Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Hood Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

As I say, the papers have been released, subject to the normal considerations about protecting sensitive and personal documents. Again, I do not recollect—the right hon. Lady and I were elected on the same day and were Back-Bench Members of Parliament during that period—hearing her voice being raised to support a proper ballot of mineworkers on whether they wanted to go on strike at all.

[Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)]

Why have not all the papers and memos between the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, and the chief constables and magistrates courts been published?

[Mr Maude]

I can only repeat what I have said already: the papers have been released, subject to the normal considerations about protecting sensitive and personal documents, with the same considerations that are applied to all Government papers.

Recall of MPs Bill

Jim Hood Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd]

I am not entirely unsympathetic to the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), but for one reason above all others—I think this is the Government’s reason—I am not yet convinced that I will vote for them. We must understand what the threshold is for the process. The Government’s position, even though I do not support it in total, is that a single set of circumstances can deal with this issue. New clause 2 has no threshold, so therefore if one process was concluded unsuccessfully, it would not stop somebody from starting the whole process again. Can the hon. Lady give me any guarantee that that would not happen, once people had been subjected to this measure, and given the damage that even the question of facing recall could do to an individual—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. Interventions must be a lot shorter than that, and not replaced by speeches.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Gosh, that was quite a long intervention and I am not sure I remember it exactly. May I indulge the hon. Gentleman, Mr Hood? Could he remind me in one sentence of what he actually said because the intervention was so long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Stand as an independent then.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a lot to say tonight in interventions, and he should stay in order when the hon. Lady is on her feet.

[Nadine Dorries]

My constituents know exactly what type of MP I am. There has been an elephant sat inside—not outside—the Chamber tonight, and it is the reason why the Government have introduced the Bill. They have not introduced it because the public have infinite trust in us, or because they think MPs are wonderful people that work hard for their constituents. The Bill has been introduced because the people do not trust politicians any more. They have no faith in us. They need to know that they can have more democratic control over what we do here because they do not like a lot of what they see going on.

I know that most MPs come here to work hard and look after their constituents, but the Whips Office holds the keys to power and ministerial ambition so there is a difference between the consideration that some MPs give to their constituents and what they give to their own political ambition and their climb up the greasy pole. The difference is as vast as that between sound and silence. Many MPs are one person in their constituencies and a different person entirely at Westminster. People are sick of the Whip system, the parliamentary system and the party-political system. They do not want to see that any more because they want people to represent them. They want their opinions represented here. They do not want grimy deals done such as, “Don’t defect to UKIP and I’ll make you a Minister” or “Don’t vote for this Bill because the Liberal Democrats don’t want you to.” They know about those deals and they are disgusted. That is why we have the Bill.

The amendments could have been a little grittier, but it is vital that we vote for them. It has been argued tonight that Members could be removed for their position on a particular policy, but if they are good MPs that is nonsense. It has been argued that an MP could be removed because of a political row, but I am sure that all the 766 people who signed that petition were supporters of the Opposition. During the 2009 expenses crisis, one thing we knew was that everybody nationally hated MPs, but on a constituency basis many people said, “No, we don’t like MPs, but our MP is okay.” That is because they know what we do for them and the type of person we are. When MPs do fall down, it is because they ignore their constituents, do the grubby deals and put their own personal ambition above the interests of their constituency. A former Minister complained about the Bill today. I asked whether he would vote for it if he was still a Minister, and he said, “Of course I would.” That is the root of the problem—collective responsibility and putting party first.

We need this Bill. I do not believe that we will have the benefit of the British public’s trust unless the Bill goes further and we vote through the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. Any MP arguing that thousands of people, just because they are political opponents, would walk down to the town hall and put their names on a register to get them out because the local newspaper has a campaign against them, is talking absolute nonsense. Nobody has anything to fear. If you are a good MP, if you put your constituency first, if you are part of the people in your constituency, and if you take no notice of your Whips Office but do what you should do in principle and do what is right for the people who elected you, then you have nothing to fear from either the amendments or the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Hood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that pensions are an issue that people across the country are very engaged in and concerned about, and that includes what an independent Scotland might mean for them. They have heard experts, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—I declare an interest as a member—put out their opinion, but nothing is more certain than John Swinney’s opinion. The fact that he has said that there is a worry about this should tell us everything we need to know about the pensions issue.

[Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State plan to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on making Government time available for the House to discuss the reports and analysis? If he cannot get the time, may I suggest that he allows the Scottish Grand Committee to have those debates?

[Michael Moore]

Without being impertinent to the hon. Gentleman, the old ones are the best. I know how keen he has been on the Scottish Grand Committee, although I think that he is a fairly lone voice in that regard. I agree that it is important that we have proper debates, in whatever forum, about all the issues. The Scottish Affairs Committee is working through the papers and taking evidence from me, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and others. The House can decide when we get a chance to debate that, which I hope we will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Hood Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The first point that I would make to my right hon. Friend is that we would never support illegal action. We debated this at some length last week, and it is not the case that the only way action can be legal is a UN resolution. We would only support action that was legal and proportionate. As I have said, Britain would not be taking part in any of this action. In a way, we have to put the armageddon question round the other way, which is that if no action were taken following President Obama’s red line and this appalling use of chemical weapons, what sort of armageddon would the Syrian people face?

[Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)]

Q13. The Prime Minister says that he does not support a mansion tax for people living in mansions worth more than £2 million because, he claims, some people living in them are capital rich and cash poor. How does the Prime Minister square that with his support for the bedroom tax, which punishes people who are capital poor and have no cash?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Gentleman has to be clear about what is and what is not a tax. Before our changes, there was a subsidy for people who had additional rooms they were not using, and we believe that it is fair to have the same rules in private sector rented accommodation and in council accommodation. The question is now for Labour. You have ranted and raved about the spare room subsidy. Are you going to reverse it? Just nod. Are you going to reverse it? Yes or no? Absolutely nothing to say, and weak with it.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Jim Hood Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I rise to move amendment 4, which was tabled in my name and those of my colleagues and which is associated with amendments 5 and 6.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he cannot move his amendment. He can speak to it, but he cannot move it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful for the correction. My mistake reflects a gross lack of experience in this place, for which I apologise. I will vote on my amendments if I get the opportunity, but I will also support the amendment that has just been moved in the name of the nationalists.

I appreciate that, following the heated discussion about this issue during the summer, we are less likely to win this vote. Early-day motion 613 attracted a large number of signatures, including those of some 40 or 45 Conservative Members, some of whom have been made Parliamentary Private Secretaries, with one being given the deputy chairmanship of the Conservative party. Other promises have no doubt been made and career-ending threats have certainly been delivered. I wonder what would happen to the date of this referendum if there was a free vote, but that is clearly not going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Throughout your speech, you have quoted many supportive references, and made a very strong argument, but you have not mentioned what the electorate would want—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not been making a speech.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Would the electorate really want to come out and vote twice on an issue, when they could get it over with in one day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend was not in the House at that time, so perhaps I could remind him that the constitutional issue that was put before the Scottish and Welsh people arose as a result of a cross-party consensus that that referendum should be held. There was not a unilateral decision on the date; there was an agreement on how we would move things forward, so that we could ascertain the views of the Scottish and Welsh people. That case is therefore a good example of cross-party co-operation on constitutional issues.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. If we are going to have interventions, can I ask that they be a bit shorter than that? Also, I am hearing noises from hon. Members to the side of me, which is inappropriate. I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to chunter when an hon. Member is making a speech.

[Sadiq Khan]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is an even better point, which is that the issue was in our manifesto, which the British people voted on, rather than in an agreement reached after five days of haggling. There is a big difference between the two. The obvious question is: why the rush for 5 May 2011? We look forward to receiving the answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.