Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and Nigel Evans

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and his forward notice of it. This is clearly an urgent matter, and I know that he is a diligent MP and will have already contacted the Home Office on it. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to bring it to the attention of the Home Department today so that we can at least get some clarity on where it could go. I appreciate that.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make a helpful suggestion, and seek your guidance on it. The Speaker is a good, decent and honourable man, and we are lucky to have him as the Speaker of the House of Commons. He has my 100% full support and my total confidence. He made a mistake yesterday and, unlike most politicians, he has been big enough to come to the House and admit that. If only other MPs would admit when they made mistakes, we probably would be seen in a better light. I am pretty certain that he retains the full confidence of the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the House. By the way, if we all had to lose our jobs every time we made a mistake, I would have lost mine 19 years ago, and probably every week since. Let us be reasonable about this and put it in perspective.

May I make a suggestion? There have been many reports about what pressure was or was not placed on Mr Speaker before his decision yesterday. I do not want him to be asked to breach any confidences, because conversations between the Speaker and Members should remain private —we should respect that. However, it would be helpful if the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means could issue guidance to Members of this House on what is an appropriate way to make a request of the Speaker, and what would be considered undue influence or inappropriate, over-the-top requests.

If we could have some guidance on that, it may stop instances in the future where Members are accused of putting intolerable pressures on the Chair, because we would all know where we stand and what is and is not acceptable. I ask if you could go away and think about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hopefully, we can draw a line under this matter and get on with what the people who elected us want us to focus on—important matters nationally and internationally.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point of order. He said that if he had to resign every time he made a mistake, he would have been gone 19 years ago. I expect he would never have even got here! None the less, I am grateful for his warm words, which I will pass to the Speaker. I know that there are ongoing discussions, and I am sure that he will be in touch with the hon. Member.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I wrong in thinking that Third Reading is about what is actually in the Bill, rather than what is not? The shadow Minister seems to be referring to what is not in the Bill. My understanding was that on Third Reading we are supposed to talk about what is actually in the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I must say that the hon. Lady does seem to be making rather an extensive speech, but I am sure she will be coming to her point shortly.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Nigel Evans

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are supposed to be debating the amendment tabled by Mr Philip Davies, which has nothing to do with the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will press on, as I am sure you and others would wish me to do.

If the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and the Minister is to get agreement from Scotland and Wales before a trial goes ahead, I fail to see any possible objection to making that clear in the Bill. The Minister said that he had made progress with the Bill in a way that maximised consensus. As far as I can see, consensus can win out. All it needs is for my hon. Friend and the Minister to say that they will accept my amendment so that

“agreement from the Scottish First Minister and the First Minister of Wales”

is obtained before a trial goes ahead. At that point, I can sit down and allow the Bill to progress. I see no reason why this should be a stumbling block, given that my amendment proposes the intention of my hon. Friend and the Minister in any case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I beg to move amendment 44, page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 73, page 4, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 74, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 75, page 4, line 12, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 46, page 4, line 12, leave out ‘negative’ and insert ‘the affirmative’.

Amendment 48, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 11.

Amendment 9, in clause 11, page 4, line 24, leave out ‘during’ and insert

‘up to three years after’.

Amendment 20,  page 4, line 28, after ‘Ireland’, insert

‘the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers’.

Amendment 21,  page 4, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 51,  page 4, line 29, leave out from ‘must’ to end and insert

‘obtain agreement from the Scottish First Minister and the First Minister of Wales.’.

Amendment 15,  page 4, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless resolutions supporting the order have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.’.

[Philip Davies]

I will try again with this group to persuade my hon. Friends of the merits of the amendments, the purpose of which is not to damage the Bill or prevent it from progressing, but to strengthen it. Lest anyone be in any doubt, some of the amendments in this group are similar to amendments in the previous group. I should make it clear that, as with the previous amendment that we have just voted on, if any of my amendments in this group were accepted at this late stage, I would be happy to support the Bill enthusiastically, because my amendments would, without doubt, strengthen the Bill. However, we have to deal with the Bill as it is and not base our decisions on the assurances that we have received from the Minister.

Amendment 44 would delete clause 9(1)(b). The clause relates to the end of the trial, and I have to say in passing that there seems to be a slight contradiction in the wording of the Bill—it may well just be a legalistic point. The clause is entitled “The end of the trial”, but the first sentence beneath the title states:

“The Secretary of State must, during the trial period, do one of the following”.

I was slightly confused about that, because it seems to give the Secretary of State the power to do one of the things listed at any point in the trial period, not just at the end as suggested by the clause title. Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain why that is the case.

Clause 9(1) states that the Secretary of State must do one of the things listed. The first is to make an order to abandon the trial—that makes sense. The second, in paragraph (b), is to make an order during the trial period to advance the time by one hour permanently. Given that the Bill regrettably does not contain the safeguards that I and other hon. Members sought in the previous group of amendments, I wish through amendment 44 to prevent the Secretary of State from making such an order. I do not believe that is appropriate without the safeguards that we have discussed previously, which I will discuss again under this group of amendments.

Amendment 46 relates to clause 9(3), which states:

“An order under subsection (2) is subject to negative resolution procedure.”

All the way through the Bill I have been pleased to see that each provision is subject to the affirmative procedure, but clause 9 appears to me to be the only part of the Bill that is subject to the negative procedure. The amendment is merely intended to change that to the affirmative procedure, which is standard in the rest of the Bill. Given that that procedure has been happily accepted in all other parts of the Bill, I would like to think that the House would be very happy to see it applied to clause 9 too.

The other amendments in this group that relate to clause 9 are amendments 73 to 75, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am sure that we all look forward to him speaking at great length about why he introduced them. It seems to me—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that amendment 73 would simply delete clause 9(1)(c). He may well be able to explain why he felt that was so important.

Amendment 74 would delete clause 9(2). I must say that as ever, my hon. Friend was far more alert than me in seeking to do so. It appears to give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers without any great safeguards. I suspect that is why he has sought to delete that subsection, but of course he may well have had better reasons than that. I am sure he will be able to tell us what they were.

Amendment 75 would delete clause 9(3), which is the subsection setting out that the clause is subject to the negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend may well have wanted it deleted because he, too, was unhappy with that. I would like to think that my amendment 46 would make his amendment 75 redundant.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Nigel Evans

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

With the leave of the House, may I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, those who supported my Bill—I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for their typically robust comments on my behalf—and those who contributed to the debate even though they did not agree with me?

It is sad that in this age it is so difficult to persuade Members of the merits of the principle that people should be given jobs on merit, and merit alone. It is like pushing water uphill to try and make the case for that basic and, I should have thought, obvious proposition. On that note I shall conclude the debate and press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 3, Noes 39.

Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Nigel Evans

Friday 21st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Further to my point of order earlier this morning, is this not just one more example of the filibustering and archaic procedures that are preventing genuine private Members’ Bills from receiving scrutiny in Committee?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know how frustrating Fridays are for those who have Bills that are down the line, but my job in the Chair is, if a filibuster takes place, to stop it immediately. That is not the case and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is in order.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am glad that you think that the points that I have made are relevant to the Bill. I am genuinely disappointed that Opposition Members do not wish to engage in a debate. I thought that that was the whole point of Bills going through Parliament—that we debated them. When I have finished making the points I have to make I will, in customary fashion, sit down. I always thought that that was the way that debates worked in this place—that people spoke until they had finished and then they stopped.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Nigel Evans

Friday 22nd October 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Ideally, I would like to hear from the Minister before I accept that motion. I understand, Mr Davies, that you have been entertaining the House for 59 minutes. It is a red letter day for all of us, and we are clearly gripped by everything that you are saying, but if you are now able to bring your remarks to a close so that the House can be informed of the Government’s position on the Bill, I would be extremely grateful.

[Philip Davies]

I think that that is a sensible way forward, because we all want to hear what the Minister has to say. I will toss away the Network Rail arguments if you will give me permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to touch on the British Airways dispute, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke about that most of all.

The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the errors that were made may not have made a material difference to the result of the ballot in the BA dispute, but they were clearly not deemed accidental. We should have some protection in law for employers who face strike action by people who have not followed what the law requires of them. The law is not particularly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, many strikes take place throughout the country every year—far too many already happen. It is not difficult for people to take strike action. All we expect is that people fulfil their obligations under the law. In the BA v. Unite case, it is perfectly clear that the judge who granted the injunction felt that the errors were not accidental, that Unite should have known or did know about them, and that they should not be deemed minor.

I will conclude to follow your will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that the House will have to miss out on the rest of my contribution. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I am very grateful to my hon. Friends. I urge all hon. Members not to consider only the simplistic side of the debate and the opportunity that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington offers to clear up a small technicality, but to bear in mind the massive impact that the Bill would have on employers and the paying public throughout the country—those who rely on our services. The Bill will be hugely damaging at best. However, even from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, it is unnecessary and does nothing to help trade unions.