Sustainable Livestock Bill

Yesterday, the House of Commons debated a Private Members Bill called the Sustainable livestock Bill. On the face of it the Bill appears quite unremarkable, upon consideration and detailed examination I believe it would not be an appropriate area to legislate on. The effect would be to introduce a whole new raft of rules and regulations which would make life more difficult for farmers in Bury, Tottington and Ramsbotttom and therefore I spoke against the Bill

Published by David Nuttall

Business and Political Consultant

5 thoughts on “Sustainable Livestock Bill

  1. Well well well.

    What great faith you have in our democracy, David. You chose to “talk out” the bill, rather than letting it go to the vote.

    Do you really believe that this is the way we should be conducting ourselves in the 21st century?

    The general public, regardless of whether or not they agree with the bill, will surely be disgusted to hear of the way you prevented MPs voting on it.

    Those MPs who “filibuster” a bill should consider themselves a disgrace. You are a disgrace.

    I see that at the top of this page you are standing in front of a poster which reads “NOW FOR CHANGE”. Where is the change? This is the same old tired politics that should have been abandoned centuries ago.

    Words cannot convey how utterly disgusted I am with you.

    1. There was in fact a vote which proved there were less than 100 MP’s present who wished to end the debate. That was not my fault. I had finished my contribution to the debate and it is only right in my view that on a matter such as this all those who wish to contribute both in favour and against should have the opportunity to do so.

      1. Thank you for your response, David. I appreciate that the demands on a MPs time are great, and you not only published my comment but also took the time to reply to it. Also, the way you stand to face your critics is admirable, so I really do thank you for your reply.

        However, I am still very disappointed, and I don’t believe that you simply expressed your views on this debate. It is quite clear from the published transcript (link below) that you didn’t simply express your opinion; you talked at length to ensure the bill ran out of time. There was clearly a concerted effort by Tory MPs to talk this bill out, and as the transcript shows, you were one of the conspirators that caused this bill to run out of time. Even the speaker took time to admonish you over the length of your statements.

    2. Mr Moore,

      Before shooting your mouth off, it might be worth getting your facts straight.

      That’s the Hansard debate which you are referring to.

      Which includes the vote mentioned by David.
      “The Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion (Standing Order No. 37).”

      In no way is it a filibuster, in any case the speaker “has the power under Standing Orders ultimately to require a member behaving in this way to stop speaking.”

      So can you not call him a disgrace please?

      He’s one of the few MPs who are trying to stand up for freedom and personal choice.

      1. Standing up for freedom? What freedoms? The freedom to pollute, the freedom to destroy ecosystems? The freedom of supermarkets to bully small farmers? These are not freedoms we should have, Martin. You and David Nuttall are protecting policies which are destroying livelihoods and gambling with our children’s right to live in a peaceful and secure world.

        Do you have any idea of the scale of the environmental destruction caused by our out of date farming policies? Do you have any sense of the urgency of the environmental crisis?

        It is my opinion that Mr. Nuttal has disgraced himself and parliament. Whatever your stance on parliamentary procedure is, it’s quite clear that Mr. Nuttall and a handful of other MPs wanted to disrupt this bill by talking it out. It has been reported both in the media and in blogs as a filibuster:

        Mr. Nuttal did in fact receive a scolding from the speaker of the house due to his behaviour:

        “Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. It is very wise that he has made that observation and that he intends to operate in accordance with his own stricture. The point about regulation has been made and the point about European competence has been made. The hon. Gentleman, though a new Member, will be very well familiar with Standing Order No. 42 on the subject of tedious repetition and irrelevance, and I know that he will not wish to fall foul of that. In passing, although I know he is a man with an exceptional memory, I should perhaps just remind him and the House and others interested in our proceedings that on another private Member’s Bill on 22 October this year, he developed his argument for one hour and 39 minutes in respect of a two-clause Bill. This Bill has five clauses, it is true, but he behaved in a slightly unsatisfactory way on that occasion, and I feel sure that he will not want to repeat the experience.”

        Here the speaker proposes that Mr. Nuttall is behaving in an unsatisfactory way. And yet the speaker has to intervene again:

        “Mr Speaker: Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I trust that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of offering the Chamber a disquisition on the contents of
        12 Nov 2010 : Column 557
        the coalition agreement. That would be a lengthy enterprise indeed, and I know that he does not wish to stray into that.”

        Jacob Rees-Mogg later goes on to recite poetry, before receiving a rebuke from the speaker. How can you not agree that this is a disgraceful way to act in Parliament?

        I uphold my earlier assertion, that Mr. Nuttall, Jacob Rees-Mogg, et al disgraced themselves in this debate.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: