Business of the House

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady and all those who have been serving on both the programme board and the client board. The House will be pleased to know that great progress has been made. We have been able to get some real grip and granularity into the programme, and we also have a number of projects that we can get on with while we are looking at decant options and other things that will take more time. She knows that the next client board meeting will be on Monday and will look to take some of those decisions, but this House needs to be sighted on programmes that are going forward and on the options, and it must have a say in those too.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House was right to withdraw from yesterday’s debate when it was clear that conventions were being broken. Those who put pressure on the Speaker to break with convention should reflect on their actions. If it was because Members of Parliament could be intimidated or at risk for how they voted, that is even worse and actually quite frightening. Having said that, the Speaker has said he made a mistake, and the House relies on us having confidence in the Speaker. We should move on now, and I would recommend that we do not put in motions of no confidence. Instead, we should restore our reputation as soon as possible by having a proper debate on a Government motion, whereby all amendments can be considered.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said and the tone he has struck in saying it. The Speaker came to this House last night, took responsibility for his actions and apologised. He is reflecting on what has happened, and he is meeting all parties. I hope that everyone who was involved in the events yesterday, and in the consequences of them, will also reflect on their actions and take responsibility for them.

Business of the House

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

We are about to go into recess, and I think it is restorative to spend time with our constituents, and to escape the Westminster and social media bubble.

Since Parliament returned this year, we have witnessed the nation rally behind a group of people mightily wronged, who took on those in powerful positions to fight to get justice for themselves and others. The hon. Lady mentioned the Post Office Horizon scandal. She will know that there is a debate this afternoon, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), will take the opportunity to update the House on progress made towards that legislation. I confirm that that is still our intent. I also know that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), is working at pace with regard to infected blood. I understand he had a meeting with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) about that earlier this week.

We have also seen the crew of the Prince of Wales aircraft carrier cancel plans, leave, and time with their loved ones to do their duty. We have learned that thanks to the graft and grit of the British people and businesses, our economy has turned a corner. We have seen our monarch respond to his cancer diagnosis, as many other Brits have, with courage, duty and cheerfulness, and with family rallying around, and I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and good wishes, as well as all Members and the British public who have sent their best wishes to His Majesty.

We have also seen a mother meeting the brutal murder of her child with the most profound grace and compassion, turning her anguish into positive action to protect other children. And we have seen a father speak about how the love for his child enabled him to overcome his worries about them being trans. Those are the things that our nation is made of: compassion, fairness, tolerance, responsibility, service, and love. We see those things every day in the people who sent us here, and we look on them with pride. Sometimes that pride is reciprocated, as I am sure it was for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) in what he said yesterday. Sometimes that pride is not reciprocated. Whatever the rough and tumble of this place, and whatever the pressures and mistakes that are made in the heat of political combat, we owe it to the people who sent us here to strive every day to make them proud of us and this place.

The Prime Minister is a good and caring man. I am sure that he has reflected on things, and I understand that he will say something later today or perhaps even during these questions. It is not just about Mr and Mrs Ghey that he should reflect on; I am sure he is also reflecting on people who are trans or who have trans loved ones and family, some of whom sit on these green Benches. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will also reflect on his actions. This Government have been right to protect the safety and dignity of women, and at each stage of doing so they have sought to bring certainty and assurance to trans people. This Government are also right to hold the Opposition to account for their multiple inconsistencies and U-turns on their policy platform.

Today supposition has ended, and reality has landed about the Schrödinger £28 billion—a policy that for months and months has been both alive and dead, and is now confirmed as dead, at least for now. There will be questions over whether the shadow Energy Secretary’s tenure in that role is also alive or dead. “Politically, it’s strategically incompetent” as the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) called this sorry saga, and that description could also apply to Labour’s costings on its insulation programme and its council tax policy and modelling. It is more confirmation that not only does Labour not have a plan, it has no hope of arriving at one either.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) asked me about risk-based exclusion, and we have tabled that motion on future business. She knows that we will bring forward a debate and vote on that after recess, but I want Members of the House to have time to make themselves aware of the issue and to ask me, and other members of the House of Commons Commission, questions about it.

Regarding scrutiny of the Foreign Secretary, I am in touch with the Leader of the House of Lords about that matter and I hope to update the House soon.

Finally, today marks the start of marriage and family week, and it is appropriate that we send a big thank you to all those who support us in this place and who quite often put up with a great deal. Further business will be announced in the usual way.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House knows that I am a member of the programme board on restoration and renewal, and she is the responsible Minister. There is a debate due on the business case, and she might now tell the House when that will happen. It is imminent. We will also have a debate on whether we will have a decant, but not until 2025, and even if we do decant, that will not be until 2031, and I doubt I will personally live to see it, although I wish Members well with that project.

I do not want to get involved with whether we decant, but ask a specific question. This matter has now dragged on since 2015 and could drag on until 2031. Meanwhile, the building is decaying around us. Three options were delivered to the Speaker’s Commission on this matter, and one is planned maintenance around us. We have successfully done good work on parts of the building, and I urge the Leader of the House now—she might make an announcement on this—to press ahead with proper planned maintenance, so that we can repair the building and make it good for future generations.

[Penny Mordaunt]

May I start by thanking my right hon. Friend and other colleagues for all the work they have done on the programme board? The new governance structure—I hope Mr Speaker would concur—has enabled us to make good progress on getting a proper grip of what needs to happen to this building and the activity and costs associated with that. We will bring forward further news to the House shortly on where we are with the plans and the programme, but that should not get in the way of concurrent activity. He will know there are some early projects that we think we can get on with that are perfectly within the boundaries of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, and we should get on and do them. I hope that the House will welcome a more pragmatic approach to taking care of this important UNESCO heritage site.

Business of the House

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will be laser-focused on what the hon. Lady raises. First, let me point out that she is incorrect. There has been some incorrect reporting with regards to £1.9 billion being handed back to the Treasury by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The bulk of that spend still sits with that Department. The hon. Lady will know that we have delivered 2.3 million additional homes since 2010, the lion’s share of which are affordable homes. Our current build rate is up 108%, compared to when we first took power. It is important to point that out, and I thank her for allowing me to correct that incorrect line that has been running.

I think the hon. Lady is slightly delusional regarding the SNP’s record. She talks about trying to tackle drug deaths. The SNP has the worst record of managing this problem, the worst record of drug deaths in Europe and does not fare well with regard to water pollution. That may have been a reason the SNP put out a complaint about the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it wanted her to go to Holyrood to be drilled by SNP colleagues there. But it is this House that will hold the Secretary of State to account. So her colleagues will have to enjoy their biscuits without “Coffey” in Holyrood, which makes for a nice change from their Westminster colleagues, who I understand have been having a lot of meetings with their Chief Whip—with coffee, but without biscuits.

On the hon. Lady’s final point on today’s statement, I shall look into that, because it is a courtesy and people should expect to be able to see statements in advance. She did a very good job of filling in for her colleague, who probably wanted to be here and I certainly would have liked to hear what questions they would have asked. After all, the SNP, which wishes to have an independent Scotland in NATO, does not realise that that is incompatible with its position on nuclear weapons, as stated by the former First Minister, and with the fudge on this issue that the current First Minister has proposed and that is in the SNP’s White Paper on the matter.

I take this opportunity—again, I thank the hon. Lady for affording me it—to remind all hon. Members that, if we pay lip service to the deterrent and that is all we do, if we waiver in our total commitment to it and if we are no longer credible, it ceases to become a deterrent and, when it ceases to become a deterrent, we become a target.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on the House of Lords? We have had endless debates on whether they should be elected and there seems very little consensus—it is just creating gridlock between the two Houses—but the House of Lords should surely be a revising Chamber. That is its strength; it is full of experts. But we have seen with the Illegal Migration Bill their determination to amend a Government Bill to a huge extent: they virtually want to kill it off, rather than simply improve it. Can we try to achieve consensus on getting people in the House of Lords who actually want to be working peers and to improve legislation, and give power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission to consider the suitability of candidates, not just their propriety?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My right hon. Friend raises some very good points. I gave the Commons tally for the number of times that Labour had voted against our important Bill in this place. I think the tally in the Lords is 29 times. The House of Lords, as he will recognise, does an incredibly important job in scrutinising and, we hope, improving legislation. My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry into such matters. My right hon. Friend will also know that one of the most vocal set of voices for reform of the Lords does actually comes from the Lords itself.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Even if a scheme looks good on paper, it is the practical issues about how it will operate that matter. He refers to particular things that a particular police force has done. If they are part of the scheme, Members will want to have trust and confidence in their ability to play their part. It is well understood that Members of Parliament have a unique vulnerability to false allegations. My right hon. Friend will know that there are Members who are currently off the estate for various reasons on a voluntary basis. I feel strongly that in those circumstances —particularly when investigations are taking a long time—their ability to represent their constituencies should not be compromised. I want to thank the Procedure Committee and others who have done work to bring forward the option of a proxy vote for Members who find themselves in those circumstances.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will take one more intervention as it might help us later in the debate.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Does the Commission accept as a general principle that the people have elected Members to this House and that only the people should remove Members from this House?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Yes. I think I speak for all Commissioners when I say that we do, which is why we have been keen to ensure that when people are not on the estate, for whatever reason, they have access to a proxy vote. This is an important point of principle. We are talking about a very narrow and rare set of circumstances. That is the question that the Commission was set, following concerns from members of staff and others on the estate, and that is why this work has been done, but it will be up to this House whether to take this scheme forward, and if so, in what form. That is why we are having this debate today.

Business of the House

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Happy Chinese new year to everyone and congratulations to HMS Oardacious, which I mentioned in a previous session, on its record-breaking row across the Atlantic.

It is very good to see the hon. Lady back and in full voice, and I am glad she has been paying attention to my speech—I am very flattered by that. Before turning to her specific questions, she invited me to compare and contrast our record against hers. Let me take just one example—waiting lists is a topic on our minds at the moment. We obviously had a huge catch-up job to do during covid and new diagnostic centres are bringing down those waiting lists, but let us look at the figures for those waiting more than a year for treatment. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, before the pandemic, under 10 years of a Conservative Government, the figure was 1,643, and when covid hit this autumn it was over 400,000. That is the scale of the challenge we face and is what I was concentrating on in my speech. It is the same story all over the UK: waiting times are longer in Wales. But what were the figures under Labour? With no covid—and, let us be fair, after 10 years of a Labour Government—they were 578,682.

Would the hon. Lady like me to go on to talk about Labour’s treatment of junior doctors, or the scandal of MRSA or C. diff infections in our hospitals, or the lunacy of private finance initiative schemes which saw us paying £300 to change a lightbulb, or the treatment centres that had machines that went “ping” but did not treat any patients? I could go on, but let me address the points she has raised.

The EU retained law Bill has good scrutiny: it has dedicated Committees both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We can do a number of things focusing on and prioritising particular areas of reform or carrying over laws if we think that is the right thing to do.

I understand the pitch the hon. Lady and her party are making to be the party of taking back control; indeed this week Labour announced legislative plans and a take back control Act. There were no details of course, so let me suggest what that might look like. A take back control act might have been voting with us to deliver Brexit; it might have been walking through the Aye Lobby on our borders Bill, or championing new trade agreements, or supporting us in the competition Bill and the Procurement Bill or the EU retained law Bill or—I live in hope—supporting us on the legislation we will bring forward to tackle small boats. All those Bills increased fairness and freedom for our citizens, improved wage growth and gave improvements to consumer power, improvements to help businesses grow and improvements to speed up the take-up of scientific breakthrough.

Labour’s take back control Act is not a piece of legislation; it is a piece of performance art. While we power up and level up our communities, while we catch up with covid, while we raise up the nation—millions more in work, 1 million fewer workless households, 10% more in good or outstanding schools—Labour sucks up to union bosses, pulls up the social mobility drawbridge because of its dogma, and tells its MPs to shut up on social issues such as gender recognition.

Other business will be announced in the usual way.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, solar panels have their part to play, but Gainsborough is going to be ringed with 10,000 acres of solar panels, more than the rest of the east midlands combined. May we have a debate on this issue and particularly on Government guidance on whether solar panels should be put on good agricultural land? There is a presumption against solar panels on grade 1, 2 and 3a land, but not yet on 3b land, and all the leadership candidates in our election promised they would shift solar panels from good agricultural land in places like Lincolnshire to urban areas and roofs or warehouses; may we have an urgent debate please?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important point. That would be a good topic for a debate. I am sure that he knows how to apply for one and that it would be well attended. Given that Environment questions is not until much later in February, I shall write to the Department on his behalf to raise his concerns.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

If I may, I will make a little progress.

I particularly thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her engagement and her commitment to the work that we wish to undertake following the Bill to address the other issues that need dragging into the 21st century.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is slightly beyond the scope of this particular Bill. In fact, the beneficiaries of this Bill are indeed very narrow and I shall comment on that further in a moment. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and elsewhere in Government are clearly looking at a whole raft of long-overdue issues. I am sorry that the pandemic has delayed responses to consultation for very understandable reasons, but his points are well made. I am sure that, throughout the course of this debate and Committee stage, hon. Members will want to touch on the situation facing people other than the handful of individuals that we are concerned with this afternoon. On moving this Bill today, I do so with humility in recognition of that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I warmly support the Bill, but can Her Majesty’s Government confirm that only a biological woman can have a baby? Will the Minister therefore explain to me why the Bill refers to “a person” and not to “a woman”? If we are going to adopt extreme gender ideology, why are the Government doing it by stealth and why can we not have a transparent debate on the matter? This insults the dignity of many women.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I hope to be able to go into detail about this later in the debate. I know that many Members will want to speak to this issue, and I will want to hear what they say, but I want to reassure hon. Members across the House that there is absolutely no intention of doing that. This is not a policy decision around language, and the Government will still use the word “women” in all documents, as is our policy. The issue is a particular drafting issue, and I can come on to the detail later, in Committee. I hope to be able to give all Members some comfort today about the language that we will be using. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to leave it there for the moment, but his point is well made and very well understood by myself and the rest of Government. I hope that, by the end of today, people will be reassured on that front.

Although they are outside the immediate scope of this Bill, I know that there are considerable and long-standing concerns about the provision of support for hon. Members in this place who wish to take maternity leave. This has been highlighted by many colleagues across the House. There have been some improvements in this area in recent years, and I commend Mr Speaker and his colleagues and the House authorities for their continuing support for reform in this area, but clearly more is needed, and I hope that the cross-party work that follows this Bill may afford us some opportunities to address those outstanding matters.

Returning to the Bill, it would be reasonable to ask why the Government do not in such circumstances simply take on another Minister as maternity cover. The situation is that there are no fewer than three Acts of Parliament governing the issue of ministerial numbers and pay and, more pertinently, the relevant restrictions on them. Until now, the limits on the number of salaries that can be paid overall, and for individual officers, have left the Government with limited flexibility to appoint cover should a Minister want to go on maternity leave. In a nutshell, for someone to be appointed to cover, and for that individual to be paid, the temporarily outgoing Minister would have to resign. This Bill puts an end to that wholly unacceptable situation. Instead, it will enable a Minister to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave to care for their newborn child, subject to certain conditions and at the discretion of the Prime Minister, while remaining a member of the Government.

This provision will be similar to that available to members of the armed forces and the civil service and, significantly, it responds directly to a recommendation made in 2014 by the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. The Bill does not try to confer equal terms or provide absolute parity with maternity leave provisions for all employees and workers. Both adoption leave and shared parental leave are important provisions, but they are not included in this piece of legislation. They are complex issues that require further consideration in the wider constitutional context, but they are not impossible, and I will return to those issues shortly.

On paternity leave, the current statutory entitlement for all new fathers is two weeks. I am pleased to say that this absence can be accommodated within existing practices, should a Minister wish to take paternity leave. The Government recognise that new fathers may want even more flexibility to support their partner following the birth of a child, and I am glad to confirm that we will consider this as part of our further work. The House will also be aware that the Government recently consulted on parental leave and pay for employees, and we are due to respond to that consultation in the near future. This work will provide us with a valuable perspective on how the existing provisions function, and any future proposals for Ministers will be developed with these conclusions in mind.

Some Members hoped for this Bill to address other issues of parental leave. I mentioned earlier the significant improvements that have been made to make this House more family-friendly, and the provisions that are still needed. The Government agree that both Parliament and the Government should seek to lead from the front on working practices, providing as much flexibility as possible to office holders to aid the effective discharge of their duties. I am very conscious that this Bill relates to a subset of ministerial and Opposition office holders—a payroll of just 115 people. It is also solely concerned with maternity leave. I shall not go into the technical detail of why the other matters are not in the Bill, but let me be clear from the outset that we will bring forward proposals to address those outstanding issues. We looked at putting many of those issues in this Bill. That has not been possible, but we do want to address them swiftly and have been discussing with colleagues across the House how we might do so.

I also know that Opposition post holders—in fact, Members from both side of the House—have for a long time expressed concerns about provision for maternity leave under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority scheme. IPSA is independent, and for good reason. In this particular respect, I am grateful for the engagement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I know that many Members will want to address these other issues, and I will reserve the bulk of my remarks on them until my concluding speech on Second Reading. In the meantime, I draw colleagues’ attention to the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement committing the Government to present a report to Parliament setting out considerations and proposals on these issues.

The issues with the Bill also touch on the fact that a number of Lords ministerial posts are unpaid. The Prime Minister has undertaken that the Government should look at the use by successive Administrations of unpaid ministerial posts. Clearly the Bill does not relate to anyone outside the ministerial pipeline or anyone outside Parliament. In bringing this Bill to the House, which I hope will gather wide support, I do very much recognise the context. The terms for those in the armed forces and civil service are the terms on which this Bill is pegged. They are far more generous than the public sector average, and many people will be in receipt of far less than that average.

I am sure that some Members will want to focus this afternoon on other issues that people are facing, as I have already set out. I just want to outline some of the detail of the Bill, but I will be very brief in doing so and will go into further detail later. Clauses 1 to 3 deal with the designation of a Minister on leave, setting out the mechanism that allows Ministers to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave. Clauses 4 to 6 set out the arrangements relating to six months’ paid maternity leave for certain office holders in Her Majesty’s official Opposition. Clause 7 contains the usual final provisions.

The second part of the Bill makes provision for certain Opposition office holders—namely, those listed in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975—to take up to six months’ paid maternity leave. In contrast to the arrangements for Ministers, Opposition office holders who are to take maternity leave would stay in post. The Bill authorises a payment to a nominated individual, who, at the discretion of the Leader of the Opposition in the relevant House, is to cover the office holder’s role on similar terms as those for Ministers that I have already outlined.

The difference in approach reflects the fact that Opposition office holders are not appointed by the Prime Minister and do not have statutory functions in the way that a Secretary of State or a Law Officer does. It is therefore more straightforward for an individual to provide the necessary maternity leave cover while the original office holder remains in post. The arrangements may last for up to six months, and the eligibility criteria are the same for those in relation to Ministers. The Bill leaves it to the discretion of the Opposition leader in each House to appoint individuals to these temporary covering roles. Only one person can be appointed to cover an office holder’s post at any point during the period of leave. However, should the Leader of the Opposition wish to change the appointment, they have the discretion to do so.

Clause 5 builds on these provisions and outlines how the allowance payable should be calculated, how payments are administered and when payments should end. As with the provisions for Ministers, the person appointed to cover an office holder’s role should receive a monthly allowance that is equivalent to the office holder’s monthly salary. This financial arrangement should continue for as long as the individual is fulfilling the responsibilities of the role, but for no longer than six months. This allowance, as is the case with Opposition office holders’ salaries, is to be paid from the Consolidated Fund.

The final provisions relating to Opposition office holders are set out in clause 6, which establishes the relationship between the appointed individual covering an Opposition office holder and existing legislation. As is the case with a Minister on leave, where the Opposition office holder is a Member of the House of Lords, she is not eligible to claim the so-called Lords office holder allowance provided under the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 while on maternity leave. However, the individual appointed as maternity cover by virtue of these provisions is entitled to claim that allowance for the duration of the appointment. That is because the allowance is to reflect the work undertaken in the House, such as late-night sittings.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 makes provision for both Members’ and Ministers’ pension schemes. Both Ministers and Opposition office holders are entitled to pensions under the Ministers’ pension scheme. Given that there is no material change to their position, there has been no need to make provisions in the Bill to ensure that their salary remains pensionable during their maternity leave. However, the individual appointed to cover the post is entitled to the Ministers’ pension scheme for the duration of their appointment, in relation to the allowance paid to them for the role.

Finally, clause 7 makes the usual provisions necessary for the Bill to operate in law, including defining its territorial extent, setting out its commencement arrangements and providing the Bill’s short title. The Bill comes into force on Royal Assent and will thus be of immediate benefit to those wishing to take maternity leave, should there be anyone who is in those circumstances. As I said, I am very aware of the issues that the Bill has brought to light with regard to language. I know that there are time pressures on the debate, but I will address those issues in more detail in the course of the afternoon.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his written statement on this topic last week, the Government have undertaken to look at considerations and proposals for Ministers and Opposition office holders in the other areas not covered by the Bill. We are committed to building more widely on the progress that the Bill represents and will present a report to Parliament setting out those considerations. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that all Members of the House will support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister for Women and Equalities whether some MPs are more equal than others? Back Benchers—the poor bloody infantry—have to traipse through the Lobby for every three-line Whip, but Cabinet Ministers can sit brazenly on the Front Bench and then slope off in their limousines after betraying the people and the Prime Minister.

[Penny Mordaunt]

All the Ministers on the Front Bench this morning are here and ready for their duties, in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who was ironing his shirt 20 minutes before this session started. We are in turbulent times, but we must trust our institutions and trust in democracy. I am also the Secretary of State for International Development, and I will take messy democracy over any other system in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. They will have been heard by those who went to his constituency, but I will also pass them on.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to develop defence soft power and influence.

Nuclear Warheads (Transportation)

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The rules of the House state that if an hon. Member wishes to speak, she must have the permission of the mover of the motion—I assume the hon. Lady does—and of the Minister.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)]

She does.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Kirsten Oswald.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces.

Are we sufficiently well defended? For an answer, we might do worse than refer to the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Liaison Committee last year. He said that if the question was whether the UK was

“a full spectrum defence power, I would answer that literally by saying yes, because I think if you look…across the piece, you take a Navy that has got hunter-killer submarines, that has a nuclear deterrent that we are renewing, that has two of the most modern and up-to-date aircraft carriers coming down the track; if you look at our Air Force, that has got the Typhoon, one of the most capable and successful aircraft that anyone has anywhere in the world”.

At that point my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, interrupted:

“Prime Minister, everyone knows what we’ve got.”

Indeed we do, and we know what we have not got, too. “Coming down the track” means “not here yet”. I am reassured by the excellent work on the Type 26 of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is responsible for procurement, and by the fact that the Prime Minister speaks enthusiastically about the carriers, but by his own definition of full spectrum capability Britain currently, although unavoidably and understandably, comes up short.

We inherited a catastrophic mess at the MOD when we came into government—I am sorry that we do not have many Opposition Members still in the Chamber to hear me say that. Tough decisions had to be made to clean up that mess, leading to the capability gap and the challenging task of regenerating that capability. We must succeed in doing that, but I am increasingly concerned that we risk failure.

If Britain wants to live up to her billing as a leading nation, we must perform like one. The world still looks to Britain for leadership—as in the recent action in Libya—and it is incumbent on us to be ready to meet those calls in our own national interest. The Royal Navy gives us global reach. It allows us to be present anywhere in the world within 12 miles off any coast with impunity. It keeps food in our supermarkets and the fuel flowing so we can distribute and cook it. Our island nation depends on the Navy for its very survival, an obvious point not often recognised by Departments of State or parliamentarians—present company excepted.

Recognition of that fact does not require one to hark back to the days when Britain’s carrier fleet numbered 55 ships, but it means we need to increase the size of the current surface fleet with the carrier strike and the Type 26 combat ship. It requires us also to ensure that those platforms are properly supplied, so that they can be at their most flexible.

We must stop hollowing out capability. I told the MOD permanent secretary at the Defence Committee that some ships were sent to Operation Ellamy and elsewhere with dangerously hollowed-out capacity. HMS Westminster had only 10% of her ordnance, or, to put it another way, only two shots in the barrel. In response, the permanent secretary spoke of “layered defence” and

“other capabilities that we had in terms of submarines…and …aircraft”.

She also said that it was

“absolutely an operational decision on whether it is safe”

to send Westminster.

“Layered defence” is all very well, but I wonder whether the Westminster’s 190 crew would not have felt more secure if they had the means to defend themselves rather than relying on others. It might have been an “operational decision”, but would we not put the people making such decisions in a far more comfortable position if they knew that ships had a more appropriate complement of missiles? I anticipate that the MOD would answer that missile numbers are secret, but they are not. Anyone— friend or foe—with a moderately priced pair of binoculars and the inclination to look could have discovered how many Harpoon missiles were on Westminster.

The MOD must develop a mechanism properly to plan, acquire and monitor ordnance stocks. No such mechanism exists. As I have raised that point in the Committee, with Ministers and on the Floor of the House, I would like to see evidence that it is being addressed.

I would also like greater recognition of our dependence on carrier strike. As the Foreign Secretary mentioned earlier this week with regard to HMS Argyll’s passage through the strait of Hormuz, we currently rely on our allies—in that instance in the form of the USS Abraham Lincoln. It is apparent, therefore, that when we say we do not need carrier strike for the next decade, we mean we need it but hope to use someone else’s.

That might be all very well when our interests align with those of our allies, but what about when they do not? The Prime Minister has rightly taken a robust line on Argentine pretensions over the sovereignty of the Falklands. The US Administration take quite a different view, regarding the UK administration of the islands as “de facto” and taking “no position regarding sovereignty”. We are encouraged to work things out with Argentina “through normal diplomatic channels”. If it came to it, one suspects that requests for carrier cover would fall on deaf ears.

Equally, although one must recognise that while flying sorties from Norfolk for a time was the only way to halt Gaddafi’s murderous advances in Libya, it was expensive. Had the Ark Royal not been decommissioned, it is unthinkable that she would not have been sent on Ellamy. Had we flown sorties from a carrier in the Mediterranean rather than from an airfield in East Anglia, they would have been more frequent and more responsive, and the need to return to base without dropping a bomb would have been less of a waste of time and money.

I raise those issues not to chastise the Government for the SDSR—they had to close the gap in the defence budget—but to show our dependence on carrier strike force. The Prime Minister has said that carriers are necessary for a nation to have full military capability, which means every day of every week, all year round. Accepting the need for carriers is to accept that we must have both Queen Elizabeth class ships in operation—at minimum, one on, one off.

[Mr Leigh]

Does my hon. Friend recall that the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, referred recently to the Falkland Islands as “the Malvinas”, therefore implicitly giving a nod in the direction of Argentina? My hon. Friend is right that we could in no shape or form depend on the Americans if there were any threat against the Falklands. Were they taken, without a carrier, we could never take them back.

[Penny Mordaunt]

If someone had an argument about the sovereignty of an eastern state, I am quite sure we would have a much more robust response from our nearest ally.

The cost and specification of the new carriers has been much derided. One estimate is that they could be as much as £3.1 billion more expensive than planned. I have heard many an “amusing” conversation in this place about the decks being too short for aircraft to take-off and the possibility of sailors being burnt to a crisp by aircraft engines, along with other such Bird and Fortune material. We laugh, while blindly heading for a greater folly: spending such a sum, only to deny ourselves the capability that it should have brought. If we end up with just one operational carrier, we will have wasted £5 billion over the initial estimates, yet for months of every year we will be without cover. If our enemies strike during an off-period, the British people will ask what that hefty final bill has actually achieved. Thanks to the last Government, £3 billion has been needlessly spent on carrier strike force. Under this Government, let us not have £7 billion pointlessly spent.

Hindi Radio Service (BBC)

Debate between Edward Leigh and Penny Mordaunt

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

That is precisely the point. The false argument that the BBC makes is that there is a revolution in India and elsewhere—as indeed there is—and that more and more people have television, but the poorest of the poor in those states depend on shortwave radio. We provide a relatively cheap and effective service, and we should maintain it.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

As a former director of Diabetes UK who was involved in setting up health care programmes in India, I would echo that point. Quite often the service is the only way that messages about health care or things that are happening in a particular province can reach people.

[Mr Leigh]

That is absolutely right.

Let me read out a couple of quotations by ordinary people from an article in The Times:

“Vijay Kumar Pandey…every day at 6 am, takes his battered transistor radio and places it on a small table outside his house. Through the shortwave crackle a burst of familiar Indian classical music announces the beginning of a half-hour news bulletin.

Other villagers arrive to listen to the world’s most important events. They have been doing this since 1940, gathering at dawn and dusk to hear BBC Hindi’s twice-daily news programmes.

‘I am in shock,’ said Mr Pandey, a farmer in…Uttar Pradesh. ‘It’s like a family member departing from me.’”

The article continued:

“My life would lose its meaning if BBC Hindi stops its service,”

said Tarachand Khatri from Rajasthan.

“Can you imagine living with somebody throughout your life and, suddenly, that person is gone? BBC Hindi was a person; we used to interact with it through its programmes; we used to share our happiness, feelings, thoughts and concerns.”

The respected Indian news weekly Outlook reports that some villagers have threatened to burn David Cameron in effigy—something that we would all deprecate. Mohammed Hasnain Khan, a schoolteacher from Ghazipur, has threatened to immolate himself if BBC Hindi is shut. Ravindra Chauhan of Assam says that hearing that BBC Hindi will close was as if

“someone tells you that your parents will die in March.”

And so the arguments go on. This decision is an attack on people who have no way of hitting back, and I think that we should protect them, especially as the Department for International Development is set to continue funding the poorest states in India to the tune of £250 million.