Valedictory Debate

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

What a momentous day today, Mr Speaker. I was able to vote for a victory on the Labour side, which makes it a great day for me to finish my parliamentary career.

Coming here was the last thing on my mind when I left school at the age of 15 and I went down the pit on my 16th birthday. I worked in the collieries for about 20 years through the dark days of the miners’ strike. I shall touch on that, because it is relevant to what is happening now. We lost our manufacturing base over the 10 years that followed—indeed, Britain’s manufacturing base was wiped out. I spent a couple of months in jail during that time. Before anybody thinks I have made a mistake, let me add that I was found innocent at the end of it. I was found innocent by a jury. It was the only trial jury in Scotland at the time. Thank God there was a jury and not just a judge.

You learn from such things. When I came down here many years later, after being blacklisted for two and a half years, I depended solely on my wife, who had to do two jobs to keep me going. The first tribute that I must pay is to Jean and my family—I have five grandkids now—who have stood by me through thick and thin. If Members think that it is hard for a wife to stand by them in Parliament, I can tell them that it is even harder for a wife to stand by someone who is in jail, and during a miners’ strike. My wife stood by me throughout all those times. I received texts from her and from my daughters today to wish me well, and I promised them that I would not become too emotional.

Next, I became a councillor in Midlothian. That, at the time, was the greatest privilege that I had experienced: representing, as a councillor, the area in which I had been born. For 20 years before that, I had been a union representative in the pits, so I have represented people for most of my life. It will be a strange experience to leave here and, for the first time ever, go home to my wife every night. I do not know how I shall cope. It will be a strange experience for both of us, after 14 years.

You may have forgotten this, Mr Speaker, but you were the first person I met in the Smoking Room. I had been to London only three or four times before—the first time I visited the House, there were police officers outside, and I was starting to attack some of the people in here—and when I finally got into Parliament, I had no idea what the place was like. The election took place in June that year, 2001—as Members may recall, it was postponed because of the outbreak of foot and mouth—and Wimbledon was on. It was impossible to find a place to stay anywhere in London. Eventually, the then Member for East Lothian and I found a boarding house, and, Mr Speaker, you and a good colleague took us there because we did not even know where it was, or what form of transport to take.

You were probably the first Tory that I had ever met, Mr Speaker. It was the first time that I had come to a place and been looked after there by the Opposition. I have always had a soft spot for them for that reason.

It gives me great pleasure to follow a Member—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall)—who was a Deputy Chief Whip for the Opposition. My right hon. and good Friend the Member for Stirling (Dame Anne McGuire) was my Whip when I was first in the House. I learned very quickly—and I say this as a senior Whip—that you must mean what you say and say what you mean, because if you do not, the Whips will go after you. At the first sign of shuthering, they will pick on that. I have been a Whip for five years, and I love it.

What you learn very quickly is that you have to stand up for what you believe is right. That is something that anyone who enters Parliament should understand. We have had to make some difficult decisions in the past, and that includes the decisions that have been made during the last three parliamentary terms has been difficult. The decision on the Iraq war was one of the most difficult. I was on the side of the righteous and voted against the war, and I still believe that it was the right side.

Let me make a point about that, though. People talk about war crimes and the like, but it was this Parliament that made the decision. It was parliamentarians who made it. We can blame other people for things that have happened, but everyone had to stand up and make their own decisions then, and I congratulate the then Prime Minister on having allowed that. Nowadays, we would never think of going into a conflict without Parliament being consulted. We should stand up and take it on the chin when we make a mistake.

The other occasion on which I voted against the then Government was the debate on the 92-day detention period. That was one of the most difficult decisions that I ever had to make, and I was criticised harshly for it in my own area. That was the only time I have ever been criticised by my own folk.

I am running out of time. Let me end by saying that I will miss this place, and I will miss the Whips Office. I believe that the Whips do a really good job, and the side of their job that no one sees is the compassionate side. When people are in trouble—

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hamilton]

Yes.

[Julie Hilling]

I wanted my hon. Friend to have 30 seconds in which to finish his speech, especially as he is praising Whips.

[Mr Hamilton]

I am mindful of the time, Mr Speaker, but I think it important to remember that, while one role of the Whips is to enforce the position of the party that they represent, the second role—the role that is not seen—is the compassionate role. May I suggest a change that could be made by the two major parties? They should appoint a senior Whip to be in charge of the welfare of Members, and—with the greatest respect—that person should not be the Chief Whip, or the Deputy Chief Whip, or the pairing Whip.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Devolution and the Union

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

It is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the House’s rousing summation. I certainly agreed with all the gusto and spirit of his peroration. As we move forward, it is very important that the views expressed in this debate are adequately reflected in the proposals that all the parties make.

I again thank the Backbench Business Committee and all its members for allowing this debate to take place. It is very important that all voices and all parts of the United Kingdom are adequately reflected in such debates. Rightly or wrongly, there is a sense that parts of the Union may have been shut out of the debate, because we did not want to prejudice or interfere in the referendum campaign or to allow points made during it to be twisted or manipulated. Following the referendum, it is therefore important to broaden the debate and open it up to all parts of the United Kingdom—to England, as the Leader of the House said very powerfully, but also to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and to all the constituent parts of the nations. I want briefly to refer to the many great speeches that hon. Members have made.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. The issue at stake is getting fairness right throughout the regions. It is not just about Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or, indeed, London, which, as everybody seems to forget, already has an assembly; at the end of the day, we are looking to get to a position where everything is seen to be transparent and fair for all parts of the country.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

David Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend tempts me to stray from the amendments, but she is absolutely right. Week after week, the Prime Minister tells us at Prime Minister’s questions how wonderful the car industry is. The car industry in this country was saved by a partnership of people who owned the car industry, the trade unions and the work force all working together. The industry survived and is now in a healthy position—all credit to all those involved.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on outlining why the unions are being singled out. If the issue is fairness, should not shareholders of every company be balloted every time approaches are made to the Government?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I am so concerned that clause 36 has been added to this part of the Bill without discussion or proper consultation. There are already strict legislative mechanisms to look after trade union membership, but none at all to regulate shareholders or indeed members of the Conservative party. The fact that that party will not say how many members it has shows that we need regulation for that issue as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Thank you for that ruling, Ms Primarolo. All I would say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) is one of the most experienced people in the House. Perhaps he could bring forward an amendment on Report to consider the issue of regulating shareholders.

[Mr Hamilton]

I’ll get on the phone.

[Ian Murray]

I am sure that he will be phoning round urgently to get that going.

Business of the House

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many Members might envy the position that I am in, because a university technical college is being established in Cambridge, which is enabling many young people to come forward and acquire training in skills that will support the life sciences industry. That is a tremendous step forward, and I pay tribute to the Baker Dearing Educational Trust and those who have taken the initiative forward. I hope that many Members, like my hon. Friend, will encourage UTCs in their area. She might like to raise the matter with our colleagues at Education questions on Monday.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

In 2010, the Government decided to defer a decision about sport on free-to-air television, because they were waiting until digital TV came fully into operation. It is now fully operational, but Culture Ministers have told us that there will not be a discussion on the matter. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate? After all, top sport should be for the masses, not the few.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I must say, I was struck last week at business questions—perhaps it will be true again this week—that there is a lot of interest in sport, from governance through to the Olympic and Paralympic legacy and on the point that he raises. That might make it appropriate for issues related to sport to be debated in the House at some point. Perhaps those of us who timetable business can discuss that.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

That is absolutely right, and I was one of those who led the criticism of the previous Government, as so often we found that the time for scrutiny was constrained. One of the key areas is Report stage. We have been very careful to allocate more time for that—very often more than one day—to enable Back-Bench Members to have their say. There is a quid pro quo, however: when we do provide more time, it is important that the House uses that time in a sensible way and makes sure that matters that need to be discussed are discussed in a timely fashion.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

5. Whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to reform the scrutiny of private Members’ Bills.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I understand that the Procedure Committee has today announced that it will be conducting an inquiry into the procedures for consideration of private Members’ Bills and that it will put out a call for written evidence soon. I look forward to learning of its considerations and any recommendations it may put to the House.

[Mr Hamilton]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House address the fact that we currently have an archaic system, and will he give due consideration to the private Members’ Bills issue? If we change our hours, such Bills could be introduced on a Tuesday or Wednesday night, with votes at the end of the debate. We must get rid of our current archaic system, whereby the awkward squad on the Government Back Benches can talk out very good Bills introduced by Members on both sides of the House.

Business of the House

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that it is the responsibility of a Minister to comment on that, although I understand my hon. Friend’s views. I will share his concern with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—just to see whether there is a role for Government to play in this.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that British Airways won the contract to buy British Midland Airways. Many of us have concerns about that, but little did we know that in Northern Ireland, the east midlands and Scotland, hundreds and hundreds of people are being made redundant because TUPE does not apply. Will the Leader of the House allow us a debate so that Members affected can put their views to the appropriate Department—whether it be the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Department for Transport? If that cannot happen, will he arrange a meeting between appropriate Members, British Airways and the appropriate Department?

[Sir George Young]

I will certainly use whatever influence I have to promote a meeting along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Of course I understand his concern that TUPE does not apply in the particular circumstances that he outlined. I will share his concern with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether there is a role for her to play in bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion.

Business of the House

David Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I hope to keep my remarks relatively brief.

This short debate is obviously a consequence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was recently passed, and is an example of why, rather than hastily charging through such legislation and fixing it in this piecemeal way after the event, it might have been more appropriate to work through all the consequences of that change. I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will reflect on what happens when proper pre-legislative scrutiny of such a major Act does not take place.

I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). I have the privilege of serving under his leadership—I joined the Committee in the summer—and he has been an excellent Chairman. I do not at all doubt the sincerity of his words today and his genuine conviction that due diligence has been shown on this important, if slightly technical issue, but I hope he will not mind if I show some dissent in that regard. When I asked the Clerk of our Committee on Monday whether it was possible to get copies of the transcript of the informal private hearing that the right hon. Gentleman convened in the spring, the Clerk made it clear that although I, as a member of the Committee, could see it, other Members of the House could not. With the greatest respect to the Chairman, that is an unsatisfactory basis on which to change the Standing Orders of this House. If not all Members of this House are able to read the deliberations of the august Procedure Committee, how can our colleagues simply take our word for it?

I do not object in principle to what the Government are suggesting. Like many Government initiatives, it appears on the surface to be a reasonable suggestion. However, as we have discovered repeatedly over the past 18 months.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Why does my hon. Friend think that the document has not been put into print, so that the rest of us can see it?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

David Hamilton Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Given that we are not going to be partisan, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish borders are unique? It would be ridiculous to talk about Midlothian moving down to take in Peebles and Galashiels or West Lothian moving down to take in the borders. Historically, our areas have had nothing in common, and it would not make sense to make such changes now.

[Mr Kennedy]

Yes, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. In a moment of political frustration when he was Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie King said that the problem with Canada was that it had too much geography and not enough history. If anything, we have more than our fair share of both in Scotland, and that certainly comes through in considerations of the type that the Bill gives rise to. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s point about his part of the country is very valid.

Time is tight, and I do not wish to detain the House much longer. I want to stick to principles rather than becoming formulaic. Indeed, I have far better versed colleagues on hand, who can provide chapter and verse and who would leave the rest of us goggle-eyed with their statistics and equations—all of which I endorse, I hasten to add. I am always at my best in politics in such situations. The less one understands the issue, the more confident one can sound—witness the shadow Minister tonight.

Looking at the proposals, it makes eminent sense that the Western Isles are, and should be, a distinct, unique constituency. I remember growing up when the Western Isles constituency was bisected and was answerable partly to Dingwall and partly to Inverness. That was an absolutely atrocious affront to democracy for the communities there. It is a good thing that we have a unique, distinct constituency now, and I am pleased that it will stay that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman spells out exactly the vista that is ahead of us with this Bill. Not only are the different boundary commissions not allowed to take account of the totality of circumstances within the territories for which they are responsible, but they are bound not just by the arithmetic of the UK quota but by the fixed limit of 600 seats. Part of our problem with all this is that we have a fixed limit of seats. There is not one seat more and not one seat fewer; there is just an absolute given number. I can see in that some of the conundrums that will beset this House every single time a boundary review is undertaken.

[Mr David Hamilton]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is no recognition that in 2005, Scotland moved from 72 MPs down to 58 MPs? If the proposal goes ahead, there will be a further reduction of eight in Scotland. That is an outrageous reduction in MPs and representation throughout Scotland. It is much more than the percentage that is being talked about over here.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman has spelled out exactly what lies ahead with this Bill. There is uncertainty over the changes that will come with the introduction of this Bill but, in addition, in every single Parliament there will be an arithmetical play-off over who gets the last bundle of seats out of the 600. Does a party qualify under Sainte-Laguë for an extra seat, or does it end up losing a seat in Scotland, Wales or in Northern Ireland? The Boundary Commission will then be asked to deal with the consequences again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We are talking about the abolition of local inquiries. In fact, his is an argument for more scrutiny and checks and balances at local level, with people giving evidence, rather than relying on written evidence in 12 weeks. If he feels that strongly, he should be embarrassed at how he will vote in an hour and a half.

It is noteworthy that Cornwall MPs tonight found their consciences when self-interest was involved, but for five days in Committee they were absent from the Division Lobby. It is also noteworthy that three Tory MPs were willing to vote in their own interests. The Opposition have been consistent throughout in saying that the Bill is wrong. It is wrong on the principle of losing public inquiries, but it is also wrong because as the Cornwall Members pointed out—there is compelling evidence—the remote communities in Cornwall previously managed to convince the commission to amend its proposals. Many of us believe that the attention given to such local issues is the strength of the current system. Here is the key point: in every single case in which the commission proposed an increase or decrease in the number of constituencies in an area, its initial proposals were amended following a public inquiry.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned citizens and asked why MPs cannot do their jobs. However, this is not about our jobs becoming more complicated, but about citizens and constituents having a right to have their views heard in a public inquiry. In many cases, including Derbyshire, Merseyside and north-west London, substantial changes were made to initial proposals, as in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield. His predecessor appeared at the inquiry and successfully argued for changes to the provisional recommendations. Many times, the commission commented in its report that the assistant commissioner’s recommendations improved as a consequence of a public inquiry.

[Mr David Hamilton]

May I reinforce my right hon. Friend’s point? There was a public inquiry in Midlothian before the 2005 election. The commission recommended that the borders be brought into Midlothian and that we take Peebles and Galashiels into my constituency, but after public scrutiny the commission recommended that that would be inappropriate. No city of Edinburgh representative has yet complained because they represent 75,000 people and I represent 60,000 or so. Nobody questions that, because they recognise that the geographical layout of Midlothian is different to that of the city.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and colleagues in the other place will read it with interest.

In Derbyshire and Derby, the commission made provisional recommendations for the creation of a new seat, but they were rejected in favour of another that the assistant commissioner believed better reflected community ties. The amended proposals moved fewer electors and reduced the disparity. In Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the commission proposed a division of the city of Exeter that was deeply unpopular with residents. The assistant commissioner believed that the counter-proposal better reflected local ties and reduced the electoral disparity.

In Merseyside, the commission proposed a seat containing parts of both sides of the Mersey that was opposed by almost all those with an interest, and the assistant commissioner recommended a counter-proposal that almost wholly redrew most of the constituency. The Boundary Commission for Scotland proposed a Scottish parliamentary seat crossing the River Clyde estuary that was widely opposed and rejected by the assistant commissioner in favour of a scheme of minimum change. I have many examples of where proposals have been made, local residents have looked at the proposals, there has been a public inquiry, and an assistant commissioner has heard the evidence and changed their mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend’s point would have less force if the coalition Government were taking time to ensure that the 3.5 million electors who are not on the register were put on to it, if they were to wait and see what happens as a result of next year’s housing benefit changes, and if they were to wait for the results of next year’s census. They are rushing this Bill through, however, and my hon. Friend’s point has some force.

The Bill will mean that the next election could be held under a different voting system and with 600 constituencies instead of the present 650,—and also a referendum with differential turnouts. Questions are already being asked about the legitimacy of the next general election. Why add to that by taking away due process and natural justice? By taking away the opportunity to hold a public inquiry, the coalition Government are eroding the legitimacy of a system for redrawing boundaries that is the envy of the democratic world.

[Mr David Hamilton]

Surely it cannot be right that in Scotland, at the end of the 10-year period between 2005 and 2015, there will be 25 fewer MPs. That means that 31% of the representatives of Scotland will have been wiped out in that short period of time. What does that say about democracy?

[Sadiq Khan]

This is what we call the respect agenda. I hope that when those in Scotland have seen the Bill rushed through, the way in which the debate has been stopped—the hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned “truncated” contributions—and the number of MPs who have not been allowed to make a contribution, they will form their own judgment.

We do not want to stop being the envy of the democratic world, and I commend my amendment to the House. I ask those colleagues who are watching the debate in their rooms to do the right thing and support amendment 15.

Business of the House

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have great affection for the World Wide Fund for Nature because I used to work for it and promote its interests. I hasten to add that that is not a declarable interest. There might be an opportunity for him to raise this important issue at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 29 July. It would also be an entirely suitable matter for a Westminster Hall debate or an end-of-day Adjournment debate.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

The next time—or perhaps the first time—the Deputy Leader of the House meets the Backbench Business Committee, will he raise the question of private Members’ Bills being discussed on Wednesday evenings to allow greater participation? Will he also consider doing away with the knives procedure under which such Bills can be talked out, and introduce deferred voting so that everyone can participate in the process?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree that we need to reform the process for private Members’ legislation. When we discussed this a week or so ago, it was agreed that the Procedure Committee would look into the matter and bring forward proposals. I hope that its members will also speak to the Backbench Business Committee so that we can have the benefit of the views of both Committees. It would certainly be to the benefit of the House if we could improve the way in which we deal with private Members’ business and put an end to the procedural nonsense that we have at the moment.

Backbench Business Committee

David Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My response to my hon. Friend is the one that I have just given. Rather than just look at the question of how many Fridays a private Member’s Bill has, one ought to stand back and look at the whole procedure for private Members’ Bills, and ask whether Friday is the right day, whether the pathway through the House is the right one and whether it is too easy to impede progress. That is the right way to approach private Members’ Bills: through a proper consideration by the Procedure Committee, rather than a one-off amendment this afternoon.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

As a member of the Procedure Committee in 2002, I can say that the most fundamental change to have taken place over this period is the reduction in our hours on Wednesday and Thursday. Perhaps the Procedure Committee could look into extending our hours on Wednesday and Thursday nights, so that private Members’ Bills could be considered then.

[Sir George Young]

That is a helpful suggestion that I am sure the Procedure Committee would like to take on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Winterton]

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. It is important that we pay tribute to Robin Cook for everything that he did to make many of the reforms happen. He is also right that we should set up the European Scrutiny Committee, which performs an extremely important task.

There is no doubt that we need the proposed reforms to give more power to Back Benchers. I am sure that there will be a lively debate on the proposals today—indeed, it has already started. I will be brief, as I know that many Back Benchers want to contribute, but I want to raise a few issues. Obviously it is important that the Back-Bench committee timetables as much non-governmental business as possible. However, I seek an assurance from the Deputy Leader of the House when he replies to this debate that the operation of the Back-Bench business committee will not impact on either the number or the timetabling of Opposition days.

I was pleased that the Leader of the House was able to assure us that there would indeed be Government business to debate during the September sittings.

[Mr David Hamilton]

Would my right hon. Friend also consider allowing the House to rise in June? The children of Scottish Members are on holiday in July, and that is already causing great difficulty for us.

[Ms Winterton]

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to raise that point during the debate tonight.

At the moment, the new Government legislation is not ready to be debated in September, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to assure us that we shall not have a repeat of the situation that we have at the moment, in which about three out of every four days are allocated for general debates. The public rightly expect value for money from Parliament, and it is important that we should be able to debate as much Government business as possible, in the form of Second Readings, at that time.