Get tough initiatives that won’t work, smearing and briefing against your colleagues; no this is not Labour in 2009 – by Edward Leigh MP

Clearing through some old papers last weekend I came across two old copies of The Times, one for Saturday 20th January 1996 and another for Friday 4th February 2000. I must have saved them for some particular reason though looking through them now I can’t now imagine why.

Thirteen years is not a long time but it does make you realise how issues that seemed so vitally important at the time were not with the benefit of hindsight. I’m not saying that the ones I’ve highlighted were important, clearly they were to those involved, but here are a few that caught my eye.

The front-page headline from 1996 read “Maxwell brothers are cleared.” Many of you will remember Robert Maxwell who was, for a time, a Labour MP, owner of the Daily Mirror and Chairman of Oxford United Football Club. I’ve no doubt that in those capacities he had some influence in the country’s affairs but he is now but a footnote in our history. The headline referred to the trial of his two younger sons who were cleared following a long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the pension funds of his companies.

On the political pages one of the headlines states “Lilley orders clampdown to cut £730m housing benefit fraud.” Peter Lilley was, in 1996, the Government minister for Social Security. Had that headline appeared in the paper’s of today it would have surprised none of us.

In the 2000 edition I note that Manchester United were top of the Premier League followed by Leeds, Arsenal and Liverpool. United and Arsenal are still in the top four and Liverpool could still finish there despite a run of poor results, but Leeds fell on hard times a year or two later. But looking through the league as a whole things are still pretty much as you will find them today.

Elsewhere the paper includes stories about the minimum wage, worries about miss-use of databases and a Government minister claiming that there was a whispering campaign against her.

The minimum wage story was an announcement by the then shadow chancellor Michael Portillo that a future Conservative Government would not reverse the minimum wage legislation. That remains our policy by the way, and the minister concerned about the whispering campaign was the late Mo Mowlam. Interestingly enough the letters column contained one from one Alistair Campbell – Tony Blair’s press secretary – denying that such a campaign existed!

Change the name of the worried minister to whoever Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson have in their sights and the story could be running this week

As regards databases – there are now thousands more of them open to miss-use. This Government alone has created scores of them, all containing the most personal information about us and, over the years, managed to lose laptops, disks and memory sticks containing far too much of it.

Speech on the Coroners and Justice Bill Lords Amendments, by Edward Leigh MP

The Government has got a lot on its plate at the moment. Several Bills look perilously close to running out of time before prorogation, including this one. Yet here we are wasting precious time debating whether to crush a safeguard for free speech. I would have thought the answer was obvious. Our default position should always be in favour of free speech.

Free speech is a foundation stone of our democracy. A lot of people are worried it is going out of fashion. If they knew we were about to vote on whether to delete a free speech clause from a controversial new homophobia offence that even many homosexual people don’t want, they might be more worried still.

As I understand it, the new offence criminalizes threatening words or behaviour combined with an intention to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Any good Christian can tell you it is quite wrong to stir up hatred against anyone, on any grounds whatsoever. But it is also wrong to send the police in to harass people in their homes for expressing an opinion about sexual ethics which does not accord with Islington wine-bar orthodoxy. But that is what is happening. New cases crop up in the newspapers with alarming regularity.

People are entitled to say they believe that something is wrong and that they disagree with it and that they disapprove of it. That is free speech. They can say they think Roman Catholicism is wrong and wicked and damaging to your health. Militant atheists say exactly these things. But we accept that they are not trying to stir up hatred. They are merely expressing a point of view.

I can say that I think Labour MPs are wrong but that is not remotely the same thing as urging people to go out and beat them up.

People are saying some pretty strong things about MPs of all parties at the moment. That too is not the same thing as saying you should bash them or be horrible to them in the street. No-one is suggesting a law against inciting hatred of MPs. People have a right to criticize anyone they like.

Now, I realize we are not debating whether or not to introduce the new homophobia offence – of which the Waddington free speech clause is currently a part. The principle of introducing the offence has already been decided in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. However, it is worth pointing out that Matthew Parris and Peter Tatchell have both argued against the new offence.

Matthew Parris has called the incitement offence, “a particularly silly idea”.[1]

Peter Tatchell said “I’d like to see all the incitement to hatred laws repealed. They are unnecessary.”[2]

Both of these men have also written in support of the Waddington free speech clause.

I’ve been trying to find out, actually, whether there are any homosexual people who actively oppose the Waddington clause.

Stonewall, of course, have previously lobbied against it, although even they seem to have gone a bit quiet on it. There’s nothing on their web site. I haven’t been sent a briefing by them but perhaps that is not a surprise.

But it was quite fun to discover that they originally told a Committee of this House that they supported the idea of a free speech clause.  And when we discussed this in March, the worst thing they could think of to say about the free speech clause was that some bad people might “attempt” to take advantage of it. They didn’t seem convinced that these bad people would succeed in their attempt, or else I’m sure they would have said so.

I hardly think there is any great threat of people getting away with saying truly hateful and potentially violent things about homosexual people by citing the free speech clause. It simply says:

“for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

Compare that to the free speech clause in the religious hatred offence which says:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

Now that really is a free speech clause! And people have taken it to heart, judging from Libby Purves piece in this morning’s Times eliding Roman Catholics with Islamist extremists.

But we take these verbal attacks on the chin because we believe in free speech. A majority of Members in this House voted for the free speech clause in the religious hatred offence precisely to ensure that people can go on saying these sorts of things about religious people. Because the alternative is oppression, and if the law oppresses freedom of speech in one area, it will soon oppress freedom of speech in other areas.  In part, we defend other people’s freedom of speech in order to defend our own.

Just to be clear, in the same way that Mr Tatchell and Mr Parris demonstrated a genuine liberalism by opposing the introduction of a law which they could use to protect their own beliefs and lifestyle, I also opposed the introduction of a religious hatred law, even though I could cite it to protect my own beliefs and lifestyle.

When Liberty briefed in support of this clause they also said they wanted to see a moratorium on hate speech legislation to examine the need for it. Perhaps the next Conservative government can look into repealing some of the new laws introduced in the last few years which infringe on freedom of speech. I’m sure Liberty will be able to advise us on where to start.

However, today we cannot vote to abolish either the religious hatred offence or the homophobic hatred offence but we can vote to maintain a sliver of common sense, a modicum of protection for the expression of other people’s opinions, regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

I urge the House to accept the Lords’ amendment.

---

[1] http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-writer-applauds-free-speech-victory/

[2] http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-activist-welcomes-lords-free-speech-win/

What a Balls up – by Edward Leigh MP

So Ed Balls is going to force kids to have sex education whatever their parents think. When will these centralisers ever learn. I am not going to get into the merits or otherwise of sex education. I don’t need to. Because the truth is that you can’t and shouldn’t seek to impose your ideas from the centre. Every head teacher should have the power to run his. School as his professinal judgement dictates. And if parents want to give their own sex education or not that is their fundemental human right.

We have lost the battle on the Lisbon Treaty, but we have not lost the war – by Edward Leigh MP

So France’s Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche thinks that British Conservatives have “castrated themselves” and that William Hague’s European policy published yesterday is “autistic”.

I am a great Francophile. Both my parents were brought up in France. All my children went to the French Lycée in London for part of their education, as did I. I speak French. I have a picture of General Charles de Gaulle hanging in my office.

When de Gaulle arrived in Bordeaux in June 1940 the other politicians and soldiers were walking around like scared rabbits. He didn’t say it’s all over, we can’t resist history, the Germans have won. He said, “La France a perdu une bataille, mais la France n’a pas perdu la guerre.” “France has lost a battle, but France has not lost the war.”

The truth is that British Conservatives are not isolated from Europe. We have many friends and our vision of a de Gaulle “Europe des Patries” is gaining ground.

One day and not too long in the future, after we have repatriated powers, we will lead a referendum to give our people the choice and buttress our vision of a deregulated Europe of nation states trading freely with each other. Our time will come.

Bully boy Sugar betrays small businesses – by Brian Binley MP

What a really compassionate, understanding and humane man Alan Sugar must be.

How courageous that he should blast small firms adding: “that most small businesses didn’t need more money, they need insolvency practitioners”. What a way to encourage entrepreneurs to start up new businesses and provide the jobs growth the country so desperately needs.

I have been fortunate enough to found two small businesses which now collectively employee some 230 people, but I well remember the long sleepless nights when I wondered where the next order was coming from or whether a dodgy debt would be paid.

I remember, during the last recession, when age debt was stretched almost to breaking point and my house was on the line.

I remember the worry, the fear but also the determination to succeed and I believe my experience of people who run small businesses is much closer to the truth than the well known business bully boy, Alan Sugar.

The truth is that the Government he joined to grab instant aristocracy had no understanding of the culture of small business and it seems neither does the very un-noble Lord Sugar.

Gordon Brown let the economy rip for his own reasons and was the prime architect of the problems the SME sector now faces. He told the FSA to go easy on casino banking and as a result small and medium sized businesses are now paying the price.

Only yesterday, in the BIS Select Committee, leading figures from the aerospace industry told us they were deeply worried at the pressures being placed on SME’s in their supply chains and were especially concerned by the seeming unwillingness of banks to lend for growth and development.

As every M.P. knows, small businesses up and down the country are facing lengthening aged debt and unpaid invoices and are going to their banks pleading for help with working capital. They are being screwed into the ground by high interest rates, personal guarantees and overdraft renegotiation fees- and they are just the successful ones.

What a fitting person Lord Sugar is to be appointed the Governments Enterprise Champion.

In Government- he should be incarcerated! Enterprise Champion- he should be fired!

The Right must continue to make the case for real reform – by Edward Leigh MP

In all the furore over Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time, the voice of the moderate right has had little chance to express itself.

The first truth is that the Labour government itself has given a tremendous boost to the BNP with its immigration policies. The careful controls such as the Primary Purpose Rule which had controlled immigration under successive Conservative Governments were torn up. There has in the last twelve years been an unprecedented wave in immigration of over 2 million people. One report I read this week suggests that in the not too distant future our population will reach 77 million.

A cap is needed now on immigration.

In case anyone thinks there is something racist in this I would argue that the uncontrolled eastern European has long been a problem, much as I love Poles and their work ethos.

Even the Conservative asylum policies, designed to admit small numbers of political refugees, were a problem. Within the last twelve years these rules have been abused.

The second boost to far-right parties has been a general sense of hopelessness engendered by our increasingly rule based, regulation driven, politically correct society. We should remember that Britishness is primarily about freedom from the state. We are the only country in Europe never to have been a police state or had one imposed on us. Again a new Conservative government must have the sort of bonfire of controls that the Conservative government of 1951 initiated.

The third boost to the extremist policies has been the moral relativism of mainstream liberal thinking. Politicians are frightened of proclaiming an ideal because it may not be attainable by everybody or because they themselves fall short of it. An obvious example is marriage. It may be difficult for people to commit themselves to each other for life, to bring up children, but that does not mean it is wrong or that in acknowledging the fact we are attacking alternative lifestyles.

The fourth boost for the far-right, and most difficult to talk about, has been the squeamishness of mainstream politicians in dealing with Muslim extremism, not just the terrorist but the cultural variety. I make no secret of my admiration for Britain’s Jewish community. Muslims should learn from their example. Jewish people here have kept their religion, (if they want, of the liberal or orthodox variety) they have kept their identity, but they have chosen to integrate. They have become more British than the British; they have contributed enormously to Britain’s cultural, intellectual and business strength.

I admire Islam, its spirituality and its values. But Muslims who choose to settle here, and they are most welcome, must see themselves primarily as loyal Britons, not just in the sense of citizenship but cultural sense as well.

The last boost for extremist parties has been the lack of radical intellectual vigour in the mainstream ones. There are too few back-benchers on the opposition party and too little encouragement given to radical ideas which appeal to the party loyalist. I recently attended a Conservative county wide dinner. I was the only Conservative MP there. This doesn’t matter much, but what the party should be worried about is that there were only 40 people there. There were 2,000 journalists at the party conference but only 1,500 delegates. To break through you need ideas coming up from below. You must inspire your activists.

Back-bench MPs and MEPs who come up with new ideas should be encouraged. I am not saying that the leadership should adopt all there policies, just that we need a debate about them.

Let me give a few examples. First, localism. If we really believe in this should local authorities not be given the tax licensing powers, for instance through local sales tax being set free from central government.

In the education world we must trust the professionals. Schools really should be set free. Heads should be entirely free to set the curriculum, hire and fire staff and select and expel pupils as they wish, as happens so successfully in the private sector. Parents should be able to able to buy into the private education sector with a discount equivalent to the cost of state education. I say this by the way as a parent of a child in a comprehensive school.

The NHS is not a religion. People who have contributed all their lives as tax-payers should be able to top-up NHS care with private care or private medicines if the NHS can’t provide them with what they need. Pensioners should be allowed to claim tax relief for private health insurance (the policy of previous Conservative governments) and this should be extended as circumstances permit. I say all this as someone who has to rely exclusively for himself and his family on the NHS. At present I can afford nothing else.

We must continue to be explicit about the state of the public finances, acknowledge the need for cuts in the public sector and unveil efficiency programmes. Much progress has been made in this respect. For a long time people like me, who argued for breaking free of Labours spending plans, were called dangerous extremists who would cost us the next election; who says that now?

And of course when we take power we need a referendum on our relationship with Europe and ensuring our national sovereignty.

And so the list goes on. We need radical ideas from the grass roots. We need of course to capture the middle ground but politics needs to be fun as well!

WHAT DON’T THEY GET? – by Brian Binley MP

So the city is furious at George Osborne’s “bonus war” on bankers. Yet these are the self some people who created casino banking which almost bought the country to its knees.

Don’t they get the fact that the majority of people regard massive bonuses as unacceptable?

Don’t they understand that bonuses for top people of close on a million pounds simply dismays small and medium sized business managers who cant get working capital to keep their companies going.

Don’t they realise that city workers are not rated highly in the esteem league table at present and big bonuses just add to the contempt in which they are held.

If SME employees, public sector workers and politicians are not expecting pay rises then city workers should have the decency to show similar restraint. However, their howls of anguish convince us that they don’t recognise the reality of the situation.

If that is the case then the Conservative Opposition must act and George Osborne is right to call for a clampdown.