Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Adam Afriyie.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Thank you for your generosity in allowing me to ask this question, Mr Speaker. My constituent Joanna Brown, a wife, mother of two children and daughter of loving parents, was brutally murdered in my constituency back in 2010. Her husband was convicted of the murder and was sentenced to 24 years. Sadly, it seems that he will be let out on licence in November. May I urge the Justice Secretary to ask the parole board to question whether such offenders should come out of prison?

Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Lindsay Hoyle

Saturday 10th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Her 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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Question 13, and, once again, the Member of Parliament cannot access the House to represent democracy and his constituents. Once again, these people are blocking democracy, and the fact that Members who are actually trying to talk about these issues are being blocked from doing so is totally counterproductive. So what I would expect is for the Minister to answer Question 13, please.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

13. Whether he has plans to re-evaluate the carbon cost of a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Adam Afriyie.

[Adam Afriyie]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very seldom that I become furious, but I am absolutely apoplectic about missing my question this morning due to those reprobates outside who are doing their cause no good whatsoever. I was sitting in my electric vehicle—I know the Secretary of State has one as well—coming here with the sole purpose of putting pressure on the Government to reduce carbon emissions from aviation from Heathrow airport, so it is absolutely bizarre that they should have blocked that question. My question now, which I will slightly rephrase, is: given that aviation is one of the greatest contributors to CO₂ emissions, do the Government have any plans to continue to put downward pressure on CO₂ from aviation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

We will move on. I call Minister Mercer who is going to take a question tabled by James Sunderland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Adam Afriyie, come on in!

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

In the UK, we have an ample supply of creative and talented people working for our video and online gaming companies. Those companies have mastered the art of creating addictive games such as “Grand Theft Auto”, where young people are driven to the next level. Would it not be great if, in education, our children were refusing to leave their games consoles because they were driven to the next grade for their GCSEs? What is the Department doing to incentivise the industry to create addictive educational games that will help our children improve their scores?

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I should like initially to make it absolutely clear that the dog has claimed no allowances whatever!

The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have communicated this point to him, that we need to reflect on the public’s reaction a year ago. Indeed, I contributed to the discussion in January and was in favour of a much simpler administrative scheme than the current one. Is the review at the beginning of January not an opportunity to try to get the system right, in a non-adversarial way; to take the public or, at least, the opinion-formers with us, rather than back a year; to make the job of IPSA staff, whom he rightly praises for trying to operate a difficult system, much easier; and to ensure, therefore, that MPs benefit from a simpler process, the public benefit from a cheaper process and the world outside believes that we have not once again lost our marbles?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can we have shorter interventions? A lot of Members wish to speak in this very important debate.

[Adam Afriyie]

I welcome the intervention and the correspondence between me and the right hon. Gentleman, although we have a slightly different view about the purpose of today’s motion. We know that there will never be a win on this subject with the media and the public, whatever the scheme’s initial form. That is just never going to happen. Anybody who has been around the media, business or politics for long enough knows that that will never happen, so the question for us is: what type of scheme would be most beneficial to constituents and the taxpayer?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s input during the initial set-up, and I recognise his hard work in looking for a simple scheme, but I suspect that IPSA has not fully taken on board the power that we have given it to simplify things and make our jobs easier. My greatest hope today is that the terms of the motion never need to be used, and that IPSA comes forward with a scheme that works, thereby enabling us to do our job.

With regard to the intervention of the hon. Member for Walsall North, it is notoriously difficult to get information out of IPSA, and I understand why. Among other practices, it might not reflect well on IPSA if its senior salaries were compared with the salaries of Members of Parliament. I believe that there is also concern over the cost of the buildings that it has hired and the contracts into which it has entered. I do not want to go into the minutiae of how IPSA operates; I want to focus on the purpose of the motion and the consequences of its being passed this afternoon.

The motion presents an opportunity for the Government and our political party leaders to stand aside from this issue. The moment a party leader speaks on this subject, it is ignited and becomes a party political matter, with the parties wrangling with each other. The moment a Government get involved, it is a headline media issue—why are the Government trying to change IPSA and get rid of its independence? It is untenable for Governments and political party leaders to handle this issue, and they cannot do so in the way that is needed. I put it to the House that it is right for Parliament to handle this issue and to create the opportunity for the Government and party leaders to stand aside and allow measures to be brought forward. If it looks like those measures will cost the taxpayer more, of course the Government should have a right of veto. However, we need to deliver to the Government and party leaders the opportunity to step aside and allow this place time for calm contemplation and to bring forward measures. It is then up to the Government to make a judgment. We would be doing our party leaders a service, and it would be the first time in 100 years that they would have been given such an opportunity on the issue of MPs’ conditions and remuneration.