Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Given the impact of the internet on shopping habits, does the Minister agree that councils have to work with their local town centres to maximise their use, which would include office use and leisure use, as well as shopping use?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I agree and will come to that in a few moments.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the biggest collapse in living standards occurred from 2008 to 2010 under the Labour Government, when they bankrupted the country and drove people out of work? We are trying to recover from that position.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman talks about us bankrupting the country. He knows, because I have heard him talk about this many times before, that the problems we had in 2008-09 found their gestation in the banking sector, which is ultimately where responsibility lies.
…
Mr John Redwood: I want my constituents to have well paid, decent jobs, and I have a lot of sympathy with those who do not wish to see exploitative contracts. Will the shadow Secretary of State say a little more about how he would define an exploitative contract, and whether there is more we could do by way of leadership? He is an influential and talented man. Surely there is more that he could do with Labour councils and trade unions, just as those on the Government Benches can do more with the Government.
Mr Umunna: One of my colleagues has just said to me that being praised by the right hon. Gentleman will spell the end of my career. People will point to examples of Labour-controlled local authorities, but we do not care who is using these contracts. We simply do not want them to be used exploitatively, and I will explain how we can stop that happening.
…
Mr Redwood: When the Secretary of State holds his consultation shortly, will he consult on the extent to which there is a problem and try to get a definition of it, or will he consult on possible remedies to the abuses he has identified?
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills (Mr Vince Cable): Such abuses are highly relevant, but people may come forward and explain, as I have done, that for certain contexts, groups of workers and sectors, such a contractual arrangement is necessary and positive and it would be unhelpful to take action. We have an open mind. We are not trying to close down the debate.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): A couple of Opposition Members have raised the issue of paid advocacy and I want to reassure anyone following our debate that no one in this Chamber is saying that MPs should be allowed to receive top-up money from outside this House and then advocate the cause of those paying them. That is clearly wrong. It is against the rules and nothing in the Bill would facilitate it. I think we all agree on that, so that argument is a red herring.
The issue we are debating is the crucial one of the legitimate role of an MP and whether it can continue untrammelled by a Bill that could inadvertently capture legitimate things that an MP does. If the Leader of the House is going to guide us to reject the new clause, I want reassurance that the lobbying element of an MP’s job will be completely untouched by the way in which he wants the Bill to end up. In moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made it clear that he is trying to resolve the issue of the legitimate work of an MP.
A very important part of an MP’s job is to be the chief lobbyist for their constituency but, as colleagues have said, we may also wish to be a lobbyist for another interest group that is not based in our constituency. It may be a very important part of a shadow Minister’s job to represent an industry, charity or group of underprivileged people who are not in their constituency, in order to shape national policy. Individual Members may wish to pursue similar themes, even if they are not prominent in their constituencies. It enriches our debates and makes for a fairer society if anyone from outside this House can find MPs who support their cause and who can be their advocates. We are lobbyists for all sorts of groups and interests throughout the country, whether they are in our constituencies or not. It is very important that a court or external body does not assume that, because we are paid a salary and because we lobby Ministers on behalf of the interests of people and companies throughout the country, we are subject to the rules under discussion.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not seeking special privilege. We are saying that this Bill is designed to stop abuse of the lobbying system and I want a reassurance from the Leader of the House that it has not been worded in a way that inadvertently could trap MPs as if we were an abuse of the lobbying system, when the healthy expression of lobbying, through and of MPs, is fundamental to our democracy. I think that view is shared throughout the Chamber. The great difference between a free society and a tyranny or an authoritarian regime is that any group, interest, person or company in our country can try to find an MP who thinks they have a fair cause, and if they persuade an MP of that—without any payment of money or anything inappropriate—their cause can run in this House and have the chance of influencing Ministers.
I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that the Bill will leave absolutely no doubt that we can be lobbied and that we can lobby, and that we are the free lobbyist for anyone with a good cause.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Would the Foreign Secretary like to praise Parliament for recommending diplomacy rather than war as the best means of tackling the difficult matter of chemical weapons in Syria? That policy seems to be working rather well. Does he agree that Parliament’s influence extended to the United States of America, where the President called our debate in aid as the reason for his change of approach towards consulting Congress and going for peace?
The Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): It has always been my habit to praise Parliament, even when I disagree with it, and I will continue to do so. I praise our Parliament and democracy all over the world, and I even hold up such instances as examples of our vibrant democracy. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that such progress on chemical weapons—we hope it is progress, provided it is maintained—could not have been made without the credible possibility and threat of military action. We particularly have to thank the United States for that in this connection.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): If such (electric) cars are popular, surely the private sector will provide charging points anyway. We do not have municipal petrol stations, so what is the problem?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): The thrust of the amendments is to require public authorities to provide charging points; the thrust of the Bill is to allow them to provide charging points if they so wish. That is why I am urging my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press his amendments.
Are you today celebrating the fact that at last, after years of Labour and the EU closing electricity plant without effective replacements, a decision has been made that will help keep the lights on in the next decade? Or are you concerned that the drive to low carbon energy means an expensive solution compared to current energy prices and the costs of keeping open older stations or driving hard for gas?
I will give you my thoughts tomorrow when I have studied some of the detail of this new deal.
Today we commemorate one of Britain’s greatest days. Talking and thinking this week-end about Englishness has made me more conscious of the achievement on October 21st 1805, when the navy met the combined fleets of Spain and France off the Spanish coast. It summed up the best of our principles and capacities. It was an action fought to keep our own country free from foreign invasion, but also to help liberate the rest of Europe from a restless warlord who wished to enforce a false unity on the continent by force of arms.
It was victory for the underdog. Napoleon’s forces on land, and on this occasion at sea, were greatly superior. It was victory for daring and innovative tactics. The encounter followed a hectic chase of the French fleet, as Nelson tried to track it down and stop it getting to the English Channel. It was proof, if proof were needed, that training, experience, and belief in their cause, could give the British the strength they needed to vanquish the bully.
Victory at Trafalgar over the combined French and Spanish fleets in 1805 was decisive. It meant Napoleon could not complete his conquest of Europe. England by her exertions had once again ensured the ultimate freedom of many nations and peoples on the continent, as well as protecting her own. Shorn of control of the coasts, and unable to invade England to stop her independent support for the conquered countries on the continent, Napoleon fought on, only to face ultimate defeat. England, then as later, stood for liberty and the self determination of nations.
The victory was comprehensive. 17 Allied ships surrendered, and the Achille blew up . 27 English ships of the line with 2154 guns had overwhelmed a Franco Spanish fleet of 33 capital ships, with 2638 guns. The Allies also mounted more guns on frigates and smaller vessels. 4408 French and Spanish were dead, with 449 English killed in action. It is almost unbelievable that such an inferior force, attacking in the full face of Allied naval fire in a light wind that maximised the time at risk as the fleets edged closer, could achieve so much.
So what was it about that encounter that made it possible? It is true England had a charismatic Admiral who instilled confidence in his captains and men just as he struck doubt and fear into the minds of his enemies. His strategy was bold, and gave the English the advantage once the lines had closed of being able briefly to rake the French and Spanish ships through their vulnerable sterns. His leadership created a true band of brothers amongst his captains, who had considerable freedom to choose their own method of fighting in the melee which followed the clash of the fleets. The heroism of Captain Harvey and his crew on the Temeraire was an example, even on that day of formidable bravery and daring.
The English were able to manoeuvre most of their ships in the light winds from great seamanship, whilst the Allied fleet struggled to get the van of its fleet back into the action once their lines had been cut. The English shot more broadsides from superior loading and firing, and fired on the down roll into the decks of the opponents. The Allied fleet disabled English ships by firing on the uproll into the rigging, without killing so many personnel.
It was the most remarkable day in the long and remarkable history of the English and British navies. May we use wisely the freedoms they helped us secure.
On Saturday night I attended an exciting concert given by the Beenham Wind Orchestra.
They gave a spirited performance of a delighfully varied programme, including Ravel’s Pavanne pour une infant defunte and Rossini’s Tarantella.
One of the highlights of the evening was a virtuoso solo performance on saxophone by Victoria Benjamin of Pequena Czarda.
The Orchestra filled the Church with wonderful sound, making it a memorable evening. I would like to thank all involved.
One of the latest ruses by those who want the state to do more, spend more and interfere more, is to encourage a battle of the generations. Mr Milburn was at it this week. The young can only do better if we spend more public money on them, so we need to take more money away from the old.
I have never bought into the theory that the Baby bulgers are a lucky generation who have sucked up too much of the country’s wealth. The amount of a country’s wealth is not limited or static. Many of the baby boomers made their own luck. They worked hard to advance their own and the nation’s wealth. Their children should be able to go further and faster, as they after all will benefit from the huge sums spent on their health, welfare and schooling (far more than was spent on the baby boomers), and will come to inherit the wealth their parents have built up.
The baby bulgers with wealth are fairly generous to their children. They are already giving them money for deposits on homes, assisting their family budgets and giving money to grandchildren where they have a surplus. Those who don’t have a surplus are often working hard for no reward as child minders and family assistants to their children.
The true battle should be over policy to help to ensure that the next generation can be wealthier and more successful than the baby bulgers. We should not settle for nasty fights over distributing what has already been made or created. We should be more active in debating how to create conditions in which the next generations can be more successful. They too must add to the stock of the nation’s wealth, and earn the higher incomes they naturally seek.
That is why on this site I try to spend more time describing the policies that would liberate enterprise, attract more capital, create more jobs and drive forward higher productivity. Such policies will mean higher average real living standards. Robbing richer Peter to pay poorer Paul will not create higher living standards and may simply alienate, demotivate or lose us Peter. Paul needs a job. Once he has a job he needs help to make a success of it, to move on to a better paid job.
Too many are fatalistic about low wages and no wages. They think people have to stay trapped by them all their lives. They think it unrealistic to suggest people can help themselves to a better life by working hard, undertaking training, venturing in a business of their own and many other ways. Fortunately, in practice, many still do walk from poverty to success, and many more walk from modest beginnings to a more comfortable middle age. Of course state policies should help, and should take care of those who cannot, but the state needs to say more people can succeed.
If we spend all our time arguing over how to distribute what we have, we will put off the entrepreneurs, innovators and grafters who would otherwise stay here and create more wealth, employment and income here. That is the challenge. To do that requires lower tax rates and less government interference with those who are energetic and hard working, not more.
As for the elderly, it is true they have benefitted from recent Coalition improvements to state pensions, and from tripartisan policies of free services and income top ups. They too would benefit more from an improved climate for savings and investment, so they can enjoy a better return on their pension investments, and have a better deal from annuities.
I thought I would share my piece for the Spectator with you. I will be speaking about Englishness on Saturday.
Taking tea at 4, strawberries and cream, Wimbledon on a hot summer’s day, Christmas carols round the tree, street parties for a Queen’s Jubilee: the images of England are often nostalgic and middle class. To some, England, our England, is summed up in the poems of Rupert Brooke, and turned into childhood mystery in the sympathetic portrait of the Shire in Tolkein’s Hobbit. England is the Wind in the Willows, kindness to animals, appreciation of nature’s rich and gentle abundance in a rain swept temperature island. It is Alice in Wonderland, tales for children that recognise children are embarked on their own important journey in their own right. We are seafarers and stay at home islanders, world traders who value our independence.
To others, there is a more muscular side to Englishness. Are we not the nation that pioneered liberty? Did not the English Parliament gain the upper hand
well before the Bastille was stormed? Can we not see in Shakespeare’s blessed plot the sturdy outlines of freedom and nationhood? Did we not inspire an Empire and then transform it into a Commonwealth? Have we not helped save Europe from the twin tyrannies of fascism and communism?
To me Englishness is a living protean creation. We are not done yet. There is a modern side to England which is warm and tolerant, which can wrap itself around the fugitive from tyranny, the overseas adventurer with money and the island dweller brought up in a fast changing world. Whilst England still has some of its old class structure, modern England is open to the talents and critical of snobbery.
Perhaps at its heart Englishness is anti clerical. The English value traditions and the establishment, but only at the price of ridiculing that same power. We may allow some to stand in authority over us, because we prefer order to chaos. We also intend to tease and challenge them, safe in the knowledge that the English elect their rulers and overturn them when necessary.
The English were above all Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Like the Dutch and some Germans they challenged the Catholic Church and defenestrated Catholic power. Unlike the continent England had a bloodless sixteenth century religious revolution, led by the King and cemented by the transfer of wealth from the Monasteries to the energetic and successful. For many decades English thought was governed by its reaction to the Catholic powers. Only England could have bishops but no Pope, all secured under a constitutional monarch who answered to Parliament.
The English were monarchists who intended to control their King. Royals were always the object of scatological pamphlets and cartoons, and were regularly changed or brought to account by others who formed the political nation. Today Parliament gets the treatment once meted out to monarchs. The mother of Parliaments has to be caricatured and pilloried in her turn.
The English like playing games. They have given many to the world. The world has taken to football with passion and ability. Cricket remains the preserve of a smaller group of nations where it acts as a magic circle for a set of values. The English accept we should play up and play the game. The rules in sport, however recondite, should be respected. That should never impede or detract from the full force of sporting conflict.
England is strong enough to keep her identity without a national Parliament, and with her identity and power partly shared with the rest of the United Kingdom. As Scotland has made more moves to assert its own identity, so more have waved English flags and have thought more lovingly of tea at 4. Is that the time? I must find a kettle.
PS Yes, I still want to see English votes for English issues in the Westminster Parliament, which should be both the Union and the English Parliament. I do not think England needs lumbering with yet another bunch of politicians and all their costs and spending plans on top of what we already have. There is too much government in England already, without imposing yet another layer.