendations made by NICE under subsection (1).’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let us try to maintain proceedings on an even keel. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is sorry, and that is fine.

[Nadine Dorries]

As I said, I do not want to look as if I am knocking abortion providers. As a nurse, I assisted with many terminations. I do not want to look as if I feel that there is no place for abortion provision. I am pro-choice and do not want to return to those other days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Lady makes it clear to whom she is giving way.

[Nadine Dorries]

I give way to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna).

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries]

I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but there is so much noise in the House that it is sometimes difficult to know whether somebody is seeking to intervene or standing for another purpose. Point of order, Mr Martin Horwood.

Business of the House

Debate between Nadine Dorries and John Bercow

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. We have two further important statements to follow, and a Backbench Business Committee debate that is heavily subscribed, so if I am to accommodate as many people as possible, brevity from those on the Back Benches and the Front Bench alike is required.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

This House needs an emergency debate. What we saw happen yesterday was deplorable. We saw National Union of Students officials egging the crowd on, although today Aaron Porter, the president of the NUS, is attempting to remove himself from the situation. We need to know whether the police were incompetent or badly briefed. Yesterday somebody could very easily have died. The behaviour of the NUS officials and stewards on the ground was deplorable, and we need a debate in the Chamber to discuss that matter.