Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Ian Davidson.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Could I agree with the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] It is genuinely absurd that the leader of the no campaign in Scotland cannot get a debate with the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland, and that the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland demands a debate with somebody who does not have a vote. [Interruption.] In these circumstances, does the Prime Minister agree with me that, in politics as in shipbuilding, empty vessels make the most noise?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the privatisation of Royal Mail is likely to increase the cost of letters to Govan shipbuilders? Does he therefore agree that action must be taken to guarantee the future of Govan shipbuilders as quickly as possible? Does he also agree—

[Mr Speaker]

“Also” is not required.

Referendum (Scotland)

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached and that I will have the opportunity finally to vote against separation, but why do we have to wait so long? Why the delay, why the dither? Is it not because the coalition Ministers on the one hand and the SNP on the other have been meeting in secret and not taking account of the views of the vast majority of the Scottish people? Our consultation here at Westminster said that we wanted the referendum to be soon, and the Scottish Government’s consultation said—well, we do not know what it said, because they have not published it. The deal has been reached before the consultation has been published. What scrutiny will there be of the detail of the arrangement? For example, will tax exiles have the right to vote? Are we going to have foreign money coming in? Will there be an opportunity to amend not the broad sweep but the detail of these proposals? And what sanctions will there be if somebody breaks an agreement that was reached in good faith?

[Mr Speaker]

The Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee has posed at least four questions, but I know that the ingenuity of the Minister will enable him to reply with a single response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We heard it here first: the launch of the “Separatists for Devolution” campaign. Scottish National party Members do not like the word “separation” or the word “independence”, and they want to leave Britain in order to make us more British. What a ludicrous set of proposals.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think there was a question somewhere.

Public Disorder

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that Members who were not here at the start of the statement should not now be standing in the expectation of being called.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Scottish police assisting their English colleagues is part of the benefit of the Union, but why is it that from the beginning of the riot the Government have given the impression of being behind the curve, always paying catch-up, doing too little, too late? Is there not more than a whiff of incompetence?

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

My powers do not extend to the refutation of nonsense.

[Mr Davidson]

Is it not neo-fascist to attempt to shout down speakers with whom one disagrees? We have had robust debate in the House on several occasions, but it has frequently been the case in my constituency, after I won it from the nationalists, that they have attempted to shout me down.

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I apologised to the House and I wish to make a further apology. Yesterday, I apologised for suggesting that the reason why the Liberals had come sixth was because the nationalists and the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I listened very carefully to what he said yesterday. He is very dexterous in his use of parliamentary language and he has a great sense of humour, but what he must not do—I say this in all seriousness—is abuse the point of order procedure to make apologies that transpire to be nothing of the kind and are really carefully crafted partisan points which suit his book. I cannot believe that he would ordinarily want to do that, but I think he was planning to do it today and I cannot allow him to continue with it.

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. Naturally, I recall the exchange that took place in the Chamber between him and the Minister yesterday. What he has said today will have been heard, or will be heard, by those on the Treasury Bench and by the Ministers directly responsible for this matter, but it is not a matter upon which I can rule. There is an argument here, and the hon. Gentleman has put his view of the events, and his verdict on the sequence of events, very clearly on the record. He can approach the Table Office and pursue the matter through questioning, if he wishes, or he can write to the Minister further to pursue the matter on behalf of his constituents, if he chooses.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to apologise for misleading the House yesterday, make a correction and clarify a position. During our debate on the Scotland Bill yesterday, I outlined the importance of having overnight counting, as many of us were exceedingly excited as we watched the result of the Barnsley by-election come in on Friday morning and found that the Liberals had not retained second place. We learned that they had not come third or fourth, and that they had in fact come sixth. My error was to say that the only reason the Liberals had come sixth was that the Scottish nationalists had not stood, and that, had they done so, the Liberals would have come seventh. In fact, my error was in not correctly pointing out that, had the Welsh nationalists or indeed the Democratic Unionist party stood, the Liberals might very well have come ninth. I was going to make the same point about the Social Democratic and Labour party, but that would be taking it too far.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I always listen with interest and respect. However, I have to say that that effort, though a nice try, was some hundreds of miles away from being a point of order. I think that we will leave it there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Eric Joyce is not here.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

With the collapse of the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the Minister agree that an independent Scotland would be as successful as Ireland and Iceland at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the question of deployment depends very much on availability and reliability—not only of our vehicles and equipment but of those of our allies—and given that aircraft carriers are V-shaped vehicles—[Interruption.] They are undoubtedly V-shaped vehicles; there is no doubt about that at all. What views does the Minister have on the fact that the French aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, has broken down yet again and is not available?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister. May I just ask him to face the House? It is a very natural temptation to look backwards, but facing the House helps us all.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the review of housing benefit, but does the Minister accept that it perhaps does not go far enough, inasmuch as it does not examine the role of landlords? Many are milking the system while neither taking steps to control antisocial behaviour by their tenants, nor undertaking appropriate repairs to stop the house—and, indeed, the whole area—falling into decay.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I reiterate the request for short questions and economical replies? A very large number of colleagues wish to contribute, and I would like to enable them to do so.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister now regret using the term “fix” in the context of the political system? Does he believe that the referendum that takes place—I would support that—will remain simply on the question of the voting system, or might it not also give people the opportunity to express a view on whether they support the programme of increasing VAT and making cuts that the Liberals have endorsed, and allow us to give a verdict on whether we approve or disapprove of the Liberals?

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Whether that response satisfies the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) I cannot be sure, but it will have to do for now.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order for me to apologise to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration for confusing the two of them this morning? Could I also point out that, in my defence, they were on the radio and all these posh Tories sound the same, and that the Home Secretary did not, however, deal with the point that the announcement was made by the Minister for Immigration this morning before it was brought to this House?

[Mr Speaker]

In almost all circumstances it is in order to apologise, but if that is the hon. Gentleman’s idea of an apology, I am not sure that I ever want one from him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Davidson and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Comrade Premier—[Laughter.] I am surprised by that reaction. I mean, are we not all in this together? Are not the vast majority of us—apart from a small sect—in favour of strengthening the Union of the United Kingdom? And do not the vast majority of us dislike, distrust and despise the Liberal Democrats? On the subject of safe bases, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no base safer than an aircraft carrier—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. On this closed question, I was eagerly anticipating an inquiry about Afghanistan, but sadly it was not forthcoming.