Debate on the Address

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Given that I believe there is a desire throughout the House for us to deal with terrorism, and to drive out terrorism and extremism of all kinds, I hope that all Members will feel able to support the Government when we introduce measures in order to do just that.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister made a decision to weaken the surveillance powers of the police and intelligence services by abolishing control orders. Will she now accept that that decision was a mistake? Will she review it, and will she strengthen the powers of the police and intelligence services as they do their very difficult task of monitoring suspects who may have the intention of doing harm, but have not yet committed a crime?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to control orders. What was happening with the control orders, which were introduced by a previous Labour Government, was that they were increasingly being knocked down in the courts. We introduced terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and we have subsequently enhanced those measures. Through the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which we introduced when I was Home Secretary, we have also ensured that our police and our intelligence and security agencies have the powers that they need. What we have seen is an increase in the tempo of attack planning. We have seen the terrible terrorist attacks that have taken place, and we should remember that over the same period, five other plots have been foiled by our police and security services. That shows the increasing scale and tempo, and it is in that context that we need to look to ensure that our security services and our police have the powers that they need in the future. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman joining us and ensuring that we give those powers to our agencies.

Article 50

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to wish a happy birthday to members of the Conservative party.

My right hon. Friend raises the important issue of NATO. As I indicated earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), NATO is the bedrock of our security and our defence. Article 5 lies at the heart of that security and defence. We will continue to contribute to NATO in the way we have in the past, and we will continue to encourage others to ensure that NATO is able to provide that security in the future, as it has in the past.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I remind the Prime Minister that defence is about more than weapons; it is about values and collective solidarity.

There are two kinds of future stemming from the process triggered today. The first is that we spend two years desperately trying to secure, in the Secretary of State’s words,

“the exact same benefits as we have”—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]—

while gaining control of immigration, which, as Ministers have suggested, may make little difference to the numbers. In which case, people will ask, “What is the point?” Or there is another future where we crash without an agreement, defaulting to WTO rules with all that that would mean for industry, agriculture and services. In which case, people will ask, “What is the price?” So which future does she think is the more likely: “what is the point” or “what is the price”?

Informal European Council

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I was aware of Wolfgang Schäuble’s comments—although I cannot claim to have read that particular publication—and it was an important point. As we move forward towards the triggering of the negotiations, we are now seeing a genuine willingness on both sides to discuss the future EU-UK relationship—the new partnership that we want—and a recognition of the role that the UK plays in Europe. Of course, Germany will be one of the remaining 27 member states, but I look forward to having further conversations with our German counterparts on the importance that they place on the City of London and the UK’s trading relationship with Europe.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has guaranteed Parliament a vote on the final deal between the UK and the EU. Will she confirm that that commitment applies both to the article 50 divorce negotiations and to the free trade agreement that she hopes to negotiate? What happens if Parliament says no to the terms of either deal?

[The Prime Minister]

We see the negotiations not as being separate but as going together. The arrangement that we aim to negotiate is a deal that will cover both the exit arrangements and the future free trade agreement that we will have the European Union. I have every confidence that we will be able to get a good deal agreed with the EU in relation to both those matters, including our future co-operation not just on trade but on other matters, and will be able to bring a good deal here for Parliament to vote on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Q13. In her speech last week, the Prime Minister said that Parliament would get a vote on the final deal between the UK and the European Union. Will she set out for the House what would happen if Parliament said no to the terms of that deal? In those circumstances, would she negotiate an alternative deal, or would her no deal option mean our falling back on World Trade Organisation rules, which would mean 10% tariffs on cars, 20% tariffs on food and drink, and a host of other barriers to trade, investment and prosperity in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

As I also said in my speech last week, I expect that we will be able to negotiate a good trade deal with the European Union, because it will be in our interests and the interests of the European Union to do so. There will be a vote on the deal for this Parliament. If this Parliament is not willing to accept a deal that has been decided on and agreed by the United Kingdom Government with the European Union, then, as I have said, we will have to fall back on other arrangements.

European Council 2016

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

On Friday, along with other hon. Members from Wolverhampton, I met UTC Aerospace, which employs 1,600 people in high-value manufacturing jobs in Wolverhampton. That company raised with us membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency. When the Prime Minister says that Brexit means Brexit, does she mean that we will no longer participate in the European Aviation Safety Agency and many other such agencies, including for example the European Medical Agency?

[The Prime Minister]

It is precisely because we need to look with great care and consideration at the wide range of our relationships with Europe that we have taken time before we trigger article 50. This is exactly the sort of work the Department for Exiting the European Union is doing: looking at the range of organisations, some of which are linked to membership of the European Union and some of which will not be so linked to membership of the European Union, and making a decision; and, crucially, talking to each sector about what is important for them, so we understand what really matters to business.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on his maiden speech.

The central accusation in the motion is not a rerun of whether anyone was for or against the Iraq war. As we heard eloquently from my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and for Eltham (Clive Efford), many Members who voted against the Iraq war will vote against the motion, because they know that that is not what it is about. Instead, the central accusation is that the former Prime Minister lied in making the case for it. The motion does not use that word, but that is the implication.

Sir John Chilcot made some serious criticisms of the decision making in the run-up to the war and in the aftermath, but he did not say that the decision was taken in bad faith. In fact, his report says of the intelligence presented:

“The JIC accepted ownership of the dossier and agreed its content. There is no evidence that intelligence was improperly included in the dossier or that No.10 improperly influenced the text”.

In paragraph 806 of the report, he says:

“There was nothing in the JIC Assessments issued before July 2002 that would have raised any questions in policy-makers’ minds about the core construct of Iraq’s capabilities and intent.”

In March 2002, the JIC said that it was

“clear that Iraq continues to pursue a policy of acquiring WMD and their delivery means”.

These views on Iraq’s capability and intent were not purely British; they were shared by intelligence services throughout the world, including in those countries that were vehemently opposed to military action.

Of the meeting with President Bush at Crawford, the Chilcot report said that Mr Blair said that it was important to go back to the UN and that he sought to persuade Mr Bush to act within a multilateral framework, not a unilateral one. At paragraph 802, the report said:

“Mr Blair and Mr Straw sought to persuade the US Administration to secure multilateral support before taking action on Iraq; and to do so through the UN.”

So the accusation of lying is not true and is not backed up by the Chilcot report.

[Ian Austin]

Other countries, not just Britain and America, believed not only that Saddam Hussein had WMD, but that he had actually used them, perpetrating the largest chemical weapons attack against civilians in history and killing thousands in a brutal attack on his own people.

[Mr McFadden]

That is absolutely true, and it is a great shame that the Iraqi MPs who were watching from the Gallery earlier on cannot be heard in today’s debate, because I am sure that they would make that point.

What is true is that the Iraq war and its aftermath raised major questions about military intervention, post-conflict responsibility and our capacity and willingness to act in the future. To go to war is a heavy responsibility and perhaps the most difficult judgment that any leader can make.

There is a temptation to think that history in Iraq began with our intervention. In his opening statement, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said that everything could be traced back to the 2003 intervention, but history in Iraq and the use of violence in the country and in the wider middle east did not begin in 2003. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, chemical weapons were used in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, which began long before then, as did the brutal repression of the Shi’a uprising following the first Gulf war.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, including in Yemen in 1992, Mumbai in 1993, in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998 and, of course, in New York on 11 September 2001? Terrorist attacks did not begin with what happened in Iraq in 2003.

[Mr McFadden]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a new imperialism afoot, which seeks to trace everything to western decisions to intervene or not intervene. Until we understand that violent Islamist jihadism has an ideology of its own, we will never be able properly to confront it, let alone overcome it. We have to understand that, despite our history, it is not always about us.

[Alex Salmond]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I have already given way twice.

The controversy over the Iraq war and its aftermath has coloured every decision this Parliament has made on military intervention since—most notably, the vote in August 2013 not to take military action in Syria, following President Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. Who can say for sure what the consequences of that vote were, but we have a duty—do we not?—to reflect on them as we watch Aleppo being blown to bits night after night on our television screens. We can tell ourselves that because we did not intervene in 2013, we do not bear responsibility for it, but that is of little comfort to the children of Aleppo, as the bombs rain down on their heads in a horror seemingly without end. There will not be a Chilcot report on Syria because we did not take the decision to intervene, but are the consequences for the victims any less real?

There are certainly lessons to learn from the experience of Iraq and Syria, but they lie not in the sort of detective hunt based on false accusations of lying set out in the motion, but in asking ourselves serious questions about when we should intervene and when we should not and how we live up to the responsibilities that come from intervention. Perhaps most seriously of all, is it really a morally better position never to intervene if the consequences are encouragement for dictators and no defence for their civilian victims?

In the aftermath of the Chilcot report—we have heard a lot about it in today’s debate—there will be a process to learn lessons. Committees will be formed; processes will be changed; the National Security Council might be changed in one way or another— and it might do some good, because we need the best processes that we can, but this is not the heart of the matter. Nothing—no process; no Committee; no Council—will remove the responsibility of a Prime Minister and of MPs to make a judgment on military intervention. In the end, it is a judgment. That is what leadership is all about.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

G20 Summit

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

In July, on the “ConservativeHome” website, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union wrote:

“I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners.”

Will the Prime Minister confirm that she will be able trigger those deals in two days’ time on Friday, as predicted by her Secretary of State, and which countries will be involved?

[The Prime Minister]

I was involved in discussions with countries on free trade deals that we can develop at the weekend at the G20 summit; I listed some of those countries in my statement, but there are others. I am pleased about the opportunities we now have and at the willingness of other countries to sit down around the table and talk to us about trade deals.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that means that 58 of the 59 Scottish Members of Parliament will be voting against jobs in Scotland that are supported by the nuclear deterrent.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way and congratulate her on her appointment. She mentioned the security threat that the country faces from terrorism. What does she say to those who say that it is a choice between renewing the Trident programme and confronting the terrorist threat?

[The Prime Minister]

I say that it is not a choice. This country needs to recognise that it faces a variety of threats and ensure that we have the capabilities that are necessary and appropriate to deal with each of them. As the Home Secretary has just made clear in response to questions on her statement, the Government are committed to extra funding and extra resource going to, for example, counter-terrorism policing and the security and intelligence agencies as they face the terrorist threat, but what we are talking about today is the necessity for us to have a nuclear deterrent, which has been an insurance policy for this country for nearly 50 years and I believe that it should remain so.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

On this day, when we rightly reflect on our own intervention and our own responsibilities, it is important to remember that violence in Iraq did not begin in 2003. Among the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south, the regime of Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of people.

The lessons that should be learned from the intervention are set out fully in the report, and they should be learned. It has also rightly been said that we should learn lessons from not having intervened in Syria, where there has been a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the Prime Minister agree that the conclusion from all the lessons learned should not be never to intervene? If that were the conclusion, it would result in the abandoning of oppressed people around the world, and the giving of a blank cheque to dictators and terrorist groups around the world.

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I said in my statement that I thought there were lessons to learn but also lessons not to learn, and the lesson not to learn is that intervention is always wrong. There are occasions when it is right to intervene, because it is in the interests of our national security or because we are trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. We should be very clear about the fact that there have been occasions when we have not intervened and when we have seen almost as much chaos and difficulty as we are seeing in Syria.

EU Council

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that when to trigger article 50 is a British decision. It is important to recognise that our European partners have concerns, too. The economic problems that we are currently suffering and may have more of are also affecting them. The Dutch Prime Minister said to me last night that he thought that his growth rate would be materially affected by the position in Britain and the uncertainty. Given that negotiations are, yes, hard work and hard graft, but they also rely on a certain amount of goodwill, we do not want to put too much of that goodwill at risk by how we proceed.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

With the pound going down 10% against the dollar, with our future trading position completely unknown, with the unity of the UK under threat and with appalling racist attacks happening on our streets, does the Prime Minister agree that, as a response to the referendum, the setting up of a unit in the Cabinet Office under the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) is simply not up to the task? This is, after all, the greatest change in Britain’s position in the world since the end of the second world war.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of racist attacks. We need to take urgent action, and I announced that at the Dispatch Box today during Prime Minister’s questions. In terms of the steps we need to take, there is, I believe, a limited amount that can be done before a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet arrive, but we should not belittle that, because a lot of this is cold, hard facts about what the different alternatives are, and what the different costs and benefits are. There is a world of difference between a referendum campaign in which the leave side offered all sorts of things that went with the hypothetical new status and the real facts now of what those things look like. That is something that we need to see, and I think that the mechanisms that we are putting in place will help that to happen.