(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberHer Majesty the Queen was the heart of Windsor, and it is in some ways fitting that my words will be the last of the Back-Bench tributes to Her Majesty. I wish to pass on condolences not just from me but from my many constituents to the royal family.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch through an extraordinary era. Even before her coronation, the young Elizabeth made a vow to devote her life to serving her country. She kept her promise, and she surpassed our expectations. She has been the constant in an ever-changing world not just for Windsor, but for the country, the Commonwealth, and in the hearts and minds of all those around the world. She has been the embodiment of the United Kingdom. She has been projecting all that is good about our nation across the globe for more than 70 years, and her image is our image to the world.
She was the omnipresent Queen. I have been listening to the tributes in this debate, and it seems as though the Queen has been to every part of our United Kingdom. Everybody has a story to tell and everyone in this Chamber has a story to tell. I can tell the House that, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to parts of west Africa, everybody there has a story to tell as well. Everyone has a story to tell about our omnipresent Queen. Nationally and internationally, she is recognised.
Yet amid all her duties, responsibilities and commitments, the Queen remained ever-present in the Windsor constituency, one of her favourite homes. People felt her presence everywhere across the constituency—absolutely everywhere. As the MP, I have had the privilege of greeting Heads of State as they arrived in Windsor, albeit in the shadows of Her Majesty, and I could witness at first hand her incisive wit and her cool and calm humour, which set guests at their ease. Aside from seeing the Queen at Royal Ascot, the Savill garden, the Combermere barracks and the Victoria barracks, or at military parades, virtually every constituent will have seen or met her, or knew somebody very close to them who had.
If people lived in Windsor, there was no escape—none whatsoever. If they were strolling in Windsor Great park, they would inevitably bump into the Queen walking, driving or, in the past, on a horse. Their children were likely to see her at school or at college, and for anyone working for our many charities and good causes, it was inevitable that they would receive visits and great patronage from the Queen. When it came to our businesses, if the foundation stone of the building was not laid by the Queen, a plaque with her name was placed there on her opening it, or the business received a letter or an invite to the Castle. Whether people knew it or not, even when they were shopping in the King Edward Court centre in central Windsor, it was inevitable that they would bump into Her Majesty on occasion. She was everywhere: she was truly omnipresent. So I am not surprised—I am not—that her last official engagement was at the Thames hospice in our local area. It makes sense in so many ways.
In closing, it is difficult for me to express just how much the Queen will be missed in Windsor and how thankful we are to have known her. She was our omnipresent Queen—the Queen of constancy—and her image is our image to the world. In future, in this place and across the country, we must strive to live up to her image of us. In Windsor the Queen will live on in our parks, lakes and buildings, and in our memories. She will live on in her eldest son, and I say without hesitation, long live King Charles III.
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI wonder whether my hon. Friend could say a bit more about that second image.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who was watching the clock more than me.
The second image is one that the forever war that has just reignited could lead to. It is the image of a man whose name I never knew, carrying a child who had died hours earlier into our firebase and begging for help. There was nothing we could do. It was over. That is what defeat looks like; it is when you no longer have the choice of how to help. This does not need to be defeat, but at the moment it damn well feels like it. [Applause.]
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberI must first send my condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family from the Windsor constituency.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was a striking man: tall, energetic, colourful, plain-speaking and utterly dedicated to Her Majesty and his duties to the nation and the Commonwealth. His patronage was far-ranging and long-lasting, and is evident across the Windsor constituency, including parts of Bracknell Forest, Poyle, Colnbrook, Horton and Wraysbury. It seems to me, judging from my postbag and my interactions with my constituents, that most of them had a personal interaction or a story or a connection with Prince Philip.
His patronage extends far and wide, from the Duke of Edinburgh Awards to Windsor hockey club, Home Park cricket club, Windsor rugby football club, the Windsor and Eton choral society and the Windsor Forest Bowmen. Anyone who has visited the Windsor constituency will be familiar with the Great Park, where Prince Philip was the park ranger. He had an ability to put people at ease. His plain-speaking style and his sense of humour seemed to cut through discourse to ensure that people felt comfortable and connected in double-quick time.
As the MP for Windsor, I have had many opportunities to interact with Prince Philip and Her Majesty, and each occasion has been a striking moment. I will recount just two for the House. Shortly after I was first elected in 2005, I had my first engagement with Prince Philip. I was terribly nervous, and I think that he could see that. I was not quite sure what to say—I was not sure of the protocol. He walked straight over, looked me in the eye and said, “So how’s life in that madhouse?” It was so unexpected that I burst out laughing. From that moment, I realised this his plain-speaking style—that directness—was a really good technique to put people at ease. From that moment on, we conversed in a very natural way—sometimes in a very opinionated way—but it was really, really helpful.
Secondly, we have heard about many prestigious occasions and Prince Philip’s far-ranging patronage, but we should also remember that he attended many other kinds of events. We have some wonderful buildings in the Windsor constituency. Obviously, we have Windsor castle, but we also have the Grundon energy-from-waste incinerator plant. As anyone who has been past the constituency will know, the plant has this massive chimney—pumping out clean air, of course.
I was invited with the Prince to the opening of the new incinerator, and we had a fantastic tour around the premises. When it came time to say a few words, I glanced over at Prince Philip and saw a twinkle in his eye, and I knew it was going to be an interesting speech. We were presented with beautiful little glass images of the Colnbrook incinerator; they are actually quite nice. He made a lovely speech, and then he held up the little glass model and said, “When I open the curtains in the morning, the first thing I see is the Colnbrook incinerator, but now—do you know what? I won’t even need to open the curtains. I shall keep this by my bed.” It was that kind of presentational style that made him an approachable, attractive character with whom one could be at ease. He has left a huge void at the heart of the royal family, as Her Majesty has said, and a notable absence in the Windsor constituency, across the country and in the Commonwealth.
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberAs the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, there were a number of very principled opponents of the whole idea of the protocol itself. He and his colleagues in his party laid out some of their concerns in a very cogent fashion. In the end, the House of Commons decided that the protocol, as part of the withdrawal agreement, was the right way to proceed, but, as he quite rightly points out, it was important that a number of difficult questions were addressed. He is also absolutely right that the proof will be in the implementation on the ground.
Let me turn to the two specific areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. It is the case that the limited number of EU officials—I think it is probably no more than two dozen at most—who will come into Northern Ireland will be working alongside UK officials. The UK officials will be in the lead there, but we want to provide the EU with assurance. On the matter of where goods are sourced from, I cannot think of any better place for goods in Northern Ireland supermarkets to be sourced from than Northern Ireland itself. Wonderful though produce in the Republic of Ireland is, I do not think it is the case that there is any better producer—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asks about bananas. I think he is referring, of course, to SNP policy on trade. But when it comes to pork products, there is nothing better than an Ulster fry.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kindness—and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office for his kindness—towards my many children, who have been here on many occasions. My nine-year-old, Atticus, said to me when he got sight of the question that I was going to ask today, “But, dad, the answer to that question is so obvious!” I am going to ask it anyway. Despite our desire for a good trade deal with the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must never again cede control of our borders or coastal waters to a foreign power?
Well, I knew that my hon. Friend was a great dad, because his son absolutely hits the nail on the head in saying that the answer to that question is obvious. No, we absolutely should not cede that control. Very good question; the answer is clear. Excellent son; brilliant dad.
(3 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberI commend the Government, because I know that the motivations behind the measures they are trying to adopt are worthy. They believe that these measures represent the best way forward and I respect that point of view. They have done a great job on PPE, the acceleration of vaccine development and the rolling out of mass testing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) just observed.
I thank the Prime Minister, his office and the Government for interacting with Back Benchers in an open and co-operative way. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to make informed decisions on behalf of our constituents and our country—to be able to say that we have chosen the best measures to save lives and jobs and to make sure that we have tax revenue for the future. It seems to me that this is not a zero-sum game: there is not just one option—the Government’s option—or no option at all. That is certainly not the case; there are all sorts of alternatives.
We could take a targeted approach, as in Germany; a borough-based approach, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells just mentioned; or even a targeted approach based on the individual premises where there may be an outbreak. We could decide to use a strategy in which we trust people more, offering more guidance and allowing people to make up their own minds about what they are going to do. We need to look at the evidence around that kind of approach.
We could continue to conduct intensive research into whether or not hospitality does spread the virus, along with all sorts of other areas. We could look at triage at hospitals to see whether the bar should be lowered slightly or raised slightly depending on the demand for hospital beds. We could also accelerate and refine test and trace. There are plenty of alternatives.
It seems to me that we have to focus on the harms versus the benefits. Whenever any one of us makes a decision in our own daily lives—about an investment or buying a house, for example—we think about the long-lasting consequences: the costs and the benefits. When it comes to personal healthcare, we go to see a consultant, who makes it clear that there are alternative treatments and sets out the relative benefits and harms of those various treatments. When it comes to business, if one is going to make an investment, one will always do a cost-benefit analysis in the long-term. In this place, we virtually always see an economic analysis, an impact assessment or an analysis based on quality-of-life indicators.
When it comes to this decision, however, we do not have a cost-benefit analysis, we do not have an economic impact assessment, and we do not have a health and harms analysis based on QOLIs, so it is with deep regret that I find it incredibly hard to back the Government today. However, I hope that in the future we will see proper health and economic impact assessments for proposed actions, as we will have a lot more actions to consider around vaccines and testing. It is our duty to make an informed choice, but I do not feel that we are in a position to make that choice. The Government will probably have their way today, but I hope that in a few weeks’ time we will assess this more carefully and perhaps make a different judgment.
Apologies for the interruption, but I saw the so-called impact assessment and I have to say that it would not pass through the boardroom of a small business. It really was not up to it. Does my hon. Friend share that view?
I do agree with my hon. Friend, who is well qualified to say that.
The hospital capacity projection from the SPI-M-O medium-term modelling, which was leaked, says that it “takes three weeks for non-pharmaceutical interventions to have any impact on hospital admissions, therefore the window to act is now”—in bold and underlined. The trouble is that drawing a vertical line on it through 21 days after 5 November, we find that three hospital trusts should have been exceeding surge capacity, including the Nightingales, and it just did not happen.
We now need to start having a serious look at modelling. I provided a paper to the Government on how to reform modelling. We also need to have a serious look at how we deal with expert advice in this complex, contested field. I have provided a paper to the Government on how to do that. I believe that we need a new public health Act that can allow us better to balance the need—the absolute need—to infringe people’s civil liberties with people’s fears that they are being infringed too much, again to show proportionality.
Again, I have reached out to a judicial expert in the field, and he provided us with a one-pager, which I have given to the Government, on what should be done. I have also, by working with independent scientists, come up with that more liberal plan that stands between where the Government are and moving in the direction towards a freer system. Again, that has been provided to the Government. No one can say that I or anyone working with me have not done our duty, but here we stand in a profoundly dangerous moment, heading into infringements on our liberties and on vaccination and testing that we would never normally tolerate. Therefore, I find, with huge reluctance, that I am going to have to vote no tonight, to send a message to the Government.
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The experiences of Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman remind us all that the Labour party has a job to do to ensure that bullying is removed from its own ranks in order to improve the health of our democratic life.
My right hon. Friend has acquitted himself well on the Front Bench in explaining the circumstances of this investigation. The Home Secretary has our full support in implementing our policies, but will my right hon. Friend remind the House whether there is an ongoing investigation into the leaks from the civil service about the Home Secretary?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that everyone in public life behaves with the maximum degree of civility, courtesy and consideration to others. It is also important, however, that confidentiality is respected during the robust discussions that take place between Ministers, special advisers and officials, and leaks are therefore to be deprecated.
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberAs I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the report will be published as soon as the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconvened. As I have told the House several times, those of a conspiratorial cast of mind will be disappointed by its findings.
May I commend the Prime Minister for his belief in Britain and the massive boost to infrastructure investment around the country? However, the cost of landing fees at Heathrow airport is £25 per passenger, and those fees will rise with a third runway, leading to Heathrow becoming the least competitive airport on the entire planet. Given the delays and the escalating costs, does the Prime Minister agree that it may well be time to review progress and perhaps to deploy the bulldozers elsewhere in the country?
The House of Commons voted effectively to give outline planning consent to the third runway. It was supported by people across the Chamber—not by me, as it happens. I wait to see the outcome of the various legal processes that are currently under way to see whether the promoters of the third runway can satisfy their legal obligations under air quality and, indeed, noise pollution.
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberI shall keep my words brief. Windsor is home to the military in the form of the Household Cavalry, which is the presentation regiment for the royal household and the protection unit, and to the monarchy, with Windsor castle being the longest continuously inhabited castle in the country.
It strikes me whenever I meet the prince just how dedicated he is to public life, over so many years and to so many different causes. The Prince’s Trust takes care of disadvantaged youngsters by providing entrepreneurial loans so that they can make their own way in life, which is a fine thing to do. His passions for the environment and architecture are well known.
Prince Charles has a strong heart and a good heart, with a strong voice in convening people around the issues in which he believes. We know in this place just how challenging it can be to speak out on key issues—one is often condemned if one does, and condemned if one does not—and yet the prince has managed to speak out on many issues, without causing offence, and in a way that opens up areas for public debate that we may otherwise not have opened up.
In this place we are volunteers, and yet the prince has taken on his duties and his responsibilities through a sense of commitment to the country. On behalf of the residents of the Windsor constituency, and on behalf of myself and other Members, I wish Prince Charles a very happy birthday.
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Gentleman raises a very specific individual case. It is right that it be looked at properly, and that is what I will ask the Home Office to do.
I think Members across the House will recognise the role that animals play during war, not only in the sacrifice they make but in the support they give. I thank the Prime Minister for meeting the war horse memorial group from Windsor. The unveiling will take place this Saturday, and I am very proud of the work the group has done. Does the Prime Minister agree that recognition of the role of animals in war can unite us with the Commonwealth and the entire world?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to see the maquette of the war horse memorial, which will be unveiled in his constituency this weekend. I am pleased to say that that model is now in Downing Street. We have recognised the important role played by animals in warfare, and I am sure that when the memorial goes up in his constituency, it will remind many more people that we should never forget the part that animals have played.
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberOf course Aung San Suu Kyi has an important role to play. She has a voice, and she needs to use it to stop the persecution and, with the Burmese military and with what is effectively her Government, to create routes home for the Rohingya people, giving them security, rather than the fleeing and persecution we have seen. It is not just for the British Government, although we are doing this, but for all international voices to step up, come together and make that abundantly clear to her.
The Prime Minister and Secretary of State have made it clear that the Commonwealth is absolutely central to our future policy, and that is not just true in respect of forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings; the 20 largest DFID recipient countries include Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Malawi and Sierra Leone, in which our programmes extend from health and education, to economic development, without which there can be no jobs or growth.
We appreciate the power of recall of the hon. Gentleman’s exceptionally fertile mind.
Given the health and vibrant link between Commonwealth countries that open up to trade and their subsequent rapid economic development, does my hon. Friend agree that we have not only an economic imperative, but a moral obligation to do whatever we can with foreign aid to focus our efforts on supporting free trade? [Interruption.]
Order. We are discussing very serious matters appertaining to the livelihoods of our friends in Commonwealth countries, as we have been treating of a great many other serious issues. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) had to contend with excessive noise, but I am sure the House will now be becalmed as it listens to the flow of the eloquence of the Minister of State.