Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I make the same plea: there are plenty of opportunities to talk about these other issues. We have the Bill in front of us, and I think it would be more fruitful if we directed our comments towards that.

[Bob Stewart]

I will not respond to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I have not been to Northern Ireland recently, but I will be there at the weekend and I will buy something in the supermarket. I have been reprimanded by Mr Deputy Speaker, and I always take a reprimand from the Chair with seriousness.

Northern Ireland must develop and regain its devolved institutions and local decision making, and I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—he is sitting on the Front Bench and paying great attention to everything I say, as he always does—is bending over backwards to try to sort out this problem. There is no doubt about that.

Nobody benefits from the current situation, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing discussion and co-operation with the Irish Government on matters of mutual concern. However, I am somewhat worried by some suggestions that, if an Executive cannot be formed, there could be some form of joint authority over the island of Ireland. That must not even be considered. It is utterly unacceptable and would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We cannot have that.

Obviously, we all hope that an agreement on changes to the protocol can be agreed in time for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about docking the pay of MLAs because they are apparently not fulfilling all their duties of representation. I accept that, in principle, they might not be doing all their job, but every one of them—DUP included—wants to go back to work. However, I will support the Secretary of State if he decides to take that form of action.

I presume that, unless an Executive is formed by 19 January, new elections in the Province will be inevitable. To stop this, we need the problems of the protocol to be sorted by then. We really have to fix it, because my friends in Northern Ireland do not deserve to go through all this.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sit down, having been reprimanded.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I, too, speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. My comments will be short, because my time is limited, but many of the views that I will express have already been stated by other hon. Members.

As the House has heard, the ISC broadly supports the Bill, although it remains concerned about the Bill’s lack of a role for it in providing parliamentary oversight of parts of the legislation that Select Committees are unable to supervise. The ISC has made that point to the Government, but they do not accept it.

As a Committee, we want this legislation and will not push the issue, but we retain reservations about the matter not being part of the Bill. However, as the Chairman of the ISC—my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and other hon. Members have said, we have written to the National Security Adviser to suggest that the matter be addressed in a revised edition of the Committee’s MOU, which comes from the Prime Minister. Otherwise, we consider that there will be gaps in the supervision available to Parliament—that is our main point.

The Committee fully supports the changes to clause 3 in Lords amendments 1 to 3 about codes of practice and the new wording after clause 23 in Lords amendment 4. With regard to Lords amendment 5 on Five Eyes review, we believe that the intelligence community will naturally consider the views of Five Eyes partners as part of its reporting, so the new clause, although worthy, is not really necessary.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am extremely grateful for your pithiness.

Personal Statements

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let us see whether a miracle has happened and we can hear Colonel Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the miracle has happened.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It has.

[Bob Stewart]

I want to apologise to the House. Yesterday, the Committee on Standards adjudged that I and four other MPs were wrong to write a joint letter to two senior judges, copied to the judge who was about to hear a case, followed by further letters to the Lord Chief Justice and the case judge, which it concluded were an attempt to try to influence the way references in court cases were made public. I now know that it was wrong to do so. I regret it and I repeat my apology to the House.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

Good. When my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Chingford and Woodford Green start talking, I know I am in trouble.

So we on the ISC are subject to section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and, whatever side of the House we sit on, we have all been appointed to the Committee by the Prime Minister with that in mind. However, not every Member of Parliament or Clerk has signed the Official Secrets Act—some have, but many have not. Obviously, I am not being personal about colleagues because a lot of them can keep secrets far better than I can: as my wife says, I have a big mouth. Okay—but I do keep secrets of the state, Minister.

ISC Clerks have something called developed vetting security clearances, but not all DCMS Committee Clerks would. Developed vetting security clearances require the individual concerned to undergo a lengthy and somewhat intrusive investigation—some of the questions are appalling. Assuming that DCMS Clerks were to have such developed credentials and were able to handle top secret material in hard copy, such as documents that need to be secured in security-accredited lockable cabinets within a security- accredited office, anything with a top secret grading on it or an IT system with such grading would need to be accredited and checked out very carefully.

May I also raise the matter of meetings where top secret material is discussed? I may be wrong, but I do not think there is such a meeting room in the Palace or in Norman Shaw—[Interruption.] Sorry, I meant Portcullis House—I have only been here 11 years. A room with clearance would be required even for us to be able to look these documents, store them or discuss them. I do not think it is a secret that the ISC cannot meet here—we have to meet somewhere else. We go to a place that is accredited and checked, where documents can be stored and to which our Clerks have ready and easy access. All discussions concerning such a level of security take place in that room. We are not allowed to write something down and walk it out—everything has to be left there, unless it is specifically on a certain kind of paper and we are informed of that very strictly.

The product of ISC investigations can be laid before Parliament only after a redaction process with the intelligence agencies and confirmation from the Prime Minister that nothing in them might breach national security, so I think it would be rather difficult for the DCMS, Ofcom or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to be able to oversee top secret material produced by the Department and still obey national security rules. In short, we parliamentarians might not have oversight of some key decisions made by Ofcom and DCMS. That can work—I have no doubt the Minister will say that—but we could be blindsided. The Government think otherwise at this stage, and I am prepared to accept that promise, but this might quickly run into difficulties when classified material has to be examined by people from Parliament who are specially selected to do it.

In summary, I repeat that I will be supporting the Minister—of course I will, as I am loyal, just like a dog—but it does not stop me raising a flag of concern. There will always be problems around these matters. I hope that that will not be the case but I would not be surprised if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said, we are only at the start of a process and we have to revisit this shortly.

Finally, may I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do not feel great and I am a bit dizzy, so my voice is not the usual? I am going to sit down now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We heard you loud and clear, Colonel Bob.

Emergency Services Personnel: Awards for Next of Kin

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

indicated assent.

[Bob Stewart]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Exceptionally, then, because it is 20 past 1 in the morning and he is still here, I call Mark Francois to make a short contribution.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy—Mr Deputy Speaker. Forgive me—a slip of the tongue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As always.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me—I am on my knees.

Having done this sort of thing, albeit in a relatively minor way, I want to clarify one thing. Often, information was given to people who were doing this kind of work in the field by juveniles. That does not make the juvenile a source. That information can still obviously be passed on, but clearly there are restrictions on using that juvenile in future. However, the information given by juveniles certainly must not be stopped.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evans]

Absolutely. I did a two-day tour around my constituency last Friday and Saturday, and I spoke to a number of people. There were three hardcore remainers who would do almost anything to remain in the European Union. However, the vast majority of people who come up to me in Ribble Valley say either, “I voted leave: get on with it”—they are quite angry that we have not left the European Union—or, “I voted remain, but I can’t believe that we are still in the European Union. I am a democrat. I believe in democracy, and when we have a referendum I believe in carrying out the wishes of that referendum.” We all remember what was written on the back of that pamphlet: it said that we would follow the instructions of the British people in that referendum.

Even better than that, of course, we had a general election in 2017 in which we said that we would deliver Brexit. Labour Members stood in that general election and said they would deliver Brexit, but what do we find? Ever since that general election, we have seen dither and delay, dither and delay, and anything—anything—but vote for the Brexit that they promised. It was either, “It’s not the right deal”, or “We have to get no deal taken off the table.” Well, we had an opportunity last week to take no deal off the table, and that would have made it possible for Labour Members to have fulfilled their promise in that general election two years ago by voting for the deal that the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels. But no—the vast majority of Labour MPs voted against Second Reading. That meant that they did not want it to go any further. There was no possibility of their amending the legislation to have a customs union, to get workers’ rights or to get higher environmental standards. No, they decided they wanted to stop Brexit in its tracks, and that is why they voted against Second Reading. Only 19 of them voted to give it a Second Reading.

My constituency, Ribble Valley, is in the heart of Lancashire. In fact, on an Ordnance Survey map one of my villages is actually in the very centre of the United Kingdom. My constituency voted 57% to leave the European Union. Every constituency in Lancashire, whether it has a Labour MP or a Conservative MP—thankfully, we do not have any Lib Dems—voted to leave the European Union.

What we are seeing tonight is quite remarkable. Labour Members said that they would deliver Brexit, and they are now clearly not doing that. Then they said that they wanted more time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill, even though the vast majority of them voted against its going any further. They wanted more time, and so tonight we are offering them more time. Then they said that they wanted an early general election. Well, the way they get an early general election is by voting for the motion tonight. They will get more time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill so that they will at least fulfil part of their promise two years ago, and then get their early general election on 12 December whereby they can put forward the programme that they wish, and see where the people go.

On the other hand, we have the Scots Nats, who are at least saying that they want to go for 9 December. They do not want to deliver Brexit—they never have—but none the less they are being consistent on that. We hear time and again that Scotland voted not to leave the European Union. More than 1 million Scots voted to leave the European Union. There is no reaching out to those 1 million Scots. More people voted to leave the European Union in Scotland than voted for the Scottish National party, so we see where that is going.

Then there are the Lib Dems, who just want to revoke article 50. They are called the Liberal Democrats. I do not know what aspect of them is democratic, because we had a referendum, the people said they wanted to leave, and that is not being fulfilled.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I understand it, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that if we had a second referendum, she might not agree with its result. I wonder whether that is true.

[Mr Evans]

That was a previous position. However, we are in an even more bizarre position with Labour Members, because they say that if they win the election they will go to Brussels, renegotiate Brexit, then put that to the British people in a second referendum and campaign against the deal they just negotiated. That is the most Alice in Wonderland politics that I have seen in 28 years. Now we have an Opposition, who have been calling for an early general election, running scared. The last thing they want to do is face the electorate, and, quite frankly, I can see why.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evans]

Yes. At times, there must be immense pressure for pubs that have closed to be turned into a block of flats, because there is a lot of money in housing, but there is an opportunity for them to be turned into a community pub, if the community come together to raise money and keep it going. There are countless examples of those throughout the country, and it means that the community still have a focal point where they can come together. I hope that more publicity will be given to those opportunities.

I have three breweries of different sizes in my patch: InBev, which makes Stella Artois, Thwaites brewery, which was moved from Blackburn into the Ribble Valley, is much smaller but is the famous brewery with the shire horses—there is a lot of corporate responsibility within that company—and Holmes Mill, which brews the great Bowland beers in the heart of the Ribble Valley.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend speaks with forked tongue. I have been to the pub beside his house with him twice or three times, and it is a wonderful pub, but when we go next door he always leaves behind the lady who lives in his house. She is called Alexa. He has never taken her.

[Mr Evans]

All I can say in reply to that interesting intervention is that my hon. Friend has been to my pub three times and not once has he bought me a drink. That is the sort of friends I have.

[Bob Stewart]

What about Alexa?

[Mr Evans]

I am not mentioning Alexa.

It is a great pub—it was actually the CAMRA pub of the year in 2013—but I have other pubs such as the Freemasons at Wiswell and the Parkers Arms in Newton. A lot of pubs rely on offering food as well. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned that she does not drink, but people do not have to drink alcohol to go to these places because there is so much more on offer.

Mention has been made of taxation on beer, which is huge. At £13 billion, it is massive. Almost 1 million jobs are provided by the industry. We need to look at ways of lowering that taxation. There is something wrong when taxation goes up, people drink less and less money actually goes to the Inland Revenue. There should be a common-sense approach to lower taxation, increase sales and ensure that HMRC gets more money out of that.

Taxation is high if the alcohol by volume rate is high; it drops only at below 2.8%. We need to look at ways of increasing the rate to 3.5%. It would encourage more people to drink lower strength alcohol and have a great time; it would incentivise them to do that. It is worrying when a lot people drink high ABVs—5%-plus. Drinking a pint of beer is good for one’s health, but drinking too much beer with a higher ABV is not.

Tomorrow night, I was due to be in a pub celebrating a big event, but that big event is not happening; it is being deferred. All I can say is that, on 22 May, I hope to be saying, “Cheers, Brexit!”

International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I voted against the equal marriage Act, and I was wrong. I was wrong, because I have seen the joy that it has given to so many people. The established Church of our country should follow what this House has decided, and gay people should be allowed to marry in church.

[Mr Evans]

That is breaking news, and it is absolutely superb. My hon. and gallant Friend has just told us what his views were in the past and what they are today. If he can make that progression, I rather hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury is listening and that he, too, can make that sort of progression, so that Christians in this country can enjoy a big day just as Harry and Meghan will on Saturday.

We need to send a signal. In 72 countries, there are laws against being homosexual. I know that some of them are legacy laws from the United Kingdom, and at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I have apologised for the fact that we bequeathed them those laws, but it does not mean that they need to keep them, because we have not. We have moved on, and I hope that they will be able to do so, too. There are 13 countries in which people can be executed for being homosexual, and two in which that currently happens—it is happening at the moment in Iran and parts of Somalia. It is horrific that the death penalty exists for simply being gay.

At conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we try to promote equality wherever we possibly can. At the last conference in St Petersburg, we put down a motion in one of the committees to say that, at the conference in Geneva, we would discuss homophobia and the fact that there are people who feel repressed simply because they have gay people living in their country. Just at the tail end, when we thought that we were going to get it on the agenda, an attack was sprung on us on the last day by countries mostly from the middle east to take it off the agenda. Uganda was also a prominent fighter against gay rights. The topic was therefore taken off the agenda for Geneva in March. We are now trying to put it back on the agenda for the meeting in October.

There were about 30 countries that voted against discussing gay issues. There was not going to be a resolution, so there would have been nothing for them to vote against. All they were doing was trying to stop Members of Parliament talking about gay issues that occur in their countries. China was one of the countries that tried to stop the discussions, as were Russia, most of the middle east and Uganda. I pay tribute to countries such as Belgium, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand—particularly the wonderful Labour MP Louisa Wall, who has promoted equal rights in New Zealand—Australia and South Africa. We were even supported by Angola and Malawi. That was a superb revelation for me.

All I can say in conclusion is that homophobia is illogical, it is a denial of human rights, it is dumb and it is time that we made it history.

Global LGBT Rights

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on moving the motion.

We have come a long way over the years—this country, this Parliament and even myself. Growing up in Swansea, I wondered whether it was braver of me to come out as a Conservative or gay. I have tried both and it does not seem to have done me any harm. Look at the journey we have made even in this Parliament: that we have more openly gay Members of Parliament than any other Parliament in the world is a fantastic thing of which we should proud. I congratulate the Scottish National party, which has the highest percentage of openly gay MPs.

I remember David Cameron, when he was the Prime Minister, asking me, “When are you going to become Speaker of the House of Commons?” I said, “Well, Prime Minister…” and he said, “You’d be the first gay Speaker.” I replied, “I don’t think so, Prime Minister. I suspect there’s been a few others.” [Laughter.] We know at least one Deputy Speaker was gay. In 2010, when I was in the Speaker’s apartments for that fantastic reception when I came out as gay, I said to the Speaker, “The only thing more gay than me is the apartments.”

Each and every one of us who comes out as gay, and each and every one of us who is not gay but who speaks up for LGBT+ rights, is vitally important throughout the world. We all know that there are people living in fear of persecution for being gay. In some cases, it is not about having fulfilling lives, but about being fearful for their lives. That is appalling. We have already heard the number of countries where being gay is a capital offence, and on too many occasions we sadly read in our newspapers about people being pushed off the top of tall buildings, simply for the “crime” of being gay.

I remember in a Westminster Hall debate talking about the two young people in Iran I had read about in a Sunday magazine. They were teenagers—16 or 17—and they were strung up for being gay. At an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting, I confronted the Iranian delegation, asking, “Why is it that young gay people are being executed in Iran?” They said, “Well, if it’s done in private, nobody knows, but if it’s public, they will be tortured.” They actually used the word “tortured”. I was so angry. I said, “Yes, you tortured them first, then you hanged them.” That is totally unforgiveable.

My own party has not always been as liberal towards LGBT+ rights as it is now. At selection meetings, the question was always asked, “Is there anything in your cupboard?” When he was asked that question, Alan Clark replied, “I couldn’t get anything more in my cupboard,” which I thought was rather brave of him—he still got selected, of course. That question is not asked any more. In fact, it is not only the Conservative party that has come a long way on these issues; I think it is almost—not quite—compulsory to be gay to get selected.

My right hon. Friend mentioned Taiwan. I chair the all-party group on Taiwan and I was there just a couple of months ago as a guest—it is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud of what the Taiwanese have done. Australia is going through the same process now. I believe that the chief executive officer of Qantas has been named as the most influential LGBT person in the world for speaking up rather bravely. Sadly, a lot of CEOs are afraid to come out as gay.

The situation is exactly the same in the world of sport, particularly football. I just wish that more sportsmen who are gay would be as brave as Tom Daley and come out, because that would send a massive signal. A lot of Commonwealth countries are obsessed with football, and if only more sportsmen were prepared to do that, it would send absolutely the right signals.

In the world of politics, I am proud that former Prime Ministers of Iceland and Belgium, and the current Prime Ministers of Luxembourg, Ireland and Serbia, are all gay. That also sends the right signals.

I have just returned from an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Russia, where the human rights sub-committee decided to raise at next year’s Geneva conference what Parliaments can do to stop LGBT+ discrimination. It was wonderful. The chairwoman was from Botswana and said how important it was to discuss the issue. We were not passing a resolution; we just wanted a debate. A number of countries spoke in favour, including MPs from Cuba and Malaysia, and said, “Yes, let’s talk about this. It’s an important issue.” The proposal was passed, but then right at the last moment it was defeated in the full plenary, when most people had started to go home. Politicians from countries such as Iran, Uganda and Morocco banged the table and said, “This can’t be discussed or debated.” It is appalling that politicians from those countries and others banged the table and said that they were not even prepared to discuss LGBT+ discrimination and what their Parliaments can do about it. That just shows how far we have to go.

And what about that incident in the United Arab Emirates the other day, when that chap ended up being prosecuted for bumping into somebody and touching them on the hip? I mean, come on—this is the 21st century! Fortunately, he is home now, but that incident did not do the UAE any good. I cannot imagine that many gay people will want to go there in the future.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is not just LGBT people who might not want to go there; others, like me, may think, “This is not acceptable.”

[Mr Evans]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that: it will send a strong signal to the UAE and perhaps a number of other similar countries.

I want to finish by addressing the appalling decision by the World Health Organisation the other day. What did it think it was doing trying to make Robert Mugabe a goodwill ambassador? This is not just about health issues. If we look at how he has treated LGBT+ issues in his own country, we will see that the stigma of being gay there means that many people are afraid to even get tested and are condemned to death because they do not get the treatment they need. I am delighted that the WHO changed its decision three days later—it clearly listened to the international community—but it did send the wrong signals and I hope it will reflect on that.

When I asked for the Pride flag to be flown from every high commission and embassy, I was told, “We can’t do that, because many of them have only one flagpole and there isn’t enough room for two.” Well, we do it in Whitehall—we double-flag there—and I hope that in summing up, the Minister will tell us that during every future Gay Pride Week, the Gay Pride flag will fly from the flagpoles of all of our high commissions and embassies throughout the world.

Defence Spending

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Twenty five years ago, we spent more than 4% of our gross national product on defence. There were some 306,000 regular personnel and 340,000 reservists. The Army had 153,000 regular soldiers who manned three armoured and one infantry division. We had 1,330 main battle tanks. The Royal Navy had 50 frigates and destroyers, two aircraft carriers, 28 attack submarines, three Harrier squadrons and a Royal Marine Commando brigade. For its part, the Royal Air Force had 26 fast jet squadrons, two squadrons of maritime patrol aircraft and specific aeroplanes tasked with suppressing potential air defences.

In the next Parliament, however, the Army will be reduced to 82,000 regular soldiers and 400 tanks. The Navy will have 19 frigates or destroyers, seven attack submarines and only about 24,000 sailors. It may be that by 2020 we will see the first of two new aircraft carriers, but as yet not one aircraft has been ordered to put on them. The RAF will have seven, or maybe only six, fast jet squadrons, and no means to suppress enemy air defences. Nobody knows whether by then we might again have some maritime patrol aircraft. That remains the worst gap in our current military capability.

Some argue that there are few votes in defence—we have heard that repeated all afternoon—but that is certainly not what I hear in Beckenham. People there are increasingly fearful of what is happening in the world.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I back the minimum 2% spend of GDP on defence. He knows how important that is to the Ribble Valley. Does he welcome the announcement today by the Prime Minister and BAE Systems that a new training academy will open at BAE Systems Samlesbury, not only to train the new apprentices but to tune up the great skills we already have at BAE Systems?

[Bob Stewart]

I was born close to Samlesbury, so I know it well. I certainly applaud that news.

Leaders on both sides of the House consistently maintain, quite rightly, that defence is the first responsibility of Government. If that is so, whether there are votes in defence hardly matters. It is the duty of our political leaders to ensure our defences are sound, whether there are votes in defence or not. The defence of our country is the paramount requirement of our Government. If we had been beaten by Hitler in 1945, there would not even have been a national health service. Health, education, pensions and overseas aid budgets are largely ring-fenced and apparently untouchable. Obviously, that is not so for the defence budget. If defence is vital, its budget should be protected too.

Some hon. Members have touched on our long-standing and close defence partnership with the United States, which is being increasingly questioned there. Both the American President and, more recently, the United States army chief of staff have signalled their alarm at what is happening to our MOD budget. We have favoured status so far, but yet more cuts to our defence budget are likely to have an irreversible impact on our special defence relationship with the United States. If we, as America’s most steadfast ally, are not prepared to put at least 2% of GDP into defence, why should United States citizens, who currently pay more than double per head than us, continue to fund more than 70% of NATO’s budget?

Others argue that the dominating factors of mass and firepower in conflict are no longer as important as they were, and of course they have a point. It is true that cyber, data fusion, information, robotics and the like spawn a different form of war fighting—truly they are important developments, and they might even influence how we go to war—but I dispute that they are war-winning factors. It is unlikely that they will be able to dislodge the Daesh from Syria and Iraq. They might help, but they alone will not do it. In military terms, the job might well require good old-fashioned kinetic energy—soldiers closing with the enemy on the ground and destroying them in face-to-face fighting—although I hope this time it is done mainly by soldiers from our friends in the middle east, rather than our own armed forces.

Some say that the cold war is dead. Others suggest that the day of the tank is over. The Russians obviously disagree. Perhaps we are not really seeing T-64 and T-72 tanks cruising around eastern Ukraine. Russia has once more formally declared NATO to be its enemy and stated plainly that external conflicts can justify its use of nuclear weapons. The MOD is a unique Department of State because it provides us with both the insurance and endowment policies necessary to deal with the unexpected. Threats to our national security tend to explode suddenly and with very little warning. Of course, we all want a strong economy, but defence is too important to depend just on that. We only have to look at the lack of political resolve in the 1930s, which translated into our armed forces stagnating, giving clear signals to Hitler that we were not prepared to arrest his ambitions. Such stupidity cost us dear.

In truth, a strong economy needs a safe security environment. Defence must be affordable. The international situation is as bad as I have ever seen it in my lifetime. Welfare, education, pensions and overseas aid will count for nought if defence goes wrong, so, particularly now, the defence of our country is far too important a matter for it to become a party political football. It is a bipartisan matter for serious political parties. Looking around the Chamber, I think that all the parties present are serious. I call on all the parties present, including the Democratic Unionist party—I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his fantastic speech today—to commit wholeheartedly to ensuring that we spend 2% of GDP on defence.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman rises, let me remind everyone that we are debating new clause 1. We are not debating the generality of the Bill, and we have a Third Reading debate to follow.

[Bob Stewart]

I hope what I am about to say will be about new clause 1, and it will be very quick. Is it not for the United Nations to co-ordinate international action?

[Neil Carmichael]

rose—

Defamation Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I have, and you are about to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. “He” is about to.

Somalia

Debate between Nigel Evans and Bob Stewart

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my lifetime, Somalia has probably been the biggest and most tragic basket case in the world. It has had severe problems since well before 1991—indeed, I can recall them from when I was a boy living in Aden. However, the 2011 drought, which, as the Foreign Secretary has explained, caused the deaths of between 50,000 and 100,000 people, did, to use a pun, “take the basket”. Half of those who died may have been children, and it is time that we did something about this. Somalia’s government simply is not working and it has not worked at all since 1991. Given those sorts of conditions, it is hardly surprising that piracy flourishes; it flourishes in anarchy. Somalia’s long coast offers the perfect opportunity for attacks on shipping. Of course, shipping is vital to our nation and to many others.

On top of all that, al-Shabaab started to take over Somalia in 2006. Someone born a Somali in Mogadishu must curse. Thankfully, last August, al-Shabaab was ousted from Mogadishu but it is still a huge force in the south. That terrorist organisation imposes very violent rule. As we know and as has been mentioned, it is blocking aid to many starving Somalis. It has unrelenting belligerence, it rejects any possible peaceful political settlement and it is imposing a brutal sharia regime on the people of Somalia. It seems that Somalis are getting very tired of all this and are beginning to turn away from these people, so perhaps opportunity knocks.

With the London conference on 23 February, we must push as hard as we can to try to make a start on sorting this basket case out. The main aim of the conference must, of course, be to try to start on the road to peace and security, and getting some form of decent living standards for Somalis. The situation in Somalia is very difficult, but we must do all we can to help our fellow human beings who are unlucky enough to have been born into it. We are so lucky and they are so unlucky, so let us try to do what we can to help them.

What is really needed in order to help Somalia? What steps shall we try to aim for at the London conference? I see the Minister looking at me and wondering where this is going, so I will do my best to be on message. First, the Security Council resolution we already have does require reinforcing. The international community must show its determination. We already have a chapter VII enforcement action Security Council resolution, but we need the international community to have the courage—I was going to use a different word—to do something about it. We need enforcement action to be taken, in some form or other, to sort out Somalia and we need effective funding for all aspects of that action. I have seen what happens when we have unpaid UN battalions in the field—they flog their petrol and sell their food. There has to be proper funding and the humanitarian operations have to be supported by international action.

A timeline for action is already in place, as the end of the interim Government arrangements are scheduled for August. That gives us five months and, as I know from my own experience, quite a lot can be done in that time. However, quite a lot of that time is needed to sort out a plan. First-class leadership by international organisations and military forces on the ground is of course required. The military forces that go into Somalia must have effective, well-thought-through, practical rules of engagement. The one thing they must not do is back away from a confrontation; they must deal with any confrontation. If they back away once, they will destroy their mandate. We have to be robust about imposing a solution. First-class leadership is required, particularly on the ground, and it must be supported internationally by all Governments.

The initiative also has the continuing problem of piracy. One solution—I am not suggesting it is ideal—might be for the international anti-piracy efforts to be put on the ground in headquarters located in a port in Somalia. That might be considered during the conference, as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

What we require most of all at the London conference is what the Germans call a schwerpunkt, which is a Clausewitzian term that I learned in the military. It means a point of concentrated effort, and the point of concentrated effort of the London conference is to make sure that, internationally, we establish determination to sort out the problem of Somalia. That requires everyone to attend with the determination to apply the Security Council resolution to which they have already signed up and to provide the assets, resources and money to help the poor, wretched people in what is, as it stands, a dreadful country. Somalia is not blessed by God, but, my goodness, we must do our very best to try to sort things out for the people who live there and help them.

I wish the Foreign Secretary the very best of luck at the London conference. He will need it. Right now, with al-Shabaab on the back foot, this is probably the best opportunity that the international community has had for a generation to get in and help the people of Somalia. I wish the best of luck to our team at the London conference.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Laura Sandys and ask that she sit down no later than 5.36 pm.