Business of the House

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

There are a lot of topics to get through—the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm is spilling over this week—so let us make a start. P&O obviously is a developing situation. Mr Speaker, you indicated that you might take a statement later and I am sure that the Department for Transport would want to keep the House updated. I have not had any confirmation that there will be a statement later, but I know the Department will be looking at this closely and I am sure it will keep colleagues informed as the situation develops.

The hon. Lady moved on to the great news about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and the whole House will want to celebrate her safe return to the United Kingdom. She named a number of colleagues on her side. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) raised the matter at business questions on a number of occasions and also needs some recognition. I hope that the hon. Lady would also recognise the contribution of the Foreign Office and a number of Foreign Secretaries who worked very hard to try to expedite the process and get Nazanin home, which they have been successful in doing.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady again for her support and that of the whole House on our response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We continue to see the most appalling atrocities committed in Ukraine by the desperate regime in Russia. I have to say that these people will be held to account for the crimes that they are committing. This week we saw the bombing of a theatre with more than 1,200 people in it. One cannot even begin to imagine the carnage that such weapons cause. That is why we are right to continue with our sanctions regime. We have now sanctioned more than 1,000 people on the list and we are taking robust action against these individuals. We should be enormously proud of putting those measures in place. Alongside that, we have the largest humanitarian support package that there is and military support, with weapons for Ukrainians to defend themselves. The UK’s response has been exemplary. The Prime Minister has shown extreme leadership on the matter and continues to do so.

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the fact that that conflict is causing huge ripples around the world in terms of energy prices and the impact on the food market. The Government are very much aware of that. That is why we have put in huge packages of support. As she said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be at the Dispatch Box next Wednesday for his spring statement. I am sure that he will update the House on progress in that direction.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister’s trip to Saudi Arabia. Surely she recognises that the way to influence our world leaders is to engage with them: to go and sit with them, challenge them face to face and encourage them in a direction of improving human rights. We can do that only by having those face-to-face meetings and being a critical friend of those regimes. That is the right way to conduct world business.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Goring gap question—the subject of early-day motion 1082, which I raised at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—requires consideration by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the whole of Government because it runs roughshod over all the planning responsibilities of district councils.

[That this House calls for revocation of the conclusion of the planning inspector in the appeal relating to land north west of Goring Station, Goring-by-Sea, Worthing, the Goring Gap, separating Worthing from Ferring in Arun; notes the letter of the hon. Member for Worthing West to the Prime Minister in October 2019 asking that any inspector nominated to hear an appeal against refusal of a planning proposal should be limited to gross obvious major misjudgment; rejects building over substantial parts of the valued strategic gap between Goring-by-Sea and the village of Ferring; notes the inspector recognised the first two main issues were whether the appeal site offers an acceptable location for development and the effect of the proposed development on the landscape, including in the setting of the adjacent South Downs National Park; recognises that if the inspector’s reasoning were allowed to stand, it wrecks the responsibilities of housing authorities and county councils and attacks declared ministerial policy to maintain strategic separation between towns and villages; notes that every green field and open space between the Downs and the sea is threatened by development; and asks the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to meet potentially affected hon. Members and local authority leaders without delay.]

In a letter to the Prime Minister in October 2019, I said that an inspector should be instructed to overturn a proper decision by a local council only if there has been gross misjudgment by the council.

The issue is that Persimmon is greedily trying to fill in the strategic green gap between Goring and Ferring, in contradiction of the Worthing local plan.

The interim letter from the other planning inspector was clearly going to accept what Worthing was doing. It is wrong for one inspector perversely to grant an application when another is considering the local plan.

Can I meet the Prime Minister, and will the Government make a statement on restoring proper planning powers and revoke this inspector’s decision?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he indicated, he raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. Independent planning inspectors take into account all relevant matters and decide each case on its own merits. However, the planning permission has been issued, so it is final, unless successfully challenged in the courts. As a challenge may be made, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to discuss the specifics of the case at the Dispatch Box, but the Government remain committed to taking forward planning reforms. As the “Levelling Up” White Paper set out:

“Ensuring natural beauty is accessible to all will be central to our planning system.”

Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Although the Chair is not responsible for the content of contributions made by Ministers, I am sure the concern has been heard on the Treasury Bench. If an error has been made in this instance, I am sure a Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of interest in statistics. I cannot remember whether the Chancellor or the Cabinet Office is responsible for the Office for National Statistics, but perhaps we could have a Question Time on statistics so that we can bandy around our favourite ones and have them answered by Ministers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Father of the House for that point of order. Luckily, the Leader of the House is sitting in front of him, and I am sure he will have heard his interesting request.

Committee on Standards

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I do not think anyone enjoys taking part in this debate. Were the Government’s motion to be considered unamended, I would vote for it. Had the second amendment been selected, I would vote for it. I will not vote for the first amendment.

I was on the Standards Committee up to 2003, when I withdrew on a point of practice, rather than principle, that the House, the Speaker and the then Labour Government had not supported Elizabeth Filkin. I am not going to change my practice now.

I am one of the people, probably like most people in this House, who has read the full report. I have read what the chief vet said about the milk allegation. I have read what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has said, and to whom I join in offering sympathy for what has happened in his life. I recognise that the involvement of Randox with Aintree and with him, and his wife’s role at Aintree, meant that he would be close to a business, and I recognise that much of what he said is uncontested by the commissioner and by the Standards Committee.

The issue is whether he would have done better, as I think was possibly indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, to have said that he held one view, the commissioner and the Committee held another, that he now recognises that what they felt was reasonable, and he is sorry to have a had a view that has caused this upset and these difficulties to all of us. I still hope that were I in that situation I would have had the sense, basically, to accept that there are views other than my own and that I should not always see things with my own justification rather than in the way people outside this House, and some inside this House, would see them.

On the decision as to whether the contents of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) are correct, I do recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the 2003 recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is worth looking at. But that was 18 years ago, and if this is a serious problem, it should have been brought back for consideration by the House or by senior Members of this House during the past 18 years. I am unhappy to bring it forward now as a way of changing what should be the normal process of upholding the Standards Committee’s endorsement of the standards commissioner’s advice to the Committee.

I refer to the debate in 2010 when Jack Straw was the Justice Secretary and Sir George Young, as he then was, contributed for my party, as did I. We chose the system we are now using. If we want to consider changing it, we should do it in a proper way. I do not regard this as appropriate now.

Participation in Debates

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not saying that anybody is shirking; I am simply saying that we are in the same position as other key workers, as I think is right and proper.

On the issue of people revealing their medical conditions, I have of course thought very carefully about that because I know that many people would not want to reveal what their medical condition is. The issue is that either we would have to have an entirely virtual Parliament with all Members Zooming in—otherwise one could say, “That person has something wrong and that person doesn’t,”—which we found from experience did not work, or we would have to have it for a very small group.

The very small group have a choice. They are free to contribute, with a very wide range of rights, in interrogative proceedings in a way that allows our business to be carried out properly. The limitation remains only in those areas of business that need debate and the flow of debate. Exemptions will be made for a limited number of people, who will have the choice whether to tell the House about their need to contribute virtually because they are severely clinically vulnerable.

If I may use you, Mr Speaker, as a case in point—I hope you will forgive me—you have brought your diabetes to the attention of people by being open about it, and some Members wish to do that. I absolutely understand that other Members do not wish to, and nobody will be forced to reveal a medical condition if they do not wish to do so.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I think the whole House will welcome the flexibility that is following on from my right hon. Friend’s review of the situation. May I put it to him that it might be better, when he has developed proposals in consultation with you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, for them to be put to the House for debate, with the possibility of amendment, and for it to be for the House to decide what instructions to give you on what should be allowed?

I think there is something inelegant—perhaps I am taking the words that my right hon. Friend would have used were he still a Back Bencher—about the Government saying what Back Benchers should be able to contribute in this House. We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has conducted himself as Leader of the House; he has been helpful to most MPs most of the time. As he said on Thursday:

“With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties as safely and as effectively as possible.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1071.]

Those words match what our hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, and others. I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) spoke in the same way. I put it to the Leader of the House that the sooner the review allows extra flexibility, the better. We are not asking to go back to a fully virtual Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the Father of the House for his question and his, I think, generous comments. I will certainly interpret them that way, though they may have been slightly two-edged. It is very important that the House comes to a decision on this, and it is a matter for the House how it should be done. There will be conversations in the normal way, as there always are, and I hope that it will not be indiscreet of me to say that I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, on Friday after Thursday’s business questions. The House always comes to its own decision. The Government may propose, but it is for the House to dispose, and I am sure that the House will come to its conclusion in due course.

Business of the House

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

In the 45 years I have been here, I have worked for tenants and leaseholders in tower blocks. For the last 15 years, I have been trying to get Government Ministers to accept the need for changes and leasehold reforms so that at least tenants are not exploited. There are 6 million of them, with 1 million affected by cladding-type issues and many more affected by the apparent increased cost of lease extensions. The Government have got the Law Commission to produce some very good reports, and Ministers sometimes say that something is going to happen.  When will the Government make a statement about implementing the needed reforms and when will we have a Government debate so that we can support the Government when they take the necessary action? At the moment, the praise and plaudits cannot come in full because the Government have not supported lease tenants the way that they should.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the issue of cladding, which my hon. Friend raises, we are providing £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. That will be of help to some leaseholders in buildings that have cladding that has not yet been removed. The issue of compounding ground rates has been raised in the House before and is clearly a problem. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State gives a full answer to my hon. Friend.