Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

If I tried to defend IPSA now, I think I would be lynched, so I shall not do so. That is not the model that has been followed, and the royal charter is as far away from IPSA as anyone could have contrived.

Let me make two final points. The important thing to come out of today is that we have established a regulator which nobody can veto, a code of conduct which, yes, will be drafted by the press but has to be agreed by somebody independent of the press, the rights of third parties to complain, and probably most important, the right of the regulator, if necessary, to direct both an apology and the method of the apology.

The greatest abuses recently have been the sort of examples that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition gave. Somebody appears on the front page, the subject of a story that is totally untrue. Their career may be ruined, their reputation damaged, their lives, their mental health and their finances decimated, and there is no remedy available. What happens and has always happened is that a very small correction or apology appears later, sometimes. That is the real failure of the system to date and that will now change. All our constituents should have some hope that there may be a fairer system.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if there is a calumny on the front page of a red top, the apology will also be on the front page? If he is, that is great.

[Simon Hughes]

That is exactly what I think the public want. That is why it has been a privilege to work with colleagues of all parties and their staff. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his team, to the Deputy Prime Minister and his team. and to the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy and their team, and to their staff, the civil servants, the special advisers and others who have worked beyond the call of duty, and to the Clerks, including the Clerk of the House. There has been an absolute will to try to solve the problem in time.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it allows me to remind the House that Joseph of Arimathea is thought to have taken our Lord to visit Somerset when he was a young man. Some people maintain that that is mere legend blurring into myth, but I am quite convinced of its veracity.

I think that an established Church is good for the body politic—it is good for us that we can have jubilee celebrations held in St Paul’s cathedral or Westminster abbey, and that we can have that focus of national life through an established Church—but obviously an established Church cannot have as its head somebody who belongs to another Church. That would be logically inconsistent. It would be unfair on the Church of England; it would mean that bishops and archbishops appointed within the Church of England were appointed by somebody who did not share their beliefs and that could not be the right thing to do.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could we consider having as Supreme Governor of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury, thus taking this away from the sovereign?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that might have been an amendment worthy of consideration. It is not the amendment I tabled. My amendment sought to maintain the supreme governorship of the Church of England in a regency whenever the sovereign was not in communion with the Anglican Church under the Regency Act 1937, which requires the regent to be a Protestant and to meet the terms of the Act of Settlement. I would prefer to keep things that way because the Crown and the headship of the Church of England could come back together when a future sovereign was an Anglican, and my approach would not permanently separate the two. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward new thoughts on the matter; one of the reasons why it would have been better to have had a longer time for, and longer gaps in, debating this important subject is because then such ideas could have been discussed.

My new clause is extremely simple. It is a recognition—no matter how much I am sometimes reluctant to recognise it—that the modern world is different from the early 18th century. There may have been many glories in the early 18th century, but one of the glories of this modern age is that we are tolerant—we are tolerant of different religions. We believe that people practising other faiths is something to be welcomed and encouraged, and that has made us a stronger nation rather than a weaker one. Therefore there should no longer be a bar on the grounds of faith in respect of the sovereign, as long as we can make provision for the established Church of England, which there is and which I support.

That circle can be squared by providing for a regency. That relatively simple and straightforward proposal deals with a problem that people have recognised in this country for many decades; we have not suddenly woken up and realised that a non-member of the Church of England cannot become sovereign. Bills have been presented to Parliament to deal with that, and this seems the right time to be doing it, as we are legislating on the Crown succession and we are in discussion with the Commonwealth members who also have the Queen as sovereign to see whether they will agree to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I start by echoing what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. He has put the case simply: in this day and age, when it comes to a person’s suitability to become the Head of State, they should not be discriminated against because of their religion. That is why I was happy to put my name to the new clause, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and to his amendments.

I have been campaigning for years against barring Catholics from either marrying into the royal family or succeeding to the throne, particularly the first issue, which is bizarre. Indeed, I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and tabled early-day motions on the subject. We were constantly told that it was all too difficult and complicated to change, and that we would have to change hundreds of lines of legislation in hundreds of Acts of Parliament. But, hey presto! It is now being done. Although the Deputy Prime Minister gets a lot of stick in this House—including from Government Members —and in the media, I am on the record as warmly congratulating him on being the first leading member of this or any Government to get a grip on this issue and to try to solve it.

However, there is one final logical absurdity, which my hon. Friend is trying to address. I repeat this point because it is worth making: in this day and age, a person should not be barred from a position such as Head of State just because of their religion or lack of religion. There are many people in this House who have no religion and who do not wish to come to Prayers or who do so just to reserve their place. They are just as worth while as Members. There is no reason why we have to keep this bar in place.

I am a traditionalist, like my hon. Friend. Even if the new clause were accepted by the Government, it is extremely unlikely that it would be activated in our lifetimes, or indeed ever. As far as I know, there is no likelihood of Prince Charles or Prince William becoming a Catholic. It is therefore somewhat academic, but just because an amendment is academic does not mean that it is not worth debating and acting on if it is the logical and right thing to do. It is unlikely to be activated not just because of the nature of the likely successors to the throne, but because a person who is brought up as a member of the royal family is surely extremely unlikely to want to bar themselves from the throne or put their chances of succeeding to the throne at risk.

[Bob Stewart]

It may be much more likely that the heir to the throne would become an atheist. The problem would have to be addressed in those circumstances.

[Mr Leigh]

Indeed, it might happen that somebody becomes an atheist or an agnostic, or does not want to be a member of the Anglican faith. By the way, I have enormous sympathy, respect and, indeed, love for the Anglican faith, which is inherent in the traditions of our country. However, it is perfectly possible that in some future generation, somebody will not want to be part of it for quite profound reasons of personal conscience. That is why this matter is important. It is not just an academic, legalistic debating point; it is a matter of deep personal conscience. What is more important to an individual than their faith or lack of faith? It is somewhat strange in the modern age to say to somebody that if they want to become the head of this particular state, that job goes with being a member of a particular Christian denomination. It does not fit in with what we do in many other areas of our national life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I wish to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which raise an important point.

It was a bit much for the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to lambast the Government for introducing a Bill that removes gender discrimination in the royal family—something that the last Labour Government said they wanted to do but never got around to completing—and deals with the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and the limitation on sovereigns being married to a Roman Catholic. Were the Bill to cover the much wider issues of disestablishment or of whether the sovereign should no longer hold the position they currently hold in the Church of England, it would be a different Bill and a much wider consultation would have taken place.

The intention of the Bill might be frustrated, however, if the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is right, because the wording of the Act of Settlement about who is a Catholic is very detailed and picks up on almost any evidence of any connection with the Catholic Church at any time in the person’s life. As we discussed earlier, it is highly likely that the child of a mixed marriage will have experienced both denominations —and perhaps the Church of Scotland as well. Many parents offer their children the opportunity to see what different Churches have to offer.

[Bob Stewart]

As I understand it, Her Majesty the Queen has attended a Roman Catholic service at some stage in her life. Does that taint her under the old rules?

[Sir Alan Beith]

It depends whether one thinks that Her Majesty was reconciled to Rome by that action, which did not involve being in communion with the Church of Rome—something from which the Church of Rome would exclude Her Majesty in any event—so it is only on the first of those two possibilities that what my hon. Friend describes might be so regarded. I do not regard it as such, because “reconciled” in that legislation meant accepting the authority of the papacy over the Church in England. That was what the argument was really about. Members of all Churches are very much reconciled to each other these days, because they realise that they share a common faith that is more important than their points of difference.

Voting Age

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

It is interesting how colleagues across the Chamber are neatly anticipating in their interventions the next points I will be making. We have never had an electoral competence test in this country, although I have heard people advocate one. We have all, I am sure, been canvassing and been outside the shopping centre or even the school gate, and rolled our eyes or walked down the path in despair after hearing opinions that may not have been that well informed from people in their 40s, 50s and 60s. We would never say that the franchise should be withheld from people just because they are stubborn in their opinions or have got a fact completely wrong. We do not have an electoral competence test for people aged 18 and over, so we should not apply it to those aged 16 and 17. Were we to have such a test, I think 16 and 17-year-olds would pass it with flying colours, but I could not have the same confidence for people who are much older than them.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have been in command of soldiers aged 16 and 17 who are desperate to go on operations but are not allowed to because this country considers them still to be children. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a 16-year-old should be able to vote—presumably to send our soldiers to war— but cannot go to war themselves until they are 18. Extraordinary!

[Stephen Williams]

I do not think it is extraordinary. As I said earlier to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I have no problem with having different ages for different rights and responsibilities. Some people disagree with me about that and want 16 to be the common age, but that is not the position I hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). As I think he knows, I joined the Labour party in Bury as a 15-year-old, and when I was 16 and 17, I spent my time doing my best to help dislodge his Conservative predecessor, who is of course now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—although the hon. Member for Bury North may think that that reinforces his argument and detracts from mine.

I shall be brief. I started thinking about this debate a few weeks ago, and came to the issue with a genuinely open mind. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I think said from a sedentary position earlier that he was worried about the squeeze on childhood. I will have to disagree with him. At 16, people can give consent to medical treatment, leave school and enter work, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, get married, change their name by deed poll, become a company director, join the armed forces, and become a member of a trade union. Given that there is already a long list of things that people can do at 16, it seems reasonable that they should also be able to vote.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because the Deputy Speaker is keen for us all to get in.

In recent days, I have held a survey in my Leicester South constituency. Interestingly, apart from the over-50s, those who have taken part in my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of allowing 16-year-olds to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman as we do not have much time.

I am immensely proud that it is Scotland that is leading the way in delivering the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that the Scottish National party Scottish Government are the first Government in the United Kingdom ever to allow our youngest people the vote. In our independence referendum 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to decide the future of our country, and that is absolutely right. This is an immensely exciting and transformative event and it is the right thing to do.

The Scottish National party has supported votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for decades. Winnie Ewing, who was our first Member of Parliament, spoke about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in her maiden speech in 1967. We believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have the biggest stake in our future and it is right that they have a say. I will not go over the reasons why 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote, as those reasons have been eloquently put by several hon. Members. If people of that age can marry, pay tax and join the Army, they should be given the opportunity to decide the future of the country, and it is what the people of Scotland want, too.

Of the 26,000 people who responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”, the vast majority agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in a referendum. In fact, 56% agreed and 41% disagreed. Children 1st, Children in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Electoral Reform Society, the National Union of Students in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison and Unite—all bodies that have an interest in young people and their welfare and rights—responded positively to the proposal to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Scotland’s referendum.

We can allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum because of the Edinburgh agreement, reached between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which passed responsibility on all issues related to our referendum to the Scottish Parliament. It is the first time we have had the opportunity to be responsible for a franchise for a national election—and, by God, we are going to use it.

The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in health board elections and in the crofting commission elections. Where we have legislative responsibility, we will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. Unfortunately, we do not have responsibility for UK elections. We are not responsible for the franchise for elections to the Scottish Parliament. We are not even responsible for the franchise for local government elections.

It has been ridiculously suggested that because we cannot allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in UK Parliament elections, we should demonstrate our right to allow young people to vote in our referendum. I am sorry, but we are for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We believe that it is right that they should get the vote, and where we have responsibility we will allow our young people the vote. We will not be held back by some of the positions of the Westminster Conservatives. If we were to wait for the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to agree to 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, we would be waiting a long time.

What are we going to do? The Scottish Government are going to bring forward a Bill to allow all 16 and 17-year-olds to register and vote in our independence referendum. We propose to accelerate the paving Bill, which will allow a canvass of 15 to 17-year-olds as part of the electoral canvass plan for 2013, not just the so-called attainers covered by the existing electoral canvass proposals. We are already working closely with electoral registration officers and other stakeholders to develop the legislation and the practical arrangements to implement it. We will guarantee and ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds have a vote in the Scottish independence referendum.

What has been disappointing about the debate on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum is the attitude of parties and politicians who notionally support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I respect the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), but his Liberal colleagues in Scotland have been what could only be called prickly, oppositional and generally grudging about trying to secure votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum.

In fact, our consultation showed that 17 Labour Members of Parliament objected to 16 and 17-year-olds getting a vote in the referendum, as did practically all the Liberal Democrats. I find that astonishing, and even shameful. If they believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all elections, why did they not support their right to vote in the referendum in the Scottish Parliament? It was immensely disappointing to see the Liberals, in particular, opposing and being prickly and difficult about securing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our referendum.

The fact that 16 and 17-year-olds cannot vote in general elections has been mentioned, but we cannot do anything about that, because we do not have responsibility for extending the franchise in UK elections. Some have tried to suggest that we are proposing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for narrow party political advantage—what a lot of nonsense. There is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, one opinion poll conducted among 16 and 17-year-olds showed that a majority were in favour of remaining in the Union. To suggest that we are doing this for narrow party political advantage is absolute and utter nonsense. The attitude of some of the parties that notionally support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum has been disappointing. They will have to account to 16 and 17-year-olds when the referendum takes place in Scotland next year.

[Bob Stewart]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds could be on a jury in a murder trial, for example? I am slightly concerned about that.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not agree with that. This goes back to the debate that has been well rehearsed and which we have heard so much about today. There are different ages of responsibility between the ages of 16 and 18. There are certain things that 16-year-olds can and cannot do, there are certain things that 18-year-olds can do, and there certain things that people cannot do until they are 21. We sometimes have to draw a line when it comes to these issues, but to say that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be able to vote when they have such responsibilities and such a stake in our society and community is utterly perverse, wrong and bizarre. Of course they should get the vote.

I am a sponsor of the motion and so will, of course, support it. I will continue to support every effort in this House to ensure that we get votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I make a plea to both the Liberal and Labour parties to stop their opposition to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum and to please help us to deliver it to ensure that we have the first national referendum in the United Kingdom in which 16 and 17-year-olds can vote. Support us, help us, and we will deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I have simply expressed my view and, I believe, that of the majority of colleagues on the Opposition Benches. There is indeed an overwhelming case, and experience has shown that when more people engage with the issue, more become convinced that it is the way forward.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Wayne David]

I want to make progress because time is short; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

As well as the important Power report, various other reports have been produced. Since the Power report was published, there has been more active citizenship in our schools, and more young people have become involved in the debate about issues that affect their lives. A number of Members have mentioned the success of the UK Youth Parliament, and I know many Members were genuinely impressed—some, indeed, were surprised —by the maturity and sophistication of its debates.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not agree with that, because when we bring legislation before this House, we are not limited by three or four words. We have it within our power to rewrite the whole of the Act of Settlement. That is why I think that, if we are not going to leave the whole thing alone, we have to make the fundamental change: we have to get rid of the fundamental injustice.

I am not going to hold myself up as a great bastion of political correctness. That is not a creed to which I particularly hold or one for which I have any great concern, but I do think that, broadly speaking, there should be equality of tolerance among the religions people choose to follow in this country, and that statute law should not favour one religion against another within the context of an established Church that provides a backdrop of Christianity for historical reasons and that has been a strength of this nation.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is such a valued Member and knows so much, so does he think that we are about to produce bad law?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Yes, indeed I do. It is the point I have been making at great length all afternoon. In making that point, I would like to thank the Minister for her patient answers to my almost interminable questions. She has done that with great grace and thoughtfulness, for which I am deeply appreciative, but I am still in disagreement. I think this clause would be better left out of the Bill. If we are going to make a change, it needs to be thoroughgoing; otherwise, we simply reinforce the offence of the Act of Settlement and the wording of the Bill of Rights. We need to live, however, with our great and noble history, which is part of what we have grown up with, part of being a subject of the Queen, and part of being a person of the United Kingdom, to put it that way. My preference is for the clause to be removed, but if it is to be included, it should be part of a thoroughgoing reform that allows a Catholic to succeed, but protects the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Algeria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been working extremely hard, almost around the clock, trying to keep people in touch, whether it be the Scottish Government, MPs, or the police liaison teams that liaised with the families through what has been an incredibly difficult—impossibly difficult—period for them. I pay tribute to those teams that do such an important job. I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in his general point that we should do more of what we are good at. All budgets are limited, and although £33 billion is a large defence budget, it has its limits, so we should focus on areas where we can, with our partners, make the greatest difference.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is excellent that my right hon. Friend chairs our new National Security Council, but as it is a committee, may I ask if an official close to the National Security Council could operate with your authority and your confidence right across the gamut of government to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach to dealing with international terrorism? Could that official report to you through the committee?

[Mr Speaker]

Certainly not to me, but to the Prime Minister.

Algeria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement telling us as much as he can about what has happened. May I ask him whether our specialist experts in kidnap and ransom and hostage negotiation are still on stand-by to help in the event of this operation being ongoing, as it seems to be for a small group of terrorists who are holding nationals from this country and other allies?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The answer is yes, hostage negotiating experts are on stand-by with other sorts of technical expertise that we can provide. I have made those offers to the Algerian Prime Minister, and all those offers stand. We do have considerable expertise, but let me make one point clear. We must remember that the Algerian Government are facing the challenge of a massive terrorist attack with lives immediately at risk. While we in this country can be hugely proud of the technical expertise and the brilliance of our security forces and special forces, one can have the ultimate degree of planning and still find that these events end unhappily. We should bear that in mind when thinking about the actions the Algerians have taken.

European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There have been moments over previous years when it looked as though, because of a location policy, it would have been possible to say that Britain could clear deals in pounds, in yen and in dollars but not in euros. As a member of the European Union, which is about free trade and a single market, this would have been a ridiculous state of affairs. The guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor secured on a no-discrimination policy takes us largely down the road we want to be on.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm his position with regard to the European Union military command headquarters, particularly as five major nations in Europe want it to be established, and I do not think we do?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to repeat that we are against the idea of an operational headquarters. This came up again tangentially at the European Council, with some attempts to change the language about what was required, and I said that that was not acceptable. The focus of the European Council conclusions is rightly about capacity. We are all interested in European countries having greater capacity to deal with these issues, but we do not want duplication of headquarters and challenges to NATO.

Patrick Finucane Report

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question and the way he puts it. Let me be clear: the reason for not having a full public inquiry is not that it would not be possible to establish the terms of reference. My view is that it is not the right approach, because I do not think it would achieve what we need to achieve. I do not necessarily think that a long, open-ended, very expensive inquiry would actually get further than what we have in this report, which has been an exercise in opening up government, the security services and the police to the maximum extent possible. Nothing has been held back, so I do not think we will get further. Of course, a public inquiry would put a stay on any potential prosecution while it was under way. We are not having a public inquiry because I do not believe it is the right approach; I think this report is the right approach—and as I say, I cannot think of any other country in the world that would open itself up in the way that we have quite rightly done so.

The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about Ministers being misled is absolutely right. That is why I said in my statement that the Cabinet Secretary is one of the people who will report back to me about lessons that need to be learned or problems that still need to be uncovered or dealt with. That is important. The only point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman about the role of the security services is that things have changed fundamentally since 1989. In 1987 and ’88, it was still a time when Ministers at this Dispatch Box did not even admit that we had a Security Service. It is now on a statutory basis—it is properly regulated and under the law—there are information commissioners who have to examine what is done and ministerial permission is properly sought in all the proper ways. The situation is totally transformed. That does not mean that there are not lessons to be learned, however, which is why the Defence Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary will all be reading this report carefully and reporting back to me, and I will make those reports public.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I, like my good friend the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), was an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the identities of those people from all sides who gave information to the security forces—I had well over 100 people giving information to me, albeit sometimes indirectly—will be kept secret, because it would be devastating if such information were ever to get out?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the process of writing these reports, the author has to consider carefully article 2—the right to life of all those people contained in the report. It was Sir Desmond de Silva’s decision about who to identify and who not to identify. It is important to bear it in mind that although there are occasions where someone is not identified in the report because of that article 2 consideration, there are also occasions where someone cannot be identified because the report cannot be sure about who was responsible for such and such an action. It needs to be read in that way.

Charitable Registration

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

The Charity Commission’s powers are to apply the law, not to make it. That is the domain of the House and the courts. The Charity Commission is a regulator, not a legislator.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my constituency, and I suspect in everyone else’s, the Plymouth Brethren meeting hall has received a letter refusing the Brethren charitable status and saying:

“This decision makes it clear that there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England”,

although not in the case of Druids.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend.

European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

A very successful Foreign Affairs Council met before the European Union Council. As I have said, the language on Iran was very tough—if there was not movement on the nuclear issue, the sanctions would be tightened up; and the language and conclusions on Syria were about further steps to put restrictions on the regime. Whether in discussing Syria or Iran, or indeed EU relationships with countries such as India and China, Britain is making a lot of the policy and a lot of the approaches.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

All EU members are having to take cuts in their spending domestically. When possible, can we insist that further payments from this country to the EU should be proportionate to the cuts we are taking domestically?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an ingenious idea that others are also pursuing. It is a complex picture, because Britain is one of the few net contributor nations. We need to look at the starting point. We are the second largest net contributor, which is why our rebate and our tough position on that policy is completely justified.