Public Health

Debate between Nigel Evans and Desmond Swayne

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

This is a situation of state capture. The Government are completely in thrall to a lobby driving a policy that has manifestly failed—it has failed, or we would not be here yet again. It is a complete failure, yet we go through increasing iterations of it, with ever-tighter controls and restrictions, in the hope that it might finally work. And, then, when there is a possibility of change, as a consequence of the arrival of the vaccines, the crazed lobby has already begun to signal that the social control will not be over and that some restrictions will remain; indeed, the chiefs have pointed out that they might have to be reimposed all over again next winter.

To those colleagues who are contemplating voting for these measures this evening, buoyed up by opinion pollsters telling them that, actually, the voters are in favour of them and, indeed, that they crave even tighter restraints on their liberty, I would point out that when the devastating economic consequences of this policy come home to roost, and we see double-dip recession and years of slow growth as firms cannot take up new opportunities because they are saddled with debt, those same voters, who were so enthusiastic, will abandon them, and those colleagues will be back to point a finger of blame—and, on that occasion at least, they will be right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Definitely not on mute, Sir Desmond.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Desmond Swayne

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Amendments and new clauses to be moved on Report may now be tabled. Members should table them through the Public Bill Office inbox: [e-mail].

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of the orders that we are about to deal with are quite dated, but I assume that they have been debated in a Committee upstairs. They touch on very intimate parts of our liberty and our choice. Is there any protocol on the circumstances in which they could be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than upstairs in a Committee stitched up by the Committee of Selection?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The default procedures of the House, as the right hon. Member knows, are designed such that these measures are not debated on the Floor of the House. Of course, any Committee stages upstairs could have been attended. If any of these measures do not quite fit with his understanding as to what is acceptable, he is able to shout “Object”. I will take that objection, and he will have the opportunity to have his name recorded in a deferred Division tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Debate between Nigel Evans and Desmond Swayne

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I take motion 5 on its own, motion 6 on its own and then motions 7 to 18 together?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

We can take motions 5, 6 and 8 on their own.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Okay, we will take motions 5, 6—7, as well—and 8 on their own, and then we will take motions 9 to 18 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 828), dated 4 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You object to them all being taken together.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Can we have motions 11 and 15 separately?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I tell you what: let us do them all separately, and I think everyone will be pleased and it will be more orderly.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 865), dated 14 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 875), dated 18 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 882), dated 20 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 897), dated 25 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 898), dated 25 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 906), dated 26 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 907), dated 26 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 921), dated 28 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 September, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 930), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 September, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A). Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I., 2020, No. 931), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 September, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Regulatory Reform

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)),

That the draft Legislative Reform (Renewal of Radio Licences) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Debate between Nigel Evans and Desmond Swayne

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have delayed my point of order, but it is pertinent particularly to this business. May I ask why the Financial Secretary’s excellent biography of Adam Smith has not been laid on the Table as one of the papers pertinent to this debate?

You will appreciate that Adam Smith was absolutely categoric in his view of taxation—that it should be fair, proportionate, not retrospective and not arbitrary, which is clearly the subject matter of this afternoon’s debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is as if the right hon. Gentleman read my mind. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments.

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Desmond Swayne

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, but she knows that it is not a matter for the Chair. I have been given no notification that a statement will be made, but I am absolutely certain that the Whips will feed back the point that she has made.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, three occupants of the Treasury Bench referred to the presence of a Secretary of State in the Gallery, contrary to Standing Orders. I do not blame them for doing so: the previous Speaker made an art form of it. Indeed, you may recall the nadir when three ageing members of the Osmond family—minor members—took a bow having received his approbation. It is within the gift of the House to change its Standing Orders if it wishes, but for the moment are we to abide by Standing Orders or are we not? Or can we simply choose which Standing Orders apply?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I remember the Osmonds being up in the Gallery, and I was thrilled to see them. But the Standing Orders are the Standing Orders. They are there for a reason, and it is good to remind everybody in the House that the norm is that Members do not refer to people in the Gallery. He is also right that if the House wishes to change its Standing Orders, it is within its rights to do so.

BILL PRESENTED

Agriculture Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Villiers, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Barclay, Secretary Truss, Secretary Simon Hart, Secretary Julian Smith, George Eustice and Rishi Sunak, presented a Bill to authorise expenditure for certain agricultural and other purposes; to make provision about direct payments following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about payments in response to exceptional market conditions affecting agricultural markets; to confer power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to a storage aid; to make provision about reports on food security; to make provision about the acquisition and use of information connected with food supply chains; to confer powers to make regulations about the imposition of obligations on business purchasers of agricultural products, marketing standards, organic products and the classification of carcasses; to make provision for the recognition of associations of agricultural producers which may benefit from certain exemptions from competition law; to make provision about fertilisers; to make provision about the identification and traceability of animals; to make provision about red meat levy in Great Britain; to make provision about agricultural tenancies; to confer power to make regulations about securing compliance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time: to be read a Second time on Monday 20 January, and to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Desmond Swayne

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evans]

I do not believe so. It was used as the venue for the count for the by-election and the subsequent general election, which was fortunately only 12 months after, because I lost the by-election, but then won the general election in 1992.

We do not want to lose any school time. Nativity plays have been mentioned. We do not want to lose nativity plays, either. It has been said that losing some nativity plays at least brings to an end the farce that has gone on here. I fully appreciate that, but we do not want to inflict any sorrow on children who have been rehearsing for their nativity plays. If the election is on 12 December rather than 9 December, it will give schools the opportunity to plan ahead and to make sure that the rooms that are used will not conflict with any nativity plays.

Whether the election is on 9 or 12 December, people who are listening to this debate ought to take the opportunity now to ensure that they have postal votes or proxy votes. I have already bumped into a number of people who told me that they are going trekking in the Himalayas and are going to be away for five weeks. People are going on cruises and all that sort of stuff. I hope that people take precautions now. The most important thing at a general election is for people not to lose their vote and to be able to participate in helping to vote for the next Government of this country. Whether the election is on 9 or 12 December, I hope people vote Conservative and ensure that we deliver the Brexit that they voted for at the referendum.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I do not know if it is just my easy-going charm, but the worst I have ever heard in Pontypridd, West Bromwich and the New Forest is, “Sorry, mate—I’m Labour.” I hope that the Hansard reporters will not feel the necessity to record verbatim some of the words that we have heard this evening.

When the Minister replies, I would like him to comment on the implications of the difference of the three days between the two dates that stand before us and how that will impact on the date for nominations, and whether those days will fall either side of the publication of the new electoral register. When the new nomination form is filled out, the electoral numbers have to be recorded, and those numbers will undoubtedly have changed after 1 December. Is that going to present a problem? If so, I wonder if the Minister could draw attention to that.