Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Lord Swire

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Hugo Swire]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have very little time for this important debate, and I suspect that at any stage you might limit our speeches, yet the debate seems to be turning into an internal, navel-gazing exercise by the SNP about what it has and has not achieved at Holyrood. Can we get back to the subject of the debate, which is the future relationship between the UK and the EU?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is setting out the context of his remarks. What he says is, of course, not a matter for me, but if he exceeds the parameters of the debate, I will stop him and insist that he stay within them. At the moment, I think that he is erring a little but will soon come back to the main purpose of the debate. I am also certain that he, appreciating that a lot of people wish to speak and that his speech is not time limited, will not take an awful lot longer.

Point of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Lord Swire

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. I can see that we have two sides of the same story, not surprisingly—that is what this Chamber is for. I am concerned by the point of order put forward by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), but the arrangement of questions is of course a matter for the Government, not for the Chair. Mr Speaker has no direct input or influence in how these matters are done. I understand that if changes are made to the order of questions, that is usually discussed through the usual channels. If that has not happened on this occasion, it is regrettable.

I understand, though, that the revised rota was actually published by the Table Office on 13 June and that the new dates for Defence and Home Office orals have been visible in the “Future Business” section of the Order Paper since that date. I appreciate, of course, that it is easy to overlook these matters. I understand that the Table Office will explore the best way to highlight changes to the rota in future. However, I am sure that the House has heard both the points made by the hon. Lady and by the right hon. Gentleman—

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

And it is about to hear a further point from Sir Hugo Swire.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was wondering if you could offer any assistance in enabling those on the Labour Front Bench to follow parliamentary procedure more closely and to actually read what is printed in good time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is of course incumbent upon every Member of the House to look at the Order Paper every day, but there are also matters of courtesy to be observed. I think that those courtesies are usually observed, and if there has been a failure to do so on this occasion, I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard these exchanges and that apologies will be forthcoming.



Bill Presented

Rail Passenger (Compensation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Bim Afolami, supported by Sir Mike Penning, Tom Tugendhat, Tim Loughton, Huw Merriman, Sir Michael Fallon, Heidi Allen, Anne Main, Teresa Pearce, Mohammad Yasin, Caroline Lucas and Iain Stewart, presented a Bill to make provision for a single compensation scheme for passengers across train operators; to require train operators to pay automatic compensation to season ticket holders and certain other passengers where certain standards of service are not met; to allow train operators to recover compensation paid to passengers from Network Rail in certain circumstances; to establish a body to administer rail compensation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 242).

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Lord Swire

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

The former Chief Whip makes a very good point. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that I would expect a former Chief Whip to make.

Let me set the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) at rest on two points. First, although there are in excess of 50 amendments and new clauses, some of them address the same points as others, so we are not addressing more than 50 separate points of debate. The other point that I draw to his attention is that the House voted for and supported the programme motion, and that is not a matter for me. I am sure that I can now rely on Sir Hugo Swire to address the Committee briefly and pertinently.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

I shall seek not to detain the Committee for too long so as not to repeat many of the arguments that hon. Friends and colleagues have made and will no doubt make again and again throughout this evening.

I wish to talk about the two new clauses that have dominated proceedings to date, one rather less emotional than the other. The unemotional one, I would submit, is new clause 3. We have talked about parliamentary oversight of the negotiations and heard the word “scrutiny” bandied around across the Chamber. I sometimes get the impression that some in this Chamber would seek to scrutinise every single line, cross every “t” and dot every “i” of the Government’s negotiating position. It would be interesting to conduct a straw poll as to how many Members in this Committee have ever taken part in a proper negotiation—a commercial negotiation—that requires, at times, one to keep one’s cards close to hand before declaring them. It is impossible, irresponsible and unthinkable to have to negotiate this in public, and particularly so to insert clauses such that anything discussed must be reported back to this House at intervals of

“no more than two months”—

eight weeks—each and every time. The new clause does not say what Parliament might then do if it does not like what the Government are reporting back. Do Members want a vote on it? We have heard about the possibility of legal involvement—judicial review. This is wholly unrealistic and undesirable.