Trident Renewal

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt]

It was a political commitment made by the leaders of NATO at a summit hosted by the United Kingdom, so I believe we have made that commitment. The Government have not made it explicit and the Prime Minister will not do so before the general election, because we have to address serious budget issues and he is, rightly, giving himself room for manoeuvre. Everyone present knows that defence expenditure is already at historically low levels in terms of its share of national wealth. We are making economies in defence and in my view our defence posture is, frankly, incoherent, because we can no longer afford a coherent defence policy for the United Kingdom owing to the amount of resources we are devoting to it.

That is an issue for another debate, but it illustrates the point about the cost of acquiring this system. In the 1980s it cost between 2.5% and 3% of the total defence budget. The cost of renewing the system will be at about the same level of real expenditure, which means that it will cost about 6% of the defence budget. In private conversations with colleagues who share the same background as me, when I ask them whether they would rather have that money spent on the field army or on acquiring this weapons system, their answer is clear: they would rather have it spent on actual deployable defence—soldiers, sailors, airmen and the equipment deployed with them on operations—or even on the deterrence that a decent set of conventional armed forces provides. The names of some of the distinguished former Chiefs of the Defence Staff or those in other roles who have questioned the value for money of taking such a sum out of the defence budget have already been paraded.

I would argue very strongly to the Defence Secretary that if we are committed to this system, we should understand that it is a political weapons system, and that it is of very doubtful military utility. I do not entirely buy the deterrence argument, but that is a qualified position, because all these things are matters of judgment. If we do buy the argument, however, that should not come at the expense of a coherent defence programme. If we need 2% of GDP to provide a coherent conventional defence programme, we should buy this political weapons system not out of that budget, but from a separate source of funding.

In an intervention on the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I asked just how much he would spend on acquiring this weapons system. He represents Barrow, where the submarines will be made, so I understand that his view of their value is rather different from that of other Members. However, we must answer this question, which we have not properly addressed: at what point does the expense become unaffordable for the United Kingdom?

I am perfectly content to continue to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella. I accept that the decision matrix would be profoundly different if the United States of America was not a rock-solid ally, the Atlantic alliance was not extremely important to the Americans or we could not place the same degree of reliability on their support as we now do. If we had good reason to believe that the United States was not going to be intimately tied into the defence of ourselves and Europe, the decision would be different. I happen to believe, however, that our interests are so closely intertwined, as they have been in all sorts of ways, that we can continue to rely on that alliance.

Frankly, I am not sure that the Americans place very much value on a separate source of nuclear deterrence decision making in London. I think that they would prefer us to bring such resources to the table in the form of deployable conventional forces. The United States Government will not of course take a public view that embarrasses the UK Government, but if we scratched them, we would find that they would rather we had more effective conventional forces.

I do not buy the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that we would lose the money from the defence budget altogether and not be able to spend it on anything else. However, even if the money was lost, it would have value: £100 billion off the debt or spent on other parts of the public service would be valuable.

I therefore ask: what are we buying with the system? There should be a debate about whether we are buying security or, given the laws of unintended consequences, insecurity. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said that he thought we were buying status for our leaders so that they can parade themselves appropriately at conferences. I do not buy that argument—our leaders are perfectly capable of thinking in hard terms about what hard security is affordable—but I am concerned about the political background to this discussion, and about whether we can have a sensible debate on the cost-benefit analysis of acquiring this system.

The problem is the inheritance of the politics of the 1980s. When the decision was made to acquire the Vanguard and Trident system, the then Labour Opposition came out against it in 1983 as part of the “longest suicide note in history” that they presented to the United Kingdom electorate. I think that that policy was wrong and that at the time, because of the cold war, it was right to renew the deterrent. The people of the United Kingdom took the same view in the general election, as they did about the rest of the basket of promises that Michael Foot and his colleagues presented to the country, and they gave that policy, very properly, an extremely large raspberry and possibly the biggest Conservative majority in the history of Parliament—I am sure I will be corrected if that is wrong.

The scarring effect of that event, and the fact that there might be some proper debate, particularly on the Opposition Benches, means that dissent is suppressed. I am proud to stand here as a Conservative and question the efficacy of the decision under discussion, particularly in terms of its opportunity cost. It may be that I have discounted my future career prospects to such an extent that I feel free to make these points, but for the benefit of the Government Whip who is making a note, I say that this is where my judgment lies currently, but it would not prevent me from exercising collective responsibility to support the decision as part of any future Administration. [Laughter.] We should be able to have this debate and ask questions. How much money would we be prepared to spend on this system if its cost was not going to be 6% of the defence budget? What about if it was 10% or 20% of the defence budget? At what point does it cease to be sensible to invest in this system?

Many Members support deterrence in principle, or at least are not against the possession of weapons of this destructive power in principle—that is a perfectly proper position to take, although I do not share it because to a degree I buy the arguments that I grew up with in the 1970s and 1980s about the principle of a defence. I agree that during the cold war these weapons ensured that the world did not elide into direct hot war engagements that had the ability to escalate into catastrophe. The potential for catastrophe at the root of deterrence in a cold war, bipolar world kept us safe, but we are now in a different world and different calculations must be made.

My view is that for the United Kingdom, 6% of the defence budget is not justifiable, and that also relates to my view of Britain’s place in the world. Unlike most of my colleagues, I would be prepared to put our permanent seat on the Security Council up for negotiation and debate in a reform of the UN Security Council, to try to make that institution more effective. I think it is difficult to justify a British veto on the UN Security Council, and because it is so difficult to justify, the veto is hardly ever used by the United Kingdom. We must also think about Britain’s role in the world, and I do not think that we have properly had the debate about exactly what we can bring to the councils of the world, and what Britain’s position in the world should be.

We will be much better equipped to defend our interests if we are a wealthy, successful, entrepreneurial and trading nation that looks out to the entire world, and I am not sure that landing us with a weapons system that we are never going to use is a sensible use of resources, and it therefore might become a burden—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is making an extremely interesting speech, which is being listened to with respect. He said that the debate needed to happen and I just want, very politely, to make the point that six other hon. Members, who will have a lot less time than the hon. Gentleman, are waiting to speak. Therefore, I feel confident in predicting that his last sentence is coming.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I looked around to see who was standing and got to a different number, so I am immensely grateful and will conclude my arguments.

I had taken the view of the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) that there should be an alternative way of buying this kind of deterrence, or at least some kind of deterrence, in a cheaper way. I now accept that the alternatives review has answered that question, and has at least made the decision matrix around this much clearer. I do not think it is now possible, on the basis of that work, for us to buy a deterrent in a different way.

However, I gently point out to those who think that by renewing these weapons we are buying an invulnerable system, that I do not think we are. I think the nature of surveillance under the sea will make the future generation of submarines much more discoverable than present science suggests, and the question of Scottish independence will come around again in the lifetime of this weapons system. Had we had to move this weapons system from an independent Scotland, the cost of making a base for it in Plymouth or elsewhere would have been eye-watering. All those uncertainties need to be factored in. On that basis, and on the opportunity cost, I will with deep regret be voting against most of my colleagues this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

There is just under seven minutes for remaining speakers, so I would appeal to colleagues to help each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I wonder whether in the light of the delay—it has been 17 minutes thus far—the Serjeant at Arms might investigate the delay in both Lobbies.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I strongly support the Government’s initiative for 100 new CCFs in schools across the land. It is a great idea, but the Minister mumbled over the question of the funding formula—[Interruption.] I apologise: she most certainly did not mumble. To put it a different way, I am a little unclear as to what she meant about the funding formula. Will she guarantee that she will not do what she originally planned, namely fund the CCFs by charging existing cadets up to £500 a year for membership?

[Mr Speaker]

That was a gracious withdrawal. I have periodically accused the Minister of things, fairly or unfairly, but I have never, ever accused her of mumbling and I cannot imagine ever doing so.

[Anna Soubry]

Some people wish I would mumble a bit more, Mr Speaker. Let me make the situation very clear, in case my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) did not hear me, which I find astonishing. There will be no changes. We are determined to support all our cadet units, wherever they are, but we are particularly keen to see growth into the state sector. Everybody should welcome that, especially Government Members because we are the first lot to actually achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

What is different is that the Leader of the Opposition, who was challenged on this just a week ago, spoke only about the need for the least-cost deterrent, without repeating—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the Secretary of State can generally look after himself, but Members must not seek to shout him down. I always facilitate full exchanges on all these important matters, but the Secretary of State must be heard.

[Michael Fallon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter. The Leader of the Opposition did not repeat Labour’s previous commitment to what matters, which is a continuous-at-sea deterrent. What we cannot have is any kind of part-time deterrent, which would rely on our enemies being part-time as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

In stark contrast to the previous Government, our defence budget has been properly managed and has enabled us to keep this country safe. We are determined to support Future Force 2020. The hon. Gentleman’s question might be better directed to the shadow Defence Secretary, who last week told The Times:

“Army 2020 isn’t working and Labour will not take it forward”,

although last year he said that

“we support the rationale behind…Future Force 2020”.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Duncan Hames.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Allied warplanes cross the skies above Syria while Assad’s helicopters drop barrel bombs on the civilian population. How can this apparent indifference help us to prevent the civilian population of Syria from turning to the ISIL militia?

Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, of course, brings to this House very direct experience of the battlefield and the instant decisions that have to be taken on it. He has particular knowledge of the obligation on our soldiers—which they accept gladly—to do their very best, when the battle is over, for the wounded and for those detained.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was asking the Secretary of State to agree with him, and the Secretary of State did agree with him. The hon. Gentleman is therefore now, I am sure, doubly happy.

[Bob Stewart]

I am, indeed, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I speak as someone who served in Iraq in both 2003 and 2004. While any mistreatment of detainees is completely unacceptable —the Secretary of State has referred to procedural changes that have been made—is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of our servicemen and women have served with distinction and honour, and that, regardless of people’s different views on the conflict, as a country we owe them a debt of gratitude? I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that any British soldier who has been materially affected by their service in Iraq will, whatever the point in their life when they have been affected, be properly looked after by our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just point out to the House that questions thus far have been on the full side, very understandably as colleagues have wished to express their indignation about the matters concerned? I am keen to accommodate all remaining questioners, but I simply advise the House that there are two very heavily subscribed Opposition day debates to follow, before which, of course, there is a ten-minute rule motion, and I should be grateful if colleagues would tailor their contributions accordingly.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will be aware of allegations of wrongdoing in relation to Northern Ireland back in the 1970s, where men were tortured and detained without charge. What actions will the UK Government now take to redress the imbalance in relation to that, which has been identified as involving hooded men being subjected to the five techniques of torture?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate the offer of the hon. Lady’s church. The most constructive thing I can say is that if she wants to write or e-mail me with the details, we will see what can be done to take up that kind offer.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are short of time—indeed, out of time—but we must accommodate Jackie Doyle-Price, who has been standing for a long time.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we approach the 200th anniversary of Gurkha service in the British Army, will my hon. Friend look with sympathy on the recommendations made by the all-party group on Gurkha welfare so that we do right by these veterans of the British Army too?

[Anna Soubry]

A short yes is the answer to that, but I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her group for the fantastic work that they have done and the excellent report they produced.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not like seeing patient colleagues disappointed, so let us speed on. I call Mr Alan Reid.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that negotiations with defence police and firefighters are still ongoing, but time is running out because the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 comes into effect on 1 April. Will my hon. Friend ensure that these negotiations are concluded to the satisfaction of both sides well before then?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend has been pressing me on this issue for some time and I can confirm today that while the Clyde will become our main submarine base from 2020, HMS Torbay and HMS Trenchant, which are both due to decommission shortly, will remain at Devonport in order to minimise disruption to their crews and the crews’ families.

[Mr Speaker]

I am taking a relaxed attitude, the House should know, because there is protected time for subsequent business and I cannot bear to see colleagues disappointed unnecessarily.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

How much has been spent on advertising to support the current reserve recruitment, and how much is budgeted to be spent on advertising in future?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 4 November, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary, asking how many Libyan service personnel who received training in the UK had claimed asylum. I received a reply on 17 November saying that it was not the policy of the Home Office, hiding behind the Data Protection Act, to disclose personal information. On 18 November, I tabled a similar question, only to be told that it would not be possible to answer the question in the time available. Today the Defence Secretary has confirmed that a handful of personnel have actually claimed asylum. Does he think that the Home Office’s replies are acceptable, and how would he suggest that we go about getting an answer with the actual numbers who have claimed asylum?

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, that is not a matter for me. When the hon. Gentleman asks whether “he” can advise on this or that, I assume he means me. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not expect the Secretary of State to criticise one of his ministerial colleagues—the Secretary of State will not do that. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as he requires my protection or advice, is that he needs to pursue his usual approach, which is to be a busy bee. He should table questions and, in a legitimate, parliamentary sense, nag. In my experience of the hon. Gentleman, he requires no encouragement to do just that.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In exchanges on Friday, the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), told me with regard to the privatisation of Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire that

“when the previous Government left office there were three bidders, one of which was an NHS provider, so he really needs to get his facts straight”—[Official Report, 21 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 575.]

I have checked the facts with the National Audit Office, the strategic health authority at the time and the press, and the three bidders still in place when the shadow Health Secretary left office were Circle, Ramsay Health Care and Serco, which are hardly NHS providers. Indeed, none of the final five was. Could you provide an opportunity, Mr Speaker, for the shadow Health Secretary to correct the record so as to avoid misleading the House on this important issue?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope he will understand if I do not wish to intrude into what is becoming a protracted debate between him and the shadow Health Secretary, who responded by e-mail to the hon. Gentleman at 1.46 pm and 23 seconds today. I just have a sense that there is an ongoing debate and dispute between the two of them and it would be unseemly for me to intrude in that continuing argument. We will leave it there.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that you will not consider this a “Stupid boy” point of order, but something on which you can give me some advice. Fairly recently, I have noticed more and more references made to right hon. and gallant or hon. and gallant Members, and I have tried to find out who is and who is not gallant. I served in the cadet force at school, but I am told that even if a Member without a commission—an ordinary soldier—had won the Victoria Cross, he would still not be called “gallant” because it applies only to officers. Will you clear up who is and who is not gallant in that sense?

[Mr Speaker]

There is no difference between commissioned and non-commissioned for this purpose. Beyond that, I would tell the hon. Gentleman, to whom I would never intend any discourtesy, that the decision whether to use the term—the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), chooses to do so—is purely a matter of taste. If memory serves, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), was himself partial to using the term, and I think it has been used in relation to him as well. It is a matter of parliamentary taste. I am sure that we all intend to show good taste to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), as he is now in his 35th year of parliamentary service.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask, while members of the Defence team are still in their places, whether you have been informed that we are in sight of having the statement or debate on the ending of the campaign in Afghanistan, and the lessons to be drawn from that, which we were promised a little while ago?

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I was not aware that we were, but the nod of the Secretary of State’s head perhaps provides the hon. Gentleman and the House with the succour that he sought.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You very kindly referred to me as potentially gallant—I am not sure whether that is right—but I do not think that we ought to take this practice too far. I am sure you would agree, Sir, that we should not extend it to former members of cadet forces.

[Mr Speaker]

Something tells me, innocent soul that I am, that the right hon. Gentleman, with that rather puckish grin, was having a bit of a dig.

[Mr Robathan]

No, no.

[Mr Speaker]

I will just say that the right hon. Gentleman has made his point with his usual force and eloquence, and it is on the record.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The day would not be complete without a further point of order.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Oh—without further points of order. We must take them.

[Mr Winnick]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I say, with due modesty—[Laughter.] Characteristic modesty, should I say? Despite my two years’ national service, I do not wish to be referred to as “gallant”?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has never sought any particular acknowledgment. I do not want to embarrass him, because this is something of a tribute to him, but he is the only Member of the House I have ever come across who has phoned the organisers of a parliamentary awards competition to protest at his inclusion on the shortlist and to demand his removal. He certainly cannot be accused of seeking prizes or special recognition, and I respect that.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. While the traditional practice of referring to those who have served as gallant Members may have fallen into desuetude, surely at this present time—when the nation has been committed to military options, and there is seriously enhanced concern for the well-being of members of our armed forces—there is a purpose in maintaining the tradition. It indicates that many right hon. and hon. Members across the House—I see that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), in particular, is in his place—have served themselves, which sends out a message to the nation. I am a traditionalist, but surely tradition serves the House and the nation in this case.

[Mr Speaker]

Members may agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why they deploy the term. I certainly could not disagree with the latter part of the point of order. Indeed, the word “traditional” could have been invented to describe him, and he is none the worse for that. I thank him for what he has said.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is the last one.

[Mr Francois]

This topic allows me to mention to you, Mr Speaker, that just fewer than 60 Members of this House have served in the armed forces at some point, either in the regulars or the reserves. That is almost one in 10 Members of the House of Commons. We hold a service every year for veteran MPs, so that they have an opportunity to pay tribute to the fallen. We had one recently, which some 30 colleagues attended. I apologise to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) because he was not on the list. We will rectify that and invite him next year. I very much hope that he will be minded to come.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order that the Prime Minister has made an announcement to the Australian Parliament about a future counter-terrorism Bill and the Home Secretary has, this morning, made a detailed speech about the contents of that Bill before it has been announced to this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I have not yet read the Home Secretary’s speech, although that delight awaits me ere long. I feel sure that if a significant policy announcement is contained therein, she will want to communicate it to the House sooner rather than later. If, for some reason, that does not happen—it seems to me inconceivable that it will not—the hon. Lady is experienced in the use of parliamentary devices to ensure that Ministers are held to account in a timely way on the Floor of the House.

We will leave it there. I am grateful to colleagues for their very full appetite for points of order today.

Reserve Recruitment

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Ordinarily, I try to accommodate everybody; that probably will not be possible today, because there is considerable pressure on time, as there are two statements to follow. What is required is exemplary brevity, a tutorial in which can now be provided by Mr James Gray.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I will seek to do that, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister has a long-standing commitment to the reserve Army, which I salute. I am proud that my Territorial Army regiment is, I understand, 125% above its recruitment target, which is great. Other regiments around England could follow that example. However, does he agree that we cannot replace regular soldiers with reserves on a regular basis? Would it not be better to do away with the 82,000 and 30,000 figures, and replace that with an Army of 112,000, which could be made up partly of one and partly of the other?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need a pithy question without preamble, perhaps to be authored and delivered by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is not part of the problem that the increase in reserves has been seen as a cover for a cut in regular forces? What can the Minister, as a champion of the reserves even when we were spending more money on the armed forces, say to dispel that impression?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brazier]

I am sorry, I did not hear the question.

[Mr Speaker]

How much money has been spent on television recruitment advertisements this year?

[Mr Brazier]

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but I have taken 20 Back Benchers and I did give notice that it might not be possible to accommodate everybody, rather exceptionally, today.

David Efemena

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), I should advise the House that, although a date has been set for the inquest into the death of his constituent, I have exercised the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow debate on this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will refrain from discussing the matter that it is for the inquest to decide, which is the cause of death.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

Again, I am very grateful for those comments and happily take them on board. I am happy to look at the issue and report back both to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

[Mr Speaker]

If the Minister is able to induce happiness in the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), it will be regarded, I think, by all as a great triumph.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the UK’s contribution to the future stability of Afghanistan.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State has an uncharacteristically ashen face, but I am sure that the sensation will pass.

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) knows, I have visited MOD Donnington a couple of times. My most recent visit was on 15 May, when I had the opportunity to meet representatives of both staff and the trade unions. I have received representations from both hon. and right hon. Members of the House, including from my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been suggestions that, to save a relatively small sum of money, Britain should abandon continuous at-sea deterrence and opt for a part-time deterrent, with boats tied up alongside or even sent to sea without nuclear weapons on board. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government firmly reject such advice and I can further assure him that a Conservative Government will never take risks with Britain’s strategic security.

[Mr Speaker]

Time for the good doctor. I call Dr Julian Lewis.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In welcoming what the Secretary of State for Defence has said, may I remind him that those on the Labour Front Bench have similarly committed to the retention of Trident and continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence? Does he therefore agree with me that whatever the complexion of the next Government, there can be no possible excuse for failing to renew Trident—whether in coalition, in government or in opposition? Wherever we are, we all ought to be committing to renewal in the next Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, although of course we maintain our strategic deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of our sovereignty and independence of action. It is worth remembering that there are still 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and so long as that is the case, we must be able to protect the British people against them.

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) just had the finger rather distinctly pointed at him, I rather thought that he might be pricked into responding.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

It appears not. Never mind, he is a model of calm and patience. We will move on—I think we will get Sir Peter Luff in.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

17. What plans he has to encourage public debate on the defence needs of the UK in advance of the strategic defence and security review in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that my Department has an excellent relationship with the DWP, looking at ways in which we can support those who are out of work and seeking to acquire the skills, soft and hard, necessary to get back into work, to get them into the reserve forces and trained in the reserve forces while looking for civilian employment at the same time. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. An hon. Gentleman should not be talking about kicking people in an unspecified location. It is rather unseemly. I think I heard what he was driving at, if I may put it that way.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T8. In view of the uncertainty about the future of Public Health England at Porton Down and the imminent submission of the outline business case to the Treasury, will the Minister confirm that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is ready and willing to work collaboratively on a Porton-based solution for the future of the PHE facility there?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am familiar with the dispositions of that well-respected regiment, because B Squadron is recruited from its base in Telford, which is adjacent to my constituency. I am delighted to hear the good recruiting result that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I have further good news for Dudley residents: as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces indicated, reserve units can recruit beyond their structured liability in the event that they have success in recruitment, and we intend for the Dudley and Telford squadrons to be able to continue to recruit to up to 125% of their strength.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Answers are hopelessly long. Ministers really have to get the message.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T4. Iran’s position as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was highlighted once again in March when Israel intercepted the Gaza-bound Klos-C ship with a deadly cargo of advanced long-range rockets. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of Iran’s continued support for terrorism and the effect that that has on our security and strategic interests in the middle east?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Mr Speaker]

I think the reaction tells its own story to the hon. Gentleman.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate)]

Our military are increasingly subject to a legal regime that is increasingly costly, both financially and operationally. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Defence Committee’s recommendation that the next strategic defence and security review must examine the legal framework within which they operate and have less regard to human rights law and more regard to the law of armed conflict?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Both my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have called for early publication of Sir John Chilcot’s report. I voted against the Iraq war, but served in Iraq in 2003 and I, too, would rather like to see this publication in my lifetime.

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving up the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) as a favoured delicacy of the House.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is there any evidence that the recent developments in Ukraine are impressing upon all of our NATO allies the importance of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on its amendment 11 and agrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendment 32A to Commons amendment 32, and consequential Lords amendments 32C and 32D.

Commons amendment 40, Government motion not to insist, Lords amendment 40B in lieu, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendment 40C in lieu, amendment (c) thereto and Lords amendments 40D and 40E in lieu.

Commons amendment 42, Government motion not to insist and Lords amendments 42B and 42C in lieu.

Commons amendment 46, Government motion not to insist and Lords amendments 46B to 46E in lieu.

[Norman Lamb]

I would like to start by placing on the record my sincere thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for a real spirit of collaboration that has existed throughout the Bill’s consideration and for the constructive criticism that has characterised both our formal and informal discussions leading up to this moment. Many of the suggestions have been taken up, and I believe we now have a better Bill as a result. This scrutiny has influenced not only the Government’s amendments, but the surrounding policy, and our proposals for forthcoming secondary legislation and guidance. Indeed, the approach we have taken so far of working collaboratively with those in the sector will continue throughout the consideration of the secondary legislation and guidance.

Hon. Members may recall that some weeks ago on Report I undertook to consider further the matter of the application of the Human Rights Act to social care. Government amendments 11B and 11C represent the fulfilment of that promise. They respond to the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and follow discussions that Earl Howe, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for quality, and I have had with a number of Members of the House of Lords and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). I am grateful to the Joint Committee and to those parliamentarians with whom we have had such constructive discussions.

As has been said in this House and in the Lords throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government need to send out a strong message to the sector not to allow abuse, neglect or harm. Our priority must be preventing harm, abuse and neglect from happening in the first place. We very much believe that there are already, as a result of the steps this Government have taken, strong deterrents to abuse and neglect, and many of the Care Quality Commission’s fundamental standards will include human rights dimensions. The standards will apply to all registered providers of health and social care, and failure to comply with these standards which relate to harm could be a criminal offence. We are, however, aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, which is why Earl Howe offered a Government amendment in the Lords.

The amendment does not extend the scope of the Human Rights Act into the purely private sphere, where there is no state involvement, which clause 48, removed in the Public Bill Committee, did. It would, though, make it explicit that care providers who are regulated by the Care Quality Commission in England, or by equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom, when providing care and support arranged or funded in whole or in part by local authorities, are exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. In welcoming the amendment, Lords Members agreed that it meets the objectives of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment has also been welcomed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The amendment makes it clear that providers of publicly arranged or funded care and support—both residential and non-residential—provided on behalf of a local authority to an individual are bound by the Human Rights Act.

As hon. Members may recall, I was unable to accept the JCHR amendment, in the way it was drafted, for technical reasons. The Human Rights Act is an entrenched enactment, which the devolved legislatures cannot modify, but its application should be the same across the UK. The Government’s amendment therefore applies the legislative clarification to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is important to bear in mind that the scope of application of the Human Rights Act matters to lots of other people beyond the care sector. The Government believe it is not appropriate to pick and choose which people or bodies are expressly made subject to the Human Rights Act; it should always be based on clear principles. That is why I want to make it clear that this amendment would not set a precedent for any future occasions where there are perceived to be gaps in the coverage of the Human Rights Act. The House of Lords warmly welcomed this amendment, and I hope that this House will do the same.