(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberI inform the House that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and other colleagues has been selected.
Order. Certainly the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) does wave eccentrically. There is not necessarily anything disorderly about it, but it may offend the sensibilities of some right hon. and hon. Members, a point to which I am sure, as always, the hon. Gentleman will be sensitive.
I certainly would not wish to offend the Minister; I merely want an answer. He said “many”; he said “many, many”; and I think he said “excessive”. How many regulations—he has been through them all—has he not been able to deal with in the Bill because of European legislation? Is it 10, 20, 50, 100 or 1,000?
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberMy responsibilities are for the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, the industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingency, civil society and cyber-security. [Interruption.]
Order. There is still rather a lot of noise in the House. What is required is an air of respectful expectation for Karen Lumley.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister share my concern at the reports that a trade union is threatening to use so-called leverage tactics against our NHS staff? Can he confirm that those allegations fall within the scope of our review of trade union activities?
We can do more, and we are already doing much more than was previously the case. The amount of Government business going to small businesses, both directly and indirectly, has risen to nearly 20%. I am afraid that the last Government were not even measuring how much went to smaller businesses. There is much more that we can do. We have streamlined the procurement processes, which previously seemed almost deliberately to exclude small businesses from being able to bid. [Interruption.]
The Minister has ploughed on, to his credit, but it has been difficult for him to be heard. His words should be heard, and I hope that there will be some courtesy from Members.
T6. I welcome the Minister’s offering IT procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises through the G-Cloud. Is he aware of a local constituency company called The Bunker secure hostings, which offers data for SMEs to access G-Gloud?
I welcome the Government’s decision to accept Syrian refugees; it is a very important cause.
Let me turn to another subject. Can I ask the Prime Minister who, just before the election, said that
“showing that we’re all in this together…means showing that the rich will pay their share which is why…the 50p tax rate will have to stay”? [Interruption.]
Under this Government the richest will pay more in income tax in every year than any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That is the truth. I want the richest to pay more in tax, and under this Government they are, because we are creating jobs and growth, and we are encouraging investment. What we have heard from Labour Members over the past 48 hours is that they want to attack that growth and attack those jobs; they want to attack those businesses. We now have in Britain an anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs party.
The Chancellor set out yesterday exactly what our priorities are. We want to cut taxes for the lowest paid and for middle income people. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Chancellor, because like the rest of the Labour party, he was not here yesterday—they left the shadow Chancellor all on his own.
While we are in the business of who has said interesting things in recent days—[Interruption.] Let me ask him this—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Robertson: calm yourself, man. The lion must get back in its den.
Holocaust memorial day took place on Monday. Would the Prime Minister join me—[Interruption.]
Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about Holocaust memorial day. Please let us have some respect on both sides of the House.
Holocaust memorial day took place on Monday. Would the Prime Minister join me in commending the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in educating future generations about the holocaust? Would he comment on the Holocaust Commission that he formally launched this week?
In the light of the Prime Minister’s welcome recognition at last week’s PMQs that Brighton is indeed a superb and sunny place, will he come and visit the Brighton Energy Co-operative in my constituency, which demonstrates the real potential of community renewables, particularly solar power? Will he also acknowledge that if the Government’s new community energy strategy were to include the provision for energy providers to sell directly to consumers, it would have far more potential? Will he pursue that strategy instead of his evidence-free fantasies about fracking?
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberI can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. We should keep the cap on economic migrants from outside the European Union. We should continue with all the action that we are taking to make sure that people who come here do so to work and not to claim, but I think what we need to do next is recognise that the best immigration policy is to have not only strong border controls but an education approach that educates our young people for jobs in our country and a welfare system that encourages them to take those jobs. There are three sides to the argument: it is about immigration, education and welfare, and the Government have a plan for all three.
Could I agree with the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] It is genuinely absurd that the leader of the no campaign in Scotland cannot get a debate with the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland, and that the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland demands a debate with somebody who does not have a vote. [Interruption.] In these circumstances, does the Prime Minister agree with me that, in politics as in shipbuilding, empty vessels make the most noise?
The right hon. Gentleman will have to raise his point of order after the statement.
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberIn the absence of wider reform—[Interruption.]
Order. There seems to be a problem with the microphone. We will try to have the problem solved, but in the meantime if the Minister speaks up we will all be able to hear him.
In the absence of wider reform, the Government have said that they will support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), which proposes changes to the rules governing the membership of the House of Lords, including removing peers who are convicted of a serious offence—bringing the rules into line with those of the House of Commons—and removing peers who do not attend.
I have a post-Christmas gift for my hon. Friend: the Government are indeed supporting—[Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Ah, we are back. The Government, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, have announced that we will support the very sensible and modest, common-sense proposals in the Bill proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire.
5. What recent progress the Government have made on their social mobility strategy.
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Conservative party has a long-standing aspiration to reduce net immigration to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. The Business Secretary was entirely right to point out that the Government need to be open with the British people about those factors in the immigration system over which the Government have control and those over which they do not. He rightly pointed out that the number of British people leaving Britain to live elsewhere, or those Brits living elsewhere coming back, is something that no Government can necessarily control.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that there are no promises from the Government to cut the number of migrants coming into the UK from the European Union?
There is much in this country that is archaic and out of date. For example, section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 makes it an offence even to imagine—[Interruption.]
The Act makes it an offence even to imagine this country being a republic or to “overawe” Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend have a look at whether such archaic legislation can be repealed?
Order. We must hear Mr Opperman. [Interruption.] Order. Hexham must be heard.
Returning from planet Bolsover, devolution has been one of the successes of the coalition Government, and the city deal for Newcastle and the north-east local enterprise partnership are two of the finest successes in the north-east, but will the Deputy Prime Minister go one step further and consider expanding the city deal to a rural deal so that the most sparsely populated counties, such as mine in Northumberland, get the same opportunities as cities?
Thank you, Mr Speaker and happy new year. Does the Attorney-General agree that, at the end of the day, it is for the judges who hear the evidence in a case to decide what the sentence should be?
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberBefore I call the Minister without Portfolio to make his statement, I should say to the House that the subject matter concerns certain right hon. Members personally. I know that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) wishes to catch my eye. I have said to him that in these exceptional circumstances I am prepared to allow him latitude in phrasing his remarks and rather more time to make them than would be usual. Even so, I know he appreciates that brevity will assist, as this is not a debate.
As I said in my statement, the problem with a judge-led inquiry is that it is normal, having taken evidence from witnesses, for it to produce evidence as the inquiry goes along. The ISC can proceed in whatever way it wishes, however, and it is not likely to do that. So we can start to proceed with the ISC inquiry, whereas to proceed with a judge-led inquiry could be more difficult and would certainly give rise to some controversy. I do not think that one route is necessarily preferable to the other, so long as both are strong, independent and effective in coming to their conclusions.
Whether we have done enough to strengthen the ISC will no doubt be easier to decide when it has completed the three important reports that it is working on. It is now looking into the background agency information on the murder of Lee Rigby, as well as examining the whole question of collecting material, surveillance and the balance between security and privacy. And it is now going to look into the considerable matters of detention and rendition, although I presume that it will not undertake all those inquiries contemporaneously. We wish the members of the ISC well in their labours; they have taken on a considerable amount of responsibility. If, at the end, we decide that the Committee needs to be strengthened further, that will be the time to look into that. It will not be a matter for me anyway; it will be for the House to decide on the procedures for appointing the Committee.
It is clear that the members of the Committee are not only immensely distinguished colleagues—it would be impossible to overstate the extent of their distinction—but destined to be very busy bees in the period ahead.
My right hon. and learned Friend has already mentioned this point, as has the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but may I reiterate how grateful we should be to the men and women of the security services? They often work in dangerous and lonely conditions, and they have to act with great gallantry, for which they get scant recognition. The House must recognise that fully.
I wish I could find some way of speeding up the police investigation—I have wished that several times in the course of the past two or three years. But it is a fundamental principle that police investigations in this country are not subject to political control, and it is just not possible for a Government Minister to start intervening and questioning or second-guessing what the police are doing. I am assured that the police are carrying out thorough investigations and I only have estimates of when they might finish. That is why we have come to the situation, which has dissatisfied some of my colleagues, where we really have to get on and inquire into this, and the best way of proceeding is to put our new ISC to the test.
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberWe passed on our chairmanship of the open government partnership at the conference. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks; it was very successful, with contributors and participants from civil society and from Governments right across the world. It was attended by a number of UK Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We hope that this will develop, with more Governments taking part and with a deepening of the relationship with civil society organisations in some countries where their life is not nearly as protected as the life of civil society organisations here. [Interruption.]
Order. The Minister is providing serious answers to serious questions, but I am not sure that he is getting the serious attention that he and I would think those answers warrant. Perhaps we could have a bit of order.
It was revealed in a leaked letter yesterday that the Minister for the Cabinet Office tried to use emergency powers to block a freedom of information request for the Government to publish the HS2 project assessment review from 2011, which he did because of “political and presentational difficulties”. Those who support HS2 in principle know that public confidence is vital. Concerns have already been expressed about accelerating costs because of the Government’s failure to get a grip on the project. Questions have been raised by the National Audit Office about the economic benefits. Will the Minister now publish that project assessment review?
First, let me recognise my hon. Friend’s long-standing advocacy for young people and his authorship of the initial Positive for Youth programme. Yes, we are very concerned about cuts to youth services at the local level. The Cabinet Office is mapping exactly what is going on at the moment and stands ready to work with local authorities to help them comply with their statutory duty and work more creatively with other local partners in delivering fantastic opportunities for young people to develop themselves through access to high-quality youth work.
T2. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following the question on outsourcing from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have now passed £100 billion-worth of contracts to large companies that have absolutely no transparency. Is it not time to revisit the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to make sure that these companies do have the necessary transparency and are brought into the scope of the Act?
In case the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten, he has been the Prime Minister for three and a half years. But I think we are making progress, because last Thursday the Chancellor said that living standards were rising. [Interruption.] His own Office for Budget Responsibility says:
“Almost whichever way you look at it…average earnings, wages and salaries…the levels have been falling”. [Interruption.]
Order. Mr Blenkinsop, you are yelling across the Chamber. Be quiet. Calm yourself. Take up yoga.
The OBR went on to say that it is “inconceivable” to suggest otherwise, but that is exactly what the Chancellor did last Thursday. Why will the Prime Minister not just come out and admit it: there is a cost of living crisis in this country?
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened—[Interruption.]
Order. Members must calm down. I have said that before, but some people are slow learners. We will go on for as long as it takes. They can shout and scream and bawl in the most juvenile manner, but we will just keep going.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened. Under the last Labour Government, real earnings went up £3,600. Living standards went up: under him, they are down £1,600. Living standards are down under this Government. We have always known how out of touch he is, but he is now taking it to a whole new level. The Government are in denial about the cost of living crisis, and they are not satisfied with one millionaires’ tax cut—they think it is time for another. Once again, the Prime Minister proves that he stands up for the wrong people.
I would certainly praise all those in Thurrock who have raised money in this way. The story of Stan Franks is a truly remarkable one. He is believed to be the youngest airman to complete more than 30 missions—he did this in 1944-45, before he was 20 years old. It is a real reminder to our generation of just how much previous generations put in to make sure that we could live in freedom. One of the greatest privileges I have had in this job has been welcoming veterans of Bomber Command to No. 10 Downing street and making that announcement about ensuring that they have that clasp on their medal, which I know many value so much. As Winston Churchill rightly said in 1940:
“The fighters are our salvation but the bombers alone provide the means of victory.”
We should never forget those brave crews in Bomber Command. So many now are coming to the end of their lives—so many who did so much for our country.
My right hon. Friend tempts me. The point I was trying to make is that cutting the cost of politics has a role to play alongside this argument—[Interruption.]
Order. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister. It is discourteous to keep gesticulating at the man. Let us hear the Prime Minister.
It is no good shouting from the Opposition Benches. Labour Members had the opportunity to reform the Lords, and they were the ones who stopped it.
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberThe House will wish to know how we intend to proceed today. Defence questions will be postponed to next Monday. The present list of questions will be carried over; there will not be another shuffle. The Table Office will announce consequential changes shortly.
This is a special day for special tributes to a special statesman, Nelson Mandela. I hope that as many Members as possible will be able to contribute. Tributes may continue until 10 pm. There will be no end-of-day Adjournment debate.
The House will also wish to know that there will be an event to commemorate and celebrate the life and achievements of Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall at 2 pm on Thursday 12 December.
I call the Prime Minister.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I too send my heartfelt condolences to Nelson Mandela’s widow and family. I will never forget the first time I met Nelson Mandela. Opposition Members have spoken of his extraordinary warmth and I certainly witnessed that.
I was lucky enough to visit South Africa on what I think was the first all-party parliamentary group visit after the 1994 elections, a delegation led by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). The Conservatives on the delegation felt a degree of apprehension and unease before the meeting in Shell house in Jo’burg. We could hardly have been seen by the ANC as great historic allies, and we were not exactly on the right side of the struggle against apartheid. But I will never forget three things from that first meeting with President Mandela, as he was then. First was his extraordinary warmth. Secondly, he seemed to understand intuitively that the Conservatives on the delegation felt uneasy. He went out of his way to put us at ease, and when we went around the table introducing ourselves he said to the Conservatives, “I’m really grateful to Margaret Thatcher for what she did, and I am very grateful to your current Prime Minister, Mr Major, for all he’s done for our country.” It was as though he wanted to go out of his way to put our minds completely at ease. Thirdly, when the hon. Member for Nottingham North started the conversation he said, “Mr President, your Excellency, we are hugely honoured to be here,” and the President said, “No, no, I’m honoured to have you here.” I do not think anyone who met him ever forgot his incredible charm and his impeccable manners.
A lot of people have spoken about his magnanimity, his ability to forgive, his dignity and his desire for reconciliation, and I want to just pick up two incidents that are really quite extraordinary. First, he appointed his former jailer, Jannie Roux, who went on to become a prison commissioner, as ambassador to Austria. The other example testifies to his extraordinary ability to forgive: he organised an official lunch for Percy Yutar, who was the official prosecutor in the Rivonia trial and who was calling for his execution during that trial.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned, it is easy to forget the sense of pessimism in South Africa in the ’80s and very early ’90s. Indeed, 70% of South Africans believed that the situation would end in an appalling civil war and a bloodbath. I believe that Nelson Mandela was personally responsible for preventing that from happening and for preventing an utter catastrophe. Also—what an example this is to other African leaders—he never, ever went out of his way to try to better himself at the expense of his fellow countrymen. He never let power go to his head and he was never, ever corrupted. What an absolute tragedy that more leaders on that continent are not following his extraordinary example.
While we mourn a remarkable man, we must give thanks for a truly extraordinary life.
I beg the indulgence of the House, as I have not been able to be present for the entirety of the proceedings. As chair of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I should like to put some words on the record.
I will not claim the eloquence of some of the speeches that have been made in the House today. I cannot claim the intimacy of knowledge and companionship with the late Nelson Mandela, which many in this House have been able to explain, nor can I boast that I have been at all times as resolute and as staunch an opponent of apartheid as many colleagues present in the House today.
I first went to South Africa, particularly Cape Town and Johannesburg, on company business in my first job in 1962. If I had not been aware, as an embryo politician, of the wickedness of the apartheid system, it was really brought home to me then. I saw the evil and rottenness of it all, and was able to speak thereafter with more passion about those matters.
Ten years later, in 1972, I was with a CPA delegation that was moving through South Africa from St Helena to a conference in Malawi. There had been the so-called easing of restrictions, which seemed to do no more than underline the hypocrisy of the whole system. I did not return again to South Africa until after the miracle that Nelson Mandela helped to achieve and inspired.
For many years, I gloomily thought, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, that the whole thing could only end in bloodshed. It is the most fundamental tribute to Nelson Mandela that the force of his personality ensured that it did not end in such a way. The whole world, not just those in South Africa, should be grateful not just for that, but for the signposting of a way forward out of conflicts, which other countries in the world still have to learn.
Nelson Mandela took the most remarkable actions. Compassion, courage and leadership are words that will be used over and again. They may be overworked in this debate, but why should they not be, given what he managed to achieve and the inspiration he gave to his fellow countrymen. We hope that that will be repeated again and again from generation to generation because there is such a long way to go in South Africa to sustain the turnaround that Nelson Mandela achieved.
I was back in South Africa a few months ago, as chair of the whole CPA, for the CPA’s 59th conference, which was hosted by the South African Parliament. It is a strong, democratic Parliament, and one of the leading players in the Commonwealth constellation. I thought how far we had come from what I had first seen in 1962. The strong parliamentary traditions that are being observed in South Africa—they are probably not perfect, but we do not think our systems are entirely perfect—are the proper bases of parliamentary democracy. Again, that is down to the inspiration of Nelson Mandela. I hope that that will be repeated again and again and will inspire generations of South Africans to respect the parliamentary institutions, which, if properly applied, can lead to the fulfilment of the wishes of the ordinary people of South Africa.
To my mind, Nelson Mandela is one of the most amazing men to have trod the planet. So many evil people in history have been seen as giants, ogres or whatever, mainly because they have been bad men. It is to be hoped that this very good man will be remembered for ever, that his shadow will be cast forward and that everyone in the future, particularly in South Africa but on a wider basis too, will bathe in that shadow and realise what it is that makes a good politician, makes a statesman and makes a humanitarian of the highest order.
Order. We have already heard some magnificent tributes of great power and passion. It might be helpful to the House if I tell colleagues that approximately 40 right hon. and hon. Member are still seeking to catch my eye. I am keen for everyone who wants to speak to have the chance to do so, but as things stand the Chair was anticipating the Front Bench winding-up speeches starting a little after half-past 9. That might serve to concentrate the minds of colleagues, who I know will be considerate to each other. I do not want to impose a formal time limit, because I think that this is an occasion when self-restraint is a better guide, on which theme I look in the direction of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).
Order. Over 20 colleagues still want to speak, and I am keen to accommodate everybody. It will not happen if there are long speeches, but if there are short speeches, it can.
Order. If colleagues can confine themselves to three-minute speeches, it should be possible to get everybody in, which is my only ambition for the rest of this evening.
I feel supremely unqualified to speak in this debate having followed people of such great knowledge and campaigning experience in the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I think especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), that great South African Welsh—if I may call him that—internationalist.
The main reason I am speaking is that I promised primary school pupils—my constituents—at Ysgol Bro Dyfrdwy in Cynwyd that I would do so. On Friday I was privileged to take part in their school assembly and to hear their tributes to Nelson Mandela. The thought came to me that many tributes will be televised and many people—the great and the good—will be speaking at them, but there are tributes and memorials all over our nation and all over our world that will not be recorded in the history books but will be equally heartfelt, sincere and well made.
It is fitting to remember those in the Anti-Apartheid Movement across the villages and small towns of England, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard the great stories of struggle in London and our large cities, but we also need to remember that through the great grassroots organisations across our country—the trade unions and the churches—petitions were signed outside small branches of banks and people walked from door to door urging a boycott. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), I pay great tribute to those people and to the Welsh Anti-Apartheid Movement and its work in the campaigning struggle across Wales.
I would like to offer a short reflection on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There has been a great deal of talk about forgiveness and reconciliation as though they are natural phenomena, but I do not believe they are. One thing that the great struggle of Nelson Mandela proved was that forgiveness and reconciliation are not just moral or spiritual truths, and certainly not just abstract concepts; they were viewed as an absolute necessity for the change that needed to happen.
I pay great tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the honesty you have shown in saying that you got it wrong on the apartheid issue. I have to confess that once upon a time I stood waving a placard outside the university of Bristol union against someone who was viewed as a very right-wing member of the Federation of Conservative Students. I could not possibly name that person; suffice it to say that I think he looks rather better sat in a green chair and wearing a tie with the flag of South Africa on it.
Yes, I fear it was on 23 October 1986; I remember it only too well. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, I am sure, for reminding me.
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House who wonderfully reflected the debate and recalled the many moving, thoughtful and evocative speeches that we heard during the course of this remarkable tribute to Nelson Mandela.
May I join the shadow Leader of the House in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for enabling us to have this tribute to Nelson Mandela? I also look forward to Thursday afternoon and the opportunity for civil society and the wider public to come here to the Great Hall at Westminster to share the opportunity not only to commemorate the life of Nelson Mandela and dedicate themselves to his memory, but to celebrate his life. There will be organisations that, for decades, have supported his struggle and the people of South Africa. There will be South Africans in this country who will want to come and show their love and respect for Nelson Mandela, and it is a good and welcome opportunity for them to do it here at their Parliament.
We have heard many memorable speeches. Today has been an unprecedented opportunity for us to express our views, and we have met on the same day as the South African Parliament. Helen Zille, who was referred to by a number of Members, said that Nelson Mandela’s death
“united the world in grief but it has also united us in hope.”
That was evident in many of the speeches that we heard today.
Many speeches were prompted by personal memories. Most memorably, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) talked about a lifetime of memories of Nelson Mandela and the struggle against apartheid, from which many of us learned. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) referred to the character of the struggle over decades against the evil of apartheid. Many Members talked very movingly and importantly about the nature of that struggle, which I know will also be reflected in the ceremony on Thursday.
The shadow Leader of the House referred to the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). There was mention of shared ambitions and the further ambition that Nelson Mandela showed after he had left office as President of the Republic of South Africa in wanting to achieve great things, not least in the eradication of child poverty across the world.
The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and a number of Members talked about personal memories of living in South Africa. All of them told of a man whose courage, constancy of moral purpose, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, and power of forgiveness, as the Leader of the Opposition said, have been a world-changing feature of our age. As the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and the shadow Leader of the House said, it is sometimes said that he somehow transcended politics, but that is wrong as he used political means to achieve political objectives and in doing so was the epitome of a politician. He recognised that it is the nature of politics for there to be a conflict of interest, but the very best politician is somebody who enables those competing interests not to lead to conflict but to be reconciled. His pursuit of forgiveness and reconciliation is an inspiration for us all.
I visited South Africa in 1995 on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and even in the space of those few years and the year after that first election it was remarkable how parliamentary democracy and the assumption of parliamentary democracy for the future had been adopted in South Africa. That has persisted and for us, in this Parliament, that is something with which we can feel a strong fellow feeling.
The speeches have of course captured the character of a remarkable man, recalling his deeds, his achievements, his words, his unfailing courtesy, his personal courage, his values and, of course, his often mischievous sense of humour. A number of Members talked of him as a great man and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) rightly talked of how he had inspired him, and what a great man he was. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked about when he was asked by the National Portrait Gallery to nominate great figures of the 20th century, and Nelson Mandela was one of three whom he nominated. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talked about him as a towering figure of the 20th century.
I am reminded that when Nelson Mandela retired as President, Tony Leon, whom I met in South Africa back in 1995, spoke of the fact that one can think of leaders who are great and good but that there is a special category beyond that. He described them as those who are great and good but have
“a special kind of grace”.
He could only think of two people who fitted such a category: Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.
We are talking about somebody who is close to unique, but we can also think of him as unique. Not only was he clearly a towering figure of the 20th century, but he will also be regarded as a towering figure in the 21st century, not just because of the ambitions he enunciated after he left the presidency but because of his character, the nature of his approach to truth and reconciliation, the power of forgiveness, and his ambition and how he expressed it. As the right hon. Member for Neath and others recalled, at the Rivonia trial he articulated his determination that he had fought against white domination but would also fight against black domination —he was committed, and if necessary would give his life, to upholding justice and freedom. Those things will endure and we have as much need of them in this century as we did in the last.
In the South African Parliament today, Deputy President Motlanthe called on South Africa and the world to consider how Nelson Mandela’s legacy might be carried forward. In today’s debate, we have heard speeches on exactly that. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath talked about the eradication of child poverty and other Members spoke about the necessity of promoting justice and freedom in the world, of reducing poverty, discrimination and inequality and of using those principles of reconciliation and forgiveness around the world in areas as far apart as Korea and Syria and in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Members such as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) talked about how Nelson Mandela’s ambitions and approach in South Africa are entirely relevant and needed in the continent of Africa in this century and in the future. In that sense, many of today’s speeches would be regarded across the world as showing how we in this House and this country believe that Nelson Mandela’s legacy might be carried further.
Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) suggested that you might bind a copy of the speeches in today’s debate and send it to the South African Parliament. I hope that you will and that when you do, the South African Parliament will recognise that on the same day as they paid tribute to Nelson Mandela, we did so in like fashion. Like them, for us the dream has not ended.
Thank you. I will.
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberOrder. Noisy and discordant conversations are taking place in the Chamber. I am sure I am not alone in wanting to hear the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Could he explain what role devolving stamp duty land tax will play in stimulating the housing market in Wales, including in rural places such as Llanbedr Pont Steffan? Does he agree that the expansion of the Help to Buy scheme—
Order. Unfortunately the question has got nothing to do with the current level of taxation in Wales. [Interruption.] Come on, finish it off.
Will the scheme help not only aspiring home owners in Wales, but my constituents in Lincoln?
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Aside from the important economic benefits to Wales of the new prison, importantly it will help families stay in closer touch with prisoners, which has been proven time and again to be a vital factor in whether people reduce their offending behaviour when they are out of prison.
Let us talk about the people the Prime Minister associates with—[Interruption.]
Order. Let the House calm down. I am concerned, as always, about Back Benchers, and Back Benchers who want to speak should be accommodated, so calm down and let us move on.
The Prime Minister obviously wants to talk about who he associates with. He has taken nearly £5 million from Michael Spencer, whose company was found to be rigging LIBOR; he has a party chairman who operated a company under a false name and was investigated for fraud; he has taken millions from tax exiles and tax avoiders; his party has never paid back the money from Asil Nadir—and they are just the people I can talk about in this House. Did not the planning Minister have it right yesterday, when he said
“the single biggest problem the Conservative party faces is being seen as the party of the rich”?
What the Prime Minister has shown comprehensively today is that he has no answers on the cost of living crisis facing families up and down the country. That is the truth and his close friend the planning Minister is right. [Interruption.]
Order. The House must calm down. Questions will be heard, however long it takes; it is very simple.
The Prime Minister’s close friend the planning Minister is right. He says this: there are many people who “don’t like” the Tory party and “don’t trust” its motives, and he says that the Prime Minister is not the man to reach them. What he is really saying is that this Prime Minister is a loser.
What this proves is the right hon. Gentleman cannot ask about the economy because it is growing, he cannot ask about the deficit because it is falling, he cannot ask about the number of people in work because that is rising, and he cannot even ask about banking because he is mired in his own banking scandal. [Interruption.] What we have learned in the last fortnight is that he is too—[Interruption.]
What we have learned in the last fortnight is that the right hon. Gentleman is too weak to stand up to his paymasters in the trade unions, too weak to stand up to his bankers and too weak to stand up to his shadow Chancellor. We all know that it would be a nightmare, and that is why we are dedicated to making sure the British people do not have to live through it.
Q8. I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I have recently returned from a delegation to Israel—[Interruption.]
Order. I want to hear the words of Dr Offord, and at the moment I cannot hear them.
I will repeat my declaration, Mr Speaker. I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I have recently returned from a delegation to Israel and the Palestinian Authority with Conservative Friends of Israel. On the Israeli streets and in the corridors of power, Iran remains the No. 1 issue of concern. Earlier this week, French President Hollande visited Israel to discuss this matter with Israeli counterparts and appears to have clearly understood Israel’s legitimate concerns. When will our Prime Minister be visiting Israel, our close democratic ally in the region, to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue and other regional concerns?
I would say a couple of things to my hon. Friend. First, investment in our nuclear deterrent has not ceased. Actually, we are taking all the necessary steps to make that main gate decision possible. Also, we have had the alternative study, which I do not think came up with a convincing answer. I have to say, however, that I do not feel that I would satisfy him even if I gave him a nuclear submarine to park off the coast of his New Forest constituency. [Laughter.]
I rather fear that that is true, having known the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for over 30 years.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to The Economist, Britain is now 159th lowest in the world in terms of business investment, just behind Mali, Paraguay and Guatemala? Will he therefore please tell the House when, under his esteemed leadership and that of his Chancellor, Britain can expect to catch up with Mali?
Order. The hon. Lady has a right to put her question and to be heard when she does so, and that is what is going to happen.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The housing association that is landlord to some of the poorest people in my constituency recently voted its chief executive a non-contractual redundancy pay-off of £397,000. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the board’s action and asking for it to be repaid and invested in much-needed tenant services?
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberOn a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will have heard and as everyone else in the House heard, I asked a perfectly reasonable question that was based on clear documentary evidence, as I indicated. Is it parliamentary for the Prime Minister to respond by accusing another right hon. Member of sounding as if he has been taking mind-altering substances? Is that—[Interruption.]
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will complete his point of order. The Prime Minister has indicated a readiness to respond, and that is how we will proceed. A bit of patience is all that is required.
I want to ask, Mr Speaker, whether it is parliamentary to use such an unjustifiable, rude and offensive phrase about another hon. Member.
I was looking for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and I am pleased to have found him. We will just wait for a moment so that an attentive House can hear him.
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberThe terms are a bit too narrow to admit of Birmingham, Edgbaston on this occasion.
I am sure, yes. We can always try to catch the hon. Lady later. There is a bit of a distance between Devon and Cornwall and Birmingham, Edgbaston.
3. What the (a) number and (b) annual cost is of his special advisers.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is dealing with the city deals, tells me that he will be meeting all Cornish MPs, including my hon. Friend, to discuss the matter. I know that there is frustration about it in Cornwall, as well as great enthusiasm for a greater devolution of powers, which I admire and pay tribute to. As my hon. Friend knows, we provided city deals for the eight largest cities in the country first and are now looking at the next rung of the ladder, which involves a further 20 city deals. We will of course look at whether we can spread the approach to other parts of the country subsequently.
The UK Youth Parliament voted for it, the Labour party has put it in its general election manifesto and the Liberal Democrats have always supported it. When will the Deputy Prime Minister bring forward proposals to lower the voting age to 16?
It looks as though I have to arbitrate the sibling rivalry. On this occasion, it will be little brother. I call Mr Keith Vaz.
A very good choice, Mr Speaker.
Last Thursday, two individuals were arrested for carrying out female genital mutilation of a five to six-week-old girl. Since 1985, not a single person has been charged for this terrible crime. Has the Attorney-General had any discussions with the DPP about why that is the case, and if he has not done so, will he do so in future?
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must now move on. There is considerable pressure on the parliamentary timetable.