House of Commons · General Debate
08 May 2024 · 8 other contributors
Opened by Christopher Chope Con Christchurch
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Christopher Chope raised concerns about business of the house (13 may) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Christopher Chope criticised the arrangement of the Order Paper, highlighting that despite two hours and three-quarters allocated for this motion's debate, a more important motion on Monday about exclusion of MPs has only two hours maximum. He also supported amendments to ensure exclusion would apply only if someone is charged with a violent or sexual offence rather than merely suspected.
Chope agreed with the Leader of the House for revising the original motion to exclude MPs only when they are charged, not just suspected. He also expressed concern over an amendment that would allow exclusion based on arrest rather than charge.
Lewis raised concerns about proposed amendments allowing suspension of MPs based on suspicion or allegation without factual underpinning, stressing the potential for abuse and targeting. He agreed that arrests require more substantial evidence than 'flimsy' claims.
Phillips argued against Lewis's intervention by stating that an arrest does not occur based on flimsy allegations but rather after thorough investigation, emphasising her experience dealing with such matters regularly.
Evans warned the debate should be confined to discussing time allocation for this motion and not pre-empt Monday's discussion. He emphasised that the current debate is about business management rather than substance.
Rees-Mogg questioned whether motions are an appropriate method to address such significant issues, suggesting legislative requirements for exclusion of MPs might be more suitable. He also pointed out that the motion suspends Standing Order No. 41A without proper justification.
Winterton maintained strict adherence to debating the current motion's time allocation and advised against delving into Monday’s debate substance during this session.
Davies supported Chope's arguments, emphasising that restricting debate time undermines constituents' rights. He argued for adequate time to properly address the amendments and urged reconsideration of the motion before it is moved.
Expressed concern about using Standing Orders to determine who can attend the House, suggesting that attendance has traditionally been set by legislation or individual exclusion. He proposed bringing forward legislation with a timetable motion instead of using Standing Orders for this purpose.