Speeches by Wheeler.

“You might have already hinted at your answer to this question. Do you believe that the two Houses should remain aligned in terms of their application, or should the elected House have more scope in some way to discuss urgent and emerging issues?”

“You mentioned the role the Speaker plays in the Commons, in terms of Members receiving a waiver. What is the process in the House of Lords for securing a sub judice waiver?”

“The Charity Commission seeks a declaration that the PCA’s decision was unlawful. In this context, what does the term “unlawful” mean? Are the things that a court would be deciding qualitatively different from what the relevant Committee might want to consider?”

“Yes.”

“If you allow me to push gently on drawing these together, do you accept that they might be points of dispute—ones that might well be argued publicly in a court and do not necessarily chime with actions to prevent the report being tabled and published?”

“I think you have touched on a few of these points already, but I want to tease them out. It is about the decision to hold off on laying the report. From what you have said, there were two points, one resulting from mediation and giving time for a resolution to be found and then later there was a point at which you made…”

“I want to tease out something you just said. You talked about your accountability to the Committees of this House regarding your operation, your remit and your jurisdiction. Would the same not also be true of the PHSO and their accountability? Does this not come back to the point that there were political remedies avai…”

“This is a straightforward question. Is there merit in the Charity Commission’s suggestion that Parliament might be better served by awaiting the outcome of its action to quash the PCA’s decision that injustice had occurred, and that she would report that to the House?”

“In general, many matters of dispute are in the public domain. If the report were published, it is open to you—as suggested—to dispute its findings publicly and, specifically in this case, before the PACAC. What is the public interest in suppressing the report in its entirety?”

“Okay, but that is a couple of months later than the decision making on the other side, at the beginning of this—for clarity’s sake, thank you. On a slightly more general point, picking up on my colleagues, you understand why this Committee and the House at large might have an interest in, or concerns about, any action …”

“On the lack of an injunction, we have heard previous evidence, and your evidence clearly, but on a narrow point, did you at any point tell the PCA or the PHSO that you were not seeking an injunction, that it was not in your mind that it was not something you were seeking? Did you communicate that?”

“Unless anyone has a follow-up to my question, this might be your final one. You have touched on conduct and campaigning in the vicinity of polling stations. In the context of our inquiry, and to give you a little bit of a picture of what that looks like for internal elections, the polling station will be a Committee ro…”

“I will keep my remarks brief, because many valued voices are yet to be heard in this debate. I welcome the Bill. Northern Ireland has a special place in my heart. It gave me my mum and treasured memories of time with family, and it will always feel part of me, but it also left the younger version of me with many questi…”

“Many of my constituents use the Warburton toll bridge to get to work, visit family and go about their everyday lives. However, residents in Irlam and Cadishead have been arbitrarily excluded from the local resident discount scheme, meaning that they have to pay the full price while many who live further from the bridge…”

“Turning to prejudicing a trial, given your experiences as Attorneys General, in what circumstances do you think that comments in the House could prejudice a trial and lead to it being abandoned? Did this ever happen, or come close to happening in the past, to your knowledge?”

“Or come close to collapsing.”

“Finally from me—honest—is there a difference between passing reference to a case and its particulars, and continued and repeated reference to and discussion of the arguments that might be made in a case?”

“Okay. I think I know the answer to this question, as you have all alluded to it, but I want to quickly confirm something: do you think the risks of prejudicing a trial are higher in certain cases—for example, jury trials—than in other types of cases?”

“I thank my good and hon. Friend for giving way. Millions of workers, including those on zero-hours contracts, stand to benefit from the measures in the Bill. Does she agree that the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat peers on the right to guaranteed hours are an unworkable bureaucratic mess that opens up scope for a…”

“My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. Does she agree that for Sara and for my constituents who are on short or zero-hours contracts, the meat of the amendment, which would introduce the bureaucratic farce of an offering of an offer, instead of a right, would ruin the meaningful change in the Bill and t…”