Sir Roger Gale
MP for Herne Bay and Sandwich · Conservative · United Kingdom
“In welcoming the Prime Minister to his place, let me say that I noticed his criticism of the water companies—a justified criticism, in many cases. May I direct his attention to the predatory activities of another private company?”
“The Secretary of State appears to think it is scaremongering to suggest that, with effect from this weekend, passenger and freight traffic using the channel tunnel and the port of Dover will be disrupted as a result of the European entry and exit system.”
“Before I call Esther McVey to move the motion, and then the Minister to respond, I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. No such notice has been given.”
“As the Minister has indicated, over the spring bank holiday there was chaos at Dover, at St Pancras and at the channel tunnel because of the failure of the EES. The French authorities were quite simply not prepared or able to implement the facilities properly.”
“This House has the capacity to criticise, but it also has the capacity to be fair. The Minister probably finds himself between a rock and a cliff face in a situation that he did not make himself. That does not absolve the MCA from the criticism that has rightly been levelled at it earlier today.”
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures the Government have put in place to ensure that in the coming holiday season, travellers and business freight are not delayed at our ports, our international railway stations and our airports as a result of the imposition of the European entry and exit system.”
The complete record
Every one of 723 lines we hold for Sir Roger Gale, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 15.
“That concludes proceedings on the urgent question. I thank the Minister for his now daily appearance, as well as the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).”
“Order. The hon. Gentleman will find out that I like to observe the courtesies of the House. That concludes the proceedings on the statement. I thank the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench for their attendance.”
“It is not for the Chair to go into Member’s motives for speaking in the House, or the motives behind when and for how long they choose to speak, as long as when they do, they remain within the rules.”
“I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this point of order. The ten-minute rule, giving Members leave to introduce a Bill, limits speeches for and against to 10 minutes each, and those speeches are normally heard without interruption. It is not in order for Members of this House to act in an obstructive manner by speaking at inordinate length, which is what filibustering means. According to Hansard, the speech by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) took no more than seven minutes. As is clear from column 720, the Chair was, as always, listening carefully to that speech to make sure that it was in order—and for verification, I was the Chair.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. As he will be aware, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has until 12.30 pm on Wednesday next week to table an oral question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for Tuesday 11 March, and of course, as an experienced Member, he knows how to table an early-day motion, and how to apply for a general debate in Westminster Hall, a half-hour Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate. The Table Office will be pleased to advise him on other options.”
“The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chair is not responsible for ministerial correspondence or responses. I seem to recall that in the dim and distant past, when I was on the Back Benches, I waited quite a long time for ministerial replies myself. I am quite sure that the usual channels will have heard what she had to say. If she wishes for further advice, I am sure that the Table Office will be most willing to help.”
“Yet again, that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in congratulating and thanking Jill Brown for her long and distinguished service to several Members of this House.”
“I will go out on a limb and say that we probably all agree that the House did not cover itself in glory in that debate last week. That said, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) is well aware that the Chair, and indeed officers of the House, are not responsible for remarks made in the media outside the House, so I am afraid that on that score, I cannot assist him further.”
“Before I call Sir Chris Bryant, may I gently remind him that he has to give a speech in opposition to the Bill? I take it that the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in opposition.”
“Order. Other Members may not wish to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I do, and I need to know whether he is in order. If hon. Members want to have private conversations, it would be helpful if they could either have them outside or keep quiet.”
“Order. Some 60 Members wish to take part in the debate. Even given the time available, and allowing half an hour for the winding-up speeches—10 minutes for each—we must impose a time limit. I will start immediately with a limit of five minutes, but that is very likely to drop to three minutes in fairly short order.”
“Order. A number of Members have indicated a desire to withdraw their application to speak, but we will still be playing beat the clock, so I am dropping the time limit to four minutes.”
“First, the right hon. and learned Member will appreciate that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, if he has something he wishes to raise directly with the Home Office, he should most certainly do so. He has already placed his case on the record in the presence of the Home Secretary.”
“The hon. Lady will be fully aware that that is also not a point of order for the Chair, but it might just be the subject of an early-day motion. I leave that to her judgment. Bill Presented Family Visas (Minimum Income) Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Alistair Carmichael presented a Bill to prohibit any increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 165).”
“I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their participation this morning. Will Members leaving please do so quickly and quietly?”
“Order. Before we proceed, I heard what the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, and I heard the Chairman of Ways and Means’ admonition of another hon. Member earlier. The difference in this case is that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was here for the start of the speech. That said, I personally believe that there is a prerequisite for Members, whenever they can, to be in from the start of a debate and to hear the whole debate.”
“Order. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) has been in the Chamber for about five minutes. I do not expect hon. Members to walk into the Chamber and seek to support colleagues through an intervention.”
“I am not a betting man myself, but I suspect that if every Member of Parliament who placed a bet on anything was required to enter it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the book might be rather full. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that was a nice try, but not a matter for the Chair.”
“(2) This review must propose options for introducing a multiplier to link the higher rate and the reduced rate within the domestic band. (3) The Chancellor must, at the next fiscal event, make clear what changes, if any, he will implement as a result of this review.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the multipliers used to calculate the higher rates of air passenger duty, and to propose options for introducing a multiplier to link the higher rate and the reduced rate within the domestic band. Government amendments 1 to 6.”
“(2) The review under subsection (1) must— ((a) assess the impact of full expensing being made permanent, and (b) consider what other policies would support the effectiveness of the measures in clause 1 of this Act.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact on investment and growth of the measures in this Act to make full expensing permanent, and to consider what other policies could support the effectiveness of permanent full expensing. New clause 7— Review of multipliers used to calculate higher rates of air passenger duty — “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, at the next fiscal event, publish a review of the multipliers used to calculate higher rates of air passenger duty for each destination band.”
“(2) The review must consider— ((a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions, ((b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities, and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act, across the UK including devolved nations and regions, ((c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK including devolved nations and regions, and (d) the implications for the public finances of the public health and NHS effects of the provisions of this Act.” New clause 6— Assessment of the impact of permanent full expensing — “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in clause 1 of this Act on— (a) business investment, and (b) economic growth.”
“New clause 4— Review of public health, inequality and poverty effects of Act — “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health, inequality and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
“(2) The review under subsection (1) must include details of— (a) the average sentence handed down in each of the last five years for the offences listed in section 31; (b) the range of sentences handed down in each of the last five years for the offences listed in section 31; (c) the number of stop notices issued in each of the last five years to which the measures in section 33 would apply; an (d) the estimated impact on revenue collected in each of the next five financial years resulting from the introduction of the measures in sections 31 to 33.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish details of the sentences given and stop notices issued in each of the last five years to tackle evasion and avoidance, as well as the revenue expected to be generated from the measures to tackle evasion and avoidance in this Act in each of the next five years.”
“(2) The review under subsection (1) must include details of the implementation costs of all measures related to credit or relief for research and development that have been introduced since December 2019.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish a review setting out the total implementation costs of all changes to research and development reliefs in the current Parliament. New clause 3— Review of measures to tackle evasion and avoidance — “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the measures in sections 31 to 33 to tackle evasion and avoidance.”
“(2) The review must evaluate the effectiveness of the provisions of section 31 in preventing fraud involving taxpayers’ money through comparison with the effectiveness of— (a) other measures that seek to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money, and (b) the approach taken in other countries.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to review the effectiveness of measures in this Act to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money, and to compare them with other measures that seek to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money and the approach taken in other countries. New clause 2— Review of reliefs for research and development — “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the implementation costs of the measures in section 2 incurred by— (a) HMRC, and (b) businesses.”
“With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1— Review of effectiveness of section 31 measures in preventing fraud involving taxpayers’ money — “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of section 31 in preventing fraud involving taxpayers’ money.”
“Order. May I take this opportunity to associate myself with Mr Speaker’s remarks? I am sure that all our thoughts are with King Charles and the royal family this evening.”
“Order. The hon. Gentleman understands that he has caught my eye and I have caught his. May I gently remind him that we are talking about the Government’s new clauses and amendments at the moment? There is a Third Reading debate ahead in which more measures can be raised if necessary, but, at the moment, will he please concentrate on the matter in hand?”
“Order. Before I call the Leader of the House, I should say that a significant number of Members wish to participate, and there is some very serious business to follow, so I would be grateful if Members on both sides of the House asked questions and did not make speeches.”
“May I simply say that if the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is here for the next Bill, I hope that I will be in the Chair to see it? Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.”
“I thank all hon. Members who have participated today for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. I am sure that will have been appreciated outside the House, as well as within it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.”
“Bills Presented Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T C Davies and Mr Steve Baker, presented a Bill to make provision to extend the period following the Northern Ireland Assembly election of 5 May 2022 during which Ministers may be appointed. B ill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time today , and to be printed (Bill 150 ), with ex planatory n otes (Bill 150—EN).”
“First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. The ability of constituents to communicate with their Members of Parliament is constitutionally important. I am very concerned about the matter he has raised. Constituents must be able to communicate freely with their Members of Parliament, and I trust and hope that urgent action will be taken to clarify that that is understood by all parties in this case. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will seek advice from the Clerk of the Journals in the first instance about how this very important issue might be escalated.”
“Whistleblowing Bill Mary Robinson presented a Bill to establish an independent Office of the Whistleblower to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing in accordance with the public interest; to make provision for the Office of the Whistleblower to set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, to provide disclosure and advice services, to direct whistleblowing investigations and to order redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers; to create offences relating to the treatment of whistleblowers and the handling of whistleblowing cases; to repeal the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed (Bill 151).”
“I advise the House that this is a very narrow Bill. If the House agrees the business of the House motion today, amendments may be tabled before the Bill has been read a Second time. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated that she will make her provisional selection of amendments soon after 2 pm. Members who are considering tabling amendments are asked to contact the Public Bill Office as soon as possible.”
“(19) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.— (Chris Heaton-Harris)”
“(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed. (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion. (17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown. (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies. (b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.”
“83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order. Miscellaneous (14) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill. (15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies. (16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order. (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion. (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.”
“Subsequent stages (11) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed. (12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (11) of this Order. Reasons Committee (13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No.”
“Consideration of Lords Amendments (9) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly. (b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed. (10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (9) of this Order.”
“(6) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. (7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions. (8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.”
“(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply: (a) any Question already proposed from the chair; (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed; (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; (d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision; (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16)(a) of this Order.”
“(3) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given. (4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question. (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.”
“(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. (c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. (d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put (2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know how to apply for an Adjournment debate. However, it is just possible he might find favour with Mr Speaker, as he would probably find favour with me on this subject. Other than that, I do not think it is a matter for the Chair. Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (Business of the House) Ordered , That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill— Timetable (1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.”
“Amendments, new clauses and new schedules for Committee of the whole House may now be tabled by Members at the Opposition side of the Table of the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated that she will make her provisional selection of all those amendments tabled soon after 2 pm. If any amendments are tabled and then selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means, an amendment paper for the Committee of the Whole House will be circulated as soon as possible.”
“Order. Before I proceed, let me remind hon. Members that the Second Reading debate must end at 3.23 pm. I assume they will want to hear the Front Benchers wind it up. I am not going to impose a time limit; it is up to hon. Members whether they choose to hear the Front Benchers or not.”
“As things stand, yes, but one hon. Member left the Chamber and came back in, and another who indicated that she wished to speak has left the Chamber but is entitled to come back in because she heard the opening speeches, as did one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. All I am saying is that I urge brevity. I know that that is difficult, but speeches are currently running for more than 10 minutes, and that is too long.”
“Order. Can I just say to Opposition Members, first, that interventions should not be speeches; and secondly, that they are taking up their own time, and they will lose time on the second debate?”
“Let me say at the very start of the debate that a lot of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part, so once we have heard from the Front Benchers there will almost certainly have to be a three-minute time limit, if we are to get everybody in.”