Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The House will understand that my remarks will be subsidiary to those of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

It is 36 years since I was with the first of my friends who I knew had been infected, and 33 years since that person died. Friendships got fractured, and families were changed forever.

One point that I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will put to his fellow Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care regards whether those who are still infected in some way can have a kind of national health service passport, so that when they go to get medical attention they are not asked the same questions that my constituents were asked every time: “How much have you been drinking? Why is your liver the way it is?” and all the rest. It is important that young clinicians understand that when they see haemophilia or a whole blood infection, they can take for granted a lot of things that do not need to be asked. That humanity needs to be spread.

I recognise that my right hon. Friend has built on the work of our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), and perhaps I may say in a cross-party way that Sue Gray deserves respect for when she led civil servants in that, as do her successors in the civil service who are putting things right.

My final point is this: people are not being awarded lottery sums, although in some way they make up for some of the losses and recognise some of the hurt. For some families who may not have been used to having much money around—indeed, most of them are used to having very little money because of the consequences of infection—there may need to be mediation services in case they do not agree. It would be a good idea if Sir Robert, or others, could consider whether such services could be made available, in the same way that other people who have suddenly come into some degree of money can get some kind of help. Families sometimes do not find it easy to decide how money should be shared.

Infected Blood Inquiry Report

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The thousands of people at Central Hall thanked Sir Brian Langstaff, and he thanked them. As has been said, we should acknowledge the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and her leadership of the all-party group.

Permanent secretaries and Cabinet Secretaries need to say to everyone throughout their chain, “Are we doing something that is right? Are we doing something that is necessary? Are we doing something that will work?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that if those questions had been asked more effectively, the number of tragedies would have been not five for every MP—and five times again for everyone injured or affected—but greatly reduced, and that we would have learned the truth earlier?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding himself and us that the ombudsman has, unusually, suggested that Parliament should get involved. Some were asking for £10,000 compensation per person. The ombudsman has recommended between £1,000 and just under £3,000. Could the Secretary of State indicate whether he will make a decision, and, if so, when and how much?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

My right hon. Friend indicates in provisional business for the week after next the remaining stages of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. She is familiar with early-day motion 711.

[That this House notes the First Special Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, HC121, on the problems with the current proposal and the restrictions faced by the Committee considering the hybrid Bill; respects the conclusions and recommendations on page 20; agrees with the list of matters related to the current proposals for a Holocaust Memorial and believes these need updated attention on deliverability from the Infrastructure Commission, from the National Audit Office on likely capital costs and recurrent annual costs, from the Chancellor on future funding control, and from the police and security services on maintaining unfettered public access for use of Victoria Tower Gardens while protecting the Memorial; asks His Majesty’s Government and the Holocaust Memorial Foundation agency to commission the views of the property consultants on a comparison of the current proposal by Sir David Adjaye in Victoria Tower Gardens with viable alternatives, to commission the full appraisal and to hold a public consultation on the selection of site; and further asks His Majesty’s Government to commit to having this or an amended proposal considered first by the local planning authority before considering whether to call in the application, noting that an open-minded observer could doubt another minister in the Levelling Up department should be asked to make an independent decision on an application by the Secretary of State.]

Will she arrange, at least seven days before the House returns to the Holocaust Memorial Bill, for there to be answers to the questions on recurrent costs, the total capital costs, the amount of money going to education and how much the cost of the project has risen in the last year?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The question of local council elections has been raised. Those who want some amusement can read Acts 5:41, quoted in today’s Times and provided by the Bible Society, although I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should read it now.

I walked here today through Victoria Tower Gardens, where it is still impossible to walk along the river because of the barricades around the Buxton memorial fountain, which are far too extensive. If people care about memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, they ought to make sure that the gardens are properly accessible whenever that is possible.

The Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill reported recently in document HC121, and I have tabled early-day motion 711—I do not expect my right hon. Friend to respond to this today.

[That this House notes the First Special Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, HC121, on the problems with the current proposal and the restrictions faced by the Committee considering the hybrid Bill; respects the conclusions and recommendations on page 20; agrees with the list of matters related to the current proposals for a Holocaust Memorial and believes these need updated attention on deliverability from the Infrastructure Commission, from the National Audit Office on likely capital costs and recurrent annual costs, from the Chancellor on future funding control, and from the police and security services on maintaining unfettered public access for use of Victoria Tower Gardens while protecting the Memorial; asks His Majesty's Government and the Holocaust Memorial Foundation agency to commission the views of the property consultants on a comparison of the current proposal by Sir David Adjaye in Victoria Tower Gardens with viable alternatives, to commission the full appraisal and to hold a public consultation on the selection of site; and further asks His Majesty's Government to commit to having this or an amended proposal considered first by the local planning authority before considering whether to call in the application, noting that an open-minded observer could doubt another minister in the Levelling Up department should be asked to make an independent decision on an application by the Secretary of State.]

As the Committee has clearly indicated, before the Government think of bringing the Bill back to the Chamber of the House of Commons they need to do a number of things. First, they must review security. We have seen the Holocaust memorial in Hyde Park covered up because of marches going on around London, and everyone knows that a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens of the kind that is proposed would be a major target. The only way of providing security is to exclude the public from this park, which is the only park for local residents.

Secondly, the National Infrastructure Commission has said that this project is undeliverable. Will the Government please ask the members of the commission whether they have changed their minds? Last year the National Audit Office reported that the costs had risen in one year from £102 million to £137 million. Will the Government please ask its members whether that can be reviewed? How will the Chancellor agree to pay running costs of between £5 million and £10 million?

I think that the Government ought to delay, do what is suggested in my early-day motion, and then report back to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

It might be more helpful if the Father of the House applies for an Adjournment debate.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

May I follow the tributes to the great Dame—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—for what she has been doing?

I have been actively involved in this in one way or another for 25 years. We all know that the justification for having the Langstaff inquiry has been the information that has now come out in public, which was concealed or not known over the decades. We also know that this is different from most of the discussions in the Pearson report on whether there should be compensation when things go wrong in medical treatment. This report is likely to show how, since the war, people have not paid enough attention to the warnings given by those in the field. With the update of Caroline Wheeler’s book and the BBC programme, we now know that, as well as the haemophilia trials published in the 1970s, the 1980s trials showed massive defects by the standards of those days, let alone by up-to-date standards.

I join the right hon. Lady in asking the Minister when it will be possible for people to register their names, backgrounds and circumstances for compensation. Do we have to wait until a month’s time for that to happen, and how will it be dealt with? Obviously, as the Cabinet Office Minister, he follows his predecessor in carrying this responsibility, but how far will the Department of Health and Social Care be involved, and will other Departments be involved?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I wish to raise two brief things. First, the Leader of the House will soon see the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on women’s state pension age and its findings on “injustice” and associated issues. The report is about the WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who campaigned with me on these issues and saw various Secretaries of State. Will the Leader of the House say how the Government intend the House to respond to the reference to Parliament considering the recommended remedy? It is not a massive remedy, but it is an important one.

Secondly, the Leader of the House may have heard me question the Prime Minister yesterday about planning and building over prime agricultural fields. Yesterday afternoon, Arun District Council planning committee considered an application. All the members of the committee looked as though they were going to turn it down, until the planning officer said the costs of an appeal by the developer were more than the Council could afford. All the members of the committee, except for the Conservatives and one Liberal, then voted to leave it to the council planning officers to make the decision.

Can we have a debate on intimidation on costs by developers that make district and borough councils feel they have to approve something or allow something to go through that should be opposed? Will the Leader of the House join me in recommending the council calls in the proposal and, if it does not, the Secretary of State does?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Mr Speaker, you and the Prime Minister will be welcome in the Arun district of my constituency, where developers are trying to build over every vineyard, horticultural nursery and piece of agricultural land. Will he point out that the last place to build homes is prime agricultural land, especially in an area where developers have enough permissions to meet the council’s targets for the next five years?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

It is good to hear inclusive politics. May I ask the Leader of the House whether, following consultations, there might be a statement before or after Easter on inclusivity in Parliament? We rightly want to embrace and value difference and diversity, whether of a person’s race, gender, other characteristics, background or experience. The word that is missing is “sex”.

Over the last five years, those who are gender critical have raised all sorts of issues, including the constant use of puberty blockers for children and the attack on the LGB Alliance for not swallowing what Stonewall and Mermaids persuaded many Government Departments and agencies to do, which was to disregard sex completely.

While wanting to support trans people and make sure that they can have a life free from bigotry and fear, would it be possible for the House to examine its own policies on inclusiveness and try to ensure that the word “sex” is included along with the other characteristics for which people should not be discriminated against?

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I am glad to follow both Front Benchers, who have given a lead to the House.

It is interesting to consider whether it would have been right 90 years ago to identify as a threat Oswald Mosley’s approach, as well as the people who marched through the streets to intimidate others. More recently, when Kathleen Stock was at the University of Sussex, the students’ union and many others called her a dangerous extremist for writing a rather good book and having views that are now mainstream.

Filling the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is important, and I hope the whole House can give support to today’s proposals.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Following the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House about risk-based exclusion, I am glad that motion is not coming forward next week, as there should be more consideration. It is a matter of record that two major newspapers made sex-based accusations against me, but I was not investigated by the police or as a result referred. It is only arrest that makes a difference. It is absurd and naive to think that were someone to be suspended and get a proxy vote, their anonymity could in any sense be guaranteed in this country or not reported in other countries. This is a serious problem. I am not certain we have found exactly the right way of dealing with it.

Will the Government make a statement next week on revisionism and who is the lead designer of the national Holocaust memorial and proposed learning centre? One of the Government’s nominees as chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation was quoted in the Jewish News yesterday saying that Ron Arad is the person responsible. Every Government comment, from 2016 onwards, has acknowledged quite rightly that the main designer is Sir David Adjaye OM—a name that cannot normally be mentioned because of problems I do not want to go into on the Floor of the House. Could Ministers refer Lord Pickles to the press notices that went out in the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s name in 2016, 2018 and every year since, because we must get the facts right and not change them?

Ukraine: Military Equipment

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The Minister says the training started in 2014, which is the year after the House took, in my view, the wrong decision in the Syria vote; it led to Russia giving help to Assad, the taking of Crimea, the infiltration of eastern Ukraine and various other problems.

As Ukraine’s security is, in effect, our security and that of our NATO allies, will he confirm that we will do all we can to try to make sure that Ukraine is safe and that Russia, at some stage, returns to being a peaceful nation devoted to the prosperity of its own people, rather than doing down other people?

NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The House enjoyed the words of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), although I am not sure how many he wrote himself; some may have seemed rather familiar to anyone who read Matthew Parris this morning on going to Ukraine to have a filling fixed.

In West Sussex, in Worthing and Arun, we want the same situation found in parts of London, where dentists have a sign saying, “New NHS patients welcome”. Has the Secretary of State been working with the British Dental Association and the General Dental Council to bring forward registrations, to get incentives right, and to make sure that dentists are no longer told, “You can’t serve any more patients because you will go above your limits”? Can she confirm that we are taking limits off, so that dentists, especially the young ones, can do as much work as they can, and can help as many patients as possible, so that we can get back to the situation that we were in before Labour changed the rules about 20 years ago?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement next week on the instructions to the advocate for his Department at the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee? Yesterday, on a number of occasions, the lead advocate said that the design had not been awarded to Sir David Adjaye, or that he was not the architect.

I refer the Leader of the House to the press notice on 24 October 2017, in which the Department and the Cabinet Office said that Sir David and his team would design the memorial; the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), and the Mayor of London congratulated Sir David; and Sir David was quoted as saying that it was “architecture as emotion”.

I believe that the advocate may have inadvertently told the Committee things that are clearly contradicted by the facts six years ago, and by every other quotation until Sir David Adjaye became a name that could not be mentioned.

Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State to consider making a statement to correct what was said to the Committee yesterday, and perhaps acknowledge the four holocaust survivors who gave evidence, and look at what they said?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

There will be agreement on both sides of the House that reform is needed. For my part, I welcome the introduction of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to get people on to modern leasehold and commonhold, and through the Minister, I invite those who are suffering—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) explained that her constituents are suffering—to put their points through MPs to the Department, so that when amendments to the Bill are tabled, as many as possible can be discussed and accepted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Father of the House.

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

The House understands that it is the Minister’s Department that has to co-ordinate government, and that is not an easy thing to do. Does he understand that Sir Robert Francis and Sir Brian Langstaff have made it absolutely clear that the final report will say nothing more about compensation? It is not just the victims of the infected blood scandal who matter; so do the families of those who have already died—they are dying as well. May I say, on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) would say the same—that 25 days after the report is published in May is too long to wait? People want certainty and need support.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I agree with a great deal of what the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said about Tony Lloyd, and I agree with much, if not all, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on party politics, having a plan and delivering for the British people.

Next week, the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill continues its hearings. It had three sessions this week and transcripts can be made available in the Vote Office. One issue that comes up is the Government’s continued failure to publish the minutes of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation from 2015 to 2016. There was a consultation on a site for the proposed memorial and learning centre. The consultants analysed the responses and shortlisted three. Two days later the Government produced an alternative option, which was Victoria Tower Gardens.

No one outside the Department has seen the comparisons between the merits of Victoria Tower Gardens and other possible sites. No one has seen the minutes of discussion changing the specification behind the backs of the public. Will my right hon. Friend look to see the redactions made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and why it is continuing to instruct lawyers to oppose the freedom of information request, which is vital to the work of the Select Committee? Through her, may I recommend to the Select Committee asking for that information and making it public?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Will the Minister help the heritage of Victoria Tower Gardens and the voluntary organisations London Parks & Gardens Trust and the Thorney Island Society by getting the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation to unredact the minutes of December 2018, so that I can quote them when I appear at the hybrid Bill Committee on Wednesday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That completes that set of questions—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

That would normally come after business questions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It is about DCMS questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful. When I referred to December 2018, I should have made it clear that that was the date of the freedom of information request by Dorian Gerhold. I shall write to the Minister explaining what information I want.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent. That clarifies that.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the holocaust exhibition, and you, Mr Speaker, will lead the holocaust service in a few days’ time. Recently, I met holocaust survivor Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who said that the proposed memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was too small for its purpose and too large for the park.

The hybrid Committee will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Will my right hon. Friend consider talking to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see whether they could put up scaffolding on a temporary basis to show the amount of space taken by the box of the so-called learning centre, and perhaps some plywood boards to illustrate the 23 fins that are supposed to be there? Then, we could go round the outside of the park to see whether it is visible, and see from inside how much damage it does to that well-loved park.

Venezuela: Threat to Guyana

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I am glad to follow the Opposition foreign and Commonwealth affairs spokesman in reminding the House and the Minister that when the United States persuaded the United Kingdom to go to international arbitration, the determination in 1899 was to leave that region as part of what is now Guyana, which became independent in 1966. The dispute with Suriname was settled some time ago by agreement. This should be as well, and Venezuela should go back to solving its own problems and exploiting its own hydrocarbons, if it chooses to do so, as it moves towards a more eco-friendly economy and preferably a better kind of politics as well.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

My right hon. Friend has announced that there will be an Opposition day debate on Tuesday 9 January. Have the Opposition told her that they want to make it on the Leader of the Opposition’s claim that he will bulldoze through local objections to development?

May I draw her attention to the website of a man called Chris Dixon, who says he is in favour of building on the Goring gap in my constituency? He says that people who want to stop that development should vote for me, and those who want to have it built on should invite Angela Rayner to come down and see it. Will the Leader of the House say whether the Labour party is willing to expose its desire to build on green gaps to public debate in this Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that the Leader of the House is responsible for the Labour party. I know that the Father of the House must have told the Member who he has brought into question that he would name her today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I reinforce what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said about the general welcome in the House for the movement towards equality and fairness. We have had it on ordination; we now have it on same-sex relationships up to a point. Through my hon. Friend, I ask those who are disappointed with this movement forward to think of the pain that they have caused by resisting the change for so many people, whether by sex or orientation, over the past decades.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The House and my right hon. Friend will know of my personal and political interest in residential leasehold reform. When might the leasehold and freehold reform Bill come to the House, and will she join me in giving more publicity to the consultation, “Modern leasehold: restricting rents on existing leases”, which started a week ago and will last for another five weeks? The ground rent issue affects up to 6 million households. Most people do not know that the Government are considering five alternatives for restricting it. Will she help to publicise that, and say when the Bill might be introduced so that the House can consider the issue?

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

As the Foreign Secretary said, we should soon know the direct cause of this explosion. I will send him and the Prime Minister a letter that I have received from the Worthing Islamic society—I think that Jewish people and others in my constituency will agree with every sentence. It ends by asking the Government to use their “influence and support” to

“encourage a peaceful and sustainable resolution that prioritises the rights and well-being of innocent civilians”

caught up in the onslaught.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

My right hon. Friend may know that, in Durrington in north-west Worthing, more than 1,000 new homes have been built. Will he ask his inspectors—and the Leader of the Opposition—to recognise that Chatsmore Farm and Lansdowne Nurseries should not be built on? We must have some green fields between one habitation and another.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The House will be grateful to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the lead that they have given in today’s statement. This is not the time to point out the faults of Benjamin Netanyahu. What we have to say is that the inexcusable terror attack on Israelis was intended to bring awful harm to the Palestinians.

Rather than quote international leaders, I want to quote a senior constituent, who said: “This is a very harrowing time for Jews all over the world. There are about 16 million of us worldwide. Why can’t they leave us alone?”

If we pray for the peace of Jerusalem, we want to try to bring security, both to the people of Israel and to the Palestinians in Gaza. Does the Prime Minister know that he will have our support as he tries to do that?

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the first three speeches—yours, Mr Speaker, and those of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House.

One distinguished Under Clerk of the Parliaments—otherwise known as the Clerk of the Commons—was John Hatsell. In Orlo Williams’s great book, “The Clerical Organisation of the House of Commons 1661-1850”, Hatsell is described as attracting the confidence of leading politicians

“by his sympathetic understanding, though he was no sycophant of those in power.”

I think that is the right role for the Clerk and for those they lead in the Clerks department.

Sir John drew the attention of a commentator in the Press Gallery three years ago. A Member of a particular party complained that, if everyone had to stay six feet —or two metres—apart, there would not possibly be room for all SNP Members to perch in their usual seats. The commentator wrote:

“The clerk, with the smallest flash of weariness, said most problems could be resolved by ‘common sense and everyone behaving in a grown-up way’. Common sense and grown-up behaviour? We may need to keep an eye on Clerk Benger.”

They added that Sir John was

“a model clerk: circumspect, bookish, fair…in the best sense, a modest public servant.”

I think that that is the kind of reputation that each person joining the Clerks department would wish to have, whether or not they achieve the highest office.

Sir John was, in his academic life, an expert on Martin Marprelate’s tracts, which basically mocked the Church of England. The style is described as

“a heady mixture of nonsense, satire, protest, irony and gossip, combined with pungent wit, full of the language of the street”—

or unparliamentary language. Were Sir John’s predecessor, Sir David Natzler, here, he would say that the tracts were good preparation for the intrigue, deception and vituperation a member of the House of Commons Commission had to get used to in the old days.

Mr Speaker, let me use the words of your predecessor, John Bercow, who said that the Clerk’s department was

“unstinting, selfless, formidable and…quite exceptional.”

He went on to say that a good Clerk is

“Blessed with a brilliant brain, an understated manner, unfailing courtesy, and an absolute and undiluted passion for Parliament”.—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 921.]

Following his retirement as Clerk, Sir Thomas Erskine May—who, like Sir John, spent time in the Library as well as in the Clerks’ department—went on to become Baron Farnborough of Hampshire, and he held that role for six days before he died, making it the second shortest peerage. I hope that Sir John’s time at St Catharine’s is longer and that, when he gets to Cambridge, he will understand what it is like to be a member of the Denis Thatcher society, married to a person more important than you are. His wife, Professor Susan, is an expert Anglo-Saxonist. I refer those who are interested to her Chadwick memorial lecture in 2017 on uncertain beginnings. I think the Clerk arriving in Cambridge will not be uncertain. As the 40th master of St Catharine’s, I hope he has as good a time as we hope he has had with us, and we thank him for his service.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I speak as a supporter of WATCH, the Women and the Church group. The Church Commissioners should understand that either the Church of England gets rid of what ought to have been temporary exemptions from the Equality Act 2010 or Parliament will do that for it. Does my hon. Friend understand that other MPs who are interested in full equality for women would like to meet the Church Commissioners before we consider what other action we might take?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House.

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

Yesterday, thanks to my right hon. Friend and Team Lewis, I was able to meet Les Wateridge, who, as many will know, spent decades keeping the streets of Westminster clear, especially around Victoria Tower Gardens. The day before, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch came to Parliament. She is 98. She was in the women’s orchestra at Auschwitz, and then survived Bergen-Belsen. May I invite the Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the leaders of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation to meet Anita, and hear her views on why the proposed memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens is too large for the gardens, and too small to be a proper memorial to those who died while she was incarcerated?

Higher Education Reform

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I thank the Secretary of State. Those of us with long memories know that we either ration places by number or we give people choice. If she is giving people the choice of being able to discriminate between the courses and universities on offer, I congratulate her, as I do especially on the lifetime learning and the degree apprenticeship expansion, which has already happened, with more to come.

However, can I also speak up for those who either got fourth-class degrees or failed to take a degree at all, including two of the three Governors of the Bank of England who went to King’s and who came out without a degree? Rabi Tagore left university, and many other poets, painters, teachers or ministers of religion—whether rabbis, imams or ministers in the Christian Church—do not show up highly on the earnings scale, but they might show up highly in their contributions to society. Can my right hon. Friend please make sure that she does not let an algorithm rate colleges, courses or universities?

Privileges Committee Special Report

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Paragraph 19 of the report reads:

“We consider that the House should maintain its protection of inquiries into individual conduct referred to the Committee of Privileges in the same way that it does those being considered by the House’s own Committee on Standards and Independent Expert Panel.”

I agree with that.

The motion before us is as recommended in paragraph 20, which was read out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and referred to obliquely by the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)—I preferred my right hon. Friend’s approach to the issue.

Paragraph 8 lists the ways that

“MPs have control and legitimate means of influence over any Privileges Committee inquiry. They have the right: to object to and vote on Members appointed to the Committee, and subsequently to raise any alleged conflicts of interest on points of order; to vote against the motion of referral or to seek to amend the motion; to make comments on the Committee’s procedure to the Committee itself; to submit evidence to the Committee; and to debate, vote and comment publicly on the Committee’s final report once it is published and the investigation is completed.”

That paragraph seems pretty comprehensive. I think the report is acceptable, and if the motion comes to a vote, I will support it.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I say to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs that we are grateful for the work he does. Can he ask those in his private office whether they will show him the message I sent him yesterday about the secretary to a governor in Afghanistan, who is in hiding and whose grandfather has been killed trying to protect him, to see whether there is anything the British Government can do to allow him to come out of Afghanistan?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I would vote for that. Windrush deserves prominence, but we should not forget SS Ormonde, which landed in Liverpool in 1947 and SS Almanzora, which landed in Southampton in 1947.

The Leader of the House has announced the debate on the holocaust memorial. In that debate I will say that I look forward to a holocaust memorial being built within two years at a far lower cost, but I will argue to detach the learning centre from it and to have a fast competition for a more appropriate memorial, so that most of the money can be spent on the education centre.

My question to the Leader of the House follows a question I put to the veterans Minister in Cabinet Office questions. Will the Government please consider giving the Cabinet Office more power to decide which of those people still stuck in Afghanistan should be given permission to come to this country, such as the person I mentioned, who had been secretary to a governor in a province? I have written to my right hon. Friend in the Cabinet Office and to the Minister for Security in the Home Office, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider whether more power should be given to that Department, as the Ministry of Defence is failing to extract people who served this country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

While my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have represented Worthing and district, we have survived the equivalent of eight coalmines closing in the town. Flexibility matters.

Let us remember, looking back at the youth opportunities programme and the employer assistance scheme, that it is enterprise that makes the biggest difference. Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that? In tribute to Lord Young of Graffham, let us make sure that we combine individual enterprise and public enterprise with private partnerships.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The last speech was perhaps more party political than was deserved by the occasion. I would have preferred to have spoken after the Chair of the Privileges Committee, but I do so now and I draw the House’s attention to annex 3, on page 90, which deals with the:

“Purported response of Mr Johnson to the Committee’s warning letter”.

What he says and the Committee’s comments seem to provide the context on process.

The Committee has given its understanding of what the facts were and how it tried—successfully, I believe—to exclude the things that were not facts. The question facing each of us is: no matter how many good things we have done—the former Prime Minister did many good things—what do we do when we have done something wrong? Although this was on a pretty unimportant issue, on 2 December 1985 I managed to get two sentences into one line of a column of Hansard. My words were:

“I made a mistake. I apologise.” —[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 84W.]

For anyone else caught in the kind of situation we are considering today, let me say that I hope someone would advise that approach, and that it is the sort of advice I hope I would take. I will support the Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say to the Father of the House that if he gives me notice in future, I will certainly put him down the pecking order, but I did not know that he wanted that?

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

We need to trust parents, and we should tell children to trust parents. We are right not to confuse sexual orientation with gender confusion and other things. Schools really do need to say to children and to parents, “You can trust us as a school to let you know if your child is in distress.”

Net Migration Figures

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I am sorry that, while my right hon. Friend was replying to those questions, four of the Labour Front Benchers were talking at the same time. I think that was to disguise the fact that their spokesperson appeared to agree with virtually every sensible element of the Government’s immigration control policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about this? Beyond the admission order office, there is the memorial plaque for the Kindertransport. Some of those who feel most strongly against immigration now feel proud of what we did then. We have to remember that there were then and there are now tens of millions of people around the world suffering because of violence in their own countries, and there are others with bad Governments who stop them having economic success where they are. Can I say that, as well as having a good immigration policy, we ought to do all we can around the world to have better governance and a flexible economic system, so that people can be happy living where they are, not feeling that they have to come here for refuge?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

We are grateful to the Leader of the House for the way that she spoke about our late colleague and to the shadow Leader of House for her response.

Recently, the examiners classified the Holocaust Memorial Bill as hybrid. Will my right hon. Friend, in peacetime, refer to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee the comments of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and of those who lead the Holocaust Memorial Foundation that they welcomed the Bill passing this step and that the Government actually spent their time trying to oppose the Bill being classified as hybrid. I also refer the Government to something in the press notice that said that one holocaust survivor has had to wait nine years from the time that this proposal was put forward to getting to this stage, and that he hopes to be able to be there when the memorial is opened.

Under the present plans, assuming that the Bill gets through both Houses of Parliament, with or without amendments—probably with amendments—that memorial cannot be completed for another five to six years. I suggest that the Government consider having the memorial—not necessarily the big one in Victoria Tower Gardens, but a smaller, more appropriate one—either there, in College Green, or Parliament Square and recognise that the learning centre is well suited at the Imperial War Museum, where one of Dame Diane Lees’s tributes was to create both the learning centre and the holocaust galleries. Everyone can then be satisfied and the holocaust survivors may be able to see a memorial in their lifetime.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

May I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am not upset? Her description of this change of approach is useful, and it meets many of the criticisms of the unamended Bill. I hope it is successful, and I hope people on both sides of the House and in industry make sure we keep the right bits and drop the bits that are useless.

Voter ID

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the key points are, first, whether people know they need voter ID, and I hope these questions and answers will help to encourage that; secondly, they need to take that ID; and thirdly, that if they go to a polling station without it, they can go home and get it. Will the Electoral Commission be able to tell how many people who were initially unable to vote were able to come back and vote?

Finally, did the Electoral Commission recommend voter ID in England in 2015? And am I right in thinking that it is not only in Northern Ireland that voters require ID, but in the Republic of Ireland as well?

Metropolitan Police: Casey Review

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Everyone in the House will back up what the Home Secretary, Baroness Casey and the shadow Home Secretary have said about our reliance on the police and our support for them, but there are times when we have to look at how often the police, the police authority, the Mayor and the Home Secretary have not put things right.

I will give as an example the high-profile case of the Sikh police officer Gurpal Virdi, who 25 years ago was in effect accused of doing something he had not done. We had the Muir report at the end of 2001, which showed what the police ought to do to do things right. We had the report by Sir William Morris, as he then was, in 2004. Before that we had had the Stephen Lawrence inquiry by Sir William Macpherson, advised by the former police officer Tom Cook, by the human rights expert Dr Richard Stone and by John Sentamu, who later became the Archbishop of York. What they recommended has not happened.

Now we have the Casey report. I say to the commissioner of the Met police, to the Mayor and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary: have a review into what happened in the Gurpal Virdi case, including his prosecution eight years ago for a non-offence, where the only evidence exonerated him. Until that is done, people will not have confidence in people putting things right. It may be one case, and many other examples will be given in the next few minutes, but Sergeant Gurpal Virdi has been the victim of more injustice from the police, over decades, than I have ever seen in my life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, after giving assurances that it would not carry out death penalties, has just executed Hussein Abo al-Kheir, a father of eight. Will the Foreign Secretary try to arrange to make a statement to the House later this week on the ramifications for our relationship with Saudi Arabia, recognising people such as 14-year-old Abdullah al-Huwaiti, who was tortured into making a confession for a crime that he could not have committed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I am not sure this is the right place to advertise virtue or claim vice.

Can I put it to my hon. Friend that the Church of England Children’s Society 50 years ago supported the social entrepreneur Bob Holman in establishing family centres? Can we praise the Church and all its parishes for the way they help to support the confidence and competence of parents, who often go through difficult situations?

Northern Ireland Protocol

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The Leader of the Opposition helpfully said that people in Northern Ireland might regard themselves as Irish, as British or as British and Irish. A large number would also describe themselves as Northern Irish. The beginning of the framework document states:

“The Northern Ireland Protocol has been the source of acute political, economic and societal difficulties”,

and the last sentence talks about the

“shared desire for a positive…relationship”.

Constituents will say that this agreement resolves some of the known problems about the protocol and some of the ones that have become obvious since then. It is about 50 years since a Unionist MP was a Minister in the UK Government. I hope that this agreement makes it possible for that to happen again.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to follow the first two speakers. To follow on from some of the early words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), tomorrow in Worthing people who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, humanist and Christian will come together to mark their intention that things such as this should never be forgotten and, where possible, should never recur. The idea that the holocaust was the last major genocide we all know is wrong.

I have spoken before about the places where some of my grandfather’s extended family died. The list sadly gets longer as research shows more and more people who were involved: Sobibor, Auschwitz, Mauthausen, Belsen, Ravensbrück, Dachau, Seibersdorf and Bytom. I do not know many of that side of my family. They are not close—they were not close—but they matter. The idea of education is that people like me can discover those links and that many other families will have a closer experience.

Every time I take people around the Palace of Westminster, I try to take them past the Kindertransport plaque by the admission order office. I show it to them to illustrate that what people may have disapproved of at the time, they are now proud of. It was not unanimous that those 10,000 children should have been able to come to this country from stations such as Prague, aged 5, 6, 7 or 8. I am glad we have the living proof of Alf Dubs, who in his lifetime has shown the importance of what was done following a debate in the House of Commons.

I wish to disagree with the Government about the location of the national holocaust memorial. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has tabled early-day motion 748, almost all of which I agree with. I have also tabled an amendment to it, stating that we should have the memorial

“in a place and manner consistent with the features and facilities listed by the United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s ‘Search for a Central London site’ in September 2015 on page 6 and in the area illustrated and considered to be sufficiently central to meet the visions set out by the Holocaust Commission on page 10.”

That map on page 10 states that a site would be regarded as central London from the west of Regent’s Park, to the east of Spitalfields and to the south of the Imperial War Museum.

I commend to everybody, whatever their views on the proposed location of the memorial and learning centre, that they visit the holocaust galleries in the Imperial War Museum, which reopened in the past two or three years. They are incredibly impressive. I think the way forward—I hope I will be supported by Baroness Deech and others—is for us to separate the learning centre from the memorial.

We should have a new competition for the memorial. It being adjacent to Parliament was not in the minds of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, the committee or the Government eight years ago. If it has to be there, we could consider Parliament Square, where the Buxton memorial fountain was first placed before it was moved to Victoria Tower Gardens. I think that we could do it better, and that it would have more impact and be less of a threat if we did not have the learning centre and the place of gathering so close to the Palace of Westminster.

My last point is that the tributes to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust are genuine. Those people do mighty work, and they allow people to understand what is happening. We must ensure that that does not happen just on Holocaust Memorial Day, but on every day of every year in every way, and that people understand the horrors of what we stood against, with the victims, around the time I was born.

One of the most difficult questions for people to answer is when would have been the right time to stand up, with force, against Adolf Hitler’s Nazis in Germany. Should it have been in 1933 when he was elected Chancellor and was thought to be pliable by the bigger parties? Should it have been in 1935 or ’36 when he started invading? Should it have been in 1938? It happened in 1939, although some people did not think that was right, but should it have been later, or ever, or never? The reason I am not a pacifist is because of the holocaust.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a maiden speech. I call Andrew Western.

Channel 4

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I follow the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) in saying that, over the last 13 years, Channel 4 has done better than ever before. If we want to congratulate Channel 4, we should also congratulate the Government on making that possible by not disturbing its arrangements.

The Secretary of State is right to examine the proposals put forward a year or so ago. I would not have frozen the BBC licence fee, I would not have proposed the privatisation of Channel 4 and I would not have put pressure on Arts Council England to strangle the English National Opera, but there is more to be done to put them on the right path.

Alex Mahon, the chief executive of Channel 4, spoke for me when she talked about Channel 4’s innovativeness in reaching audiences that others do not serve so well, and I think the publisher-producer split is worth preserving. I hope Channel 4 will not be forced to make too many programmes in-house, as it is vital that we keep the independent producers going. I hope we are back here in 10 years’ time with no more proposals to change the ownership of Channel 4, which is a good public broadcaster that successfully operates commercially.

Illegal Immigration

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

The parliamentary leader of the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), can put down a debate on legal migration for next week; the subject today is illegal immigration.

The questions in front of the House and the country are: how can people be safe, how can their status be determined, will the action work, is it necessary, and is it right? I think most people listening, whether they normally support the SNP, Labour or the Conservatives, will say, “Yes, it is necessary, it will work, and it should go ahead.”

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Following business questions, we will return to the issue of planning in Cumbria. The only item in the future business read out by the Leader of the House is about rail transport services to the communities served by the west coast main line. There is no debate scheduled—obviously it could not be in advance—on whether it is right or wrong to give permission to the coal mine. In addition to the questions and answers today, however, can the Opposition and the Government get together to have a proper debate on whether we go on following planning guidelines, as we seem to have done in this case, or overturn them and go on importing coking coal?

Saudi Arabia: Death Penalty and Spike in Executions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

It would be good for the House to know whether the Crown Prince—the Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia—thinks that he is personally involved or uninvolved in what is going on. It is now four years and seven weeks since Jamal Khashoggi was murdered. I think it is time that our friend—our ally—Saudi Arabia got to know that whenever a senior member of its country comes abroad, unless such executions stop, they will be associated with them.

May I also make the point that any suggestion that a confession was gained by torture makes it invalid? We know from our past that seven times a year, people convicted of a capital offence were innocent or should not have been convicted. I suspect that the same applies in Saudi Arabia.

Autumn Statement

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

The Chancellor will have noticed that Labour Members laughed when he talked about stability, growth and public services. Those who are watching our proceedings will have noticed, as will he, that when he was making his announcements about how we will ease the burden on the poorest and give opportunities to those who most need them, those Members were silenced. People around the country will give backing to his approach. We may have arguments about details, but the key point is to get stability and growth, and to defend public services.

Police Service: HMI Report

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Most serving and retired police officers will feel as aggrieved as everybody else that a small number have been allowed to get away with bad things for too long.

For seven years in this House, working directly with Ministers and the Metropolitan police, I have been pursuing the case of the injustice to Sergeant Gurpal Virdi. I do not expect the Minister to know it, but does he understand that confidence can be restored only when lessons are learned, and that this is a good case to look at?

After reading the book, “Behind the Blue Line”, may I recommend that Home Office and Justice Ministers meet me with Gurpal Virdi, Matt Foot, his solicitor, the Crime Prosecution Service and the Independent Office for Police Conduct to review what went wrong, what should be put right and how the matter will be reviewed?

Abuse and Deaths in Secure Mental Health Units

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter.

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

Lessons need to be learned and I am glad that the authorities and the Government will do that.

From the time that I served on the council of Mind, which was known as the National Association for Mental Health, I have tried to emphasise the importance of recruiting good people to work in the various categories of profession and assistance in secure units and in the whole mental health field.

I pay tribute to those who, day in, day out and at all hours of the day, cope with some of the most challenging situations and try to help some of the most desperate people. In each of our constituencies, we have tragic suicides; many more are prevented because of the work of these good workers. Let us try to support them and recruit more people to work with them.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

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

My constituents will wish me briefly to record their love and respect for, and gratitude to, Her late Majesty. We can give continuing life to her values and virtues, kindness, aspiration, perseverance and pride. We thank her; we miss her; and we should say what she would wish: God save the King.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

All sides of the House should wish to help the Prime Minister to be successful in tackling the problems facing the country.

When I raised one of them in July with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), he said that I could talk to the Housing Minister, but the Housing Minister retired within 17 minutes of hearing that. [Laughter.]

Will this Prime Minister look at why the Planning Inspectorate is able to overturn councils’ planned protections for green lungs?

And will she look at what is happening to the Goring Gap in relation to the A259 in the Worthing West and the Arundel and South Downs constituencies, because local councils have no role if they cannot protect what matters most to them?

Sewage Pollution

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

Those of us who have been around for a long time do not believe that nationalised industries would allow the necessary level of investment to be continued. Can I ask the Secretary of State whether the companies, the regulator and the Environment Agency knew the scale of the discharges?

Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In case anyone thinks that I did not declare that I have studied here in Westminster, worked here and lived here for two thirds of my life, I repeat that. I also say that it is not a minority who have blocked the proposal: it is two judges. We should not refer to a High Court judge and an Appeal Court judge as “a small minority” when they are actually getting the Government to obey the law.

[Mr Speaker]

Right. We now come to business questions.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

In June 2016, there was a vote of no confidence in the then leader of the Labour party. I do not know whether the present leader of the Labour party voted yes or no. If he can remember, did he vote confidence or no confidence in his predecessor?

In 2019, his predecessor moved a motion of no confidence in the Government, saying that the issue should be put to the people. It was put to the people in the 2019 general election, and the present Government came in with a majority of 80.

I have it on reasonable authority that the deputy leader of the Labour party has said today that Boris was, in effect, the magic that helped. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has confirmed that.

The issue before the House now is whether people would have any more confidence in the Labour party becoming a Government, and the answer is no.

In June 2016, when the then leader of the Labour party lost the no confidence vote by 172 votes to 40—the 40 may have included the current Leader of the Opposition—20 of the shadow Cabinet had walked out, but the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) walked in. The interesting question is whether the way in which he has spoken today is part of a leadership bid to take over the Labour party properly rather than just in name.

He describes himself as red and green, but mixing red and green together produces an unpleasant kind of brown. Does he accept that the Labour party is not yet trusted by the British people?

By voting confidence in the Government, this House will be saying, as the British people did in 2019, that we prefer us in government, not them.

That is not to say that the Government have got everything right. If I were taking part in the Thursday Sir David Amess debate, I could list the things on which the Government could make changes.

I want them to drop the privatisation of Channel 4, as there is no point in it, and I want them to reconsider the question of whether the Holocaust Memorial should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. There are a number of other issues that I could take up.

The issue today is: do we want to change the party of Government, and the answer is no. I rest my case there.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

10. The Prime Minister knows that while he is Prime Minister, I want him to do all the good that he can. While he is Prime Minister of this green and pleasant land, may I refer him to early-day motion 1082, which concerns the Goring Gap, Chatsmore Farm, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the land above Goring station? That farm in Worthing was fully protected, and it will be fully protected again when a different inspector says that Worthing Borough Council can protect it. May I ask the Prime Minister to tell the Government to withdraw their objection to the council’s appeal against the absurd decision by a planning inspector to allow 482 homes to be built on the green lung between Goring and Ferring?

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There are quite a few points of order. Of course, I must start, rightly, with the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to come first and last, because I have a second one on column 799 from yesterday about the Electoral Commission.

My first one is about Prorogation and a written statement that the Government said that they will make about the future of broadcasting. I checked three minutes ago and it has not been received in the Table Office. Can written statements still be made during Prorogation or is there some way to ensure that the Government get the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to put that statement into the hands of Members of Parliament before Prorogation? My subsidiary question is that the Member Hub website goes down at Prorogation, which is where most MPs would expect to find the statement, so how will we get it?

At present, the Department has issued a press notice to give its take on what is in the statement. In column 798 yesterday, I asked whether we could have an oral statement. The Government have not complied with that and they have not complied with their intention to publish a written statement. Mr Speaker, I would be grateful if you could guide the House and the Department on how we can now proceed.

[Mr Speaker]

I was surprised that nobody put in for an urgent question this morning on this issue following the news today, just as a way of having a holding platform. I am disappointed, but I want to think about my answer and would prefer to try to offer a way forward when the hon. Gentleman comes back with his final point of order at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

First, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution over this Session. It has been greater than everybody else’s. As ever, he is quite right to raise this important point today. I take on board what he has said, and I thank him for it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Peter, shall we deal with your earlier point of order first? It is very interesting. Yes, we can have a written statement up to Prorogation—that is still possible. There is another possibility, but I think it would be totally unfair to the Whip if I were to grant an urgent question now on the basis of what you have asked. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it to you that the House should have an urgent opportunity to debate the missing written statement or oral statement on the future of broadcasting, which was referred to yesterday by a Minister, when the House was assured there would be a statement? The question was raised whether it could be oral or written. We have had neither. May I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that this matter should be put before the House as a matter of urgency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to the Government Front Bench to see if we can find the written statement so it can be available for Members. I have a lot of sympathy for such a point, especially when it is from the Father of the House. It matters when any Back Bencher raises such a matter, but the Father of the House makes a very serious point: promises were made and they have not been carried out. It would be unfair to grant an emergency urgency question—I would not want to do that—but I believe there is still time for people to come forward with an oral statement. It would certainly be very helpful if the written statement could be found, wherever it is lost and whatever we have to do to find it. Someone ought to be scurrying around to try to find it. The Government have until 12.20 pm. So, who knows, it may be at the Dispatch Box, or it may be that we find the missing statement that could be circulating somewhere.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If it is convenient to the House, I withdraw my previous motion to you.

The point I want to raise now involves your role, Mr Speaker, in connection with the Electoral Commission, and it follows the point of order I raised yesterday in column 799 of the Official Report. We know that matters of election spending, and reporting that spending, can be complicated, as illustrated in the Thanet case when the Court of Appeal unanimously said it was not legal to report an expense both nationally and locally. The Supreme Court shortly afterwards decided unanimously that the Court of Appeal was wrong. If distinguished Court of Appeal judges can be wrong, so can others.

The reason I raise this point is that the Labour party has done two things, one to which I do not object, which is filling the pages of the Worthing Herald to encourage people to vote Labour. That is my local newspaper, and we are very grateful for that. I am not sure how much good it will do the Labour party to show that it has more money than sense.

The point that does matter is the issue I raised yesterday, whereby a letter from the leader of the Labour party to a named elector at a specified address asked them to vote Labour on 5 May. I have had informal discussions with the Electoral Commission. I do not want to go into the details of those discussions, because they were informal. One view is that this is national spending. In court, I think that would be challenged because there are no national elections on 5 May, only local elections.

The second view is that the only candidate for whom an elector could vote in that ward would be the Labour candidate. The question then arises of how that expense will be accounted for in the return. It might be a national return, except that there are not national returns for local elections, or the local agent for the candidate could include it, even as a nominal sum, in their own return. Were that to be challenged, if the return was thought to be inaccurate or incomplete, a complaint would then need to be made to the police. A complaint is not made to the Electoral Commission; it is made to the police.

The House will now rise until after the local elections. The police would not be involved in a formal complaint until after the electoral expenses return had been made, 30 or 35 days after election day. How would the police be put on notice to check nationally—which is where the spending is supposed to be—and locally, where I believe it should be recorded, at least as a nominal expense, so that they could preserve the evidence if there was a challenge at the end of the process? I know that this would need to be determined by a court, but the issue of where the evidence would come from and the necessity of the police to be alert has to be dealt with now.

[Mr Speaker]

We had questions to the Electoral Commission representative earlier, so it might have been possible to mention that then, but the Father of the House raises a very important issue. Mail is sent to named individuals by different leaders and all parties, so this is about not just one, but many parties. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I take seriously the consequences, implications and possible rulings that would come on the back of this.

The Father of the House said that he contacted the Electoral Commission. I am sure that it will come forward with its view and opinion, and quite rightly, this could end up being a judicial matter. I will also put this on the record during my meeting with the Electoral Commission, but I stress that leaders of all parties send out direct correspondence by name. I can guarantee that the signatures will not be handwritten, because they are a national way of corresponding.

We will leave it at that for today. I know that the Father of the House would not want me to be drawn on something that is not actually a matter for the Chair, but I take seriously the implications that could follow, depending on what the decision would be.

We still have chance for a statement—who knows? However, I suspend the sitting, and shortly before the sitting is resumed, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded to indicate that the House is back.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Part of this is about the Prime Minister. My habit over 46 years has been not to make a public or private comment about a party leader, whether mine or someone else’s, and I do not propose to change that now. If I have something to say to a Prime Minister, I say it directly, as I did first with Harold Wilson, and have done with most other Prime Ministers since then.

My preference would be to back the amendment, but if it is not going to be moved, I cannot do so. This is not the right time for the House to make a decision. The words in the amendment are ones that I would support, and I am sorry that the House will not be able to consider them. I may be in the minority in that, but that is not a problem in the House; it happens to a lot of people.

The words in the third paragraph of the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday spell out the situation: he said that he did not think, in effect, that it was a party, or that the rules had been broken. He now accepts that the situation has been judged differently by the police. I do not think we should build a great big cake on top of that admission and acceptance; the House would do better to leave it like that.

It would also be better—I am not challenging you, Mr Speaker—if the House decided that the reference to the Committee on Privileges should be made when all the information is available from the Cabinet Office report and the results of the police investigation.

The last thing I want to say—without attacking the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)—is that those who heard the “Today” programme this morning heard repeated references to the local government elections on 5 May. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition says, part of what is before the House today is a straightforward attempt to gain party political advantage, and I intend to have no part of that.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

Building Safety

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I will co-operate, Mr Speaker, and may I say, through you, to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), that the tributes to her husband Jack Dromey for his work on people’s interests at work and at home will be long remembered, together with that of David Amess, who for 20 years worked on the all-party group on fire safety and rescue with Ronnie King and others?

I believe that this is another step forward that is greatly welcomed and greatly needed, but I think the extension of the liability to 30 years is wrong for those who knew that what they were doing was wrong: 30 years may be fine for those who did it by mistake, but for those who knew what they were doing, there should be unlimited liability both in time and in money.

I hope that the Secretary of State will have a roundtable. If he wants to take over the all-party group roundtable for a summit on this, he can pick up some of the other issues that no doubt he has been working on, but which, to keep his statement reasonable, he may not have covered today.

One problem is the insurance premiums paid by leaseholders for a property they do not own, which may have gone up from an illustrative £300 a year to £3,000 a year. I believe that the Association of British Insurers should be told that the Competition and Markets Authority will look to see whether there is price gouging, in simple terms, and, that if there is some kind of catastrophic reinsurance needed, the Government should help them to make communal arrangements to deal with that, because insurance premiums should come down to the £300 they were before.

The last point of very many I would like to make is that the Treasury will expect to get the benefit of the levy and tax towards the £5 billion already announced, and the contributions that will come in from developers will relieve burdens on residential leaseholders, but the Government should also get the VAT on money that is spent, which is 20% of the total cost. If the total cost comes down from £15 billion to, say, £12 billion, my right hon. Friend can calculate and discuss with the Treasury how much extra the Treasury is getting. The Treasury should not be making a profit out of all this catastrophe.

Covid-19: Government Support for Business

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

The Minister has talked about some of the costs that will be reduced. The problem with the reduction of Christmas cheer, especially in the hospitality and entertainment industries, is revenues.

If I listen to my publicans, restaurateurs and hoteliers, I know they will want to hear after the meeting this afternoon how their revenues can be lifted, how they can treat their staff properly and how the loss of revenue from those events that cannot be postponed will in some way be made up to them. That is what matters most in most constituencies, including mine.

Vaccine Roll-out

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the Father of the House in Worthing, Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

May I add to the good questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)? My question was raised, in effect, by Shelagh Fogarty of LBC in The Daily Telegraph today, who wrote about confusion regarding the housebound as well as the homebound. We know that people are going to be vaccinated in mass centres—I had the chance to see one yesterday—and in local hubs and at home, but too often people are sitting at home wondering which it is likely to be. Could the Secretary of State get the partnerships for integrated care—the sustainability and transformation partnerships—to make public how soon they expect to get to most of those who are over 80, especially in semi-rural constituencies?

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The House will be glad that the Chancellor has met the needs of the poorest, that he is going to maintain the increase to the state pension and that he is ensuring that people get opportunities to get back into work if they have been out of it. He talks about the £250 minimum for the lowest-paid people in the public sector. May I ask him whether that includes people working in local government or just national Government? That would be useful to know.

There will be a welcome for the increase in spending for schools. There are also many other things that people will think are sensible and that could—or should—have been done as the Labour Government went through the crisis in 2008, when they also implemented a public sector pay freeze. May I put it to him that it would be incredible if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority were to force a pay increase on Members of Parliament when others do not get it? One way or another, will the Government—and perhaps you, Mr Speaker —talk to IPSA and ensure that that does not happen? I have the view that MPs’ pay should only be adjusted after a general election; that may be a minority view, but I think it would be wrong for us to have pay forced on us when others cannot get a pay increase.

Let me turn to overseas aid. When the Departments were merged, the Foreign Secretary said that the 0.7% figure would be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was elected in 2015, as I was, under a commitment to meet 0.7%. We were re-elected in 2017, and the only difference in 2019 was that the word “proudly” was put in front of that commitment. I am proud of that commitment. I will work with anyone across the House to make sure that a change of percentage does not happen. Obviously, with our GNP coming down by 10%, the amount that goes on aid will come down automatically. I fight to maintain the pledge that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and I made at the last general election.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not like being brought into the situation on pay. What I would say is that there is no decision on pay; there is no award to MPs. There is a big mistake out there somehow that there is an amount that has been given. Let me reassure the Father of the House that that is not the case. It will not even be looked at til next year—probably later, towards Easter.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to ask the Prime Minister also to welcome the birthday of the Primate of England—the 2007 Yorkshireman of the year—the Archbishop of York, who is just laying down his crozier after 14 years of service. His great words were that we can share the glories, the struggles, the joys and the pains of this country. We should remember that John Sentamu was tortured in Uganda, served in Tulse Hill, Stepney and Birmingham as well as York, and was a critical adviser to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Can I put it to my right hon. Friend that if, in a period of eight years, there are eight interrogations of a bishop, each time John Sentamu, we have got more to learn about making the colour of one’s skin as important as the colour of one’s eyes and the colour of one’s hair—something you may notice but does not tell you any more about them?

Covid-19: Housing Market

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

The Secretary of State is right to talk about people living their lives. Most of the people going to new homes will be going to leasehold ones.

When will he, and we, act to ban the sale of leasehold and pre-sold houses? When can he announce actions for justice for leaseholders and lease renters who are stuck with excessive ground rents?

Can he advise residential landlords and smart developers that the financial games are over, and that the leasehold knowledge campaign and the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform are going to make sure that there is justice for leaseholders?

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the comments from the Secretary of State. We now go over to Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

I ask if we can all recognise the loving care by social services staff and NHS staff,  especially those who have to go on hot or cold visits to people’s homes—not only the community nurses, dementia nurses and those who go to people with special needs, but the GPs and paramedics. Will the Secretary of State consider safer ways for those home visits, possibly using some of the offers of London black cabs, which can have a division between the driver and the clinician and also are much easier to clean down when necessary?

Building Safety

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am aiming to run this statement until about 20 past 4.

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

There will be a welcome for the announcement about the role of Dame Judith Hackitt.

Many points will be made in the next half hour or so, but I want to concentrate on two. First, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform were the first to point out the difficulties of private leaseholders in these tower blocks. When the Secretary of State and his Department work closely with the LKP and with the all-party group, we will not have all the answers, but I commend to him the fact that we can certainly point to many of the questions and some of the problems as well.

Additionally, may I commend what Nick Ross, the independent commentator and expert on risk, has said—that people do not die in buildings where there is a fire if there are sprinklers? We ought to pay more attention to that. Even if they are not required everywhere, we ought to consider whether they would be useful and valuable.

Finally, at the all-party group meeting, leaseholders talked about the sixfold or greater increase in their insurance premiums. The Government should get together with the Association of British Insurers and say, “Are people being scalped or is there scope for a scheme like Flood Re, which made premiums affordable to ordinary people trying to go on living in their homes?”

Leasehold Reform

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I first say that the House greatly welcomes the way the Chair has run this Select Committee statement, because all the Members who could be here today have managed to get in?

There are many other Members representing the 10 million people living in the 5 million homes affected by leasehold, so perhaps the Government would consider making an oral statement next Monday or Tuesday so that others can contribute.

The Government might wish to talk about how they will continue to fund the Law Commission’s work and the extension recommended by the Committee.

None of this would have happened without the work of Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, so I think that we ought to pay our debt to those outside this House as well as congratulating ourselves inside it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but he has certainly put his comments on the record and thanks have gone to the rightful place, because I do not think there is a constituency in the country that is not affected.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. It may be helpful if I first make it clear that the House’s sub judice resolution is not an externally-imposed rule, but a self-denying ordinance by which the House has agreed to limit its freedom of speech by avoiding references in debate to cases that are active before the UK courts. Certain exemptions apply and the resolution is subject always to the discretion of the Chair. It is not always practicable for the Chair or those who advise us to identify all cases that might come up in debate, or to ascertain in a timely way what the current status of those cases is. It can be quite helpful to be alerted to such cases, and there is nothing wrong with outside parties writing to draw our attention to potential sub judice concerns.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I can confirm that his Adjournment debate will go ahead today. I am grateful for his assurance that he has no intention of raising any matter that is sub judice. I would not characterise the letter that Mr Speaker received yesterday as “wholly inappropriate”, though I agree that the final paragraph was ill conceived in arguing that it was imperative that the debate should not go ahead. I hope that this response is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your response to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

If I speak in the Adjournment debate, I shall be referring to something with discretion, which I hope will not invite the Chair to intervene.

Can we ask for the Procedure Committee to decide whether any letter of that kind should always be sent to the Member of Parliament involved, as well as to the Speaker, so that the Member of Parliament knows what is going on behind the scenes? Can it also be clarified that this applies to courts of first instance, and does not normally apply to appeal courts, which are thought not to be influenced by what happens in Parliament?

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That really is not a point of order for the Chair, but it is quite rightly now on the record. I know that the Government are listening. I hope that that will be taken on board and that the right hon. Gentleman will be given the access that he was promised.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) during the statement on school funding, would it be appropriate or possible to put on record the names of the four Labour Back Benchers who were kindly present at the end of the statement? We have to assume that all the rest were happy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If I started to do that for both sides, the book would be very full, so perhaps those in glass houses ought not to throw stones quite as quickly.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, whoever administers the scheme, if there are anomalies or cases that come outside the rules, they should be free to tell the Government that they should change them?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I interrupt? The winding-up speech is meant to be very brief. I do not mind, but there is a big debate to follow with a lot of speakers, and we are eating into that time.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I must now put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that have not been certified.

Lords amendments 61 to 87, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191, 195, 196 and 200 to 214 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendment 185.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Lords amendments 92 and 93 were moved by Lord Young of Cookham with the understanding of the Government. Amendment 92 deals, it says, with tenants—in fact, it is leaseholders—and amendment 93 deals with leaseholders in a commonhold agreement. Am I right in saying that they give powers to Government to propose to Parliament statutory instruments, which we can consider separately?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As a man who has been here longer than most, you will know that that is not for the Chair to interpret.

After Clause 128

Neighbourhood right of appeal

Private Rented Sector

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Under the Standing Order, I am now required to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the estimates set down for consideration this day.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the Serious Fraud Office supplementary estimate, which comes later, with the Justice Committee report, the agreed redactions and the Tchenguiz interests featuring in the Office of Fair Trading report on abuses of leaseholders, overvaluations of freeholds and the sale of managers’ flats, could the Question on motion No. 21 be put separately for approval?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

But of course.

The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54).

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that we occasionally allow words from other languages in the Chamber, but I am not sure whether that one should be allowed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must admit, I did not catch the word that was said, so we will proceed.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that, under the procedure of the House, amendment 1, which would remove clause 20, will not be called because of the guillotine?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am not calling it. Unfortunately, that is the procedure of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know I am quite mature in years, but my hearing is still fairly acute and I think we are hearing about the programme of the Government. About 15 minutes have passed since we last heard about the programming of this Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I shall repeat what I just said to Mr Allen: we need to get to the point. This debate is about the programme motion. I have allowed a little leeway, and he has used that leeway. I think he is now in danger of taking advantage of the Chamber, and I am sure he is about to finish.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is not for the Chair to write statements. The hon. Lady has rightly put her point on the record. I am sure she will not leave it at that and take the avenues available to her to ensure that it is raised in other ways. It is certainly on the record.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those here earlier will have heard the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) try to make his point of order, expressing his apparent surprise that my hon. Friend the Minister was not going to answer questions about alcohol and minimum pricing. As the right hon. Member for Exeter is quoted in his local paper as knowing that in advance, may we ask why he was so surprised and why he had to raise it again as a separate point of order?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I have dealt with that point of order already.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 8, page 3, line 27, leave out clause 5.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, page 3, line 34, in clause 5, at end insert—

‘for the purpose of promoting safety of navigation’.

Amendment 11, page 4, line 19, at end insert—

‘(8) An order designating a harbour authority shall not be made unless the Welsh Ministers, the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers, as the case may be, are satisfied that the harbour authority has in place appropriate procedures for resolving any disputes that may arise in relation to a proposed harbour direction.’.

Amendment 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

‘(3A) Section 236(3) to (8) and section 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to all harbour directions made by a designated harbour authority under section 40A and those provisions so applied have effect subject to the modification that for references to byelaws there are substituted references to harbour directions and for references to a local authority there are substituted references to a designated harbour authority.

(3B) The confirming authority for the purposes of section 236 in its application to harbour directions made under section 40A shall be the Secretary of State.’.

Government amendment 17, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

‘() the apprehension of offenders within the port constable’s police area in respect of offences committed outside that area and the transport of them to police stations outside that area;’.

Government amendment 18, page 11, line 8, leave out ‘subsection’ and insert ‘subsections (1A) and’.

Government amendment 19, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

‘(1A) Sections 5 and 6 come into force in relation to fishery harbours in Wales on such day or days as the Welsh Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.’.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on promoting the Bill and recognise that there is growing interest in it. The Government have managed to accommodate the substantial points made on pilotage. I congratulate the shadow Minister, to whom the Bill is familiar, and my hon. Friend the Minister on that achievement.

I have a number of proposals, one of which is that the simplest thing to do with clause 5 is remove it, which amendment 8 would do. I ought to explain to the House that I spoke briefly in Committee—I cleared my throat—for 15 minutes. We now have 75 minutes for the Bill to make progress. Were we to have, say, two Divisions, we would have about 45 minutes. Hon. Members need to recognise that there are time limitations.

Much in the Bill is of advantage, but clause 5, which amends the Harbours Act 1964, provides that each national authority can designate harbour authorities, which means we can anticipate a larger number of harbour authorities, which can give general harbour directions to ships within or entering or leaving their harbours. That currently requires a byelaw, which requires the approval of the Department. If a Minister is not prepared to approve the byelaw, it does not happen. I believe I am right that the Minister would be advised on whether the byelaw proposed is right and rational, and on whether the authority has been rational in terms of the results of the consultation—the requirement for a consultation will remain if a harbour is designated.

It has been said that, if the Government’s proposals go through, an interested group or person can object to the decision through judicial review, but that is too big a weapon for too many people. In any case, judicial review decides whether the way in which the harbour authority went about its decision was rational. If it goes about the decision unfairly, it can be stopped, but if it does it wrongly, it cannot. The decision would then be made. In the years that my wife and I were Ministers, we never had a judicial review application against us upheld. That means not that all our decisions were right, but that how we reached them was right. That illustrates the distinction.

Proposed new section 40A of the 1964 Act deals with the designation of harbour authorities. Proposed section 40B, which governs the procedure applicable to harbour direction, states that a harbour authority is required to consult users and publicise a harbour direction before and after it is given.

Proposed new section 40C, on enforcement, creates an offence. The Royal Yachting Association, of which I have been a member for some time, has raised issues with this measure. Those with longer memories will recall that, in 2008 and later, when a Bill of this nature was in the House of Lords, there was no equivalent of clause 5, because there were problems with such a proposal.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall and the Minister that there will be significant interest in the measure in the House of Lords, to which one anticipates the Bill going after today. I predict that the Bill will be amended if the provisions are not satisfactory—I am not threatening, but anticipating. Private Member’s Bill procedures mean that a Bill amended in the House of Lords will not be at the top of the list of priorities when it returns to the Commons, so getting the Bill right between now and when the House of Lords considers it matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am sure that what the Minister said will be helpful. The question of whether it is sufficiently helpful will be a second test, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will take that into account.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the selection of amendments to other clauses in the same debate is, if I may say so, generous to the promoter of the Bill, because it allows for fewer debates than would otherwise happen. I do not make any criticism—I just note that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure there is no criticism of the Chair.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not propose to speak to the amendments on the other clauses, as a way of bowing with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.

Amendment 9 would insert, on page 3, line 34, the words:

“for the purpose of promoting safety of navigation”.

That is an essential point. My hon. Friend the Minister says that that is not necessary, although when I was having a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall I saw references to lobster pots and fishing lines and wondered whether the navigation point had been slightly lost, but that was a letter to her rather than a letter from her, so perhaps we can pass on from that.

The alternative or additional way is to look at amendment 11, which, at the end of line 19, would insert the words:

“(8) An order designating a harbour authority shall not be made unless the Welsh Ministers, the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers, as the case may be, are satisfied that the harbour authority has in place appropriate procedures for resolving any disputes that may arise in relation to a proposed harbour direction.”

My hon. Friend the Minister has made a comment on that, as far as he is able to, and we cannot expect him to speak for Welsh or Scottish Ministers, but I think they would be irrational if they did not have the same intention in mind.

Finally, amendment 7 would insert proposed new subsection (3A):

“Section 236(3) to (8) and section 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to all harbour directions made by a designated harbour authority under section 40A and those provisions so applied have effect subject to the modification that for references to byelaws there are substituted references to harbour directions and for references to a local authority there are substituted references to a designated harbour authority.”

It would also insert proposed new subsection (3B):

“The confirming authority for the purposes of section 236 in its application to harbour directions made under section 40A shall be the Secretary of State.”

The point is this: clause 5 will potentially give, not just to existing designated harbour authorities, but to many, many others, the power of creating criminal offences.

Business without Debate

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be sensible—whether generally or just in the case of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—for Members to be asked to submit their points of order in writing, so that we could be spared the words that are unnecessary to the making of the actual point?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let me say first that things can happen on a Friday, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and secondly that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has certainly got his point on the record.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER, MAY, WHITSUN, SUMMER, CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER AND CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House—

(1) at its rising on Tuesday 27 March 2012, do adjourn until Monday 16 April 2012;

(2) at its rising on Thursday 3 May 2012, do adjourn until Tuesday 8 May 2012;

(3) at its rising on Thursday 24 May 2012, do adjourn until Monday 11 June 2012;

(4) at its rising on Tuesday 17 July 2012, do adjourn until Monday 3 September 2012;

(5) at its rising on Tuesday 18 September 2012, do adjourn until Monday 15 October 2012;

(6) at its rising on Tuesday 13 November 2012, do adjourn until Monday 19 November 2012; and

(7) at its rising on Thursday 20 December 2012, do adjourn until Monday 7 January 2013.—(Mr Heath.)

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr. Chope, you are such a magnanimous Member.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I briefly say that the issue underlying the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is whether we will align our waking hours and working hours to the available daylight? It is quite clear that we should do that and I hope that the amendment is rejected and that we move on to the other two groups of amendments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that there will be no more non-points of order.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be open to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to move the Bill formally?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Yes.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We now come to a sensible grouping of amendments, to be considered together, on the personal independence payment. The first, amendment 43, refers to clause 78, but amendments 41 and 42 refer to clause 83, which is about a rather separate issue, so I hope that the Chair will take into account the progress of the debate in order to decide whether to allow a vote, if necessary, on amendments 41 and 42.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We will see how the debate goes, and I am sure that we will look favourably upon the issue when we get there.

Clause 78

Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities

Registration of Members’ Financial Interests

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Comments must relate to the motion. I understand the advice that has rightly been given, but speeches must relate to the motion.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For us to stick to the terms of the motion, passing references to individual matters may be fine, but if we are induced—rather than “provoked”—into going into such issues in detail, the debate will change its character and its usefulness. If the advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) was that he could mention the subject, that is fine, but to go on at great length will lead to the rest of us trying to do the same thing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is quite right. Hon. Members could start raising other issues, and I am therefore frightened that the debate will not be the one that we should hold, and that we will be drawn into other subjects. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the issue that he needed to raise, but the debate must not stray from the motion.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts show that those who rebel against their own party are more likely to become junior Ministers than those who do not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, but it was not a point of order. Have you finished Mr Walker?