Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As to the legality of such a proposition, I would have to look to others to advise. People can take their own counsel on this subject; I certainly would do so. If he is asking me whether I have seen any such motion, the answer is that I have not—I have seen no motion appertaining to tomorrow’s business beyond that which lies on the Order Paper suggesting that we might meet tomorrow. In terms of a substantive motion for tomorrow, I have as yet seen none. I am happy to tell him that, as the Leader of the House knows, I met a couple of very senior colleagues this morning who were exploring possibilities and consulting me. A conversation was had, as people would think was entirely normal and proper. I have not since heard from either of those senior right hon. or hon. Members, but I might do so during the course of the day.

As to the question of what people are briefing, I should observe that briefing is very much a phenomenon of our age: brief, brief, brief, create an impression, establish a narrative, try to dictate the course of events thereby—people do this all the time. I have not been briefed on any such plan, however, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to have changed my mind from the position that I enunciated on 18 March and reiterated on 25 March, and that I underlined again from the Chair yesterday. It remains the position so far as the convention is concerned. As the Leader of the House said—almost as a holding statement—during the business statement, we shall have to see what further work is done during the course of the day.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Once it becomes clear what the Government intend—once they have submitted their motion—would it be possible for you to make clear to the House the significance of the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, it is certainly important that we know what we are debating. The Leader of the House has announced that if we sit tomorrow there will be a debate on a motion relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I am not cavilling at that; I simply state it as a matter of fact. It could of itself be a perfectly orderly motion, but it is not specific, and is not intended to be specific, in terms of referring to a particular part of the Act. The House will obviously need to know what it is and is not debating, and I hope there will be greater clarity about that in the course of the day.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Certainly the Library can be asked to provide information and a note on this matter, copies of which can be made available, and I have every expectation that something will be provided. I had earlier discussions with and have just spoken to the senior Clerk at the Table, whose professionalism will be universally respected across the House. Those who serve us will do all they can to ensure that all possible material is available to colleagues as they undertake this deliberation. That is a very reasonable request, and I hope the answer suffices.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are intrinsically linked, could we be getting into a situation where we could comply with European law, but not with our own legislation?

[Mr Speaker]

That is conceivable. Is that outwith the bounds of reality? No, it is not.

RAF Centenary

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Is the Minister giving way or has he finished? I think he has finished.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have received no such indication or any approach on the matter, but he has put his point forcefully on the record and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. For now, we shall have to leave it there, but I am grateful to him for alerting us to his concerns.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were surprised and shocked to hear the announcement this morning that the Appledore shipyard in Devon is to close. It will mean the loss of 200 jobs. I wonder whether the Government will make a statement to the House on Monday about this very serious situation.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter for the Government, although it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter through me. I am not aware of any intention to make a statement, but we have until Monday for the Government to choose to do so, if they so wish—they may wish to do so, they may wish not to do so. He will be familiar with the procedures of the House that could be used if he wishes to ensure that the matter can be aired in a suitable fashion and at such length as he thinks appropriate in advance of Monday. He knows what options are open to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If it turns out to be a genuine point of order, I would have to imagine, albeit wrongly in this case, that it was a leap year, but we will have a go, if it flows directly, as I am advised, from Defence questions and is in no sense a cheeky continuation of existing argument, but is a genuine search for a ruling from the Chair on a procedural matter.

[Wayne David]

I can say that I have never been cheeky in my life, Sir. At the last Defence questions, the Minister of State was unable to answer my question about why the Type 31 frigates were not included in the MOD’s equipment plan. The Minister promised that I would receive a written answer. Six weeks later, I have still not received an answer. Mr Speaker, can you advise me what on earth I have to do to get a reply from the Government?

[Mr Speaker]

That is plainly unsatisfactory. No Member should have to wait six weeks for a reply. As colleagues of any experience in the House will know, the Leader of the House takes particular responsibility for chasing Ministers to ensure that replies are timely and preferably substantive. If the hon. Gentleman received an assurance on the Floor of the House that he would receive such a reply and all these weeks later he has not, that is completely unsatisfactory. I sense that he knows that he has probably found his own salvation by raising the matter on the Floor of the Chamber this afternoon in a way that will not go entirely unnoticed.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Pursuant to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry and to what the Leader of the House has said, I believe I am right in saying that there is to be a commemorative service at St Martin-in-the-Fields next Monday to mark the 25th anniversary of that appalling murder. I think I am also right in saying that our admirable Chaplain, Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, will be preaching at the service. I hope colleagues will agree that that is singularly appropriate.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, at the last business questions, you stated that you expected the Government to make an announcement in the House of Commons about the awarding of the mechanised infantry vehicle contract. In fact, that announcement was made during the recess, on Easter Saturday—a time, I would suggest, deliberately designed to minimise publicity and avoid scrutiny. May we have a debate in Government time in this House as soon as possible on that important £2 billion contract?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The one difficulty with that otherwise ingenious question is that it bears no relation to Government policy, for which the First Secretary is responsible, and relates instead to the policies of the shadow Chancellor, for which he is not.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Q8. Sharon Jones is a constituent who had a malignant brain tumour removed some 20 years ago, leaving her with excruciating headaches and severe pain in her neck and shoulders. Sharon has been in receipt of employment and support allowance, and the Department for Work and Pensions accepts that Sharon is not fit for work. However, she has now been placed in the work-related activity group and her benefit has been reduced. Will the First Secretary justify that to Sharon?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do apologise. I think we nearly missed the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). We must hear from the hon. Gentleman first; let’s hear the feller.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. May I return to the issue of Scotland and human rights? Clarity on that issue is now extremely important. The Deputy Leader of the House said that human rights were

“reserved for the UK Parliament and not a devolved matter.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 132.]

Will the Minister say quite clearly that she was wrong?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Friday the Government published a written statement announcing a commission to look into the Freedom of Information Act. The impression has been given that it is a cross-party commission with the support of all parties. May I make it clear that Opposition Members have not been consulted about the work of the commission, nor do we have representation on the commission, nor do we want to see any watering down of the Freedom of Information Act, the worth of which has been demonstrated this afternoon?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member has made his point and that of his party with crystal clarity. It is on the record, and we are grateful to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a considerable distance from Shipley and Yorkshire, but no doubt he will say he has a half-sister there, or something.

[Wayne David]

I am an only child, Mr Speaker.

With regard to Shipley and Yorkshire, can the Minister say how many of the jobs she mentioned were part-time, on zero-hours contracts or on the minimum wage? If she is not sure of the figures, does she agree with me that a heck of a lot of jobs are in those categories?

Devolution (Implications for England)

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, what a delicious choice. I call Mr Wayne David.

[Wayne David]

Good choice, Mr Speaker.

Following the Leader of the House’s previous answer, has he had any consultations at all with you, Mr Speaker, on possible options for deciding what is English-only legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot of questions to get through and we must make more timely progress.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to promote adaptation to climate change.

Flooding

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Wayne David.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Thank you for the sigh of confidence that you gave before calling me, Mr Speaker.

Everyone in the House would agree that we need a united Government response to this crisis. How does the Secretary of State respond to suggestions that there is a damaging Cabinet rift between him and the Environment Secretary?

Commission Work Programme 2014

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes the intervention, I am sure that he is only momentarily being forgetful and that he wants to hear from the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

[Wayne David]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, but they need to have time to make their speeches as well. I am just gently hinting.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was quoting. In those circumstances, the use of such a word is perfectly orderly, but I would not want colleagues to think that it is to be encouraged ordinarily, for it is not.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the Spanish Prime Minister’s comment that a separate Scotland would be outside the European Union as well as outside the United Kingdom, may we have a debate on the possibility of a Scotland that is in not-so-splendid isolation?

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 3—Cost and impact of Part 2—

‘Within one month of Royal Assent, the Electoral Commission must lay before Parliament—

(a) full cost projections of the impact of Part 2 on their running costs;

(b) their assessment of the administrative impact on third parties.’.

Amendment 65, in clause 41, page 47, line 40, at end insert—

‘(A1) None of Part 2 shall come into force until the report of any inquiry undertaken by a Committee of either House of Parliament during the passage of the Act into the impact of the Act has been published.’.

Amendment 66, page 48,line 2, leave out subsection (1)(b).

Amendment 4, page 48, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

Amendment 5, page 48, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (iii).

Amendment 6, page 48, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (iv).

Amendment 67, page 48, line 17, leave out subsection (3)(b).

Amendment 10, in clause 42, page 48, line 37, leave out subsections (3) to (6).

Amendment 11, page 49, line 18, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

Amendment 12, page 49, line 29, leave out subsection (9).

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House has offered helpful information that is now on the record, and we should leave it there. [Interruption.] There is no matter of order for the Chair. It is not a debate. Information has been volunteered and we will leave it at that.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It was incorrect information.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I will give the hon. Gentleman a chance, and he had better not abuse it.

[Wayne David]

I would just like to make the point that I chose my words carefully in my question, which has been confirmed by Hansard. What I actually said was that the family had written to the Prime Minister and had not received a reply. That is correct—they have not received a reply. What the Leader of the House said about the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was accurate. There was a response, but it made no reference to the case whatsoever. I stand by those comments.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, if I may—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the ministerial team and to colleagues.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

1. What progress the Electoral Commission is making on preparations for the full confirmation test in the transition to individual electoral registration.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said that I was wrong when I asserted that there had been no progress in completing the single market in energy and digital. However, his statement says that between June and October there was no progress—the statements are exactly the same. That shows clearly that I was right and he was wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is a matter of debate. The hon. Gentleman has clearly satisfied himself of his own position, which I am sure will be reassuring to all his friends and family. The point is on the record, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, of whose point of order I had no advance notice. I make no complaint about that, but it is difficult to be certain as to the detail of how best the matter can be addressed.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are responsible for the work of their officials. If he seeks to hold Ministers to account for information that is or is not being provided, he has the recourse of the Table Office and the opportunity to table questions. If he remains dissatisfied, I know that he is nothing if not persistent and indefatigable, and he can always seek an Adjournment debate on the matter. I hope that is a helpful and substantive response to his important point.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Government Chief Whip has been chewing for most of this morning, is it appropriate for masticating to be allowed in the Chamber?

[Mr Speaker]

I will not go into that. I would say only that quite a lot of noise has been heard in the course of the past hour, but the Government Chief Whip has been as quiet as a church mouse.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not customary or desirable for Members to intervene from the Front Bench in these Adjournment debates? I gave an indication in response to a point of order yesterday of the distinction between an intervention and a speech in other people’s Adjournment debates, but that ruling referred to Back Benchers. This is a very unusual practice, and the right hon. Gentleman is not normally given to unusual practices, as far as I am aware.

[Mr David]

That is absolutely correct, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend is not known for unusual practices in any shape or form. I think that he was about to make a fair point, however. It is strange that the Minister who is to respond to the debate is not from the Home Office, when it is the Home Office that has responsibility for the matter under consideration. Instead, we have a Minister from the Cabinet Office. Perhaps he will explain the reason for this when he responds to the debate.

The Minister—although he is from the Cabinet Office—will be aware that genuine concern has been expressed by Members in this House and the other place that the Government do not intend to have a publicly funded mailing or booklet distributed locally, giving details of the candidates standing in the elections for police and crime commissioners. Like the Electoral Commission, I believe that the Government have failed to recognise the importance of such material.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for advance notice of her point of order, and for the point of order itself. Sadly, none of the three requests that she has put to me is a matter for the Chair; all three are matters—her brow is furrowed, but I assure her that I am right on this issue—for discussion perhaps between the Liaison Committee, as the collective representative of Select Committees, on the one hand and Treasury Front Benchers on the other.

I should say to the hon. Lady and to the House, which I am sure will want the issue to be interpreted, that the point at issue is the procedure for Select Committees to deal with proposals made by Ministers under the recently passed Public Bodies Act 2011. I note—she referred to this in passing—that a proposed Standing Order to deal with those draft orders is indeed item 23 in today’s Future Business, section C, and no doubt those on the Treasury Bench, which does not include the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House at the moment but a number of Whips, who doubtless can convey the relevant information, will have heard her point. I have a feeling that if she does not get satisfaction, she is likely, if precedent is anything by which to judge, to return to the matter.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the end of October I submitted a written question to the Treasury for a named day reply. On the named day, 7 November, the reply from the Treasury Minister was, “I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.” It is 19 December, and I fully appreciate that I asked about a sensitive issue—fiscal integration in the eurozone—and I know how difficult things are in the coalition on the issue of Europe, but 19 December surely indicates that I should have had a reply by now. Will you, Mr Speaker, make urgent inquiries with the Treasury to ensure that I have a reply as quickly as possible?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. This has been the subject of some considerable discontent on both sides of the House over a sustained period. Ministers have heard me say before that conforming to the spirit of what the House expects requires the provision of a timely and substantive response to the question posed. Simply to say just before the deadline or on the day of the deadline, “I will reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible,” really is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman is a perspicacious Member if ever there was one, and he might wish to provide that example and possibly others to the Procedure Committee—and, perhaps, to write to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who chairs that august Committee and is looking into those matters—in the hope that he and his colleagues can get satisfaction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman may repeat the question.

[Mr David]

I was asking the Secretary of State what meaningful discussions he had had with the Scottish Government on this vital issue.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister misled the House yesterday—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr David]

I am sure that it was inadvertent, as we all know. He said that Labour MEPs had voted in favour of an increase in the EU budget, but that is not the case. They voted against the increase. When the Prime Minister makes his statement to the House on Monday, perhaps he could correct the inadvertent mistake that he made.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Lady says and certainly do not treat it with levity, but I am not convinced that I am, in this situation, a better conveyor belt than the right hon. Lady herself. She has just registered her concern and conveyed her message to the Secretary of State, and in those circumstances I do not think that I need to do so.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Wednesday last week, at column 986 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) may have given the wrong impression to the House by implying that in the European Parliament Labour MEPs had supported an increase in the EU budget. That is not the case, nor did they vote for the EU to have tax-raising powers. I say that to set the record straight.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has done so—doubtless to his own satisfaction and, possibly, to that of others.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Wayne David

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In the light of the comments made by the Leader of the House today, might it not be appropriate to have a debate on whether the title of Deputy Prime Minister should be changed to “Deputy Prime Minister in a Personal Capacity”?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House.