Cadet Expansion Programme

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

What a pleasure it is to respond to the contribution of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) this evening. I hope that we will be able to reflect on a huge success in our country. It is a wonderful thing for our communities to have cadets. I have seen them in my constituency, and they are an important part of the local fabric, supporting occasions from Remembrance Sunday to Armed Forces Day and beyond. We are lucky to have them.

I pay particular tribute to the volunteers who make that possible. So many of our institutions have, I am afraid, suffered as a result of the pandemic, and it has been extremely difficult for them to get going again, yet cadets seem to have bounced back and be flourishing, and the reason is that there are people who are prepared to give up their time and shoulder a fair amount of inconvenience to serve their communities in that way. We all owe them a great deal.

The benefits that our cadet programmes offer to young people and society as a whole are well known and well rehearsed. I agree wholeheartedly that the MOD-sponsored cadet forces provide brilliant opportunities for our young people. They have been catalogued by academics from the University of Northampton, to whom I am grateful for their rigorous appraisal, which gives scientific objectivity to what we all understand instinctively to be the case, namely that cadets are a force for good.

Participation in cadets has been shown to build character, self-discipline and self-reliance. It improves teamworking, problem solving, leadership and social skills. It provides a boost for physical and mental health—benefits that I am sure my hon. Friend will know about from his time as a cadet, which he described so well. I have to say that my time was not quite as happy as his. I remember joining the air cadets briefly. I was told I was going to fly aircraft. After about two months, it dawned on me that that was not going to happen; it would be marching up and down for as long as I could put up with it, which was not very long. I have to say that I parted company from the cadets much sooner than my hon. Friend, but there it is. I am sure it benefited me on some level.

Headteachers of schools that have established cadet units report that their cadets have improved attendance and academic attainment, as well as behaviour and self-confidence. Some headteachers use cadets as a central part of their strategy to reduce exclusions. Cadet programmes are also a gateway to new skills, new qualifications, and even employment. They are also a valuable way of making young people aware of the further opportunities available in defence and defence-related industries, although, as my hon. Friend made clear, cadet forces are not meant to be recruiting tools. As our military footprint has shrunk, however, cadets have assumed an even more important role in at least providing some sort of presence in many communities where otherwise there would be none. They benefit the whole of society by building links between different communities, boosting social mobility, and strengthening young people’s resilience to becoming involved in antisocial behaviour, criminality and even extremism. In short, joining the cadets is a springboard to success, as well as being a powerful engine for social mobility and levelling up.

The cadet expansion programme is a joint Ministry of Defence and Department for Education initiative to expand cadet participation in schools. It has been a fantastic success since its launch by the then Prime Minister 12 years ago. By March 2015, ahead of schedule, the Government reached their target of establishing 100 new combined cadet force units in state secondary schools in England. In November 2019, again ahead of schedule, we reached our further target of establishing 500 new cadet units across the United Kingdom. Funded with £50 million from LIBOR fines, the expansion programme benefits many schools in less affluent areas.

To give renewed impetus to the programme, the Government had by this time outlined a further aspiration to increase the number of cadets in school units to 60,000 by April 2024. However, cadet units require a significant amount of personal commitment from school leaders and volunteers, and in spite of successes, about 50 of the units established since 2012 have failed, often as a result of changes to a school’s leadership or priorities. That is a pity, but it in no way detracts from the leadership and drive of school teams that have advanced the cadet programme, to whom I pay tribute. As we approach April 2024, although cadet numbers in schools have increased by 15% since April 2020 to more than 54,000, it is clear that covid has had an impact on this as on so much of our national life, and that we will not reach our 60,000 aspiration within the challenging timeframe that we set.

However, it is not only the direct impact of the pandemic that has slowed progress. In addition to cadet activities being halted or limited by covid restrictions, participation has been affected by the resulting change in school priorities, with many understandably reorientating themselves from extra-curricular activities to prioritise catching up on lost learning. Given this context, the fact that we have already achieved 90% of our ambition to have 60,000 cadets in schools is a great credit to every individual and school involved in our expansion programme.

We have also made progress on a number of other fronts to provide the greatest support for school cadet units that we can. In the last year, we have developed a Combined Cadet Force engagement and communication framework. We have worked with the single-service cadet forces to improve the delivery model, and have extended funding for regional school cadet expansion officers. According to a report produced by academics at the University of Northampton, more than 91% of headteachers surveyed considered their cadet units to be a good investment for their schools, and a whopping 98.9% reported an improvement in the resilience of participants. Most recent estimates have calculated the cost of participation at £836 per cadet, and I call that a fantastic value-for-money investment in their future, our future, and the future of our country. However, Members do not have to take my word for it: the academics who conducted the study concluded that

“school based cadet units are delivering excellent value for money”—

as well they should, given that the estimate of the Institute for Public Policy Research is that the cost of just one school exclusion is £392,000.

[Jim Shannon]

One impressive thing about the cadet force in my constituency is that there are as many young girls there as young boys, whether we are talking about the Army, sea or Air Force cadets. It is encouraging to see that, and I know that the Minister would like that, too. Are the Government and the Minister trying to promote that?

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely do. As the proud father of five daughters, each of whom has been involved at some level in the cadets, I can certainly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I am impressed all the time by the number of young women engaged in the cadets and looking to a future in defence. Although of course this is not a recruiting exercise, the cadet force is increasingly female in its composition, and that has to be a positive thing.

I remain determined to do all I can to ensure that we continue to grow the number of cadets in our schools; as we recover from the pandemic, we must meet our 60,000 aspiration as soon as possible, so that schools such as Brakenhale School in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell can continue to flourish. The schools programme is, of course, complementary to the very successful community cadet forces, to which he referred. I pay tribute to the very active units in my constituency, and to the volunteers who sustain them. These community cadet forces are as popular as ever with our young people; the numbers mirror the growth in our school programme. The most recent figures show that we have more than 83,000 community cadets, which represents a 14% increase on the previous year.

Of course, none of this can happen without the selfless and invaluable contribution that adult volunteers make. The good news is that they can indeed receive some remuneration for their efforts, depending on the activities that they are engaged in. Historically, cadet units have had to put up with some fairly basic accommodation, and my hon. Friend touched on that. However, we continue to make considerable efforts to improve facilities for cadets, not least through the ongoing reserve estates optimisation programme.

School cadet units have been transforming the lives of our young people for more than 160 years. Once the preserve of independent schools, 65% of units are now in the state sector, which is a reversal of the previous situation, in which 75% of cadet units were in independent schools. Like the rest of our modern cadet forces, school cadet units embody the ethos of the armed forces, and are laser-focused on helping young people to develop and reach their full potential, in whatever walk of life they choose. Covid has slowed our ambitions somewhat, but thanks to our cadet force 2030 strategy, the Government have plans in place, as well as the commitment, to deliver their continued growth, ensuring that our cadet units, in schools and communities, will continue to transform the lives of more and more of our young people for many years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I completely reject the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. If he is talking about increasing the number of women in our armed forces, Lord Etherton’s review into LGBT personnel in our armed forces historically, or our ambition to make our armed forces more reflective of the society from which they are drawn and that they serve, then I am guilty as charged.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister and others will be aware that recruitment across Northern Ireland to the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy has always been exceptional. However, the number of personnel in Territorial Army regiments is set at a figure that those regiments cannot go above. Will the Minister look at increasing the number of TA soldiers to ensure that recruitment in Northern Ireland can exceed the current numbers?

[Dr Murrison]

I pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland who, as the hon. Gentleman says, have disproportionately contributed to the defence of our country. He will know that we are committed to growing our reserve forces across the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that response. Beyond the Battlefield, an independent charity in my constituency, does incredible work with veterans who are homeless, giving them accommodation and some skills. I have extended an invitation to the Minister to come to Northern Ireland to visit Beyond the Battlefield, so I will extend that again. I think he will be impressed—I know I am—and he will see that what we do in Northern Ireland can be done elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

[Dr Murrison]

It is always a joy to visit Strangford—one of the most beautiful places in these islands, if I may say so. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation; I have it at the front of my mind and when I am in Northern Ireland I will ensure that I visit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the greatest problems that my veteran constituents have is housing accommodation. It is as scarce as hen’s teeth, as we would say back home. What discussions has the Minister had with the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland to secure funding and housing for veterans who have just finished service or are retiring?

[Dr Murrison]

Clearly, we want to improve service accommodation all the time. However, 97% of service accommodation meets or exceeds the decent home standard. That is admirable compared with the record of many local authorities. We are investing in accommodation, and it is improving all the time. I very much regret the occasional report of accommodation that falls short of the mark, and we seek to rectify it as soon as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The Ministry of Defence is deeply committed to supporting future engineers both inside and outside the armed forces, and is one of the largest deliverers of UK apprenticeships: we have 22,000 personnel on 100 different apprenticeships at any one time. Furthermore, the Haythornthwaite review and the pan-defence skills framework will take the skilling of our defence people to the next level.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. Northern Ireland is one of the leading regions of the United Kingdom that are pushing cyber-security very hard. Has the Minister given any consideration to ensuring that companies that are involved in cyber-security, of which there are many not only in Northern Ireland but in the south-east of England, could work in partnership with the MOD to ensure that the skills to be found in private companies can be used in the Army?

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that in future we will see much more zig-zagging between the armed forces and the industry and back again, and, indeed, Haythornthwaite touches on the subject of so-called zig-zag careers. I expect to see a much closer working relationship between the armed forces and industry in the future: we are all in it together.

Afghanistan: Independent Inquiry

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And finally—as I have already said twice this morning—Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I do not mind being last in any debate; I am just very pleased to be given the opportunity to ask a question. The Minister, I think, has genuinely tried to answer the questions sensitively. With that in mind, will he outline the steps that are in place to offer support to any personnel under investigation, as similar proceedings that I and other Members in the Chamber are aware of in Northern Ireland have seen many innocent soldiers turning to addiction as a result of trauma and stress—I am aware of those cases personally. Will he confirm that innocent until proven guilty remains the standard for any investigation?

[Dr Murrison]

There are structures within the Army in particular to deal with the pastoral care of individuals who may be facing allegations. The Army operational legacy branch, for example, will be standing by to assist in this particular area. I reiterate the commitment that I gave earlier: anybody who is wrapped up in this business will be given everything that they need—legal and pastoral—to get them through this. We will stand by them. We owe them that, and I will make sure that that happens. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he needs.

Support for Offenders’ Families

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Adjournment debates are great opportunities to raise issues brought up by constituents, and it gives me much pleasure this evening to do precisely that. I am grateful to the Minister for being here, particularly after his extremely busy day. I am sorry to have kept him in his place a little longer, but I am nevertheless delighted that he is responding to the debate. He will be aware of my correspondence on a constituency case with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing. The debate draws on that, and on the experience relayed to me by my constituent and others caught up in similar nightmares not of their making. I hope that this debate is timely, given the imminent very welcome consultation on upgrading the victims strategy through a victims Bill.

Many, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, take a very stern view of crime and criminality, and many of us have called for stiffer sentencing, particularly for crimes of a sexual nature. Because of the internet and the opportunities for indecent imaging that it presents, the number of those crimes is, sadly, rising exponentially. I will focus largely on the consequences of those crimes this evening. Specifically, I am buttonholing my good friend the Minister on the collateral—the families left behind to cope with the devastation that follows the arrest and conviction of a loved one for those crimes that attract the greatest public opprobrium.

On that front, Deuteronomy chapter 24, verse 16 offers some chilly reassurance:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Less dramatically, the sins of the father should not be pinned on the sons, daughters, or spouse—or on anyone other than the perpetrator.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am always attracted to scripture, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for quoting it. Families have come to me, having had their windows broken, and mess spray-painted on their homes; that often happens in Northern Ireland due to a family member’s actions. Does he agree that that is not appropriate, and that support should be offered, so that the family does not end up having to pay for the sins of the father, as he says, though that is often what happens?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he speaks from a great deal of experience. Deuteronomy is bang on the money. These are innocents. They need to be dealt with as innocents by the statutory agencies. That is the burden of what I have to say this evening.

During the course of my research, I have been told about the five o’clock knock that hits someone like a train; the stunning effect of the unheralded appearance of police on the doorstep; the trauma of seeing a loved one taken away; and the all-too-often brusque way in which family members are managed by the police, as they sack the family home searching for evidence, and carry off not just the suspect’s possessions, but those of his or her partner as well—the knock after which nothing is ever the same again.

Over 850 individuals are arrested each month for online offences involving indecency. That is a 25-fold increase in a decade. Each one of those carries in its wake a devastated family, a wall of misery, and the destruction of settled, ordinary lives. For most of these people, the worst brush with the authorities they have had up to that point will have been the issuing of a speeding ticket. That makes them particularly susceptible to vicarious shaming and social isolation.

It is therefore hardly surprising that nearly 70% of family members experiencing the knock in such circumstances have severe post-traumatic stress disorder. That is unsurprising, given that they are often told to speak to no one for fear of bullying and vigilante activity; given that, as part of the process, their mobile phones and computers are removed; and given that the go-to resource of many traumatised people in the modern age—the internet—is for them now no longer a trusted entry point to help and support, but a dark, deeply hostile place. The ascent of social media has meant that there is nowhere to hide. Vigilantes—those self-appointed guardians of public safety—use a confected moral high ground to prey on innocents who they deem guilty by association with those convicted of stigmatising offences.

About the time I was first elected, I remember a group of so-called vigilantes confusing the terms “paediatrician” and “paedophile”, and seeing one of their neighbours described as the former, took it upon themselves to attack the home of the hapless specialist in child health. Those bovinely stupid people are the antithesis of the upstanding public guardians they purport to be, and they are encouraged in their misconception, I am sorry to say, by elements of the tabloid press. They are despicable; they are the mob. And it is the mob, or fear of the mob, that drives innocent bystanders of stigmatising crimes from their homes. When those innocents are at their most vulnerable, and most in need of the agencies of the state, there comes no help, no comfort, and no support. Commenting on “the knock”, one of our more thoughtful police officers said:

“We are acutely aware of the devastation we are leaving behind.”

Where is the attempt to mitigate that devastation? Indeed, some within our statutory agencies and authorities behave as if the families of suspects are guilty too, and that is not good enough.

What is to be done? The 2018 victims strategy and its victims code are a good start. In the code there is a decent stab at a definition of “victim”, which it defines as

“a person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence;”

In common usage, that definition probably does not include family members of people whose crimes have destroyed their lives. Indeed, the then Prime Minister appeared to confirm that when she said, in the foreword to the victims strategy:

“We must make it easier for people who have suffered a crime to cope, recover and move on with rebuilding their lives.”

The simple addition of the word “from” or the phrase “as a result of” before “a crime” would have been helpful in embracing the desperate people who are the subject of this evening’s debate. On the other hand, some would say that the definition of victim should indeed be ambiguous, since surely we can all tell a victim when we see one—can’t we?—a bit like an elephant. Well, I do not think we can. Unless the families of offenders are included explicitly within the definition of “victim”, nothing will change, there will be no recognition or help for them, and the agencies will continue too often to give them the cold shoulder.

Other jurisdictions seem to have been more thoughtful, and they offer a potential way forward that our victims Bill consultation might gainfully reflect on. The United States has a category of secondary victim with access, for example, to the Department of Justice crime victims fund. I am not suggesting that to the Minister for one moment, but it gives an indication of how those victims are regarded by the US. Canada has four categories of victim: direct, indirect, secondary, and tertiary, and all have the dignity of being recognised by the Canadian system as victims, as with the definition used by the US system.

Why is this so important? First, the victims code sets the mood music. Inclusion of the people I am talking about will establish them as victims of crime, and unpick the notion that they have by some curious osmosis contributed to that crime. More tangibly, the victims code offers things to those identified as victims, such as needs assessments, appropriate signposting, and being treated respectfully, sympathetically, and in a dignified and sensitive way.

Middle East Peace Plan

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I will answer that question very succinctly: yes, of course, I condemn antisemitism in all its forms.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the potential for a peace plan, and we must accept that. Christians are being attacked, persecuted and killed across the middle east, so what is being done within the peace plan to assist and help persecuted Christians in the middle east directly?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in such matters. He will forgive me if I do not answer for the peace plan, because it is not the UK Government’s plan. We can welcome its publication, and we can welcome the process that may follow, but we cannot be answerable for the contents of the plan.

US Troop Withdrawal from Northern Syria

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I think it is important to say—this is what we understand to be the case—that the US is not agreeing with Turkey by potentially withdrawing from this piece of territory, so it is not endorsing Turkey’s action at all. I hope that it will be joining the UK and the rest of the coalition to impress upon Turkey that this is not the best way forward in our principal aim for Turkey and others, which is to defeat Daesh, which poses a threat to Turkey, a big threat to Syria and a threat to the UK and the US, too. As Turkey’s reputation is on the line in this matter, I hope very much that it listens to its friends and allies and desists from this particular course of action. That is the line that we have taken, and I am hopeful that we will have some success in getting it to revise its position in this particular matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Along with others, I also express great concern over the decision of the President of the United States of America to remove US troops. No one should ever betray our allies—the Kurds—who helped to cleanse Syria of Isis fighters. Turkey’s response towards the Kurds in the past has been all-out war, so what discussions has the Minister had with Turkey to prevent its aggression and the threat to democracy and freedom in that area, which will mean potential casualties among women, children and the innocents?

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He tempts me to talk about wider issues relating to the Kurds, and he will know that we have in the past discussed these matters, and will continue to do so, with our Turkish interlocutors at every level in support of our Kurdish friends and allies. It is important that the rights of Kurds, of all groups, of all minorities and of all ethnicities are respected. That is contained within international humanitarian law, and all the conventions to which Turkey is a code signatory. We will use every opportunity to stand up for the rights of Kurds where we see them being abused.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

Yes. He raised this with President Rouhani on 24 September in New York.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his excellent responses. We know that he is a Minister with compassion and understanding, and he is the right person for this job. As other Members have mentioned, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been arbitrarily and unjustly detained by the Iranian authorities. Unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurrence in a country where, over the past 10 years, it is estimated that more than 1,000 members of the Baha’i faith community have been arbitrarily arrested by Iranian authorities simply for holding their beliefs. Does the Minister agree that the Iranian Government must respect the rule of law and the right to freedom of religion or belief and release all those who have been imprisoned unfairly?

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has been a real champion of the Baha’i people, and I pay tribute to him for that. He is right; these people should not be disadvantaged in any way by any regime, and I urge a change of heart by the Government in Tehran.

Jewish Refugees from the Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for bringing this debate here and setting the scene so well, and giving us all a chance to participate. I add my voice to her call for the Minister for the Middle East to make representations to his US counterparts, ensuring that the long-awaited middle east peace process includes reference to the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I believe this is his first debate in Westminster Hall.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

indicated assent.

[Jim Shannon]

Well, he is very welcome. I am sure it will not be his last. It probably will not be my last either, but that is by the way.

Since the partition of Ireland and the creation of Northern Ireland, the Protestants in the border regions that made up the new Northern Ireland have faced attempts on their lives, to ethnically cleanse them out of the regions. The United Nations has defined ethnic cleansing as

“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic, or religious, group from certain geographic areas.”

That is what has happened along the border of Northern Ireland, and that is what has happened to the Jews. We know that only 4,000 Jews remain in the Arab world, while some 200,000 Arabs were absorbed into Israeli society, making up the Arab minority of 1.7 million people, which forms 21% of Israel’s population.

What can we do? First, the media bias against Israel and her people is exactly that: bias. For example, when the BBC attempts to set a narrative that does not equate to what is actually taking place on the ground—such as reporting retaliatory missiles launched by Israel in such a way that it seems like an offensive attack—we must investigate and seek the truth, but not from those who seek to write the narrative that suits them.

Secondly, we must fulfil our obligations to do what the Balfour declaration began—allowing Israel back to her home and having equality and safety for all in the middle east. Thirdly, there is significant linkage between those two refugee populations, which underscores the need to deal with both simultaneously. We must impress upon the American Administration the importance of not negating any refugee’s rights to justice, nor the responsibility of Arab states to provide a humanitarian solution to their plight. Ensuring rights for both Arab and Jewish refugees is an essential key, on a very practical level, to resolving the issue of the refugees.

If Israelis—over 50% of whom are descendants of Jews displaced from Arab countries—are asked to approve a peace plan that provides rights and redress for Palestinian refugees only, it will be less likely to be adopted than an agreement that would provide rights and redress to Jewish refugees as well. That makes sense to me, and I believe it makes sense to everyone taking part in this debate.

A question was put to me over the weekend, and I shall ask the Minister the same question. What steps will the British Government take to recognise the injustice that was suffered by some 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries and to ensure that, in the Government’s stance on the middle east peace process, they recognise their tragedy alongside that of the Palestinian refugees? Both sets of lives matter and both narratives matter. We must strongly advocate for those whose plight often goes unnoticed—in this case, the plight of Jewish refugees from the middle east and north Africa.

Syria: Civilians in Idlib

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

First, I have an apology for the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday in the urgent question, I think I associated him with the Opposition Front Bench. I am afraid that this was a facet of my general excitement on that occasion, and it was of course entirely wrong. My apologies to the hon. Gentleman. I share his frustration—I really do—and I hope that that has come across, at least in the tone of some of the things I have been saying, but I have to ask him what on earth he thinks we could be doing, other than the things that we are doing with our partners and through the United Nations. Ultimately, this has to be dealt with not by escalating the situation but by dialling it down and ensuring that we restore the focus on UN Security Council resolutions. Although I am all ears, I doubt very much that the hon. Gentleman has many suggestions beyond that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. In my constituency, we have six Syrian Christian families who have been relocated under the Government scheme. The community and church groups are helping those families with accommodation, education for their children, pastoral care, language instruction and furniture and clothes. Other members of those families are threatened in and around the Idlib area, and I spoke to the Immigration Minister about this the other week. Will the Minister work with her to reunite those families in the United Kingdom, and particularly in my constituency of Strangford?

[Dr Murrison]

As I indicated in my remarks, my local authority has also been active in this area. It is important that the process should be conducted properly, and that relocations to places of safety in the United Kingdom should be done on the basis of assessed need. We all know of heart-rending cases, particularly involving families and children, where the best option is indeed relocation to this country, and I am proud of what this country has been doing in that regard. Ultimately, however, I do not think that this situation will be resolved simply by removing people from their homes. The sense we get is that most of them ultimately wish to return home, and I am proud of the fact that this country is in the premier division of providing financial assistance to ensure that proper humanitarian aid and support is given to those in the region itself.

Special Educational Needs: Wiltshire

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Society can be judged by the quality of the provision it makes for its most vulnerable members. I therefore welcome this opportunity to raise the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency, particularly those who have special educational needs.

Last week, the consultation ended on Wiltshire Council’s plans for a dramatic change to the provision for children with SEN in the county, and I would like to begin by highly commending Wiltshire Council for prioritising special needs and for being prepared to pledge serious money—£20 million—on a root-and-branch upgrade to provision for children who have complex and severe learning and physical disabilities. That does Wiltshire Council a great deal of credit, and I pay tribute to the councillors and officials involved in trying to make things better for some of my most vulnerable constituents.

However, the edge was taken off that for me when I was summoned at the end of last year to hear precisely what the council was planning to do with the money it wants to spend. I wish to take some time this evening discussing that and impressing upon the Minister how important it is that the council thinks again. Survey data shows just how unpopular the council’s approach is, closing, as it does, two well-loved schools that are at the very heart of their communities in order to create a very big one in a relatively remote location. I hope the local authority will listen to concerns expressed and adopt a different model for my most vulnerable young constituents that retains at least one of the threatened schools.

I want the Minister to help, because the Government have already been quite helpful: they have helped with £350 million in new funding for SEN announced in December; they have helped through the dedicated schools grant, with an 11% uplift in real terms for high needs between 2014-15 and 2019-20; and they have helped through the Children and Families Act 2014.

A key feature of that legislation was the SEN “local offer” that local authorities are now required to make. The offer has to be developed in partnership with the children and young people involved, their families and the relevant professionals. The attached code of practice is clear: it expects the local offer, from birth to age 25, to be developed and revised over time through regular review and consultation. Indeed, that collaborative, consultative approach runs through the legislation like a vein through granite. It is mandated; it is not an optional extra; it does not mean the local authority making up its mind and presenting users with faits accomplis. It suggests a collaborative, consultative approach that does not waste public money on working up a case that is so clearly contrary to the wishes of its intended beneficiaries.

Wiltshire Council has for some time wanted to close smaller special schools. We got wind of a warming-up exercise last year, when a member of the council made some adverse remarks about the inadequacy of hoists at Larkrise School in Trowbridge—claims that were incorrect and had to be retracted. It all runs contrary to the approach encouraged by the 2014 Act and its associated code of practice. Wiltshire Council’s vision for special education in Wiltshire is in many ways an exemplary document—it says all the right things—but at its heart it would close two schools, one in my constituency and one in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan): Larkrise in Trowbridge and St Nicholas in Chippenham.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue forward. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, he will know only too well the experiences we have had in Northern Ireland in relation to special needs education. The increasing demands on special needs education are exceptional. In England, some 1.3 million children are in special needs education and needing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need sweeping reform of the support available to pupils and schools to ensure, as he, I and everyone in the House would agree, that a pupil is not prevented from reaching their potential because of a lack of support services available in their postcode? What he needs in Wiltshire, we also need in Northern Ireland.

[Dr Murrison]

I of course agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was once a governor at a special school, before I was elected. If I reflect on the provision then and the provision now, I am quite clear that matters have improved, but that does not mean to say that we should be complacent. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct: we need to ensure that every child has the ability to reach his or her potential. That is as true of a mainstream child who is going to become a doctor or a lawyer—or even a politician—as it is for a child at a special needs school whose horizons, in a classic sense, are necessarily going to be rather more limited. They are equally important and their potential needs to be maximised.

The proposition before the council is that it closes two schools and builds a big school on the site of a third one. That would be a very big school by SEN standards, and many of us have concerns about that, because this particular subset of the school population undoubtedly benefits from a provision that is more intimate than perhaps would be necessary for their mainstream compatriots. That would necessarily not be the case were this big school to be created in place of the ones it would replace. The council refers to the big school as a centre of excellence, but my contention is that we already have a centre of excellence in my constituency—it is called Larkrise School.

The claim is made that Larkrise is bursting at the seams and that its facilities and equipment are insufficient, but there is more to a school than bricks and mortar, and there is more to a special school than hoists. The school community understands that, which is why it is so opposed to the local authority’s prescription. It is clear that, being strapped for cash, the council has to balance the books. Rightly, it worries about the financial deficits that have been projected for each of the special educational needs schools, but deficits are projected at several mainstream schools, too, and nobody is suggesting that the solution is to close them.

The county’s financial position is not helped by its having to place 300 special educational needs pupils outside Wiltshire because of the long-standing insufficiency of in-county provision. Those of us who represent seats in Wiltshire will be well used to people attending our advice surgeries to discuss that. The council wants to remedy this out-of-county placement situation by creating a new school with 350 places serving the north of the county. Although the way that the numbers are presented in the consultation documents makes comparison very difficult, 350 places seems inadequate to cope with the planned closures, the out-of-county placements and the growth that is projected given local population increases, housing demand, and the recently announced moves of the residue of the British Army in Germany largely to Wiltshire and the need to accommodate them. Even by its own arithmetic, the council appears to be set on under-provision. That means that out-of-county provision is bound to continue, that projected spend on the new school will be greatly exceeded, or that the new school will very quickly become overcrowded, or, more likely, a combination of all three.

The plans anticipate no sixth form. Instead reliance will be placed on the county’s further education college, Wiltshire College, for 16 to 19 provision, together with a vaguely defined private provision. No further details are given. For example, we do not know how many days a week pupils aged 16 to 19 will have.

All this is of great concern as SEN pupils across the UK have been let down historically in our system in the transition from school to adulthood—from school to life as supported young people in the community. Provision for 16 to 19 is absolutely crucial in this transition. Wiltshire Council’s consultation document asserts that the new centre of excellence will be able to provide what is called

“outreach capacity to support mainstream schools.”

It is not clear what is meant by that. On the face of it, there is a risk that resource will be diverted from the severe and profound to the milder end of the SEN spectrum. That is surely not what is intended. If it is, it needs to be stated in plain terms. The perception is not helped by the confusing terminology used in the text and the apparent misunderstanding of which schools currently offer what, in what is admittedly a complex and overlapping needs mix. Response to the consultation has rightly honed in on that.

Last month, I took part in a march in Trowbridge in support of the threatened schools. Predictably, there were children, parents and teachers, but what struck me was the number of ordinary citizens with no direct link to the school. The orthodoxy is that society wants people with disabilities of the kind that special schools deal with to be hidden away. The orthodoxy is that society is embarrassed by them and that they make it feel uncomfortable. Well, that may be the orthodoxy but it is not true in Trowbridge. Larkrise has a very special ethos. It does not believe in the hiding away of kids with the most profound difficulties. Its students are part of the local scene, out and about in the community. Nobody gawps at them, looks away or crosses the road, because they are an accepted and expected part of the community. They are recognised, welcomed, and helped in the shops, and that does not happen by accident.

We must not hide special needs children away in remote large, impersonal facilities, miles from their homes and communities. That is the very opposite of inclusion. It is segregation. Now I know that that is not the intent of the council, but it would be the consequence of its plans as drafted. Mobility today means that, like as not, children in mainstream schools will make their adult lives away from the towns in which they grew up, but children with special educational needs are much more likely to remain. Where they are is where they will be. Larkrise understands that, which is why its staff, ably led by headteacher Phil Cook, have put so much effort into local involvement and ensuring that their children are integrated in the community. I know that a similar situation applies at St Nicholas.

It is not surprising that, in its latest report, Ofsted rated Larkrise as “good”. It is surprising that the council believes that shutting this good school in Wiltshire’s county town should be part of its plans for raising standards. That is particularly so, as the council’s own task group stated that

“it would not be appropriate to combine all three schools into one site”,

and its “School Places Strategy” document says that children are best educated at the heart of the community—absolutely.

Over the year, parents with statemented children, and now children with educational health and care plans, have been to see me in my advice surgery. Invariably, the issue is not directly about care or education, but about transport.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I do understand that. One point I made on Second Reading was that I was slightly disappointed that the Bill does not advance pretty much any of the recommendations we made in our report on the democratic deficit, published in May. Had it done so, there would be scope now for even more consultation, using formal structures, which may have assisted the implementation to which the hon. Lady rightly refers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned cannabis, which leads me on to healthcare—a matter that is of particular importance to my Committee right now, since we were at the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday, where we took evidence from a number of service users. It is very clear from the guidance, which cites public interest and public health, that this matter is preying on the mind of Ministers.

It is a crying shame that there is no proper cancer strategy in Northern Ireland right now. There is one published in 2008, so it is out of date. We have a situation where, to pick one condition at random, the outcomes for prostate cancer are far worse in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country. This is pretty clear. If we do not have a cancer strategy and we believe that a cancer strategy will be of assistance in improving outcomes, of course outcomes will be worse if one is not in place. To get a cancer strategy, we need some form of direction to civil servants to get on with it and, furthermore, to implement it.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing we have discussed in the Select Committee is the scourge of diabetes. In Northern Ireland, we have the largest percentage of people with diabetes per head of population in the UK. We also have the largest proportion of type 1 child diabetics in the whole United Kingdom, with Scotland coming second. We need a strategy in place for that. We had a strategy before, which covered all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we cannot do that today because we do not have the wherewithal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we really need to see some action in the Health Department, to address all chronic diseases, including diabetes and cancer?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to labour the point, but I feel the need to briefly mention the fact that screening for cancer in Northern Ireland is frankly woeful—it is way behind. We cannot have a situation where there is faecal immunochemical testing in the rest of the UK, but it is denied to people in Northern Ireland, and they also cannot get HPV screening for cervical cancer. That is just not acceptable. But for these things to happen, we need some form of direction, however it comes, and that is a matter for Ministers and those who draft measures of the sort we are discussing and, of course, those who deal with the consequentials of the guidance that we are dealing with.

Devolution and Democracy

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he has taken in this matter, and he is, of course, correct on both fronts. We believe that there is no reason for further delay on the recommendations that we have made. I hope very much that the Minister, when he comes to respond to this in the fullness of time, will accept all the recommendations that we have made, but particularly those that are absolutely crucial now. Northern Ireland’s voice is certainly not being heard in Brussels alongside those of Scotland and Wales, although this is a UK Government responsibility and not a devolved matter.

Policing in Northern Ireland is a crucial and desperately sensitive issue. It is unacceptable that we cannot, for example, appoint senior police officers because of the lack of a Police Board. That, in our opinion, is a matter that simply cannot be delayed any further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), on the leadership that he showed to all its members, enabling us to reach unanimous conclusions. There were times when we thought that that would not happen, but he managed to ensure that it happened in each case.

The backdrop was, of course, the stop-start, pause, start again extension of the talks process, to which pages 3 and 4 of the report refer. That, perhaps, indicates where we are at present. The Committee again took the opportunity to consider where we would go if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not function. The annex outlines—as did the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech—the number of works still to be done and on hold.

Some of the Committee’s conclusions are very important. If the hybrid system for the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has operated in the past, does not work out, we shall look towards direct rule. What are the Chairman’s thoughts about how we can pull Sinn Féin out of its obstinate position? Sometimes, we need to move forward and park the issues on which we disagree.

I have another question, about Brexit. The Committee concluded that the Secretary of State and other Ministers should be more active. How does the hon. Gentleman think it can be ensured that Northern Ireland’s voice is clearly heard in the Brexit talks?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Chairman of the Committee can pick any one of those three. [Laughter.]

University Vice-Chancellors: Pay

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, up to a point. If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will come on to performance-related pay later in my remarks, which I have a little over two hours to make.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman about this matter earlier today at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The Government have advised that they will deal with fat cats in the boardroom, but little has been done on this issue, which is why this debate is appropriate and necessary. At Queen’s University in Belfast, the vice-chancellor’s wage rose from £230,000 to £249,000 in 2014, but the university does excellent work and has partnerships involving medical research and discovering new drugs. That figure pales into insignificance when one discovers that the vice-chancellor of the University of Huddersfield earned £364,564 in the financial year to 2016. Is it not time to address that?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously correct. That is why I am bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. There is an issue with Governments seeking to control pay in that way in the private sector, but not in the public and quasi-public sectors, where things are quite different due to the large sums of public money. It is perfectly legitimate for this place and for Ministers to be involved in some of that, certainly in setting the right environment for the determination of pay settlements. We will be in an unhappy, uncomfortable place if we continue to see the escalation of recent years.

SS Mendi

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

Indeed. We have to be very grateful to Mr Woodward. He was, I believe, a self-taught diver who dived in an old hard hat rig. In those days—the 1960s—diving off the Isle of Wight was quite something. It would have been difficult work. I am yet to visit his museum in Arreton, but I will certainly make it my business to do so when I am next on the island.

In 2009, the Mendi was designated as a war grave by the Ministry of Defence. In 2012, English Heritage commissioned the excellent Wessex Archaeology, which is based near my constituency, to research the wreck and produce a report.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this subject forward for debate. Does he agree that it is only right and proper to remember those who sailed off to fight in a war that, it could be argued, was theirs not by fact, but by the principles of freedom and democracy? It is fitting that we in this House play our part by commemorating the souls lost on that fateful night.

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. These volunteers—they were all volunteers—could have seen this as somebody else’s war on the other side of the world, but they did not. For whatever reason—I suspect there was a mixture of reasons and motives—they travelled 6,000 miles to serve in the conflict on the western front, while others served in other theatres of the great war. We have to be extremely grateful to them for their work and, in many cases, their sacrifice.

The Wessex Archaeology report produced in 2012 and the board of inquiry report serve as the authoritative primary sources on this tragedy. It is good to note that from today, the 100th anniversary, the Mendi qualifies under the 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage.

Today’s centenary is an occasion, first and foremost, for us to commemorate brave men who lost their lives in Britain’s icy waters, but it also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the world as well as the war, since the war to end all wars drew many thousands from around the globe to its killing fields. The historiography and remembrance of the great war have, for 100 years, been overwhelmingly of the white war fought by white men in Europe, but the jigsaw has some missing pieces. The centenary is an opportunity to find them and fit them. Drawn from India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt and across Africa, as well as the UK, the labour corps were an essential part of the great war story. Neglected for too long, they must now be heard.

Some 100,000 men served in the Chinese Labour Corps and 40,000 in the French equivalent under arrangements with the Chinese Government. They were seen as cheap labour and dismissed as “coolies”, and the UK trade unions resisted their employment in the British Isles. In 1917, there was a reluctance to allow black men to raise a hand against whites, even against the enemy on the western front—they might, after all, develop a portable taste for it, which was an alarming prospect for the Union Government of Louis Botha.

The South African Native National Congress, the predecessor of the African National Congress, sensing an opportunity to advance the prestige of black people and further its political ambitions, offered to raise combatant troops but was rebuffed by Pretoria. So although non-whites did fight in theatres where the enemy, too, was likely to be non-white, they served on the western front as unarmed labourers. In France and Flanders, they were treated as second class and were penned up in compounds like prisoners of war. When they returned home, the Government in Pretoria failed to live up to earlier promises, denying them campaign medals bearing the relief of a monarch in whose name they had been prepared to sacrifice all. One veteran said he felt

“just like a stone which, after killing a bird, nobody bothers about, nobody cares to see where it falls”.

None the less, South African Native Labour Corps members returned to their homeland utterly changed, with perspectives, horizons and ambitions that would not suit their rulers. One white officer told his men:

“When you people get back to South Africa, don’t start thinking that you are whites, just because this place has spoiled you. You are black, and you will stay black.”

Some will say that this is inconvenient history, that we must not judge yesterday by the standards of today, and that we have no business raking it all up, but I would argue that the great war centenary is the last opportunity to shine a light on the unremembered. The story will be incomplete and partial for as long as they remain in the shadows.

The experience of the great war centenary so far has been that the candid and respectful exploration of shared history, however uncomfortable, has not driven people apart or reignited hurt and grievance, but brought them together. We saw that so well last year in the island of Ireland, in the commemorations surrounding the centenary of the Easter Rising and the Somme offensive. To my mind, the Mendi tragedy is primarily a heartrending story of stoicism and bravery in the face of adversity, but inevitably it also prompts difficult questions about attitudes to race in the early 20th century, the progress made over 100 years and where we are today.

The story of the SS Mendi, like the battle of Delville Wood during the Somme offensive of 1916 has, of course, particular resonance in South Africa, but we must commemorate it, too, in the United Kingdom. There is a danger—

Comparative Healthcare Economics/NHS Finance

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I need to start by confessing an interest as a doctor. We are now 18 months into the five year forward view, and the big question really is: what next? “What next?” really means bringing English healthcare outcomes up to the standard enjoyed in peer group European nations, and I am afraid that means much more money. I hope that, in the next few minutes, I can suggest how we might go about achieving that.

The average age of Members of Parliament is 51. That means that most Members of this House have tipped, or are tipping, into the demographic twilight zone in which the incidence of common and chronic diseases begins to accelerate—it is sad but true. That focuses the mind on what a successful healthcare economy looks like and what it delivers for patients.

When those 51-year-olds enter the danger zone in a few years’ time, what will success look like? Success will mean accommodating the great advances in medicine that we believe we are on the cusp of achieving, and that we hope will add years to life and life to years, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is particularly exercised about those matters. Success will mean dealing with the healthcare needs of an ageing demographic, an expanding population, and more chronic diseases of lifestyle, which will amount to a 3% per annum uplift in demand, according to NHS England and the Nuffield Trust. Success will mean satisfying the legitimate demands of a less deferential, consumerist, better educated society that will not be content with second best. Success will mean closing the gap between healthcare outcomes here and in northern European countries with which we can reasonably be compared, and therein lies the “What next?”

In July 2010, the Government White Paper “Equity and excellence” exposed relatively poor health outcomes in the UK, compared with other countries. Our healthcare system was delivering poorer results in terms of mortality and morbidity. The most recent OECD statistics, published last year, have confirmed Britain’s relatively poor performance across pretty well the complete spectrum of common diseases—common cancers, ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and the rest. Crucially, the number of unnecessary deaths—mortality amenable to healthcare—is substantially higher in the UK than in neighbouring countries.

However, healthcare is not just about reducing deaths. What about other measures of quality? Measures such as post-operative sepsis, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, obstetric trauma and diabetic complications are worryingly unimpressive in the UK, compared with countries we would consider to be in our peer group. Although the teenage pregnancy rate has improved in recent years, the UK bumps along the bottom of the EU league table with recent accession states. The list goes on.

The Swedish-based and well-respected, if drug firm-funded, Health Consumer Powerhouse has been reporting on the performance of Europe’s healthcare economies since 2005. The UK’s position in its Euro Health Consumer Index has always been mediocre, but in January the UK was ranked 14th out of 35—just above Slovenia, Croatia and Estonia, and below European countries that most Britons would regard as peers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward. This may seem a bit like politicking, but it none the less needs to be said. There is no doubt that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has the potential to threaten the very nature of our NHS. What is even clearer is that we are sending millions of pounds every week to the EU that could be invested in our NHS, where that money is much needed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great potential to properly resource and liberate our great NHS, were we to vote to leave the EU?

[Dr Murrison]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same side of the Brexit debate, and I certainly would welcome the extra money that would be spent on the NHS in the event that we leave the European Union, so fingers crossed for 23 June.

The Health Consumer Powerhouse report highlights poor accessibility and an “autocratic top-down management culture” here, in contrast to top-performing Holland’s removal of what Health Consumer Powerhouse calls “healthcare amateurs”—that is to say, politicians and bureaucrats—from decision making. Unhappily, that sounds rather familiar. Earlier this year, Dame Julie Moore slated fellow senior NHS managers for “gross incompetence” and poor leadership.

The question is, what, apart from its management, accounts for the UK’s lacklustre ranking? Despite the UK’s innovative cancer drugs fund, Health Consumer Powerhouse found, for example, relatively poor availability of the latest oncology interventions and therapeutics, including radiotherapy. Sadly, that rings true, and we remember the high-profile case of Ashya King, the five-year-old with medulloblastoma, who was taken by his parents in 2014 from Southampton general hospital to Spain and then the Czech Republic for proton beam therapy, which was not available here.

The much-vaunted Commonwealth Fund report that some use to claim that the NHS is super-efficient and effective actually contains just one element that deals directly with health outcomes—a composite of deaths amenable to medical care, of infant mortality and of life expectancy at 60, it puts the UK 10th out of 11, the US being bottom. Tenth out of 11 sophisticated healthcare economies is not where I want the UK to be, and not where the Minister wants the UK to be either. The British public would expect us to be doing rather better against a raft of healthcare outcomes where the UK is firmly in the wake of our immediate northern-European neighbours France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Denmark.

Can we explain why UK healthcare outcomes are not as good as those of peer group nations through differences in the level of healthcare funding? We can expect an opinion from the House of Lords, which last week set up a Select Committee under Lord Patel to examine the sustainability of the NHS—that is, the “what next?” question. I would be very surprised if it did not conclude that the answer is to bring spend up to the level enjoyed in countries such as France, Germany and Holland. After all, closing the gap with the EU15 in health spending as a proportion of GDP was a goal explicitly set in 2000. However, Conservative Members tend to be somewhat wary of making spend a proxy for outcome. It is not enough just to write big cheques and consider the job done. Can we do better with what we have? There are apologists for our low spending on health who cite the supposed efficiency of the NHS, but simply asserting that the NHS is more efficient than health services in other countries does not make it true.

I do not know what is in the Minister’s speaking notes, but there is a very good chance that he will use the New York-based Commonwealth Fund analysis on comparative healthcare to support a contention that the NHS is very efficient and thus ameliorates the relatively low UK spend on healthcare. The report’s methodology rewards close examination. I am sure he will have read it thoroughly, but if not, I commend it to him. In my opinion, its methodology renders the sorts of deductions that have been made unsafe. The only reliable element of the analysis that is used to claim that the NHS is relatively efficient is the percentage of national expenditure spent on administration and insurance, meaning that the UK comes in at fifth out of 11. Given that the nature of our system means that insurance and transactional costs are very low, that is hardly something to crow about. Other markers of efficiency rely on patient and practitioner surveys and include items such as time spent filling out financial transaction forms. UK-relevant metrics, such as rehospitalisation rates, were found to be comparatively poor. I conclude that it would be unsafe to make claims about the relative efficiency of the NHS based on contestable reports like that of New York’s Commonwealth Fund.

Let us suppose for one moment that the NHS is fairly efficient—not very efficient, because Carter and others suggest that that would be unwise, but fairly efficient. Indeed, I have no reason to suppose that it is institutionally profligate. If it is fairly efficient, we will not be able to squeeze many more efficiencies from it beyond the Stevens assumptions, but we will still be left with relatively poor outcomes and still needing to know “what next?” Simon Stevens still believes that we can squeeze £22 billion in efficiencies from the NHS. Much of this, presumably, is predicated on productivity gains that are contingent on holding down salaries and wages—a challenge if incomes in the economy rise. This is what I think he means by “strong performance”—strong indeed, because the implied productivity gains of 2.4% are well in excess of anything that has been achieved by the NHS historically and well beyond expectations for the wider economy. It also depends on sustained spending on social services and public and preventive health. Both, in the event, have been impacted by cuts to local government funding—cuts that I supported and accept were entirely necessary to repair the public finances, but cuts nevertheless.

So “what next?” will inevitably mean a step change in input—in money—if not by the end of the five year forward view period, then without doubt during the next decade and beyond. Here again, it is instructive to look across the channel, where we find some good news for Ministers. The Office for National Statistics has just tweaked its approach to health accounting to comply more closely with that of the OECD, and obligingly, this increases the UK’s spend on public and private healthcare combined from 8.7% of GDP to 9.9%. Most of this is due to re-badging a slice of publicly funded social care as healthcare spend. Of course, none of this accountancy changes by one penny the amount spent on care, but it impacts on the international spending league table. It means that we overtake southern European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. However, we still lag well behind Germany, France and the Netherlands—my chosen basket of similar European countries.

So what next? Data from the Kings Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that income tax must rise by at least 3p in the pound simply to offset the fall in NHS spending as a proportion of GDP predicted over the rest of the decade. But all that will do is arrest the UK’s relative downward trajectory towards being the sick man of Europe. To bring spend up to the EU15 average would now involve an 8p increase. That eye-watering sum may be toned down a little bit by the new Office for National Statistics method for calculating healthcare spend, but probably not greatly if the comparison we actually want to make is with our closest European neighbours France, Germany and the Netherlands.

So, if we accept that big fistfuls of money are needed, the question becomes, “How are we to get it?” The Labour party does not know. It has yet to say how much it thinks the NHS budget should be, despite every encouragement from me and others to do so. All we know is that the party opposed the Stevens uplift at the general election. Maybe the unaccustomed reticence about pledging money from the party of fiscal incontinence is an indication of the sheer scale of the spending challenge that even Labour has perceived in a rare lucid moment.

Although I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, a precipitous growth in the economy seems unlikely, and further borrowing should not be an option. In fact, half the £350 million per week that we send to the EU—a figure, net of rebate and subsidy, that I personally rely on—would, by my reckoning, halve the difference. I fervently hope that it will be in play after 23 June, but it would still leave a gap. How will that gap be closed? It is said that if we want a social healthcare system, we must choose between Bismarck and Beveridge. For my part, I cannot see how the transaction costs implicit in insurance-based models or large-scale schemes of co-payment would improve productivity or efficiency in our NHS—this despite the fact that the UK healthcare economy is distinguished from others by the small scale of its private provision.

For me, the Bismarck versus Beveridge debate is pretty much settled. However, I would expect a commission to examine all possible funding streams, drawing on experience from other countries. I would expect it to look closer to home at incentives that can be given to encourage subscription to mutuals, such as the Benenden Healthcare Society, formed in 1905 by and for Post Office workers, whose headquarters in York I visited recently.

But affirming that the great bulk of healthcare in the UK should continue to be funded through general taxation does not just mean more of the same. A variable hypothecated tax would be an easier sell to the public than a general tax hike. Treasury officials, or course, hate hypothecation, but the Treasury has been softening its approach in recent years and we are now, of course, wedded to the far less economically literate practice of hypothecated spend as a proportion of GDP for selected areas of public expenditure. Despite the Treasury’s reluctance, if we are talking about several pence in the pound to bring UK health spending up to the average of neighbouring similar countries, we have to find a politically acceptable and publicly palatable way of doing so. Either way, gathering a consensus on this most sensitive and complex of public policy areas, using a vehicle on a spectrum from royal commission to non-departmental public body, surely makes sense. As a model, may I suggest the influential Pensions Commission, chaired by Adair Turner, during the last Labour Government?

If the NHS is the closest we have to a national religion, its critical friends are often seen as heretics. We saw that even at the height of the Mid Staffs scandal. How, then, are we to uphold this rallying point for national morality, decency and righteousness with the more prosaic imperatives to save and lengthen life, make sick people better, prevent ill health and match health outcomes in comparable countries? I hope that the Minister will agree that the proposal for a commission and associated national conversation—made by me and others in this House, in the other place and elsewhere—has merit. I warmly congratulate Ministers on successfully arguing the NHS’s corner at a time of austerity. However, I urge the Government to give serious thought to establishing a commission that will examine how we can properly and sustainably fund healthcare and close the widening gap that exists between us and our European neighbours.

Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am sure we are all very relieved to be having the Adjournment debate at this hour, rather than at two o’clock in the morning, as was previously rumoured.

I must first declare my interest as a doctor. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this extremely important debate—it is certainly important for our constituents—about the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. I am grateful to the British Society of Gastroenterology, and particularly to its president, Dr Ian Forgacs, for helping me with research in preparing for the debate. The BSG has done a great deal of work over many years to highlight this issue.

Between 50,000 and 70,000 people every year are admitted with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and 10% will, sadly, die. That presents a significant challenge to our national health service.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that upper gastrointestinal bleeding is what was so vividly portrayed by Hugh Bonneville, as Lord Grantham, in Julian Fellowes’s “Downton Abbey”. As the New York Post said, the Downton ulcer his lordship had been moaning about for weeks finally erupted all over the dinner table and all over Lady Cora. That is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but when it happens it needs to be dealt with very quickly and proficiently.

I want to start with a little bit of good news. Lord Grantham was lucky to survive in the 1920s, but mortality from upper gastrointestinal bleeding has been falling in the UK, with modest improvements in recent years as new treatments and innovative therapies have emerged, despite an ageing demographic. That is a tribute to our NHS and to some great pioneering work in therapeutics and interventions, much of which has been trialled and researched in the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I asked him beforehand for permission to intervene. Northern Ireland has seen some improvements by allowing relatively experimental procedures, provided they are regulated, such as nitrogen treatment systems, to name just one. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all trusts across the UK need to share such information on any and all new developments, to advance treatments nationwide so that we all gain across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters. He is right to say that we need to do more networking, to ensure that good practice is understood and inculcated. I will deal with some of that in my remarks.

Two major studies—one by NHS England and the British Society of Gastroenterology in 2013, and the other by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death in 2015—highlighted significant shortcomings in provision, confirming earlier studies.

The foreword to the NCEPOD report is starkly entitled “A Bleeding Shame”. NCEPOD found that the clinical care of 45% of acute GI bleed patients was sub-optimal, with a similar number receiving care judged to be good overall. Alarmingly, a quarter of all hospitals treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding were found not to be accredited by the joint advisory group set up 20 years ago to set standards for endoscopy. More hospitals told NCEPOD that they could deliver open surgery of the sort Lord Grantham had in the 1920s than interventional radiology for this particular range of conditions.

Some would say that that is down to inadequate resources. That is the mantra we often hear, particularly from the Labour party, but the situation is far more complicated than that. Alarmingly, NCEPOD reported that organisational issues led to less than satisfactory care in 18% of cases. “Organisational issues” is a polite way of saying poor management, such as failure to organise rotas—the “Bleeding Rota”, as NCEPOD graphically puts it—and I will come back shortly to how that can be addressed with minimal resource implications.

I support the concept of the seven-day NHS, or at least my interpretation of what a seven-day NHS actually means. The management of this range of conditions provides an excellent case study of why seven-day working is important and why Ministers are right to pursue it.

Overall, the evidence does not support the proposition that relatively poor weekend healthcare outcomes for conditions across the board are attributable to a lack of seven-day working. As Professor Matt Sutton’s work, reported by the Office of Health Economics last year, has shown, the quality-adjusted life-year evidence just does not support the cost of translating midweek working to the weekend. Data on increased mortality for those admitted at the weekends are alone insufficient to justify organisational change. The much cited Freemantle paper on weekend deaths does not say that excess weekend deaths are avoidable. Unfortunately, it has been quoted incorrectly by some who have confused association and causation.

Sir Bruce Keogh is right to say, however, that general hospitals are under-resourced at weekends, and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is right to point out that junior doctors are, to a certain extent, “winging it” out of hours, because consultants do not tend to be around to the same extent and many support functions are not, either. I remember it very well indeed. Sir Bruce was also right, in his 2013 review of 14 trusts with persistently high mortality rates, to commission Professors Nick Black and Ara Darzi to try to bottom out the relationship between excess mortality rates and avoidable deaths. Sadly, the report published last year did not seem to take us much further forward, other than to call into question the basis of the selection of trusts for the original Keogh review.

In my view, there is a firm argument for a seven-day-a-week NHS, but we need a common understanding of what that actually means beyond the soundbite. Upper GI bleeding is a good case in point, which the Government could perfectly reasonably use to support their proposals for seven-day working without resorting to selective quoting from, for example, the Freemantle paper. Most people are really not bothered about the inability to get an outpatient appointment in dermatology on a Saturday afternoon. That is a luxury bordering on an indulgence. However, if their Downton ulcer erupted on a Friday night, they would not really want to wait until a chaotic Monday morning list before getting endoscoped. They would need to be scoped on a routinely scheduled endoscopy list the following day, and they should not be subjected to delay in investigative and interventional radiology if that is necessary to manage their case optimally.

As far back as 2004, a large study by Sanders published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology showed that dedicated GI bleed units are associated with reduced mortality. NCEPOD asserts that patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding should only be admitted to units with on-site endoscopy, on-site or networked interventional radiography, on-site surgery and on-site critical care. It promotes the model of comprehensive, dedicated GI bleed units in hospitals on acute medical take. We are far from achieving that.

That highlights some broader issues around right-sizing the NHS estate for optimal acute and critical care outcomes, which is a subject that I have raised before. Because critical care requires multi-specialties, because of the need for increased sub-specialisation and all that implies for populating staff rosters, and because of the better outcomes in large specialist units, not to mention the cost pressures, optimal management of this range of conditions underscores neatly the need for the model hospital concept outlined in February by Lord Carter of Coles. Why are we not moving faster towards having secondary and tertiary care in regional and sub-regional centres, where critical mass, and therefore quality of outcome, can be more readily assured?

I am proud to support a Government who are spending more on the NHS than ever before—spending, let it be remembered, that was opposed by the Labour party at the general election. However, outcomes in the UK routinely compare unfavourably with those in similar countries, with which we can reasonably be compared. I have no specific comparative data for acute upper GI bleeding, but I have no reason to suppose that they run counter to that general trend. The unavoidable truth is that our neighbours spend significantly more on healthcare than we do. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and I, with colleagues across the House, have called for a commission to achieve consensus on long-term funding. That is despite Simon Stevens’s five-year forward view, which does not come close to addressing what is needed to make progress, given the assumptions on which it is based, which we know we cannot rely on.

It is not just about money, however. The impression given by the studies that I have relied on is that the management of acute upper GI bleeding is a hit-and-miss affair. The BSG blames a

“lack of engagement from senior managers”

for that patchiness. That ties in with the remarks made last week by Dame Julie Moore, who said that there was a “culture of indecision” in the NHS, and that there was “gross incompetence” and a “failure of leadership”. That is pretty hard hitting from a very senior NHS manager, and I wonder how individuals can justify salaries well in excess of the Prime Minister’s if they are failing to get a grip on the sort of shortfalls described as “A Bleeding Shame” by NCEPOD. Dame Julie is right to ask why incredibly expensive senior NHS managers who are managing failure on this scale are still in post.

Last year’s NCEPOD report on acute upper GI bleeding is a wake-up call. Its first and prime recommendation —that patients with any acute GI bleed should be admitted only to hospitals with 24/7 access to on-site endoscopy, on-site or formally networked interventional radiology, on-site GI bleed surgery and on-site critical care—must be implemented without further delay. The answer is dedicated GI bleeding units that are seven-day NHS-compliant, and, with very few exceptions, no unit that cannot match the BSG’s guidelines should take patients with acute upper GI bleeding.

I look forward to hearing how the Minister will make this so. I invite him to return to the House after 12 months, if I am fortunate enough to secure another Adjournment debate of this sort, to tell us how the position has improved.

Drones in Conflict

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

After this debate there will be a small ceremony to mark the three crests in memory of three Members of this House who died during the great war and who, until this point, have not been recognised.

In the immediate aftermath of that war, the strategist J.F.C. Fuller predicted the demilitarisation of warfare as machines replaced men on the battlefield. General Fuller was well ahead of his time, but the recent use of unmanned machines to eliminate people in a country where we are not actively engaged in war fighting was described by the Prime Minister on 7 September as a “new departure”. Perhaps in time, drones will rank alongside the longbow in the hundred years war, and submarines a century ago. Both in their time were castigated as disreputable and even cowardly, on the grounds that they appeared—initially at least—to be capable of killing with little risk to the operator.

This debate takes place as we contemplate a further vote on military action in Syria, and in the meantime drones have been used to kill two British citizens in Raqqa on 21 August under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Last week the Prime Minister announced that the number of RAF drones would be doubled, and yesterday the Defence Secretary issued a written ministerial statement about the Protector replacement for Reaper.

I support the development of unmanned air systems as part of the UK’s defence and security. Their endurance, the removal of personal risk from our troops, and the potential for reducing civilian casualties, together with the cost implications of simulator-based training, are all impressive. However, like any “new departure” they must be appraised critically.

Ministers have said that drones operate under existing generic rules of engagement and that nothing more is required. I would like to unpack that a bit, particularly since that assertion appears to conflict with the Ministry of Defence development, concepts and doctrine organisation’s joint doctrine note of March 2011. That JDN notes what we now know to be a “new departure”, and calls explicitly for an unmanned aerial vehicle governance road map. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in advancing the JDN’s recommendations? Will the road map be published? If so, when?

The availability of low-risk, low-cost means of delivering military effect risks lowering the bar for military intervention. It could be that the killings in Raqqa, which I volubly supported in September, illustrate the point. Would the Government have ordered this new departure without the risk-free means of delivery made possible by drones? Indeed, the absence of any obvious criminal or disruptive proceedings against collaborators of the individuals killed in Raqqa suggests that the unmanned aerial vehicle action was not as pressing as we initially understood it to be. Were it otherwise, one would have expected a highly sophisticated delivery and support system in the UK where the offence or offences were to be committed. As yet, we have seen no evidence of that.

In its response to the Defence Committee’s report, the Government denied that the availability of drones lowers the bar for military intervention. I expect the Minister to reiterate that today. However, unless Ministers are prepared to say that risk to our own troops is immaterial in determining whether to embark on military action, which I do not think she will, that line will have to be finessed in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this important debate. He has clearly outlined the issue for military use, but there is an opportunity to use drones for surveillance. In Northern Ireland, we have very active dissident republicans and the threat level is severe. Does he feel that drones could be used, for example by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to enable better surveillance and to catch terrorists involved in illegal activity?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his normal fashion. He will understand that Northern Ireland falls outwith the scope of today’s debate, but those responsible for security in Northern Ireland will no doubt examine all the options open to them to safeguard the people living in Northern Ireland.

I hope the newly repopulated Intelligence and Security Committee will be assisted by Ministers in applying its forensic skills to investigate the Raqqa killings. I am confident that the action was only taken, as the Prime Minister said on 7 September, as there was “no alternative”, so it should be able to reassure the public fairly easily. However, it or others must substantiate or refute the hypothesis that, in the Raqqa case, the availability of drones lowered the bar for intervention under article 51 on 21 August. If the former is the case, UAVs will indeed be a new departure in the tradition of J.F.C. Fuller, and the argument for tailored doctrine and rules of engagement will be overwhelming.

This is especially important as what may seem like surgical, low-risk interventions have an unnerving history of altogether bigger consequences that are difficult to predict and control. What is more, the use of particular systems by the UK legitimises their use by other states. The quality of our doctrine and our rules of engagement have a direct bearing on those of others. If we are seen to be relaxed about this new departure, we cannot be surprised if others take a similar line.

The use of drones by the US to eliminate operatives in Pakistan and Yemen is highly controversial. I am one of the greatest admirers of the United States, but its post-war history of what has become known as blowback —provoking sometimes game-changing retaliation through the generation of civilian collateral—is alarming. America’s allies are at risk of being seen as colluding to the point that the Defence Committee has called for a clear demarcation in the operation of drones where, of course, interchangeability of US and UK personnel and airframes is very advanced. The Birmingham Policy Commission was assured that UK personnel releasing a weapon from a United States air force vehicle remain subject to UK rules of engagement. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, since manned air operations in Syria—despite the express will of this House two years ago, however right or wrong—suggest otherwise?

We cannot directly influence our allies’ ROEs, but we can ensure that joint operations are conducted appropriately, that NATO doctrine is acceptable and that UK personnel are not compromised. Will the Minister say how many UK servicemen are involved in the operational use of drones with US or other forces and what arrangements she has made to ensure that the ROEs they are required to use do not fall short of the standards applicable in the UK? What will be done to ensure that data acquired using drones are not then used by allies to act against targets in a way that the UK public might find objectionable? The Defence Committee has suggested that the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this. Without wishing to overburden the ISC, would she agree that that suggestion is sound and do what she can to facilitate it?

Drones are all controlled by human beings, but concern remains over the development of autonomous airframes and so-called killer robots. Some level of independence already applies to a few of our existing weapon systems, such as Phalanx, but it would be useful if the Minister delineated the bounds of acceptability. Can she confirm that the UK is bound by the missile technology control regime, the Wassenaar arrangement and not least the consolidated criteria? What is her view of the future for unmanned technology exploitation in the UK aerospace and defence sector? Will she confirm that the UK Government would be unlikely to license the export of autonomous weapon systems?

Can I tempt the Minister to indicate how UAVs will feature in the upcoming strategic defence and security review? It sometimes seems that the only defence policy the Scottish National party has is the restoration of maritime patrol aircraft. Manned airframes for that purpose seem increasingly last century, so will she say whether UAVs—perhaps the US systems Poseidon or Triton, or NATO’s high altitude long endurance proposition —are being actively considered to restore capability taken at risk on withdrawal of Nimrod? Will the MOD now undertake to publish the study we understand is being conducted by the MOD into that matter?

Will the Minister say where we are with the future combat air system? A joint BAE Systems and Dassault post-Typhoon and Rafael unmanned combat air system concept trailed in the Lancaster House treaties and launched in 2012 appears to have stalled. Will she say what has happened to it and the extent to which the challenges of evolving technology designed for permissive airspace and data feeds to deal with hostile environments and semi-autonomy are delaying progress?

Will the Minister confirm that the UK has no interest in the European Defence Agency’s medium altitude long endurance remotely piloted aircraft systems project? I remember being distinctly lukewarm about that, as I am with “more Europe” in defence generally, at the Foreign Affairs Council when I was at the MOD. When will the Navy’s maritime UAV strategy paper be finished and published? If drones are relatively cheap, easy to control, low risk and readily deployable, they may well become a weapon of choice for non-state actors. What assessment has been made of this and, while spending on UAVs is bucking the defence spending trend in this country, what investment is being made in countermeasures?

I would like to consider the implications of emerging technology on military software—on uniformed men and women who serve this country. With the SDSR pending, it is important for Ministers to understand where technological advances are taking not only defence hardware but its software—the human beings who populate the military today and will do so over the next two decades. Air marshals gamely tried to convince us that a drone pilot playing with his joystick in the Nevada desert or Lincolnshire is the lineal descendent of “the few” and of airmen in conflicts since—that is, people who engage directly with or are engaged by the enemy in the air.

Although the mental challenge to a person who logs off and goes home after a shift in Lincolnshire should not be equated with an infanteer in Basra or Helmand, the psychological implications of killing the enemy at a distance rather than at close quarters merit close examination, particularly since operators lack the unit cohesion and support systems of those physically on the frontline.

If Fuller is right, military practitioners will increasingly be technicians, not tough men at the end of a bayonet. “Professional spirit” will replace “fighting spirit”: it will be as if the Royal Army Dental Corps has taken over from the Black Watch. If so, in the sanitised operations of the future, “fighting spirit” may become a positive disadvantage. The military covenant exists because of the extraordinary risks run by fighting forces. If there are few risks beyond the expectation of routine civilian employment, there is no need for a covenant.

General Fuller’s prediction of the end of the infantry was premature, but it may yet have its day as we shift from hand-to-hand to hands-off combat in an environment where societal tolerance for taking and inflicting casualties is low. If so, there are profound implications for how we structure our armed forces, the sort of people we recruit to them and the implicit deal struck between servicemen and the nation, reflected in the military covenant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

That is a matter for the Minister of Justice in the Executive and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I know that as we approach Christmas the tempo of operations by dissidents in particular has a tendency to increase. The PSNI and the Department of Justice are aware of that and making appropriate preparations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is a high level of dissident republican activity over Christmas and new year, and there is evidence that dissident republicans have direct contact with terrorist groups in north Africa and the middle east. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with Governments from that region to ensure that the flow of weapons and bomb-making expertise is stopped?

[Dr Murrison]

Those matters are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and she is in touch with relevant countries to ensure that the threat of terrorism from individuals from countries outside the United Kingdom is reduced as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be following closely the progress of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill through this House, as that is relevant to the issue he raises.

Massereene Barracks Shooting 2009

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this important debate.

I begin by offering my sincere condolences to the families of both Sapper Patrick Azimkar and Sapper Mark Quinsey. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met Patrick’s parents recently. I know that they are taking a close interest in today’s proceedings, and that my right hon. Friend was deeply moved by the account that they gave. Their personal strength and dignity at this difficult time is remarkable. Five years on, I am sure that the pain that they have suffered will not be erased. It is a particularly cruel irony that two fine young men should be struck down on home soil just as they were preparing to serve their country in Helmand.

Before I address the points raised in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, I assure the House that this Government take the threat posed by terrorists extremely seriously. Northern Ireland-related terrorism is a tier 1 risk in the national security strategy, meaning that it is of the highest priority to this Government, as it was to the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. Five years after the Massereene shootings, the threat level remains at “severe”. However, progress has been made, as I am sure many of the hon. Members here will attest. As a result of the sterling and often unsung work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5, working in close co-operation with police in the Republic of Ireland and others, lives are undoubtedly saved and the ill intent of violent criminals thwarted or mitigated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Some of the names of those involved in the murder have been mentioned. David Jordan, who is in prison in the Republic, has also been mentioned. A European arrest warrant has been issued for him on his release from prison. Can the Minister confirm that all of those allegedly involved in these murders, in the Republic of Ireland or wherever they may be, will be brought to justice?

[Dr Murrison]

That is clearly the firm intent of both the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Violent terrorists, wherever they are, must be called to account. I know that all the agencies that I have mentioned, and others, are bent on ensuring that such wicked individuals are brought to account and face the full rigour of the law, wherever they are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. She will of course have seen today’s figures, which show that although youth unemployment in Northern Ireland is 20.4%—that is too high—it has dropped by 2.1% over the quarter. I am sure she will warmly welcome both that and the drop by 1% to 6.7% in the overall level of unemployment in Northern Ireland—the 18th successive drop in the claimant count. I hope she warmly welcomes that, as right hon. and hon. Members from across the House certainly will.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Young Protestants in Northern Ireland are experiencing great difficulty in seeking employment. Will the Minister confirm the steps that the Government are taking to help those Protestant youths gain worthwhile skills, training and employment?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to work at school level and to build the number of apprenticeships in Northern Ireland to ensure that the figure to which I have referred, which remains too high—albeit fairly good in comparison with many other countries in Europe—comes down dramatically.

Defence in Scotland after 2014

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I have given up speculating about the SNP, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is somewhat odd, even in the simple 19 pages on defence in this remarkable 649-page document, that Rosyth should feature so poorly. That is truly remarkable and I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are entitled to draw their own conclusions from that.

I believe that Scotland should continue to benefit from every pound spent on UK defence. We of course have one of the largest budgets in the world at £33.5 billion this year. The £2.5 billion grudgingly conceded by Mr Salmond for both defence and security simply pales in comparison.

As part of the UK, Scotland will continue, as it has done for 300 years, to play an integral part in all aspects of UK defence. As UK citizens, Scots will continue to be employed in world-class armed forces, and Scotland will continue to be home to critical high-end military capabilities across the defence piece. In fact, on our current plans, the defence presence in Scotland will increase over the coming years. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, by 2020 Scotland will be home to one of the Royal Navy’s main bases, including all of its submarines—I will come back to submarines in a moment—as well as to one of the British Army’s seven adaptable force brigades and one of three Royal Air Force fast-jet main operating bases.

At a time when the overall number of our regular armed forces personnel is necessarily decreasing, the number based in Scotland is set to increase from about 11,000 now to 12,500 by 2020, which is about 8.8% of the UK total.

UK defence generates economic benefits for communities throughout Scotland though jobs, contracts and support services. Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde is the biggest employment site in Scotland, with about 6,700 military and civilian jobs, increasing to 8,200 by 2022.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has eloquently described the importance of defence to the east coast, and every constituency in Scotland has people whose livelihoods depend on defence and that are subsequently at risk.

Scotland, as part of the UK, will continue to benefit from a strong, established global network of international relationships and alliances that would be unavailable to an independent Scotland, at best for years and possibly indefinitely.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his strong and robust response to the debate. During her intervention on me earlier, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) outlined the importance of defence contracts to many businesses in Northern Ireland as well. The ripples caused by independence would affect not just Scotland, but Northern Ireland.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has anticipated my next point, which is that the UK has geopolitical influence that few states of a similar size can match. That influence would be put at risk in a dramatic way were this country to be split in two. Together, undoubtedly we punch well above our weight. Apart, we would certainly be diminished, with substantial geopolitical consequences that would reach far beyond these shores. It is interesting that many of our partners are watching this situation very closely indeed—even more closely, I have to say, than many of our own citizens on these islands—because they fully understand what is at stake in September.

Because we are together, the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member of the European Union and a founder member of NATO. It is central to the “Five Eyes” community. The benefits for Scotland’s defence industry as part of the UK are especially important to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, as he has pointed out.

The scale of our defence spending is a key factor in sustaining those indigenous defence industries. The Ministry of Defence spent more than £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12. Over the 10 years from 2012-13, it will spend almost £160 billion on new equipment and data systems. That spending sustains a substantial industrial footprint in Scotland, from complex warships to the latest high-tech innovations in aerospace engineering, defence electronics and electro-optical systems in companies based throughout the country, employing thousands of people in high-skill and relatively high-salary positions. Many of our prime contractors—Babcock, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Selex ES, Thales, Raytheon and QinetiQ—have sites in Scotland. The defence sector in Scotland employs about 12,600 people, with 4,000 jobs in Scottish shipyards being directly linked to the aircraft carrier programme alone.

The SNP may be able to marshal arguments in support of independence, beyond its cynical offer of free child care, but even its ex-parliamentary candidate Colonel Stuart Crawford asked rhetorically whether the Scottish Government White Paper would provide at least some answers. In the event, we were left little the wiser from its 649 pages.

John Swinney’s secret admission that his defence budget would be less than the £2.5 billion asserted by the SNP is interesting, but let us generously assume that that is the figure. That would be for both defence and security, presumably including intelligence and cyber, but it is only about 7% of the UK’s combined budgets for defence, intelligence and cyber, and it is significantly less than Scotland’s population share—if we are counting, which we are not.

It is not clear what level of security and protection the £2.5 billion would provide, but it would for sure be less than Denmark’s or Norway’s. The SNP plans are simply unaffordable, and I can only conclude that it would end up with its starting point of 7,500 soldiers. So much for restoring all Scotland’s historic regiments. Confounding Colonel Crawford’s hopes, the White Paper seems to offer more questions than answers.

It is clear that an independent Scottish state would have to wait in line for membership of the international organisations that the Scottish Government have hitherto believed Scotland would automatically join. If it wished to be a member of NATO, all 28 member states would need to agree unanimously to its accession, which is hardly likely, given the Scottish Government’s attitude to the strategic nuclear deterrent that lies at the very heart of the alliance’s strategic concept. It seems unlikely that the “Five Eyes” community would really bang on the door of a newly independent Scotland.

Companies based in an independent Scottish state would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place, or to compete domestically, for national security reasons under article 346. All our complex warships are designed and built within the UK for reasons of national security, so as a foreign country, Scotland would no longer be eligible. Where companies in Scotland could continue to compete, they would be bidding in a cut-throat international market dominated by major economic powers. The sustainability of the defence industry in Scotland and the thousands of jobs that depend on it would therefore be cause for considerable concern.

The Scottish Government have shown a little bit of leg in the 19 pages on defence in their 649-page doorstopper, but there is no link between their defence wish list and the budget proposed to cover it. Their £2.5 billion—remember that that is our generous assessment—would be nowhere near enough to pay for their stated requirement and, like the hon. Gentleman, who is eagle-eyed, I notice that the figure does not cover their 2012 plans for conventional submarines, which were not mentioned in the following year’s White Paper. The Scottish Government say that they would have expensive platforms, such as Type 26 frigates, Typhoon jets and maritime patrol aircraft, and presumably the wherewithal to process and act on the data that MPAs generate, and would continue to operate all current major military bases, but the sums do not add up.

That is not to suggest that an independent Scotland could not build a defence force. Of course it could. However, what the Scottish Government are saying about what that force would be like is simply not credible—it is incredible. Whatever defence force an independent Scotland could develop, it would not come close to replicating the level of defence and security that comes from being part of the UK, which defends the country not on a regional basis, but as a whole.