UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Peter Bottomley

  • Peter Bottomley – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    Peter Bottomley – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    The tribute made by Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House of Commons, in the House on 2 February 2022.

    May I say through you, Mr Speaker, and through the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) the mother of Amy, Joe and Harry, that the personal was very well covered in St Margaret’s two days ago? The political has been covered by the press and by Gordon Brown when he spoke at the service. I would like to contribute a parliamentary word and a trade union one.

    The parliamentary one is that Jack showed what can be achieved if, by chance, you cannot have ministerial office during your time here. For those who come here thinking that being a Minister is the only thing that matters, they are wrong.

    Secondly, I believe that if we could have more people who have had serious, continued trade union experience coming into this House, the House of Commons would be better for it, and I hope that that will not just be on one side of the House.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Restrictions

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Restrictions

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West and the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2021.

    I think the House will want to acknowledge the power of the speech that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has just given. We wish his predecessor well. One thing we can say about the hon. Gentleman is that his voice carries very well around this Chamber.

    The Government are right to ask for support for these regulations. I am glad the Opposition will in general be supporting them, and I will do so as well. If the public health risk increases, we must ask what changes to regulations are proportionate and appropriate.

    It may have been missed by some who have written to me, but some of the regulations are relaxations; others are not. The regulations are intended to make sure that some places can stay open if people abide by sensible precautions.

    One constituent who has written to me today says he and his family and many of his friends will not go to places of public congregation because too many people are not vaccinated or showing they are not infected by the virus. That may be a minority view expressed, but I think it is one that is held in the hearts and minds of many of our constituents.

    To those who have said an impact assessment has not been made, I say that it has and it has been published; those who invigilate assessments do not think it is adequate, but that is a side point. Annex B on pages 54 and 55 shows the proportion of people by age in the national health service who have been vaccinated.

    We must recognise that one reason why half of those who are unvaccinated are aged under 40 is that the opportunity for vaccination came later for them than for those who are older. But if they do not think it matters to them, I would say to them that it does, for the reasons that our hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the practising doctor, gave. When caring for people who are vulnerable—obviously, people in medical care are, in the same way as those in social care—the most we can do to protect ourselves also has the impact of protecting them. If in doubt, get the protection that the vaccine and the booster give.

    I was going to make a rather longer speech, but I will stop now because many hon. Members want to contribute, many of whom will disagree with me. I will respect what they have to say, but I will say very clearly that I back the Government in these regulations.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Owen Paterson

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Owen Paterson

    The speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the Commons on 3 November 2021.

    I do not think anyone enjoys taking part in this debate. Were the Government’s motion to be considered unamended, I would vote for it. Had the second amendment been selected, I would vote for it. I will not vote for the first amendment.

    I was on the Standards Committee up to 2003, when I withdrew on a point of practice, rather than principle, that the House, the Speaker and the then Labour Government had not supported Elizabeth Filkin. I am not going to change my practice now. I am one of the people, probably like most people in this House, who has read the full report. I have read what the chief vet said about the milk allegation. I have read what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has said, and to whom I join in party sympathy for what has happened in his life. I recognise that the involvement of Randox with Aintree and with him, and his wife’s role at Aintree, meant that he would be close to a business, and I recognise that much of what he said is uncontested by the commissioner and by the Standards Committee.

    The issue is whether he would have done better, as I think was possibly indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, to have said that he held one view, the commissioner and the Committee held another, that he now recognises that what they felt was reasonable, and he is sorry to have a had a view that has caused this upset and these difficulties to all of us. I still hope that were I in that situation I would have had the sense, basically, to accept that there are views other than my own and that I should not always see things with my own justification rather than in the way people outside this House, and some inside this House, would see them.

    On the decision as to whether the contents of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) are correct, I do recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the 2003 recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is worth looking at. But that was 18 years ago, and this is a serious problem. It should have been brought back for consideration by the House or by senior Members of this House during the past 18 years. I am happy to bring it forward now as a way of changing what should be the normal process of upholding the Standards Committee’s endorsement of the standards commissioner’s advice to the Committee.

    I refer to the debate in 2010 when Jack Straw was the Justice Secretary and Sir George Young, as he then was, contributed for my party, as did I. We chose the system we are now using. If we want to consider changing it, we should do it in a proper way. I do not regard this as appropriate now.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

    I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).

    In 2010, David Amess made a speech in which he said it was extraordinary to listen to the then acting leader of the Labour party, now the Mother of the House. He said that she made a splendid speech, and that one of the jokes was fantastic and he was going to use it in the future.

    David’s all-party group on fire safety and rescue worked with the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform—we had a number of meetings over the year. Alongside city status for Southend, may I put it to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that they could make his legacy the finding, fixing and funding of the problems on defective leasehold flats, while chasing those responsible and getting them to pay up? I think he would wish for that.

    If we look around this Chamber, we can see the shields of those who have died—some in active service in the last world war. Ronald Cartland was the first. Other Members went forward knowing the risks. So did Police Constable Keith Palmer.

    Jo Cox and her family are in our hearts, as we have been told, and we remember Andrew Pennington, the Liberal MP’s caseworker who also died in a constituency attack. A few of us were here when Airey Neave’s car was blown up. Robert Bradford and I were together in the Westminster Wobblers, the House of Commons’ football team. Tony Berry was my Whip, and Ian Gow and I canvassed together in Ulster. Gow’s death, I believe, was timed to make us forget the murder of the Sister of Mercy, Catherine Dunne, a few days earlier in July 1990.

    In David’s first speech in January 1984, he said:

    “Charity has been described as that amiable quality that moves us to condone in others the sins and vices to which we ourselves are addicted.”

    When he made that first speech in the Commons, he was able to say that there with him were five people who had previously represented his own constituency, which must be some kind of a parliamentary record.

    David was followed by the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who cheerfully said:

    “At the risk of inciting dissent from those behind me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his maiden speech. I do not agree with what he said, but it was no worse than the speech of the Minister.”—[Official Report, 17 January 1984; Vol. 71, c. 219-20.]

    That was the line that Douglas Jay used when he congratulated me in 1975, so the response must be in the Labour Whips’ booklet.

    The right hon. Member went on to wish David well in the time that he had in Parliament. That time is well described by Trevor Phillips in The Times today. His leading words talked of

    “the simplicity of a man who served.”

    He said:

    “He knew his constituents well and showed them what the Tory party could be.”

    Mr Speaker, can we thank you and the party leaders for what you have said over the past three days? May I also add John Bercow who, in an interview I heard, represented the feeling of those who have served with David in this House?

    Many of these attacks are done for calculated publicity and public reaction. We should try to make both act against the wishes of perpetrators. The only guarantee is that, when there is a gap, it will be filled. MPs are in the middle of a pack of people at some risk, including ministers of religion, mental health workers, public transport staff, lone shopkeepers, women police officers, journalists, fair employment builders in Northern Ireland and the judiciary, and especially women and girls going home and at home.

    We should defend people in every walk of life, in politics and universities—here I mention mildly the philosopher Professor Kathleen Stock in my county of Sussex. St Margaret’s Church, Parliament Square, where I serve as parliamentary warden, is where we will gather later today and for the Roman Catholic service on Wednesday.

    We have learned to stand with the Irish and the Northern Irish against violence. We stand with Muslims against Islamophobia, with Jews against anti-Semitism and with all the targets of fascists and white supremacists. We do have to be vigilant, but we also have to continue to be diligent in contact with constituents. Of course, we must review security risks, including the insecure location of the national holocaust memorial presently proposed in Victoria Tower Gardens.

    At the opening of the Imperial War Museum’s holocaust galleries last week, I collected posters. David might wish us to remember their words, as if directed to us and to our constituents.

    “Freedom is in peril. Defend it with all your might.”

    Another, which brings his face to my mind, says:

    “Your courage, your cheerfulness, your resolution will bring us victory.”

    I end with the then Prime Minister’s first speech to the House of Commons:

    “Let us go forward together.”—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]

  • Sir Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    Sir Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    The speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 18 August 2021.

    While the best still apply to join our Royal Navy, the Army, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force, we can have hope for the future. We weep for the losses; we acknowledge mistakes; we will remember them. When I, like other MPs, have visited our armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands and the former Yugoslavia, I was with ordinary people, working together to achieve remarkable results, of significance to us and often of lifesaving importance to others.

    Those who were here for the Saturday debate on the Falklands found, I think, a rather different style of debate, when people were united on what we ought to try to achieve. As Enoch Powell said, the reason to intervene in the Falklands was not that we were guaranteed to succeed, but that the mission was capable of success. That would not have been the case if we were trying to resist, say, China taking Hong Kong.

    Our experience in Afghanistan in the 19th century, and in the 20 years’ conflict that has now come to an end, will make people think about whether what was aimed for in Afghanistan after the initial targets were achieved was going to have an end that could be happy or content. I do not think it was an example of trying to resist nationalism, because the forces within Afghanistan are multifarious and have their histories, which I will not go into now.

    The second debate, which I have read up on a number of times during my parliamentary service, was the Norway debate, where again there were some speeches of most remarkable intelligence and experience, and others that, frankly, I think people should have been slightly ashamed of. We have to learn that what this Parliament can do is not to be Government but to try to question Government, support Government where appropriate, and get them to change at times.

    On the question whether there should be an inquiry, it would be interesting to hear the views of the Chairmen of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees, either today or some other time, because I think that would be useful.

    I do not want to spend too much time, because I want to make up some of the time that was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who when he said he was concentrating seems to have lost his concentration once or twice, and when he said he was being wound up, some of us thought ought to have been wound down. [Laughter.]

    The key issues are obvious: what is happening now, what happens now and then what lessons can be learned. On what is happening now, the reports given by Ministers both in this House and to Members of Parliament across the Chamber are important and valuable; please can those continue? What can happen will be determined in large part by those who are presently in command in Afghanistan—whether they control Afghanistan is a separate issue—but people may look back and say that the speed of transition, in the end, might have been better than a prolonged start to a civil war. But that is in the future; we cannot judge that and I will not try to do that.

    I end by saying this. If we decide that we are not going to get involved in world affairs, the world will be worse. If we decide that we are going to have the capability to work with others when we can, and occasionally on our own, that is fine. But as a Parliament, we ought to be aware that we probably made a mistake in backing Government over one of the Iraq wars. In my view we certainly made a mistake in not backing Government over Syria. If we look at the number of people who have died in Syria and the number of refugees around the world and make the comparison with Afghanistan, I think we probably should be ashamed of our vote over Syria.

    I stop now, as an example to others.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on the UK Planning System

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on the UK Planning System

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2021.

    The whole House—those who are here virtually and those who are here physically—will want to thank the members of the Committee and its Chairman for the work they have put into this report and the work they do on other parts of planning and housing.

    I am glad that the Chairman said that the Committee is going to do a review of permitted development rights. The notorious statutory instrument 2020/632 is causing chaos all round England.

    I want to add to what the Chairman said—he said that he could not cover every point—to reinforce the absence of the words “local councillor” in the planning statement. It seems to me that the Government need to realise that Members of Parliament matter and so do local councillors, especially in the planning process.

    I am glad that the Chairman of the Committee raised the point about non-housing development, whether that is commercial development or making provision, where there is large-scale development, for churches, sports areas, children’s facilities and the like, so that a whole community is held in mind.

    I would like to end by inviting the Chairman of the Committee to come with the Minister to my two planning authorities, Arun District Council and Worthing Borough Council, to look down from the chalk garden at Highdown, which is well renovated now, look at the vineyard and then look at the north and south Goring gap, and give assurances to my constituents that that green area around the town of Worthing, the largest in West Sussex, will not be built on as a result of anything in these proposals. If it were metropolitan, it would be green belt and protected. It is not. It still should be protected.

    We should not have to build on every strategic gap between one town and a village, or between the hamlet of Kingston and the villages of East Preston, Ferring and Goring. Please come.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 12 April 2021.

    Prince Philip would have laughed at the Leader of the Opposition’s jest about finding a compass and comparing that with politics. The Leader of the Opposition, following the Prime Minister’s excellent speech, also spoke about the titles that the Duke of Edinburgh held. One was “the Maharaja of Not Very Much”. That is a translation of a title given to him by Sir Reggie Bennett MP when, at the Thursday Club, Prince Philip volunteered to join the Imperial Poona Yacht Club, to which I will return later.

    There have been fair and full tributes in many of our papers. I pay tribute to the journalists, who, from a standing start have managed to go on providing interesting reading. I mention, not as the best but as some of the most recent examples, articles by Alice Thomson and Libby Purves in The Times today.

    For those who think that only the House of Commons is having such a sitting, I point out that the House of Lords has had some really good speeches including those by, to mention just a few, Lord Boyce, Lord Alderdice, Lord Janvrin and Lord Dholakia. I hope that what we say here will be of interest to those who pay attention to proceedings in Parliament.

    In your House, Mr Speaker, Prince Charles observed to George Thomas, later Lord Tonypandy, that if the Duke of Edinburgh or he never said anything interesting, they were accused of being dull, and if they were not dull, they were accused of being controversial. Each was willing to lead on issues that were not already fashionable or dominant among popular concerns. In 1952, on the death of his father-in-law, Prince Philip became patron of the Industrial Society, which followed on from the Duke of York camps. That then developed No. 3 Carlton House Terrace, for a time called Peter Ranch House, which is now known as Prince Philip House and is the headquarters of the Royal Academy of Engineering. In developing the fellowship of engineers and later the Royal Academy, Prince Philip gave attention and paid tribute to the successful endeavours of many people who should be considered as important as those who studied economics, politics or the classics.

    Prince Philip was guest of honour at the Taxi Charity’s 1979 visit to Worthing, and, with Her Majesty the Queen, at Durrington High School in 1999, he met all kinds of members of the community. It is the sort of engagement that matters a lot in each of our constituencies. We remember that they did that in all constituencies, all over the country.

    I referred to Reggie Bennett. He is quoted as saying that the Imperial Poona Yacht Club had 25 really excellent sailing members and that Prince Philip was an honorary member, which was a back-handed compliment to one of the best sailors around. In the foreword to the book of the club’s history—I will conclude with this, as it is quite a long quotation—Prince Philip wrote that

    “it is true that all the members are serious yachtsmen in the sense that they are rather good at it, but what is equally important is that they all share a keen appreciation of the value of anti-seriousness. If you can bring yourself to read this book from cover to cover, you will be in a position to judge for yourself whether or not life can be significantly improved by not taking it too seriously all the time.”

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on International Women’s Day

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on International Women’s Day

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West and the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2021.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    We now go to the Father of the House, who, I recollect, has taken part in this International Women’s Day debate on every occasion I have observed over the last 25 years—long before it was fashionable.

    Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)

    That is probably because my mother thought she would have been a better MP than I have been, and my wife, daughters and granddaughters are probably certain that they could be, too.

    I want to recognise that there has been progress, but I also want to join the right hon. and hon. Ladies—colleagues—who have spoken so far. We will listen in silence to the next speaker, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), giving the roll call of those who been killed by men.

    I echo the remarks that have been and will be made about the fact that cuts in our target for UN overseas aid will predominantly hit women—the women whom I have been dedicated to since I was a trustee of Christian Aid, and since I served on the Select Committee on overseas aid in the 1970s. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to say that the Government should stick to the promise that was proudly in the Conservative manifesto at the last election.

    Domestically, it is not a question of, “Most men behave well most of the time, and no one can claim to be perfect,” or a question of, “Why are most women in a worse position?” The fact is that we all need to change. I hope that we can get to the stage where I do not have to carry a whistle on my keyring, and neither do my daughters and granddaughters.

    People need to feel safe at work, when travelling and in their domestic circumstances. For that to happen, we need to find a way to ensure that people have the patience and courage to challenge behaviours in themselves and others that result in people feeling threatened and suffering violence, whether physical, mental or economic. I would like people to be able to be people. I recognise that we may be men, we may be women, we may be female, we may be male, we may be mixed, we may have other orientations or we may feel differently. That is not the point; the point is that we should be safe and secure, and we should be able to talk. For that, we need to encourage each other.

    I hope that the elements of this debate will be reported in the newspapers, along with practical suggestions about what we can see in ourselves and around us. As Dr Richard Stone—one of the assessors, along with Sir William Macpherson, on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry—said in relation to housing, too often we ask the victims to put things right. He said that it is normally white, middle-class men in full-time jobs who have the power. It is our responsibility to join with others to make life better. Whatever our age, stage, race, background or religion, people need to be safe, and at the moment women do not feel safe. I am glad to have contributed, and I hope to learn from what I will hear in a moment.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Unsafe Cladding

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Unsafe Cladding

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2021.

    It is on record that I am a leaseholder, and I face no problems of these kinds. I have been working on leaseholders’ problems for well over 10 years, with the support of the campaigning charity Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.

    I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to the Secretary of State, who are now showing that Government understand a large part of the scale of the problems. I believe that it is better if we do not have a vote today. We should look on this debate as a “take note” one. We are all trying to face the problems of our constituents who are living in homes that are unsafe, unsaleable and unaffordable. I pay tribute to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I look forward to hearing the Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), speak shortly. Its reports on the situation of leaseholders even before we knew about this tragedy and its subsequent reports about the Fire Safety Bill are important.

    I wish Michael Wade well in trying to advise Government on finding ways forward, and I commend the then Prime Minister who, on 27 June two and a half years ago, said that the Government do not rule anything out. What needs to be ruled in are, first, making the money available so that buildings can be made safe; secondly, challenging the insurance industry, which is putting premiums up at rates that I think should be investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority to see whether they are fully justifiable; and, thirdly, making sure that in the end, and as we know from court actions and inquiry results we can anticipate, the people who are responsible for this chaos—dangerous chaos—will actually have to pay. I do not think the taxpayer should necessarily have to do it; the Government have to make themselves responsible for finding the way forward.

    Those who are responsible—not all, knowingly—include the developers, the builders and the present landlords, some of whom were the developers. They include local building control possibly, national regulators certainly and the component manufacturers. Those of us who have been speaking about the problem for the past three years—and I wish that some of the other advisers to Government on leasehold issues had been saying the same thing rather more clearly—think that this has to be tackled in a way that cuts short waiting for court actions that may take 10 years and provides the money now, by the end of the year, so that work can be started and finished as soon as possible and so that people have homes they can stay in or leave safely, and are affordable. I would trust those on the Select Committee most to work with Government to make sure that we find the solution, and I would hope to know that we have done that before we have got another few months further forward.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Holocaust Memorial Day

    Peter Bottomley – 2021 Speech on Holocaust Memorial Day

    The speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West, in the House of Commons on 28 January 2021.

    I bow in respect to the first two speeches, and I expect they will be matched by those that follow.

    “We remember those who were murdered for who they were. We stand against prejudice, hostility and division in the world today. We learn from the tragedies and horrors of the past. We work towards a better future.”

    Those were the words put out with the photograph of the candle we lit last night. Had I been born in the Dutch Jewish line of my family, I could have died at Bergen-Belsen with many of the other 113 members of grandfather’s extended family.

    The purpose of the holocaust memorial and education centre is for us to know, to care and to act, whatever our heritage. It may be that the Secretary of State will announce that if the proposed national heritage memorial and learning centre is built—whether it is built in Victoria Tower Gardens or not—then entry will be free. We have always assumed it would be free, but the Government were not able to say that. What the Government did say through its agency is that the bulk of the money should be spent on education, not on construction.

    The proposal in September 2015 was that the centre should be completed by 2020, a year ago, that it should have the support of the local authority wherever it was to be built, and that it could be built anywhere within 3 miles of London on a suitable site. Page 10 of the publication showed that and included: west of Regent’s park; Spitalfields; most of Southwark, including the Imperial War Museum—

    The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick) indicated dissent.

    Sir Peter Bottomley

    The Secretary of State may shake his head. He will have his chance to speak. I want him at the moment to listen, if I may. I respect him and I respect what he tries to do, but I ask him to publish the analysis done before 2016 of the sites at the Imperial War Museum and Victoria Tower Gardens. I will publish what I know. He will need to consider what he is putting forward and his deputy needs to say whether he can seriously make a decision on the Secretary of State’s behalf when the Government are so implicated in an inappropriate scheme in an inappropriate place, with a design not accepted in Ottawa.