Southern Rail

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I started commuting—both regularly and frequently—from Forest Hill to London Bridge and Waterloo East in 1963. In all those 53 years, the service has never been as unreliable and as chaotic as it is today. I now no longer use Southern to go to London Bridge, as I use the overground service. Unfortunately, large parts of my constituency, and just about every other constituency of Members concerned about this matter, do not have that option. Many of my constituents blame the management for what is going on, and an equal number blame the unions. Another set blames Network Rail and the infrastructure. We have heard from the Minister today about track failures causing chaos on the Brighton line. When will he and the Government do something to reassure my constituents, and those of everybody in this Chamber, that the Government are actually trying to do the best they can for commuters, rather than leaving commuters to the fate of the most incompetent organisation in the entire UK rail industry?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has given new meaning to the description “delayed journey” and we are deeply grateful to him.

Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must have been renamed; or perhaps I was not clear enough. I called Jim Dowd.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is not the first time I have been confused with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).

I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has been called to be here for much longer than normal. He has tried to conflate two very important statements into one, but I am sure he knew that. Nobody with any sense would object to the UN Security Council’s call for an immediate ceasefire on the west bank, but I can tell from looking at a lot of the faces across the House today that there is a sense of déjà-vu here. This happens every few years because the underlying elements of the Israeli-Palestinian problem—the illegal settlements and the occupied territories—have not been addressed. Until they are addressed, we and our successors in the next Parliament will be coming back to discuss this in 2016, 2017 and 2018. That is a tragedy. On the shooting down of flight MH17—

[Mr Speaker]

Briefly, please.

[Jim Dowd]

Yes, Mr Speaker.

The Prime Minister said that flight MH17 was shot down by an SA-11 missile fired by separatists. What evidence does he have? Those systems can be used only by those of the most highly trained calibre, who would either have come from the Russian Government or been supported by the Russian Government. Does he have any information about that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Q11. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the importance of the creative industries to the economy of this country, and that they need to be buttressed by adequate intellectual property rights? Is he also aware, however, that his intellectual property Minister, that horny-handed son of toil, the fifth Viscount Younger of Leckie, recently told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in relation to Google, that “I am very aware of their power…I am also very aware…that they have access, for whatever reason, to higher levels than me in No. 10”.Is that not a disgraceful comment on the way this Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question, which refers to a distinguished constituent of mine, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long.

Cost of Living

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a few comments on the Queen’s Speech. This is the third anniversary of the formation of this particular coalition, and this Queen’s Speech is the penultimate one, with only one more to go—Hallelujah! What is most remarkable about this Queen’s Speech is how thin it is, and how it is dominated by two particular elements. The first is just how little the coalition parties can agree on—they seem to have spent most of their time deciding not what should go into this Queen’s Speech, but what to keep out of it. That explains its paucity to some degree.

The other element is the fear of the saloon-bar stage that is Nigel Farage and UKIP. It was said at the end of the 19th century that the spectre of communism was haunting Europe, but the spectre of UKIP now haunts the Conservative party to such a degree that it really does not know how to deal with it. There is widespread sympathy on the Conservative Benches for UKIP’s aims and objectives, and there is a degree of incomprehension, as I observe it, of the fact that the natural home for right-wing fruitcakes is within the Conservative party. The acts of UKIP have clearly led to some confusion.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and predominantly, although not exclusively, supported by Conservative Members is no amendment at all. I think the technical expression for it is “pious”—it just expresses a view and will have no impact whatever either for good or ill. If these Members were serious about voting against the Queen’s Speech, they could, of course, vote against the main motion, but they will not—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to help the hon. Gentleman by gently saying that he would not think it right to start to debate an amendment that has not been selected. He is an experienced and wily old hand, and I feel sure that he will be able to frame his remarks in an appropriate way.

[Jim Dowd]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as, indeed, I always am.

I think that this also reflects the enduring resentment among Conservative Members, and their failure to appreciate that they did not win the last election. They try to behave as if they did, and they try to believe that they can simply have their way in this matter, but that is not the situation that the electorate gave them. I understand their resentment, because if there was one election that the Conservative party really ought to have won it was probably the one that took place in 2010, but they failed to do so.

The Prime Minister, of course, is away. He will not even be voting for the Queen’s Speech himself when it is put to the vote tomorrow. He has thrown just a few titbits to the fruitcakes by saying that while Ministers must not vote for the amendment, others can abstain. He is trying to draw up a strange pact, the “pax Cameron”.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly happy to support a referendum in the next Parliament, but believes that anyone who wants to give the people a chance to have a say in their future in Europe in this Parliament is a fruitcake?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must not pursue this exchange, whether in relation to fruitcakes or in relation to a prospective amendment which has not been selected. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) should not seek to divert the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) from the path of virtue to which I think he had just about returned.

[Jim Dowd]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman quite honestly that I would not accuse him of being a fruitcake—

South London Healthcare NHS Trust

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd]

All paid for.

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and I hope that is regarded as helpful. I hope there will not be many more points of order, as I do not want other people to be unduly delayed. However, I will take a last point of order from Mr Jim Dowd.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am particularly obliged to you for taking this point of order, which relates to the next, and main, business of the day. You will be aware that one of the main categories in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is that of media earnings, which are many and diverse, and affect very many Members of this House. First, may I ask you to decide whether everybody who has an interest in that category should declare it in the forthcoming debate? Secondly, rather than just giving the completely uninformative, “I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests,” should Members say what it is they are pointing to?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that each hon. and right hon. Member is responsible for his or her own declaration of interest. On the further point of substance, the declaration of interest should be sufficient to enable the House to recognise the nature of the interest. I hope that is helpful. I think that, if I may say so, what I have said is, or at any rate should be, self-explanatory to hon. and right hon. Members.

Standards and Privileges

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I will not detain the House too long. I realise that we have immensely important business to discuss later, and we should get on to it as soon as possible. However, this matter is not unimportant. Judging from the number of Members seeking to take part in the debate on the report, I fear that it would otherwise have slipped quietly into parliamentary history. We have realised over the past few years just how tainted this House’s reputation has become vis-à-vis not just the conduct of some Members, but how the way in which we deal with them is perceived.

I do not want to go into extreme detail about what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has done—or not. The commissioner has conducted a characteristically scrupulous and systematic investigation of the events, and the Committee and all its members have followed in the same vein. I will not seek to divide the House on the recommendation, which I am sure will be agreed. However, I fear that the way in which the case has been dealt with and the conclusion that the Committee has presented create the danger of emphasising the idea that, superficially at least, there is one rule for some Members of this House and other rules for others. Some are taken before the courts—and, indeed, imprisoned—for their conduct; some get barely a slap across the wrist; and others escape scot-free.

I accept that the speculation around this case is nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman personally, but so much of the comment outside this place—I accept, too, that neither this House nor any Member is responsible for such comment—is about how much time he should serve not before he is brought before the courts or sent to prison, but before he is brought back into the Cabinet. That changes the aspect and the proportion of this case entirely. The report makes it plain that there has been a systematic, calculated and flagrant pattern of behaviour by the right hon. Gentleman, which, describe it as we might—deceit, deception, fraud—amounts to dishonesty. If this House is to rebuild its reputation we need not only procedures that are, to quote an oft-repeated phrase in the report, “above reproach”, but systems that are seen to treat each and every Member of this House in the same fashion. I do not think that we have that at the moment—I do not criticise the report; I am sure that we will pass it and move on—but it is for the authorities and the Committees in this House to ensure that one simple procedure applies to everybody.

As the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), has said, this matter is now under investigation by the police because somebody has referred it. [Interruption.] I am told that he did not say that, in which case, we need to refer it. However, it is equally true that in other cases, the police have not waited for a referral for matters to be investigated, but have taken it upon themselves to investigate whether there was any criminal or corrupt element in Members’ behaviour. Indeed, matters that for a while fell within the purview of the commissioner were passed on, because the police had commissioned investigations into whether criminality and wrongdoing had taken place. There are those who have said that Members found guilty of serious wrongdoing should resign and leave this House, triggering a by-election—so much so, indeed, that the current Deputy Prime Minister said in his first address to the Liberal party conference that he wanted to add a “Derek Conway” clause.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, made a passing reference—it was not, if I remember correctly, an evaluative one—to the police. Of course the hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to make clear to the House his view about the merits or demerits of the report and its recommendations. However, I urge the House to focus on the specifics of this report alone and not to engage in what might be called a Second Reading debate about the differential treatment of particular cases, and we certainly cannot get into a general discussion about whether or when the police are involved.

[Jim Dowd]

I accept that, Mr Speaker, and I will abide by your ruling. I asked for your guidance before the debate, because I fear that the niceties and technicalities of parliamentary procedure might reduce common sense to zero in this case, and that the public at large will not understand the import of events.

I accept the report, but I still think that we need a procedure that is open and that has clear stages, regardless of whether the matter in question is in the hands of the House authorities, of Members’ Committees or of officials, or of whether it has entered the domain of a public investigation. We have not got the balance right in the report not because of any failing by the Committee, but because our procedures are still ineffective. We have tried to overhaul the expenses system, which was the genesis of this case, but I do not believe that we have got our administrative arrangements right in this House. The Committee continues to do a good job, as does the commissioner, but we must concentrate on creating a system that not only treats everyone fairly and equally but that is seen to do so.

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Dowd and John Bercow

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We must leave it there for today.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, for one, certainly do believe you have mystical powers. May I seek your guidance in relation to the next item of business? I think the whole House is aware of the rules relating to sub judice when matters are put before the courts and are under consideration by them. The next item of business could easily become a matter for criminal investigation; indeed I, for one, believe that it should become one. Could you offer any guidance as to whether that imposes a similar constraint on what might be said in the debate on the next item?

[Mr Speaker]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is, at this stage, a hypothetical matter, and it would be very unwise for the Speaker to speculate on a hypothetical situation. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so, and I will not. What I would say to him and to the House is that whether or not there are to be police inquiries into any particular matter is not a matter for the Chair. Unless a criminal charge has been brought, the matter is not sub judice. Today is the opportunity for the House to debate any matters covered by the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I hope that he found the response helpful.