In Parliament

Greg Hands M.P. in the House of CommonsIn October 2011 Greg was appointed an Assistant Government Whip. The job of the Whip is to ensure the delivery of Government business in Parliament through votes or ‘divisions’.  They keep their MP colleagues up to date on legislative business and inform the Government of backbench opinion.

Government Whips are not permitted to speak in House of Commons debates or table Parliamentary Questions.  However, to ensure your voice is heard in Westminster Greg continues to raise constituency concerns directly by writing to and speaking to Ministers about local and national issues.

The links below will show Greg's contributions in the House of Commons prior to being appointed a Whip.

Click here to read Greg's Parliamentary activity, as compiled by the website - theyworkforyou.com.

Click here to browse all of Greg's appearances and questions in the House of Commons.

Greg on TheyWorkForYou.com

4th June 2013

On a point of order, Mr Crausby. I think that Mike Thornton and Stephen Williams might have been missed out.

4th June 2013

On a point of order, Mr Crausby. I think that Mike Thornton and Stephen Williams might have been missed out.

25th April 2013

Further to that point of order, Mr Amess. There are three important points to make. First, the intention of the Committee, as expressed by you, is absolutely clear. The intention was that the amendment not be agreed to. That was reflected in the votes, with Opposition Members voting no and Government Members—both parties—voting yes. Secondly, when you announced the result of the vote—17 to 12—if the amendment had been carried, you would have said, “And therefore I declare the amendment carried” or “The amendment is thereby made.” Further, if the Opposition’s intention had been, as they now claim, that the amendment be agreed to, surely when you put the question that the clause stand part, you would have, and should have, said that the clause “as amended” be put to the Committee.

On all of those three occasions it was clear that the amendment, in the intention of the Committee and the intention of the Chairman, was not made. That was reflected in everything that happened thereafter. I think the intention of the Committee was clear. In the eyes of the Committee and in the eyes of the Chairman, the vote was clearly about whether the amendment be withdrawn. Therefore I think the Committee, wrongly as it turned out, thought that it was voting to withdraw the amendment, so now we should proceed to a vote on whether the amendment should be made.

Promoted by Jonathan Fraser-Howells on behalf of Greg Hands, both at 1a Chelsea Manor Street, London SW3 5RP