Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The CQC’s findings are clearly disappointing, but the trust seems to be taking immediate steps to address the issues that have been identified: raising standards for infection control and cleanliness; enhanced and more frequent training; and recruiting more permanent staff. I think that this relates to a bigger point, which is that for years in our NHS, when there was a problem with a hospital, it was swept under the carpet, rather than the hospital being properly examined, inspected and, if necessary, put into special measures and then corrected. That is what is happening now in our health service, and that is all to the good. It is important to say that on the day Sir Robert Francis published his report on how important it is to listen to whistleblowers in the NHS. Unlike the Labour party, we are determined to listen to the Francis report and to whistleblowers. I will certainly ensure that the Health Secretary meets the hon. Gentleman, his parliamentary colleagues and others in Hillingdon to make sure that the hospital gets the attention it deserves.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I put it to the Prime Minister that from President Monroe onwards it has been generally acknowledged by leaders of great powers that, for the avoidance of war, it is often wise to acknowledge the concept of traditional spheres of authority and power; and that although Ukraine is of absolutely no significant strategic importance to Britain, Greece most certainly is; and that unless western statesmen show rather greater skills than they have in recent years, Greece will pass into the Russian sphere of influence without a shot being fired?
The Prime Minister
It is difficult to answer the Father of the House without a long, historical exegesis, but I would argue that, when it comes to Ukraine, it does matter on our continent of Europe that we do not reward aggression and brutality with appeasement; that would be wrong. That is why it is right to have the sanctions in place, right to keep the European Union and America together on the issue, and right to stand up to President Putin. On Greece, of course there is a British interest, which is that we want stability and growth on the continent of Europe. The eurozone crisis has held that growth and stability back; we want those concerned to come to a reasonable agreement so that Europe can move forward. It is good that the British economy is growing and jobs are being generated, but we have to recognise that our largest market at the moment is still relatively stagnant, and the situation in Greece does not help that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The NHS would not have been safe if we had followed Labour’s proposal to cut the NHS. We rejected that advice and put more money into it. The London ambulance service has launched a national and international recruitment campaign and has already hired 400 new members of staff. We are providing £15 million of extra money for the NHS ambulance service in London. That is why it met its target in 2013-14, attending over 460,000 patients with life-threatening illnesses. That is what is happening in our NHS because we made the decisions to reform the NHS, cut its bureaucracy and put the money in—decisions opposed by the Labour party.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Reverting to the subject of the Chilcot report, about which I have questioned the Prime Minister in the past, did my right hon. Friend note that our distinguished colleague Lord Hurd said in the House of Lords yesterday that it was an absolute disgrace that it had not been published—a view that I certainly hold? Since it is absolutely well known by the cognoscenti that the report was completed many months ago, who—if the Prime Minister is helpless on this subject—is blocking it? Is it the Cabinet Secretary or Sir John Chilcot, or is it the White House?
The Prime Minister
I say to the Father of the House that I understand that the report is largely finished, but with every report such as this there is a process: we have to write to the people who are criticised and give them an opportunity to respond. This is now the process for all these reports, irrespective of which Government they are launched under. It is known as the Salmondisation process—although I am not quite sure why, as I do not think it has anything to do with the former First Minister of Scotland. It is not within my power to grant the publication of this report. It is independent and under Sir John Chilcot, and the process has to be finished—then the report will be published.
G20
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Peter Kassig on which there is complete unity across this House and country. He asked whether the message is clear enough on Ukraine, and I believe that all the European leaders, including the European Commission and others who had meetings with President Putin, gave a very clear message—it has actually been quite refreshing how much unity there has been between the countries of the European Union on the one hand, and the US on the other, in terms of giving a very clear message.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what would trigger further sanctions, and the easiest way to answer that is to say that further destabilisation would trigger further sanctions, just as taking down destabilisation would result in the removal of sanctions. He says that Ukraine should not be a forgotten conflict, and that is absolutely right. We must not have a frozen conflict in Europe in the way that the world—in my view, wrongly—moved on after the destabilisation of Georgia.
On the G20 tax agenda, every one of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories has signed up to having an action plan on beneficial ownership, which is progress. Some of them have registers and some are considering—as we are—making those public. Crucially, every single one has agreed to the automatic exchange of tax information. That is the real breakthrough, I think, because if all those tax authorities are exchanging information, it means that companies cannot hide where they are making their money and more and fairer taxes will be paid as a result.
On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman asks what is being done to persuade the sceptical countries. There is pressure on every country to bring forward its plans for the meeting in Paris, and that should include every country in the world. In terms of the climate fund, Britain has money available for climate funds—we were one of the first to put money to one side and make it available—but it is important this time to make sure that other countries are bringing in their donations. That has not always happened in the past, and I am glad that it is happening. The biggest breakthrough in recent days is the fact that China and America came to an agreement at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit to put more on the table in terms of carbon emissions.
On Ebola, the right hon. Gentleman asked what specific pledges were made. At the G20, Korea and Japan made specific pledges and, of course, Australia has backed up its plan to provide 100 beds in Sierra Leone under the plans that we have. At the EU summit we managed to double other countries’ donations so that the EU is up to €1 billion.
The right hon. Gentleman ended with an extraordinary set of points on growth. I am very happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the British economy, which is growing at 3% and has the biggest fall in unemployment on record and 400,000 new businesses. Because of the difficult decisions that we took, the British economy is doing well. The difference is that while there are problems in the world economy, we can see that Britain is outperforming other countries. The figures speak for themselves.
It is always a pleasure to get back to Britain and find that some things have not changed: our language, the beauties of our climate—and, crucially, that the right hon. Gentleman is still in his place.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend’s reportedly robust private conversations with President Putin be even more persuasive if it was seen that Britain is rearming?
The Prime Minister
What I would say is that we have one of the top five defence budgets anywhere in the world. We spend more than £30 billion on defence and people know that we have hugely capable armed forces. Because of the difficult decisions we have made, we will see a drumbeat of new destroyers, new frigates, new aircraft carriers and new fighter jets coming off the production lines, so we are in a very strong position.
But I do not actually believe that the solution to Ukraine is a military solution. Of course it is right that NATO is helping to strengthen Ukraine’s defence infrastructure, as we agreed in Cardiff, but crucially what is required is a political settlement that respects the independence of Ukraine. What President Putin will respect is a unity of purpose on behalf of European countries and the United States to maintain the pressure and the sanctions until he changes his behaviour.
EU Council, Security and Middle East
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the points he made and the tone in which he made them. There is widespread, all-party support for most of the issues that we are discussing today. He is right to praise Cathy Ashton. Let me add my voice to his. She has done an excellent job. Of course, that job is not yet complete: she is still involved in some important negotiations, not least with Iran, and we wish her well.
On Ukraine and sanctions, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were looking at further sectoral sanctions. Yes we are. The conclusions of the EU Council set that out. It is important that we fill in some of the gaps that have been left. For example, on financial sanctions, we need to ensure that we press home on things such as syndicated loans, which others have opposed and we have been prepared to support.
We give financial and technical support to Ukraine. There is obviously a partnership between Ukraine and NATO, and NATO will undertake some exercises in the western part of Ukraine. I do not believe, however, that the right approach would be to arm the Ukrainian rebels. We should focus the support in the areas that I have identified. The best thing we can do to help Ukraine is to build the alliance across Europe and America for strong sanctions to demonstrate to Russia that the relationship with the rest of the world will be fundamentally changed.
On Gaza, the right hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to get meaningful negotiations under way. Let me mention one of the things we do: we are one of the most important funders of the Palestinian Authority. We want to encourage them to restore their authority in Gaza and that could be a stepping stone towards further negotiations.
On ISIS, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says—there is no military solution. We should work with partners and countries in the region. We should learn the lessons from the past. I welcome his backing for what we are doing to help resupply and support the Kurds. We should continue to do that. He then asked a series of questions. In terms of pressure on the Iraqi Government to reach out to all parts of Iraq, we are part of the solid international pressure to ensure that that happens. On talking to powers in the region to ensure that financial support is cut off for extremism, those are conversations I have had with many over the summer and will continue to have. On Turkey, we are working more closely with Turkey than perhaps ever before on security, intelligence and other co-operation.
On measures at home, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is going to support our measures for seizing passports, although of course we are happy to discuss that on an all-party basis as we introduce this legislation. Again, I welcome what he says about all-party discussions on other discretionary powers to make sure that we correct the problems that we have in a proper way.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last two points, it is important that Prevent is focused on counter-radicalisation. In the past, some money was spent on organisations that were perhaps part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I believe it is very important that we target not just violent extremism but the extremist narrative from which the men and women of violence draw succour. I think that is important.
Finally, on terrorism prevention orders and control orders, let me quote to the right hon. Gentleman what David Anderson, our terrorism adviser, whom he quoted, said in his most recent report:
“There is no need to put the clock back. The majority of the changes introduced by the TPIMs Act have civilised the control order system without making it less effective.”
That is why we should take TPIMs as the basis and amend them as necessary.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister recognise that one of the reasons why there are misguided British jihadists fighting in Arabia is the folly of those in the Gulf and in the west who first encouraged and then supported a Sunni rebellion against the Syrian Alawites? We must avoid, under the banner of democracy, intervening in a religious civil war that has already lasted for 1,300 years.
The Prime Minister
I always listen very carefully to the Father of the House but on this occasion I am not sure I agree with him. I would argue that the rise of Islamic State—of ISIS—has had two principal causes: one is the brutality that Assad has shown to his own people, and the second is the failure of the Government in Iraq to represent all of its people. We need to recognise that it is those two issues that have been the principal cause of this problem, together with, as I have said, the real problem, which is the Islamist extremist narrative that finds any broken state, any source of conflict, any sign of weakness, and exploits it.
European Council
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have heard yet another performance worthy of Neil Kinnock—endless words, endless wind, endless rhetoric, but no questions, no grit and no ability to stand up for Britain. I have to say that I will not take lectures on negotiation from the people who gave away the veto, gave away the rebate and who backed down on the budget every year and even signed us up to euro bail-outs. We will not take any lectures from them. The fact is that we did not have a veto in this situation because the Opposition signed the Lisbon treaty and they signed the Nice treaty. That was always opposed by Conservative Members.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the ability to bring allies together. Where were his allies in the socialist party? They were at a meeting in Paris. All the key socialist leaders were there. They all decided to support Jean-Claude Juncker. Where was the Leader of the Opposition? He was not even invited. That is how much influence he has.
Not once did the right hon. Gentleman actually say that he did not support Jean-Claude Juncker either. To support the Government over opposing this principle and opposing this individual, only to criticise and complain, is typical of the right hon. Gentleman’s approach: weak, opportunistic and wrong.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I express to our Prime Minister my admiration for his determined opposition to the election to the presidency of the European Union of a man who is wedded to the idea of closer political and economic union, and to the freedom of movement of peoples, which would siphon huge numbers of further immigrants into this country? May I also deplore the provocative decision of the European Union to move its economic frontier to within 300 miles of Moscow, which will certainly be regarded by Russia as a strategic threat to which it will respond?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of recognising that freedom of movement is not an unqualified right. It is very important for it to be properly qualified, particularly in respect of benefit abuse. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with the other point made by the Father of the House. I think that the eastern partnerships that the EU has entered into can help to embed market economics and democracies in those countries. I think it important to stress in respect of, for instance, Ukraine or Moldova that this is not about asking countries which orbit they want to fit into, and whether they want to choose between a good relationship with Russia and a good relationship with the EU. They should be able to have good relationships with both.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
What I said was that I wanted to see a third of my Front-Bench Ministers being women at the end of a Conservative Government. We have made some important progress on the numbers of people on the Front Bench. With respect to my coalition partner, I have to say that, in terms of Cabinet numbers, the Liberal Democrats need to do a bit more to pull their weight on that issue, but I hope to make further progress.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Reverting to the subject of Royal Mail, as the leader of the stockbroking team that brought British Gas to the market and as the author of the phrase “Ask Sid”, may I tell the Prime Minister that the Opposition’s questions about, and their criticisms of, the way in which the Royal Mail launch was handled show their total ignorance of City markets? The fact is that when one tries to make an immense sale, one has to take infinite trouble to find people to underwrite it, and they are not able to prophesy what stock markets will be like a week ahead. Therefore, the prudent way in which this sale was handled was very sensible—[Interruption.] Do stop waving. You are waving goodbye.
Mr Speaker
Order. People should not gesticulate at the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he is nearing his completion.
Sir Peter Tapsell
If an issue fails, those institutions responsible for its launch are ruined.
The Prime Minister
The Father of the House makes an important point: when state-owned industries are privatised, if they are sold for less than the price set out, that is written off as a failure, and if they are sold for anything more than the price, you are accused of undervaluing the business. That has always been the way and, as I said, that is what Labour said about British Airways, British Telecom and British Aerospace. Labour opposed every single move to build a strong, competitive private industrial sector in our country and that continues today.
Tributes to Tony Benn
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I am the only Member still in the House who voted in favour of the 1963 Peerage Bill, which enabled Tony Benn to renounce his distinguished father’s Stansgate viscountcy and return to us here. At the time, it was a controversial vote. Earlier, he had been elected as a Member of Parliament at the age of 25, when I, just back from the Army, was in my first year at Oxford. Very shortly after his election he came, in full evening dress, to debate at the Oxford Union. He was strikingly handsome. The president of the Union introduced him to us with the words, “I call upon the honourable Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Member of Parliament, New College, Ex-President, to address the house.” He made a stunning speech. I remember thinking to myself, “How am I ever going to be able to compete with that?” Of course, I never was able to. Very few people were ever able, as orators, to do so.
Tony Benn was always kind to me, particularly at the time of the debates on the Maastricht treaty. I even had the privilege, over the years, of occasionally being invited to drink his strong, unsweetened Darjeeling tea from one of his huge tin mugs: the Benn equivalent of a companionship of honour. In private life, he was a gentle, sweet, charming man, with perfect manners. His personality changed a little when he had an audience to address. He was a brilliant, rather demagogic speaker—fluent, witty, forceful and above all, passionate—as much a master of the public platform as of the Chamber of this House. I would rank him, with Nye Bevan, Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, as the four finest parliamentary debaters during my half century in the House. At his best, he was spellbinding, so that listening to him one was sometimes in danger of being intellectually swept towards some of the wilder shores of politics. Harold Wilson—they were chalk and cheese—famously said of him that he was the only man he had ever known who immatured as he grew older, but that was his great charm: he always retained his youthful enthusiasm and boyish zest, and the conviction that his words could make the world a better place. Those are qualities that many women, in particular, find attractive. My French wife thought that he was delightful and great fun. His enchanting American wife adored him as he did her. Tony Benn was a great parliamentarian and a good man. England will remember him.
European Council
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He has welcomed our approach, which is a combination of pressure and dialogue. That is absolutely right: we should be trying to de-escalate the crisis, but an element of deterrence is required to discourage further aggressive steps from Russia.
Let me try to answer each of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. He is right that this is a test of European resolve. It is clearly difficult, as he says, to get agreement among 28 countries. There are countries in the European Union that have a heavy dependence on Russian energy, for instance, so we have to try to bring everyone along in the argument. That is what happened at the European Council. A lot of people were expecting a strong US response and an EU response that was well behind it. That did not happen. Given everything, the EU response was a relatively good one.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether further measures will be needed. That will obviously depend on the Russian response. We are trying to be clear, predictable and consistent in setting out what has been done, what will need to be done if the talks do not get going, and what further steps would be taken if Russia took further aggressive steps, for instance in eastern Ukraine. Setting that out in advance helps people to understand the depth of concern in the EU and the preparedness for action.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether asset freezes would be put in place in days rather than weeks. Obviously, that depends on whether the Russians set up the contact group and start the dialogue with the Ukrainian Government. If they do not, asset freezes and travel bans will follow, and yes, that should follow in a matter of days not weeks, because the setting up of the contact group and the starting of talks is not a particularly difficult step for the Russians to take if they genuinely want to see this ended through a process of dialogue, rather than continuing with this conflict.
The right hon. Gentleman’s comment about linking the EU-Russia summit with the G8 is absolutely right. It would be unthinkable for a G8 not to go ahead while an EU-Russia summit did go ahead; these things have to be considered in tandem. He also asked whether it would be right to resuscitate the G7, rather than going ahead with the G8. If we do not make progress on a contact group and if Russia takes further steps, clearly one of the measures that we could bring forward relatively quickly would be to take a different approach by going back to a G7, rather than holding a G8, but let us hope that that is not necessary.
In relation to arms, the right hon. Gentleman made the point that we should try to take action across the EU, and I very much agree with that. I have set out today my own view about arms licences from Britain, and we will be working within the European Council to try to achieve the greatest possible common ground on this. The fact is that some countries have substantial exports to Russia, but as I said at the Council, everyone is going to have to consider things that might be painful and difficult for their own country, and I think that the countries concerned are prepared to take those steps.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the issue with Crimea, and about what consequences could follow there. It is very clear that the international community is not going to recognise that illegal and illegitimate referendum. As I said, it is a fairly farcical referendum, because people cannot get out and campaign across Crimea. There is not even a proper electoral register there, there are troops all over the territory and Ukrainian politicians are unable to travel from one part of their country to another. So the referendum is clearly not only illegal but rather farcical. Again, the answer lies in Russia’s hand, because this is about how it reacts to this illegal and illegitimate referendum. If it reacts by saying that it is somehow legitimate, consequences should follow from that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we should put maximum influence on our allies in Europe to try to strengthen these statements and measures, and we will. He made the point that the EU and the US should work together, and that is exactly what I believe we achieved last week. Also, behind his questions was the idea that we should be trying strategically to make the European Union member states less dependent on Russia. Some are heavily dependent on it for oil and gas, and it is right that the European Union should spend more time thinking about that.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Why is it acceptable for the Scottish nationalists to be granted a referendum in Scotland on constitutional arrangements dating back to 1707, but unacceptable for Russian nationalists in the Crimea to have a referendum about constitutional arrangements that date back only to 1954? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Crimean referendum could be postponed until such time as international observers could be put in place to ensure that the referendum was genuine, that would be by far the most sensible solution to the problem?
The Prime Minister
To answer the Father of the House directly, the difference between the Scottish referendum and the one in Crimea is that the Scottish referendum is legal. It was discussed and debated in this House and in the Scottish Parliament, and we went a long way to put in place arrangements that I have described as not only decisive and fair but legal. The difference between those arrangements and the Crimean referendum is that the Crimean referendum is illegitimate and illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. That is not to say that the people of Ukraine or of Crimea cannot, over time, find a way of expressing their own preferences. That is what we have done in Scotland, and of course they can do it there too, but the way in which this referendum has come about is clearly illegitimate and illegal; that is the difference.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I will raise my voice to make the point that the hon. Lady has some nerve to lecture us on House of Lords reform when the Labour party blocked such reform. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is right to say that some of my colleagues voted against it, but they did so because they disagreed with it; Labour Members voted against it despite the fact that they said they agreed with it.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister not answering this question?
Greg Clark
In the interests of the coalition, the Deputy Prime Minister occasionally allows his coalition partner to answer questions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Tapsell Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am looking carefully into this case and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is of the opinion that the intelligence services of some countries may be dangerously out of political control? Is he confident that he is kept fully informed of all sensitive external initiatives taken by our services?
The Prime Minister
I do not want to break the rule of not commenting on intelligence issues, but to answer my right hon. Friend’s question as directly as I can, I have looked very carefully at the governance that we have in the UK for our intelligence services, the work of the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the oversight, particularly by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I think we have a good system in our country, and to answer my right hon. Friend’s question, yes, I am fully involved in these decisions.