Debates between Nigel Evans and Chris Clarkson during the 2019 Parliament

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Clarkson
Tuesday 1st November 2022

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - -

I call Chris Clarkson.

Chris Clarkson Portrait Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been notified that I will be mentioning him in the Chamber, claimed in a point of order on 19 October:

“I saw Members being physically manhandled into another Lobby and being bullied.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 804.]

Later, on the BBC, he claimed that he saw signs of “clear bullying”. Let us leave aside the fact that the first instinct of most people, if they saw signs of clear bullying, would be to help the perceived victim rather than to take photographs for social media. May I ask your advice on this, Mr Deputy Speaker? In light of the findings of the Speaker’s report earlier today, would it be in order for the hon. Member to come to the Chamber and correct the record as he has clearly misstated what happened?

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The hon. Member has informed the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that he was mentioning him, and I do not think that he was named by either the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) or the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith). All I can say is that the Speaker has had an investigation and has issued a statement today, which he did at the beginning of the proceedings. I understand that the photograph has been taken down and an apology made.

It has been made absolutely clear by the Speaker that no photographs should be taken in areas where no authorisation has been given. That matter has now been dealt with comprehensively and we should now—[Interruption.] The Chair does not have the responsibility to bring Members to this Chamber, but I am certain that the hon. Member has been informed, as has been said. I know that he is detained elsewhere, otherwise I am sure that he would be have been in the Chamber. It is up to him whether he makes that public apology.

Bill Presented

Healthy Start Scheme (Take-Up) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Kate Green, supported by Sir Stephen Timms, Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, Paul Maynard, Mary Kelly Foy, Tim Loughton, Daisy Cooper, Jim Shannon, Ruth Cadbury, Sir Peter Bottomley and Kate Osborne, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to ensure that families eligible for the Healthy Start Scheme are registered to receive it; to confer certain powers on Government Departments and agencies and public bodies for that purpose; to provide for an opt-out where the family wishes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 178).

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Chris Clarkson
Friday 28th October 2022

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Clarkson Portrait Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - -

Order. You do not have to look at me if it is too painful, but please at least face the microphones.

Chris Clarkson Portrait Chris Clarkson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Mr Deputy Speaker, you just can’t have too much of a good thing.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and relevant speech. On the payment arrangements for collect and pay, the payer has to pay 20% but the recipient has to pay 4%. Does my hon. Friend agree that the arrangement should perhaps be looked at more thoroughly, so if somebody is forced to use this arrangement because of the bad behaviour of the other party, they should not be liable for that extra 4%?