Holocaust Memorial Day
Debate between Andrew Percy and Hannah Bardell(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. I was not in the Chamber for Question Time—I apologise for that—but certainly that is exactly the kind of thing I mean. It links to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) about the need for better education in this whole space. Yes, 100%—I would be more than happy to work with the hon. Lady. I would, of course, say to my right hon. Friend—I was coming to this later in my speech, but I shall say it now—that the Holocaust Educational Trust does a fantastic job. No Holocaust Memorial Day debate is complete without a shout-out to Karen Pollock and all of her fantastic team for everything that they do.
I do hope that the Government will continue to enable the HET funding to be used in a way that allows the trust to take students, teachers, local journalists and even the local MP on its visits. While I had visited concentration camps in Germany before, I had never visited the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz until I went on a HET visit. Doing so is an incredibly powerful thing, and I would encourage colleagues to try to undertake a visit. Every colleague who has been on one knows the power of it. The sad reality, of course, is that we cannot take every school student on such visits.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to fund as many young people as possible to visit the western front and the battlefields of world wars one and two, as well as Auschwitz and Birkenau? I visited the battlefields as a young teenager in my second year at high school, and it left an indelible mark on me—I went to the grave of my grandmother’s uncle, who died there. When I left university, I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau. I know the importance of being able to see the magnitude and understand the impact so that our young leaders of the future will make sure that mistakes made back then are never made again.
Andrew Percy
Again, I could not disagree with a word that the hon. Lady says. Visits are important, but it is not always possible to take every student, as I have said. One of the lessons I enjoyed teaching, which I found to be one of the most powerful about the battlefields—we could not take every child—was to make my students put their own name or a family name into the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website. They would very often find somebody, and we would then do a piece of creative writing on what that person’s experience must have been like. Visits to the battlefields and, of course, to Auschwitz are very important.
One of the real challenges of teaching the holocaust is that, because of the scale of the horror and the outrage, it is often very difficult for young people to understand the machinery and the scale of what actually happened. However, a visit reinforces something that it is much more difficult to get across in the classroom. We have to continue holocaust education, and we have to continue to fund the Holocaust Educational Trust properly.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Debate between Andrew Percy and Hannah Bardell(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Percy
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I agree with him on so many matters. The issue will come before this House. As I said in an intervention, there is an element of anti-Americanism in this. I am not saying that that is being expressed by those in the Chamber today, but it did come across in an email to me. I do not hear much from 38 Degrees. The people of Brigg and Goole are too busy just getting on with their lives to waste their time forwarding me emails that are written by somebody else, telling me what their view is. I did have an interaction with someone in which I pointed out this view about anti-Americanism. There was then a trail of emails, in which I pointed out that we had all these ISDS agreements with 94 other countries, and that had only been used against us on two occasions, and never successfully. The trail ended with my constituent, who had assured me in his first email that he was not anti-American, saying, “Ah yes, but the other agreements have not had American lawyers involved.” Clearly, there is an element of anti-Americanism involved, and we should not pretend otherwise.
Andrew Percy
No, I will not give way, because I will not get any extra time. [Interruption.] I have a lot to say.
I could not disagree with anything my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy said. He made a fine speech, despite his hoarse voice, on the impact on small businesses. I represent an area that is a mix of big industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. Again, a constituent contacted me with something from 38 Degrees. I was robust with him on this position on TTIP, as I have been since I came to this House in 2010. I explained that it is of benefit to small businesses. His response was, “Well, I run a small business, and I have tried to do trade in America, and it is really very, very hard.” That is exactly my point. Those are the people who will benefit most from this agreement.
I represent an exporting centre in this country. A lot of small and medium-sized enterprises have great products to offer, but only a big corporation can afford all the skills and people necessary to navigate the regulatory difficulties; others can struggle, so this agreement will be of benefit to them.
I wish to say something about the impact on the NHS. Some of the scaremongering has been really scandalous. We looked at this matter in the Health Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is on the Committee, mentioned. We put a series of specific questions to Jean-Luc Demarty, who is the director-general for trade in the European Commission, and his responses could not have been blunter. It is worth while me reading them out for the record. We asked:
“Is it the EU’s negotiating position that publicly funded health services should be excluded from TTIP”?
The answer was very clear. He said:
“This is the effect of the EU's approach to public services in all trade negotiations since the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) in 1995.”
He went on to say:
“It is also worth explaining that even without the above reservations and exceptions, the EU trade agreements leave EU governments at all levels free to regulate all services sectors in a non-discriminatory manner...Therefore, in effect all publicly funded public health services are protected in EU trade / agreements, and this approach will not change for TTIP.”
We were not satisfied with that answer, so we asked another question:
“What would be the consequences for the provision of NHS services, including hospital, primary care and community services, if they were not specifically excluded from TTIP?”
Again, the response was clear:
“in effect all publicly funded public health services, including NHS services, will be protected in TTIP.”
We asked again:
“Does the definition of public-funded Health Services include private companies who run such services paid for from public funds? Does it include third sector organisations?”
The answer was:
“Yes, as long as the services are publicly funded, it does not matter how they are delivered.”
They will enjoy the same protections.
We get a lot of nonsense from the EU, but the answer to this next question could not have been simpler. We asked:
“Is there any opportunity after the exclusion of any public services from TTIP for other countries to challenge that exclusion and, if so, what is the process?”
In other words, can they challenge the exclusion of the NHS? The answer was, “No”—with a big fat full stop after it. It could nothave been clearer. Another question was:
“Is there any action that a Member State can take outside the negotiation process to ensure that health or any other public services are exempted from the provisions of TTIP or any other trade agreement?”
The director-general said:
“As above, in the Commission’s view there is no need to take any further action to ensure this result, as public services are always protected in EU trade agreements.”
We received similar answers on charitable providers and when a national Government take back in a service. So, this nonsense being perpetuated about the risk of TTIP to the NHS is shameful. It is about trying to present an image to people in this country that big, bad, nasty American healthcare providers, which are only about profit, will come in and sweep up the NHS for private profit. Nothing could be further from the truth, as has been made clear by US negotiators. One US negotiator was really clear about this. He specifically mentioned the UK and said that TTIP is not a way of the US trying to get access to the publicly funded health system in the United Kingdom. The EU trade negotiator was very clear. He said that the service was wholly excluded already. It does not matter whether the service is privately provided, charitable-sector provided or publicly provided—it is all protected.
When people run around campaigning against TTIP and raising legitimate concerns—and there have been some legitimate concerns—about the process and ISDS, the one thing they must not do is frighten people and say that this is about American businesses coming in and destroying the NHS. The response from the EU—I never quote the EU because I do not like the EU, and I am campaigning for us to leave it—has been absolutely clear on this: the NHS is safe, whether or not there is TTIP. The only bodies that can cause any damage to our NHS, and challenge this in the way that those who oppose TTIP say, are national Governments. Governments are in a position to do the damage to the NHS, but in England, that is not happening because we have an excellent Government doing good things for the NHS. In other parts of the UK, that might be up for debate.