(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI could not have been clearer that I think there needs to be restraint and the avoidance of civilian casualties, and the Israelis need to find a way to bring this to an end. I have made all those points repeatedly.
May I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong words of leadership in yesterday’s article in The Sunday Times? Does he agree that strong and robust leadership, particularly from President Obama and the US, is needed now, more than ever, to demonstrate that Russia’s actions in Ukraine and around the world are completely unacceptable and will not, under any circumstances, be tolerated?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be fair, President Obama has been very clear that what has happened in Ukraine is unacceptable. He has been working hard to try to keep the United States and the European Union working together, because, obviously, if we can list the same people, take sanctions against the same banks, take sanctions against the same airlines and look at a third tier of sanctions in the same way at similar times, we will maximise the impact of what we do.
(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some respect, says that strikes are not entered into lightly, but as far as the union leaders are concerned, they have been entered into very lightly. The NUT leaders did not call a ballot; they relied on a ballot that is two years old, and did not consult their members. The leaderships of the other unions—Unite, Unison and the GMB—have called this strike despite having recent ballots with extraordinarily low levels of support for strike action. I absolutely know that no one goes on strike lightly, but I think that when the hon. Gentleman looks at this, in his heart of hearts, he will conclude that trade unions leaders have called the strikes lightly and that they are causing damage to vulnerable people.
Many of my constituents will be inconvenienced today because of the politically motivated actions of union leaders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private sector has absorbed cuts to pay and pensions due to the circumstances in which the country found itself, and that unfortunately, other sectors including the public sector will have to do the same?
My hon. Friend draws out a really important point, which is that since the recession pay in the public sector has risen by more than it has in the private sector. The comparators show that average pay in the public sector is higher than in the private sector. I know that there are people on low pay in the public sector, as there are in the private sector, but the fact is that, given the appalling legacy that the outgoing Labour Government left the coalition Government, there have been tough decisions to be made and many people have had to make sacrifices along the way.
(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. “Made in the black country” is a brand that is proudly marketed around the world, and people have confidence in the quality that that implies, but it is important that the next generation of people in the area are trained in those skills so that that reputation for quality can continue. The investment will help with that.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tireless work to deliver this huge local and regional boost to economies. I commend the additional investment in Reading and urge him to pursue a third Thames bridge and semi-fast Crossrail, both strongly supported by business, for the next round.
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberIt would not be Christmas without the repeats, and that is all we ever get from the right hon. Gentleman. I will tell him what we have done this year. We said we would take action on jobs; we have 600,000 more private sector jobs. We said we would help with the cost of living; we have frozen the council tax for the third year in a row. We said we would deal with the deficit; we have cut the deficit by a quarter. And what have we heard from him this year? What has he told us about the deficit? Nothing. What has he told us about welfare? Nothing. What has he told us about his education plans? Nothing. The fact is that he has got absolutely nothing to offer except for the same old something-for-nothing culture that got us in this mess in the first place.
Trust in the police is an essential part of a just and democratic society. Will the Prime Minister therefore seek—[Interruption.]
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but Members must now calm down. Both the questions and the answers must be heard.
First of all, let me say again that at Christmas time it is right to pay tribute to our brave police officers—men and women who look after us round the clock and do an extremely good job. But the point that my hon. Friend has made is important. A police officer posing as a member of the public and sending an e-mail potentially to blacken the name of a Cabinet Minister is a very serious issue, and it does need to be seriously investigated. The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting a thorough and well resourced investigation to get to the truth of this matter as quickly as possible. The Independent Police Complaints Commission will be supervising the investigation, and I think we should allow it to get to the truth.
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberThe right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The pressure should be on the press to take the steps that everybody now knows are necessary and that are set out in huge detail in the report. That is the best way to avoid the statutory regulation that Leveson does not want to see, that no one in this House should want to see, and that would make our country less free. He speaks very clearly about that issue.
After two and a half years of working closely with the former Culture Secretary, I know him to be a man of the highest integrity. Does the Prime Minister think that the Labour party should apologise in this House for making disgraceful and unfounded accusations which the Leveson report shows to be absolutely false?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We had to listen to allegation after allegation, conspiracy after conspiracy, smear after smear. Each one is put to bed comprehensively by the report.
(12 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.
Mr Meakin wrote about the importance of securing public confidence, and so many questions are now being asked that we must raise the issues broadly, to ensure that we maintain public confidence in charitable status. Many people rely on it when giving to and involving themselves in support for charities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
“I understand that removing charitable status for religious bodies because of supposed lack of public benefit is dangerous territory. Doing so would almost certainly open up a minefield of civil actions in the courts and could quite possibly breach the conditions of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to religious discrimination. In addition to the obvious loss of religious freedom, the cost to the taxpayer of lengthy legal actions is worth taking into consideration beforehand.”
A leading Queen’s counsel and specialist in the field, Hubert Picarda, has given his opinion that the Preston Down Trust
“is a charity and should be registered as such… Where under the old law it has already been determined that a purpose is beneficial there is no necessity to determine…any further point. The requirement is already satisfied.”
He also mentions that, over the years,
“the conventional advancement of religion is intrinsically for the public benefit, has been accepted as such and there is no reason for creative bureaucratic intolerance to replace judicial and settled community tolerance.”
I am coming to the end of my speech, Members will be relieved to hear, but I shall give way.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the outstanding case that she is making today. May I bring her back to the Charity Commission? I think that it states that nearly 20% of registered charities are there for the advancement of religion and all the good causes that go along with that. It registers hundreds of Christian charities each year. What does she believe is really motivating the Charity Commission in this case? Is it because the Plymouth Brethren are different, a minority group and much easier to suppress as a result?
It would be wrong of me to try to divine what is in the minds of the charity commissioners in that way, but we are perhaps seeing a clash between what we might call a secular liberal society and the traditional society that we have seen in our country up until now, which has respected the role of religions, particularly the Christian Church, over many centuries.
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberFor most public sector workers there is no fund. Contributions made today go to pay pensions today. The local government scheme is funded. Most of them are not funded. They are pay-as-you-go schemes. Lower paid people will not be asked to pay more. As I say, 750,000 low paid public sector workers will have to pay nothing extra at all as a result of these changes.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a substantial number of local authorities, local government pensions are paid for by the equivalent of 25% of council tax? Is it fair to those council tax payers who are paying such a large sum of their hard-earned cash?
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I will do my best to fit my remarks into the five-minute limit that you have suddenly imposed.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this debate. He has set out, with great passion and in a compelling way, why Reading should become a city. He has covered an enormous amount of ground and has done a thorough job in doing so, so I will limit my remarks. To both viewers who are watching the Parliament channel at the moment, I say that my views on city status are set out elsewhere and have been aired in great detail.
As has been mentioned, this is Reading’s third attempt at becoming a city. I know a bit about the previous attempts, because I was around at the time and served on the local borough council on one of those occasions. What is noticeable to me is that this attempt feels different. I do not say that because we are the bookies’ favourite this time, as my hon. Friend has mentioned. In fact, I would rather that we were not the bookies’ favourite, because in politics the favourite has a knack of losing. The first two attempts to obtain city status involved top-down decisions to mount bids, which, if I am honest, were not supported beyond the local ruling elite. Indeed, I found them slightly embarrassing in some ways, as the local Reading public largely ridiculed them. The Reading public did not believe in the previous bids, because they were not in any way part of them. What they actually saw, for example, was the local council putting up signs directing people to the city centre when they knew it was a town centre. The public thought that slightly crackers, and so did I.
This time the bid feels very different. It has much more of a grass roots and groundswell feel to it. My constituents feel involved in what is going on, believe that the time is right and are behind the bid. They understand that Reading has changed and developed radically over the years and is now ready for the next step and for a new era. People who come to Reading tend to stay for a long time, because of the quality of life and the good jobs on offer. My constituents have, therefore, seen Reading change from a rather sleepy Berkshire market town to the capital city of the region.
My hon. Friend has already spoken about the strength and vibrancy of Reading’s economy. As he has mentioned, numerous research organisations around the country accept that Reading has huge economic significance. The influential Centre for Cities regards Reading as a “city to watch”, even though we are not yet a city, and one of six cities
“best placed to lead the UK’s recovery”
from the economic crisis and recession. People in Reading know and understand the economic contribution that they are making to the region and the national economy. They take pride in it and know that the town is ready to become a city. They are as confident and forward-looking as the Centre for Cities study says.
It is interesting to note what underpins Reading’s economic success. There are many factors, but I want to pick out two in particular. The first is transport. Reading has a railway station that acts as a national hub with connections that run the length and breadth of the UK. During the previous Parliament, I campaigned for and was pleased to secure, working with others, the £500 million investment that the station required. That investment recognised Reading’s strategic importance as a transport hub and reflects why it is a city in all but name. Reading is close to Heathrow; the M4 runs past its front door; and it has fast train services to Paddington. Whether travelling by road, rail or air, Reading has the connections required.
The second factor is education, which creates the highly skilled work force. Education is a passion for me, so I want to say a few things before I finish, although I know that the Chair would like me to speed up. According to Department for Education figures, Reading is the highest ranking authority for A-level and AS-level results. Of course, that has nothing to do with the local education authority, which has continually been hopeless on educational matters. It has much to do with Reading’s two state grammar schools—Kendrick school for girls and Reading school for boys. Both consistently lead the country in exam results. Reading school has been named the best state school in the country by The Times. I also have a fine crop of independent schools in my constituency in the Abbey school, Queen Anne’s and Leighton Park.
Reading is also taking advantage of Government policy on education, with Highdown school in my constituency becoming an academy and showing huge improvements. I am also hopeful that a bid in east Reading for a first-class university school, backed by world-class companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, BT and Blackberry, will be successful and lead to further improvement in the quality of education in Reading.
I also want to say a few words about Reading university.
Order. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be fair to his colleague, otherwise he will not be called to speak.
I will sum up by saying that I am proud of the fact that Reading university, which plays such an important role in Reading, is mainly in my constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West has said, it has an international reputation. I have no time to talk about the thriving social, cultural, artistic and creative communities in Reading, which I would have loved to have addressed, although my hon. Friend has given a flavour of them.
Our university, schools, transport and economy give Reading enormous strength, but it is the people of Reading who make the place what it is. It is they who have prepared Reading for city status and it is they who now ask the Queen and Ministers to give them the recognition that they deserve.
I am afraid that you have very little time, Mr Howell, and you have your colleague to thank for that.