Browse content similar to 01/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Ten minute rule motion. Mr Richard
Benyon. Mr Speaker, I beg leave to | 0:00:09 | 0:00:17 | |
introduce a bill that would create
statutory limitations on court | 0:00:17 | 0:00:22 | |
proceedings against current and
former members of the Armed Forces | 0:00:22 | 0:00:25 | |
for certain alleged offences
committed during military operations | 0:00:25 | 0:00:29 | |
or similar circumstances and for
connected purposes. Everybody in | 0:00:29 | 0:00:34 | |
this House, particularly those of us
who have served in the Armed Forces, | 0:00:34 | 0:00:39 | |
want our Armed Forces want always to
be seen as a most professional in | 0:00:39 | 0:00:43 | |
the world. This means we want them
to abide by the strict codes of | 0:00:43 | 0:00:48 | |
behaviour that we impose on them and
abide by the International rules of | 0:00:48 | 0:00:53 | |
war. In the Balkans, Iraq,
Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, | 0:00:53 | 0:01:02 | |
and elsewhere, we've asked our Armed
Forces to operate in highly complex | 0:01:02 | 0:01:08 | |
scenarios. Almost to a man and a
woman they have behaved in the | 0:01:08 | 0:01:14 | |
finest traditions of the three
services. The reputation of this | 0:01:14 | 0:01:18 | |
country and our Armed Forces have
been enhanced by their | 0:01:18 | 0:01:21 | |
professionalism, restraint,
compassion and courage. However, | 0:01:21 | 0:01:29 | |
there is a problem. Firstly, out of
the Iraq conflict, there has emerged | 0:01:29 | 0:01:33 | |
an industry where lawyers sadly
often just honest -- dishonest | 0:01:33 | 0:01:43 | |
lawyers have used vast amount of
public money to bring cases against | 0:01:43 | 0:01:48 | |
former and current members of the
Armed Forces. If they had been truth | 0:01:48 | 0:01:53 | |
in these cases, that would be fine.
But the difficulty to make these | 0:01:53 | 0:01:57 | |
allegations stick shows how badly
these cases are made. This | 0:01:57 | 0:02:05 | |
organisation processed over 3000
cases, giving an indication of the | 0:02:05 | 0:02:09 | |
level of absurdity of some of these
claims, my understanding was that | 0:02:09 | 0:02:14 | |
just 20 cases than at the time of
the demise of this organisation, | 0:02:14 | 0:02:21 | |
none of which believed to be viable
by prosecutors. Never again would | 0:02:21 | 0:02:26 | |
dreadful individuals be able to line
their pockets Origi pockets of the | 0:02:26 | 0:02:32 | |
legal firms with vast amounts of
public funds was pursuing our | 0:02:32 | 0:02:38 | |
veterans into old age. -- to line
their pockets or the pockets of the. | 0:02:38 | 0:02:45 | |
I would like to make it impossible
to bring a case against any | 0:02:45 | 0:02:54 | |
individual for actions taken whilst
serving on operations. I would | 0:02:54 | 0:02:58 | |
suggest that a period of ten years
would be the right the route on | 0:02:58 | 0:03:02 | |
which to legislate. I fully accept
they would have to be caveats and | 0:03:02 | 0:03:06 | |
exceptions. -- there would have to
be. I will time it means that we | 0:03:06 | 0:03:13 | |
allow for legitimate cases to be
brought forward, it is about the | 0:03:13 | 0:03:19 | |
time when evidential trails run
cold. -- the time chosen means. The | 0:03:19 | 0:03:27 | |
leadership and the subcommittee,
their work has informed the spill. | 0:03:27 | 0:03:37 | |
Mr Speaker, later this month in
Belfast a 70 region ruled -- a 70 | 0:03:37 | 0:03:43 | |
eligible man will face charges
including attempted murder. He was | 0:03:43 | 0:03:46 | |
an exemplary soldier ending his
career as a senior warrant officer. | 0:03:46 | 0:03:53 | |
He has a severe heart condition and
has only 11% kidney function. The | 0:03:53 | 0:03:59 | |
allegations relate to an incident in
1974 when a Pro12 he was leading in | 0:03:59 | 0:04:04 | |
Northern Ireland, at a time of
intense terrorist activity, fired on | 0:04:04 | 0:04:12 | |
a -- on an individual that was
killed. At the time, she was told | 0:04:12 | 0:04:17 | |
that no action was going to be taken
against him. What has changed? No | 0:04:17 | 0:04:24 | |
new evidence, less evident in fact.
Two of the three witnesses are dead. | 0:04:24 | 0:04:30 | |
The fire runs, casings, the original
file, have been lost. The Northern | 0:04:30 | 0:04:37 | |
Ireland Director of Public
Prosecutions claimed that new | 0:04:37 | 0:04:38 | |
evidence had come to light. We are
fearing that... There has been a | 0:04:38 | 0:04:50 | |
decision to reignite such
investigations. The Government have | 0:04:50 | 0:04:53 | |
rightly said that there should be no
bias in terms of how we these | 0:04:53 | 0:05:00 | |
investigations are carried out.
Unfortunately, there is already a | 0:05:00 | 0:05:04 | |
price. 90% of the guest during the
troubles were at the hands of | 0:05:04 | 0:05:07 | |
terrorists. -- already a bias. These
are people that went out with the | 0:05:07 | 0:05:13 | |
intention of killing and moving. The
security forces went out with the | 0:05:13 | 0:05:17 | |
intention of saving lives. I spent
most of my time in the fields and | 0:05:17 | 0:05:23 | |
streets of Northern Ireland, most of
my early 20s, protecting the lives | 0:05:23 | 0:05:28 | |
of prison officers, police officers,
from being assassinated in their | 0:05:28 | 0:05:32 | |
homes. Please can we ended argument
that there is some kind of | 0:05:32 | 0:05:37 | |
equivalence between terrorists and
security forces. There is a limit of | 0:05:37 | 0:05:43 | |
two years for any terrorist found
guilty after the Good Friday | 0:05:43 | 0:05:49 | |
Agreement. Many feel that the
letters, part of the Good Friday | 0:05:49 | 0:05:53 | |
Agreement, effectively give
terrorists a statute of locations. | 0:05:53 | 0:06:00 | |
-- of limitations. Thousands of
people served in Ireland in 1969 to | 0:06:00 | 0:06:11 | |
2007. Many of us, myself included
witnessed acts of extraordinary | 0:06:11 | 0:06:16 | |
restraint and professionalism by
young soldiers in the face of | 0:06:16 | 0:06:20 | |
extraordinary provocation. Like most
veterans, I have been moved by the | 0:06:20 | 0:06:29 | |
ability of community leaders and
politicians to bury the enmity is of | 0:06:29 | 0:06:34 | |
the past and enter Government with
those that have killed and more to | 0:06:34 | 0:06:37 | |
the killings of people they knew. --
and ordered the killings of people. | 0:06:37 | 0:06:43 | |
Of course, there are ongoing
tensions in Northern Ireland, we | 0:06:43 | 0:06:47 | |
hope these can be hired out. In the
main, would Northern Ireland have | 0:06:47 | 0:06:52 | |
done is so impressive. They are
moving on from the robber of | 0:06:52 | 0:06:56 | |
killings and many. Terrorists who
would otherwise be in prison what we | 0:06:56 | 0:07:04 | |
are under terms agreement. The
person that slaughtered five members | 0:07:04 | 0:07:15 | |
of my mind is known to the
authorities but not -- of my band is | 0:07:15 | 0:07:21 | |
known to the authorities but not
pursued. But it is soldier is being | 0:07:21 | 0:07:25 | |
pursued. My bill SS nonsense. With
the banner ending, so would the | 0:07:25 | 0:07:40 | |
presale of elderly members -- would
the personal of members of the Armed | 0:07:40 | 0:07:45 | |
Forces. You get a clear message that
United left and right, old and | 0:07:45 | 0:07:51 | |
young, people with and without a
detailed knowledge of military | 0:07:51 | 0:07:57 | |
matters. They want to draw a line
under the troubles. For them, | 0:07:57 | 0:08:00 | |
handing the likes of his soldier and
others until the end of their lives | 0:08:00 | 0:08:06 | |
is abhorrent. For those that agree
that these prosecutions and | 0:08:06 | 0:08:10 | |
investigations are wrong but
disagree that this is the way | 0:08:10 | 0:08:12 | |
forward, they have to answer some
clear understanding questions. -- | 0:08:12 | 0:08:19 | |
and resounding questions. What would
they to end this grotesque charade? | 0:08:19 | 0:08:23 | |
Do we put up with it and hope nobody
notices? Can we imagine any other | 0:08:23 | 0:08:28 | |
country in the world doing this to
our veterans? Do we really want to | 0:08:28 | 0:08:32 | |
see people that should be
appreciated for what they did, even | 0:08:32 | 0:08:36 | |
revered, being taken from their
homes, questions and prosecuted for | 0:08:36 | 0:08:40 | |
actions they took on our behalf and
one of the most impossible campaigns | 0:08:40 | 0:08:44 | |
and modern times many decades ago?
-- in modern times. Mr Speaker, it's | 0:08:44 | 0:08:51 | |
time for this House to reflect the
mood of the vast majority of people | 0:08:51 | 0:08:54 | |
in society. | 0:08:54 | 0:08:55 | |
Of the contrary no. I think the
ayings have it. The ayes have it. | 0:09:05 | 0:09:09 | |
Who will prepare and bring in the
bill? Mr Speaker, Richard Drax, | 0:09:09 | 0:09:19 | |
Emma... Dr Julian Lewis, Mrs
Madeleine Moon. Jim Shannon. | 0:09:19 | 0:09:25 | |
And myself. | 0:09:31 | 0:09:35 | |
Mr Richard Benyon. | 0:09:44 | 0:09:49 | |
Armed Forces statute of limitations
bill. Second reading what day? June | 0:09:59 | 0:10:03 | |
15th. 2018. Thank you.
Order we come to the first | 0:10:03 | 0:10:12 | |
opposition day motion, on Armed
Forces pay. To move the motion, I | 0:10:12 | 0:10:20 | |
call the Shadow Secretary of State
for Defence. Thank you very much | 0:10:20 | 0:10:28 | |
indeed Mr Speaker. | 0:10:28 | 0:10:28 | |
Our Armed Forces represent the very
best of what this country stands | 0:10:30 | 0:10:34 | |
for. Across the House, we recognise
their dedication, and their | 0:10:34 | 0:10:39 | |
professionalism, and we honour the
sacrifices they make on our behalf. | 0:10:39 | 0:10:43 | |
Especially at this time of year. Mr
Speaker, when it comes to their pay, | 0:10:43 | 0:10:50 | |
our Armed Forces personnel have not
been treated with the fairness and | 0:10:50 | 0:10:54 | |
decency their service deserves.
Because in every year, since 2010, | 0:10:54 | 0:11:00 | |
the Conservative Party in Government
has made a decision to give our | 0:11:00 | 0:11:04 | |
brave men and women a real terms pay
cut. And so, regardless of rising | 0:11:04 | 0:11:12 | |
rents in service accommodation, and
cuts to tax credits the pay that | 0:11:12 | 0:11:17 | |
service personnel receive has lagged
way behind inflation, in each of the | 0:11:17 | 0:11:21 | |
last seven years. This sorry state
of affairs means that the starting | 0:11:21 | 0:11:25 | |
salary of an army private has been
cut by over £1,000 in real terms | 0:11:25 | 0:11:31 | |
since Labour left office. Mr
Speaker, is it any wonder that the | 0:11:31 | 0:11:35 | |
Government finds itself presiding
over a crisis in recruitment and | 0:11:35 | 0:11:39 | |
retention? I give way. Of course pay
is very important but does she | 0:11:39 | 0:11:47 | |
accept in a survey conducted among
12,000 members of the Armed Forces | 0:11:47 | 0:11:51 | |
this year, pay did not feature in
any of the top five category, the | 0:11:51 | 0:11:55 | |
Government is doing a huge amount to
ensure terms of employment are right | 0:11:55 | 0:12:03 | |
and good service model for the Armed
Forces. Thank you. I am not sure | 0:12:03 | 0:12:08 | |
where the honourable lady has been
because certainly in the materials I | 0:12:08 | 0:12:11 | |
have been reading in the 2017 report
it very clearly states that two | 0:12:11 | 0:12:18 | |
thirds of personnel do not find
levels of pay satisfactory, and it | 0:12:18 | 0:12:22 | |
is given as one of the main reasons
why people consider leaving the | 0:12:22 | 0:12:27 | |
forces. I give way to the honourable
gentleman. Thank you. I don't want | 0:12:27 | 0:12:34 | |
to drone on about it but I have been
in the army 14 years and not once | 0:12:34 | 0:12:39 | |
has someone spoken to me about their
pay. If you look incrementally at | 0:12:39 | 0:12:44 | |
how we are paid, compared to Nato
ally, compared to the US, the | 0:12:44 | 0:12:51 | |
British Armed Forces have a
respectable pay deal that goes up | 0:12:51 | 0:12:55 | |
each year in pay bands with the X
Factor and it is simply din | 0:12:55 | 0:12:59 | |
ingenuous to say there is a military
throughout that is deeply | 0:12:59 | 0:13:03 | |
disaffected with how much they are
paid. | 0:13:03 | 0:13:06 | |
Well, indeed, Mr Speaker it
surprises me to hear the honourable | 0:13:06 | 0:13:10 | |
gentleman saying that, not only do
we have that report but the Pay | 0:13:10 | 0:13:15 | |
Review Body itself has talked about
frustration with levels of pay, has | 0:13:15 | 0:13:21 | |
identified it as a real south source
of concern within the Armed Forces | 0:13:21 | 0:13:24 | |
so I think we are living on
different planets. I am for raising | 0:13:24 | 0:13:34 | |
this today, perhaps it depends where
you come from, in Wales, I have | 0:13:34 | 0:13:39 | |
plenty of people who complaining to
me about pay issues within the Armed | 0:13:39 | 0:13:43 | |
Forces, people who are struggling to
cope with their bills. Bills. I am | 0:13:43 | 0:13:47 | |
also having people who have rung
think many morning concerned about | 0:13:47 | 0:13:51 | |
press reports about the cutting of
the £29 a day allowance for service | 0:13:51 | 0:13:56 | |
in Iraq. Which they see as a further
cut to their capacity to cope while | 0:13:56 | 0:14:03 | |
remaining in the armed force, I
thank the lady for bringing this | 0:14:03 | 0:14:06 | |
forward today but there is an issue
and I am glad we are hear to debate | 0:14:06 | 0:14:10 | |
it. I thank my honourable friend
very much indeed for her | 0:14:10 | 0:14:15 | |
intervention, I think she lives very
much in the real world and is very | 0:14:15 | 0:14:19 | |
much aware of the cuts that have
been affecting Armed Forces and the | 0:14:19 | 0:14:24 | |
cut to pay. One more then I will
make some progress. I am grateful. I | 0:14:24 | 0:14:30 | |
have to say I represent het win
barracks and am very proud of the | 0:14:30 | 0:14:34 | |
great service of the Royal Engineers
in those barracks and I am a former | 0:14:34 | 0:14:39 | |
minister in the Ministry of Defence.
I have to say pay Luz not on the | 0:14:39 | 0:14:43 | |
list, and it is not on the list of
those constituents who served so | 0:14:43 | 0:14:49 | |
well in our armed force, now,
accommodation is another matter but | 0:14:49 | 0:14:53 | |
it is not pay and with great respect
to the honourable lady I think those | 0:14:53 | 0:14:57 | |
listening to this may not be doing a
great service there are other issues | 0:14:57 | 0:15:03 | |
we should be debating but not this
one. Well Mr Speaker I would agree | 0:15:03 | 0:15:07 | |
it is no the only factor which makes
it difficult to recruit and retain | 0:15:07 | 0:15:11 | |
staff but it is a significant one,
when both the report and the Pay | 0:15:11 | 0:15:17 | |
Review Body listed it as such. I
would like to make some progress if | 0:15:17 | 0:15:21 | |
may. I find this quite astonishing
from the party opposite. I remember | 0:15:21 | 0:15:27 | |
as a minister being harangued by the
party opposite in opposition arguing | 0:15:27 | 0:15:31 | |
that we did a bad deal for the Armed
Forces even though we accept the | 0:15:31 | 0:15:39 | |
body's representation. It was in
2013 that the Pay Review Body | 0:15:39 | 0:15:44 | |
chairman was sacked because the
Prime Minister at the time, David | 0:15:44 | 0:15:48 | |
Cameron didn't want to recommend
increases in the X Factor. | 0:15:48 | 0:15:52 | |
Well, my honourable friend makes
reference to a shocking situation | 0:15:52 | 0:15:55 | |
and certainly I think it is very
disappointing that the party | 0:15:55 | 0:15:58 | |
opposite is starting this debate on
a negative note. | 0:15:58 | 0:16:02 | |
Now, more and more personnel are in
fact choosing to leave the arms | 0:16:02 | 0:16:05 | |
forces and every one of the services
is falling in size. A recent | 0:16:05 | 0:16:11 | |
Government commissioned report by
the Right Honourable member found | 0:16:11 | 0:16:14 | |
that recruitment to the services was
running to stand still and leading | 0:16:14 | 0:16:19 | |
to the hollowing out of our armed
force, rather than get to grips with | 0:16:19 | 0:16:23 | |
this problem the Conservatives'
record is is a litany of missed | 0:16:23 | 0:16:28 | |
targets and broken promise, their
town 15 manifesto pledged to keep | 0:16:28 | 0:16:32 | |
the size of the army above 82,000.
Hardly an ambitious target | 0:16:32 | 0:16:37 | |
considering it was well over 100,000
when Labour left Government. Miss | 0:16:37 | 0:16:42 | |
the target they did. And the
strength of the army is now just | 0:16:42 | 0:16:47 | |
77600. That figure of 82,000
mysteriously disappeared by the time | 0:16:47 | 0:16:54 | |
of their 2017 manifesto, that
fateful document promised to | 0:16:54 | 0:16:57 | |
maintain the overall size of the
Armed Forces, but question add that | 0:16:57 | 0:17:01 | |
pledge to the rubbish pile along
with the rest of forry manifesto, | 0:17:01 | 0:17:05 | |
since June we have seen a reduction
in the size of the army, a reduction | 0:17:05 | 0:17:09 | |
inst size of the Royal Navy and
marines and in the size of the Royal | 0:17:09 | 0:17:13 | |
Air Force, now we are in the
shameful position where the Defence | 0:17:13 | 0:17:17 | |
Secretary cannot rule out cuts to
the Royal Marines or promise that | 0:17:17 | 0:17:21 | |
army will not shrink further. Mr
Speaker, the Government may well be | 0:17:21 | 0:17:24 | |
complacent about the diminishing
size of our Armed Forces but we are | 0:17:24 | 0:17:28 | |
not. At a time of immense global
uncertainty, we... I will give way. | 0:17:28 | 0:17:33 | |
I am grateful to the honourable lady
for giving way. I was for 15 years | 0:17:33 | 0:17:38 | |
chair of the defence unit and
responsible for the membership in | 0:17:38 | 0:17:43 | |
the Commonwealth graves in
north-west Europe where 80% of the | 0:17:43 | 0:17:46 | |
war dead are buried. I saw first
hand the heroism on the one hand and | 0:17:46 | 0:17:51 | |
their history on the other. Does the
honourable lady agree with me a at | 0:17:51 | 0:17:56 | |
time when our country is facing an
ever more serious threat to our | 0:17:56 | 0:18:01 | |
national security, that it is
absolutely wrong to cut tens of | 0:18:01 | 0:18:04 | |
thousands from the Armed Forces, and
to say those who remain will suffer | 0:18:04 | 0:18:07 | |
a pay cut?
Indeed. My honourable friend makes | 0:18:07 | 0:18:13 | |
the point in a very eloquent way. We
are living in a world of immense | 0:18:13 | 0:18:20 | |
insecurity, OK, one more time and I
must make progress. Thank you and | 0:18:20 | 0:18:26 | |
think the Right Honourable lady for
letting me intervene, does that mean | 0:18:26 | 0:18:30 | |
the Right Honourable lady is
prepared to commit to have more than | 0:18:30 | 0:18:36 | |
82,000 personnel in our army, if
Labour ever got into power? I would | 0:18:36 | 0:18:42 | |
totally support that. Well, I think
the honourable gentleman needs to | 0:18:42 | 0:18:49 | |
take recognisance of the fact
everyier we were in office we spent | 0:18:49 | 0:18:54 | |
considerably more than the 2% GDP
commitment to defence. In our last | 0:18:54 | 0:19:00 | |
year in office we spent 2.5% of gpt.
A figure this Government has never | 0:19:00 | 0:19:06 | |
matched. -- GDP. I am grateful. I am
a former soldier and not a | 0:19:06 | 0:19:13 | |
mathematician, I would suggest she
studies the figures the MoD has | 0:19:13 | 0:19:18 | |
released which describes in 2015,
the annual budget of the MoD was | 0:19:18 | 0:19:22 | |
34.4 billion and it will be in
202039.7 billion. Number is going up | 0:19:22 | 0:19:31 | |
so overall the budget is decreased.
To characterise it as a landscape of | 0:19:31 | 0:19:37 | |
cuts is erroneous.
Well, indeed it needs to go up, | 0:19:37 | 0:19:42 | |
because clearly, it needs to go up
and we have said clearly we would | 0:19:42 | 0:19:46 | |
match that increase, because
obviously costs are escalating but I | 0:19:46 | 0:19:49 | |
have to tell the honourable
gentleman costs are escalating | 0:19:49 | 0:19:53 | |
higher than that figure will
accommodate. I would like to make | 0:19:53 | 0:19:56 | |
some progress if I may. So at this
time of immense global uncertainty | 0:19:56 | 0:20:01 | |
we cannot have a situation where
numbers continue to slide month | 0:20:01 | 0:20:04 | |
after month and all we get from this
Government are warm words and | 0:20:04 | 0:20:10 | |
crippling complacency. Capita is
completely unfit for the job a hand, | 0:20:10 | 0:20:14 | |
we have had warning after warning
that tap has not been fulfilling its | 0:20:14 | 0:20:19 | |
basic obligation, yet as the number
of personnel has continued to fall, | 0:20:19 | 0:20:24 | |
the amount paid to Capita has grown.
We propose taking real action to | 0:20:24 | 0:20:28 | |
begin to address this state of
affair, lift the public sector pay | 0:20:28 | 0:20:34 | |
cap and give forces a fair pay rise,
I recognise this would not be a | 0:20:34 | 0:20:38 | |
silver bullet in the crisis in
recruitment and retention but we | 0:20:38 | 0:20:42 | |
know from personnel themselves that
pay is one of the main reasons why | 0:20:42 | 0:20:45 | |
they choose to leave our Armed
Forces. Satisfaction with basic | 0:20:45 | 0:20:49 | |
rates of pay and pension benefits
are the lowest levels ever recorded. | 0:20:49 | 0:20:56 | |
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has
found and overriding sense of untern | 0:20:56 | 0:21:01 | |
I -- uncertainty and increasing
superb then that the offer will get | 0:21:01 | 0:21:04 | |
worse. Barely a third of service
personnel are satisfied with their | 0:21:04 | 0:21:10 | |
basic pay and 42% of personnel have
said that pay was a push factor for | 0:21:10 | 0:21:14 | |
them in choosing to leave the
forces. | 0:21:14 | 0:21:16 | |
But is it any wonder, when our
service pen add women are had to | 0:21:16 | 0:21:21 | |
shoulder real terms pay cuts, that
have left them badly worse off? | 0:21:21 | 0:21:27 | |
Between 2010 and 2016, the starting
salary of a Corporal fell by nearly | 0:21:27 | 0:21:32 | |
£2,000 in real term, whereas for a
Flight Lieutenant that was £2800. At | 0:21:32 | 0:21:37 | |
the same time as being hit by these
real terms pay cuts, our servicemen | 0:21:37 | 0:21:42 | |
and women have faced rising costs in
forces housing, because changes to | 0:21:42 | 0:21:48 | |
charges for service family
accommodation mean rent increasing | 0:21:48 | 0:21:52 | |
for nearly three-quarters of
occupants. And the Government's | 0:21:52 | 0:21:55 | |
feature accommodation model risks
adding to that pressure, fracturing | 0:21:55 | 0:21:59 | |
forces communities by forcing
service families into private rented | 0:21:59 | 0:22:02 | |
sectors which all the additional
cost that brings to them and the | 0:22:02 | 0:22:06 | |
taxpayer. The Armed Forces Pay
Review Body has warned of a perfect | 0:22:06 | 0:22:11 | |
storm for personnel, who face
increases in rent and National | 0:22:11 | 0:22:14 | |
Insurance contributions at the same
time as their pay is cut, in real | 0:22:14 | 0:22:17 | |
terms.
And Mr Speaker, let us be in no | 0:22:17 | 0:22:21 | |
doubt that the responsibility for
these below inflation rises, lies | 0:22:21 | 0:22:26 | |
firmly with the Government. Since
they lost the majority, at the | 0:22:26 | 0:22:32 | |
general election, Government
ministers have made great play of | 0:22:32 | 0:22:36 | |
the supposed independence of the
Armed Forces Pay Review Body. | 0:22:36 | 0:22:39 | |
They would have us believe that the
Pay Review Body sets the rates and | 0:22:39 | 0:22:44 | |
they merely implement them. As if it
were so coincidence that the body | 0:22:44 | 0:22:49 | |
has not remitted an above inflation
rise since 2010. | 0:22:49 | 0:22:53 | |
But this is little more than a
cynical attempt by ministers to | 0:22:53 | 0:22:58 | |
shirk their responsibility, because
of course, they instruct the Pay | 0:22:58 | 0:23:01 | |
Review Body to work within the
context of the cap. And so despite | 0:23:01 | 0:23:05 | |
all the warm words from the
Secretary of State or the minister, | 0:23:05 | 0:23:09 | |
the Treasury has said that it will
not fund increases above and beyond | 0:23:09 | 0:23:14 | |
the 1% cap. That is a fact. | 0:23:14 | 0:23:23 | |
Would you agree that it's worse than
that because the idea is that the | 0:23:23 | 0:23:28 | |
play review body should be
independent and be able to make a | 0:23:28 | 0:23:31 | |
recommendation for ministers and
Government a look at. But in true | 0:23:31 | 0:23:35 | |
that 13, Alistair Smith, the chair
of the peer-reviewed was sacked. | 0:23:35 | 0:23:44 | |
Because he made a recommendation
that the ministers didn't like. This | 0:23:44 | 0:23:49 | |
is outrageous. Yes, it's outrageous.
It betrays and appalling attitude by | 0:23:49 | 0:23:55 | |
this Government. Gratefully for the
honourable lady giving way. I have | 0:23:55 | 0:24:02 | |
every sympathy for the idea of a pay
rise. However, does she appreciate | 0:24:02 | 0:24:07 | |
that within the arms and ranks of
the Armed Forces there is such a | 0:24:07 | 0:24:15 | |
thing as progression? Pay will
progress within particular ranks. | 0:24:15 | 0:24:19 | |
Has she taken into account the
noncontributory pension that applies | 0:24:19 | 0:24:22 | |
to the Armed Forces, despite the
fact that you do that in 15 changes | 0:24:22 | 0:24:26 | |
represented a deterioration in terms
of conditions. -- that the 2015 | 0:24:26 | 0:24:33 | |
changes represented. It would be the
envy of the public and private | 0:24:33 | 0:24:35 | |
sectors. Indeed, Mr Speaker. In any
career, one would hope to have a | 0:24:35 | 0:24:44 | |
career progression. The member
himself refers to the fact that the | 0:24:44 | 0:24:47 | |
pension offer is not as generous as
it once was. The problem is that | 0:24:47 | 0:24:52 | |
people do things that rising storm
of rising costs and pay that is not | 0:24:52 | 0:24:55 | |
keeping up with these costs. Thank
you very much forgiving way. Would | 0:24:55 | 0:25:05 | |
the honourable member agree with me
that the people on the opposite | 0:25:05 | 0:25:08 | |
benches seemed to be of views
between the idea of a pay rise and a | 0:25:08 | 0:25:14 | |
pay". One of which is entitled to
and the other is a gift of the | 0:25:14 | 0:25:18 | |
Government. -- a pay increment. Yet,
I agree. The pay review body can | 0:25:18 | 0:25:26 | |
recommend a higher reward for a
specific group of personnel. Then | 0:25:26 | 0:25:31 | |
they would have to introduce
decreases to pavements. -- | 0:25:31 | 0:25:37 | |
decreases. They are unable to
recommend a pay rise to do with the | 0:25:37 | 0:25:44 | |
problem given the Treasury's
insistence that it will not provide | 0:25:44 | 0:25:48 | |
the funds. Rather than pass the
buck, is not over the Government to | 0:25:48 | 0:25:51 | |
do the right thing and let the
public sector pay cap across the | 0:25:51 | 0:25:55 | |
board so that Armed Forces and all
public sector workers, firefighters, | 0:25:55 | 0:26:01 | |
nurses, ambulance workers, all the
paid that they deserve? This is a | 0:26:01 | 0:26:07 | |
popular policy that commands support
across the country. More than two | 0:26:07 | 0:26:12 | |
thirds of from? Wants to give the
public sector a pay rise. Including | 0:26:12 | 0:26:19 | |
conservative supporters. -- of a
voters wants to give the public | 0:26:19 | 0:26:24 | |
sector. Whilst we have unions, Armed
Forces do not. It is the more | 0:26:24 | 0:26:31 | |
important that we in this House
speak up on behalf. There is no | 0:26:31 | 0:26:36 | |
point being that you back Armed
Forces personnel if you refuse to | 0:26:36 | 0:26:39 | |
stand off with them when it comes.
There is no point pretending that | 0:26:39 | 0:26:42 | |
you want to see their pay improve if
you will not fall back for it. | 0:26:42 | 0:26:47 | |
Members should listen to what I
service personnel are telling us. | 0:26:47 | 0:26:51 | |
The pay review body is finding this.
Public sector workers are finding | 0:26:51 | 0:27:01 | |
that there is constrained at a time
when things are recovering. -- armed | 0:27:01 | 0:27:11 | |
service workers are finding. These
are men and women who are powerless | 0:27:11 | 0:27:14 | |
to keep us safe. Surely the least
that they deserve as correct | 0:27:14 | 0:27:21 | |
payment. -- these are men and women
who work tirelessly to keep us safe. | 0:27:21 | 0:27:28 | |
Whether it is cutting corners with
short-sighted defence cuts that have | 0:27:28 | 0:27:33 | |
weakened defence capabilities are
imposing public sector pay cap on | 0:27:33 | 0:27:37 | |
brave personnel, this is a
Government that will not stop up the | 0:27:37 | 0:27:40 | |
Cass -- that will not pay when it is
important. I would suggest that they | 0:27:40 | 0:27:50 | |
are prepared to talk the talk but
they are not prepared to walk the | 0:27:50 | 0:27:53 | |
walk. Are they prepared to walk the
walk? The question is as on the | 0:27:53 | 0:27:59 | |
order paper. I called Minister Mark
Lancaster. Mr Speaker, I am grateful | 0:27:59 | 0:28:04 | |
to the opposition forgiving me the
opportunity to discuss Armed Forces | 0:28:04 | 0:28:08 | |
pay. This motion reflects a shared
sense on all sides of the House of | 0:28:08 | 0:28:15 | |
the value our Armed Forces bring to
the nation. It reflects an | 0:28:15 | 0:28:18 | |
appreciation for the unparalleled
bravery and an enormous affect all | 0:28:18 | 0:28:22 | |
round the call, whether fighting
Daesh in the Middle East or helping | 0:28:22 | 0:28:30 | |
in Estonia, bringing essential Hema
material aid to those devastated by | 0:28:30 | 0:28:40 | |
hurricanes in the Caribbean. Lastly,
those that put their lives on the | 0:28:40 | 0:28:43 | |
line should receive the reward due.
At the same time, this just shows a | 0:28:43 | 0:28:53 | |
partial picture, this bill. I would
like to provide some of the missing | 0:28:53 | 0:28:56 | |
context. I give way. Can I thank the
Minister forgiving way. Defence | 0:28:56 | 0:29:02 | |
spend as -- was 2.5% of GDP in 2050.
Can the Minister tell me what it is | 0:29:02 | 0:29:14 | |
now? Of the top of my head, is just
over 2%. 2.16, I was gunned as | 0:29:14 | 0:29:20 | |
82.14%. Firstly, the broader fiscal
context. We shouldn't forget why pay | 0:29:20 | 0:29:29 | |
restraint was introduced in 2010. It
was the consequence of a large and | 0:29:29 | 0:29:35 | |
Heritage economic deficit. The whole
with the public sector, not just | 0:29:35 | 0:29:39 | |
Armed Forces, was subject to the
same conditions. -- the consequence | 0:29:39 | 0:29:48 | |
of a large and inherited economic.
MoD had an important part to play in | 0:29:48 | 0:29:54 | |
supporting Government efforts to
restore the UK's economic | 0:29:54 | 0:29:57 | |
credibility. After all, a stronger
economy means struggle defence. | 0:29:57 | 0:30:00 | |
Taking these of decisions, we've
seen the economy grow, taxes are no | 0:30:00 | 0:30:09 | |
and employment high. This benefits
us all. The second point... I will | 0:30:09 | 0:30:13 | |
give way. Thank you. I'm grateful
for being allowed to intervene. Most | 0:30:13 | 0:30:22 | |
of us in this chamber have sat
through the Bill and nobody spoke | 0:30:22 | 0:30:27 | |
against it. Tribute was paid to the
curvature of the service and | 0:30:27 | 0:30:35 | |
sacrifice of our Armed Forces, not
only in Northern Ireland but Iraq. | 0:30:35 | 0:30:40 | |
-- was paid to the courage and the
service and sacrifice. The minister | 0:30:40 | 0:30:45 | |
put this at the beginning of his
response is often. There is a moral | 0:30:45 | 0:30:50 | |
obligation. I don't want to hear
about fiscal reasons. I want this | 0:30:50 | 0:30:56 | |
Government recognised the moral
obligation and duty it has stood the | 0:30:56 | 0:30:58 | |
Armed Forces to lift this break-up.
-- duty it has two the Armed Forces. | 0:30:58 | 0:31:09 | |
I would also, of course, many of us
that the Prime Minister's Questions | 0:31:09 | 0:31:14 | |
and in response to my honourable
friend, I would simply referred to | 0:31:14 | 0:31:19 | |
honourable lady to the purple
argument and response that the Prime | 0:31:19 | 0:31:22 | |
Minister gave to this question on
the very subject that she graces. | 0:31:22 | 0:31:28 | |
The second point this motion ignores
is the impact of paper aggression. | 0:31:28 | 0:31:32 | |
Officers and other ranks are tied to
incremental pay scales. They | 0:31:32 | 0:31:38 | |
routinely and regularly move up the
balance. The honourable lady talked | 0:31:38 | 0:31:41 | |
about privates. The average private
soldier starts on a Sara Lee -- a | 0:31:41 | 0:31:52 | |
salary of £80,770. After one year,
through in griddle play alone, | 0:31:52 | 0:31:58 | |
that's notwithstanding the 1% pay
increase, that has risen to over | 0:31:58 | 0:32:07 | |
£20,000. -- a salary of £18,000.
That is a rise of 2.76% in one year. | 0:32:07 | 0:32:14 | |
After three years, this salary has
risen to Marcos. That is an increase | 0:32:14 | 0:32:24 | |
of 15.8%. -- has risen to Article
two. I give way to the honourable | 0:32:24 | 0:32:32 | |
gentleman. I've got to say, I think
the honourable gentleman is being | 0:32:32 | 0:32:37 | |
disingenuous. The right honourable
gentleman mustn't use that word. He | 0:32:37 | 0:32:44 | |
is a person of Felicity 's phrase
and an extensive vocabulary and he | 0:32:44 | 0:32:51 | |
must find another way to express his
irascibility. Well, he's wrong. | 0:32:51 | 0:33:03 | |
LAUGHTER
The point being is that you get an | 0:33:03 | 0:33:09 | |
increase in any job as your ability
to serve increases. The facts are | 0:33:09 | 0:33:13 | |
that the yearly increases affect the
private's future because it affects | 0:33:13 | 0:33:20 | |
the level of the bands and
percentages. You can't argue that | 0:33:20 | 0:33:24 | |
because somebody gets pay
progression that they shouldn't get | 0:33:24 | 0:33:26 | |
an increase in basic pay, it would
affect their basic pay, of course it | 0:33:26 | 0:33:33 | |
is. I'm worried about my honourable
friend's abroad. We'd been great | 0:33:33 | 0:33:37 | |
friends in this House for many
years. -- friend's approach. I'm | 0:33:37 | 0:33:42 | |
sure I'll get my revenge at some
point! As somebody that serves after | 0:33:42 | 0:33:49 | |
29 years, when it comes to the Armed
Forces, to accuse me of all people | 0:33:49 | 0:33:54 | |
as being disingenuous is slightly
unfair. I like to think I've done my | 0:33:54 | 0:33:59 | |
bit. However, if you are a private
soldier, on day one, receiving | 0:33:59 | 0:34:08 | |
18,000 £18,673 in your pocket before
tax, then £21,614, I don't think | 0:34:08 | 0:34:13 | |
people will care that much whether
it is paid progression or an annual | 0:34:13 | 0:34:19 | |
increase in their pay. It's money
and pockets. More money. -- money in | 0:34:19 | 0:34:24 | |
their pockets. The honourable
gentleman for North Durham says, and | 0:34:24 | 0:34:32 | |
here we go, maybe this is testament
to mathematics, that £21,614 is less | 0:34:32 | 0:34:41 | |
money than £18,673. You should not
keep hollering because apart from | 0:34:41 | 0:34:49 | |
anything else that is marginally
discourteous jumpers honourable | 0:34:49 | 0:34:54 | |
friend, who had requested an
intervention and had it granted | 0:34:54 | 0:34:57 | |
before it was ripped away from him
by the unseemly behaviour of the | 0:34:57 | 0:35:01 | |
right honourable gentleman. Thank
you Minister forgiving -- for giving | 0:35:01 | 0:35:08 | |
way. I was disheartening to see that
the Government is considering | 0:35:08 | 0:35:12 | |
scrapping the £29 deployment talents
to soldiers on the front line on | 0:35:12 | 0:35:17 | |
Iraq. I'd like to hear you
categorically deny this. I am an | 0:35:17 | 0:35:23 | |
agreeable chap. More speculation
from the Times. No decision has been | 0:35:23 | 0:35:28 | |
made to scrap the operational
allowance. Every year since the | 0:35:28 | 0:35:34 | |
operational allowance was introduced
12 years ago there is a review of | 0:35:34 | 0:35:38 | |
where it should apply and why not,
soldiers have not been thought that | 0:35:38 | 0:35:43 | |
they will not receive it in and I am
deeply proud that it was as | 0:35:43 | 0:35:48 | |
Government that the operational
allowance from £14 to £29. Finally, | 0:35:48 | 0:35:54 | |
to get the last word, with my
honourable friend from Durham, all | 0:35:54 | 0:35:59 | |
of those figures do not take into
account this substantial rise in the | 0:35:59 | 0:36:04 | |
personal tax allowance that this
Government has introduced was in | 0:36:04 | 0:36:07 | |
power. I want give way just to seek
my revenge. Despite fiscal | 0:36:07 | 0:36:15 | |
constraint, Armed Forces salary is
what this period have not stagnated. | 0:36:15 | 0:36:18 | |
Indeed, they have risen on average
by 1.5%. I will make some points but | 0:36:18 | 0:36:25 | |
I will give way. MoD has the option
of introducing targeted payments, | 0:36:25 | 0:36:30 | |
particular issues in recruiting and
retention. These payments can range | 0:36:30 | 0:36:36 | |
from unlimited financial incentives
that recognise particular problems | 0:36:36 | 0:36:43 | |
we face, this brings me to the third
aspect of the pay story that has | 0:36:43 | 0:36:49 | |
been conveniently glossed over.
Joining the Armed Forces comes with | 0:36:49 | 0:36:56 | |
a range of benefits often ignored.
Subsidised accommodation and food, | 0:36:56 | 0:37:03 | |
access to free medical and dental
care, and lovers package, one of | 0:37:03 | 0:37:07 | |
which we just talked on, -- and
allowance package. I give way to the | 0:37:07 | 0:37:16 | |
honourable gentleman. I thank the
Minister forgiving way. Can the | 0:37:16 | 0:37:21 | |
minister recognise the frustration
felt by the Armed Forces when the | 0:37:21 | 0:37:24 | |
sea rising costs in accommodation
but no real pay rise. Let's be | 0:37:24 | 0:37:31 | |
clear, this subsidised accommodation
costs that our service personnel are | 0:37:31 | 0:37:38 | |
charged or approximately two thirds
of what they would pay in the | 0:37:38 | 0:37:43 | |
private sector. Two thirds. There
had been a readjustment across a | 0:37:43 | 0:37:47 | |
range because some of the bands were
completely out of date, for instance | 0:37:47 | 0:37:52 | |
accommodation was graded as to her
for a way they were from a public | 0:37:52 | 0:37:55 | |
telephone box. What relevance that
has an 2017 can better access to | 0:37:55 | 0:38:02 | |
broadband. -- as to how far away
they were. Let's not forget, members | 0:38:02 | 0:38:08 | |
of the Armed Forces are paying
considerably less than they would if | 0:38:08 | 0:38:10 | |
they were in the private sector. I
will give way. | 0:38:10 | 0:38:14 | |
The day-to-day hassle and unfairness
they face as a result of their | 0:38:22 | 0:38:25 | |
service, and to that end could he
confirm this Government's commitment | 0:38:25 | 0:38:29 | |
to the Armed Forces covenant and
maybe develop further what is the | 0:38:29 | 0:38:32 | |
Government doing to ensure that
nobody is penalised by their service | 0:38:32 | 0:38:37 | |
in our Armed Forces? Well, I am
delighted that perhaps we have a | 0:38:37 | 0:38:42 | |
moment of consensus across the
House, when we talk about the | 0:38:42 | 0:38:45 | |
military covenant. It is indeed one
of the success stories of recent | 0:38:45 | 0:38:50 | |
years, indeed my my last role, my
honourable friend for Bournemouth we | 0:38:50 | 0:38:57 | |
have managed to convince the nation
of the value of service and to see | 0:38:57 | 0:39:02 | |
so many companies signing up is a
testament to success and every local | 0:39:02 | 0:39:07 | |
authority as well in England,
Scotland and Wales. I will give way | 0:39:07 | 0:39:10 | |
one more time and I must make
progress. The honourable member for | 0:39:10 | 0:39:15 | |
gedly. Can I just ask, take the
minister back to his comment about | 0:39:15 | 0:39:20 | |
military salaries rising in real
terms, can he explain to the House | 0:39:20 | 0:39:26 | |
why the Ministry of Defence
publication of 1 September 2017, it | 0:39:26 | 0:39:31 | |
says figure 11 highlights that
growth in military salaries fell | 0:39:31 | 0:39:35 | |
below inflation from the financial
years 2010 and 11 to 2014-15. Can | 0:39:35 | 0:39:41 | |
ministers source where his evidence
is coming from as opposed to the | 0:39:41 | 0:39:46 | |
evidence the rest of us are having
to rely from the MoD website. We are | 0:39:46 | 0:39:51 | |
going back to the debate about the
annual increase in salary and the | 0:39:51 | 0:39:56 | |
incremental pay. I have used the
example of the private soldier where | 0:39:56 | 0:40:00 | |
you are seeing a 20% increase in the
salary over three year, I am, I have | 0:40:00 | 0:40:06 | |
been generous, I am going to make
some progress, and I will give way | 0:40:06 | 0:40:10 | |
again before I finish my speech. In
other words when it comes to arm | 0:40:10 | 0:40:15 | |
forces pay context is all and the
decision to award a 1% pay increase | 0:40:15 | 0:40:21 | |
in town 17 didn't happen in
isolationlet it followed a | 0:40:21 | 0:40:26 | |
recommendation by the pay body. They
were clear their decision broadly | 0:40:26 | 0:40:31 | |
maintained pay come par built with
the civilian sectors critically the | 0:40:31 | 0:40:35 | |
AF PR B and the SSRB are independent
organisations who make annual | 0:40:35 | 0:40:42 | |
recommendation, their reports are
detailed, comprehensive and take | 0:40:42 | 0:40:44 | |
time to compile. For 2016-17 they
gathered written and oral evidence | 0:40:44 | 0:40:53 | |
from the Defence Secretary down,
including service personnel and | 0:40:53 | 0:40:58 | |
spouse, they held 186 discussion
groups before arriving at a decision | 0:40:58 | 0:41:02 | |
such a thorough evidence based
approach is why it would be wholly | 0:41:02 | 0:41:07 | |
wrong to start introducing ad hoc in
year reviews as some would have | 0:41:07 | 0:41:11 | |
suggested. Focussing solely on the
pay award, excludes the other | 0:41:11 | 0:41:15 | |
reforms we made to pay, reforms
supported by the AF PR B themselves, | 0:41:15 | 0:41:20 | |
for exam
2016 we introduced a new pay scheme | 0:41:20 | 0:41:24 | |
to more effectively reward personnel
for skills and simplify and | 0:41:24 | 0:41:28 | |
individual's pay journey,
consequently, people are better able | 0:41:28 | 0:41:32 | |
to predict their future career
earnings and make better informed | 0:41:32 | 0:41:35 | |
decision, at the same time we
recognise that in a competitive worm | 0:41:35 | 0:41:39 | |
we need to do more to plug skill
gaps in parts of the public sector. | 0:41:39 | 0:41:45 | |
If we are to continue delivering
world class sub pick -- public | 0:41:45 | 0:41:51 | |
service, that is why it will be
available in public sector pay | 0:41:51 | 0:41:54 | |
remains key, it means the
independent Pay Review Bodies can | 0:41:54 | 0:41:58 | |
make their own judgments on future
pay awards to mitigate potential | 0:41:58 | 0:42:02 | |
future impact. So, for 2018/19, the
AF PR B will no longer have a | 0:42:02 | 0:42:10 | |
retirement to keep their
recommendations within a total 1% | 0:42:10 | 0:42:14 | |
maximum award, but that, let us not
jump the gun. The 2018/19 Armed | 0:42:14 | 0:42:19 | |
Forces pay review is still to come.
It will by a degreed as part of the | 0:42:19 | 0:42:24 | |
budget process and we expect the
recommendation early next year. I | 0:42:24 | 0:42:28 | |
think the minister for giving way,
he is quoting the AF PR B. It is | 0:42:28 | 0:42:33 | |
clear they say if inflation
continues its upward trajectory we | 0:42:33 | 0:42:37 | |
could see recruitment become more
challenging and morale impacted. We | 0:42:37 | 0:42:43 | |
need to consider carefully whether
1% was compatible with ofrational | 0:42:43 | 0:42:48 | |
effectiveness. He knows my concerns
about recruitment. I know pay is not | 0:42:48 | 0:42:54 | |
the only issue affecting it. Will we
see the figures going up and will he | 0:42:54 | 0:42:59 | |
listen to what the AF PR B is
saying? What I would say is over the | 0:42:59 | 0:43:03 | |
last year we have seen 8,000
applications to army, that is an | 0:43:03 | 0:43:07 | |
increase of 20% on the previous
year. But I will be interesting in | 0:43:07 | 0:43:11 | |
his view, I was deeply surprised to
discover reading in a national | 0:43:11 | 0:43:16 | |
newspaper that Labour's plan or part
of their plan is to use the money | 0:43:16 | 0:43:20 | |
for marketing, some £10 million a
year, as one of the sources is of | 0:43:20 | 0:43:24 | |
income to give soldiers an increase
in pay. Now, with an approximately | 0:43:24 | 0:43:29 | |
150,000 Armed Forces personnel, that
would be an increase of about 5.50 a | 0:43:29 | 0:43:36 | |
month per member of the Armed Forces
but scrapping the one thing that | 0:43:36 | 0:43:41 | |
delivers recruit, so no marketing
budget, for an organisation, does | 0:43:41 | 0:43:48 | |
the honourable gentleman agree with
that, does he agree the front bench | 0:43:48 | 0:43:51 | |
plans to scrap the marketing budget?
Marketing is a crucial part of the | 0:43:51 | 0:43:57 | |
recruitment process but the minister
needs to be clear, he knows the, he | 0:43:57 | 0:44:03 | |
has given me an thans is clear every
single course, including those at | 0:44:03 | 0:44:08 | |
Catterick, is underrecruited. Every
single course at Sandhurst | 0:44:08 | 0:44:13 | |
underrecruited. It is his Government
that is leading to this crisis, pay | 0:44:13 | 0:44:16 | |
is one part of that, and it is a
crucial part of it. He is the | 0:44:16 | 0:44:20 | |
minister, he is in charge.
So we have a crucial marketing | 0:44:20 | 0:44:27 | |
budget that will be scrapped.
Scrapped. I am going to Catterick in | 0:44:27 | 0:44:30 | |
two weeks' time to be the passing
officer for the latest group of | 0:44:30 | 0:44:34 | |
Gurkhas to pass off, that is fully
recruited. Not all courses are. I am | 0:44:34 | 0:44:39 | |
delighted to say the last course for
Sandhurst was eek Liz fully | 0:44:39 | 0:44:43 | |
recruited. I will give way and go
back to making some progress. Madame | 0:44:43 | 0:44:49 | |
Deputy Speaker as the minister
always knows well, newspapers always | 0:44:49 | 0:44:53 | |
don't report things the right way
round but the important point about | 0:44:53 | 0:44:56 | |
this is the point we are making, the
point we are making about the | 0:44:56 | 0:45:00 | |
marketing costs, the point we are
making about the markets costs is | 0:45:00 | 0:45:04 | |
they have rocketed and the question
is, what value for money are they | 0:45:04 | 0:45:08 | |
providing, what value for money is
the contract with Capita providing? | 0:45:08 | 0:45:13 | |
What evaluation has the Government
done over whether that is value for | 0:45:13 | 0:45:19 | |
money, spent on Capita, spent on
marketing for the returns they are | 0:45:19 | 0:45:22 | |
getting, that is that we want to
see. So I am not sure if we have | 0:45:22 | 0:45:29 | |
seen a U-turn, we haven't. So you
are still scrapping the marketing | 0:45:29 | 0:45:32 | |
budget. Can we have clarity, are you
proposing to scrap it or not? The | 0:45:32 | 0:45:38 | |
point that I was making was the
massive increase in the marketing | 0:45:38 | 0:45:44 | |
budget for zero returns, in terms of
additional recruitment. That is the | 0:45:44 | 0:45:47 | |
point we are making. It is value for
money? They are running the | 0:45:47 | 0:45:51 | |
contract, they are employing
capital, they need to answer, as to | 0:45:51 | 0:45:56 | |
exactly what sort of value they
think they are getting out of | 0:45:56 | 0:45:59 | |
Capita.
I think I am going to do the House a | 0:45:59 | 0:46:05 | |
favour and move on. As alluded to
earlier for those joining the Armed | 0:46:05 | 0:46:12 | |
Forces pay isn't the
be-all-and-end-all. For whose ho | 0:46:12 | 0:46:16 | |
sign up to challenge themselves and
learn new skills. The reason cited | 0:46:16 | 0:46:21 | |
for leaving is the impact of the
service on family and personal life. | 0:46:21 | 0:46:25 | |
That is why we very dene do all we
can to improve life for our | 0:46:25 | 0:46:30 | |
personnel, 70% of people told a
recent MoD survey they wanted more | 0:46:30 | 0:46:35 | |
flexible working opportunities, so
we are introducing a flexible | 0:46:35 | 0:46:38 | |
working bill. It will enable regular
service personnel to temporarily | 0:46:38 | 0:46:44 | |
change the nature of their service
enabling part-time working to | 0:46:44 | 0:46:49 | |
support an individual personal
circumstances, where business needs | 0:46:49 | 0:46:51 | |
allow. I will but only one more
time. At present a woman considering | 0:46:51 | 0:46:57 | |
starting a family or an individual
with caring commitment faces a | 0:46:57 | 0:47:02 | |
difficult choice to leave when
circumstances change. We don't want | 0:47:02 | 0:47:06 | |
to lose good people for a more
diverse workforce and we shouldn't | 0:47:06 | 0:47:09 | |
have to. By providing a more modern
flexible framework for our people we | 0:47:09 | 0:47:16 | |
will help improve morale, retain and
recruit the best. More than that, we | 0:47:16 | 0:47:22 | |
will also help attract recruits from
a wider cross section, those who | 0:47:22 | 0:47:26 | |
might not have considered a military
careerment pay or flexible working | 0:47:26 | 0:47:31 | |
in and of themselves don't offer a
silver bullet. Highlighted by my | 0:47:31 | 0:47:38 | |
right honourable friend in his
excellent report filling the ranks. | 0:47:38 | 0:47:44 | |
Taken together with our border
programme we believe it will have a | 0:47:44 | 0:47:47 | |
significant impact. I will give way
to honourable lady who asked first. | 0:47:47 | 0:47:53 | |
In terms of the overall package I am
sure many colleagues have touched | 0:47:53 | 0:47:57 | |
on, can we go back to service family
accommodation, the reality | 0:47:57 | 0:48:02 | |
spectacular will I I will be talking
about pay later on but SFA and the | 0:48:02 | 0:48:08 | |
contract are the number one issue we
have raised everyday and as chair of | 0:48:08 | 0:48:14 | |
the Armed Forces covenant it is
becoming a headache for everybody | 0:48:14 | 0:48:17 | |
and it needs resolved as a matter of
urgency. Is The honourable lady | 0:48:17 | 0:48:23 | |
makes a valid point, in my previous
role I spent a lot of time and I | 0:48:23 | 0:48:28 | |
took the chief executive on a walk
round Woolwich to to see standard of | 0:48:28 | 0:48:33 | |
some the accommodation. I there is
acknowledgement that the situation | 0:48:33 | 0:48:39 | |
has improved but there is more work
dosm we recognise that, we are | 0:48:39 | 0:48:42 | |
determined as press conference
governments have been determined to | 0:48:42 | 0:48:44 | |
try to address this issue, of course
the better defence the state | 0:48:44 | 0:48:49 | |
strategy is part of the key to this
as we begin to consolidate barracks | 0:48:49 | 0:48:54 | |
we will have less mobility of armed
force, be able to dispose of some | 0:48:54 | 0:49:00 | |
sites and that will be re-invested.
I will give way one more time. This | 0:49:00 | 0:49:09 | |
come downs to credibility. The whole
debate comes down to credibility. | 0:49:09 | 0:49:13 | |
Yes we would want more money, people
will want to be paid, but this is | 0:49:13 | 0:49:17 | |
not the number one issue, generally,
we have a good offer for other our | 0:49:17 | 0:49:22 | |
servicemen and women, we have deep
challenges round vet can care, | 0:49:22 | 0:49:25 | |
mental health but this has to be a
credible debate and to pretend our | 0:49:25 | 0:49:29 | |
men and women have some sort of raw
deal when it comes to pay and | 0:49:29 | 0:49:34 | |
experience, is I am afraid not the
case. | 0:49:34 | 0:49:39 | |
He makes a very powerful point
indeed. It is worth being clear | 0:49:39 | 0:49:42 | |
about what this programme entails.
It will see us offering greater help | 0:49:42 | 0:49:46 | |
to personnel so they can live in
private accommodation and meet their | 0:49:46 | 0:49:51 | |
aspiration for home owner ship. It
will have a new offer for new | 0:49:51 | 0:49:57 | |
joiner, better meeting the
expectation of future recruits and | 0:49:57 | 0:50:01 | |
targeting the people we need most. I
will make it easier for people to | 0:50:01 | 0:50:04 | |
move between the public and private
sectors during the course of their | 0:50:04 | 0:50:08 | |
career, retaining and making the
post of mare skills in areas where | 0:50:08 | 0:50:11 | |
they are most needed. Of course as
the member outlined there is still | 0:50:11 | 0:50:16 | |
more to do, whether recruiting more
people from ethnic minority | 0:50:16 | 0:50:20 | |
community, improving accommodation
or making sure all of our people are | 0:50:20 | 0:50:24 | |
fit mentally as well as physically.
We are now hard at work developing | 0:50:24 | 0:50:28 | |
an action plan to take forward his
recommendations including a planned | 0:50:28 | 0:50:33 | |
medical symposium. Our people will
always be our grautest asset as the | 0:50:33 | 0:50:40 | |
minister I have nothing but respect
and admiration for the achievement | 0:50:40 | 0:50:46 | |
of our armed service personnel. I
believe we are taking a balanced | 0:50:46 | 0:50:49 | |
approach. On the one hand we are
ensuring pay discipline which is | 0:50:49 | 0:50:54 | |
critical to the future afford bill
and the sustainability of | 0:50:54 | 0:50:59 | |
employment. We are doing much to
make sure... It retains a | 0:50:59 | 0:51:07 | |
flexibility so vital in attracting
the best and the brightest. Armed | 0:51:07 | 0:51:12 | |
Forces pay structures and levels are
regularly reviewed an I look forward | 0:51:12 | 0:51:17 | |
to hearing the latest recommend day,
I am personally committed to doing | 0:51:17 | 0:51:22 | |
everything I can to make sure our
talented hard-working men and women | 0:51:22 | 0:51:25 | |
continue to receive the recognition
that is their due. | 0:51:25 | 0:51:29 | |
Can I thank the Shadow Secretary of
State for bringing the motion. In | 0:51:37 | 0:51:41 | |
the short time I have been a defence
spokesperson for my party, it has | 0:51:41 | 0:51:46 | |
become clear that the Secretary of
State who unfortunately is leaving | 0:51:46 | 0:51:49 | |
us at this moment, isn't so much
running a department, but is instead | 0:51:49 | 0:51:55 | |
presiding over a shamble, the fourth
biggest spend I believe in | 0:51:55 | 0:51:59 | |
Whitehall. And you have to hand it
to ministers, Madame Deputy Speaker | 0:51:59 | 0:52:04 | |
because it takes some brass neck to
come to this House, time and time | 0:52:04 | 0:52:10 | |
again, and seek to portray this team
as somehow in command of its ship, | 0:52:10 | 0:52:15 | |
when the reality is that when you
lift that thin veil, the chaos and | 0:52:15 | 0:52:21 | |
haemorrhaging of money is there for
all to see. It is like nothing I | 0:52:21 | 0:52:25 | |
have seen in the two-and-a-half
years I have been a member of this | 0:52:25 | 0:52:29 | |
House. Now on the issue of pay, and
the broader issue of terms and | 0:52:29 | 0:52:35 | |
conditions, I wish to wring the
House's attention to a piece of work | 0:52:35 | 0:52:38 | |
that will be led by my right
honourable friend from Glasgow North | 0:52:38 | 0:52:44 | |
West, a commission set up by my
party to review what we think the | 0:52:44 | 0:52:48 | |
offer should be made, and that will
look in detail at the issue of pay, | 0:52:48 | 0:52:53 | |
pension, at the issue of a trade
union or representative body, as has | 0:52:53 | 0:52:57 | |
been mentioned today and in a
pre-debate earlier this week, and of | 0:52:57 | 0:53:01 | |
course, on issues such as housing,
and how we support veterans and | 0:53:01 | 0:53:05 | |
their families as well.
On the pay cap it should be noted | 0:53:05 | 0:53:09 | |
that the Scottish Government was the
first government anywhere in the UK | 0:53:09 | 0:53:12 | |
to commit to lifting the 1% pay cap,
across the public sector and we | 0:53:12 | 0:53:18 | |
believe it's the very least that
workers in uniform, be they nurse, | 0:53:18 | 0:53:22 | |
police officers or those who protect
us in the armed services deserve. | 0:53:22 | 0:53:28 | |
The pay freeze which as has been
mentioned is a cut to their wages, | 0:53:28 | 0:53:33 | |
is one of the many, many components,
making up the crisis in recruitment, | 0:53:33 | 0:53:39 | |
and in retention, and inflation has
pushed the cost of living up for | 0:53:39 | 0:53:44 | |
everyone. Meaning that their take
home salary is being stretched like | 0:53:44 | 0:53:50 | |
never before, for too many there is
too much month at the end of the | 0:53:50 | 0:53:54 | |
month. | 0:53:54 | 0:53:58 | |
Inflation is sitting at 3%. If your
base pay is £21,000, you receive | 0:53:58 | 0:54:07 | |
£21,210 after your 1% rise. When you
account for inflation, it leads to a | 0:54:07 | 0:54:13 | |
real wage loss of £420. How
ministers and Government | 0:54:13 | 0:54:22 | |
backbenchers can come to this House
and participate in the inevitable | 0:54:22 | 0:54:27 | |
crescendo of backslapping, claiming
to be the party that backs the Armed | 0:54:27 | 0:54:32 | |
Forces, no doubt we have a couple of
hours of that. It's beyond B. I'd be | 0:54:32 | 0:54:37 | |
embarrassed to defend his
Government's record. Having | 0:54:37 | 0:54:45 | |
outlined, I will come to the nuclear
deterrent. I'm glad that the whip | 0:54:45 | 0:54:50 | |
mentions it from a sedentary
position. Having outlined as many | 0:54:50 | 0:54:53 | |
speakers will doubt --, as many
speakers no doubt will, the display | 0:54:53 | 0:55:02 | |
of strength by the Armed Forces, it
would take some nerve to do anything | 0:55:02 | 0:55:06 | |
other than support the opposition
motion before us this afternoon. I | 0:55:06 | 0:55:10 | |
offer the support of these benches
for it. There is a deeper and more | 0:55:10 | 0:55:15 | |
fundamental issue that we can't
ignore. This is how this Government | 0:55:15 | 0:55:19 | |
and previous governments have chosen
to spend money to defend the nation. | 0:55:19 | 0:55:26 | |
There are certainly many arguments
against Trident. I have had very | 0:55:26 | 0:55:30 | |
honest disagreements with those that
support Trident. But cost is | 0:55:30 | 0:55:35 | |
certainly one of them. The dream
that the cost Britain our ability to | 0:55:35 | 0:55:40 | |
defend ourselves is, I believe,
unsustainable. -- the drain. More | 0:55:40 | 0:55:47 | |
and more people in the defence
community realising that themselves. | 0:55:47 | 0:55:51 | |
Let's put the cost into context. The
Government's on figure for Trident | 0:55:51 | 0:55:57 | |
is £31 billion. To take a starter
armourer Officer salary at £26,000, | 0:55:57 | 0:56:02 | |
that equates to hundreds of
thousands of new start-up offices. | 0:56:02 | 0:56:10 | |
Clearly we don't need that many.
When the picture is laid out in | 0:56:10 | 0:56:15 | |
these terms, against a backdrop of a
recruitment crisis, it puts the | 0:56:15 | 0:56:28 | |
training cost of Trident on our
conventional capabilities into | 0:56:28 | 0:56:36 | |
perspective. That's before we get to
the £100 million of efficiency | 0:56:36 | 0:56:41 | |
savings that commanders have been
asked to make in addition to cut | 0:56:41 | 0:56:44 | |
already stretched budgets for
maintenance, travel, accommodation. | 0:56:44 | 0:56:51 | |
To return to these numbers, 82,000
was the commitment made by the | 0:56:51 | 0:56:57 | |
Conservatives in the manifesto, was
their pledge, not mine. It was not | 0:56:57 | 0:57:04 | |
my number... I'd certainly give way.
Just before he leaves Trident behind | 0:57:04 | 0:57:09 | |
concluded, is he aware that the
select committee recently took | 0:57:09 | 0:57:15 | |
evidence from a group of senior
academics who as it would be wrong | 0:57:15 | 0:57:17 | |
to assume now that North Korea is
incapable of reaching the UK with a | 0:57:17 | 0:57:25 | |
thermonuclear warhead? In other
words, they think that they are | 0:57:25 | 0:57:29 | |
actually already there or extremely
close to it. Given the unstable | 0:57:29 | 0:57:33 | |
nature of the North Korean regime,
isn't that a very strong argument | 0:57:33 | 0:57:39 | |
for obtaining our own independent
nuclear deterrent to deter whatever | 0:57:39 | 0:57:44 | |
those in the Pyongyang might think?
No, because given it what he's just | 0:57:44 | 0:57:50 | |
said, it's obviously not a that --
not deterrent anybody. I would give | 0:57:50 | 0:57:58 | |
my honourable friend some
information about deterrence and | 0:57:58 | 0:58:00 | |
some of the tangible threats we face
in Iraq and Afghanistan, faced by | 0:58:00 | 0:58:06 | |
people like my brother. Not even a
regular member of the Armed Forces, | 0:58:06 | 0:58:11 | |
who some people in this House not.
Investment and people like that is | 0:58:11 | 0:58:18 | |
more important than in Trident
gathering dust and doing nothing. -- | 0:58:18 | 0:58:26 | |
investment in people like that.
Sticking to the issue at hand, the | 0:58:26 | 0:58:30 | |
honourable gentleman, who made his
initial intervention," academics, of | 0:58:30 | 0:58:35 | |
course. Just as those on my side of
the debate can quote academics who | 0:58:35 | 0:58:42 | |
are against Trident. Perhaps with a
cabbie and other motion to debate | 0:58:42 | 0:58:46 | |
Trident. -- we can have another
motion to debate Trident. 82,000 was | 0:58:46 | 0:58:54 | |
the commitment made by the size of
the army by the Conservative | 0:58:54 | 0:58:58 | |
manifesto. Not one number under. We
know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that | 0:58:58 | 0:59:03 | |
they have failed to meet this
commitment. It's fallen to 78.010. | 0:59:03 | 0:59:11 | |
As if this wasn't bad enough, just
five months ago, when the numbers at | 0:59:11 | 0:59:18 | |
the conference, the secretary of
state had nothing but obfuscation to | 0:59:18 | 0:59:24 | |
offer in response. Which is of deep
concern and consider how this | 0:59:24 | 0:59:26 | |
prejudice is our ability to field
short losses were -- short notice | 0:59:26 | 0:59:35 | |
war fighting divisions, something
which is seen as critical by our own | 0:59:35 | 0:59:39 | |
allies. On equipment, the Government
doesn't see the issues it has with | 0:59:39 | 0:59:43 | |
its reputation as an employer. They
have increased spending on | 0:59:43 | 0:59:50 | |
advertising by 50%. Yet the numbers
keep thinking. Let's listen... I'd | 0:59:50 | 0:59:57 | |
happily give way. I was listening
intently to him and I praise the | 0:59:57 | 1:00:00 | |
work that his brother does in the
root servers. We are one army. -- | 1:00:00 | 1:00:10 | |
marketeer. One every is where we are
desperately short is in the Scottish | 1:00:10 | 1:00:18 | |
infantry regiments. This is an
unusual event. Has he any idea why | 1:00:18 | 1:00:24 | |
people in Scotland and want to join
the infantry? Is it something to do | 1:00:24 | 1:00:28 | |
with they will be frightened that
they will be dragged out of the | 1:00:28 | 1:00:31 | |
British Army and into a Scottish
army? That's pathetic. I have to | 1:00:31 | 1:00:36 | |
say, I'm up from -- and opt for
either Trident or an independence | 1:00:36 | 1:00:45 | |
debate. He is a member that I have
respect for and a pager before her | 1:00:45 | 1:00:51 | |
service. I recall him coming before
our committee. The threat of | 1:00:51 | 1:01:00 | |
independence is not what is putting
off Chris. I will allow him to come | 1:01:00 | 1:01:05 | |
back in. If he stays in for the
debate, there are serious things | 1:01:05 | 1:01:11 | |
that are putting people off. I say
this not to have a bunfight across | 1:01:11 | 1:01:16 | |
the House, I say this because he
would see this sorted. Even if | 1:01:16 | 1:01:21 | |
Scotland was independent tomorrow,
England need a strong army because | 1:01:21 | 1:01:24 | |
that would be in our interests. I'm
not interested in a constitutional | 1:01:24 | 1:01:30 | |
bunfight. I didn't offend it --
intended display. -- intended | 1:01:30 | 1:01:37 | |
display. The point I was proud to
make is that the English regiment | 1:01:37 | 1:01:47 | |
have been augmented by Scottish
infantry. The corps arsenal of | 1:01:47 | 1:02:00 | |
Scots. But nowadays, the Scottish
infantry is going to be augmented by | 1:02:00 | 1:02:06 | |
English recruits. It's an
interesting analogy. It's not just | 1:02:06 | 1:02:10 | |
about pay, it's about the package. I
will stay for the debate and I will | 1:02:10 | 1:02:14 | |
speak probably for about seven
minutes. I look forward, as always, | 1:02:14 | 1:02:20 | |
to its contribution and he does
raise an interesting point, so I | 1:02:20 | 1:02:22 | |
look forward to that. To be fair to
the side of the House, don't think | 1:02:22 | 1:02:29 | |
anybody has said it is just about
pay, in fact, earlier this week we | 1:02:29 | 1:02:33 | |
had a debate on flexible working,
where many other issues were also | 1:02:33 | 1:02:38 | |
addressed. I see that his colleague
is agreeing with me on that. I | 1:02:38 | 1:02:43 | |
understand that that is what the
motion is on, he shot from a | 1:02:43 | 1:02:49 | |
sedentary position. Perhaps if he
lets me great progress, he will you | 1:02:49 | 1:02:54 | |
what else I have to say. -- you what
else they have to say. Colonel Cam, | 1:02:54 | 1:03:03 | |
we should remember, good command of
UK forces in Afghanistan in 2030. -- | 1:03:03 | 1:03:09 | |
took command. He has criticised the
Government's... And a thousand 12, | 1:03:09 | 1:03:18 | |
took over regular and reservers army
recruitment in a contract that took | 1:03:18 | 1:03:27 | |
in £44 million over ten years. I
said to ministers and the whip, who | 1:03:27 | 1:03:31 | |
seems determined to track me down, I
say to them, why will they not heed | 1:03:31 | 1:03:38 | |
the advice of a report offered by
one of the members, the right | 1:03:38 | 1:03:42 | |
honourable gentleman, member of a
rally and Whitford, any report he | 1:03:42 | 1:03:49 | |
published in July this year, he
suggested that Government should | 1:03:49 | 1:03:52 | |
accelerate work on an alternative to
the gap to contract. This came from | 1:03:52 | 1:03:59 | |
a report part offered by his own
side, a thoughtful contribution. One | 1:03:59 | 1:04:05 | |
that we would support his
recommendation on. I wish to, to | 1:04:05 | 1:04:11 | |
pensions briefly. -- to come to
pensions. It is another area, I see | 1:04:11 | 1:04:18 | |
the former Armed Forces Minister has
left after asking others to talk | 1:04:18 | 1:04:22 | |
about other areas. I want to hear
about the new joiners offer. It's | 1:04:22 | 1:04:27 | |
well-known that the MoD is working
on this. I would be grateful if a | 1:04:27 | 1:04:33 | |
minister could confirm that they are
working on new joiners offer as | 1:04:33 | 1:04:39 | |
arrangements. How does this compare
with the promise a a few years ago | 1:04:39 | 1:04:43 | |
that pension arrangements were safe
for 25 years? Will any new scheme | 1:04:43 | 1:04:48 | |
apply only to those joining after a
particular day or will be cut be | 1:04:48 | 1:04:53 | |
retrospectively applied to those
currently serving? I think that the | 1:04:53 | 1:04:57 | |
clue is in a title, it is called a
new joiners offer. And very glad | 1:04:57 | 1:05:03 | |
that he has cleared that up for me.
Coming to a conclusion, when all of | 1:05:03 | 1:05:09 | |
these issues are considered...
Certainly. The former honourable | 1:05:09 | 1:05:14 | |
friend concludes, there is clearly a
lack of consensus in the House, at | 1:05:14 | 1:05:19 | |
least in Government benches, with
the sides of the benches. With the | 1:05:19 | 1:05:22 | |
UK of -- better be served by
consensus, as we see in Denmark, | 1:05:22 | 1:05:32 | |
where there is members of trade
union members of the Armed Forces, | 1:05:32 | 1:05:37 | |
hey, housing and health are part of
a consensual approach, not just by | 1:05:37 | 1:05:41 | |
Government but by those serving
through their trade union | 1:05:41 | 1:05:45 | |
membership. He makes a thoughtful
point and I've noted that honourable | 1:05:45 | 1:05:48 | |
members opposite shook their heads
in disagreement as he made it. In | 1:05:48 | 1:05:57 | |
the Netherlands, they don't have one
trade unions but four. I don't see | 1:05:57 | 1:06:01 | |
what the Government would have to
fear by if not aged union then a | 1:06:01 | 1:06:07 | |
body similar to the Police
Federation that could stand up for | 1:06:07 | 1:06:11 | |
the Armed Forces when discussing
these issues? -- a trade union then. | 1:06:11 | 1:06:18 | |
I hope that the test dumping and
backslapping that we normally see | 1:06:18 | 1:06:24 | |
gives way to a deep cushioned, a
sober reflection driving members in | 1:06:24 | 1:06:34 | |
their contributions and in what they
vote for this afternoon. -- | 1:06:34 | 1:06:40 | |
decrescendo. Defence, proper
defence, cannot be bought on the | 1:06:40 | 1:06:48 | |
cheap. That is as true about the
billing platforms as it is about the | 1:06:48 | 1:06:53 | |
people we asked to defend us every
single day. A career in the forces | 1:06:53 | 1:06:57 | |
should be something that people are
not only proud to pursue but | 1:06:57 | 1:07:01 | |
something that the Government should
be able to offer with pride. But it | 1:07:01 | 1:07:06 | |
cannot do so seriously if they
continue to preside over cuts and | 1:07:06 | 1:07:11 | |
wages to those that protect us every
day. -- cuts in wages. Mark Francois | 1:07:11 | 1:07:16 | |
's. Thank you very much indeed. This
morning, along with about 20 other | 1:07:16 | 1:07:25 | |
MPs and peers, I attended a brief
atom remembrance at the guard tackle | 1:07:25 | 1:07:31 | |
-- a brief act of remembrance. It's
an underappreciated factor that over | 1:07:31 | 1:07:36 | |
30 members of this House have
themselves served in the Armed | 1:07:36 | 1:07:42 | |
Forces. I do in the regulars on the
reserves. Myself included, ended | 1:07:42 | 1:07:48 | |
also including my right honourable
friend the Minister of State with | 1:07:48 | 1:07:52 | |
the Armed Forces and by right
honourable friend the Minister of | 1:07:52 | 1:07:55 | |
State for veterans and people.
Another of those people as my right | 1:07:55 | 1:08:00 | |
honourable friend the member for New
Forest East, the chairman of the | 1:08:00 | 1:08:05 | |
Defence Select Committee, who served
in the Royal Naval reserve and who | 1:08:05 | 1:08:08 | |
was present this morning. However,
he has asked me to offer his | 1:08:08 | 1:08:13 | |
apologies to the House because he
had to unbreakable commitment is | 1:08:13 | 1:08:19 | |
afternoon and could not as usual
contribute to the debate. | 1:08:19 | 1:08:24 | |
As of May 2017, the total strength
of the regular Armed Forces was | 1:08:31 | 1:08:35 | |
138,000 350. Some 5% below their
established strength, although in | 1:08:35 | 1:08:44 | |
specialised trades, the shortages
are actually far worse. In the year | 1:08:44 | 1:08:50 | |
to April 2017, over 2000 people more
people left the regular Armed Forces | 1:08:50 | 1:08:54 | |
than drawing up. As I argued in The
House recently, the combination of | 1:08:54 | 1:09:01 | |
lower retention than expected and
failure to achieve recruiting | 1:09:01 | 1:09:05 | |
targets means the under Manning in
the Armed Forces is worsening. The | 1:09:05 | 1:09:10 | |
Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force
are running at around 10% below the | 1:09:10 | 1:09:14 | |
annual recruiting target, though for
the Army the shortfall is | 1:09:14 | 1:09:21 | |
unfortunately over 30%. This also
threatens to compound the problem by | 1:09:21 | 1:09:27 | |
increasing the pressure on those
personnel who remain. In order to | 1:09:27 | 1:09:32 | |
address these problems, the Ministry
of Defence needs to improve its | 1:09:32 | 1:09:36 | |
recruiting performance, particularly
among lack, Asian and minority | 1:09:36 | 1:09:40 | |
ethnic personnel and female
personnel as well. -- black and | 1:09:40 | 1:09:45 | |
Asian and minority ethnic. To look
at female personnel in particular, | 1:09:45 | 1:09:52 | |
15% of all recruits being female is
the target by 2020. In the year to | 1:09:52 | 1:10:01 | |
the 1st of March 2017, female
personnel represented 10.2% of the | 1:10:01 | 1:10:07 | |
regular Armed Forces, while the
proportion for the reserves was | 1:10:07 | 1:10:12 | |
higher at 14%. The Royal Air Force,
who for some time have had a | 1:10:12 | 1:10:17 | |
programme devoted to nurturing
female talent, have three female | 1:10:17 | 1:10:21 | |
officers of two star rank and there
was also one female officer at two | 1:10:21 | 1:10:27 | |
star rank in the Army, but
unfortunately nominee Navy. I will | 1:10:27 | 1:10:32 | |
give way. Thank you. As the
honourable member had to inform me | 1:10:32 | 1:10:38 | |
on Monday that while he agreed that
at some point we hope the senior | 1:10:38 | 1:10:42 | |
service, the Royal Navy, we'll catch
up with anybody else, and ensure we | 1:10:42 | 1:10:45 | |
have a leading officer sooner rather
than later. -- the senior service of | 1:10:45 | 1:10:51 | |
the Royal Navy. Yes, one day I would
like to see the air force carrier | 1:10:51 | 1:10:56 | |
Queen Elizabeth, named after a
woman, to be captained by a woman. | 1:10:56 | 1:11:01 | |
The Ministry of Defence has been
able to make much of female | 1:11:01 | 1:11:05 | |
representation in media terms in
order to show the career progression | 1:11:05 | 1:11:08 | |
that is possible to female officers,
but it would be clearly desirable to | 1:11:08 | 1:11:13 | |
see female candidates reaching three
star rank or above in the relatively | 1:11:13 | 1:11:18 | |
near future. The independent service
complaints ombudsman has three star | 1:11:18 | 1:11:23 | |
rank but it should be remembered
that she is independent of the Armed | 1:11:23 | 1:11:26 | |
Forces. In addition, as a
ministerial example, my right | 1:11:26 | 1:11:30 | |
honourable friend the member for
Portsmouth North, he was Minister of | 1:11:30 | 1:11:34 | |
State for the Armed Forces
2015-2016, was, I believe, the first | 1:11:34 | 1:11:44 | |
female NAF in history. The Ministry
of Defence is now also introducing | 1:11:44 | 1:11:49 | |
women in close combat. They will be
allowed to serve in the Marines, | 1:11:49 | 1:11:52 | |
infantry and the RAF Regiment. Laces
will be made available to female | 1:11:52 | 1:11:57 | |
candidates who can pass the
requisite physical standards. -- | 1:11:57 | 1:12:03 | |
places will be made. These will be
the same as for their male | 1:12:03 | 1:12:09 | |
counterparts. In addition, we will
be allowed to apply for posts in | 1:12:09 | 1:12:14 | |
special forces. -- and women will be
allowed. Again, clearly only on | 1:12:14 | 1:12:19 | |
merit. The RAF Regiment was opened
up to suitably qualified female | 1:12:19 | 1:12:27 | |
candidates this September, and women
will be able to take places in the | 1:12:27 | 1:12:32 | |
Royal Army Corps and the Royal
infantry in 20 18. While it will | 1:12:32 | 1:12:38 | |
take time for the absolute number of
women in close combat on ground to | 1:12:38 | 1:12:44 | |
build, I believe it should start at
an early stage to demonstrate that | 1:12:44 | 1:12:48 | |
there are no longer any restrictions
of opportunity for women serving in | 1:12:48 | 1:12:51 | |
the Armed Forces. The flexible
engagement system, which we debated | 1:12:51 | 1:12:55 | |
in the House on Monday evening and
to which several members have | 1:12:55 | 1:12:59 | |
already referred, will positively
affect the ability to attract and | 1:12:59 | 1:13:03 | |
retain a diverse workforce. It is
designed to allow individuals to | 1:13:03 | 1:13:09 | |
decide on the level of commitment,
including opportunities to work both | 1:13:09 | 1:13:13 | |
full-time and part-time. The current
barriers between regulars and | 1:13:13 | 1:13:17 | |
reserves will be reduced. This
flexibility will be particularly | 1:13:17 | 1:13:20 | |
helpful in assisting women in
enjoying full careers in the Armed | 1:13:20 | 1:13:23 | |
Forces over a period of time whilst
reducing concerns female recruits | 1:13:23 | 1:13:27 | |
may have on the longevity of
potential progression of their | 1:13:27 | 1:13:32 | |
careers. Overall, female recruitment
including representation at senior | 1:13:32 | 1:13:38 | |
level, is starting to show real
success and this is one area where | 1:13:38 | 1:13:41 | |
the MoD can afford to be more
ambitious. The 15% recruit target by | 1:13:41 | 1:13:47 | |
2020 seems likely to be met and the
Royal Air Force is already intending | 1:13:47 | 1:13:51 | |
to raise their target to 20% I20 20.
If the Department wants to continue | 1:13:51 | 1:13:57 | |
the momentum being developed in this
area, across the services, I believe | 1:13:57 | 1:14:03 | |
the MoD should set a new stretch
goal of 20% of recruits are being | 1:14:03 | 1:14:10 | |
female by 2025. And in addition,
maximum publicity should be given to | 1:14:10 | 1:14:14 | |
the introduction of women in round
close combat to highlight that all | 1:14:14 | 1:14:18 | |
areas of the Armed Forces are now
open to female talent. Turning out | 1:14:18 | 1:14:22 | |
to reserves, yes, some of them...
Before he gets into his next | 1:14:22 | 1:14:29 | |
substantive point, two years ago,
the Government set up an Armed | 1:14:29 | 1:14:36 | |
Forces credit union to help Armed
Forces personnel and Lope who might | 1:14:36 | 1:14:40 | |
be vulnerable to payday loan
companies charging very high rates | 1:14:40 | 1:14:46 | |
of interest, two years on the three
Armed Forces credit unions are well | 1:14:46 | 1:14:50 | |
established. But they could do with
the Ministry of Defence taking steps | 1:14:50 | 1:14:54 | |
to advertise their services more
widely. Given that 15 years ago, the | 1:14:54 | 1:15:00 | |
honourable member showed a brief
interest in co-operatives at that | 1:15:00 | 1:15:03 | |
point, can I encourage him to join
me in encouraging the minister to | 1:15:03 | 1:15:08 | |
think through what else the Ministry
of Defence might do now to encourage | 1:15:08 | 1:15:12 | |
awareness of that Armed Forces
credit union amongst military | 1:15:12 | 1:15:17 | |
personnel? His research has clearly
been on the ball. I know that in the | 1:15:17 | 1:15:21 | |
United States, service credit unions
are far more advanced than they are | 1:15:21 | 1:15:26 | |
here. But either one would ask
ministers to look benefits and Lee | 1:15:26 | 1:15:29 | |
on the point he has made. I am now
feeling guilty for not giving way to | 1:15:29 | 1:15:37 | |
the honourable judgment. But just to
say he makes a reasonable point. I | 1:15:37 | 1:15:41 | |
am pleased with the progress we have
made with the credit unions but | 1:15:41 | 1:15:46 | |
there is always more we can do and I
will look at it. Mr Bowie appeared | 1:15:46 | 1:15:49 | |
to have consensus there. Turning to
reserves | 1:15:49 | 1:15:55 | |
-- we appear to have consensus
there. We envisage an ambitious | 1:15:55 | 1:16:07 | |
revival of Britain's reserve forces.
The roll-out of the programme was | 1:16:07 | 1:16:13 | |
initially complicated by a
combination of excessive | 1:16:13 | 1:16:17 | |
bureaucracy, delays to recruitment
and IT problems. In response, the | 1:16:17 | 1:16:23 | |
three services and in particular the
Army, who had the greatest problem, | 1:16:23 | 1:16:28 | |
committed additional resources to
reinforce the recruiting effort and | 1:16:28 | 1:16:30 | |
several years on this has borne
fruit. As of May 2017, the trained | 1:16:30 | 1:16:37 | |
strength of the Army reserve is
26,730, as against a target of | 1:16:37 | 1:16:42 | |
26,000 700. The Maritime reserves
including the Royal Marine reserve, | 1:16:42 | 1:16:51 | |
stood at 2590 against a target of
2320, and for the RAF reserves | 1:16:51 | 1:16:57 | |
including the Royal auxiliary are
false, the figure was 2140 against a | 1:16:57 | 1:17:04 | |
target of 1860. Recruiting enjoys
support from across the British | 1:17:04 | 1:17:09 | |
industry including the Confederation
for British industry, the | 1:17:09 | 1:17:14 | |
Confederation for small businesses
and the Institute of Directors and | 1:17:14 | 1:17:16 | |
it isn't important part of the Armed
Forces covered. Success has been | 1:17:16 | 1:17:24 | |
achieved by giving recruitment
bonuses to ex-regulars who have left | 1:17:24 | 1:17:27 | |
the services but have then rejoined
the reserves. While there is no room | 1:17:27 | 1:17:33 | |
for complacency, there will need to
be... If the targets are to be met, | 1:17:33 | 1:17:41 | |
it is vitally important that growth
continues and we do not seriously | 1:17:41 | 1:17:51 | |
compromised the momentum that has
been achieved to date. Overall, the | 1:17:51 | 1:17:55 | |
reserve story is now becoming a
successful one, though, and is far | 1:17:55 | 1:17:59 | |
more healthy than it was a few years
ago. Turning to accommodation, and | 1:17:59 | 1:18:08 | |
important aspect of the overall
quality-of-life in the services is | 1:18:08 | 1:18:14 | |
represented by service
accommodation, and this is where, if | 1:18:14 | 1:18:17 | |
it wishes to retain the support of
service personnel and particularly | 1:18:17 | 1:18:20 | |
of their families, that the Ministry
of Defence must do better. Remember | 1:18:20 | 1:18:27 | |
the saying, recruit the service but
retain the family? The UK families | 1:18:27 | 1:18:38 | |
continued attitudes survey,
published in July 2017, shows that | 1:18:38 | 1:18:42 | |
the level of satisfaction with the
maintenance of service families and | 1:18:42 | 1:18:47 | |
accommodation remains low following
a large decrease in 2016. In | 1:18:47 | 1:18:51 | |
particular, and this follows on from
the point made by the honourable | 1:18:51 | 1:18:56 | |
lady the member for Stoke-on-Trent
North, in particular, there are | 1:18:56 | 1:18:59 | |
issues surrounding the delays in the
MoD's housing contractor, responding | 1:18:59 | 1:19:06 | |
to requests for maintenance, and
also the quality of the maintenance | 1:19:06 | 1:19:09 | |
and repair work subsequently
undertaken. Only 34% of those | 1:19:09 | 1:19:15 | |
surveyed said they were satisfied
with the responsiveness of the | 1:19:15 | 1:19:19 | |
contractor. And only 29% were
satisfied with the quality of the | 1:19:19 | 1:19:23 | |
maintenance repair work that they
then undertook. I will give way. | 1:19:23 | 1:19:30 | |
Would the honourable member agree
with me that one of the problems in | 1:19:30 | 1:19:32 | |
the contract is the KPs as they
currently exist turning up the 24 | 1:19:32 | 1:19:38 | |
hours, they get a ticking the box,
but it still does not mean the | 1:19:38 | 1:19:41 | |
boiler has been fixed. It can take
another eight days. So although they | 1:19:41 | 1:19:46 | |
are fulfilling the letter of the
contract, they definitely are not | 1:19:46 | 1:19:50 | |
fulfilling the spirit. The
honourable lady anticipates me. I am | 1:19:50 | 1:19:54 | |
coming onto boilers in just a
minute. But her point about acting | 1:19:54 | 1:20:00 | |
to the spirit of the contract is
well made, and I agree with it. As | 1:20:00 | 1:20:08 | |
the FCas report states, quote,
satisfaction with most part of SFA | 1:20:08 | 1:20:17 | |
-- F S a... There were changes to
the FSA charging method. Moreover, | 1:20:17 | 1:20:26 | |
the Army families Federation,
sometimes affectionately referred to | 1:20:26 | 1:20:33 | |
as the Army freedom fighters, report
that housing continues to be the | 1:20:33 | 1:20:37 | |
biggest concern for Army families.
There is overwhelming anecdotal | 1:20:37 | 1:20:44 | |
evidence about the performance of
the contractor, and put simply, we | 1:20:44 | 1:20:48 | |
are not honouring our people by
providing them with this shoddy | 1:20:48 | 1:20:51 | |
service. We send them halfway around
the world to fight for their country | 1:20:51 | 1:20:58 | |
and we call them a hero, and that is
what they are, but get back at home, | 1:20:58 | 1:21:04 | |
their wife spends weeks trying to
get the boiler fixed because of the | 1:21:04 | 1:21:08 | |
startling ineptitude of the people
we have hired to keep their home | 1:21:08 | 1:21:13 | |
warm. And then we wonder why people
leave. This has gone on for too | 1:21:13 | 1:21:19 | |
long. It is simply unacceptable.
Either the company should | 1:21:19 | 1:21:28 | |
continually raise their game on
behalf of our service personnel | 1:21:28 | 1:21:30 | |
there should be unceremoniously
sacked, and we should find someone | 1:21:30 | 1:21:37 | |
competent to do the work instead. If
housing associations and registered | 1:21:37 | 1:21:41 | |
social landlords around the country
can carry out basic maintenance and | 1:21:41 | 1:21:45 | |
repairs as bread-and-butter work,
which they have been doing for | 1:21:45 | 1:21:47 | |
years, why can't this company?
Turning briefly to pay. There are a | 1:21:47 | 1:21:54 | |
variety of reasons why people are
leaving the Armed Forces at the | 1:21:54 | 1:21:58 | |
moment and pay is one factor, but it
has already been pointed out, as has | 1:21:58 | 1:22:05 | |
already been pointed out, it is not
the predominant one. The Armed | 1:22:05 | 1:22:08 | |
Forces continue as attitudes survey
published in May 2017 points out | 1:22:08 | 1:22:13 | |
that the primary reason for people
wanting to leave the services is the | 1:22:13 | 1:22:18 | |
effect of separation or long hours
on their family life. That, in a | 1:22:18 | 1:22:25 | |
sense, is the greatest challenge
that ministers have to grapple with. | 1:22:25 | 1:22:29 | |
The Armed Forces flexible working
Bill, which we debated in this House | 1:22:29 | 1:22:34 | |
on Monday, should help in this
regard as it will allow service | 1:22:34 | 1:22:40 | |
personnel to vary their commitment
rather than facing an acid test of | 1:22:40 | 1:22:43 | |
only being able to leave the
services in order to reduce pressure | 1:22:43 | 1:22:47 | |
on the family. It may persuade some
to stick rather than twist when | 1:22:47 | 1:22:51 | |
their family are under pressure
because of that commitment to their | 1:22:51 | 1:22:55 | |
country. On the issue of pay it
self, this has now become something | 1:22:55 | 1:22:59 | |
of a challenge, particularly for
retention, as only 35% of personal | 1:22:59 | 1:23:08 | |
are happy with their rate of pay and
only 27% are satisfied with their | 1:23:08 | 1:23:12 | |
pension benefits. Although it should
be pointed out that the Armed Forces | 1:23:12 | 1:23:17 | |
have one of the few remaining
pension schemes anywhere in the | 1:23:17 | 1:23:20 | |
public sector where employers do not
have to pay a contribution of their | 1:23:20 | 1:23:24 | |
own, and I know that is something
that MoD ministers have fought | 1:23:24 | 1:23:29 | |
valiantly to defend. Recommendations
on pay are made by the pay review | 1:23:29 | 1:23:34 | |
body and their recommendations in
January 2017 were essentially for a | 1:23:34 | 1:23:37 | |
1% increase in pay, although certain
personnel would qualify for | 1:23:37 | 1:23:42 | |
additional increments and also for
specialist recruitment and | 1:23:42 | 1:23:48 | |
retention, particularly in certain
areas where the Armed Forces are | 1:23:48 | 1:23:52 | |
struggling to retain specialists.
Any further pay increase for the | 1:23:52 | 1:23:55 | |
Armed Forces will be subject to the
next recommendation early next year, | 1:23:55 | 1:24:00 | |
so we will have to wait and see what
they recommend. | 1:24:00 | 1:24:08 | |
It is likely any increase above 1%
would likely come out of the defence | 1:24:08 | 1:24:12 | |
budget and that could have an impact
on the equipment programme. However, | 1:24:12 | 1:24:17 | |
given that the police have over 1%
pay increase, if they were to | 1:24:17 | 1:24:23 | |
recommend something similar next
year, I think ministers would have | 1:24:23 | 1:24:26 | |
to take that seriously. Yes, I will.
He makes an important point indeed, | 1:24:26 | 1:24:34 | |
but does he agree with me that it
would be quite wrong if the MoD | 1:24:34 | 1:24:40 | |
introduced more equipment to pay for
the pay increase? I cannot speak for | 1:24:40 | 1:24:47 | |
what the board are going to
recommend and I think in fairness we | 1:24:47 | 1:24:50 | |
will have to allow them to go
through their deliberations and see | 1:24:50 | 1:24:53 | |
what they conclude. But seeing that
the police have been given a pay | 1:24:53 | 1:24:59 | |
increase above 1%, I'm sure there
will be strong views in the Armed | 1:24:59 | 1:25:03 | |
Forces about what should happen to
them. Again, let's await the board. | 1:25:03 | 1:25:10 | |
In conclusion, the Armed Forces on
who we rely so much continue to be | 1:25:10 | 1:25:14 | |
under pressure in the fields of
recruitment and retention. Although | 1:25:14 | 1:25:18 | |
the principal reason for people
leaving the Armed Forces is on fact | 1:25:18 | 1:25:23 | |
pressure on family live, pay is
something which also appears to be | 1:25:23 | 1:25:26 | |
entering into the equation and
ministers in the department are | 1:25:26 | 1:25:30 | |
cognisant of that. But we must do
something about the poor quality of | 1:25:30 | 1:25:36 | |
repairs and maintenance of service
accommodation. I would urge | 1:25:36 | 1:25:41 | |
ministers sitting on the Treasury
bench this afternoon to formally | 1:25:41 | 1:25:47 | |
reviewed the performance of
Carillion Amey and to be prepared if | 1:25:47 | 1:25:51 | |
necessary to re-let the contract
unless they succeed in materially | 1:25:51 | 1:25:53 | |
raising their game. We have to
continue to attract the brightest | 1:25:53 | 1:26:00 | |
and the best to serve as in uniform.
We must continue to provide the | 1:26:00 | 1:26:05 | |
resources to make that prospect a
reality, but we also need to make | 1:26:05 | 1:26:10 | |
sure that these people have homes
fit in which to live. It will be | 1:26:10 | 1:26:15 | |
obvious to the House that a great
many people want to take part in | 1:26:15 | 1:26:20 | |
this important debate and there is
limited time and I am putting on a | 1:26:20 | 1:26:23 | |
formal time limit of seven minutes,
which is likely to be reduced later | 1:26:23 | 1:26:29 | |
if there are a great many
interventions in everyone's | 1:26:29 | 1:26:31 | |
speeches. To speak without
hesitation now is Kevin Jones. There | 1:26:31 | 1:26:40 | |
is one thing that this government
is, and that is consistent. It is | 1:26:40 | 1:26:45 | |
consistent in the history of all
conservative governments that what | 1:26:45 | 1:26:49 | |
you do in opposition is you call for
more expenditure on the Armed | 1:26:49 | 1:26:55 | |
Forces, UIQ that you are a proud
supporter of our Armed Forces and | 1:26:55 | 1:26:59 | |
when you get into power in the first
thing you do is cut the defence | 1:26:59 | 1:27:05 | |
budget and do not respect the men
and women of our Armed Forces in | 1:27:05 | 1:27:09 | |
terms of the pay and conditions
which they are given. Today when we | 1:27:09 | 1:27:16 | |
heard the Conservative backbench,
including the honourable member for | 1:27:16 | 1:27:21 | |
Plymouth, who must have quite a few
members of the Armed Forces in his | 1:27:21 | 1:27:26 | |
seat, suggest that pay is important.
I am sure that is news to them that | 1:27:26 | 1:27:31 | |
they will get that message. My right
honourable friend knows full well | 1:27:31 | 1:27:37 | |
that what I said was it is not the
number one issue around service. It | 1:27:37 | 1:27:44 | |
is disingenuous to suggest this.
There are a number of reasons people | 1:27:44 | 1:27:48 | |
served and there is a great
experience on offer in this country | 1:27:48 | 1:27:52 | |
of people who serve. Pay is
important, but it is not as | 1:27:52 | 1:27:56 | |
important as this debate suggests. I
find it is remarkable he is letting | 1:27:56 | 1:28:02 | |
down his constituents by not arguing
for a fair deal of pay for our Armed | 1:28:02 | 1:28:07 | |
Forces. If I was in his shoes, I
would be making sure I did that. In | 1:28:07 | 1:28:12 | |
terms of the pay review body, and I
served in the Ministry of Defence in | 1:28:12 | 1:28:19 | |
the last government, and there was
an acceptance of the recommendation | 1:28:19 | 1:28:24 | |
of the pay review body for every
single year. 2001 it was 2.7%, 2003, | 1:28:24 | 1:28:33 | |
3.6%, and it goes on up to 2010, 2%.
What this government was Dan is | 1:28:33 | 1:28:42 | |
artificially put that cat in and
ignore what the pay review body | 1:28:42 | 1:28:45 | |
says. We have a remarkable thing
from the Minister that somehow this | 1:28:45 | 1:28:50 | |
does not matter because people get
increments. It might be my trade | 1:28:50 | 1:28:57 | |
union official coming out, but it is
where you start that affects where | 1:28:57 | 1:29:00 | |
you end up. A 2% increase in terms
of an increment might be an increase | 1:29:00 | 1:29:09 | |
in pay, but it is bigger if you got
2% increase on the basic level. We | 1:29:09 | 1:29:15 | |
need to recognise that. The other
point that is being made which | 1:29:15 | 1:29:19 | |
cannot be forgotten is the idea that
Armed Forces pensions are | 1:29:19 | 1:29:23 | |
gold-plated and generous. Yes, but
what people are not recognising is | 1:29:23 | 1:29:28 | |
that that is taken into account by
the pay review body in terms of | 1:29:28 | 1:29:34 | |
coming up with the issue. I want to
remind the party opposite, because | 1:29:34 | 1:29:45 | |
it some Armed Forces personnel were
made redundant, some of whom were | 1:29:45 | 1:29:48 | |
weeks away from their retirement
date, if I did that I would be | 1:29:48 | 1:29:52 | |
rightly condemned. It is an example
of the Conservative government | 1:29:52 | 1:29:56 | |
saying one thing and doing another.
To make them compulsory redundant | 1:29:56 | 1:30:01 | |
was astounding. The other point is
the independence of the review body. | 1:30:01 | 1:30:08 | |
This government has completely
ignored the recommendations, but it | 1:30:08 | 1:30:10 | |
is worse than that because in terms
of the last Prime Minister David | 1:30:10 | 1:30:18 | |
Cameron, he actually sacked the head
of the independent body because he | 1:30:18 | 1:30:22 | |
did not like what he said about the
X Factor and pay increases. We are | 1:30:22 | 1:30:30 | |
seeing them interfering in the way
we get to that independent process. | 1:30:30 | 1:30:35 | |
It might be fine people saying pay
is not important, but I am yet to | 1:30:35 | 1:30:41 | |
meet anyone in life who does not
think getting paid a decent reward | 1:30:41 | 1:30:46 | |
for their efforts is not something
that is important to them. Alongside | 1:30:46 | 1:30:52 | |
that we have seen the morale in the
Armed Forces going down and again | 1:30:52 | 1:30:59 | |
one of the things they say is, we
stand up for the Armed Forces, but | 1:30:59 | 1:31:05 | |
in 2010 they had 190,000 personnel
and that is now down. What we have | 1:31:05 | 1:31:17 | |
also got an individual services,
including the Navy, are artificial | 1:31:17 | 1:31:21 | |
caps on numbers, which is leading to
real problems in terms of deploy | 1:31:21 | 1:31:27 | |
ability and that is why we have got
ships that are not sailing at the | 1:31:27 | 1:31:31 | |
moment because they have not got the
crews to do it. I would say to the | 1:31:31 | 1:31:38 | |
House that when the Conservatives
say they stand up for the Armed | 1:31:38 | 1:31:45 | |
Forces, if they really want a
genuinely stand up for the Armed | 1:31:45 | 1:31:49 | |
Forces, let's pay them, let's
recognise the efforts and the | 1:31:49 | 1:31:55 | |
sacrifices those individuals make on
our behalf. Because empty words are | 1:31:55 | 1:32:00 | |
fine, actions in government are
different. I am proud the Labour | 1:32:00 | 1:32:05 | |
Party, throughout history, has
always stood up for the Armed Forces | 1:32:05 | 1:32:09 | |
both in terms of supporting
personnel, but also in terms of | 1:32:09 | 1:32:13 | |
making sure that our country is
defended... Certainly. I am very | 1:32:13 | 1:32:20 | |
grateful to the honourable member
for giving way, but that last Labour | 1:32:20 | 1:32:25 | |
government, which he has some
responsibility for, left a £38 | 1:32:25 | 1:32:29 | |
billion black hole in the defence
budget and this is a government | 1:32:29 | 1:32:33 | |
which by contrast is increasing
defence spending. Would he not | 1:32:33 | 1:32:39 | |
accept the responsibility he had and
it is the Conservatives who stand up | 1:32:39 | 1:32:41 | |
for the Armed Forces. Hammer and
Kool-Aid had been dispensed with. In | 1:32:41 | 1:32:49 | |
that figure which was plucked out of
thin air, and can I recommend that | 1:32:49 | 1:32:53 | |
he looks at the report from 2010
which said there would be a £6 | 1:32:53 | 1:32:58 | |
billion black hole Mac over the next
ten years over a 10-year period. | 1:32:58 | 1:33:07 | |
What his government very dishonestly
tried to do in 2010 is give the | 1:33:07 | 1:33:11 | |
impression there was a £38 billion
black hole to be met. Why it was not | 1:33:11 | 1:33:18 | |
there was because both the
honourable member for Somerset North | 1:33:18 | 1:33:21 | |
and his predecessor, the Chancellor,
do not ask me how they did it, but | 1:33:21 | 1:33:26 | |
within 18 months we got rid of it.
If they can get rid of a £38 billion | 1:33:26 | 1:33:32 | |
black hole in less than 18 months,
they are in the wrong job. It is | 1:33:32 | 1:33:39 | |
complete nonsense. Do not keep
repeating things that are not true | 1:33:39 | 1:33:42 | |
because they are not. The
Conservative research party did a | 1:33:42 | 1:33:47 | |
great job of getting rid of the
narrative in that way. No, because I | 1:33:47 | 1:33:54 | |
was about to finish when he
intervened. What I would suggest | 1:33:54 | 1:33:58 | |
that he looks at is the black hole
that now exists in terms of the | 1:33:58 | 1:34:03 | |
current government's procurement. I
am not suggesting that it is in one | 1:34:03 | 1:34:10 | |
year, it is over ten years. You
might want to look at an excellent | 1:34:10 | 1:34:15 | |
report out today in terms of the way
in which the government are | 1:34:15 | 1:34:20 | |
cannibalising equipment to actually
ensure that things look so. Can I | 1:34:20 | 1:34:24 | |
finish by saying that we all, and I
am not making a party political | 1:34:24 | 1:34:34 | |
point, we all recognise the
dedication of our Armed Forces. They | 1:34:34 | 1:34:38 | |
do deserve that recognition quite
rightly and in a few weeks' time we | 1:34:38 | 1:34:46 | |
will remember those who made the
ultimate sacrifice. The consensus | 1:34:46 | 1:34:50 | |
across the House is we support them,
but all I will say is they need to | 1:34:50 | 1:34:55 | |
be paid and resourced to the level
that is acceptable. Thank you very | 1:34:55 | 1:35:02 | |
much, Madame Deputy Speaker. In
about two Weeks' time in this | 1:35:02 | 1:35:06 | |
country and around the Commonwealth,
millions of people will pause for | 1:35:06 | 1:35:12 | |
various public, private, some simple
and some not so simple act of | 1:35:12 | 1:35:17 | |
remembrance to remember those who
gave their tomorrow so that we could | 1:35:17 | 1:35:21 | |
have our today. My great uncle,
Samuel Coyle, aged 19 fell at | 1:35:21 | 1:35:27 | |
Gallipoli and now lies alongside 600
other British and Commonwealth | 1:35:27 | 1:35:32 | |
soldiers at a cemetery in Turkey.
Over the past 12 years I have been | 1:35:32 | 1:35:37 | |
lucky enough to attend many moving
remembrance services. In 2008 I | 1:35:37 | 1:35:43 | |
found myself along the road at the
Cenotaph, part of the team that | 1:35:43 | 1:35:48 | |
organised the 90th anniversary of
the end of the Great War. It was | 1:35:48 | 1:35:52 | |
humble as a young sublieutenant
fresh out of Dartmouth to meet Harry | 1:35:52 | 1:35:56 | |
patch and Bill Stone on that day,
the remaining veterans from that | 1:35:56 | 1:36:01 | |
incredible generation that had
endured so much. In 2015 I found | 1:36:01 | 1:36:06 | |
myself standing with other
colleagues from the European | 1:36:06 | 1:36:10 | |
Parliament in northern France,
taking part in a very simple but | 1:36:10 | 1:36:13 | |
solemn act of remembrance with the
local Mayor and townspeople as we | 1:36:13 | 1:36:20 | |
looked across the gleaming white
headstones, remembering 20,000 | 1:36:20 | 1:36:25 | |
officers and men who fell in that
battle. 600 of them were from the | 1:36:25 | 1:36:30 | |
Gordon Highlanders in the North East
of Scotland. But in the Falkland | 1:36:30 | 1:36:36 | |
islands at the San Carlos cemetery I
was there in 2007 on my first | 1:36:36 | 1:36:40 | |
deployment and it was in June and we
were commemorating the 25th | 1:36:40 | 1:36:46 | |
anniversary of the conflict standing
there in subzero temperatures with | 1:36:46 | 1:36:50 | |
freezing rain swirling around us,
surrounded by veterans of that war | 1:36:50 | 1:36:55 | |
who, less than a quarter of a
century before, had been storming | 1:36:55 | 1:36:59 | |
through that rough terrain
surrounded by the islanders and | 1:36:59 | 1:37:03 | |
shoulder to shoulder with the
sailors of the Ardent, standing | 1:37:03 | 1:37:09 | |
there are thousands of miles from
the UK it brought home for the first | 1:37:09 | 1:37:13 | |
time how much we truly owe those who
are and were prepared to give the | 1:37:13 | 1:37:18 | |
ultimate sacrifice to defend us, our
country and way of life. I am very | 1:37:18 | 1:37:23 | |
grateful and this debate is about
also an issue of government funding | 1:37:23 | 1:37:31 | |
and duty of care towards Armed
Forces veterans. At one combat | 1:37:31 | 1:37:37 | |
stress facility many veterans
suffering from PTSD will no longer | 1:37:37 | 1:37:43 | |
have access to residential care and
I hope he will join with me in | 1:37:43 | 1:37:46 | |
pressing the government to make sure
that veterans have the kind of | 1:37:46 | 1:37:50 | |
access to the sort of care they need
in the future. I would be very happy | 1:37:50 | 1:37:56 | |
to join the honourable member in
demanding that the veterans are | 1:37:56 | 1:37:59 | |
given the due care and attention
they deserve having given so much | 1:37:59 | 1:38:03 | |
for this country. To enable people
to do their job effectively it is | 1:38:03 | 1:38:08 | |
essential the Armed Forces are
properly funded, resourced and have | 1:38:08 | 1:38:12 | |
the tools with which to do the job.
I am sure the old adage that the | 1:38:12 | 1:38:17 | |
three enemies of the Royal Navy are
the enemy of the day, the French and | 1:38:17 | 1:38:22 | |
Whitehall is one that find sympathy
in many ward rooms around the fleet. | 1:38:22 | 1:38:26 | |
But this party and this government
remains steadfast in its support for | 1:38:26 | 1:38:30 | |
the Armed Forces. It has not just
been shown in words, but in actions | 1:38:30 | 1:38:36 | |
and this government cannot be
accused of found wanting. | 1:38:36 | 1:38:45 | |
Ensuring that we remain the country
with the second-highest defence | 1:38:45 | 1:38:48 | |
budget in Nato, the largest in the
EU and the largest in the world. | 1:38:48 | 1:38:52 | |
Seven submarines in the UK being
built right now. £178 billion on | 1:38:52 | 1:38:59 | |
equipment for all armed services,
including helicopters and aircraft. | 1:38:59 | 1:39:06 | |
The introduction of the Armed Forces
Flexible Working Bill which will | 1:39:06 | 1:39:14 | |
bring Armed Forces hours into the
21st century. This is a Government | 1:39:14 | 1:39:21 | |
committed to national security and
to the serving members of Armed | 1:39:21 | 1:39:24 | |
Forces. But it is right that we
debate pay for personnel. When this | 1:39:24 | 1:39:30 | |
Government came into office, tough
decisions have to be taken to | 1:39:30 | 1:39:33 | |
introduce regular balance between
the need to recruit, retrain and | 1:39:33 | 1:39:37 | |
motivate suitably able and qualified
people, and maintaining qualified | 1:39:37 | 1:39:40 | |
pay for the sector. That is why the
Government to be tough decision to | 1:39:40 | 1:39:45 | |
budget for a 1% pay rise across the
public sector including the Armed | 1:39:45 | 1:39:49 | |
Forces. This year the Armed Forces
pay review body recommended a 1% pay | 1:39:49 | 1:39:55 | |
increase. However, it is right that
in this place we do hear the | 1:39:55 | 1:39:58 | |
concerns of those who think the 1%
pay cap could be a factor in issues | 1:39:58 | 1:40:03 | |
around recruitment and detention. I
am persuaded that flexibility could | 1:40:03 | 1:40:08 | |
be required in order to ensure that
our armed services continue to | 1:40:08 | 1:40:15 | |
operate at the high level bakery do.
But I do not recognise it as a | 1:40:15 | 1:40:20 | |
priority among other things. --
continue to operate at the high | 1:40:20 | 1:40:28 | |
level that they do. There is a
danger in the way this debate has | 1:40:28 | 1:40:34 | |
been approached, simplistically.
There are other issues. In my | 1:40:34 | 1:40:40 | |
constituency, there are other things
that need attention. But also family | 1:40:40 | 1:40:43 | |
life. That may be more that may be
more important than pay alone. Yes, | 1:40:43 | 1:40:49 | |
friends of mine do on a daily basis
remind me of that reason. The | 1:40:49 | 1:40:59 | |
Treasury has said they will be more
flexible as you next year in terms | 1:40:59 | 1:41:03 | |
of public pay and I look forward to
seeing how that will impact on Armed | 1:41:03 | 1:41:09 | |
Forces. This Government values are
Armed Forces. We have invested | 1:41:09 | 1:41:17 | |
record amounts in agreement, raised
our defence budget to build terms, | 1:41:17 | 1:41:23 | |
introduced the flexible working Bill
for the Armed Forces and ensuring | 1:41:23 | 1:41:26 | |
greater flexible at it across the
board. These are actions of a | 1:41:26 | 1:41:29 | |
Government committed to... I hear
what the onboard member says about | 1:41:29 | 1:41:35 | |
how the Government supports the
Armed Forces so wholeheartedly. How | 1:41:35 | 1:41:42 | |
would he respond to fact that the
very precinct surveys are showing a | 1:41:42 | 1:41:50 | |
consistent drop in morale,
consistent anxieties around the | 1:41:50 | 1:41:53 | |
level of pay, and consistent
concerns about the direction of | 1:41:53 | 1:41:58 | |
travel? He raises some very
pertinent points but as has been | 1:41:58 | 1:42:06 | |
said already in this debate, there
are various reasons for leaving the | 1:42:06 | 1:42:10 | |
Armed Forces or not recruiting, and
pay is not alone in being the sole | 1:42:10 | 1:42:16 | |
reason for those concerns or for the
drop in morale, and that is what we | 1:42:16 | 1:42:20 | |
are debating this afternoon in this
place. The actions of this | 1:42:20 | 1:42:23 | |
Government are the actions of a
Government committed to the defence | 1:42:23 | 1:42:27 | |
that our country and to those men
and women who join the country to do | 1:42:27 | 1:42:31 | |
that. I must begin by paying to beat
to the contributions of honourable | 1:42:31 | 1:42:38 | |
members from across the House in
this debate so far. They have spoken | 1:42:38 | 1:42:42 | |
with insight and conviction on the
importance of ensuring fair pay for | 1:42:42 | 1:42:46 | |
our armed versus personal, not just
on point of principle but as an | 1:42:46 | 1:42:53 | |
essential gallantry for future
recruitment and retention across all | 1:42:53 | 1:42:56 | |
three services which ensures we have
the right people in the right place | 1:42:56 | 1:43:01 | |
in the right numbers to keep us
safe, and that is why we are here | 1:43:01 | 1:43:05 | |
today. -- but as an essential
component. Our forces make | 1:43:05 | 1:43:14 | |
sacrifices daily two defenders and
it is right that we do our duty and | 1:43:14 | 1:43:17 | |
look after them. I tabled an EDM
earlier this year on the need to | 1:43:17 | 1:43:30 | |
enhance salary levels for our Armed
Forces personnel. I am privileged to | 1:43:30 | 1:43:35 | |
be chair of the APPG for the Armed
Forces covenant in this House and it | 1:43:35 | 1:43:39 | |
is in that role but I wish to
contribute today. At a time when we | 1:43:39 | 1:43:44 | |
and our allies face renewed threats
from Russia, when the global order | 1:43:44 | 1:43:51 | |
is facing unprecedented realignment
and we see global terror attacks on | 1:43:51 | 1:43:55 | |
a weekly basis, not lest the
horrendous scenes in Manhattan last | 1:43:55 | 1:44:01 | |
night, we find ourselves with a
Government that seems to be missing | 1:44:01 | 1:44:05 | |
the point. It is our service
personnel but keepers safe and we | 1:44:05 | 1:44:08 | |
need to ensure that their overall
terms and conditions are good enough | 1:44:08 | 1:44:12 | |
to recruit and retain in the post.
And let us be clear of the current | 1:44:12 | 1:44:16 | |
challenge. We find ourselves faced
as other honourable members have | 1:44:16 | 1:44:20 | |
said, with a deficit of personnel of
5%. And with no fewer than 38 | 1:44:20 | 1:44:29 | |
operational pinch points across the
three services, gaps which | 1:44:29 | 1:44:33 | |
threatened to have a detrimental
impact on our plans and contingency | 1:44:33 | 1:44:37 | |
operations. So we need to ask
ourselves why. We expect our Armed | 1:44:37 | 1:44:41 | |
Forces personnel to every day do the
extraordinary. Challenging, all too | 1:44:41 | 1:44:48 | |
often life-threatening work. We ask
them to make incredible sacrifices | 1:44:48 | 1:44:52 | |
and to cope with intense physical,
mental and emotional challenges in | 1:44:52 | 1:44:56 | |
the line of duty. From engineers to
infantry soldiers, Don disposal | 1:44:56 | 1:45:03 | |
experts to caterers, pilots to
Samaritans. -- bomb disposal | 1:45:03 | 1:45:10 | |
experts. All of our personnel are
exceptionally skilled and dedicated | 1:45:10 | 1:45:15 | |
men and women. They do not do this
job for the money. We should be in | 1:45:15 | 1:45:19 | |
no doubt that people of their
calibre might well be able to earn | 1:45:19 | 1:45:24 | |
more in other fields. But they do
need to pay their bills, as we all | 1:45:24 | 1:45:27 | |
do. They deserve recognition,
including financial recognition for | 1:45:27 | 1:45:33 | |
their service. It is unacceptable to
me that anyone who makes sacrifices | 1:45:33 | 1:45:38 | |
to keep us all safe should be in a
position where they are struggling | 1:45:38 | 1:45:44 | |
to support their family. Let me be
clear, both service men and women | 1:45:44 | 1:45:53 | |
and as importantly their families,
where they are earning less and real | 1:45:53 | 1:45:59 | |
terms than they were seven years
ago, we have a problem that we need | 1:45:59 | 1:46:05 | |
to recognise. The pay cut has meant
real hardship for many in service | 1:46:05 | 1:46:09 | |
and it is undoubtedly one obstacle
to recruitment and actually more to | 1:46:09 | 1:46:13 | |
retention. But not only that, the
pay cap is symbolic of how much, or | 1:46:13 | 1:46:18 | |
should I say how little, the men and
women of our Armed Forces mean to | 1:46:18 | 1:46:23 | |
the country that they serve. Its
removal would be, too. The | 1:46:23 | 1:46:28 | |
Government are now backpedalling on
the continuation of the 1% take-up | 1:46:28 | 1:46:31 | |
for Armed Forces personnel and I
welcome that. -- 1% pay cap. Our | 1:46:31 | 1:46:40 | |
personnel deserve better to what
they have been subjected to the | 1:46:40 | 1:46:44 | |
seven years. But I am sure I speak
for many on both sides of the House | 1:46:44 | 1:46:47 | |
when I asked the minister, what took
so long? My fear, however, is not | 1:46:47 | 1:46:53 | |
just the pay gap, as many others
have raised today. We need to look | 1:46:53 | 1:46:57 | |
at terms and conditions of our
service personnel in the round. Too | 1:46:57 | 1:47:01 | |
many servicemen and women have
contacted me with concerns about | 1:47:01 | 1:47:06 | |
potential cuts to their tour
allowances and bonuses for me not to | 1:47:06 | 1:47:10 | |
be worried that the Government is
running on robbing Peter to pay Paul | 1:47:10 | 1:47:14 | |
in order to fund pay rises. This may
all well prove to be smoke and | 1:47:14 | 1:47:22 | |
mirrors and are proud service men
and women may end up no better off | 1:47:22 | 1:47:25 | |
next year... Which she agree with me
that because of the pay freeze, | 1:47:25 | 1:47:36 | |
sorry, the cut, in the last seven
years, it has an ongoing effect on | 1:47:36 | 1:47:42 | |
those individuals through their
lives, including what their final | 1:47:42 | 1:47:46 | |
pensions will be. I couldn't agree
more. Let's be clear about the | 1:47:46 | 1:47:51 | |
realities. If your base salary isn't
increased, then the pension that | 1:47:51 | 1:47:55 | |
your salary is based on his also
affected. So this affects everybody. | 1:47:55 | 1:48:00 | |
And this brings me onto my next
point. There is no trade union that | 1:48:00 | 1:48:04 | |
can advocate for our Armed Forces.
There is no staff association that | 1:48:04 | 1:48:08 | |
can stand up to the Government for
them. It is therefore down to us in | 1:48:08 | 1:48:11 | |
this House to ensure they are well
paid and it is down to us to fight | 1:48:11 | 1:48:15 | |
their corner, because no one else is
going to do it for them. They follow | 1:48:15 | 1:48:19 | |
orders. It is what we pay them to
do. It is what we train them to do. | 1:48:19 | 1:48:24 | |
Therefore, they are never going to
challenge us, so will they do their | 1:48:24 | 1:48:29 | |
duty protecting our national
security at home and abroad -- so | 1:48:29 | 1:48:32 | |
while they do that, we must do our
duty and book after them and their | 1:48:32 | 1:48:37 | |
families. Next week is Remembrance
Sunday and whilst our service men | 1:48:37 | 1:48:41 | |
and women don't consider themselves
here is, we should. But as humans, | 1:48:41 | 1:48:48 | |
they don't want hand-outs. They just
want a fair deal. It is the least | 1:48:48 | 1:48:52 | |
they deserve. Order. Given the
number of speakers I will have to | 1:48:52 | 1:48:58 | |
reduce the time limit to five
minutes. And just to remind | 1:48:58 | 1:49:04 | |
honourable members that
interventions to take away from the | 1:49:04 | 1:49:06 | |
time available to others. Sir Mike
Penny. Can I say, from the outset, | 1:49:06 | 1:49:17 | |
from a young soldier that joined the
Army in 1974, pages important. | 1:49:17 | 1:49:20 | |
Absolutely. It is what actually
makes the job worthwhile. -- pay is | 1:49:20 | 1:49:27 | |
important. But for me it was not the
reason I joined and it is not the | 1:49:27 | 1:49:33 | |
reason most people stay in the Armed
Forces they stay in for a myriad of | 1:49:33 | 1:49:36 | |
different reasons and we must be
conscious of the fact that while pay | 1:49:36 | 1:49:41 | |
isn't the most important thing, we
must not take it for granted. Across | 1:49:41 | 1:49:45 | |
the House today, I think we would
agree with that. There would be no | 1:49:45 | 1:49:49 | |
argument at all, I think, that pay
is important, but I can honestly say | 1:49:49 | 1:49:56 | |
that the reports that used to sit on
my desk and it was the leaders' | 1:49:56 | 1:50:01 | |
surveys that I saw, -- the levers'
surveys. It was interesting because | 1:50:01 | 1:50:15 | |
they are leaving so they have no
reason to lie or to try to gain | 1:50:15 | 1:50:20 | |
favour. I can say to the front bench
that pay was not in the top ten. | 1:50:20 | 1:50:27 | |
There were lots of other things
apart from pay. Where they were | 1:50:27 | 1:50:31 | |
going to go during their career.
They always had aspirations. Even | 1:50:31 | 1:50:38 | |
young guardsmen like me who knew I
would not get past Acting | 1:50:38 | 1:50:42 | |
Corporal... As the honourable
gentleman for north and said, you | 1:50:42 | 1:50:46 | |
start at the bottom and you want to
work up, and I became minister for | 1:50:46 | 1:50:52 | |
the Armed Forces. For me, I was the
first one from a junior rank. That | 1:50:52 | 1:51:02 | |
to me... But for many of them, there
are many other challenges that they | 1:51:02 | 1:51:07 | |
have. They came out in the surveys
that I saw and on my first day in | 1:51:07 | 1:51:11 | |
the department, in the Ministry of
Defence, I said, is pay the biggest | 1:51:11 | 1:51:19 | |
issue? Why are we losing so many
servicemen? As well as Krugman, | 1:51:19 | 1:51:26 | |
retention is massively important. --
as well as recruitment. In my | 1:51:26 | 1:51:30 | |
opinion it is more important because
those people who are in our best | 1:51:30 | 1:51:35 | |
recruiters. They go home to their
families and talk about their | 1:51:35 | 1:51:39 | |
experiences in the Armed Forces.
They are by far our best recruiters. | 1:51:39 | 1:51:43 | |
We trained them and we spend huge
amounts of money on them and they | 1:51:43 | 1:51:47 | |
dedicate themselves to us, so we
want to keep them in. If they are | 1:51:47 | 1:51:51 | |
upset with the unit they are in and
have started the process to leave, | 1:51:51 | 1:51:56 | |
let's try to pause them for a
fraction, to get someone to talk to | 1:51:56 | 1:51:59 | |
them so they might stay, in perhaps
different unit, a different part of | 1:51:59 | 1:52:05 | |
the Armed Forces. At the moment,
someone from their own unit is | 1:52:05 | 1:52:10 | |
usually used to try to convince them
to stay. That person may well be the | 1:52:10 | 1:52:14 | |
problem they have already had.
Trying to keep them in the Armed | 1:52:14 | 1:52:19 | |
Forces is massively important. And
no young soldier or are forced man | 1:52:19 | 1:52:22 | |
is going to turn around and say,
don't give me any more money. What | 1:52:22 | 1:52:26 | |
they did say to me when I went to
Catterick barracks recently, and I | 1:52:26 | 1:52:33 | |
wouldn't have actually put my dog
into some of the accommodation they | 1:52:33 | 1:52:35 | |
were having to live in, and I came
back and went absolutely certain... | 1:52:35 | 1:52:40 | |
It should not be for the minister to
turn up and see that. It should | 1:52:40 | 1:52:44 | |
actually be there and done. I had
the pleasure of sacking one other | 1:52:44 | 1:52:55 | |
company who was responsible for the
accommodation. We should do the same | 1:52:55 | 1:53:00 | |
to other companies that letters
down. -- that let us down. The | 1:53:00 | 1:53:08 | |
opposition missed an opportunity for
us to be able to debate openly about | 1:53:08 | 1:53:12 | |
the package that our Armed Forces
need. | 1:53:12 | 1:53:22 | |
Would my right honourable friend
agree that if we were to open this | 1:53:22 | 1:53:27 | |
debate, the opposition would find
white support for challenging a lot | 1:53:27 | 1:53:30 | |
of the pertinent issues in the
debate. By focusing on this, it | 1:53:30 | 1:53:39 | |
makes us focus on the arguments. My
honourable friend has hit the nail | 1:53:39 | 1:53:46 | |
on the head. No one in this house
does not have respect for the Armed | 1:53:46 | 1:53:50 | |
Forces, but where does the money
come from? The honourable gentleman | 1:53:50 | 1:53:55 | |
from North Durham from a sedentary
position says we should pay them | 1:53:55 | 1:53:59 | |
more. When he was the defence
Minister he should have been paid a | 1:53:59 | 1:54:05 | |
lot more for what he was doing. We
have bandied this around for many | 1:54:05 | 1:54:12 | |
years. The situation for me is where
would the money come from? I am one | 1:54:12 | 1:54:22 | |
of the people on this side of the
House who wrote to the Chancellor | 1:54:22 | 1:54:26 | |
months ago to say that we need to
phase the cat out. I was the police | 1:54:26 | 1:54:33 | |
minister, I cannot be disingenuous,
I cannot pretend that I did not push | 1:54:33 | 1:54:37 | |
for it to be removed for the police.
I was the fire leader, the same. | 1:54:37 | 1:54:44 | |
Where will that money come from? It
should not come from expenditure on | 1:54:44 | 1:54:48 | |
equipment, I could not agree more,
but where does it come from? We | 1:54:48 | 1:54:53 | |
cannot make promises that we cannot
deliver because that is the worst | 1:54:53 | 1:54:58 | |
thing for morale in the Armed
Forces, making promises you cannot | 1:54:58 | 1:55:02 | |
fulfil. If I went through the lobby
on this tonight not knowing where | 1:55:02 | 1:55:05 | |
that money would come from, I would
be ashamed of myself because I | 1:55:05 | 1:55:10 | |
cannot do that. Do I want them to
get more pay? In the short-term, | 1:55:10 | 1:55:14 | |
yes, but I want them to have the
right equipment, accommodation and | 1:55:14 | 1:55:18 | |
the right package and then we can
say we them properly. I want to | 1:55:18 | 1:55:25 | |
start by joining with other members
and honourable members in | 1:55:25 | 1:55:31 | |
acknowledging the armed forces and
the work they do in protecting | 1:55:31 | 1:55:35 | |
Britain at home and overseas in
difficult circumstances. If I could | 1:55:35 | 1:55:39 | |
specify in particular the erstwhile
member for Middlesbrough, south and | 1:55:39 | 1:55:43 | |
East Cleveland, or as he is known as
Private Tom Blenkinsop, after | 1:55:43 | 1:55:49 | |
passing out at the weekend, first
Regiment of the Royal military | 1:55:49 | 1:55:56 | |
police, he may no longer be an
honourable member in the parlance of | 1:55:56 | 1:55:59 | |
this place, but we can agree he is
an honourable man and a good friend | 1:55:59 | 1:56:03 | |
to many of us. The second is
Corporal Andy Reid from Rainford in | 1:56:03 | 1:56:10 | |
my constituency and he lost both his
legs and right arm in an IED in | 1:56:10 | 1:56:14 | |
Afghanistan. This year he and
warrant Officer Glenn Hughes cycled | 1:56:14 | 1:56:21 | |
400 miles, kayak 170 miles and
descended 7500 feet to raise funds | 1:56:21 | 1:56:28 | |
for veterans and I was very honoured
along with the Minister to host an | 1:56:28 | 1:56:34 | |
event for him. The reason I use
those two cases is to illustrate | 1:56:34 | 1:56:39 | |
money is not the motivation for
people to join the armed Forces and | 1:56:39 | 1:56:43 | |
no one is saying that for a minute,
but we do have a duty to treat | 1:56:43 | 1:56:48 | |
people and pay people properly. I do
not think the government is doing | 1:56:48 | 1:56:52 | |
that and this is causing
difficulties both for serving | 1:56:52 | 1:56:56 | |
personnel and is causing a real
crisis in recruitment. The | 1:56:56 | 1:57:01 | |
government has got to address and
get to terms with the chronic under | 1:57:01 | 1:57:05 | |
recruitment affecting the army and
it has been in denial for the last | 1:57:05 | 1:57:09 | |
seven years about this. In 2013 when
I was adviser to the Shadow Defence | 1:57:09 | 1:57:16 | |
Secretary, the shadow defence
Minister and the right honourable | 1:57:16 | 1:57:19 | |
member for North Durham, we opposed
the government plan to cut the | 1:57:19 | 1:57:23 | |
regular army and said of our deep
concerns about lack of equipment. At | 1:57:23 | 1:57:30 | |
that time the Chancellor said to
seek to reverse it at this stage | 1:57:30 | 1:57:35 | |
would cause confusion in the ranks.
If the government continues on its | 1:57:35 | 1:57:39 | |
current path, there will not be any
ranks left to confuse. I am grateful | 1:57:39 | 1:57:45 | |
to the honourable member. Can I take
him to the Armed Forces Covenant. | 1:57:45 | 1:57:51 | |
The minister gave the impression
earlier that the Armed Forces | 1:57:51 | 1:57:55 | |
Covenant was working very well
across the country. If that were the | 1:57:55 | 1:57:58 | |
case, and I am huge supporter of the
implementation of the covenant, but | 1:57:58 | 1:58:04 | |
if it were the case that it is going
swimmingly everywhere, why is it | 1:58:04 | 1:58:09 | |
written into the deal between the
Conservative Party and the | 1:58:09 | 1:58:12 | |
Democratic Unionist Party? I think
the honourable lady makes an | 1:58:12 | 1:58:17 | |
important and interesting point. We
have tried very hard in my own | 1:58:17 | 1:58:22 | |
constituency in the borough of
Sehgal is to implement the Armed | 1:58:22 | 1:58:24 | |
Forces Covenant, but I know that
there are issues around it. We wish | 1:58:24 | 1:58:33 | |
to see it resolved and implemented
in the rest of the UK. Despite the | 1:58:33 | 1:58:39 | |
target of 82,000 full-time, fully
trained troops set out in the | 1:58:39 | 1:58:44 | |
government's strategic defence and
Security review, in April this year | 1:58:44 | 1:58:47 | |
just 78,000 soldiers are in the
Army. This is an abject failure on | 1:58:47 | 1:58:52 | |
the government's watch by any
measure and is being identified as a | 1:58:52 | 1:58:57 | |
key problem by the former commander
of the joint forces. The recent | 1:58:57 | 1:59:00 | |
report by the right honourable
gentleman for Wickford confirmed the | 1:59:00 | 1:59:08 | |
regular army needs to recruit 10,000
people a year to maintain its | 1:59:08 | 1:59:12 | |
strength, but only attracted 7000
entrants last year. Alongside that, | 1:59:12 | 1:59:16 | |
figures show the numbers leaving the
part-time Army reserve, which we | 1:59:16 | 1:59:20 | |
were told would be increased and
complement the decline in the | 1:59:20 | 1:59:25 | |
regular army, the numbers leaving
the reserve increased by 20% between | 1:59:25 | 1:59:31 | |
the 1st of June 2016 and the 1st of
June 2000 and 17. In the last | 1:59:31 | 1:59:37 | |
financial year, intake into the
reserve failed by 18%. The | 1:59:37 | 1:59:42 | |
government does not have a strategy
to turn the falling numbers around. | 1:59:42 | 1:59:46 | |
There are only solution so far has
been to sack another 120 members of | 1:59:46 | 1:59:54 | |
the armed forces personnel,
recruiters, and then replace them | 1:59:54 | 1:59:55 | |
with civilians from capita. I said
earlier that he has the cheek on him | 1:59:55 | 2:00:03 | |
criticising our plans in terms of
Krugman when he is taking money out | 2:00:03 | 2:00:07 | |
of the pockets of Armed Forces
personnel and giving it to a private | 2:00:07 | 2:00:14 | |
company. Just to be clear, of course
in the armed forces people join and | 2:00:14 | 2:00:19 | |
people leave, that is the nature of
any job and of the Armed Forces. But | 2:00:19 | 2:00:24 | |
to be clear over the last three
years the numbers in the reserves | 2:00:24 | 2:00:28 | |
has increased, not decrease. I do
not wish to contributing the rules | 2:00:28 | 2:00:33 | |
of the House and get into a debate
with the Minister, that I am not | 2:00:33 | 2:00:38 | |
sure the Minister can say that the
figure of 30,000 reserve recruits | 2:00:38 | 2:00:49 | |
can be met. We will continue to
monitor progress on that | 2:00:49 | 2:00:54 | |
specifically and particularly. I am
not a mathematician either as the | 2:00:54 | 2:01:02 | |
honourable gentleman said earlier,
but I know if you need to recruit | 2:01:02 | 2:01:08 | |
10,000 and you are only attracting
7000 to the regular army, you have | 2:01:08 | 2:01:13 | |
not met your own defined quota to
meet the needs of national security | 2:01:13 | 2:01:21 | |
and recruitment in the reserves will
not add up and it will not add up | 2:01:21 | 2:01:24 | |
for the British public either. I
will very briefly. I gave figures in | 2:01:24 | 2:01:32 | |
my speech about recruiting targets
for the reserves and where we are | 2:01:32 | 2:01:36 | |
and I did point out that we are
ahead of target. I think there is a | 2:01:36 | 2:01:44 | |
huge issue firstly around the
figures and there is another issue | 2:01:44 | 2:01:47 | |
around thinking you can replace
regular with reserves. The truth is | 2:01:47 | 2:01:52 | |
this government has cut the army, it
has cut it below its own target | 2:01:52 | 2:01:57 | |
which was 20,000 below what it was
when we left office. There is a | 2:01:57 | 2:02:02 | |
worry about recruitment and there is
a worry about capability and further | 2:02:02 | 2:02:06 | |
proposed cuts mean there is a real
danger that in a very dangerous and | 2:02:06 | 2:02:11 | |
uncertain global context Britain's
defence is undermined and | 2:02:11 | 2:02:16 | |
compromise. I am sorry to say the
Armed Forces have been cut, their | 2:02:16 | 2:02:24 | |
pay is down, key capabilities are
being hollowed out and our leading | 2:02:24 | 2:02:28 | |
defence industry is being left
behind, perhaps something we could | 2:02:28 | 2:02:33 | |
debate on another occasion. I will
finish by saying the Armed Forces | 2:02:33 | 2:02:37 | |
and the British public deserve far
better. Leo Docherty. I am pleased | 2:02:37 | 2:02:44 | |
to speak in this debate this
afternoon. First, it is important | 2:02:44 | 2:02:48 | |
that this debate is based on fact.
On that note, we have got to | 2:02:48 | 2:02:53 | |
recognise that when it comes to the
Armed Forces' pay, 1% increase was | 2:02:53 | 2:02:59 | |
recommended by the pay review in
January this year, 2017, which the | 2:02:59 | 2:03:07 | |
government accepted. The government
declared it was moving away from a | 2:03:07 | 2:03:12 | |
blanket 1% cap on public sector pay
and we anticipate the Armed Forces | 2:03:12 | 2:03:15 | |
pay review board will make
suggestions in the future that the | 2:03:15 | 2:03:19 | |
government will accept. There is
good news on this which we have got | 2:03:19 | 2:03:23 | |
to bear in mind when discussing it.
We have also got to bear in mind | 2:03:23 | 2:03:28 | |
that in addition to increases in
basic salary, armed forces personnel | 2:03:28 | 2:03:32 | |
will enjoy... It is wrong. Over the
last six years they have completely | 2:03:32 | 2:03:40 | |
ignored the pay review body and I do
not know where he gets it from, I | 2:03:40 | 2:03:45 | |
have missed it, in future the
government will accept the | 2:03:45 | 2:03:48 | |
recommendations of the pay review
body because I am not aware of that | 2:03:48 | 2:03:51 | |
announcement. If the honourable
gentleman was paying attention in | 2:03:51 | 2:03:56 | |
September he will have noticed that
the government indicated there would | 2:03:56 | 2:04:00 | |
be a move away from a 1% blanket
public pay cap. It is likely in the | 2:04:00 | 2:04:06 | |
future that the army pay review
board makes a recommendation to the | 2:04:06 | 2:04:10 | |
government. Pay attention! It is
very likely that the government will | 2:04:10 | 2:04:16 | |
accept that. To say that the pay of
the Armed Forces is being cut is | 2:04:16 | 2:04:23 | |
erroneous. We have to recognise that
broadly the offer is good and armed | 2:04:23 | 2:04:31 | |
forces personnel enjoy subsidised
housing and noncontributory | 2:04:31 | 2:04:33 | |
pensions. That is important, we have
to recognise that. Of course there | 2:04:33 | 2:04:38 | |
are concerns and we must be vigilant
in safeguarding and improving the | 2:04:38 | 2:04:43 | |
experience of the Armed Forces
personnel, but I believe the offer | 2:04:43 | 2:04:47 | |
is good. I hear from my constituents
concerns about kit and equipment and | 2:04:47 | 2:04:54 | |
opportunities for training and
deployment. I do not think this | 2:04:54 | 2:04:57 | |
should be a political football to be
kicked around by members of the | 2:04:57 | 2:05:01 | |
opposition if I may say that. There
is a good story to tell and we | 2:05:01 | 2:05:06 | |
should be very positive about the
broad offer that the Armed Forces | 2:05:06 | 2:05:11 | |
present to young people. Sadly, the
opposition are talking this down. To | 2:05:11 | 2:05:24 | |
demonstrate this, I will quote from
the Leader of the Opposition. I will | 2:05:24 | 2:05:29 | |
make some progress. He said, I would
like us to live in a world where we | 2:05:29 | 2:05:34 | |
spend a lot less on defence. A
couple of years later, why do we | 2:05:34 | 2:05:40 | |
have to have planes, transport
aircraft and aircraft carriers to | 2:05:40 | 2:05:44 | |
get anywhere in the world? That was
in 2015. Not long after that he | 2:05:44 | 2:05:50 | |
said, would it not be wonderful if
every politician around the world | 2:05:50 | 2:05:54 | |
instead of taking pride in the size
of their Armed Forces did what the | 2:05:54 | 2:05:58 | |
people of Costa Rica had Stan and
abolish their army? What a | 2:05:58 | 2:06:02 | |
disgraceful indictment of the
attitude of the Leader of the | 2:06:02 | 2:06:07 | |
Opposition. Madame Deputy Speaker, I
would be very pleased to give way. | 2:06:07 | 2:06:19 | |
Perhaps the honourable gentleman
would like to do what the Leader of | 2:06:19 | 2:06:22 | |
the Opposition is going to do this
evening which is vote for this | 2:06:22 | 2:06:26 | |
motion and show the unequivocal
support for our Armed Forces. I will | 2:06:26 | 2:06:29 | |
look forward to every single
opportunity in this place to | 2:06:29 | 2:06:34 | |
demonstrate my commitment to the
Armed Forces, but playing the games | 2:06:34 | 2:06:38 | |
of the opposition will not be
included in my repertoire if I may. | 2:06:38 | 2:06:44 | |
Speak for Costa Rica! I was pleased
earlier on today to extend a very | 2:06:44 | 2:06:51 | |
warm invitation to my right
honourable friend the Prime Minister | 2:06:51 | 2:06:54 | |
to visit my constituency of
Aldershot, the home of the British | 2:06:54 | 2:06:58 | |
Army and the Aldershot Garrison. I
would like to extend that invitation | 2:06:58 | 2:07:03 | |
to the Leader of the Opposition
because I think if he made time in | 2:07:03 | 2:07:07 | |
his diary to spend time with some of
the regiments we have in the | 2:07:07 | 2:07:12 | |
Garrison, including the Grenadier
Guards, the Scots Guards, the Queen | 2:07:12 | 2:07:19 | |
's own guys, the Logistics Regiment,
it would not only improve his | 2:07:19 | 2:07:24 | |
turnout, but it would generate a
greater degree of sympathy for the | 2:07:24 | 2:07:29 | |
Armed Forces that it would do very
well for him to express in future. | 2:07:29 | 2:07:34 | |
To conclude on a slightly more
serious point, I think we have got | 2:07:34 | 2:07:43 | |
to be positive and upbeat about the
message we send to our young men and | 2:07:43 | 2:07:48 | |
women who are considering careers in
the Armed Forces. We live in a time | 2:07:48 | 2:07:53 | |
of unparalleled global instability.
The Middle East is in flames, Nato | 2:07:53 | 2:07:57 | |
is being challenged by Russia, there
is a potential nuclear convocation | 2:07:57 | 2:08:02 | |
in North Korea, so we have huge
global threats and challenges. But I | 2:08:02 | 2:08:10 | |
am sure the British Armed Forces
will be able to deliver on a global | 2:08:10 | 2:08:13 | |
scale both hard and soft power in
the coming years. If you are a young | 2:08:13 | 2:08:17 | |
man and women considering serving in
the Armed Forces, the future is | 2:08:17 | 2:08:23 | |
bright and we should make that
clear. If there are any young people | 2:08:23 | 2:08:27 | |
watching this debate they should
know there are tremendous careers | 2:08:27 | 2:08:30 | |
are available in the Armed Forces
and if they do join up, they would | 2:08:30 | 2:08:34 | |
be doing their country proud. | 2:08:34 | 2:08:38 | |
Thank you. It is a great pleasure to
take part in this debate today. And | 2:08:38 | 2:08:47 | |
a great pleasure of course to speak
after the honourable member for | 2:08:47 | 2:08:52 | |
Aldershot, not least because it
means his speech has come to an end. | 2:08:52 | 2:08:58 | |
However, I'm more serious notes, in
11 days' time all of us will be | 2:08:58 | 2:09:06 | |
sending around our local cenotaph.
One thing that has moved me greatly | 2:09:06 | 2:09:12 | |
is the range of the families of
military and former military | 2:09:12 | 2:09:16 | |
personnel that we meet around those
cenotaphs and the issues that they | 2:09:16 | 2:09:22 | |
raise with us. One of which will be
and has been below inflation pay | 2:09:22 | 2:09:28 | |
settlements. Another issue is
relating to accommodation and how | 2:09:28 | 2:09:35 | |
rises are not met by this pay
settlements, as the member for | 2:09:35 | 2:09:39 | |
Portsmouth said. Other issues relate
to... I no mention was made earlier | 2:09:39 | 2:09:44 | |
about the credit unions that were
set up, an excellent initiative, but | 2:09:44 | 2:09:51 | |
let's not forget they were set up as
a result of research showing the | 2:09:51 | 2:09:55 | |
20,000 young personnel in the
military and former military | 2:09:55 | 2:10:00 | |
personnel were relying on payday
loans. That of course is the reality | 2:10:00 | 2:10:05 | |
of the situation. I pay tribute to
the Government in that they listened | 2:10:05 | 2:10:12 | |
to the Royal British Legion on that
campaign, and I think those credit | 2:10:12 | 2:10:16 | |
unions were an excellent initiative.
I would like to use this debate | 2:10:16 | 2:10:20 | |
today in the hope that they will
listen to the Royal British Legion | 2:10:20 | 2:10:24 | |
on another of their campaigns and
that is the Count Them In campaign. | 2:10:24 | 2:10:32 | |
That request for a designated
question or questions in the census, | 2:10:32 | 2:10:36 | |
so that more information can be
provided on who are military and | 2:10:36 | 2:10:41 | |
former military personnel are, so
that they can be better served in | 2:10:41 | 2:10:46 | |
our communities. I know ministers
will be very aware and I hope will | 2:10:46 | 2:10:53 | |
welcome that the Office of National
Statistics is remaining ferret -- | 2:10:53 | 2:10:57 | |
made a very positive report on this
subject, making the point that our | 2:10:57 | 2:11:03 | |
understanding of the user need for
information of those who have served | 2:11:03 | 2:11:07 | |
us, to quote the ONS, and now left
the UK and Armed Forces, has grown. | 2:11:07 | 2:11:15 | |
The ONS has noted that linked data
only partially meets the user's | 2:11:15 | 2:11:20 | |
needs. We now know also that 88% of
people surveyed by the ONS thinks it | 2:11:20 | 2:11:30 | |
is acceptable to ask these
designated questions. The ONS | 2:11:30 | 2:11:36 | |
further comments that based on the
testing so far, the ONS has | 2:11:36 | 2:11:41 | |
concluded that it will be possible
to finalise a question that works | 2:11:41 | 2:11:45 | |
and is broadly acceptable. I really
hope at this time of year and at | 2:11:45 | 2:11:52 | |
this time before the next census is
prepared that Government on the | 2:11:52 | 2:11:59 | |
campaign by the Royal British
Legion, they know what is being | 2:11:59 | 2:12:04 | |
requested by many military families
around our country, they listened to | 2:12:04 | 2:12:10 | |
the very thoughtful words of the
ONS, and that they fully support the | 2:12:10 | 2:12:15 | |
Count Them In campaign, so that we
as a country can better serve those | 2:12:15 | 2:12:20 | |
people who have served and are
serving us. Thank you, Madam Deputy | 2:12:20 | 2:12:26 | |
is bigger. I am grateful for the
opportunity to say a few words. When | 2:12:26 | 2:12:31 | |
I read that this was the topic
chosen by the opposition, I was a | 2:12:31 | 2:12:37 | |
little surprised, given that it was
the Leader of the Opposition when | 2:12:37 | 2:12:41 | |
faced with the option on Armed
Forces Day whether to honour the | 2:12:41 | 2:12:48 | |
Armed Forces, instead decided to go
and stand in a field in Glastonbury | 2:12:48 | 2:12:52 | |
in honour of dismantling Britain's
nuclear deterrent. The allegation | 2:12:52 | 2:12:58 | |
being made is that this Government
is not supporting the Armed Forces. | 2:12:58 | 2:13:02 | |
Let's take a look at a bit of that
context. The British Government has | 2:13:02 | 2:13:06 | |
the second largest budget in Nato.
It is the largest in the EU. We are | 2:13:06 | 2:13:14 | |
meeting the 2% target, which Germany
isn't, Italy isn't, Spain isn't, by | 2:13:14 | 2:13:18 | |
the way. And second, spending is
forecast to increase. We will | 2:13:18 | 2:13:26 | |
building seven ships and submarines.
A kit projection of £178 billion to | 2:13:26 | 2:13:35 | |
2026, and that translates into jobs
in my constituency, for example the | 2:13:35 | 2:13:42 | |
seniors defence support, supporting
that investment. And also | 2:13:42 | 2:13:46 | |
importantly, something not mentioned
thus far, £1.9 billion to be | 2:13:46 | 2:13:53 | |
invested into intelligence spending.
GCHQ in my constituency will | 2:13:53 | 2:13:56 | |
therefore be able to expand and keep
us safe, and it is of concern that | 2:13:56 | 2:14:01 | |
1.9 billion seems to be somehow
forgotten. That is about half the | 2:14:01 | 2:14:07 | |
total mint with bent on prisons. --
the total amount. That spending does | 2:14:07 | 2:14:14 | |
not just support the valiant and
skilful men and women involved, but | 2:14:14 | 2:14:22 | |
the local economy, too. We have a
cyber centre in Cheltenham with the | 2:14:22 | 2:14:28 | |
finest minds, nurturing small
businesses. On the issue of pay, of | 2:14:28 | 2:14:36 | |
course this is an important issue
but might honourable and gallant | 2:14:36 | 2:14:40 | |
friends have made the point that it
is part of a basket of issues. It is | 2:14:40 | 2:14:44 | |
not for me to advise the loyal
opposition on what to talk about but | 2:14:44 | 2:14:48 | |
it might have been more judicious to
broaden the scope. There are some | 2:14:48 | 2:14:53 | |
issues clearly important, clearly
accommodation, but to focus purely | 2:14:53 | 2:14:58 | |
on pay, I say respectfully, is
ill-advised. In 28 years, I can't | 2:14:58 | 2:15:11 | |
recall a soldier complaining about
pay. However, they often complained | 2:15:11 | 2:15:18 | |
about allowances. And particularly
changing from one theatre to another | 2:15:18 | 2:15:23 | |
on operations and losing their local
overseas allowance. That is correct. | 2:15:23 | 2:15:29 | |
They do complain about that and it
is something we should look at | 2:15:29 | 2:15:33 | |
because particularly junior ranks
find it very difficult. That is | 2:15:33 | 2:15:38 | |
exactly the kind of sophistication
that ought to be brought to this | 2:15:38 | 2:15:41 | |
debate, to look at specific issues
which can make the lives of serving | 2:15:41 | 2:15:47 | |
service personnel better. But really
the principles we should apply are | 2:15:47 | 2:15:51 | |
tolerably simple. First, listen to
independent experts, at pay review | 2:15:51 | 2:15:56 | |
bodies and second we should build
inflexible to where there is a | 2:15:56 | 2:15:59 | |
skills shortage. I will return to
that in a moment. It is right, as | 2:15:59 | 2:16:05 | |
the Prime Minister indicated in PMQs
today, to look at the context of the | 2:16:05 | 2:16:09 | |
public finances. She said that we
are spending £50 billion a year on | 2:16:09 | 2:16:14 | |
debt interest alone. This raises a
really important moral argument | 2:16:14 | 2:16:18 | |
because when we talk about the
future of our Armed Forces, we don't | 2:16:18 | 2:16:23 | |
just want Armed Forces for today or
tomorrow or next week, we want our | 2:16:23 | 2:16:27 | |
children to be able to enjoy the
protection of the Armed Forces as | 2:16:27 | 2:16:30 | |
well. And what is Labour's suggested
solution to this? Notwithstanding | 2:16:30 | 2:16:36 | |
that we have public borrowing of
about £58 million each year, | 2:16:36 | 2:16:42 | |
notwithstanding that we have a
national debt of £1.7 trillion, | 2:16:42 | 2:16:46 | |
their remedy is more borrowing, more
debt, more tax. Where does that | 2:16:46 | 2:16:52 | |
leaders a country? If we were to
borrow tomorrow and additional £500 | 2:16:52 | 2:16:58 | |
billion as has been suggested, that
means our national debt goes from | 2:16:58 | 2:17:02 | |
1.7 trillion to £2.2 trillion. So we
will basically be spending before we | 2:17:02 | 2:17:11 | |
pay for a single soldier, a single
police officer, a single nurse, £62 | 2:17:11 | 2:17:17 | |
billion a year. The entire defence
budget is £36 billion. So there will | 2:17:17 | 2:17:23 | |
be people born today and our country
who in 30 years' time to know. Their | 2:17:23 | 2:17:27 | |
own, will either knock on the door
of the welfare state because they'd | 2:17:27 | 2:17:34 | |
need assistance, or we'll want
protection of our Armed Forces but | 2:17:34 | 2:17:42 | |
the risk increases if the opposition
are able to achieve what they want. | 2:17:42 | 2:17:48 | |
Oh, sorry. I thought that the Tory
party scripted change. He has not, | 2:17:48 | 2:18:01 | |
obviously, got the new script. You
can sit down. Can he explain that if | 2:18:01 | 2:18:10 | |
the Government can find £1 billion
out of fresh air, to keep in power | 2:18:10 | 2:18:16 | |
through the DUP in Northern Ireland,
why can't they fund the pay of our | 2:18:16 | 2:18:22 | |
Armed Forces? That is an argument
that has been made with, | 2:18:22 | 2:18:28 | |
respectfully, tedious regularity,
and what it betrays is a complete | 2:18:28 | 2:18:30 | |
lack of understanding of the public
finances. We borrow as a country | 2:18:30 | 2:18:35 | |
every single year £58 billion. We
spent as a nation £803 billion a | 2:18:35 | 2:18:41 | |
year and yet what Labour want to do
is borrow £500 billion, which in | 2:18:41 | 2:18:47 | |
turn would increase our annual
payment in the order of £12 billion. | 2:18:47 | 2:18:52 | |
That would be monstrous. It would be
disastrous for the UK economy and | 2:18:52 | 2:18:57 | |
for future generations. And there is
an issue of generational justice | 2:18:57 | 2:19:00 | |
here and it is a message that Labour
have not learnt. And so it is | 2:19:00 | 2:19:05 | |
important when we consider these
matters... Could he tell us whether | 2:19:05 | 2:19:10 | |
he thinks it is better to get the
deficit of this country down by | 2:19:10 | 2:19:17 | |
asking the wealthy and the big
corporations to pay a little bit | 2:19:17 | 2:19:20 | |
more, or does he want it to come off
the backs of our hard-working Armed | 2:19:20 | 2:19:27 | |
Forces? Again, with respect, it is
complete financial illiteracy. The | 2:19:27 | 2:19:34 | |
top 1% in country are paying 28% of
total spending. That is a higher | 2:19:34 | 2:19:39 | |
figure than has ever existed in our
country. She also fails to mention | 2:19:39 | 2:19:42 | |
that under the last Labour
Government, people started to pay | 2:19:42 | 2:19:47 | |
tax a little above £6,000. We don't
require the lowest paid to pay tax | 2:19:47 | 2:19:52 | |
after £6,000. It is £11,500. That
means more money in the pocket for | 2:19:52 | 2:19:57 | |
low paid people. We have increased
the National Living Wage. It is the | 2:19:57 | 2:20:03 | |
complete inability to engage with
the figures which with respect | 2:20:03 | 2:20:07 | |
undermines the Labour position. So
it is important of course that we do | 2:20:07 | 2:20:11 | |
everything we possibly can to
support our brave men and women. It | 2:20:11 | 2:20:14 | |
is important of course that we
increase flexible to where there are | 2:20:14 | 2:20:18 | |
shortages, which is why, for
example, in GCHQ when there is | 2:20:18 | 2:20:22 | |
difficulty sometimes in getting the
brightest and best and retaining | 2:20:22 | 2:20:26 | |
them, that it is important to
observe that there may be | 2:20:26 | 2:20:29 | |
extenuating circumstances. But let's
make sure we have billion Armed | 2:20:29 | 2:20:33 | |
Forces today, tomorrow and in the
years to come. That is why I will | 2:20:33 | 2:20:36 | |
not be supporting the Labour motion.
I reflect upon some of the standards | 2:20:36 | 2:20:45 | |
I was taught in the service and one
of the fundamental once was the | 2:20:45 | 2:20:50 | |
notion that credible leadership
serves the interest of those you do | 2:20:50 | 2:20:56 | |
lead. I think this House could
demonstrate leadership and | 2:20:56 | 2:21:02 | |
credibility by ensuring that our
service personnel do have adequate | 2:21:02 | 2:21:07 | |
remuneration that reflects the
nature of their service and | 2:21:07 | 2:21:09 | |
dedication to our country. When we
consider that 33% of service | 2:21:09 | 2:21:15 | |
personnel, that is the only chair
they are satisfied with the basic | 2:21:15 | 2:21:18 | |
rate of pay, it is clear there is a
dissatisfaction. I find it a rather | 2:21:18 | 2:21:24 | |
ill observed point that just because
it is not the primary driver of | 2:21:24 | 2:21:33 | |
someone's behaviour, it is not an
important one and not worthy of | 2:21:33 | 2:21:37 | |
discussion. I think it is very
worthy of discussion in this House | 2:21:37 | 2:21:40 | |
and I reviewed it goes sentiments
utterly. | 2:21:40 | 2:21:51 | |
The X Factor of pay making up for
the anti-social nature of the work | 2:21:56 | 2:22:07 | |
is not true. I think it is a key
thing we should bear in mind, that | 2:22:07 | 2:22:12 | |
the X Factor is not really a x
Factor at all. One interesting | 2:22:12 | 2:22:16 | |
observation is that there is a great
opportunity for career development | 2:22:16 | 2:22:23 | |
in the Armed Forces, the deacon
early for young people. I would say | 2:22:23 | 2:22:26 | |
that one of the great advantages of
the Armed Forces is that the lower | 2:22:26 | 2:22:36 | |
increment of minimum wage does not
apply. We should extend the | 2:22:36 | 2:22:42 | |
opportunity to serve 216 and
17-year-olds. I think he makes | 2:22:42 | 2:22:50 | |
reference to our recent debate and
policy change that might party | 2:22:50 | 2:22:54 | |
brought in, but I'm sure he will
want to note that I argued against | 2:22:54 | 2:22:59 | |
that change in policy. Thank you and
it is reassuring that the | 2:22:59 | 2:23:05 | |
spokesperson for the SNP on such
matters continues to uphold the | 2:23:05 | 2:23:09 | |
principle that young people should
be allowed to enjoy their careers in | 2:23:09 | 2:23:16 | |
the armed services. But those aren't
basic rates of pay, when you | 2:23:16 | 2:23:22 | |
consider a service person on 24
Abbott deployment, their basic pay | 2:23:22 | 2:23:26 | |
can have a notional value of just £2
per hour. Is that really the value | 2:23:26 | 2:23:30 | |
we place on the Armed Forces? | 2:23:30 | 2:23:48 | |
That is totally unacceptable. We
talk about skilled, apprenticeships, | 2:23:48 | 2:23:51 | |
I will give way. He is making a very
good point about career prospects | 2:23:51 | 2:23:59 | |
and the package. Why was it not in
the Labour motion? Many of us would | 2:23:59 | 2:24:03 | |
have agreed with what he is talking
about. We are making the point that | 2:24:03 | 2:24:08 | |
by virtue of the point we have that
great opportunity for development, | 2:24:08 | 2:24:12 | |
it makes those people very
attractive to the private sector, | 2:24:12 | 2:24:16 | |
particularly when inflation picks up
and private sector salaries respond | 2:24:16 | 2:24:20 | |
to that. We will see increasing
pressure on retention if the Armed | 2:24:20 | 2:24:26 | |
Forces lag behind the private sector
and we need to address that urgently | 2:24:26 | 2:24:30 | |
if we continue to make our armed
forces capable. In Plymouth we are | 2:24:30 | 2:24:36 | |
already seeing some of the
engineering grades in particular | 2:24:36 | 2:24:40 | |
being poached by the private sector
and pay is one of the reasons why | 2:24:40 | 2:24:44 | |
they are leaving the armed services.
Well my honourable friend agree? I | 2:24:44 | 2:24:50 | |
will agree and engineering is a
particular area of urgent issue. It | 2:24:50 | 2:24:57 | |
is particularly alarming to note
that the entire regular army can be | 2:24:57 | 2:25:02 | |
comfortably seated in Wembley
Stadium now it is 6% undermanned. | 2:25:02 | 2:25:09 | |
What I joined it was 103000 and you
could not fit it into Wembley | 2:25:09 | 2:25:14 | |
Stadium. We have seen the defence
budget fall to under 2% of GDP over | 2:25:14 | 2:25:20 | |
the term of this government from
2.5%. Whether it is Nimrod or the | 2:25:20 | 2:25:27 | |
cats and traps on carriers, it has
been fiasco after fiasco that has | 2:25:27 | 2:25:32 | |
bled resources out of the Armed
Forces and it is shocking that our | 2:25:32 | 2:25:36 | |
Armed Forces' patients suffer for
that. Apologies, I want to give the | 2:25:36 | 2:25:45 | |
opportunity for the honourable
gentleman to correct what he said. | 2:25:45 | 2:25:48 | |
It was the Labour government that
chose to abandon cats and traps, it | 2:25:48 | 2:25:53 | |
was the Labour government that
slowed down the building of the | 2:25:53 | 2:25:56 | |
aircraft carrier which cost over £1
billion on top of the original bill. | 2:25:56 | 2:26:01 | |
That is what happened to the
aircraft carrier under a Labour | 2:26:01 | 2:26:06 | |
government. That is factually
incorrect because I worked at | 2:26:06 | 2:26:08 | |
systems at the time and in the
defence Security review that was | 2:26:08 | 2:26:15 | |
commissioned in that project was £1
billion utterly wasted. I would make | 2:26:15 | 2:26:20 | |
the point that the Armed Forces pay
review board highlighted that the | 2:26:20 | 2:26:29 | |
2016-17 was not an increase at all
because of the changes to housing | 2:26:29 | 2:26:33 | |
cost allowances and from 2010 to the
present it is a 5.2% cut in real | 2:26:33 | 2:26:42 | |
terms pay for our Armed Forces. The
evidence today is comprehensive and | 2:26:42 | 2:26:46 | |
we have seen a litany of failure,
for expenditure, stagnating incomes, | 2:26:46 | 2:26:51 | |
that leads to follow morale and
outflow has exceeded recruitment | 2:26:51 | 2:26:59 | |
since 2007. Let's recognise we have
a vicious cycle of downsizing and | 2:26:59 | 2:27:03 | |
can we move it towards a virtuous
cycle of investment to ensure the | 2:27:03 | 2:27:09 | |
operational effectiveness of our
Armed Forces is secure for the | 2:27:09 | 2:27:13 | |
future in a very dangerous world.
Jonnie Mercer. Thank you for | 2:27:13 | 2:27:19 | |
squeezing me in because I was not
going to speak today but I felt | 2:27:19 | 2:27:22 | |
compelled to come to the chamber to
give my 2p worth. I very much | 2:27:22 | 2:27:29 | |
enjoyed the contribution from the
member for North Durham but I think | 2:27:29 | 2:27:32 | |
it would be remiss of me not to
point out how narrowly he danced on | 2:27:32 | 2:27:37 | |
that line between delusion and
fiction. He was the veterans for a | 2:27:37 | 2:27:44 | |
minister in 2008, 2009 and this is
not about me and anybody's personal | 2:27:44 | 2:27:53 | |
service, this is about truth and
fact. The fact is the equipment we | 2:27:53 | 2:27:57 | |
fought these campaigns end, but
crucially our veterans' care was | 2:27:57 | 2:28:02 | |
simply appalling. I cannot sit here
and allow members of the opposition | 2:28:02 | 2:28:07 | |
to say that Labour's record on
defence... I will not give way at | 2:28:07 | 2:28:11 | |
this moment. I cannot abide it, the
Labour's piety's record on defence | 2:28:11 | 2:28:19 | |
is so superior to the Conservative
Party... For a member to accuse | 2:28:19 | 2:28:27 | |
somebody something that is not true
and then not allow that member to | 2:28:27 | 2:28:30 | |
respond to it, is that allowed? I am
sure the honourable gentleman will | 2:28:30 | 2:28:36 | |
feel that if he has referred to
another member he might like to take | 2:28:36 | 2:28:39 | |
an intervention. Have I allegedly
said something that is not true? | 2:28:39 | 2:28:47 | |
What have I said that is not true?
Come on, Kevin. What is not true is | 2:28:47 | 2:28:58 | |
what the honourable member has said
about cutting support for veterans. | 2:28:58 | 2:29:03 | |
Can we not have a conversation
across the chamber. This is an | 2:29:03 | 2:29:07 | |
intervention that the honourable
gentleman will respond to. The Armed | 2:29:07 | 2:29:16 | |
Forces recovery capability made sure
we supported veterans coming back | 2:29:16 | 2:29:20 | |
from Iraq. It was a Labour
government I was proud of and proud | 2:29:20 | 2:29:24 | |
to be part of which are the first
time brought in lump-sum payments | 2:29:24 | 2:29:30 | |
for those severely injured. The idea
and track record of our | 2:29:30 | 2:29:36 | |
administration of supporting
veterans will stand up to any | 2:29:36 | 2:29:37 | |
scrutiny. I will say to my
honourable friend that it may be | 2:29:37 | 2:29:44 | |
worth him putting that debate into
the course of public opinion as | 2:29:44 | 2:29:48 | |
across the country as to whether our
service and our offer to our | 2:29:48 | 2:29:55 | |
veterans between 2003 and 2015 which
saw the biggest explosion in | 2:29:55 | 2:30:00 | |
military charities this country has
ever seen because of the lack of | 2:30:00 | 2:30:03 | |
provision that he presided over, I
would suggest it is good to put that | 2:30:03 | 2:30:08 | |
into the public domain to see if it
bears up to fact. It is important | 2:30:08 | 2:30:12 | |
this debate is grounded in fact.
This should not be a partisan issue. | 2:30:12 | 2:30:17 | |
We should not be talking about what
Labour did or what the Conservative | 2:30:17 | 2:30:21 | |
Party did. I have to talk about it
because of the fiction that has come | 2:30:21 | 2:30:32 | |
from the opposition. We need to work
harder on some serious elements of | 2:30:32 | 2:30:35 | |
defence, around mental health,
around veterans' care. What do we | 2:30:35 | 2:30:37 | |
want our Armed Forces to stand for?
Crucially what do we not want from | 2:30:37 | 2:30:42 | |
our Armed Forces as we move through
post Brexit? We must ground this | 2:30:42 | 2:30:49 | |
debate in reality. When it comes to
pay everybody would like to be paid | 2:30:49 | 2:30:52 | |
more. I could not find a single
service man or woman in the Armed | 2:30:52 | 2:30:57 | |
Forces today who would not like more
money. It is disingenuous in the | 2:30:57 | 2:31:02 | |
extreme if I was to stand here and
say that was a single blanket issue | 2:31:02 | 2:31:06 | |
that drives down recruitment, that
reduces the ability to retain these | 2:31:06 | 2:31:11 | |
skilled men and women and to
represent that somehow a career in | 2:31:11 | 2:31:15 | |
the Armed Forces is somehow not
worth it or completely constrained | 2:31:15 | 2:31:20 | |
by appalling terms and conditions,
it is not the case. One of the most | 2:31:20 | 2:31:30 | |
frustrating things about this place
is the fact we have a world-class | 2:31:30 | 2:31:32 | |
military. Of all the things I can be
accused of, of which there are many, | 2:31:32 | 2:31:36 | |
being a government lackey on defence
is not one of them. If you look at | 2:31:36 | 2:31:40 | |
my record around defence spending,
if you have a brief conversation | 2:31:40 | 2:31:46 | |
with the Minister for the Armed
Forces who recoils at the very | 2:31:46 | 2:31:50 | |
mention of my name, I am not a
defence lackey. But we, on this | 2:31:50 | 2:31:59 | |
issue around our capability, yes, we
have more ships in the Falklands, | 2:31:59 | 2:32:04 | |
yes, we had more tanks, but in the
Falklands a lot of the gums and the | 2:32:04 | 2:32:10 | |
ships did not work. The type 26
frigate is one of the world's most | 2:32:10 | 2:32:15 | |
capable combat ships. You can shake
your head and say it does not employ | 2:32:15 | 2:32:20 | |
millions of people and the steel did
not come from where I wanted it to, | 2:32:20 | 2:32:25 | |
but we have a world-class military
and it is disingenuous to the people | 2:32:25 | 2:32:29 | |
of this country to use this as a
political football between the | 2:32:29 | 2:32:33 | |
Labour Party and the Conservative
Party over who is doing better on | 2:32:33 | 2:32:37 | |
defence. We have deep challenges but
I will gently suggest the pay is not | 2:32:37 | 2:32:42 | |
one of them. Will he agree with me
that the reason why some four out of | 2:32:42 | 2:32:50 | |
our armed forces is hugely complex,
it is all sorts of different | 2:32:50 | 2:32:54 | |
reasons. It could be accommodation,
the fact they often find it | 2:32:54 | 2:32:59 | |
difficult with their spouses because
they want to have employment, they | 2:32:59 | 2:33:02 | |
want to have some sort of family
life and in an increasingly modern | 2:33:02 | 2:33:06 | |
world it is often thought not to be
compatible with military service. It | 2:33:06 | 2:33:11 | |
is an important mixture of different
things and it is not just one thing | 2:33:11 | 2:33:15 | |
and it is not just paid. Absolutely
and this is why this government is | 2:33:15 | 2:33:22 | |
trying hard. I am not going to stand
here and say it is all rosy when it | 2:33:22 | 2:33:27 | |
comes to defence. The government
brought in the second reading on | 2:33:27 | 2:33:31 | |
Monday of the flexible working bill
which will fundamentally change the | 2:33:31 | 2:33:35 | |
offer we give. We have to constantly
challenge the offer we give to our | 2:33:35 | 2:33:41 | |
Armed Forces personnel but to
pretend to pay is the limiting | 2:33:41 | 2:33:43 | |
factor as to why so many people are
leaving when we have so many | 2:33:43 | 2:33:48 | |
challenges around recruitment is not
fair, it is not fair on the | 2:33:48 | 2:33:53 | |
government, but crucially it is not
on fair on the people who serve the | 2:33:53 | 2:33:57 | |
cos we are getting them to think it
is an issue that it is not. We have | 2:33:57 | 2:34:01 | |
got a lot of work to do when it
comes to defence. Pay is not one of | 2:34:01 | 2:34:07 | |
them, but let's get this debate into
the realms of reality so we can get | 2:34:07 | 2:34:10 | |
somewhere and deliver something for
those who I know will be watching | 2:34:10 | 2:34:15 | |
this debate and scanning it for
credibility and they will not have | 2:34:15 | 2:34:18 | |
seen much of that today. Nobody
believes that our armed forces are | 2:34:18 | 2:34:28 | |
anything but some of the best in the
world. There is no division about | 2:34:28 | 2:34:33 | |
that. Everybody knows it is not just
pay as well. But I think there are | 2:34:33 | 2:34:38 | |
some real challenges facing our
Armed Forces today, both in terms of | 2:34:38 | 2:34:43 | |
retention and in terms of
recruitment. What I said to the | 2:34:43 | 2:34:47 | |
Minister early on, and I am using
the government's and statistics, so | 2:34:47 | 2:34:53 | |
straight from the MoD, published on
the 12th of October, and the | 2:34:53 | 2:34:58 | |
relevance of this that my honourable
friend has brought forward is I | 2:34:58 | 2:35:01 | |
think pay is one of those, and I
agree about accommodation and all | 2:35:01 | 2:35:06 | |
the other points prop forward, but
pay is a factor. I think it is | 2:35:06 | 2:35:11 | |
important we understand the scale of
the challenge we are facing as a | 2:35:11 | 2:35:14 | |
country in terms of the recruitment
and retention of our Armed Forces. | 2:35:14 | 2:35:19 | |
If you look at the key points and
trends, and these are the | 2:35:19 | 2:35:24 | |
government's own figures, strength
of UK Armed Forces personnel is | 2:35:24 | 2:35:28 | |
down, full-time trained strength is
down and that is with the new way in | 2:35:28 | 2:35:31 | |
which they are judging what is
full-time personnel where it is | 2:35:31 | 2:35:36 | |
people doing phase one training, not
phase one and phase two. Deficit | 2:35:36 | 2:35:41 | |
against the planned number of people
needed, increased. People joining | 2:35:41 | 2:35:46 | |
the UK regular Armed Forces, down.
People joining the future reserves, | 2:35:46 | 2:35:50 | |
down. No, most people cannot get in.
I am sorry. People who have left the | 2:35:50 | 2:35:58 | |
future reserves, an increase. I am
not trying to say to the Minister or | 2:35:58 | 2:36:04 | |
indeed to the House that therefore
we are all doomed. But we would be | 2:36:04 | 2:36:11 | |
as a house neglecting our
responsibilities if we did not look | 2:36:11 | 2:36:14 | |
at some of what was happening here.
The honourable member himself, I | 2:36:14 | 2:36:19 | |
apologise, I cannot remember his
constituency, the honourable member | 2:36:19 | 2:36:24 | |
pointed out the difficulties and
there is good news, but there are | 2:36:24 | 2:36:29 | |
real problems with this. It is also
the same with pain. The Minister | 2:36:29 | 2:36:33 | |
said pay had gone up, yet in his own
documentation that we have got here, | 2:36:33 | 2:36:40 | |
if you look at figure 11, it shows
that Armed Forces pay has gone down. | 2:36:40 | 2:36:49 | |
Either the Minister is publishing
wrong information on the Internet, | 2:36:49 | 2:36:52 | |
or his speech is wrong. We also then
learn that the real growth of | 2:36:52 | 2:36:59 | |
military salaries is negative at
0.1% during 2015-2016. I want to put | 2:36:59 | 2:37:09 | |
those facts on the table because
there is a real challenge for us as | 2:37:09 | 2:37:14 | |
a country, for us as a parliament,
about what we do about this. We have | 2:37:14 | 2:37:19 | |
been debating the recruitment to the
British Armed Forces for years. We | 2:37:19 | 2:37:23 | |
have been debating the retention of
Armed Forces personnel for years. As | 2:37:23 | 2:37:30 | |
it stands at the moment, we can
argue about who is right and who is | 2:37:30 | 2:37:35 | |
wrong, but this country faces a very
real difficulty with respect to it. | 2:37:35 | 2:37:38 | |
I think pay is one aspect to it. I
think accommodation is another, but | 2:37:38 | 2:37:46 | |
I also wanted to point out that the
honourable gentleman this, and I | 2:37:46 | 2:37:51 | |
would share this with the how's and
those who are members of the other | 2:37:51 | 2:37:54 | |
bodies to do with defence have heard
me say this before, I think this is | 2:37:54 | 2:37:58 | |
part of the issue that tucked in the
same policy briefing it talks about | 2:37:58 | 2:38:06 | |
the main factors affecting decisions
about the size of the Armed Forces | 2:38:06 | 2:38:10 | |
required by the MoD to achieve
success in its military tasks and it | 2:38:10 | 2:38:14 | |
lists a number of things, but the
crucial one is an assessment of the | 2:38:14 | 2:38:19 | |
current and future threats to UK
national security. All I say to the | 2:38:19 | 2:38:24 | |
Minister is that we need to actually
explain to the public what it is we | 2:38:24 | 2:38:28 | |
want our Armed Forces for, what it
is we expect them to do, and | 2:38:28 | 2:38:33 | |
therefore why we wish them to join.
I think some of that is about a | 2:38:33 | 2:38:39 | |
grown-up conversation with people,
recruiting, yes, but having a clear | 2:38:39 | 2:38:44 | |
vision and a clear view of why we
are proud of our Armed Forces, why | 2:38:44 | 2:38:49 | |
we are proud of the job they do and
why we need them to pursue the | 2:38:49 | 2:38:54 | |
objectives that we as a country
have, whether it be abroad or | 2:38:54 | 2:38:59 | |
whether defending our own citizens
here at home against the threat we | 2:38:59 | 2:39:02 | |
have. The very real challenges here
contained within the government's | 2:39:02 | 2:39:07 | |
own documents and the Minister needs
to say how it will be different in | 2:39:07 | 2:39:11 | |
the future so we can see success
rather than these perennial debates | 2:39:11 | 2:39:15 | |
which take place about what we are
going to do about the fact we are | 2:39:15 | 2:39:19 | |
not recruiting enough people and
retaining enough people for long | 2:39:19 | 2:39:22 | |
enough. | 2:39:22 | 2:39:26 | |
I would like to thank the opposition
front bench for calling this | 2:39:26 | 2:39:30 | |
important debate. I would like to
make it clear that I will be | 2:39:30 | 2:39:35 | |
supporting the motion. It is also an
opportunity to debunk some of the | 2:39:35 | 2:39:43 | |
myths and some of the
misrepresentations about the Labour | 2:39:43 | 2:39:47 | |
Party's defence policy that I have
heard during the course of this | 2:39:47 | 2:39:50 | |
debate. I did refer to the Labour
manifesto for the many, not the few, | 2:39:50 | 2:39:56 | |
and it is absolutely clear, written
with absolute clarity that Labour | 2:39:56 | 2:40:01 | |
support a strong | 2:40:01 | 2:40:06 | |
with absolute clarity that Labour
support a strong, secure and viable | 2:40:06 | 2:40:08 | |
security policy. It must be shipped
to dig and evidence lead and not the | 2:40:08 | 2:40:15 | |
financially driven defence agenda of
the Conservative Party. We will | 2:40:15 | 2:40:18 | |
ensure that our Armed Forces are
properly equipped and resourced to | 2:40:18 | 2:40:24 | |
respond to a wide range of security
challenges, and to suggest that the | 2:40:24 | 2:40:29 | |
Conservative Party is somehow the
guardians of probity and competence | 2:40:29 | 2:40:36 | |
when there are so many examples, the
Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, the | 2:40:36 | 2:40:45 | |
18 month delay with Thai fighters,
and lots of other areas where the | 2:40:45 | 2:40:57 | |
Government's own procurement
decisions have impacted on the | 2:40:57 | 2:40:59 | |
defence budget. Labour has also
committed to spend at least 2% of | 2:40:59 | 2:41:04 | |
GDP on defence and we will guarantee
that our Armed Forces have the | 2:41:04 | 2:41:07 | |
necessary capabilities to fulfil the
range of obligations that are set | 2:41:07 | 2:41:13 | |
for them. I do feel that we have a
duty to properly reward and | 2:41:13 | 2:41:20 | |
re-numerate our Armed Forces, and it
is clear that under the | 2:41:20 | 2:41:23 | |
Conservatives, our Armed Forces have
been hit by rent rises, paper | 2:41:23 | 2:41:27 | |
straight, payment due -- changes to
tax and benefit, and this has all | 2:41:27 | 2:41:36 | |
put pressure on person and their
families. We will ensure that | 2:41:36 | 2:41:41 | |
service men and women get the pay
and conditions that their service | 2:41:41 | 2:41:44 | |
merits. I am very fortunate. I don't
have a military base or | 2:41:44 | 2:41:49 | |
establishment in my constituency,
but I have a very strong and active | 2:41:49 | 2:41:56 | |
forces community, with a noble
tradition of a high levels of | 2:41:56 | 2:42:00 | |
recruitment amongst all three
services. On this Sunday, on the 5th | 2:42:00 | 2:42:04 | |
of November, there will be a unique
act of remembrance in my | 2:42:04 | 2:42:09 | |
constituency. Last year the fund
constructing a huge poppy using | 2:42:09 | 2:42:14 | |
thousands of painted pebbles from
the beach. I live by the coast. It | 2:42:14 | 2:42:22 | |
was a stunning tribute to the
servicemen and women of our Armed | 2:42:22 | 2:42:26 | |
Forces. So this Sunday, a local
piece of -- at a local piece of | 2:42:26 | 2:42:36 | |
renowned artwork commemorating world
War I, another tribute will be | 2:42:36 | 2:42:40 | |
unveiled. It is called The Fruits Of
The C, using materials collected | 2:42:40 | 2:42:48 | |
from the coastline. I am delighted
to have been invited to unveil this | 2:42:48 | 2:42:55 | |
year's of the artwork. However, in
the spirit of solidarity and | 2:42:55 | 2:43:00 | |
generosity I would be more than
happy to invite the minister to | 2:43:00 | 2:43:04 | |
accompany me. He would be more than
welcome to come and visit this | 2:43:04 | 2:43:09 | |
weekend and help highlight this
year's Poppy Appeal. I hope the | 2:43:09 | 2:43:14 | |
minister, in his closing statements,
will commend the work of all the | 2:43:14 | 2:43:19 | |
volunteers who spent many months
planning and supporting our service | 2:43:19 | 2:43:25 | |
personnel. The one I have referred
to is the one of many examples of | 2:43:25 | 2:43:31 | |
how communities on the Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces covenant is a | 2:43:31 | 2:43:36 | |
really important aspect, as is how
we treat our batting is -- how we | 2:43:36 | 2:43:41 | |
treat our veterans. I am sorry not
to develop my argument, due to time | 2:43:41 | 2:43:48 | |
constraints. However he's terrific
charities -- however, terrific | 2:43:48 | 2:43:55 | |
charities in my area do marvellous
work. We have a huge obligation to | 2:43:55 | 2:44:00 | |
the men and women who risk their
lives to protect us, to look after | 2:44:00 | 2:44:08 | |
them. A modest Armed Forces pension
is another problem that is | 2:44:08 | 2:44:12 | |
identified to me that many veterans
raise that is causing them | 2:44:12 | 2:44:16 | |
significant problems. I do urge the
House to support the motion in the | 2:44:16 | 2:44:22 | |
name of the opposition. Thank you,
to the opposition front bench for | 2:44:22 | 2:44:29 | |
calling this debate. I was recently
approached by a serving Armed Forces | 2:44:29 | 2:44:35 | |
member about the family that her --
problems that her family faces. Her | 2:44:35 | 2:44:42 | |
husband has not had a pay rise in
the Armed Forces during this | 2:44:42 | 2:44:47 | |
Government. They have had a
reduction in real terms. As with | 2:44:47 | 2:44:51 | |
many families of service personnel,
they rely on this income. The nature | 2:44:51 | 2:44:57 | |
of the job takes the family away
from support networks. The | 2:44:57 | 2:45:03 | |
constituent has recently received a
letter outlining a year-on-year | 2:45:03 | 2:45:08 | |
increase on rent charges. How does
the Government say this family make | 2:45:08 | 2:45:13 | |
ends meet? On top of this is a
family of five... Sorry, I must make | 2:45:13 | 2:45:18 | |
progress. Thank you. There has been
a family of five hit hard by the | 2:45:18 | 2:45:29 | |
Government's to Child cap on
benefit. 1% basic pay award for | 2:45:29 | 2:45:39 | |
2016-17 cams I did with national
insurance, changes in tax credits | 2:45:39 | 2:45:43 | |
and other increases that left
another service of personnel taking | 2:45:43 | 2:45:49 | |
home less pay, says the report. It
is no wonder that given these | 2:45:49 | 2:45:56 | |
circumstances, servicemen and women
are leaving the profession. The | 2:45:56 | 2:46:00 | |
Armed Forces are now facing every
crewman retention crisis. I am | 2:46:00 | 2:46:04 | |
wearing a poppy to come right and
honour those who put themselves at | 2:46:04 | 2:46:10 | |
risk to make sure that families are
not living hand to mouth. As my | 2:46:10 | 2:46:14 | |
former constituent said to me, she
has now been stationed away from her | 2:46:14 | 2:46:19 | |
home county, one wall -- she is one
more ill advised at reform away from | 2:46:19 | 2:46:26 | |
not being able to feed her family.
Again this reflects what the pay | 2:46:26 | 2:46:31 | |
review body said. Visit programme
made clear that service are becoming | 2:46:31 | 2:46:37 | |
increasingly frustrated with public
sector pay quality. Last week, we | 2:46:37 | 2:46:45 | |
saw a BBC panorama programme shoving
a mental health nurse brought to | 2:46:45 | 2:46:50 | |
tears, a firefighter forced to take
a second job and a homeless police | 2:46:50 | 2:46:54 | |
officer. Add to that the family of
an Army private struggling to cope | 2:46:54 | 2:47:00 | |
and you get a full picture of the
damage caused by this Government on | 2:47:00 | 2:47:04 | |
living standards and public sector
pay. I would like the Government | 2:47:04 | 2:47:07 | |
front bench to consider that we once
built a land fit for heroes. What | 2:47:07 | 2:47:12 | |
has happened? Today we have had a
very good debate and I wish to | 2:47:12 | 2:47:21 | |
apologise to members of the House
who have made excellent | 2:47:21 | 2:47:28 | |
contributions but I have not got
time to vote to them will stop it is | 2:47:28 | 2:47:32 | |
truly say that our Armed Forces face
enormous problems. There is a huge | 2:47:32 | 2:47:36 | |
problem with recruitment and
retention and the scandalous levels | 2:47:36 | 2:47:44 | |
of renumeration, for men and women
prepared to put their lives on the | 2:47:44 | 2:47:47 | |
line to protect our country. In his
report, commissioned by the Prime | 2:47:47 | 2:47:56 | |
Minister, published in July this
year, the member forthrightly and | 2:47:56 | 2:48:03 | |
Richford talked about a perfect
storm against which military | 2:48:03 | 2:48:06 | |
recruiters have had a battle. As the
honourable member has said, the | 2:48:06 | 2:48:11 | |
regular strength of the UK's Armed
Forces is 5% lower than what has | 2:48:11 | 2:48:15 | |
been planned. There is also a
problem of retention. With more | 2:48:15 | 2:48:21 | |
personnel leaving the services than
joining. There are a number of | 2:48:21 | 2:48:26 | |
reasons why the Armed Forces are in
this predicament. Blame must rest | 2:48:26 | 2:48:32 | |
with how the Army recruits its
personnel and Capita must bear a | 2:48:32 | 2:48:39 | |
large responsibility. The hollowing
out in the ranks, which the right | 2:48:39 | 2:48:43 | |
honourable gentleman referred to in
this report, is caused by a number | 2:48:43 | 2:48:47 | |
of factors. There can be no doubt
that the privatisation of equipment | 2:48:47 | 2:48:50 | |
with recruitment of the Army and
other services has played a role. | 2:48:50 | 2:49:04 | |
Poor living accommodation is another
factor. I am sorry, time is short. | 2:49:04 | 2:49:07 | |
There is also the huge problem of
the levels of pay in the Armed | 2:49:07 | 2:49:11 | |
Forces. As the most recent pay
review body indicates, members of | 2:49:11 | 2:49:17 | |
the Armed Forces filled their pay is
being unfairly constrained and when | 2:49:17 | 2:49:23 | |
costs arise, private-sector earnings
are starting to recover, demands on | 2:49:23 | 2:49:31 | |
the Armed Forces have not
diminished. Time is limited. I | 2:49:31 | 2:49:36 | |
respectfully ask him to sit down.
The Government are introducing a | 2:49:36 | 2:49:44 | |
flexibility in the future pay
review. Let's be clear. The Armed | 2:49:44 | 2:49:49 | |
Forces pay review of 2017 says, the
former Chief Secretary to the | 2:49:49 | 2:49:55 | |
Treasury centredness to the pay
review body which said the | 2:49:55 | 2:49:58 | |
Government's policy and pay
restraint remained in place. The | 2:49:58 | 2:50:01 | |
letter says, we will fund public
sector workforce is for pay awards | 2:50:01 | 2:50:07 | |
on average of 1% a year for up to
2019 - 2020. The pay review body | 2:50:07 | 2:50:16 | |
report makes it clear that this is
the contest in which it is obliged | 2:50:16 | 2:50:22 | |
to work. -- the context. This point
has been well made by the member for | 2:50:22 | 2:50:27 | |
North Durham. If there is to be
greater flexibility... As the | 2:50:27 | 2:50:32 | |
Secretary of State has hinted, where
will the extra money come from? The | 2:50:32 | 2:50:36 | |
MoD is already undertaking a mini
defence review and significant cuts | 2:50:36 | 2:50:40 | |
are already being considered. There
are 1000 Marines at HMS work and HMS | 2:50:40 | 2:50:46 | |
Albion ready for the chop. It would
be totally unacceptable if any | 2:50:46 | 2:50:51 | |
further pay increases are funded by
further cuts to the defence budget. | 2:50:51 | 2:50:56 | |
There will be -- will be minister
indicate when he responds that they | 2:50:56 | 2:51:01 | |
have the courage to stand to the
Treasury and demand that extra money | 2:51:01 | 2:51:06 | |
is forthcoming for our brave men and
women in the Armed Forces? Where | 2:51:06 | 2:51:09 | |
will the money come from? We will
call for a 25% extra contributions | 2:51:09 | 2:51:18 | |
from large contributions, and we
will demand that the super rich | 2:51:18 | 2:51:23 | |
actually pay a little bit more
instead of enjoying the largess | 2:51:23 | 2:51:27 | |
which this Government has given
them. But I'm not hopeful that will | 2:51:27 | 2:51:34 | |
happen, not least because I
understand that while fighting for | 2:51:34 | 2:51:38 | |
more resources, the Secretary of
State and his friends... Order. It | 2:51:38 | 2:51:43 | |
is up to the shadow minister to give
way or not. My understanding was | 2:51:43 | 2:51:49 | |
there was no giving way earlier,
so... If there is tit-for-tat, that | 2:51:49 | 2:51:54 | |
is up to each individual. It is not
for the chair. What I do not want is | 2:51:54 | 2:52:03 | |
this continuous exchange of, will he
give way, I will not give way. I | 2:52:03 | 2:52:13 | |
think this is indicative of the
crass behaviour of the Ministry of | 2:52:13 | 2:52:17 | |
Defence which debating this
afternoon... I am not hopeful that | 2:52:17 | 2:52:21 | |
the ministers will stand up for the
Armed Forces which they claim to | 2:52:21 | 2:52:27 | |
support. Not least because I
understand that rather than fighting | 2:52:27 | 2:52:31 | |
for more resources, the Secretary of
State for Defence is actually | 2:52:31 | 2:52:35 | |
considering scrapping a special
allowance given to soldiers serving | 2:52:35 | 2:52:38 | |
in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll be
minister in his response, and I will | 2:52:38 | 2:52:43 | |
give him time to respond, will be
minister make a commitment to say | 2:52:43 | 2:52:50 | |
that they will not cut the special
service allowance which has been | 2:52:50 | 2:52:54 | |
talked about? As we approach
Remembrance Sunday, a number of | 2:52:54 | 2:52:59 | |
members have referred to us and it
is surely imperative that this House | 2:52:59 | 2:53:06 | |
unites in support of our Armed
Forces. This afternoon, we have | 2:53:06 | 2:53:11 | |
heard a number of strong
contributions in support of lifting | 2:53:11 | 2:53:15 | |
the pay cap. I very much hope that
all of us will support this notion | 2:53:15 | 2:53:20 | |
before us, and called for a fair pay
rise for our Armed Forces. Our Armed | 2:53:20 | 2:53:25 | |
Forces, especially at this time of
year, deserve nothing less. | 2:53:25 | 2:53:37 | |
Thank you. Just let me help. Sit
down a second. Mr Lancaster, I do | 2:53:37 | 2:53:44 | |
not know whether you are
deliberately trying to fluster the | 2:53:44 | 2:53:46 | |
chair, it is up to the opposition
when they sit down. The Minister has | 2:53:46 | 2:53:54 | |
asked for extra time. You should be
thanking Mr David for giving way to | 2:53:54 | 2:53:59 | |
get him the extra time. Let's hear
from Mr Ellwood. Thank you, Mr | 2:53:59 | 2:54:06 | |
Deputy Speaker and it is a pleasure
to respond to what has been a | 2:54:06 | 2:54:09 | |
passionate and mostly constructive
debate. It is a real pleasure to be | 2:54:09 | 2:54:14 | |
able to add my support which I think
is across the House for a noble | 2:54:14 | 2:54:21 | |
gallon and braved Armed Forces.
Before I go into the debate itself, | 2:54:21 | 2:54:25 | |
may I join the Prime Minister and
the whole house in sending our best | 2:54:25 | 2:54:30 | |
wishes, thoughts and prayers by
those affected by yet another | 2:54:30 | 2:54:33 | |
terrorist attack in Manhattan in New
York. I was born there and I worked | 2:54:33 | 2:54:37 | |
there as well and it is a reflection
of the types of security challenges | 2:54:37 | 2:54:44 | |
we continue to face not just in this
country but across the world. As the | 2:54:44 | 2:54:51 | |
Armed Forces minister said, we need
to look at this debate in the wider | 2:54:51 | 2:54:56 | |
context of fiscal responsibility.
That is the backdrop to which any | 2:54:56 | 2:54:59 | |
discussion on pay must be taken. It
is only with a growing economy that | 2:54:59 | 2:55:05 | |
we can responsibly see any changes
to funds for government departments. | 2:55:05 | 2:55:11 | |
Let's not forget that we actually
inherited a deficit of almost £150 | 2:55:11 | 2:55:16 | |
billion. It is clear that that is
now down by three quarters. But the | 2:55:16 | 2:55:21 | |
annual interest on the nation's debt
itself continues to be over £50 | 2:55:21 | 2:55:27 | |
billion every single year. And we
cannot simply take money if it does | 2:55:27 | 2:55:32 | |
not exist. But under this government
we see that the economy is growing. | 2:55:32 | 2:55:38 | |
We seek employment is up and it is
now possible to lift that 1% pay | 2:55:38 | 2:55:42 | |
freeze imposed by the Treasury and
this is good news. But today's | 2:55:42 | 2:55:50 | |
debate has focused primarily on
Armed Forces pay. But again we | 2:55:50 | 2:55:53 | |
cannot compare this directly to
other types of public sector pay in | 2:55:53 | 2:55:57 | |
health and the NHS and so forth, we
must look at those other aspects | 2:55:57 | 2:56:02 | |
which make wearing uniform very
different indeed. We have to | 2:56:02 | 2:56:06 | |
recognise that there is subsidised
accommodation, food, the X Factor | 2:56:06 | 2:56:10 | |
paid, the pensions package, the free
medical and dental care. The | 2:56:10 | 2:56:18 | |
allowances, for operational pay, and
the automatic pay progression which | 2:56:18 | 2:56:21 | |
has been touched on as well. These
are all factors that the Armed | 2:56:21 | 2:56:27 | |
Forces pay review body take into
consideration before any changes are | 2:56:27 | 2:56:30 | |
made. I want to ask the Minister
specifically on the issue of | 2:56:30 | 2:56:37 | |
pensions, the MoD's continuous
attitude survey shows the | 2:56:37 | 2:56:40 | |
dissatisfaction with the package was
at 38% in 2013. It is now at 52%. | 2:56:40 | 2:56:48 | |
Why? What I take from the continuous
attitude survey is, yes, there are | 2:56:48 | 2:56:53 | |
concerns across the how's about pay
and we have to recognise that, and | 2:56:53 | 2:56:58 | |
indeed with pensions as well. The
biggest concern is long periods of | 2:56:58 | 2:57:03 | |
separation and pressure on family
life and that is why we are | 2:57:03 | 2:57:07 | |
introducing the Armed Forces people
programme which alleviate the | 2:57:07 | 2:57:11 | |
pressure on separation of families.
We are providing a new joiner's | 2:57:11 | 2:57:16 | |
offer, a new accommodation model and
a new enterprise approach allowing | 2:57:16 | 2:57:23 | |
the high levels of capability in the
private sector to slide across into | 2:57:23 | 2:57:26 | |
the Armed Forces as well, as well as
that flexible engagement model that | 2:57:26 | 2:57:31 | |
we debated here on Monday. But we
must recognise, and it has been | 2:57:31 | 2:57:37 | |
reiterated across the House, how
different it is to wear a uniform in | 2:57:37 | 2:57:42 | |
today's context. It is becoming
tougher to recruit because we have | 2:57:42 | 2:57:48 | |
full employment. It is becoming
difficult to retain the cause of the | 2:57:48 | 2:57:53 | |
challenges and competition that we
have in public life. Let me just | 2:57:53 | 2:57:56 | |
finish and I will give way, unlike
the honourable spokesman for the | 2:57:56 | 2:58:02 | |
opposition who teased my honourable
friend and denied him the ability to | 2:58:02 | 2:58:08 | |
make a contribution. We need to
recognise there are different | 2:58:08 | 2:58:11 | |
circumstances and we need to get
people to step forward. The conduct | 2:58:11 | 2:58:16 | |
of war itself has changed. What we
are expecting of our services | 2:58:16 | 2:58:20 | |
personnel is different as well and
that is the context in which we find | 2:58:20 | 2:58:25 | |
ourselves and that is reflected in
recruitment and retention. I thank | 2:58:25 | 2:58:31 | |
the Minister for giving way. Mr
Deputy Speaker, I wanted to ask the | 2:58:31 | 2:58:38 | |
Minister, his ministerial colleagues
indicated the current course at | 2:58:38 | 2:58:44 | |
Sandhurst was to full capacity, but
I look at the details for the most | 2:58:44 | 2:58:49 | |
recent course and there were 210
cases taken up when the capacity is | 2:58:49 | 2:58:54 | |
at 270. Is it at capacity or not? I
will get my honourable friend the | 2:58:54 | 2:59:00 | |
Armed Forces minister to write to my
honourable friend. I am not going to | 2:59:00 | 2:59:04 | |
shy away from the challenges we
face. It is difficult to recruit and | 2:59:04 | 2:59:08 | |
retain in the manner we would like
to because of the circumstances | 2:59:08 | 2:59:12 | |
which are highlighted in my
honourable friend's report. The | 2:59:12 | 2:59:19 | |
Minister for the Armed Forces was
quick to his feet earlier to dispute | 2:59:19 | 2:59:22 | |
figures that I showed earlier that
the numbers leaving has increased | 2:59:22 | 2:59:27 | |
and furthermore the intake decrease
by 18%. Those are not my figures, | 2:59:27 | 2:59:31 | |
those are the government's own
figures. Would he care to | 2:59:31 | 2:59:37 | |
acknowledge that? Overall reserve
numbers are up, but again I will ask | 2:59:37 | 2:59:41 | |
the armed forces minister to write
to the honourable gentleman with | 2:59:41 | 2:59:44 | |
more detail. Moving on, I will not
give way. I think he does test the | 2:59:44 | 3:00:00 | |
patience of the House, Mr Deputy
Speaker. In rising to his feet after | 3:00:00 | 3:00:04 | |
denying my reward friend I don't
know how many times the opportunity | 3:00:04 | 3:00:08 | |
to intervene. The honourable member,
the spokesperson for the opposition | 3:00:08 | 3:00:14 | |
talk about the importance of
Remembrance Day which has been | 3:00:14 | 3:00:16 | |
repeated across the House, and also
the importance of pay its self. She | 3:00:16 | 3:00:22 | |
talked about the role of the Armed
Forces pay review body and they will | 3:00:22 | 3:00:26 | |
make their recommendations and that
will come through in March. The | 3:00:26 | 3:00:30 | |
honourable member for Glasgow South
used the opportunity to promote his | 3:00:30 | 3:00:34 | |
views on Trident which are not
shared across Baz. Indeed this | 3:00:34 | 3:00:38 | |
nation would become a lot weaker if
we got rid of Trident and that is | 3:00:38 | 3:00:42 | |
not in anybody's interest. My
honourable friend who wrote his | 3:00:42 | 3:00:48 | |
report highlighting some of the
challenges that we face, I agree we | 3:00:48 | 3:00:52 | |
need to work on improving diversity
and it is important we attract the | 3:00:52 | 3:00:57 | |
brightest and the best and that
includes moving up to 15% in 2020 | 3:00:57 | 3:01:04 | |
for women. I am grateful for the
work he is doing on that important | 3:01:04 | 3:01:07 | |
report. My honourable friend for
North Durham talked about the black | 3:01:07 | 3:01:13 | |
hole in finances in the defence
finances. We came into government | 3:01:13 | 3:01:17 | |
recognising there was nearly £1
billion missing because it had been | 3:01:17 | 3:01:22 | |
stolen from future budgets. Let's
take a step back. What we did when | 3:01:22 | 3:01:28 | |
we came into government is we found
there was a black hole in the | 3:01:28 | 3:01:32 | |
nation's finances, there was £150
million missing. A balanced the | 3:01:32 | 3:01:39 | |
books in the year 2000 and every
single year after that they spent | 3:01:39 | 3:01:43 | |
more and more money that they did
not have that belonged to the | 3:01:43 | 3:01:47 | |
taxpayer and that is why we ended up
with the deficit and the recession | 3:01:47 | 3:01:51 | |
we ended up with because they were
taking money that did not exist. I | 3:01:51 | 3:01:58 | |
am sorry that the camera and
Kool-Aid has now gone underground | 3:01:58 | 3:02:01 | |
again. Can I ask him to look at the
facts? Look at the report in 2010 | 3:02:01 | 3:02:09 | |
and what it said was that in the
equipment budget that if it was cut | 3:02:09 | 3:02:16 | |
on its current basis it would be six
billion and if it was not increased | 3:02:16 | 3:02:20 | |
in line with inflation over a
10-year period it would be 36, not | 3:02:20 | 3:02:24 | |
38. Order, order. If you take the
intervention, you cannot suddenly | 3:02:24 | 3:02:34 | |
say, I do not want to hear any more
of that. At least let him get to the | 3:02:34 | 3:02:39 | |
end. If I think it is too long, let
me take that decision. Minister. | 3:02:39 | 3:02:49 | |
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The
facts are very clear. A point of | 3:02:49 | 3:02:55 | |
order. The Minister has been here
that long, you know you have to sit | 3:02:55 | 3:03:04 | |
down. Let's follow the rules of
engagement. As ex-army personnel you | 3:03:04 | 3:03:08 | |
are very good at that. There is a
serious point here. The Minister... | 3:03:08 | 3:03:14 | |
Point of order. There is a serious
point here. He gave way to meet in | 3:03:14 | 3:03:23 | |
his point of order, the right
honourable gentleman, and then he | 3:03:23 | 3:03:26 | |
stood up when I had not finished.
But there is a serious point, what | 3:03:26 | 3:03:31 | |
he is saying is not true. As a
minister he should not be saying it. | 3:03:31 | 3:03:40 | |
No one would mislead the House with
an untruth. Thank you, we know that | 3:03:40 | 3:03:54 | |
is not that the honourable member
does not mean with the intent that | 3:03:54 | 3:03:56 | |
was given. All I was saying is that
accurate information must be given. | 3:03:56 | 3:04:05 | |
He will see the actual figures in a
report in 2010 instead of blaster. I | 3:04:05 | 3:04:12 | |
will accept accuracy. If it is going
to help, you will sit down. If you | 3:04:12 | 3:04:21 | |
are going to play the game, we will
start playing it. Minister, on your | 3:04:21 | 3:04:25 | |
feet. I make it clear, and I have a
huge amount of respect for the | 3:04:25 | 3:04:32 | |
honourable gentleman for the work
that he continues to do in | 3:04:32 | 3:04:36 | |
supporting our Armed Forces, but the
growth of the deficit since 2000 | 3:04:36 | 3:04:40 | |
moving forward increased and that is
the black hole that I was referring | 3:04:40 | 3:04:43 | |
to. I think we have milked this
subject enough for the moment. | 3:04:43 | 3:04:48 | |
Moving forward, the honourable
member for Stoke on Trent spoke | 3:04:48 | 3:04:55 | |
about the covenant. Thank you for
the work that she does on this and I | 3:04:55 | 3:05:00 | |
would like to meet the committee at
the earliest opportunity. My | 3:05:00 | 3:05:04 | |
honourable friend for Hemel
Hempstead spoke about the package of | 3:05:04 | 3:05:07 | |
financial support that is there and
that is important indeed, I have | 3:05:07 | 3:05:12 | |
touched on that. The honourable
member for St Helens spoke about the | 3:05:12 | 3:05:16 | |
reserve numbers and it is clear they
are going up. The honourable member | 3:05:16 | 3:05:22 | |
for Hampstead spoke passionately on
the Falklands campaign. The | 3:05:22 | 3:05:31 | |
honourable member of a South spoke
about the requirement for veterans | 3:05:31 | 3:05:43 | |
and I am pleased everybody has
worked towards that. The honourable | 3:05:43 | 3:05:47 | |
friend for Cheltenham spoke about
the importance of the equipment and | 3:05:47 | 3:05:52 | |
168 billion is being spent on this.
He also raised the point that | 3:05:52 | 3:05:56 | |
Labour's total cost of promises that
they have made so far in this | 3:05:56 | 3:06:01 | |
government has been £500 billion. I
do not know where that money will | 3:06:01 | 3:06:05 | |
come from. The honourable member for
Glasgow North East spoke about the | 3:06:05 | 3:06:11 | |
cats and traps. They were promoting
an e-mail, the electronic magnetic | 3:06:11 | 3:06:15 | |
launch system and that had not
matured in time and there is no way | 3:06:15 | 3:06:19 | |
that they would buy that amount
because they could not be launched | 3:06:19 | 3:06:24 | |
off the aircraft carriers because
there is no steam on board, it is | 3:06:24 | 3:06:30 | |
diesel and not powered by atomic
energy. My honourable friend for | 3:06:30 | 3:06:36 | |
Plymouth spoke about the fact that
he denied the fact he was a | 3:06:36 | 3:06:43 | |
government lackey. You will have to
sit down again. Point of order. I am | 3:06:43 | 3:06:55 | |
just getting some water. The
Minister is being economical with | 3:06:55 | 3:07:00 | |
the truth. What is absolutely
outrageous that the subject under | 3:07:00 | 3:07:07 | |
consideration is pay rises for the
Armed Forces, but the Minister has | 3:07:07 | 3:07:11 | |
hardly referred to it. People will
deliver figures in different ways | 3:07:11 | 3:07:16 | |
and the interpretation of those will
always be in dispute. Minister. I | 3:07:16 | 3:07:21 | |
was responding to a point that was
made by one of his opposition | 3:07:21 | 3:07:24 | |
colleagues. I was just coming to the
passion from my honourable friend | 3:07:24 | 3:07:31 | |
for Plymouth who speaks with, and
has done a service to this house in | 3:07:31 | 3:07:35 | |
the work in promoting the needs and
requirements for veterans and I hope | 3:07:35 | 3:07:39 | |
that continues as we move forward.
The rubble member for Gedling gave | 3:07:39 | 3:07:44 | |
an interesting and measured
contribution, the first one to | 3:07:44 | 3:07:47 | |
actually point out that what we need
to do is ask the question what we | 3:07:47 | 3:07:53 | |
want from our Armed Forces? What do
we want them to do? Only when you | 3:07:53 | 3:07:59 | |
ask that question can you determine
the size and the equipment that you | 3:07:59 | 3:08:02 | |
need and that is why we are
undertaking the capability review. | 3:08:02 | 3:08:06 | |
Finally, the honourable member for
Leeds North West who spoke about the | 3:08:06 | 3:08:12 | |
Poppy Appeal and it is a real honour
to visit the Poppy factory to see | 3:08:12 | 3:08:17 | |
the work they do in recognition and
work for Remembrance Sunday itself. | 3:08:17 | 3:08:23 | |
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker,
like all members in this house | 3:08:23 | 3:08:28 | |
today, this government wants to make
sure that our brave Armed Forces, | 3:08:28 | 3:08:33 | |
those men and women who give their
all for | 3:08:33 | 3:08:39 | |
Our services are serving in 25
operations around the world and | 3:08:39 | 3:08:45 | |
keeping us safe, enhancing our
reputation around the world and they | 3:08:45 | 3:08:48 | |
have the right to expect the best in
return. What the need for pay | 3:08:48 | 3:08:54 | |
discipline will remain, we remain
committed to ensuring their over all | 3:08:54 | 3:09:02 | |
package reflects the value we place
on their work. We await the next | 3:09:02 | 3:09:09 | |
review's findings with interest, but
as a defence minister and a former | 3:09:09 | 3:09:14 | |
officer, I'm determined to do
everything to make sure our people | 3:09:14 | 3:09:19 | |
get what they deserve. The question
is asked on order paper. As many of | 3:09:19 | 3:09:29 | |
that opinion say aye. To the
contrary no. The ayes have it. Now | 3:09:29 | 3:09:38 | |
the second opposition day motion
exiting the EU, sectoral impact | 3:09:38 | 3:09:49 | |
assessments. Sir Keir Starmer. | 3:09:49 | 3:09:53 | |
Thank you. Today's motion is about
transparency, accountability and | 3:09:58 | 3:10:04 | |
ensuring that Parliament can do its
job in scrutinising the Government. | 3:10:04 | 3:10:10 | |
It is a shame the Secretary of State
isn't here, but assuming that he is | 3:10:10 | 3:10:17 | |
on negotiating duties, I'm not going
to make a cheap point about that. I | 3:10:17 | 3:10:24 | |
have had private conversations with
the Secretary of State to say I | 3:10:24 | 3:10:29 | |
would make this clear if he was not
here at the beginning. It was | 3:10:29 | 3:10:36 | |
something I discussed beforehand.
The anxiety and uncertainty in the | 3:10:36 | 3:10:40 | |
country about the impact of the
Government's Brexit approach is felt | 3:10:40 | 3:10:47 | |
by businesses, communities and all
sectors of the economy. That is | 3:10:47 | 3:10:51 | |
perhaps inevitable given the size of
the task ahead. The Government | 3:10:51 | 3:10:55 | |
says... I will just make a start.
The Government says it is planning | 3:10:55 | 3:11:01 | |
for all eventualities, but if
relevant information and evidence is | 3:11:01 | 3:11:04 | |
not published in a responsible
fashion, businesses and people will | 3:11:04 | 3:11:07 | |
not be able to do so. On the 14th
December last year, the Secretary of | 3:11:07 | 3:11:15 | |
State revealed to the Brexit sub
committee that the Government was | 3:11:15 | 3:11:20 | |
working on sectoral impact analysis
in 57 areas. I think in the end it | 3:11:20 | 3:11:26 | |
was 58 areas. Thus began this battle
about transparency and | 3:11:26 | 3:11:33 | |
accountability. First, the
government said that it could not | 3:11:33 | 3:11:37 | |
even publish the list of the sectors
being analysed. When the member for | 3:11:37 | 3:11:46 | |
felt ham sought these on #309 30th
August she was rebuffed by a letter | 3:11:46 | 3:11:53 | |
of response. On Monday of this week
the list was published. Look at the | 3:11:53 | 3:12:00 | |
list, which I have here, two things
are obvious. The first is that in | 3:12:00 | 3:12:05 | |
many ways it is unremarkable and
could and should have been published | 3:12:05 | 3:12:09 | |
months ago. The second is that the
wide range of sectors analysed | 3:12:09 | 3:12:18 | |
demonstrate why it is important to
see the impact assessments. I will | 3:12:18 | 3:12:25 | |
give way. Why have the Labour Party
not found a single way to strengthen | 3:12:25 | 3:12:35 | |
the UK's bargaining position. Over
the course of the summer I set out | 3:12:35 | 3:12:43 | |
the opposition position in relation
to Brexit with great clarity. With | 3:12:43 | 3:12:52 | |
great clarity and as members
opposite will know if they're talk | 3:12:52 | 3:12:59 | |
ing to businesses, how warmly
received that has been by | 3:12:59 | 3:13:03 | |
businesses. That has been document
in what they have said and done. I | 3:13:03 | 3:13:08 | |
set that position up. I'm going to
press on. I'm grateful could he | 3:13:08 | 3:13:17 | |
explain in the interests of clarity
what now is the Labour Party's | 3:13:17 | 3:13:21 | |
policy about remaining in the
customs union after March 2019? This | 3:13:21 | 3:13:26 | |
has been absolutely clear from the
summer. It has been clear, it was | 3:13:26 | 3:13:34 | |
set out by me and repeated by me in
this House, repeated in my | 3:13:34 | 3:13:41 | |
conference speech and repeated by
Jeremy Corbyn. It is we should seek | 3:13:41 | 3:13:45 | |
transitional measures, because we
are not going to have reached the | 3:13:45 | 3:13:48 | |
final deal by March 2019, that these
measures should be on the same basic | 3:13:48 | 3:13:52 | |
terms as now and that means in the
single market n a customs union, | 3:13:52 | 3:13:58 | |
abide big the rules, accepting the
jurisdiction of the European court | 3:13:58 | 3:14:03 | |
of justice and there has been unity
about that position. I'm going to | 3:14:03 | 3:14:06 | |
press on. I will give way. I thank
my honourable friend for giving way | 3:14:06 | 3:14:12 | |
and it is absurd from the comments
from the Government side to come | 3:14:12 | 3:14:16 | |
across given a Prime Minister says
one thing about no deal, the Brexit | 3:14:16 | 3:14:22 | |
Secretary said no deal is a threat.
And why this is crucial, we are | 3:14:22 | 3:14:29 | |
talking of 29 million workers and we
don't know what those studies say. | 3:14:29 | 3:14:34 | |
They should be published. I was
going to just highlight three | 3:14:34 | 3:14:39 | |
sectors on the list, construction
and engineering, wring there are 2.9 | 3:14:39 | 3:14:46 | |
million jobs. Medical service and
social care where there are three | 3:14:46 | 3:14:51 | |
million involved and pharmaceuticals
where there are 50,000 jobs | 3:14:51 | 3:14:55 | |
involved. So it is obvious why this
is of such importance. I'm grateful, | 3:14:55 | 3:15:00 | |
I agree with him and the opposition
that these impact assessments should | 3:15:00 | 3:15:05 | |
be disclosed. They can be redacted.
Where we disagree is about the | 3:15:05 | 3:15:11 | |
Labour Party's position, we must be
clear it started with the leader of | 3:15:11 | 3:15:15 | |
the opposition saying Article 50
should be triggered the day after | 3:15:15 | 3:15:18 | |
the referendum and it has flip
flopped around. I'm delighted the | 3:15:18 | 3:15:21 | |
Labour Party has come to my way of
thinking that we should have a | 3:15:21 | 3:15:26 | |
transition period, retaining our
membership of the single market. I | 3:15:26 | 3:15:30 | |
hope they will go further and say we
will need a final deal. I hope to | 3:15:30 | 3:15:38 | |
see the member in the lobby with us
later if that is how she feels on | 3:15:38 | 3:15:43 | |
this motion. I have to say if you
look at what the Government's | 3:15:43 | 3:15:47 | |
position was ore the sum -- over the
summer there are five different | 3:15:47 | 3:15:52 | |
versions of it at least. It is
almost impossible to reconcile the | 3:15:52 | 3:15:56 | |
Foreign Secretary's approach with
that of others in the cabinet and | 3:15:56 | 3:15:59 | |
everyone knows it and to pretend
there is unity in the cabinet is an | 3:15:59 | 3:16:05 | |
absolute pretence. But let me stick
to this. I will give way. I thank | 3:16:05 | 3:16:10 | |
him for giving way. I do welcome the
transparency he has provided in | 3:16:10 | 3:16:15 | |
relation to the transition period.
But could I ask Haim what the Labour | 3:16:15 | 3:16:20 | |
Party policy is after the transition
period? Well I have been clear about | 3:16:20 | 3:16:26 | |
that as well and what the priorities
are, which is jobs and the economy | 3:16:26 | 3:16:30 | |
and we should retain the benefits of
the single market and the customs | 3:16:30 | 3:16:36 | |
union. The last debate just before 4
o'clock got fractious because of | 3:16:36 | 3:16:46 | |
interventions. None have been about
the motion yet. I apologise, so | 3:16:46 | 3:16:53 | |
they're merely... And my honourable
friend. I'm going to press on. The | 3:16:53 | 3:16:58 | |
idea that in these sectors. I will
give way. In response to the | 3:16:58 | 3:17:05 | |
honourable gentleman's point could I
request these documents not only be | 3:17:05 | 3:17:10 | |
released to his select committee,
but to all relevant committees? I'm | 3:17:10 | 3:17:20 | |
grateful for that intervention. I
will come to that, because we gave | 3:17:20 | 3:17:23 | |
some thought as to the process. I
can indicate to the House and to the | 3:17:23 | 3:17:28 | |
minister that if the principle of
disclosure is agreed, then we are | 3:17:28 | 3:17:33 | |
open for a discussion as to exactly
how that works. The Brexit select | 3:17:33 | 3:17:39 | |
committee seem the obvious
committee, but there is obvious | 3:17:39 | 3:17:43 | |
interest in other select committees
in the subject matter. Not least | 3:17:43 | 3:17:47 | |
medical services and social care
that will be of interest to the | 3:17:47 | 3:17:50 | |
member. I'm going to press on,
because I have barely got a sentence | 3:17:50 | 3:17:55 | |
in. I will give way later. But I'm
not making very much progress. So in | 3:17:55 | 3:18:04 | |
relation to the list of sectors,
initially that was not disclosed, | 3:18:04 | 3:18:09 | |
that was then disclosed on Monday.
In her freedom of information ask in | 3:18:09 | 3:18:15 | |
August, the member also asked the
scope and the terms of reference of | 3:18:15 | 3:18:22 | |
each sectoral analysis. This too has
been rebuffed. By a letter of 29th | 3:18:22 | 3:18:28 | |
September of this year. This time,
the Secretary of State's department | 3:18:28 | 3:18:37 | |
relied twon grounds. To disclose the
terms of reference would prejudice | 3:18:37 | 3:18:43 | |
the relationships between the UK and
another state and prejudice the | 3:18:43 | 3:18:48 | |
formulation of Government policy.
The first seemed a bit far-fetched, | 3:18:48 | 3:18:53 | |
the scope and terms of reference are
not even being disclosed. The second | 3:18:53 | 3:18:59 | |
is surprising, coming from the
current Secretary of State. Back in | 3:18:59 | 3:19:05 | |
December 1999 he was chair of the
Public Accounts Committee when the | 3:19:05 | 3:19:11 | |
freedom of information legislation
was before Parliament. Then on the | 3:19:11 | 3:19:18 | |
backbenches, he intervened strongly
in the debates. He said he wasn't | 3:19:18 | 3:19:24 | |
doing it from the sperest
perspective of a freedom of | 3:19:24 | 3:19:29 | |
information enthusiast, but applying
his own test and it was whether it | 3:19:29 | 3:19:33 | |
makes democracy and government work
better. He said, the class exemption | 3:19:33 | 3:19:42 | |
applying to all information relating
to the formation and development of | 3:19:42 | 3:19:48 | |
government policy is a ludicrous
blanket exception. Today from the | 3:19:48 | 3:19:54 | |
front bench, he relies on the
ludicrous exemption that from the | 3:19:54 | 3:20:01 | |
backbench he rallied against. Now
the reports. In a joint letter, | 3:20:01 | 3:20:07 | |
dated 11th October this year and
supported by 120 members of this | 3:20:07 | 3:20:14 | |
House, the member sought disclosure
of all the sectoral analysis. And | 3:20:14 | 3:20:24 | |
can I salute their work in pressing
the Government time and again on | 3:20:24 | 3:20:27 | |
this. The Government has responded
by saying that the impact | 3:20:27 | 3:20:34 | |
assessments cannot be disclosed,
because to do so would undermine the | 3:20:34 | 3:20:38 | |
UK's negotiating position. That is a
very important consideration. And I | 3:20:38 | 3:20:43 | |
have accepted all along that the
Government should not be into the | 3:20:43 | 3:20:49 | |
public domain information that could
undermine the UK's negotiating | 3:20:49 | 3:20:52 | |
position. But it does require some
broke and testing. The House will | 3:20:52 | 3:20:58 | |
recall that at this time last year,
when we the opposition were calling | 3:20:58 | 3:21:02 | |
for the Government to publish a
Brexit plan, that was initially | 3:21:02 | 3:21:08 | |
refused. It was claimed, yes guess
what, to do so would undermine our | 3:21:08 | 3:21:15 | |
negotiating position. Thus in the
exchange on 7th November last year, | 3:21:15 | 3:21:22 | |
the member for Leeds central pressed
the Secretary of State to reveal the | 3:21:22 | 3:21:26 | |
Government's plan and the Secretary
of State said it is no good creating | 3:21:26 | 3:21:30 | |
a public negotiating position which
has the simple effect of destroying | 3:21:30 | 3:21:35 | |
our ability to negotiate. Full stop.
The Prime Minister then coined the | 3:21:35 | 3:21:40 | |
phrase, no rung commentary and --
running commently and stuck to it | 3:21:40 | 3:21:47 | |
like glue. And in December we won a
motion that the Government should | 3:21:47 | 3:21:50 | |
publish a plan. It is not undermined
the negotiating position or the | 3:21:50 | 3:21:55 | |
publication of it has not undermined
the negotiating position. The | 3:21:55 | 3:22:03 | |
contents may well have done. The
claim that it would undermine the | 3:22:03 | 3:22:08 | |
negotiating position, I bear in mind
what the Secretary of State said to | 3:22:08 | 3:22:12 | |
the House of lords EU committee last
night, when he was pressed on this. | 3:22:12 | 3:22:16 | |
He said, I don't think you should
over estimate what's in them. | 3:22:16 | 3:22:22 | |
They're not economic models of each
sector, they're looking at how much | 3:22:22 | 3:22:25 | |
it depends on EU markets versus
other markets, what other | 3:22:25 | 3:22:30 | |
opportunities maybe what the
structures are. All those things | 3:22:30 | 3:22:36 | |
that inform a negotiation. But
they're not predictions. I will give | 3:22:36 | 3:22:41 | |
way. I'm grateful does he agree one
question he might ask is how the | 3:22:41 | 3:22:47 | |
ministers opposite know whether
these reports are going to undermine | 3:22:47 | 3:22:50 | |
our negotiating position, given that
last year week they told the Brexit | 3:22:50 | 3:22:55 | |
committee they hadn't even read
them. So why are they going to such | 3:22:55 | 3:23:02 | |
extents to protect them. I'm going
to come to that point. Playing down | 3:23:02 | 3:23:06 | |
the significance of the report last
night while playing up the need to | 3:23:06 | 3:23:12 | |
keep them secret, is an interesting
strategy that needs to be tested. | 3:23:12 | 3:23:17 | |
The Government's claim that to
disclose the reports or any part of | 3:23:17 | 3:23:22 | |
them also raises some fundamental
questions. One of which has been | 3:23:22 | 3:23:24 | |
touched on. The first is who has
read the 58 reports? On the 25th | 3:23:24 | 3:23:31 | |
October the Secretary of State under
questioning from the Brexit | 3:23:31 | 3:23:37 | |
committee indicated the Prime
Minister will have a summary of the | 3:23:37 | 3:23:40 | |
outcomes, but not necessarily to
have read them. | 3:23:40 | 3:23:49 | |
Later in
have read them. | 3:23:49 | 3:23:49 | |
Later in the
have read them. | 3:23:49 | 3:23:50 | |
Later in the session
have read them. | 3:23:50 | 3:23:50 | |
Later in the session he
have read them. | 3:23:50 | 3:23:50 | |
Later in the session he indicated
have read them. | 3:23:50 | 3:23:50 | |
Later in the session he indicated
the company had not seen the | 3:23:50 | 3:23:52 | |
analysis, "They will have seen
summary outcomes." That is all. | 3:23:52 | 3:23:57 | |
Capanagh has not read the impact
assessments in full that we are | 3:23:57 | 3:24:04 | |
debating this afternoon -- the
Cabinet. He may be interested to | 3:24:04 | 3:24:07 | |
know that when we asked the Health
Secretary on the Health Select | 3:24:07 | 3:24:11 | |
Committee yesterday if he had read
the full reports of great relevance | 3:24:11 | 3:24:15 | |
to the NHS and public health, he
seemed rather unsure. Is most | 3:24:15 | 3:24:21 | |
extraordinary, given the huge impact
that Brexit is going to have | 3:24:21 | 3:24:25 | |
negatively, particularly on our NHS
workforce, the Health Secretary | 3:24:25 | 3:24:29 | |
can't remember if he has even read
the reports? I am grateful for that | 3:24:29 | 3:24:34 | |
intervention. If the Secretary of
State for Exiting the EU was right | 3:24:34 | 3:24:38 | |
in his evidence to the Brexit Select
Committee, it appears he has not had | 3:24:38 | 3:24:41 | |
them. The other thing is in the
evidence it was clear, I think by | 3:24:41 | 3:24:48 | |
the Brexit Select Committee the
Secretary of State for Exiting the | 3:24:48 | 3:24:51 | |
EU was asked whether the reports are
being passed to the Scottish | 3:24:51 | 3:24:54 | |
Government, I think in reply to a
particular question from the | 3:24:54 | 3:24:59 | |
spokesperson for the SNP. The
Secretary of State didn't know. | 3:24:59 | 3:25:05 | |
These reports that are in lockdown,
that can't be seen, not a word of | 3:25:05 | 3:25:10 | |
which can be disclosed have not been
read by the Cabinet, it appears. | 3:25:10 | 3:25:14 | |
Nobody knows whether they have been
disclosed to the Scottish Government | 3:25:14 | 3:25:17 | |
or not, and yet nothing can be made
available to the House. I thank my | 3:25:17 | 3:25:23 | |
honourable friend for giving way.
Would he agree with me that there is | 3:25:23 | 3:25:27 | |
a hint of almost religious fervour
that perhaps if we keep our eyes | 3:25:27 | 3:25:31 | |
closed, how he is blocked, that
perhaps everything will be OK as we | 3:25:31 | 3:25:35 | |
leap off the cliff into the unknown?
I am grateful for that intervention | 3:25:35 | 3:25:39 | |
and I will give way. I'm grateful to
the honourable and learned gentleman | 3:25:39 | 3:25:45 | |
for giving way. On a point of
clarification, it was me who asked | 3:25:45 | 3:25:49 | |
the minister whether or not he would
share the impact assessment on the | 3:25:49 | 3:25:53 | |
Scottish economy with the Scottish
Government, and after I had | 3:25:53 | 3:25:55 | |
corrected him that has not in fact
been shared, he gave an undertaking | 3:25:55 | 3:25:59 | |
that it will be shared with the
Scottish Government. If that | 3:25:59 | 3:26:02 | |
assessment will be shared with the
Scottish Government, shouldn't the | 3:26:02 | 3:26:05 | |
assessments be shared with the other
relevant sectors? The Leonard | 3:26:05 | 3:26:09 | |
honourable member makes a very good
point, which is if some of these | 3:26:09 | 3:26:15 | |
reports can or have been shared with
some governments or administrations, | 3:26:15 | 3:26:21 | |
there is simply no basis for arguing
that they cannot be shared with this | 3:26:21 | 3:26:26 | |
parliament through the select
committees. I will give way. I thank | 3:26:26 | 3:26:33 | |
my honourable friend. Recently I
asked the Secretary of State for | 3:26:33 | 3:26:43 | |
Digital, culture, media and sport
what assessments her department was | 3:26:43 | 3:26:46 | |
involved in on Brexit and she
answered none. And yet I count at | 3:26:46 | 3:26:52 | |
least ten areas in which her
department is involved, or perhaps | 3:26:52 | 3:26:56 | |
it isn't involved. Does my
honourable friend agreed this begs | 3:26:56 | 3:26:59 | |
the question of how the government
is coordinating these reports? I can | 3:26:59 | 3:27:04 | |
see if I keep giving weight we are
going to have every department and | 3:27:04 | 3:27:08 | |
answers in relation to it and find
out that in fact none of them have | 3:27:08 | 3:27:12 | |
seen, analysed, read and considered
the impact assessments. The | 3:27:12 | 3:27:18 | |
Secretary of State... I am going to
try and make some progress, I have | 3:27:18 | 3:27:23 | |
given way. The Secretary of State
made it clear that all the Cabinet | 3:27:23 | 3:27:27 | |
had seen were summary outcomes, that
is all. If that position had changed | 3:27:27 | 3:27:30 | |
I'm sure the Minister would
intervene on me and clarify the | 3:27:30 | 3:27:34 | |
position. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is
an important point, because of these | 3:27:34 | 3:27:38 | |
impact assessments are so important
then they ought to be read by the | 3:27:38 | 3:27:44 | |
relevant Cabinet members in relation
to each of the sectors that they are | 3:27:44 | 3:27:49 | |
concerned with, and it is
extraordinary that they haven't | 3:27:49 | 3:27:51 | |
been. But it's also extraordinary in
another respect. Because, it raises | 3:27:51 | 3:28:00 | |
the question, who is making the
decision that these reports can't be | 3:28:00 | 3:28:03 | |
disclosed? Who is making that
decision? It cannot be the relevant | 3:28:03 | 3:28:09 | |
Cabinet members because they have
not read the reports. Before the | 3:28:09 | 3:28:15 | |
Brexit Select Committee the
Secretary of State was pretty hazy | 3:28:15 | 3:28:17 | |
about this. He said the government
do, to a large extent it comes to | 3:28:17 | 3:28:24 | |
me, but it would also depend on
which department it is. That's | 3:28:24 | 3:28:27 | |
interesting given the other
departments haven't read them. Some | 3:28:27 | 3:28:31 | |
of the stuff is also held by other
departments. So I do ask the | 3:28:31 | 3:28:35 | |
minister here today who is the
decision maker about nondisclosure | 3:28:35 | 3:28:39 | |
of these reports? Is it the
Secretary of State for Exiting the | 3:28:39 | 3:28:44 | |
EU? If not, who is it? Is there a
record... Instructions may be being | 3:28:44 | 3:29:00 | |
taken. I'm just going to press on
with this point and then I will give | 3:29:00 | 3:29:08 | |
way. Who is it? Is there a record of
the decision being made? The | 3:29:08 | 3:29:15 | |
decision to withhold information
from Parliament, a significant | 3:29:15 | 3:29:18 | |
decision. Is there a record of the
decision made for each report? Where | 3:29:18 | 3:29:23 | |
is that record? What is the criteria
actually being applied? And then | 3:29:23 | 3:29:31 | |
this, because a number of us in this
House, including myself, would have | 3:29:31 | 3:29:36 | |
had experience of handling sensitive
information. In my case, very | 3:29:36 | 3:29:42 | |
sensitive information about various
serious criminal offences. And | 3:29:42 | 3:29:46 | |
everybody who's been in that
position knows that you could only | 3:29:46 | 3:29:50 | |
justify a blanket ban if no less
form of publication is possible. | 3:29:50 | 3:29:55 | |
Blanket bans are very where Dunn, Mr
Deputy Speaker, even in the field of | 3:29:55 | 3:30:02 | |
counter terrorist legislation
blanket bans are very rare and the | 3:30:02 | 3:30:09 | |
government will normally find a way
to publish some of the material in | 3:30:09 | 3:30:13 | |
an acceptable form. Service is
extremely unusual, even for | 3:30:13 | 3:30:17 | |
sensitive material. So, can I ask
the Minister to deal with this? Has | 3:30:17 | 3:30:21 | |
consideration being given to read
action of some of the material that | 3:30:21 | 3:30:25 | |
is sensitive? -- redaction. Has
consideration being given to a | 3:30:25 | 3:30:32 | |
summary being provided to
Parliament? That's not uncommon in | 3:30:32 | 3:30:39 | |
sensitive criminal to. Can digest
not be given? Or are we seriously | 3:30:39 | 3:30:45 | |
expected to believe that not one
paragraph, not one sentence, not one | 3:30:45 | 3:30:52 | |
word can be disclosed to anyone in
this House. I will give way. I thank | 3:30:52 | 3:31:01 | |
the honourable gentleman. I'm
listening carefully to what he says | 3:31:01 | 3:31:03 | |
but I can only conclude that this is
a foolish and irresponsible debate | 3:31:03 | 3:31:06 | |
to have been called that he knows
there is a blanket ban on disclosing | 3:31:06 | 3:31:16 | |
advice to ministers. It is in the
ministerial code, it is in the civil | 3:31:16 | 3:31:21 | |
service code. That is absolutely
standard. And it is normal for | 3:31:21 | 3:31:25 | |
select committees themselves to
request information and not to get | 3:31:25 | 3:31:28 | |
the opposition, the official
opposition to do it on their behalf. | 3:31:28 | 3:31:35 | |
This is gameplaying. I'm surprised
that that intervention given the | 3:31:35 | 3:31:38 | |
concerns expressed by the Right
Honourable member for Broxtowe, the | 3:31:38 | 3:31:42 | |
Right Honourable member for
Beaconsfield and the honourable | 3:31:42 | 3:31:45 | |
member for Totnes. This is a shared
concern across the House. That | 3:31:45 | 3:31:50 | |
intervention, I'm afraid, is typical
of what's been going for 16 or 17 | 3:31:50 | 3:31:54 | |
months, which is that every time
somebody raises a legitimate | 3:31:54 | 3:32:02 | |
question it's suggested that somehow
they are frustrating or undermining | 3:32:02 | 3:32:04 | |
the process. Mr Deputy Speaker... Mr
Deputy Speaker, it's not unlike the | 3:32:04 | 3:32:14 | |
interventions that I stood here and
took a year ago when I was | 3:32:14 | 3:32:17 | |
suggesting that the plan should be
published. Exactly the same | 3:32:17 | 3:32:22 | |
intervention was given. Now, I'm
going to press on. Mr Deputy | 3:32:22 | 3:32:26 | |
Speaker, this is locked down. This
is locked down, a blanket ban. And | 3:32:26 | 3:32:35 | |
if the exemption for ministerial
advice was being relied on Kameda is | 3:32:35 | 3:32:39 | |
curious that that is not in the
letter in response to the freedom of | 3:32:39 | 3:32:43 | |
information request. That is not the
grounds that is actually being | 3:32:43 | 3:32:46 | |
relied upon. That is why we brought
this motion to this House. I am | 3:32:46 | 3:32:53 | |
going to press on. Mr Deputy
Speaker, you will have seen the | 3:32:53 | 3:32:57 | |
order paper for today. Coming from
someone such as myself who thinks we | 3:32:57 | 3:33:01 | |
should catapult Parliament into the
21st-century, the wording of the | 3:33:01 | 3:33:03 | |
motion is a little odd. The motion
borrows widely from Parliamentary | 3:33:03 | 3:33:10 | |
procedure used to require ministers
to lay before the House or a | 3:33:10 | 3:33:14 | |
committee of specific document.
Erskine May said this: each house | 3:33:14 | 3:33:20 | |
has the power to call for the
production of papers by means of a | 3:33:20 | 3:33:24 | |
motion. The power to send for papers
by means of emotion for unopposed | 3:33:24 | 3:33:29 | |
return returns to papers which are
in the possession of ministers or | 3:33:29 | 3:33:32 | |
which ministers have the authority
to obtain. That's the procedure | 3:33:32 | 3:33:37 | |
that's widely been used for many
decades, the opposition whips tell | 3:33:37 | 3:33:41 | |
me, for many centuries. If anybody
doubts the procedure, today on page | 3:33:41 | 3:33:48 | |
three of the order paper it will be
seen that the Home Secretary, in | 3:33:48 | 3:33:53 | |
fact, has used the same procedure in
relation to a different report. Now, | 3:33:53 | 3:33:58 | |
what's important about this? I will
in Just A Minute. What's important | 3:33:58 | 3:34:04 | |
about this procedure is that, Mr
Deputy Speaker, we believe it is a | 3:34:04 | 3:34:10 | |
binding motion. That makes it
hopefully impossible for the | 3:34:10 | 3:34:15 | |
government to pull its usual
Wednesday afternoon trick of not | 3:34:15 | 3:34:20 | |
voting on opposition Day motions, or
not taking any notice of them. That | 3:34:20 | 3:34:23 | |
is why we have chosen the procedure
that we have. Let me be clear, Mr | 3:34:23 | 3:34:28 | |
Deputy Speaker, our motion does not
require the blanket publication | 3:34:28 | 3:34:33 | |
without further consideration.
Instead it would require that the | 3:34:33 | 3:34:38 | |
documents covered in the list should
be provided to the Brexit Select | 3:34:38 | 3:34:45 | |
Committee, or other select
committees if the Government's | 3:34:45 | 3:34:47 | |
concern is that that is too limited
and it ought to get all the select | 3:34:47 | 3:34:52 | |
committees, then we are very open to
that discussion. But that it should | 3:34:52 | 3:34:57 | |
go to the Brexit Select Committee.
Then it would be for that committee, | 3:34:57 | 3:35:02 | |
or any other Select Committee, to
decide which documents should or | 3:35:02 | 3:35:07 | |
should not be published, and it
would also fall to the committee to | 3:35:07 | 3:35:10 | |
decide in what form publication
should occur. Why, you might say, | 3:35:10 | 3:35:16 | |
the Brexit Select Committee? It is
eight cross-party committee, has a | 3:35:16 | 3:35:22 | |
lot of expertise and support staff,
it has a government majority, so we | 3:35:22 | 3:35:29 | |
can't accuse the opposition of being
party political here. It is a | 3:35:29 | 3:35:33 | |
trusted and responsible committee.
-- a cross-party committee. I will | 3:35:33 | 3:35:37 | |
give way in just a minute. We are
open to hearing from the government | 3:35:37 | 3:35:41 | |
if they have alternative mechanisms
or procedures to allow publication | 3:35:41 | 3:35:45 | |
in an appropriate fashion. We're not
wedded to the form that we have put | 3:35:45 | 3:35:50 | |
forward. We are wedded to
challenging the blanket approach | 3:35:50 | 3:35:55 | |
that the government has taken. I
will give way to. Very grateful to | 3:35:55 | 3:36:00 | |
the honourable gentleman for giving
way. I am one member of this House | 3:36:00 | 3:36:04 | |
welcomes the use of a 19th-century
procedure to hold the government to | 3:36:04 | 3:36:08 | |
account. There is one question I
have for him, and that is why he is | 3:36:08 | 3:36:13 | |
asking for this information for the
Committee on Exiting the European | 3:36:13 | 3:36:17 | |
Union without a formal motion having
been passed by that committee to | 3:36:17 | 3:36:20 | |
request these papers? Because that's
not necessary and this is an | 3:36:20 | 3:36:27 | |
important motion, and because in
recent weeks we have seen contempt | 3:36:27 | 3:36:35 | |
for motions in this House. Week
after week on opposition day motions | 3:36:35 | 3:36:40 | |
by a government that is too weak to
turn up, or too weak to accept the | 3:36:40 | 3:36:46 | |
outcome, and therefore we have
chosen a procedure which is binding | 3:36:46 | 3:36:49 | |
on this government. Mr Deputy
Speaker, only a weak government | 3:36:49 | 3:36:57 | |
pushes Parliament away and ignores
the facts. It should not require an | 3:36:57 | 3:37:02 | |
arcane parliamentary procedure to
force the government to release | 3:37:02 | 3:37:07 | |
these documents. But after ten
months of trying that is what | 3:37:07 | 3:37:10 | |
Parliament now has to do. The
current impasse prevents Parliament | 3:37:10 | 3:37:15 | |
doing its job, it undermines
accountability and is inconsistent | 3:37:15 | 3:37:19 | |
with transparency. The government
should support the motion before the | 3:37:19 | 3:37:21 | |
House today. | 3:37:21 | 3:37:23 | |
The question is as on the order
paper. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an | 3:37:26 | 3:37:33 | |
important issue and we have always
taken incredibly seriously our | 3:37:33 | 3:37:37 | |
commitment to transparency in these
negotiations but we also taking | 3:37:37 | 3:37:39 | |
credibly seriously our commitment to
the national interest and a vote in | 3:37:39 | 3:37:45 | |
this House last December voted we
should not publish anything that | 3:37:45 | 3:37:48 | |
undermines it. We have always tried
to strike the right balance. In a | 3:37:48 | 3:37:52 | |
moment, between those two, and it's
our intention that we will continue | 3:37:52 | 3:37:55 | |
to do that with our response to this
motion today. Let me start by taking | 3:37:55 | 3:37:59 | |
each part in the motion in turn, and
at this response the motion and then | 3:37:59 | 3:38:03 | |
I will give way. The first part of
the motion calls for ministers to | 3:38:03 | 3:38:07 | |
publish the list of sectors analyse,
and this is the Right Honourable and | 3:38:07 | 3:38:11 | |
Leonard Jan Kliment acknowledged has
already been done before the motion | 3:38:11 | 3:38:13 | |
was tabled. I acknowledge that and
just to explain we were advised by | 3:38:13 | 3:38:19 | |
the Parliamentary authorities that
needed to be in the motion in order | 3:38:19 | 3:38:21 | |
for the second part to be triggered
but I acknowledged they were | 3:38:21 | 3:38:24 | |
published on Monday. | 3:38:24 | 3:38:27 | |
That list was published in our
response to the Lord's EU committee | 3:38:27 | 3:38:36 | |
on Brexit. As set out in the
document we published we estimate | 3:38:36 | 3:38:43 | |
that the 58 sectors covered cover
around 88% of the economy and | 3:38:43 | 3:38:48 | |
provide a framework from which to
analyse the entire economic. This | 3:38:48 | 3:38:53 | |
has helped cover all relevant parts
of economy. Given that list was | 3:38:53 | 3:38:57 | |
published we feel that the first
part of motion has been addressed. | 3:38:57 | 3:39:03 | |
The second part calls for the impact
assessment to be provided to the | 3:39:03 | 3:39:08 | |
committee of the exiting the
European Union. Would he confirm | 3:39:08 | 3:39:17 | |
that the list of sectors was not
published, it wasn't a ministerial | 3:39:17 | 3:39:23 | |
statement and directly to the House,
despite almost 120 MPs calling for | 3:39:23 | 3:39:28 | |
it to be published. Would he confirm
that the vote of Parliament that he | 3:39:28 | 3:39:34 | |
talked about from October to
December last year it was opposition | 3:39:34 | 3:39:39 | |
day motions that he is referring to.
Just to let those who are doing | 3:39:39 | 3:39:46 | |
speeches, it will be a five-minute
limit. I'm happy to confirm what I | 3:39:46 | 3:39:52 | |
have said in terms of form of
publication of document and yes, it | 3:39:52 | 3:39:58 | |
was, interestingly, it was a
government amendment on opposition | 3:39:58 | 3:40:01 | |
day which the opposition accepted
and which was supported by both | 3:40:01 | 3:40:05 | |
sides of the House. I think the
honourable gentleman has repeated | 3:40:05 | 3:40:09 | |
today his acknowledgement of that
principle. With regard to that | 3:40:09 | 3:40:13 | |
request for publishing impact
assessments I want to highlight the | 3:40:13 | 3:40:17 | |
number of conflicts responsibilities
for ministers with regard to that. I | 3:40:17 | 3:40:22 | |
will give way. Thank you for giving
way. Is the minister's understanding | 3:40:22 | 3:40:27 | |
from what has been said from the
front bench shadow spokesperson on | 3:40:27 | 3:40:32 | |
this that he has not bothered not
only consulting with select | 3:40:32 | 3:40:36 | |
committee members before making his
proposal, but he has not consulted | 3:40:36 | 3:40:41 | |
with the chairman of committee and
has drawn up this wheeze as a way of | 3:40:41 | 3:40:46 | |
trying to get these documents out
any way. That is what is being | 3:40:46 | 3:40:52 | |
proposed today. I take the concerns
seriously. I think these... What is | 3:40:52 | 3:40:57 | |
being proposed does need to be
checked against a number of | 3:40:57 | 3:41:01 | |
significant issues to do with the
national interest and the | 3:41:01 | 3:41:04 | |
responsibilities of ministers and
the crown with regard to the | 3:41:04 | 3:41:06 | |
information that we hold. So I want
to touch on that point before I give | 3:41:06 | 3:41:10 | |
way. But in a moment if I may. The
Government recognises that | 3:41:10 | 3:41:15 | |
Parliament has rights relating to
the publication of documents that | 3:41:15 | 3:41:18 | |
that is one of reasons why we have
been as open as possible with | 3:41:18 | 3:41:21 | |
Parliament. In this case, the
opposition have taken an approach | 3:41:21 | 3:41:28 | |
based on an obscure Parliamentary
rule that is not generally in use | 3:41:28 | 3:41:32 | |
since the 19th century. It is mostly
used to provide the publication of | 3:41:32 | 3:41:38 | |
information that is provided by
Parliament. I give way. Thank you, | 3:41:38 | 3:41:42 | |
he is making a powerful argument and
I notice a flurry of activity on the | 3:41:42 | 3:41:48 | |
Labour benches when the chairman is
asked to confirm his interest in is | 3:41:48 | 3:41:53 | |
in matter. The right process has not
been followed. The right process is | 3:41:53 | 3:41:57 | |
the select committee should discuss
it and should make the request, the | 3:41:57 | 3:42:02 | |
select committee should come to the
house and ask for it not to try and | 3:42:02 | 3:42:06 | |
short circuit. What is being done is
a misuse of the processes of this | 3:42:06 | 3:42:10 | |
House. My honourable friend makes
his point powerfully. I'm sure we | 3:42:10 | 3:42:15 | |
will hear from the chairman of
select committee. Ministers do have | 3:42:15 | 3:42:21 | |
a clear obligation not to disclose
information when it would not be in | 3:42:21 | 3:42:28 | |
the public interest. The key
national interest is ensuring the | 3:42:28 | 3:42:32 | |
best outcome from our negotiations
with the EU. As the honourable | 3:42:32 | 3:42:37 | |
gentleman himself accepted, that...
Putting all the information in the | 3:42:37 | 3:42:41 | |
public domain could undermine our
negotiating position. Further more, | 3:42:41 | 3:42:46 | |
we have to consider the ability and
the importance of ministers | 3:42:46 | 3:42:51 | |
receiving unvarnished advice without
the risks of it being published. | 3:42:51 | 3:42:55 | |
Much of the development of this
analysis has helped to inform advice | 3:42:55 | 3:43:00 | |
to Ministers regarding our exit of
the EU. If this motion were to pass | 3:43:00 | 3:43:04 | |
we would need to reflect on these
constraints and responsibilities | 3:43:04 | 3:43:08 | |
when it comes to passing information
to a committee. I take note of | 3:43:08 | 3:43:13 | |
points that the he made about
redaction or summary, given the | 3:43:13 | 3:43:23 | |
generosity of his approach, we won't
oppose is in motion today. But I do | 3:43:23 | 3:43:27 | |
say that we need to look at the
content of the analysis and as he | 3:43:27 | 3:43:30 | |
quoted, the Secretary of State
before the Lords EU committee | 3:43:30 | 3:43:35 | |
yesterday, there have been some
misunderstanding about what this | 3:43:35 | 3:43:39 | |
sectoral allowance is. It not a
series of 38 economic impact | 3:43:39 | 3:43:45 | |
assessments. Does he not think that
he and his government have a | 3:43:45 | 3:43:52 | |
responsibility to the people who
voted either leave or remain to tell | 3:43:52 | 3:43:56 | |
them the real impact and if he does
not, that they will not turn on the | 3:43:56 | 3:44:00 | |
people who hid the information from
them. Will he stop governing in | 3:44:00 | 3:44:04 | |
secret and make sure the people that
are running this country and the | 3:44:04 | 3:44:07 | |
people who voted have all the
information and the truth? I have | 3:44:07 | 3:44:12 | |
been clear we have a responsibility
to people on all sides of the | 3:44:12 | 3:44:16 | |
referendum debate to deliver a
successful outcome. But that does | 3:44:16 | 3:44:24 | |
require require keeping some
information confidential for | 3:44:24 | 3:44:27 | |
negotiating. I thank him for giving
way. Does he agree that while the | 3:44:27 | 3:44:35 | |
honourable gentleman opposite is an
expert lawyer, he is quite clearly a | 3:44:35 | 3:44:41 | |
very lacking negotiator. Because
putting this level of information | 3:44:41 | 3:44:47 | |
into the hand of the people we are
negotiating with could seriously | 3:44:47 | 3:44:52 | |
undermine our ability to do the
right thing for the British people. | 3:44:52 | 3:44:58 | |
My honourable friend makes a key
point. It is very important that as | 3:44:58 | 3:45:04 | |
we approach these negotiations we do
with a firm view of the national | 3:45:04 | 3:45:07 | |
interest in mind. I will give way.
For the minister for his excellent | 3:45:07 | 3:45:13 | |
speech, but he had told us that the
Government will not seek to vote | 3:45:13 | 3:45:19 | |
against this motion. On that basis,
this motion will be passed. In that | 3:45:19 | 3:45:24 | |
event, what will the government then
do? The Government always pays | 3:45:24 | 3:45:31 | |
careful attention to the views of
this House. As I have said, we have | 3:45:31 | 3:45:35 | |
done in the past. And we will
respond appropriately. To return to | 3:45:35 | 3:45:43 | |
the analysis, because this is an
important point, we have been | 3:45:43 | 3:45:46 | |
looking at 58 sectors and other
issues to inform our negotiating | 3:45:46 | 3:45:52 | |
position. I'm grateful will the
minister express his view on whether | 3:45:52 | 3:46:02 | |
this is a binding motion, according
to the procedures of this House? It | 3:46:02 | 3:46:10 | |
is not and my job is to interpret
the procedures of the House. We will | 3:46:10 | 3:46:18 | |
take note of whatever the House
decides on this and to make some | 3:46:18 | 3:46:22 | |
progress... Point of order. Given
the exchange that we have heard, | 3:46:22 | 3:46:27 | |
would it be possible to have a
ruling from the chair about the | 3:46:27 | 3:46:31 | |
enforceability and binding nature of
this motion? I thank the honourable | 3:46:31 | 3:46:40 | |
gentleman for his point of order.
And the immediate answer is that no, | 3:46:40 | 3:46:47 | |
it would not be possible at this
moment to have a ruling from the | 3:46:47 | 3:46:50 | |
chair. The fact is that the
minister, the minister has answered | 3:46:50 | 3:46:56 | |
the question, I appreciate that the
honourable gentleman doesn't like | 3:46:56 | 3:46:59 | |
the minister's answer to the
question, the honourable lady on the | 3:46:59 | 3:47:07 | |
Government benches asked a straight
question, the minister gave a | 3:47:07 | 3:47:10 | |
straight answer. It is not nor the
chair to decide how the minister | 3:47:10 | 3:47:15 | |
should answer the question. I will
clarify that we are... Point of | 3:47:15 | 3:47:24 | |
order. Order. Order. There was
nothing further to that point of | 3:47:24 | 3:47:33 | |
order, because I have asked the
point of order. If the honourable | 3:47:33 | 3:47:38 | |
lady has a different point of order,
then I will hear her different point | 3:47:38 | 3:47:42 | |
of order. I think if I may say, that
the point of order was raised and I | 3:47:42 | 3:47:47 | |
raise it again, was whether or not
this motion in the view of the chair | 3:47:47 | 3:47:53 | |
is a binding motion. Forgive me.
That is the question. She' answered | 3:47:53 | 3:48:00 | |
that. No, he didn't. Order. The
honourable lady knows that the chair | 3:48:00 | 3:48:07 | |
will not become involved in an
argument between one front bench and | 3:48:07 | 3:48:11 | |
another. One side of the House and
the other. The minister has... | 3:48:11 | 3:48:17 | |
Order. Do not shout when I'm
speaking from the chair. The | 3:48:17 | 3:48:24 | |
minister has the floor, the minister
has heard the points that are being | 3:48:24 | 3:48:28 | |
made and it is for the minister to
answer them. Minister. The House... | 3:48:28 | 3:48:36 | |
Order. On a different point of order
Sir. I would like to ask what advice | 3:48:36 | 3:48:45 | |
you might be able to get from the
clerk of the House during this | 3:48:45 | 3:48:49 | |
debate on whether this motion is
binding or not. It is important for | 3:48:49 | 3:48:53 | |
the House to know that information.
I appreciate you may not be able to | 3:48:53 | 3:48:58 | |
rule on it at this moment. I'm
grateful for the honourable | 3:48:58 | 3:49:02 | |
gentleman's advice. Thank you.
Minister. Thank you. The House was | 3:49:02 | 3:49:07 | |
keen to hear about some of this
analysis and I thought it must be | 3:49:07 | 3:49:13 | |
helpful if I set out some of the
details. It is not a series of 58 | 3:49:13 | 3:49:19 | |
economic impact assess ements. It is
a cross sect chural analysis. It | 3:49:19 | 3:49:26 | |
draws on analysis across government.
But it isn't the case and I don't | 3:49:26 | 3:49:32 | |
leave this department have said it
is the case that there are 58 | 3:49:32 | 3:49:38 | |
economic impact assessments. But
surised... We can discuss all sorts | 3:49:38 | 3:49:49 | |
of processes of whether it will
undermine negotiations, but will he | 3:49:49 | 3:49:55 | |
not agree that withholding this
information is becoming count | 3:49:55 | 3:50:01 | |
irproductive and it looks like it is
hiding bad news. The Government will | 3:50:01 | 3:50:05 | |
take a careful view and I will come
to where we have disclosed | 3:50:05 | 3:50:10 | |
information where we see it in the
national interest to do so, of | 3:50:10 | 3:50:12 | |
course we will. But to return to the
point of analysis, it ranges from | 3:50:12 | 3:50:20 | |
high level analysis to more granular
analysis. It considers alternatives | 3:50:20 | 3:50:28 | |
after we leave, as well at looking
at existing precedents. This | 3:50:28 | 3:50:33 | |
analysis is evolving as we discussed
the other day and being updated. I | 3:50:33 | 3:50:43 | |
will give way. Is it his contention
that businesses will have the same | 3:50:43 | 3:50:48 | |
benefits outside the single market
as we have inside? I would say to | 3:50:48 | 3:50:53 | |
the honourable gentleman I don't
think I have made that contention. | 3:50:53 | 3:50:57 | |
But what we do need to do is ensure
that businesses have the best | 3:50:57 | 3:51:02 | |
outcome and it is very important to
note this analysis is closely tied | 3:51:02 | 3:51:07 | |
to our negotiating position. There
is a significant chance it will be | 3:51:07 | 3:51:12 | |
detrimentam to our interest in
negotiation to publish all the | 3:51:12 | 3:51:16 | |
analysis in full. You're reading
advice over your shoulder. He is | 3:51:16 | 3:51:25 | |
sitting there right now. I think
that is out of order. I'm grateful | 3:51:25 | 3:51:30 | |
for the protection of the honourable
gentleman. It is quite in order and | 3:51:30 | 3:51:38 | |
normal for a member to approach the
chair. It is not normal for anyone | 3:51:38 | 3:51:46 | |
to read my papers while I'm on my
feet. Thank you. Minister. Thank | 3:51:46 | 3:51:50 | |
you. It has been a lively session so
far. To inform our approach and | 3:51:50 | 3:51:59 | |
continue informing it I will give
way in a moment. We are conducting a | 3:51:59 | 3:52:03 | |
programme of engagement with
business and third parties and | 3:52:03 | 3:52:07 | |
working with industry and other
departments to have the best | 3:52:07 | 3:52:10 | |
information available to negotiate
in the best possible position. In | 3:52:10 | 3:52:14 | |
July and September we held events
across groups consisting of five | 3:52:14 | 3:52:22 | |
main business representative
organisations to ensure that | 3:52:22 | 3:52:23 | |
business is heard and I was with
them this week. The Prime Minister | 3:52:23 | 3:52:29 | |
chaired a quarterly business
advisory council too hear on key | 3:52:29 | 3:52:34 | |
issues. Deputy Ministers alone have
undertaken a wide ranging programme | 3:52:34 | 3:52:41 | |
of stake holder engagement. Order.
We have another point of order. I | 3:52:41 | 3:52:47 | |
wondered in the intervening period
since the previous points order | 3:52:47 | 3:52:53 | |
whether you had managed to seek
advice on the clerk on the binding | 3:52:53 | 3:52:58 | |
nature of this motion. On that point
of order, the House will be aware | 3:52:58 | 3:53:06 | |
that the motion before us is a
humble address to be presented to | 3:53:06 | 3:53:10 | |
her Majesty. It is a motion before
the house. We are currently debating | 3:53:10 | 3:53:18 | |
that motion and it is absolutely
correct that there should be | 3:53:18 | 3:53:23 | |
differences of opinion about the
effect of the motion and the way in | 3:53:23 | 3:53:27 | |
which the motion should be debated
and what should happen to the | 3:53:27 | 3:53:32 | |
motion. At this stage, I would say
only that a motion of this kind has | 3:53:32 | 3:53:42 | |
in the past been seen as effective
or binding that. Does not mean that | 3:53:42 | 3:53:48 | |
I'm making a ruling at this point
about the nature of the motion | 3:53:48 | 3:53:53 | |
before us today. I will reiterate
what I said before, that while it is | 3:53:53 | 3:54:01 | |
correct for the chair to make a
ruling on what happens here in the | 3:54:01 | 3:54:07 | |
chamber, it is for the government to
decide how the government will | 3:54:07 | 3:54:14 | |
proceed having considered the
opinions of the house. It would of | 3:54:14 | 3:54:19 | |
course be quite wrong for the
government not to pay any attention | 3:54:19 | 3:54:23 | |
to a decision taken by this House,
but the way in which the minister | 3:54:23 | 3:54:29 | |
interprets what he and his
colleagues should do after the House | 3:54:29 | 3:54:34 | |
has expressed an opinion is a matter
not for the chair, but for the | 3:54:34 | 3:54:37 | |
minister. | 3:54:37 | 3:54:46 | |
Madam Deputy Speaker... Point of
order, Jacob Rees-Mogg. I wondered | 3:54:46 | 3:54:52 | |
if it might be helpful to refer
members to page 119 of Erskine May, | 3:54:52 | 3:54:57 | |
which points out that in a recent
case in the Canadian House of | 3:54:57 | 3:55:02 | |
Commons, in not entirely dissimilar
circumstances viewed it as a breach | 3:55:02 | 3:55:07 | |
of privilege when information was
not provided. I thank the honourable | 3:55:07 | 3:55:15 | |
gentleman for directing me to page
819 of Erskine May, which I will | 3:55:15 | 3:55:19 | |
look at as soon as I have an
opportunity so to do. But... | 3:55:19 | 3:55:29 | |
LAUGHTER
I'm answering the point of order... | 3:55:29 | 3:55:33 | |
But the honourable gentleman will be
aware of the rules on privilege, as | 3:55:33 | 3:55:38 | |
I am, and the way in which those
rules can be interpreted. And, like | 3:55:38 | 3:55:45 | |
him, I served for many weeks on a
committee not long ago considering | 3:55:45 | 3:55:50 | |
the way in which privilege can be
applied. If I were to say it's a | 3:55:50 | 3:55:57 | |
grey area that would not be an
exaggeration. There is no black and | 3:55:57 | 3:56:01 | |
white in the way in which privilege
has applied. I thank the honourable | 3:56:01 | 3:56:07 | |
gentleman for drawing to my
attention this particular point in | 3:56:07 | 3:56:11 | |
Erskine May. Point of order, Sir.
Erskine May is written in black and | 3:56:11 | 3:56:16 | |
white and it makes clear as the
honourable member already referred | 3:56:16 | 3:56:19 | |
to it, I'm giving you time to read
page 819, case you needed to command | 3:56:19 | 3:56:25 | |
Madam Deputy Speaker. It makes it
absolutely clear that if we chose to | 3:56:25 | 3:56:29 | |
the House could refer each and every
minister who chose to of the House | 3:56:29 | 3:56:36 | |
to the committee on privileges and
they could be suspended from | 3:56:36 | 3:56:39 | |
membership of the House. I am
grateful to the honourable gentleman | 3:56:39 | 3:56:43 | |
for giving me time and I must say it
wouldn't matter whether Erskine May | 3:56:43 | 3:56:46 | |
was written in black and white or
green and yellow, or purple and | 3:56:46 | 3:56:51 | |
orange, the fact is that the rules
on privilege are not a matter which | 3:56:51 | 3:56:55 | |
can be decided immediately without
consideration of all of the | 3:56:55 | 3:57:03 | |
circumstances, and I am not going to
make a ruling here and now about the | 3:57:03 | 3:57:07 | |
way in which the Minister and his
colleagues should interpret what is | 3:57:07 | 3:57:11 | |
happening in the House today. Mr
Duncan Smith. But Erskine May is | 3:57:11 | 3:57:19 | |
quite clear, the reference to the
Canadian position was that the | 3:57:19 | 3:57:23 | |
government should choose to ignore
what the House had said and had | 3:57:23 | 3:57:28 | |
called for. The government has made
it clear already in the opening | 3:57:28 | 3:57:31 | |
remarks that it has chosen not to
ignore this particular outcome, | 3:57:31 | 3:57:37 | |
whatever that outcome is. And that
is clear. The word ignore is very | 3:57:37 | 3:57:41 | |
clear. It means to disregard and
refuse to reflect on, the government | 3:57:41 | 3:57:46 | |
has made it clear that it is not
ignoring it and I would therefore | 3:57:46 | 3:57:50 | |
save this tautological debate should
now and. I am grateful to the Right | 3:57:50 | 3:57:54 | |
Honourable member for his point of
order. The difference of opinion | 3:57:54 | 3:57:58 | |
between the Right Honourable
gentleman and the honourable | 3:57:58 | 3:58:01 | |
gentleman on the other side of the
House and the Right Honourable lady | 3:58:01 | 3:58:05 | |
pool A can hear making further
points of order on my right simply | 3:58:05 | 3:58:17 | |
proves the point I have made to the
House, which is that privilege is | 3:58:17 | 3:58:20 | |
not a black and white matter --
lady, who I can hear. Privilege and | 3:58:20 | 3:58:25 | |
the way it is interpreted is a
matter which takes some | 3:58:25 | 3:58:28 | |
consideration and I will reiterate
that I will not make any ruling from | 3:58:28 | 3:58:35 | |
the chair, which has an effect right
now on this minister in this | 3:58:35 | 3:58:40 | |
chamber. But I am now making a
ruling that this is a short debate, | 3:58:40 | 3:58:45 | |
that there are many matters to be
discussed, that I have a long list | 3:58:45 | 3:58:50 | |
of names of people who wish to
participate in this debate, and I | 3:58:50 | 3:58:54 | |
will take no further tautological
points of order. I want to hear what | 3:58:54 | 3:59:01 | |
the Minister has to say and I
suspect that everyone else wants to | 3:59:01 | 3:59:05 | |
hear what the Minister has to say.
Minister. I am grateful Madam Deputy | 3:59:05 | 3:59:10 | |
Speaker. It's good to hear that
somebody wants to hear what the | 3:59:10 | 3:59:15 | |
Minister has to say. We have been
communicating with businesses | 3:59:15 | 3:59:24 | |
up-and-down the country and these
interactions help to inform and | 3:59:24 | 3:59:27 | |
supplement... I will give way to the
honourable gentleman and bendy | 3:59:27 | 3:59:30 | |
Honourable Lady and then I'm afraid
that will be it. I'm grateful to the | 3:59:30 | 3:59:34 | |
Minister for giving way. A report
has been prepared on the impact on | 3:59:34 | 3:59:41 | |
Scottish economy. Has a similar
report being produced on the watch | 3:59:41 | 3:59:46 | |
economy and has it been shared with
Welsh ministers and if not why isn't | 3:59:46 | 3:59:49 | |
there a Welsh report. I would refer
the honourable gentleman to the | 3:59:49 | 3:59:53 | |
comments I made only about the
nature of the reports. I didn't say | 3:59:53 | 3:59:56 | |
there were reports on the Scottish
or Welsh economies, these were | 3:59:56 | 4:00:02 | |
crosscutting reports based on
sectors across the whole of the UK. | 4:00:02 | 4:00:07 | |
Within the James C processed there
is the opportunity to discuss with | 4:00:07 | 4:00:13 | |
the government the analysis. We want
to make sure that can move forward. | 4:00:13 | 4:00:16 | |
I will give way to the Honourable
Lady but if you would allow me to | 4:00:16 | 4:00:19 | |
finish the point on business
engagement, I will be happy to give | 4:00:19 | 4:00:23 | |
way, as I promised to do. These
interactions with business | 4:00:23 | 4:00:27 | |
up-and-down the country, every part
of the country, help to inform and | 4:00:27 | 4:00:31 | |
supplement the analysis and it is an
important point that should not be | 4:00:31 | 4:00:34 | |
glossed over rightly, that much of
the information businesses share | 4:00:34 | 4:00:37 | |
with the government on these issues
is highly commercially sensitive. | 4:00:37 | 4:00:41 | |
They have a right and expectation
that the information will be treated | 4:00:41 | 4:00:45 | |
with the utmost confidence and in
none of our meetings was it | 4:00:45 | 4:00:48 | |
suggested that the information
provided by businesses could be | 4:00:48 | 4:00:50 | |
published as part of the reports. I
thank the Minister for giving way | 4:00:50 | 4:00:58 | |
and he must accept that the impact
of Brexit will not be uniform across | 4:00:58 | 4:01:02 | |
the country, which is why the
Chancellor acknowledged that not | 4:01:02 | 4:01:06 | |
only have the government carried out
sectoral impact assessments but have | 4:01:06 | 4:01:10 | |
looked at regions too. So, will the
minister explain what information | 4:01:10 | 4:01:14 | |
the government is going to release
about the impact on different | 4:01:14 | 4:01:18 | |
regions of the UK, not only so that
we can understand the impact of | 4:01:18 | 4:01:21 | |
Brexit but can prepare for it as
well. SPEAKER: Order. In addition to | 4:01:21 | 4:01:28 | |
not having any additional points of
tautological order we will not have | 4:01:28 | 4:01:36 | |
any more extremely long
interventions because it's simply | 4:01:36 | 4:01:39 | |
not fair to the people who want to
speak later in the debate. Minister. | 4:01:39 | 4:01:44 | |
I would say to the Honourable Lady I
have spoken about the nature of our | 4:01:44 | 4:01:48 | |
analysis, this motion refers to
Central analysis and that is what we | 4:01:48 | 4:01:52 | |
are focusing on today. I want to
come to the issue the motion speaks | 4:01:52 | 4:01:59 | |
about, the Select Committee for
exiting the European Union. If the | 4:01:59 | 4:02:03 | |
honourable gentleman would give me
one moment. I look forward to | 4:02:03 | 4:02:07 | |
hearing from the Right Honourable
gentleman, and perhaps from the | 4:02:07 | 4:02:11 | |
Right Honourable gentleman on the
front bench and what discussions he | 4:02:11 | 4:02:13 | |
had with the committee before the
motion was tabled. Perhaps the chair | 4:02:13 | 4:02:16 | |
of the Select Committee in his
comments later on could provide some | 4:02:16 | 4:02:20 | |
suggestions to the House as to how
the committee could safeguard the | 4:02:20 | 4:02:23 | |
confidential itty of information
that might be sensitive or | 4:02:23 | 4:02:27 | |
prejudicial to the Government's
committee. I will give way to the | 4:02:27 | 4:02:30 | |
honourable gentleman on that point,
my final intervention I will accept. | 4:02:30 | 4:02:34 | |
I am grateful, can he make it clear
to the House when this motion is | 4:02:34 | 4:02:37 | |
carried today will the government
provide the analyses as requested, | 4:02:37 | 4:02:42 | |
as demanded by the House to the
committee or not? The motion has not | 4:02:42 | 4:02:50 | |
yet been carried. I will absolutely
take note of the decisions of this | 4:02:50 | 4:02:56 | |
House, as ministers always do, and
we will respond in due course. The | 4:02:56 | 4:03:00 | |
government has consistently... I
won't give way again. The government | 4:03:00 | 4:03:06 | |
has consistently published
information where we believe it's in | 4:03:06 | 4:03:09 | |
the national interest to do so and
already published 14 papers to | 4:03:09 | 4:03:11 | |
address current issues in the talks
and set out building blocks of the | 4:03:11 | 4:03:15 | |
relationship we would like to see
with the EU, both as we leave and | 4:03:15 | 4:03:19 | |
into the future. The papers
represent some of the hard work and | 4:03:19 | 4:03:21 | |
detailed thinking going on across
Whitehall over the last 12 months. | 4:03:21 | 4:03:25 | |
We have published technical notes
shared with the European Union and | 4:03:25 | 4:03:28 | |
may agree further joint publications
with the EU as part of the ongoing | 4:03:28 | 4:03:38 | |
negotiations. We must not forget
that this House has voted repeatedly | 4:03:38 | 4:03:40 | |
not to disclose material that could
damage the United Kingdom's | 4:03:40 | 4:03:42 | |
position. Not only is this the
approach taken by the UK but also by | 4:03:42 | 4:03:45 | |
the EU in its own negotiations. The
EU's approach to transparency in | 4:03:45 | 4:03:51 | |
trade negotiations says, a certain
level of confidentiality is | 4:03:51 | 4:03:54 | |
necessary to protect EU interests
and keep chances of a satisfactory | 4:03:54 | 4:03:58 | |
outcome- stop when entering into a
one starts by revealing his entire | 4:03:58 | 4:04:02 | |
strategy to his counterpart at the
outset. This is also the case for | 4:04:02 | 4:04:06 | |
the European Union. This once again
drives home the need for a balance | 4:04:06 | 4:04:11 | |
between transparency and securing
the best outcome in the | 4:04:11 | 4:04:13 | |
negotiations. Melinda bespeak a gun
as the House will understand, there | 4:04:13 | 4:04:16 | |
are many thousands of ducking its
being prepared across government | 4:04:16 | 4:04:24 | |
with regard to our exit from the
European Union. The release of some | 4:04:24 | 4:04:26 | |
of these, I will not give way again.
The release of some would not | 4:04:26 | 4:04:29 | |
undermine our negotiating position
on Dummett although others may have | 4:04:29 | 4:04:31 | |
an impact. The more information
shared more widely the less secure | 4:04:31 | 4:04:35 | |
our negotiating position and the
harder it is to secure the right | 4:04:35 | 4:04:37 | |
deal for the British people. The
House has the right to require the | 4:04:37 | 4:04:40 | |
release of documents but I sincerely
hope in what is requested in terms | 4:04:40 | 4:04:45 | |
of how they guarantee the necessary
confidentiality going forward and | 4:04:45 | 4:04:47 | |
how much is requested by the
opposition spokesman of the Select | 4:04:47 | 4:04:51 | |
Committee and house will be mindful
of the job ministers need to do, | 4:04:51 | 4:04:55 | |
that job is to secure the vital
national interests of the United | 4:04:55 | 4:04:58 | |
Kingdom as we negotiate our
departure from the European Union. | 4:04:58 | 4:05:02 | |
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and
I welcome the chance to contribute | 4:05:06 | 4:05:09 | |
to this debate and I hope that we
can concentrate on the fundamentally | 4:05:09 | 4:05:12 | |
important matter at hand. This is
not a debate about which party's | 4:05:12 | 4:05:18 | |
position on Brexit has been more
chaotic, it is a debate about the | 4:05:18 | 4:05:23 | |
importance of making sure parliament
and the public have information to | 4:05:23 | 4:05:25 | |
which they are entitled and not to
hold all of us to account. I was | 4:05:25 | 4:05:32 | |
reminded by my honourable friend a
few minutes ago what a pity that | 4:05:32 | 4:05:36 | |
these analyses weren't available
before the 23rd of June 2016. What a | 4:05:36 | 4:05:41 | |
pity. Would you give way on that
point? I thank my honourable friend | 4:05:41 | 4:05:46 | |
for giving way. Does he agree with
me that the government and those in | 4:05:46 | 4:05:50 | |
the Leave campaign had a moral and
ethical duty to do that work? To do | 4:05:50 | 4:05:54 | |
a proper timescale as we called for
at the time in the Brexit debate. | 4:05:54 | 4:05:57 | |
Does he think that those assessments
were not published because they are | 4:05:57 | 4:06:03 | |
scared of the truth or because they
wouldn't fit on the side of a bus? I | 4:06:03 | 4:06:09 | |
suspect it may have been all of the
above and more reasons beside. But | 4:06:09 | 4:06:14 | |
isn't it ironic that yet again in
response to a decision that was | 4:06:14 | 4:06:19 | |
supposed to this. Dummett restore
sovereignty to Parliament, for those | 4:06:19 | 4:06:25 | |
that believe in such an idea, it now
appears that even the parliament | 4:06:25 | 4:06:28 | |
that exercises sovereignty on behalf
of Her Majesty does not have the | 4:06:28 | 4:06:32 | |
right to instruct the government to
make representations to Her Majesty | 4:06:32 | 4:06:35 | |
on our behalf, or as can the
government can simply, well, they | 4:06:35 | 4:06:40 | |
can't ignore but they can say they
are doing it which apparently is not | 4:06:40 | 4:06:44 | |
the same. What a shambles of a way
of running an institution never mind | 4:06:44 | 4:06:50 | |
a country. I have been a
long-standing supporter of local | 4:06:50 | 4:06:53 | |
government and of freedom of
information. I remember as an SNP | 4:06:53 | 4:06:58 | |
opposition councillor being
industries position of | 4:06:58 | 4:07:00 | |
enthusiastically supporting
legislation put forward by the then | 4:07:00 | 4:07:02 | |
Labour/Lib Dem coalition in the
Scottish Parliament against | 4:07:02 | 4:07:06 | |
complaints from Labour councillors
that somehow undermined the working | 4:07:06 | 4:07:11 | |
of the council. I believe that
improved public availability of | 4:07:11 | 4:07:14 | |
information always leads to to
government. The number of occasions | 4:07:14 | 4:07:19 | |
when information needs to be
restricted, or when some information | 4:07:19 | 4:07:23 | |
needs to be redacted, that should be
seen as very much the exception | 4:07:23 | 4:07:28 | |
rather than the rule. I am grateful
to him for giving way. He will be | 4:07:28 | 4:07:32 | |
aware that there is a legal case
also pending which my colleague in | 4:07:32 | 4:07:36 | |
the European Parliament was leading.
Does he agree with me that rather | 4:07:36 | 4:07:39 | |
than go through all of the extra
work and time and taxpayers money of | 4:07:39 | 4:07:44 | |
fighting a legal case, the
government should you show us what | 4:07:44 | 4:07:46 | |
is in the public interest now.
Absolutely. And having not seen, I | 4:07:46 | 4:07:53 | |
was going to save not having seen, I
have and disadvantage to the | 4:07:53 | 4:07:59 | |
Cabinet, I'm not sure I am because
most of them haven't seen it. I'm | 4:07:59 | 4:08:02 | |
prepared to accept that some of it
and maybe a lot of it cannot be made | 4:08:02 | 4:08:06 | |
public. I don't think there is a
document that exists that cannot be | 4:08:06 | 4:08:08 | |
made public in any form if you
really want to give the public the | 4:08:08 | 4:08:13 | |
information. There are always ways
sensitive details can be removed. | 4:08:13 | 4:08:19 | |
Public information is paid for by
the public produced by a public | 4:08:19 | 4:08:23 | |
organisation whose only reason for
existence is for the benefit of the | 4:08:23 | 4:08:26 | |
public. As I said, I always take the
view that they should be disclosed | 4:08:26 | 4:08:34 | |
where possible and withheld only
when necessary. The freedom of | 4:08:34 | 4:08:39 | |
information request was eloquently
expressed and I'm pleased to Madam | 4:08:39 | 4:08:43 | |
Deputy Speaker is still there
although no longer in the chair. I | 4:08:43 | 4:08:54 | |
appreciate that for some members
that might be a difficult thing to | 4:08:54 | 4:08:57 | |
think about just now. I have always
been convinced that far too many | 4:08:57 | 4:09:02 | |
public bodies have hidden behind
statutory exemptions and freedom of | 4:09:02 | 4:09:05 | |
information legislation, not to
protect the interests of the public | 4:09:05 | 4:09:10 | |
but to protect the interests of
those withholding information. I | 4:09:10 | 4:09:12 | |
have to say that it looks very much
to me as if that is a significant | 4:09:12 | 4:09:18 | |
part in the Government's thought
process here. The government | 4:09:18 | 4:09:22 | |
originally claimed that even to
confirm that these analyses existed | 4:09:22 | 4:09:24 | |
would somehow fatally undermine the
UK's negotiating position with the | 4:09:24 | 4:09:31 | |
European Union. I have to say it is
hard to see how anybody could make | 4:09:31 | 4:09:35 | |
the UK's negotiating position any
more untenable than it already is. | 4:09:35 | 4:09:38 | |
Let's see how it may happen. Let's
see how making any of this | 4:09:38 | 4:09:42 | |
information available might weaken
the UK's position. It seems there | 4:09:42 | 4:09:47 | |
are three scenarios. The first is
that this secret information shows | 4:09:47 | 4:09:51 | |
the UK's position is a lot stronger
than any of us suspected. We don't | 4:09:51 | 4:09:55 | |
know, to might be possible, it could
be. That means that instead of | 4:09:55 | 4:10:00 | |
negotiating from a position of
weakness in the UK is negotiating | 4:10:00 | 4:10:03 | |
from a position of considerable
strength. How does it weaken our | 4:10:03 | 4:10:06 | |
negotiating position if those on the
other side of the table don't think | 4:10:06 | 4:10:10 | |
they are weak, that they think we
are strong. It doesn't. Scenario | 4:10:10 | 4:10:15 | |
one, it is in the UK's interests for
the EU to have the information. | 4:10:15 | 4:10:20 | |
Scenario two is the analysis
confirms what everybody knows and | 4:10:20 | 4:10:23 | |
the analysis from everybody else
under the sun has already indicated, | 4:10:23 | 4:10:26 | |
leaving the European Union is
seriously bad for the UK economy, | 4:10:26 | 4:10:30 | |
seriously bad for the Mac socially
and culturally and will weaken our | 4:10:30 | 4:10:34 | |
reputation worldwide and embolden
other potential trade partners to | 4:10:34 | 4:10:38 | |
push for ever more difficult and
damaging trade deals if we have to | 4:10:38 | 4:10:43 | |
go cap in hand to look for them. | 4:10:43 | 4:10:47 | |
Does he think it is possible to have
a worse fishing policy out of EU | 4:10:47 | 4:10:54 | |
than in. Why doesn't he speak up for
Brexit? I don't think it is possible | 4:10:54 | 4:11:03 | |
for any government to sell out the
Scotland's fish industrying the way | 4:11:03 | 4:11:08 | |
the UK did 30 years ago. The picture
could not be known for 30 years, | 4:11:08 | 4:11:13 | |
because it is covered by the
official seek represents act at the | 4:11:13 | 4:11:16 | |
time. That is the reason why
governments withhold information. It | 4:11:16 | 4:11:21 | |
is not in the interests of open
Government, but to protect from | 4:11:21 | 4:11:28 | |
scrutiny of the public. If it shows
the same as everyone knows, how can | 4:11:28 | 4:11:32 | |
producing more evidence to confirm
what we know possibly damage the | 4:11:32 | 4:11:37 | |
UK's position. Scenario two can't
cause damage. Point of order. Thank | 4:11:37 | 4:11:46 | |
you. I wonder if you're able to rule
on this before there is more | 4:11:46 | 4:11:51 | |
confusion added to the debate. Is it
your understanding that the motion | 4:11:51 | 4:11:57 | |
as presented if carried leaves open
to her Majesty's Government of when | 4:11:57 | 4:12:04 | |
it would choose to lay these matters
before Parliament if that is the | 4:12:04 | 4:12:09 | |
case it could lay the matters before
Parliament after the negotiations. | 4:12:09 | 4:12:13 | |
The answer is it is for the
government to respond, not for me. | 4:12:13 | 4:12:17 | |
There has been a question whether it
is binding. The debate is binding. | 4:12:17 | 4:12:21 | |
But it is only binding or the taken
forward. Let's have no more ado. | 4:12:21 | 4:12:28 | |
Thank you. The third scenario, that
many of us are convinced is what | 4:12:28 | 4:12:39 | |
happened, is a detailed analysis
indicates that damage caused by | 4:12:39 | 4:12:42 | |
Brexit could be worse than any of us
had previously feared. And yes that | 4:12:42 | 4:12:49 | |
would weaken the UK's negotiating
position and fatally undermine the | 4:12:49 | 4:12:53 | |
negotiating position and it may well
be that the analysis shows that | 4:12:53 | 4:12:57 | |
Brexit is such a catastrophic
decision that we shouldn't do it at | 4:12:57 | 4:13:04 | |
all. Which Government would choose
to hide it? The only scenario in | 4:13:04 | 4:13:13 | |
which releasing the information
could undermine the UK is if it | 4:13:13 | 4:13:18 | |
shows the damage caused by Brexit is
worse than any other analysis has | 4:13:18 | 4:13:23 | |
indicated. There is a briefing of a
minister who said we either destroy | 4:13:23 | 4:13:30 | |
the Conservative Party or the
country. If this case they're | 4:13:30 | 4:13:35 | |
choosing to destroy the country
before destroying the Conservative | 4:13:35 | 4:13:41 | |
Party by hiding the documents. I
couldn't comment on there. But there | 4:13:41 | 4:13:45 | |
are instances where it has been
clear that the government were | 4:13:45 | 4:13:49 | |
acting in the interest of the
Conservative Party rather than the | 4:13:49 | 4:13:52 | |
United Kingdom. Not an attempt to
maintain unity has been success in | 4:13:52 | 4:13:59 | |
the Conservative Party. Last week,
the Secretary of State for Brexit | 4:13:59 | 4:14:03 | |
got himself into a muddle when he
was asked about whether the | 4:14:03 | 4:14:07 | |
Government intended to make any of
this information available to the | 4:14:07 | 4:14:12 | |
devolved governments, in particular
whether the assessment of the impact | 4:14:12 | 4:14:16 | |
in Scotland would be chaired. Under
question from my honourable friend, | 4:14:16 | 4:14:20 | |
first it seemed to cast doubts on
whether the assessment existed at | 4:14:20 | 4:14:25 | |
all. Then he admitted that it
probably existed, but he wasn't sure | 4:14:25 | 4:14:31 | |
it would be shared. Then he assumed
it has been shared and then he | 4:14:31 | 4:14:38 | |
acknowledged it hadn't been shared,
but would be. So by a process of | 4:14:38 | 4:14:42 | |
elimination he managed to say the
same as his colleague the Secretary | 4:14:42 | 4:14:45 | |
of State of Scotland said to the
Scottish Affairs Commitee and it is | 4:14:45 | 4:14:52 | |
concerning that the minister appears
to have departed from that. It seeps | 4:14:52 | 4:14:57 | |
once you get two ministers who agree
on something, a third one must | 4:14:57 | 4:15:03 | |
disagree with it. A week late hear
the information has not yet been | 4:15:03 | 4:15:07 | |
shared, none of it, Mike Russell,
the Secretary in the Scottish | 4:15:07 | 4:15:11 | |
Government has had to write to the
Secretary of State reminding him of | 4:15:11 | 4:15:16 | |
undertaken and asking for that
information to be shared so that | 4:15:16 | 4:15:20 | |
discussions at GMC can be more
meaning. Ful. Another reason for the | 4:15:20 | 4:15:30 | |
Secretary of State's reluctance to
share the information came from an | 4:15:30 | 4:15:33 | |
answer he gave in the same evidence
session when he said I'm not a fan | 4:15:33 | 4:15:39 | |
of mathematical models, they're
almost always wrong. He referred to | 4:15:39 | 4:15:46 | |
a revelation from Norman Lamont who
said when he became Chancellor the | 4:15:46 | 4:15:54 | |
Treasury told him he would become
the most unpopular man in Britain. | 4:15:54 | 4:15:59 | |
That is the only things they told
him that was correct. It is a truth | 4:15:59 | 4:16:05 | |
they said that these models are
never right. So the models that are | 4:16:05 | 4:16:10 | |
produced by the Government at public
expense are never right. It will | 4:16:10 | 4:16:15 | |
make for an interesting budget by
the way, folks. What kind of defence | 4:16:15 | 4:16:18 | |
is it to tell a Parliamentary
Committee the reason we are not | 4:16:18 | 4:16:21 | |
going to give you access to this
information that has been produced | 4:16:21 | 4:16:25 | |
at great public cost, because we
don't believe it any more than you | 4:16:25 | 4:16:29 | |
do. Previously the government
refused a freedom of information | 4:16:29 | 4:16:38 | |
request. They refused to admit
whether these analysis existed. | 4:16:38 | 4:16:45 | |
Because of concerns that even to
confirm they existed, to confirm | 4:16:45 | 4:16:50 | |
such analysis has taken place may
lead some to take action as a | 4:16:50 | 4:16:54 | |
result. This from the Government
that was precipitous in holding a | 4:16:54 | 4:17:01 | |
referendum before people knew what
they were voting on and in | 4:17:01 | 4:17:06 | |
triggering Article 50 before they
knew what it would mean and in | 4:17:06 | 4:17:09 | |
calling a general election which
didn't particularly turn out well. | 4:17:09 | 4:17:13 | |
It is rich they're concerned at
anyone else. I remember over 30 | 4:17:13 | 4:17:22 | |
years ago as a student teacher
hearing an experienced chemistry | 4:17:22 | 4:17:28 | |
teacher teaching a class and they
were doing experiments with elements | 4:17:28 | 4:17:35 | |
being put into a test tube. He asked
if the students knew about | 4:17:35 | 4:17:42 | |
precipitates in the Bible. He could
probably recite the Bible in | 4:17:42 | 4:17:48 | |
England, Latin and Greek. The world
came from a Latin world and it was a | 4:17:48 | 4:17:54 | |
verb used in the Bible to describe
the actions of gathering swine as | 4:17:54 | 4:18:00 | |
they launched themselves off a cliff
edge. I will never cease to be | 4:18:00 | 4:18:11 | |
amazed at just how many prophecies
in the good book come true. The | 4:18:11 | 4:18:19 | |
Government have been precipitate
throughout this entire affair and | 4:18:19 | 4:18:26 | |
artificially and put immense
pressure of time on themselves, on | 4:18:26 | 4:18:30 | |
this Parliament and on the
overworked staff at the department | 4:18:30 | 4:18:36 | |
for Brexit and elsewhere. It is no
defence against that chaos, no | 4:18:36 | 4:18:43 | |
defence against the repeated display
of incompetence from the government | 4:18:43 | 4:18:46 | |
to say that we can't trust the
public with information that exposes | 4:18:46 | 4:18:52 | |
the full damage that their
incompetence will have caused. The | 4:18:52 | 4:19:01 | |
electorate were sophisticated to
understand to vote they can still be | 4:19:01 | 4:19:06 | |
in the single market, they electors
in London were suppose to be | 4:19:06 | 4:19:09 | |
sophisticated to know when a
government minister told them if we | 4:19:09 | 4:19:13 | |
leave the EU we will stop
immigration from the EU and those | 4:19:13 | 4:19:18 | |
who have family in Bangladesh and
India can bring them over to replace | 4:19:18 | 4:19:21 | |
them. The electorate were
sophisticated to know that was | 4:19:21 | 4:19:25 | |
rubbish and to know that when a now
government minister promised £357 | 4:19:25 | 4:19:38 | |
million for the NHS that was Boris
being Boris. They're snis Kated to | 4:19:38 | 4:19:47 | |
know all -- - sophisticated to know
the promise didn't mean anything and | 4:19:47 | 4:19:51 | |
yet they're not sophisticated or
intelligent enough to look at an | 4:19:51 | 4:19:58 | |
impact assessment and make their own
decisions about the competence and | 4:19:58 | 4:20:08 | |
the reelebgtability of the
government. I believe the reason the | 4:20:08 | 4:20:12 | |
information is not available is it
because it dates that leaving the EU | 4:20:12 | 4:20:19 | |
is the wrong way to go and leaving
the single market would be | 4:20:19 | 4:20:24 | |
catastrophic the the Government
should change their course before | 4:20:24 | 4:20:28 | |
they follow the gathering swine over
the cliff edge. If we can have less | 4:20:28 | 4:20:36 | |
interventions. I rise to support the
Government, I'm delighted they don't | 4:20:36 | 4:20:44 | |
want me to vote against the motion.
I'm happy to accept their guidance, | 4:20:44 | 4:20:50 | |
I usually favour full disclosure of
interesting information, but I would | 4:20:50 | 4:20:55 | |
urge ministers not to reveal
anything that could damage our | 4:20:55 | 4:20:58 | |
negotiating position. I do think it
is cavalier to the point of | 4:20:58 | 4:21:03 | |
irresponsible that the opposition
wishes to have everything published | 4:21:03 | 4:21:06 | |
in the hope that they will find
something damaging to the UK | 4:21:06 | 4:21:12 | |
position, because all they ever do
is run the UK down and say we are | 4:21:12 | 4:21:17 | |
wrong to want Brexit and say, you
made the long decision and we are | 4:21:17 | 4:21:23 | |
going to block it and slow it down
and prevent it. I for one am sick of | 4:21:23 | 4:21:28 | |
the complete lack of sensible
co-operation with the wishes of | 4:21:28 | 4:21:32 | |
their voters that I see by the
opposition. In the spirit of take | 4:21:32 | 4:21:38 | |
back control... If this Parliament
insists that it wants to see | 4:21:38 | 4:21:46 | |
documents, shouldn't bit allowed to
see them? Of course they should see | 4:21:46 | 4:21:51 | |
documents, as long as they do not
harm the national interest and it is | 4:21:51 | 4:21:55 | |
ministers who are charged with the
duty of making sure that the | 4:21:55 | 4:22:00 | |
national interest is upheld, it is
obvious that the party opposite has | 4:22:00 | 4:22:03 | |
no wish to uphold the national
interest and when ever I'm debating | 4:22:03 | 4:22:08 | |
with them they tell me the EU is
right and in a strong position and | 4:22:08 | 4:22:12 | |
will grind us down, they should be
speaking up for their electors and | 4:22:12 | 4:22:16 | |
the jobs in Nair constituencies,
because I think Brexit is teeming | 4:22:16 | 4:22:20 | |
with opportunity and when we are
asked to talk about sectoral | 4:22:20 | 4:22:25 | |
impacts, let's hear it for the
fishing industry. It will be a much | 4:22:25 | 4:22:28 | |
better stronger industry when we can
have our own territorial waters and | 4:22:28 | 4:22:35 | |
policies. I'm struggling to hear the
member and I'm sure everybody wants | 4:22:35 | 4:22:42 | |
to listen to every word he has to
tell the chamber. They don't like | 4:22:42 | 4:22:47 | |
good news, because then we take the
agricultural industry and isn't it a | 4:22:47 | 4:22:53 | |
tragedy we have lost so much
capacity to grow our food and won't | 4:22:53 | 4:23:01 | |
we be able to have an agriculture al
policy to allow us to be more | 4:23:01 | 4:23:12 | |
self-sisht. Sufficient efficient.
Self-Su efficient. Wouldn't be great | 4:23:12 | 4:23:24 | |
for a number of sectors if we got
the 12 billion a year back as soon | 4:23:24 | 4:23:28 | |
as possible and started spending it
in the UK. I thought the opposition | 4:23:28 | 4:23:32 | |
did understand if you spend more in
a country, you create more jobs and | 4:23:32 | 4:23:36 | |
more economic activity. Yet when it
comes to the money we send to | 4:23:36 | 4:23:41 | |
Brussels, all we hear islet's keep
sending them the money. Let's do it | 4:23:41 | 4:23:45 | |
next year and the year after that.
Can we find a way to spend it for | 4:23:45 | 4:23:49 | |
another three years after we have
left it is outrageous they want to | 4:23:49 | 4:23:54 | |
give our money away in this way. | 4:23:54 | 4:23:59 | |
I thank the honourable member for
giving way. As the former secretary | 4:23:59 | 4:24:04 | |
for Wales he sent millions back to
Cardiff from London. Will he ensure | 4:24:04 | 4:24:10 | |
that Wales does not lose out on the
money it is currently receiving from | 4:24:10 | 4:24:14 | |
Brussels? Wales did not lose out
because I want to tax cuts for Welsh | 4:24:14 | 4:24:21 | |
voters as well as English voters and
that was the point in what we were | 4:24:21 | 4:24:25 | |
doing and we more than adequately
funded the health service increasing | 4:24:25 | 4:24:28 | |
the amount of money, which is
something the Labour government in | 4:24:28 | 4:24:30 | |
Wales does not do. My record is
rather better than theirs when it | 4:24:30 | 4:24:35 | |
came to providing proper provision
for the health service in Wales. | 4:24:35 | 4:24:39 | |
What we need to do is to have a
proper debate on the sectoral | 4:24:39 | 4:24:43 | |
impacts and look at the many
positives there are so that members | 4:24:43 | 4:24:49 | |
opposite candidate in the way I am
about the opportunities and the way | 4:24:49 | 4:24:55 | |
our economy can be better rather
than the depressingly negative way | 4:24:55 | 4:24:59 | |
they always proceed where they are
desperate to find some that | 4:24:59 | 4:25:03 | |
information. They have come up with
two things at the moment, constant | 4:25:03 | 4:25:09 | |
repeating it, which are clearly
misleading. The first is they say | 4:25:09 | 4:25:11 | |
the planes won't fly April 2019
after we have left without a special | 4:25:11 | 4:25:17 | |
agreement and sending lots of money
to the EU. I was pleased to see | 4:25:17 | 4:25:21 | |
Willie Walsh of British Airways the
other day making it clear in his | 4:25:21 | 4:25:25 | |
professional view they would, and of
course they will. There is no way | 4:25:25 | 4:25:28 | |
Britain is going to stop German,
French and Spanish planes coming | 4:25:28 | 4:25:31 | |
into UK airports today after we have
left the EU, even without an | 4:25:31 | 4:25:36 | |
agreement. And in their turn they
won't want to stop our planes going | 4:25:36 | 4:25:40 | |
there with our tourists and people
who want to spend money in their | 4:25:40 | 4:25:43 | |
country. And then there is another
one they constantly tell us, which | 4:25:43 | 4:25:47 | |
is that there will be lorries
queueing all the way back from | 4:25:47 | 4:25:50 | |
Dover. I'm not sure how because
that's how they would be queueing in | 4:25:50 | 4:25:55 | |
the sea. When you look at modern
frontiers with electronic frontiers | 4:25:55 | 4:25:59 | |
there is absolutely no reason why
there should be huge queues. We can | 4:25:59 | 4:26:03 | |
have a system of authorised economic
operators developing, one that is | 4:26:03 | 4:26:08 | |
already there. It would be easy to
speed the lorries through and if we | 4:26:08 | 4:26:11 | |
still have to impose tariffs because
there is no agreement we would be | 4:26:11 | 4:26:15 | |
able to do that electronically
without there being a lorry jam. | 4:26:15 | 4:26:21 | |
Would he agree with me that the
other side talk about queues at the | 4:26:21 | 4:26:24 | |
port because they actually hope
Brexit will be a disaster for this | 4:26:24 | 4:26:29 | |
country? They want to stop Brexit
and want the worst for this country | 4:26:29 | 4:26:32 | |
and they should put Britain First.
My honourable friend is absolutely | 4:26:32 | 4:26:37 | |
right, it's always doom and gloom,
what can go wrong. One of my worries | 4:26:37 | 4:26:41 | |
about these sectoral studies
ministers are agonising about. | 4:26:41 | 4:26:45 | |
Sorry, point of order. Thank you, Mr
Speaker. Is it disingenuously | 4:26:45 | 4:26:52 | |
misleading Parliament to suggest you
have given 120 million you didn't | 4:26:52 | 4:26:56 | |
spend in Wales, the same of 120
million in tax cuts for the people | 4:26:56 | 4:27:00 | |
of Wales when they didn't get tax
cuts that year. Thank you, Mr Deputy | 4:27:00 | 4:27:06 | |
Speaker, that is a silly point
because there were tax cuts from | 4:27:06 | 4:27:09 | |
that government and it was important
we had a sensible budget after we | 4:27:09 | 4:27:12 | |
had made full provision. They are
always running things down and my | 4:27:12 | 4:27:18 | |
worry about these sectoral studies
is there is a tendency amongst some | 4:27:18 | 4:27:22 | |
of the government advisers and
consultants also to want to | 4:27:22 | 4:27:25 | |
highlight every conceivable thing
that could go wrong and a of | 4:27:25 | 4:27:28 | |
inconceivable things that couldn't
conceivably go wrong because that's | 4:27:28 | 4:27:31 | |
how they make their money, or that
is how they think they are there to | 4:27:31 | 4:27:35 | |
do. They do not risk assess and
there are few genuine risks that | 4:27:35 | 4:27:39 | |
need to be managed properly and we
still have 15 months to manage them, | 4:27:39 | 4:27:43 | |
and if necessary we can manage them
for ourselves without even needing | 4:27:43 | 4:27:46 | |
the agreement of the EU, so I look
forward to ministers coming to a | 4:27:46 | 4:27:51 | |
judicious response about this debate
I don't want them to share any | 4:27:51 | 4:27:55 | |
information that undermines our
position and I live in hope that one | 4:27:55 | 4:27:58 | |
day the opposition will wake up to
all those voters who wanted Brexit | 4:27:58 | 4:28:07 | |
and understand they need to be
positive and sympathetic to the | 4:28:07 | 4:28:09 | |
British Government view, not to the
EU view. Mr Deputy Speaker, passions | 4:28:09 | 4:28:13 | |
are running rather high but this is
a deadly serious business, and I | 4:28:13 | 4:28:18 | |
think this is about transparency and
the need for Parliament to have the | 4:28:18 | 4:28:23 | |
information, and indeed the facts
its requires in order to do its job. | 4:28:23 | 4:28:28 | |
I did raise this question with the
Secretary of State when first | 4:28:28 | 4:28:30 | |
elected as the chair of the Select
Committee and asked him how he | 4:28:30 | 4:28:34 | |
proposed to handle the sharing of
information and in a letter to me in | 4:28:34 | 4:28:38 | |
October of last year he said, and I
quote, there is an important balance | 4:28:38 | 4:28:43 | |
to strike between transparency and
confidentiality, and information | 4:28:43 | 4:28:46 | |
sharing will need to be considered
in close detail. Now, my Right | 4:28:46 | 4:28:51 | |
Honourable friend did speak to me
yesterday about this issue, and I | 4:28:51 | 4:28:55 | |
pointed out to him that in our first
report on the 11th of January this | 4:28:55 | 4:29:02 | |
year, the Select Committee referred
to the economic assessments that the | 4:29:02 | 4:29:07 | |
government was undoubtedly
undertaken and we said, and again I | 4:29:07 | 4:29:10 | |
quote, in the interests of
transparency these should be | 4:29:10 | 4:29:13 | |
published alongside the government's
plan, in so far as it does not | 4:29:13 | 4:29:19 | |
compromise the Government's
negotiating hand. And I make that | 4:29:19 | 4:29:21 | |
point because the committee
accepted, indeed my Right Honourable | 4:29:21 | 4:29:25 | |
friend from the dispatch box has
accepted that there may be certain | 4:29:25 | 4:29:31 | |
information which the government
does not wish to put in the public | 4:29:31 | 4:29:33 | |
domain and it would not be right to
do so. But that is not to say that | 4:29:33 | 4:29:37 | |
nothing should be published, or that
there is no method of sharing | 4:29:37 | 4:29:40 | |
information with a Select Committee
in confidence. Let me take an | 4:29:40 | 4:29:45 | |
example. We are told that there is a
treasury analysis of the economic | 4:29:45 | 4:29:51 | |
benefits to the UK of future
free-trade agreements with non-EU | 4:29:51 | 4:29:55 | |
number states. The existence of that
paper was revealed by the Centre for | 4:29:55 | 4:30:01 | |
European Reform in June by Charles
Grant and according to the Financial | 4:30:01 | 4:30:04 | |
Times of the 15th of September, I
quote, it is said to show that the | 4:30:04 | 4:30:09 | |
value of new free-trade agreements
would be significantly less than the | 4:30:09 | 4:30:14 | |
economic costs of leaving the
customs union. Now, none of us knows | 4:30:14 | 4:30:21 | |
whether this is the case not. Why?
Because the government has not | 4:30:21 | 4:30:25 | |
chosen thus far to disclose this
information to us. And yet that is | 4:30:25 | 4:30:30 | |
information we really ought to know
given the government has taken an | 4:30:30 | 4:30:35 | |
absolutely major policy decision,
which is that we should leave the | 4:30:35 | 4:30:38 | |
customs union without any analysis
being shared with this House about | 4:30:38 | 4:30:42 | |
the consequences, the costs, or
indeed the benefits of that | 4:30:42 | 4:30:47 | |
decision. Now, like all of those who
have been ministers, I have looked | 4:30:47 | 4:30:51 | |
at, I won't pretend to have read all
of the impact assessments that pass | 4:30:51 | 4:30:56 | |
before my eyes during my time as a
minister. But it really is quite | 4:30:56 | 4:31:02 | |
extraordinary that on all other
matters, including those that are | 4:31:02 | 4:31:05 | |
relatively minor, government
produces an impact assessment, which | 4:31:05 | 4:31:09 | |
is shared with Parliament and the
public. But on the single most | 4:31:09 | 4:31:14 | |
important decision that we have
taken because of the result of the | 4:31:14 | 4:31:19 | |
referendum, as a country since the
end of the Second World War, nothing | 4:31:19 | 4:31:22 | |
has been published in the way of an
impact assessment by government. | 4:31:22 | 4:31:27 | |
Secondly, there is the question
raised, I thought very effectively | 4:31:27 | 4:31:31 | |
by my Right Honourable friend, of
who is deciding whether they can or | 4:31:31 | 4:31:35 | |
cannot be published. I understand
why ministers said in evidence to | 4:31:35 | 4:31:38 | |
the committee we have not been able
to read them all because I have just | 4:31:38 | 4:31:41 | |
confessed that I didn't read every
single word of all of them when I | 4:31:41 | 4:31:44 | |
was a minister, did the Secretary of
State told us that the analyses | 4:31:44 | 4:31:49 | |
contain excruciating detail. He also
confirmed the Cabinet has not seen | 4:31:49 | 4:31:53 | |
them. Now, it couldn't be right for
civil servants to take the decision | 4:31:53 | 4:31:56 | |
about what should or should not be
released. It clearly must be | 4:31:56 | 4:32:02 | |
ministers, and I presume in having
told the Select Committee that a | 4:32:02 | 4:32:05 | |
certain analysis would now be shared
with the Scottish Government, the | 4:32:05 | 4:32:08 | |
point made a moment ago, that that
was a decision taken by ministers. | 4:32:08 | 4:32:14 | |
Thirdly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can't
believe that all of the material | 4:32:14 | 4:32:16 | |
has... I will give way. I'm grateful
to my Right Honourable friend for | 4:32:16 | 4:32:23 | |
giving way. The minister asked Kimi
as chairman of the Select Committee | 4:32:23 | 4:32:26 | |
what safeguards to be put in place
-- asked him in his position. I | 4:32:26 | 4:32:36 | |
wonder if he could comment on the
information that would not be | 4:32:36 | 4:32:39 | |
released. I am grateful to my
honourable friend and will come to | 4:32:39 | 4:32:42 | |
that at the end of my remarks. I was
going to say it is hard to believe | 4:32:42 | 4:32:46 | |
that all of the material has the
potential to undermine our | 4:32:46 | 4:32:49 | |
negotiating position. When I looked
through the list when it was | 4:32:49 | 4:32:52 | |
published I would be intrigued to
know how reports on museums, | 4:32:52 | 4:32:55 | |
galleries, libraries, crafts, real
estate, could contain information of | 4:32:55 | 4:33:01 | |
such sensitivity that it would
create difficulties for the | 4:33:01 | 4:33:03 | |
Secretary of State when he next
meets Michel Barnier. If that is the | 4:33:03 | 4:33:11 | |
case. I will give way. For example,
on property, if there was an | 4:33:11 | 4:33:17 | |
entirely bogus forecast of big job
losses and a collapse in commercial | 4:33:17 | 4:33:20 | |
properties that would be a silly
thing to do because it would be | 4:33:20 | 4:33:23 | |
wrong and it would be negative for
our position. It is not for me to | 4:33:23 | 4:33:28 | |
argue the Government's case but if
it would be a bogus forecast I would | 4:33:28 | 4:33:31 | |
be surprised if the government would
have put it in this paper drawn up. | 4:33:31 | 4:33:38 | |
Please don't tempt me on the
subject. So it raises the question | 4:33:38 | 4:33:42 | |
why thus far has the government had
a policy, a blanket policy of | 4:33:42 | 4:33:46 | |
non-publication. Having said all
that, I welcome the spirit of what | 4:33:46 | 4:33:50 | |
the minister said today, even if I,
and I venture to suggest the House, | 4:33:50 | 4:33:56 | |
is not absolutely clear what is
being offered when the minister | 4:33:56 | 4:34:02 | |
stood at the dispatch box earlier
and helpfully said the government is | 4:34:02 | 4:34:05 | |
not going to be opposing the motion.
So, may I say to him in conclusion | 4:34:05 | 4:34:09 | |
in that same spirit that I am sure
that the Select Committee, had the | 4:34:09 | 4:34:16 | |
members here will not mind me saying
this, if the government does comply | 4:34:16 | 4:34:20 | |
as it should with the motion if it
is carried, to pass the information | 4:34:20 | 4:34:24 | |
to us. I'm sure the Select Committee
would be happy to discuss with | 4:34:24 | 4:34:28 | |
ministers once material is released
to us how it should be handled, what | 4:34:28 | 4:34:35 | |
of it can be published, and I come
back to the point my Right | 4:34:35 | 4:34:38 | |
Honourable race, what is material
the Select Committee shares the view | 4:34:38 | 4:34:42 | |
that the government might express
that that would create some | 4:34:42 | 4:34:45 | |
difficulties if it were to be put in
the public domain? I hope that | 4:34:45 | 4:34:49 | |
offered to the Minister will be
helpful as the government gives | 4:34:49 | 4:34:53 | |
effect to the motion, if indeed it
is carried by the House. Thank you, | 4:34:53 | 4:34:58 | |
Mr Speaker, and I rise to support
this mission and hope this motion is | 4:34:58 | 4:35:01 | |
going to be put to the vote because
I shall be walking through the | 4:35:01 | 4:35:05 | |
lobbies in favour of this motion.
May I gently say to the Minister and | 4:35:05 | 4:35:10 | |
indeed to the government, but if the
government is not prepared to be | 4:35:10 | 4:35:13 | |
bound by the terms of this motion, I
am going to put it in this way, we | 4:35:13 | 4:35:18 | |
are not messing about here any more.
This is grown up serious stuff. This | 4:35:18 | 4:35:24 | |
is no longer some sort of debate on
the fringes of politics where people | 4:35:24 | 4:35:28 | |
can follow one held ideological
dreams that they've had for decades. | 4:35:28 | 4:35:31 | |
The country has voted, 52% of those
that voted, to leave the European | 4:35:31 | 4:35:39 | |
Union. People like me except we are
going to leave the European Union | 4:35:39 | 4:35:43 | |
but I'm not going to stand by and
see the future of my children's | 4:35:43 | 4:35:48 | |
generation, the grandchildren which
I hope will follow, being trashed | 4:35:48 | 4:35:51 | |
and ruined without any form of
debate and disclosure as to the | 4:35:51 | 4:35:55 | |
consequences, and arguably the
options that might be available as | 4:35:55 | 4:36:01 | |
disclosed in all these documents
that cover, as we know, so many | 4:36:01 | 4:36:05 | |
sectors in so many ways. This is
grown-up serious stuff. The days of | 4:36:05 | 4:36:11 | |
carping from the sidelines, I'd say
to honourable member is from the | 4:36:11 | 4:36:15 | |
side, have gone, you've won, you're
in charge of this command now you | 4:36:15 | 4:36:19 | |
have to face up to the
responsibility of delivering a | 4:36:19 | 4:36:22 | |
Brexit that works for everybody in
this country and for generations to | 4:36:22 | 4:36:25 | |
come. So what's the problem? If the
government is not going to be bound | 4:36:25 | 4:36:31 | |
by this motion, vote against it. If
you abstain you agree to it and you | 4:36:31 | 4:36:37 | |
will buy Don Mackay Baidu buy it. As
I say, these are serious matters. I | 4:36:37 | 4:36:41 | |
will take the extra minute. I thank
the Right Honourable lady for giving | 4:36:41 | 4:36:49 | |
way -- you will abide by it. She's
making a very sensible and rational | 4:36:49 | 4:36:54 | |
speech. Does she agree that the
irony is some of our colleagues who | 4:36:54 | 4:36:58 | |
seek to have a sovereign, more
powerful, more transparent | 4:36:58 | 4:37:02 | |
Parliament, by not agreeing the
result of this motion, are actually | 4:37:02 | 4:37:06 | |
damaging democracy and damaging
Parliament's ability and those who | 4:37:06 | 4:37:09 | |
sit in it to do their jobs? I do
agree with the Honourable Lady. | 4:37:09 | 4:37:15 | |
Let's be clear, this debate has or
was brought people from across the | 4:37:15 | 4:37:19 | |
political divide, so as we know
there are many people in the Labour | 4:37:19 | 4:37:24 | |
Party who supported Leave and those
Conservatives who supported Remain, | 4:37:24 | 4:37:28 | |
transcends the normal political
divide and I agree with the | 4:37:28 | 4:37:31 | |
Honourable Lady very much. Let me
also say this, the reason why it's | 4:37:31 | 4:37:34 | |
so important we know what is in
these documents is because I have to | 4:37:34 | 4:37:39 | |
say Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm getting a
bit of a feeling here. I rather take | 4:37:39 | 4:37:43 | |
the view that there might be stuff
in these huge impact assessments, | 4:37:43 | 4:37:47 | |
which perhaps, honourable members on
this site don't want to put out into | 4:37:47 | 4:37:52 | |
the public domain. They could read
act everything a piece of sensitive, | 4:37:52 | 4:37:58 | |
commercially sensitive material in
it, as they should if there is | 4:37:58 | 4:38:01 | |
anything that undermines the
security of our country, that must | 4:38:01 | 4:38:04 | |
also be redacted. But I'm getting a
rather strong feeling that if it | 4:38:04 | 4:38:08 | |
said everything in a post-Brexit
world, whatever the options might be | 4:38:08 | 4:38:12 | |
for the final deal, was going to be
brilliant and rosy and wonderful, | 4:38:12 | 4:38:16 | |
this wonderful new world that awaits
us, I rather get the impression they | 4:38:16 | 4:38:20 | |
would be the first people to stand
up and say to the government, | 4:38:20 | 4:38:24 | |
disclose these impact documents, let
the people see what wonders await | 4:38:24 | 4:38:28 | |
them in this wonderful new world
post-Brexit. So, what's the problem? | 4:38:28 | 4:38:33 | |
I must say for the honourable member
full working as he represents all of | 4:38:33 | 4:38:37 | |
those fishing men and women that
live in Wokingham, but I genuinely | 4:38:37 | 4:38:42 | |
say to the honourable gentleman, how
on earth can he say that we should | 4:38:42 | 4:38:47 | |
not disclose all these documents,
because it would undermine the | 4:38:47 | 4:38:51 | |
negotiations, if he hasn't seen them
in the first place, or even some | 4:38:51 | 4:38:54 | |
form of summary of them? But the
implication is quite clear, there is | 4:38:54 | 4:38:59 | |
something in them that is not to be
disclosed because it might actually | 4:38:59 | 4:39:03 | |
prick this golden bubble, this
balloon of the promised land of | 4:39:03 | 4:39:06 | |
Brexit. My constituents are entitled
to know the consequences of the | 4:39:06 | 4:39:13 | |
various options that are available
to this government as it negotiates | 4:39:13 | 4:39:16 | |
the Janezic and and most importantly
the final deal. My constituents are | 4:39:16 | 4:39:21 | |
concerned about their own jobs and
so our businesses and I will take | 4:39:21 | 4:39:25 | |
the intervention. | 4:39:25 | 4:39:30 | |
But the Honourable lady agree that
our constituents have the rights | 4:39:30 | 4:39:34 | |
together cost of the no deal Brexit
option? The government refusing to | 4:39:34 | 4:39:38 | |
answer questions asking how much
each department puts aside for | 4:39:38 | 4:39:43 | |
Brexit contingency planning,
planning for a no deal. Should that | 4:39:43 | 4:39:45 | |
information be in the public domain?
I absolutely agree. Honourable | 4:39:45 | 4:39:51 | |
members have talked about how they
fear for their constituency or their | 4:39:51 | 4:39:55 | |
part of our great country. How can
the local authorities and businesses | 4:39:55 | 4:39:59 | |
and chambers of commerce, all of
these people that make our country | 4:39:59 | 4:40:13 | |
have the economy and the jobs and
prosperity that we have and we need | 4:40:22 | 4:40:25 | |
in the future, how can they plan
those things and make important | 4:40:25 | 4:40:27 | |
decisions, and how can we as a
country come together, as people say | 4:40:27 | 4:40:30 | |
we should, heal the divide between
the 52 and 48 that we have failed to | 4:40:30 | 4:40:33 | |
do? How can we do those things are
we are open and frank with people | 4:40:33 | 4:40:36 | |
and we bring them into the
discussion about what Brexit will | 4:40:36 | 4:40:38 | |
look like and what final deal can be
secured for our country because we | 4:40:38 | 4:40:41 | |
have got and we know now that
whatever the Right Honourable | 4:40:41 | 4:40:43 | |
gentleman on the front page says
about whether government has been on | 4:40:43 | 4:40:46 | |
its policy, it is now clear through
excellent speech of the Prime | 4:40:46 | 4:40:48 | |
Minister what we want from the
transition deal. Her Florence speech | 4:40:48 | 4:40:50 | |
was very clear about that and widely
welcomed. Let us be honest, what | 4:40:50 | 4:40:56 | |
happened, as usual noises off trying
to destabilise that position. | 4:40:56 | 4:41:00 | |
Thankfully the Prime Minister has
stood firm and full credit to her | 4:41:00 | 4:41:03 | |
now. Even now at this moment, my
government hasn't worked out what | 4:41:03 | 4:41:10 | |
its policy is for that final deal.
The usual voices continue to make | 4:41:10 | 4:41:16 | |
their absolutely irresponsible
argument that we must have some sort | 4:41:16 | 4:41:20 | |
of no deal, off the cliff edge, the
most irresponsible and dangerous | 4:41:20 | 4:41:25 | |
thing that could possibly happen to
our economy. I will give way. She | 4:41:25 | 4:41:33 | |
puts her name to the amendment of
the withdrawal bill that prevents | 4:41:33 | 4:41:37 | |
there being a deal. Absolute
nonsense. What that amendment does, | 4:41:37 | 4:41:43 | |
and I hope you might support it
because it is all about, it has at | 4:41:43 | 4:41:49 | |
its heart, what's he has said to the
British people that he believes in | 4:41:49 | 4:41:53 | |
and it is about taking back control
in this Parliament and not relying | 4:41:53 | 4:41:57 | |
on arguments from the 19th-century
when The Right Honourable gentleman | 4:41:57 | 4:42:01 | |
suggested that this Parliament might
be bound by a decision in a foreign | 4:42:01 | 4:42:08 | |
Parliament, heaven forbid! The
Canadians! I thought we voted to | 4:42:08 | 4:42:10 | |
take back control! It is absolutely
right, one of the most important | 4:42:10 | 4:42:16 | |
decisions this country has ever
made, what Brexit looks like, should | 4:42:16 | 4:42:20 | |
be put into this House. It is a
crying shame we have now it is no | 4:42:20 | 4:42:25 | |
debate or binding motions of votes
on the future of our country and | 4:42:25 | 4:42:28 | |
generations will judge us on that. I
stood and I warned about the | 4:42:28 | 4:42:33 | |
consequences to my party unless it
stood up for everyone in this | 4:42:33 | 4:42:37 | |
country and abandon the hard Brexit
and I was ignored and we lost our | 4:42:37 | 4:42:40 | |
majority. Millions of people feel
unrepresented by any political party | 4:42:40 | 4:42:46 | |
and I hope my party now changes that
and embraces the 48. Order! Order! | 4:42:46 | 4:42:56 | |
Each of us has a responsibility as a
parliamentarian, and that is the | 4:42:56 | 4:43:00 | |
basic reason why we are here, in
order to represent those who have | 4:43:00 | 4:43:04 | |
put us here and it is our duty as
parliamentarians to ask the | 4:43:04 | 4:43:09 | |
questions and gain the information
in order to make the correct | 4:43:09 | 4:43:12 | |
judgments on the way that we vote.
That is why today we want to see the | 4:43:12 | 4:43:19 | |
impact assessments across the
various sectors. Speaking completely | 4:43:19 | 4:43:23 | |
from my own constituency, the three
that I am most concerned about our | 4:43:23 | 4:43:30 | |
construction, production and the
creative industries and medical | 4:43:30 | 4:43:34 | |
services and social care and they
are the three that I personally | 4:43:34 | 4:43:37 | |
would like to see the analyses of,
simply so that I can explain to my | 4:43:37 | 4:43:44 | |
constituents the way that I will be
voting in the coming months. I thank | 4:43:44 | 4:43:49 | |
my honourable friend for giving way.
Would she add the British aerospace | 4:43:49 | 4:43:54 | |
industry. In North Wales 7000 jobs
in one factory, 100,000 jobs | 4:43:54 | 4:43:59 | |
depending on it, would that be up
there in the list of areas of these | 4:43:59 | 4:44:03 | |
segments of the economy that we need
the information on. This is an | 4:44:03 | 4:44:08 | |
excellent point. Particularly in the
regions, where there is an | 4:44:08 | 4:44:12 | |
overdependence perhaps on one
industry, it is even more important | 4:44:12 | 4:44:20 | |
to know the facts and figures behind
the thinking that the government has | 4:44:20 | 4:44:23 | |
in relation to various sectors.
Parliament has to be hugged, it | 4:44:23 | 4:44:25 | |
shouldn't be pushed away, you should
be hugging us because you need us. | 4:44:25 | 4:44:30 | |
In some ways your front bench needs
us more than we need you. I would | 4:44:30 | 4:44:35 | |
welcome another election, letters
have one tomorrow. What has to | 4:44:35 | 4:44:39 | |
happen is we have to work together
on this. We can only work together | 4:44:39 | 4:44:44 | |
if members are not feeling
frustrated and as if they are being | 4:44:44 | 4:44:47 | |
left in the dark. I thank my
honourable friend for giving way and | 4:44:47 | 4:44:53 | |
she is making a powerful speech
about the impact on industries in | 4:44:53 | 4:44:57 | |
our local areas. Would she agree
with me that the sector of medical | 4:44:57 | 4:45:01 | |
services and social care is
incredibly important for all of our | 4:45:01 | 4:45:06 | |
constituencies, not least because a
leaked report earlier this year | 4:45:06 | 4:45:09 | |
suggested there could be a shortfall
of many nurses. Order! Order! . | 4:45:09 | 4:45:15 | |
Before the honourable lady answers
that intervention it has been made | 4:45:15 | 4:45:20 | |
very clear that if people make on
long interventions at this part in | 4:45:20 | 4:45:25 | |
the debate they are depriving
someone else who has been sitting | 4:45:25 | 4:45:28 | |
here all afternoon of having the
opportunity to speak at all. Could I | 4:45:28 | 4:45:36 | |
agree with my honourable friend and
thank her for all of her excellent | 4:45:36 | 4:45:40 | |
forensic questioning in this line
and I would like to say how sad it | 4:45:40 | 4:45:44 | |
is that she has had to spend hours
and hours questioning when really it | 4:45:44 | 4:45:49 | |
is our basic rights as
parliamentarians to have the | 4:45:49 | 4:45:52 | |
information that we need in this
important treaty making, probably | 4:45:52 | 4:45:59 | |
the most important constitutional
question certainly that we in this | 4:45:59 | 4:46:02 | |
Parliament will have to grapple
with. My real concern is that we | 4:46:02 | 4:46:07 | |
could well be heading towards a
crash course and this goes to my | 4:46:07 | 4:46:11 | |
earlier point to the honourable
member from Wokingham about perhaps | 4:46:11 | 4:46:14 | |
there is an element of not wanting
to know the facts and figures for | 4:46:14 | 4:46:19 | |
those who have already made up their
mind. They want to be positive but | 4:46:19 | 4:46:23 | |
they kind of want to ignore the
facts as well and I think it is the | 4:46:23 | 4:46:28 | |
opposite extreme and opposites are
necessary -- unnecessary improbably | 4:46:28 | 4:46:33 | |
bad in this regard. Can she tell the
House what in the last 60 months she | 4:46:33 | 4:46:40 | |
has done to strengthen the British
and and be positive about it? | 4:46:40 | 4:46:50 | |
Scrutinise the government! I have
redoubled the number of meetings I | 4:46:50 | 4:46:52 | |
am having an polishing up my
Mandarin Chinese so that I can | 4:46:52 | 4:46:56 | |
improve our standing with one of our
big trading partners. I think what | 4:46:56 | 4:47:04 | |
is important here is not to just be
like a Pentecostal meeting where we | 4:47:04 | 4:47:08 | |
close our ears and eyes and just
sing for the positivity of Brexit, | 4:47:08 | 4:47:15 | |
but we must engage our minds as well
as our emotions in what is a very | 4:47:15 | 4:47:20 | |
taxing and difficult question, what
is going to be the future for our | 4:47:20 | 4:47:23 | |
children and their children. Just a
very quick point on the cliff edge | 4:47:23 | 4:47:29 | |
scenario because I am not sure that
we have really explored it because | 4:47:29 | 4:47:33 | |
none of us wanted and the Prime
Minister has said in her speech in | 4:47:33 | 4:47:36 | |
Florence that she once the
transition deal as much as those of | 4:47:36 | 4:47:39 | |
us who are sensible and wombat as
well. Imagine the worst of all | 4:47:39 | 4:47:44 | |
possible worlds and there is a crash
course that leaves us towards the | 4:47:44 | 4:47:48 | |
cliff edge. I am deeply concerned
about inflation and I am deeply | 4:47:48 | 4:47:53 | |
concerned about the combination of
other things in the economy like our | 4:47:53 | 4:47:57 | |
flat wages and the household debt
which is over £200 billion and the | 4:47:57 | 4:48:04 | |
fact that interest rates are going
up this week. These are deeply | 4:48:04 | 4:48:10 | |
concerning and worrying times for
our economy without Brexit so I am | 4:48:10 | 4:48:14 | |
worried about a combination of
factors and that is why I think we | 4:48:14 | 4:48:19 | |
need a thorough analysis from the
Treasury about the broad overall | 4:48:19 | 4:48:24 | |
picture of non-Brexit issues. We
know other people whose opinions we | 4:48:24 | 4:48:28 | |
must trust such as the former chief
Mandarin at the Foreign Office, | 4:48:28 | 4:48:31 | |
Simon Fraser has said the
differences that we have got in the | 4:48:31 | 4:48:35 | |
debates we are having mean the UK
has been absent from the formal | 4:48:35 | 4:48:41 | |
negotiations, leading, perhaps to
this terrible cliff edge scenario. | 4:48:41 | 4:48:44 | |
That crashing out could lead to real
questions around the safety of our | 4:48:44 | 4:48:50 | |
nuclear facilities. Some other
members have mentioned the aviation | 4:48:50 | 4:48:56 | |
safety agency and others have said
that you know that purchasing a | 4:48:56 | 4:48:59 | |
ticket you have to do it when you
and advance that brings us close to | 4:48:59 | 4:49:02 | |
three or years' time. What will we
do around the lacking of alignment | 4:49:02 | 4:49:08 | |
and regulation or other transport
questions, on agriculture and | 4:49:08 | 4:49:12 | |
financial services and banking. My
final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, | 4:49:12 | 4:49:18 | |
relates to the human question of the
European citizens in our | 4:49:18 | 4:49:26 | |
communities. Not a surgery goes by
without a European citizen coming to | 4:49:26 | 4:49:31 | |
explain that despite living in the
UK for 37 years and contributing to | 4:49:31 | 4:49:34 | |
the economy and bringing up a family
they feel deeply alienated, angry, | 4:49:34 | 4:49:40 | |
the rhetoric around xenophobic
feelings, the rhetoric around how | 4:49:40 | 4:49:46 | |
they are feeling accepted or not
seems to have been heightened and | 4:49:46 | 4:49:50 | |
even some families are wanting to
return to European countries after | 4:49:50 | 4:49:55 | |
living here for 37 years and this is
a terrible shame, or because the | 4:49:55 | 4:50:01 | |
lack of certainty and the lack of a
scientific approach to Brexit, the | 4:50:01 | 4:50:05 | |
lack of firm approaches from the
Home Office, constantly changing the | 4:50:05 | 4:50:13 | |
goalposts, and this would be the
worst thing, crashing out of the EU | 4:50:13 | 4:50:16 | |
for EU nationals who are completely
left in limbo, and the impact that | 4:50:16 | 4:50:23 | |
would have in certain regions would
be horrendous and the health and | 4:50:23 | 4:50:29 | |
medical probably the worst because
our NHS, as we know, is so | 4:50:29 | 4:50:36 | |
dependent. Could the government stop
its confusion and division and chaos | 4:50:36 | 4:50:41 | |
and please don't practice back again
and again on this point that the | 4:50:41 | 4:50:44 | |
firm and give us that information
that our constituents expect. I | 4:50:44 | 4:50:56 | |
think if I can go through and read
the mood music of this chamber and | 4:50:56 | 4:50:59 | |
what I hear from both benches, it
would appear that the opposition | 4:50:59 | 4:51:04 | |
bench feel confident that their
motion if it is not successfully | 4:51:04 | 4:51:09 | |
opposed will at some extent cause
the government to release these | 4:51:09 | 4:51:13 | |
papers, and I therefore work on the
basis that this may well be the case | 4:51:13 | 4:51:19 | |
so I then moved beyond that to what
these papers will look like what was | 4:51:19 | 4:51:27 | |
being a responsible position for
both sides of the House with respect | 4:51:27 | 4:51:32 | |
to that information, particularly
with respect to redacting certain | 4:51:32 | 4:51:36 | |
information that may be deemed
commercially sensitive the | 4:51:36 | 4:51:41 | |
organisation 's that have provided
it. I say this in the spirit of | 4:51:41 | 4:51:45 | |
transparency because there is a
danger that information that has | 4:51:45 | 4:51:48 | |
been passed to the government on the
basis it would not be released | 4:51:48 | 4:51:52 | |
thereafter, there may be
confidentiality agreements in place | 4:51:52 | 4:51:56 | |
although they would not survive the
vote in this House. Those companies | 4:51:56 | 4:52:00 | |
may not be willing to provide so
much information to the government | 4:52:00 | 4:52:03 | |
and to the House, so I say in
particular to the spokesperson for | 4:52:03 | 4:52:08 | |
the opposition that perhaps he would
be able to work on that basis with | 4:52:08 | 4:52:12 | |
the front bench to ensure that we do
not find ourselves lacking in | 4:52:12 | 4:52:17 | |
information from our business
partners in making this a success. | 4:52:17 | 4:52:23 | |
If the information does go through
to the select committee I make the | 4:52:23 | 4:52:27 | |
point to The Right Honourable
gentlemen, the member for Leeds | 4:52:27 | 4:52:31 | |
Central, I know from my own select
committee chair, the transport | 4:52:31 | 4:52:35 | |
select committee, having been only
sat for a few weeks has twice had to | 4:52:35 | 4:52:38 | |
warn the committee members not to
leak documentation outside of | 4:52:38 | 4:52:42 | |
committee, that it is indeed a
difficulty and I hope he take all | 4:52:42 | 4:52:45 | |
the steps he can to ensure that if
certain information is given to | 4:52:45 | 4:52:51 | |
committee members that we put try
and preserve the spirit that the | 4:52:51 | 4:52:55 | |
organisations have delivered
through. Madam Deputy Speaker, | 4:52:55 | 4:53:00 | |
looking beyond this particular
challenge, and working on the basis | 4:53:00 | 4:53:04 | |
that if information is to be given,
I absolutely favoured transparency | 4:53:04 | 4:53:08 | |
and there being more information in
the process. I am incredibly | 4:53:08 | 4:53:13 | |
interested by what organisations
have to say. I am well aware that | 4:53:13 | 4:53:18 | |
offer the advice of civil servants
will be quite cautious but I am | 4:53:18 | 4:53:23 | |
aware that our own government
benches will perhaps try and look | 4:53:23 | 4:53:26 | |
beyond that and recognise that if we
do not publish information and we | 4:53:26 | 4:53:29 | |
have therefore where we are today
that it does fall to honourable | 4:53:29 | 4:53:33 | |
members such as the honourable
member for Glenrothes that they have | 4:53:33 | 4:53:36 | |
to try and make out there is a
conspiracy or a smoking gun inside | 4:53:36 | 4:53:41 | |
that documentation. It may well be
the case that there is nothing of | 4:53:41 | 4:53:45 | |
the sort beyond cautious civil
service advice and so I hope that | 4:53:45 | 4:53:48 | |
that can be taken into account.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand here | 4:53:48 | 4:53:53 | |
as somebody who voted to remain when
it came to the referendum and I | 4:53:53 | 4:53:57 | |
stand here as someone who didn't go
around campaigning for the remaining | 4:53:57 | 4:53:59 | |
team. I spoke to my constituents and
I held a whole series of meetings | 4:53:59 | 4:54:06 | |
and I wrote to 40,000 households to
give them information about both | 4:54:06 | 4:54:09 | |
sides of the argument and then I
left it for them to decide. I do not | 4:54:09 | 4:54:15 | |
believe they were duped. I find it
belief in the SNP benches talk about | 4:54:15 | 4:54:21 | |
all of my constituents, 60% who
voted the way that I did, that they | 4:54:21 | 4:54:25 | |
did so on the basis of false
information they are not capable of | 4:54:25 | 4:54:30 | |
making their own decisions. It is
incredibly patronising for my | 4:54:30 | 4:54:34 | |
constituents and others to be told
that. The reality is I left it to | 4:54:34 | 4:54:38 | |
the constituents to make their
decision and they that decision. As | 4:54:38 | 4:54:41 | |
far as I am concerned, it is Mike
job as a Democrat to make sure that | 4:54:41 | 4:54:45 | |
decision goes through. | 4:54:45 | 4:54:51 | |
Would he not accept that it is now
becoming clear that a number of | 4:54:51 | 4:54:54 | |
promises that were made to people
who voted leave are now not coming | 4:54:54 | 4:55:00 | |
forward and add in fact the
opposite? They're not going to get | 4:55:00 | 4:55:04 | |
£350 million a week for the NHS,
they're not going to see the | 4:55:04 | 4:55:08 | |
scrapping of the regulations because
they are going to be embodied in | 4:55:08 | 4:55:11 | |
British law and they're not going to
see a reduction in immigration and | 4:55:11 | 4:55:15 | |
arguably they are not going to be
better off. It's not that they were | 4:55:15 | 4:55:18 | |
stupid by any means, they were
simply conned. | 4:55:18 | 4:55:23 | |
the danger with that argument from
my honourable friend is that it | 4:55:23 | 4:55:28 | |
presupposes that everybody in this
chamber knows exactly the reasons | 4:55:28 | 4:55:30 | |
why people voted the way they did.
The reality is, looking at the | 4:55:30 | 4:55:35 | |
question on the ballot paper, all we
know is that more people voted to | 4:55:35 | 4:55:39 | |
leave the voltage to remain. We
don't know the reasons why and it | 4:55:39 | 4:55:43 | |
would be wrong for us to try and
interpret it. On that basis, I stand | 4:55:43 | 4:55:47 | |
on the basis because they have been
elected by the same constituents, I | 4:55:47 | 4:55:51 | |
would say the SNP benches might want
to think about the same principle, | 4:55:51 | 4:55:56 | |
but they can to their decision and
they were right and what I want to | 4:55:56 | 4:56:01 | |
say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is I want
to make a success of it. This | 4:56:01 | 4:56:05 | |
technical debate, I have found it
interesting as a lawyer, but the | 4:56:05 | 4:56:09 | |
reality is, doesn't move us forward
to making a success when we leave | 4:56:09 | 4:56:14 | |
the European Union? 488 of 650
members of this House voted that | 4:56:14 | 4:56:17 | |
Article 50 should be triggered.
Surely it follows that they have it | 4:56:17 | 4:56:23 | |
within their interest to make a
success of the decision that | 4:56:23 | 4:56:26 | |
ultimately they made and yet time
and time again, I feel that this | 4:56:26 | 4:56:31 | |
House is used as a mechanism to slow
the process down, to try and defeat | 4:56:31 | 4:56:36 | |
the ultimate goal of those who voted
in this particular manner and I find | 4:56:36 | 4:56:40 | |
it a terrible shame and they will
not take any more interventions. In | 4:56:40 | 4:56:47 | |
the transport select committee on
Monday, we get from four leaders | 4:56:47 | 4:56:52 | |
from British Airways, easyJet,
Manchester and Heathrow airports. We | 4:56:52 | 4:56:56 | |
were put in challenging positions
about whether this would be a | 4:56:56 | 4:56:59 | |
successful industry. They could not
have been more confident it would be | 4:56:59 | 4:57:02 | |
a success. They were confident in
their industry with the proviso that | 4:57:02 | 4:57:06 | |
between industry and politicians, we
would make a success of it. My | 4:57:06 | 4:57:10 | |
concern is that politicians seem to
be the ones that don't have it in | 4:57:10 | 4:57:13 | |
them to make a success of it and
again I would challenge all of those | 4:57:13 | 4:57:17 | |
honourable members who voted to
trigger article 52 talk it up and | 4:57:17 | 4:57:21 | |
make a success this process. --
Article 50 two top it up. I've been | 4:57:21 | 4:57:30 | |
listening carefully to the
exchanges. The motion on the order | 4:57:30 | 4:57:36 | |
paper is perfectly clear in that it
says that the impact assessment | 4:57:36 | 4:57:42 | |
should be provided to the committee
on exiting the European Union but | 4:57:42 | 4:57:48 | |
during the exchanges, the proposals
of this motion and union who are | 4:57:48 | 4:57:51 | |
supporting this motion proposed that
parts of those documents may be | 4:57:51 | 4:57:55 | |
withheld. Have you received an
amendment to this motion that may | 4:57:55 | 4:58:00 | |
qualify what should be provided to
the select committee on is just for | 4:58:00 | 4:58:03 | |
the Government to interpret after
this debate what they should do? I | 4:58:03 | 4:58:07 | |
thank the honourable gentleman for
his of order. I can add the | 4:58:07 | 4:58:11 | |
practical point. Simply, I have
received, the chair has received no | 4:58:11 | 4:58:18 | |
such amendment. As far as I'm
concerned, and I can be positive | 4:58:18 | 4:58:24 | |
about this, the matter which is
currently being debated is exactly | 4:58:24 | 4:58:28 | |
the wording in the motion before us
on the order paper. The way in which | 4:58:28 | 4:58:37 | |
the opposition interprets that might
be different from the way in which | 4:58:37 | 4:58:42 | |
the Government interpret it. That is
what this chamber is here for, to | 4:58:42 | 4:58:47 | |
discuss those differences and to
come to a conclusion. Is it an order | 4:58:47 | 4:58:56 | |
for the Government to disclose to
members of the media what it will | 4:58:56 | 4:59:00 | |
plan to do in relation to these
documents? | 4:59:00 | 4:59:03 | |
I've just seen a tweet from the
rather excellent political | 4:59:03 | 4:59:08 | |
correspondent from the Sun newspaper
who says it is his understanding the | 4:59:08 | 4:59:13 | |
Government will release these
documents heavily redacted. I thank | 4:59:13 | 4:59:20 | |
the honourable lady for her
reasonable point of order. It is not | 4:59:20 | 4:59:26 | |
a matter for the chair to rule on
what the Government may say to | 4:59:26 | 4:59:33 | |
journalists, but I would say to the
honourable lady that while there is | 4:59:33 | 4:59:39 | |
a debate going on in this chamber
about a matter of great importance, | 4:59:39 | 4:59:45 | |
then the place in which
announcements in connection with, | 4:59:45 | 4:59:49 | |
pertaining to that matter of
importance should be made is here in | 4:59:49 | 4:59:52 | |
this chamber. Point of order, Mr
McNeill. | 4:59:52 | 4:59:59 | |
You said it is not about the motion
but how the Government interpret | 4:59:59 | 5:00:02 | |
said. Surely there are other
committees such as the committee on | 5:00:02 | 5:00:10 | |
International trade which I chair
myself, perhaps the health | 5:00:10 | 5:00:14 | |
committee, who should be involved
but if the Government are going to | 5:00:14 | 5:00:17 | |
release it and have a U-turn filly,
we should welcome that. -- fully. He | 5:00:17 | 5:00:28 | |
has made his point very well but as
I said earlier today, it is not a | 5:00:28 | 5:00:33 | |
matter on which I can make a ruling
at this moment from the chair. Madam | 5:00:33 | 5:00:39 | |
Deputy Speaker, there seems to be in
the Government's mind some belief | 5:00:39 | 5:00:45 | |
that they should do all the
redaction. If the House has decided | 5:00:45 | 5:00:51 | |
that these should be provided to a
select committee and that the select | 5:00:51 | 5:00:56 | |
committee can decide what it is
going to publish, I believe that's | 5:00:56 | 5:01:01 | |
better, but the serious important
point is, if any member of that | 5:01:01 | 5:01:06 | |
committee were to breach the
committee's decisions and where to | 5:01:06 | 5:01:09 | |
publish them willy-nilly off their
own bat, I'm sure you would agree it | 5:01:09 | 5:01:14 | |
would be a matter of privilege, that
would be contempt of Parliament. I | 5:01:14 | 5:01:19 | |
thank the honourable gentleman for
his most interesting point of order, | 5:01:19 | 5:01:25 | |
but it is a hypothetical one and I
would hope that any member of a | 5:01:25 | 5:01:31 | |
committee would act in a way which
would not be a breach of privilege | 5:01:31 | 5:01:36 | |
and would not breach the rules of
Parliament, which are there not for | 5:01:36 | 5:01:42 | |
the sake and the whole issue of
privilege and the importance of | 5:01:42 | 5:01:48 | |
privilege and the importance of
behaving in a way that is | 5:01:48 | 5:01:51 | |
commensurate it with the role of
being an honourable member of this | 5:01:51 | 5:01:57 | |
House, is there not for the sake of
tradition or any other frothy | 5:01:57 | 5:02:05 | |
reason, but to preserve our freedom
to democracy, and that's why these | 5:02:05 | 5:02:10 | |
matters are of great importance. I
think we will now return to the | 5:02:10 | 5:02:19 | |
debate because these points of
order, the chamber knows perfectly | 5:02:19 | 5:02:23 | |
well, are not for the chair but are
matters for debate. That is clearly | 5:02:23 | 5:02:28 | |
disagreement and that is why we have
debates on these matters which will | 5:02:28 | 5:02:31 | |
now be commenced by Mr Phil Wilson.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. | 5:02:31 | 5:02:39 | |
I want to follow on from what my
honourable friend from the Brexit | 5:02:39 | 5:02:45 | |
select committee was saying about
the customs union. I received | 5:02:45 | 5:02:49 | |
information from the North East
England Chamber of Commerce about | 5:02:49 | 5:02:51 | |
the state of companies in the North
East of England about what is made | 5:02:51 | 5:02:58 | |
of the customs union and they have
said they believe a lot of their | 5:02:58 | 5:03:02 | |
companies, the majority of them,
don't have the necessary skills to | 5:03:02 | 5:03:06 | |
deal with the customs union or the
new customs arrangement. They say it | 5:03:06 | 5:03:14 | |
shows no inclination to provide any
support to businesses to ensure | 5:03:14 | 5:03:18 | |
company compliance. In fact, the new
intake of 1000 staff would be there | 5:03:18 | 5:03:22 | |
just to raise revenue, not help
ensure that companies get the | 5:03:22 | 5:03:28 | |
documentation right. They also say
that if we have a no deal scenario | 5:03:28 | 5:03:32 | |
where everything sent to the EU has
to have a customs declaration for | 5:03:32 | 5:03:39 | |
clearance purposes, the cost of
business would be huge. Customs | 5:03:39 | 5:03:44 | |
declaration currently costs between
20 and £40, in some cases £75 and | 5:03:44 | 5:03:49 | |
sometimes charged by the line. There
are 16,600 commodity courts and over | 5:03:49 | 5:03:56 | |
300 customs procedure courts. The
code is used regularly, it will not | 5:03:56 | 5:04:08 | |
be an easy task to get used to this.
-- keycodes. And there will be a | 5:04:08 | 5:04:17 | |
major upgrade of software to make
sure this can happen. Is it not | 5:04:17 | 5:04:27 | |
surprising that many of our
companies and businesses and sectors | 5:04:27 | 5:04:31 | |
want to know the background and what
the impact will be on them of | 5:04:31 | 5:04:36 | |
leaving the single market and the
customs union in 2019? The northeast | 5:04:36 | 5:04:43 | |
of England has 60% of the trade in
the region with the EU and in my | 5:04:43 | 5:04:52 | |
constituency I have the biggest
business Park in the North East of | 5:04:52 | 5:04:54 | |
England with between ten and 10,000
-- 10000 and 12,000 people working | 5:04:54 | 5:05:00 | |
there and they say to me at the
Brexit seminar a few weeks ago, it | 5:05:00 | 5:05:07 | |
is uncertain what happens next. What
are the questions we need to be | 5:05:07 | 5:05:12 | |
asking? I said one of the questions
needs to be, we need to have access | 5:05:12 | 5:05:16 | |
to the impact assessments. We need
to be able to work out how sectors | 5:05:16 | 5:05:20 | |
of our industry will be affected
going forward. It may be easy for | 5:05:20 | 5:05:28 | |
multinationals like Hitachi and
Nissan and Airbus to put the | 5:05:28 | 5:05:34 | |
capacity into it to look at how
they're going to be affected by the | 5:05:34 | 5:05:37 | |
various scenarios going forward, but
the vast majority of companies on | 5:05:37 | 5:05:42 | |
the industrial estate business Park,
they don't have the capacity to do | 5:05:42 | 5:05:50 | |
that. For them, it is tactics. It is
about strategy, getting through the | 5:05:50 | 5:05:56 | |
next year, and they need help on the
need to know that there will be | 5:05:56 | 5:06:00 | |
affected going forward. If you look
at some of the sectors on that | 5:06:00 | 5:06:06 | |
business Park. Automotive for
example, 814,000 people work in that | 5:06:06 | 5:06:16 | |
sector. They are feeling insecure at
the moment. They need to know what | 5:06:16 | 5:06:20 | |
is happening going forward.
Construction engineering, 2.9 | 5:06:20 | 5:06:25 | |
million people, electricity,
marketing and you do -- and | 5:06:25 | 5:06:32 | |
renewables, software and computers,
1.4 million, professional services, | 5:06:32 | 5:06:38 | |
1.1 million, the list goes on, and
all these sectors are represented at | 5:06:38 | 5:06:45 | |
this business Park. We don't want to
reveal everything that may not be in | 5:06:45 | 5:06:52 | |
the national interest, but my
honourable friend and his committee | 5:06:52 | 5:06:56 | |
need to be able to analyse it. What
are we frightened of? What is the | 5:06:56 | 5:07:01 | |
Government does not want us to see?
I believe a lot of the information | 5:07:01 | 5:07:04 | |
might be redacted might be a bit
negative ads that may be in a | 5:07:04 | 5:07:08 | |
national interest so therefore
should not be available. The line | 5:07:08 | 5:07:15 | |
there following now is not itself in
the national interest so I will say | 5:07:15 | 5:07:23 | |
by supporting this motion, we need
openness, we need to take back | 5:07:23 | 5:07:27 | |
control in this chamber. Those that
wanted to leave said it through the | 5:07:27 | 5:07:33 | |
referendum and I think now we need
to be practising it. | 5:07:33 | 5:07:39 | |
The honourable gentleman who has
just sat down is another supporter | 5:07:39 | 5:07:45 | |
of this motion who is now talking
about a set of redacted documents, | 5:07:45 | 5:07:52 | |
justifiably redacted documents,
being released as opposed to the | 5:07:52 | 5:07:56 | |
complete documents and I think this
underlines the House debating | 5:07:56 | 5:08:01 | |
documents that doesn't really know
what is in them. Because we haven't | 5:08:01 | 5:08:06 | |
got them. Some colleagues think that
they're going to contain some | 5:08:06 | 5:08:16 | |
dreadful smoking gun that is going
to blow the Government's case out of | 5:08:16 | 5:08:20 | |
the water and I can honestly say
that I believe the Government is far | 5:08:20 | 5:08:23 | |
more concerned and justified
releasing information to the public | 5:08:23 | 5:08:29 | |
domain is going to help the European
Union in their negotiations with the | 5:08:29 | 5:08:33 | |
European Union has no intention of
releasing their impact assessments. | 5:08:33 | 5:08:37 | |
One of the reasons we are leaving
the European Union is that this | 5:08:37 | 5:08:40 | |
House has absolutely no power over
what documents the European Union | 5:08:40 | 5:08:44 | |
should be compelled to police. They
are completely beyond the power of | 5:08:44 | 5:08:48 | |
this House. | 5:08:48 | 5:08:55 | |
Did he not also noticed that the
Shadow secretary of state very | 5:08:55 | 5:08:59 | |
fairly said in his comments that he
anticipates there could be some | 5:08:59 | 5:09:05 | |
reductions or even a summary. My
honourable friend is absolutely | 5:09:05 | 5:09:09 | |
right that we are beginning to see
this messy and untidy debate why | 5:09:09 | 5:09:14 | |
this 19th-century procedure is not
used very often. The select | 5:09:14 | 5:09:22 | |
committee has not requested these
documents, that would be the usual | 5:09:22 | 5:09:26 | |
procedure, that the select committee
would request the documents, no writ | 5:09:26 | 5:09:29 | |
of summons has been issued, we
simply have this motion. I think | 5:09:29 | 5:09:35 | |
there was also a sensitivity within
government about releasing documents | 5:09:35 | 5:09:40 | |
that are used to make political
points. Part of the reputation of | 5:09:40 | 5:09:46 | |
the Treasury was severely trashed
because they released documents in | 5:09:46 | 5:09:50 | |
the run-up to the referendum that
were patentee misleading and used | 5:09:50 | 5:09:54 | |
for propaganda purposes in a way
that I think rather embarrassed | 5:09:54 | 5:09:57 | |
Treasury officials. There was the
question of the status of this | 5:09:57 | 5:10:02 | |
notion. The words binding or not
binding do not appear in Erskine | 5:10:02 | 5:10:08 | |
May, and I think there is amiss
appreciation of the meaning of these | 5:10:08 | 5:10:14 | |
motions. By passing a motion the
House is not making law, there are | 5:10:14 | 5:10:20 | |
no enforceable obligations
enforceable through the court, as | 5:10:20 | 5:10:23 | |
there would be if we were passing
regulation or an act of Parliament. | 5:10:23 | 5:10:27 | |
It is an expression of the will of
the House and I am the last person | 5:10:27 | 5:10:31 | |
to suggest that the government... I
am grateful. Erskine Mead -- Erskine | 5:10:31 | 5:10:43 | |
May does not indeed say binding but
it says each House has the power to | 5:10:43 | 5:10:47 | |
call for the production of papers
and I think power is forceful and | 5:10:47 | 5:10:52 | |
not just an expression of will. My
honourable friend takes me on to the | 5:10:52 | 5:10:58 | |
very next point. It would be
unconscionable for any government to | 5:10:58 | 5:11:03 | |
ignore a motion, but I had the
minister hearing very clearly that | 5:11:03 | 5:11:07 | |
he does not intend to ignore this
motion. He is making it clear that | 5:11:07 | 5:11:11 | |
the government was spun to this
motion and this echoes what the | 5:11:11 | 5:11:14 | |
leader of the House said recently in
business questions about opposition | 5:11:14 | 5:11:18 | |
Day motions, that there should be a
standard that the government | 5:11:18 | 5:11:24 | |
responds to a motion in the House
within at least 12 weeks of the will | 5:11:24 | 5:11:32 | |
of the House being expressed in such
a way but I think the very fact that | 5:11:32 | 5:11:36 | |
we are having a debate about what
exactly would be released means that | 5:11:36 | 5:11:39 | |
it is a matter for the ministers and
the government to interpret and then | 5:11:39 | 5:11:43 | |
if the House is not satisfied with
what has been released it can come | 5:11:43 | 5:11:47 | |
back to it but we should not get in
a paddy that there is some great | 5:11:47 | 5:11:52 | |
constitutional principle. The
parliament is sovereign, not because | 5:11:52 | 5:11:57 | |
it passes motions, the parliament is
sovereign because Parliament can | 5:11:57 | 5:12:00 | |
make or unmake any law and I
reiterate in this matter we are not | 5:12:00 | 5:12:07 | |
making law, at least, not law that
is statute law that is enforceable | 5:12:07 | 5:12:11 | |
through the courts. It is worth
reminding the House what's my | 5:12:11 | 5:12:17 | |
honourable friend the Minister
reminded the House during his | 5:12:17 | 5:12:20 | |
opening remarks which is that the
House has previously voted by a | 5:12:20 | 5:12:25 | |
large majority to protect sensitive
information that is relevant to the | 5:12:25 | 5:12:29 | |
negotiations and I think this is why
this is an exercise that I really do | 5:12:29 | 5:12:34 | |
invite the official opposition to
think about very carefully before | 5:12:34 | 5:12:38 | |
repeating. These documents may not
be very serious, there may not be | 5:12:38 | 5:12:43 | |
much in these documents but this is
a power to call for papers that | 5:12:43 | 5:12:48 | |
should be used very sparingly
precisely because these are the | 5:12:48 | 5:12:53 | |
negotiations of a generation and
unless the government has the | 5:12:53 | 5:12:57 | |
freedom to conduct these
negotiations with the necessary | 5:12:57 | 5:13:03 | |
confidentiality, then the opposition
is undermining the ability of the | 5:13:03 | 5:13:07 | |
government to produce the better
terms of settlement that the | 5:13:07 | 5:13:10 | |
opposition say they want, this is
potentially extremely destructive | 5:13:10 | 5:13:16 | |
and irresponsible and the right
Honourable gentleman knows it. This | 5:13:16 | 5:13:21 | |
is more about party politics and
exploiting a situation for party | 5:13:21 | 5:13:25 | |
advantage than it is about
supporting the national interest and | 5:13:25 | 5:13:29 | |
there may be a great sea of
opposition colleagues on the other | 5:13:29 | 5:13:32 | |
side of the House jeering at that
point but they are jeering at the | 5:13:32 | 5:13:37 | |
national interest when they jeering
that fashion. I'm grateful to him | 5:13:37 | 5:13:42 | |
for giving way. I think he has hit
on the most salient point here. My | 5:13:42 | 5:13:48 | |
family businesses on the industrial
estate on Newton Aycliffe that we | 5:13:48 | 5:13:51 | |
have talked about and that business,
like all of the other ones that I | 5:13:51 | 5:13:55 | |
have met on that industrial estate,
they care about one thing and that | 5:13:55 | 5:14:00 | |
is getting the best deal from the
United Kingdom. They do not want | 5:14:00 | 5:14:03 | |
this government or House to do
anything to compromise that and | 5:14:03 | 5:14:08 | |
releasing these papers will do just
that. In fact the businesses I speak | 5:14:08 | 5:14:13 | |
to in my constituency and around the
country are increasingly impatient | 5:14:13 | 5:14:17 | |
with the games being played here at
Westminster and the games being | 5:14:17 | 5:14:21 | |
played by the European Union and
they want us to leave the European | 5:14:21 | 5:14:25 | |
Union. They want us to get on with
this and end the uncertainty as | 5:14:25 | 5:14:30 | |
quickly as possible, they do not
want a protracted and uncertain | 5:14:30 | 5:14:34 | |
future for this country made worse
by the irresponsible tactics of the | 5:14:34 | 5:14:39 | |
opposition. I have 30 seconds left
to give way. Brexit was a promise to | 5:14:39 | 5:14:45 | |
take back control but we are seeing
Brexiteers now running away from | 5:14:45 | 5:14:48 | |
control. It is odd that the Scottish
National Party believes in the | 5:14:48 | 5:14:55 | |
self-determination for Scotland,
that they want to sell out to a | 5:14:55 | 5:14:59 | |
superstate in the European Union. I
have never understood how they | 5:14:59 | 5:15:04 | |
reconcile the desire for
independence with wanting to be | 5:15:04 | 5:15:07 | |
shackled into a super state in which
they would be but a pimple of | 5:15:07 | 5:15:12 | |
influence compared to the influence
they have through the United | 5:15:12 | 5:15:14 | |
Kingdom. Order! Order! A point of
order. Should we not understand who | 5:15:14 | 5:15:25 | |
the European Union is. It is a union
of 28 sovereign governments am very | 5:15:25 | 5:15:29 | |
far from being a superstate. That is
not a point of order. There have | 5:15:29 | 5:15:38 | |
been too many points of order that
are long and too many interventions | 5:15:38 | 5:15:42 | |
and I now reduced the time limit to
three minutes because that is all | 5:15:42 | 5:15:45 | |
the time we have left. David Lammy.
I am very grateful to get the | 5:15:45 | 5:15:51 | |
opportunity to speak in this debate.
I am someone who always believed in | 5:15:51 | 5:15:54 | |
the ability for our country to pool
sovereignty with the European Union | 5:15:54 | 5:15:59 | |
and I listened to the honourable
member for Harwich over many years | 5:15:59 | 5:16:04 | |
trying to persuade me about the
sovereignty of this Parliament. It | 5:16:04 | 5:16:08 | |
is great to participate in the
debate that demonstrates the | 5:16:08 | 5:16:11 | |
sovereignty of this Parliament. I
first started asking questions on | 5:16:11 | 5:16:14 | |
this issue on September the 4th,
trying to use that sovereignty in | 5:16:14 | 5:16:21 | |
that role as an MP to raise these
issues. The honourable member for | 5:16:21 | 5:16:27 | |
Feltham and Heston put down the
freedom of information request and | 5:16:27 | 5:16:30 | |
of course she again used her ability
as an elected member to get to the | 5:16:30 | 5:16:34 | |
truth. Then we have seen the member
for Holborn and to the House again, | 5:16:34 | 5:16:44 | |
asserting the sovereignty of this
House, to actually raise these | 5:16:44 | 5:16:49 | |
issues, and we have heard from
select committee chairs, an | 5:16:49 | 5:16:53 | |
important institution in this House,
that they could well consider this | 5:16:53 | 5:16:57 | |
information and they understand that
some of it may be redacted but it | 5:16:57 | 5:17:00 | |
all goes to the issue of a sovereign
parliament. You cannot argue for | 5:17:00 | 5:17:06 | |
taking back control and then seek to
thwart the will of this Parliament, | 5:17:06 | 5:17:11 | |
select committees and honourable
members to actually get to the heart | 5:17:11 | 5:17:15 | |
of the truth. I have to say that I
want to see these impact assessments | 5:17:15 | 5:17:20 | |
because there are things that I
expect to read. I expect to read | 5:17:20 | 5:17:23 | |
that the health service will do a
lot with the £350 million and I look | 5:17:23 | 5:17:29 | |
forward to seeing it. I expect to
read that we shouldn't worry about | 5:17:29 | 5:17:33 | |
the skills gaps and Merlots are
people in our country who can step | 5:17:33 | 5:17:37 | |
into those roles and I look forward
to seeing what the DWP maker of | 5:17:37 | 5:17:42 | |
those assessments and those skills,
along with their colleagues in the | 5:17:42 | 5:17:45 | |
business department. I look forward
to hearing when we have limited free | 5:17:45 | 5:17:50 | |
movement of what assessments are
being made by the Home Office of | 5:17:50 | 5:17:54 | |
whether the Indians, when we ask for
a fees are, when we asked them for a | 5:17:54 | 5:17:58 | |
trade deal, are going to raise
issues of whether they can have the | 5:17:58 | 5:18:02 | |
users. For all of those reasons it
is really important to understand | 5:18:02 | 5:18:06 | |
whether the arguments that have been
put forward by many on the opposite | 5:18:06 | 5:18:09 | |
side will actually be made in those
impact assessments. The real reason | 5:18:09 | 5:18:15 | |
is the seriousness of this debate.
It is that as night follows day | 5:18:15 | 5:18:20 | |
mostly it will not be us in this
chamber that suffer or struggle as a | 5:18:20 | 5:18:25 | |
consequence of any shift in our
economy, it is people's jobs, it is | 5:18:25 | 5:18:33 | |
their livelihoods, it is how they
feed their children that matter and | 5:18:33 | 5:18:36 | |
for all of those reasons we must see
those impact assessments and it is a | 5:18:36 | 5:18:41 | |
crying shame that this has begun
because of the freedom of | 5:18:41 | 5:18:48 | |
information request rather than the
government being open. I am very | 5:18:48 | 5:18:53 | |
glad that these impact assessments
exist. I remember over a year ago | 5:18:53 | 5:18:59 | |
saying that we should be looking at
the detail and as a British | 5:18:59 | 5:19:04 | |
Conservative in the European
Parliament I work hand-in-hand with | 5:19:04 | 5:19:07 | |
British Conservative ministers to
champion better regulation saying | 5:19:07 | 5:19:10 | |
that before we make decisions we
could consult stakeholders and look | 5:19:10 | 5:19:15 | |
at the impact and assess the
options, so thank you for going | 5:19:15 | 5:19:19 | |
through that exercise, I am
delighted that the ministers have | 5:19:19 | 5:19:22 | |
been meeting stakeholders and
talking to businesses and government | 5:19:22 | 5:19:26 | |
organisations and consumer groups as
well, but I also understand why the | 5:19:26 | 5:19:31 | |
other side of the House want to know
more about what is going on. There | 5:19:31 | 5:19:37 | |
is deep concern about this country
and breaks it does carry risks and | 5:19:37 | 5:19:41 | |
as a Remainer I warned about that
and those risks have not gone away. | 5:19:41 | 5:19:46 | |
The country needs to be reassured
that we are acting in the best | 5:19:46 | 5:19:51 | |
interests and transparency is really
important. However the decisions are | 5:19:51 | 5:19:56 | |
not black-and-white. The ministers
will have been given price | 5:19:56 | 5:20:01 | |
sensitive, confidential information
and I know that because stakeholders | 5:20:01 | 5:20:04 | |
have told me they have given that
and if that information is put in | 5:20:04 | 5:20:09 | |
the public domain, those very jobs
that members on the other side of | 5:20:09 | 5:20:11 | |
the House say that they want to
protect would actually be | 5:20:11 | 5:20:17 | |
jeopardised and information could
also jeopardise our ongoing | 5:20:17 | 5:20:21 | |
negotiations. It is not normal in a
trade negotiation to show all your | 5:20:21 | 5:20:27 | |
cards. Indeed, it is normal to keep
your cards close to your chest. That | 5:20:27 | 5:20:33 | |
is what the European Parliament
does. I remember during the EU and | 5:20:33 | 5:20:40 | |
US trade agreements information on
sector specific issues were not | 5:20:40 | 5:20:44 | |
shared with the committee meetings
and the negotiators did not give | 5:20:44 | 5:20:49 | |
information in a public forum, their
feedback between different rounds of | 5:20:49 | 5:20:54 | |
negotiations was held behind closed
doors and information that was | 5:20:54 | 5:20:58 | |
shared with the relevant committees
was done so in our highly | 5:20:58 | 5:21:04 | |
confidential way, that you would
need to go to a room, leave your | 5:21:04 | 5:21:08 | |
phone, leave your printer behind
you, read the papers in confidence | 5:21:08 | 5:21:15 | |
and not disclose price sensitive
information. Let us not say this | 5:21:15 | 5:21:19 | |
information should be shared without
thinking through the impact of | 5:21:19 | 5:21:26 | |
sharing those impacts. Thank you. I
rise today to urge members right | 5:21:26 | 5:21:33 | |
across this House to support this
motion. I do so for the simple | 5:21:33 | 5:21:38 | |
reason that without publication it
is impossible for this House to do | 5:21:38 | 5:21:42 | |
its job, which is to hold the
government to account. We must have | 5:21:42 | 5:21:46 | |
a full and frank and informed debate
about what breaks it means and | 5:21:46 | 5:21:50 | |
particularly about what no Deal
breaks it would mean for our society | 5:21:50 | 5:21:53 | |
and economy and for jobs and trade
and living standards. The fact is | 5:21:53 | 5:21:57 | |
that this House and the British
people cannot have that debate | 5:21:57 | 5:22:00 | |
without access to the key
information. We face a productivity | 5:22:00 | 5:22:07 | |
crisis, weakened pound, creeping
inflation, high import costs and the | 5:22:07 | 5:22:11 | |
slowest GDP growth in Europe. They
are all challenges that would be | 5:22:11 | 5:22:16 | |
deeply and dramatically compounded
by a no deal Brexit. No deal would | 5:22:16 | 5:22:21 | |
mean Customs chaos, adding just an
extra two minutes to customs | 5:22:21 | 5:22:26 | |
proceedings in Dover which would
mean a 17 mile queue almost back to | 5:22:26 | 5:22:29 | |
Ashford. Airlines would not be sure
whether their planes can take off | 5:22:29 | 5:22:35 | |
after Brexit and thousands of
citizens and businesses would been | 5:22:35 | 5:22:39 | |
left in limbo, may be temporary and
maybe not, when many of their | 5:22:39 | 5:22:43 | |
products were no longer eligible for
sale across the EU. Let us hope the | 5:22:43 | 5:22:47 | |
government will now drop its
dangerous and vacuous no deal bluff. | 5:22:47 | 5:22:52 | |
The government contends that to
maximise leverage in their | 5:22:52 | 5:22:55 | |
negotiations we must make clear that
we are prepared and willing to | 5:22:55 | 5:22:59 | |
accept an ideal scenario. Taking
this logic at face value then surely | 5:22:59 | 5:23:11 | |
the more bullish we looked the
better prepared we appear at Dover | 5:23:11 | 5:23:14 | |
and the airport and the preparation
to manage the new tariff and customs | 5:23:14 | 5:23:16 | |
duties, the greater our leverage
would be. If the impact assessments | 5:23:16 | 5:23:19 | |
were positive then they would not
only have been published but their | 5:23:19 | 5:23:21 | |
findings would be screened from the
rooftops and that is why the failure | 5:23:21 | 5:23:24 | |
to publish makes it crystal clear
that the no deal rhetoric is a | 5:23:24 | 5:23:28 | |
bluff. It is a bluff that weakens us
and a bluff that undermines our | 5:23:28 | 5:23:33 | |
credibility in the negotiations and
it is yet another example of the | 5:23:33 | 5:23:37 | |
Brexiteer tail wagging the Tory dog.
Yet another example of the national | 5:23:37 | 5:23:42 | |
interest playing second fiddle to
the internal factional interests of | 5:23:42 | 5:23:47 | |
the Conservative Party, yet | 5:23:47 | 5:23:58 | |
another example of party before
country, where the Prime Minister | 5:23:59 | 5:24:01 | |
has put the application of her own
backbenchers ahead of the interests | 5:24:01 | 5:24:03 | |
of our country and so I ask
honourable and Right Honourable | 5:24:03 | 5:24:05 | |
members on all sides of the House to
put country first and support this | 5:24:05 | 5:24:08 | |
motion later tonight. | 5:24:08 | 5:24:13 | |
I find the basis for this debate
baffling in light of 7th of December | 5:24:13 | 5:24:17 | |
last year when the Labour Party
voted not to do and any information | 5:24:17 | 5:24:20 | |
from the Government that could
affect our negotiating position. | 5:24:20 | 5:24:25 | |
This debate today is the direct
contravention to something they | 5:24:25 | 5:24:30 | |
previously supported and this
reflects a bumbling confusion or | 5:24:30 | 5:24:36 | |
deliberate fudging of that approach
to the negotiations. They have | 5:24:36 | 5:24:39 | |
adopted a strategy that involves
accepting any deal that is presented | 5:24:39 | 5:24:44 | |
to the UK by the EU. If Britain was
required to pay £1 trillion they | 5:24:44 | 5:24:49 | |
would still accept the deal. If
Britain was to accept free movement | 5:24:49 | 5:24:55 | |
after our departure, they would
accept the deal. If we were required | 5:24:55 | 5:25:01 | |
to remain members of the single
market and customs union, they would | 5:25:01 | 5:25:04 | |
still accept the deal. If Britain
was not to be leaving the EU, Labour | 5:25:04 | 5:25:08 | |
would still accept the deal. They
are not behind Brexit and they are | 5:25:08 | 5:25:14 | |
not behind what the British people
instructed this place to deliver on | 5:25:14 | 5:25:18 | |
that historic referendum last year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a | 5:25:18 | 5:25:23 | |
complex negotiation and it is
important that we get it right. It's | 5:25:23 | 5:25:28 | |
normal to see that in even the most
basic trade negotiations there needs | 5:25:28 | 5:25:33 | |
to be a degree of secrecy, just as
my honourable friend for Chelmsford | 5:25:33 | 5:25:41 | |
highlighted based on her experience
in the European Parliament and the | 5:25:41 | 5:25:43 | |
European Commission itself has made
that very clear when they have said | 5:25:43 | 5:25:47 | |
recently, and I quote, at a certain
level of confidentiality is | 5:25:47 | 5:25:51 | |
necessary to protect EU interests
and to keep their chances of a | 5:25:51 | 5:25:57 | |
satisfactory outcome high. When
entering into a game, no one starts | 5:25:57 | 5:26:01 | |
by revealing that entire strategy to
their counterpart from the outset. | 5:26:01 | 5:26:05 | |
This is the case of the EU. If that
is the case of the EU, why can't | 5:26:05 | 5:26:09 | |
that be the case for Britain? We
need to retain room for manoeuvre | 5:26:09 | 5:26:15 | |
including the ability to give and
take, to trade off different | 5:26:15 | 5:26:19 | |
interests, to maximise the value of
concessions and to do so without | 5:26:19 | 5:26:23 | |
always having the other side know
what we know. We need to retain our | 5:26:23 | 5:26:32 | |
ability to negotiate with that
degree of agility and speed and this | 5:26:32 | 5:26:36 | |
trade negotiation is different to
any other. We have a changing | 5:26:36 | 5:26:40 | |
political context. It involves
different parties, other countries | 5:26:40 | 5:26:46 | |
which are members of the European
Union. It involves changing | 5:26:46 | 5:26:52 | |
elections and political context. We
have already seen elections in | 5:26:52 | 5:26:56 | |
France, Germany and Austria. We've
got many more between now and 2019. | 5:26:56 | 5:27:01 | |
Parliamentary scrutiny is right, it
has been provided through questions | 5:27:01 | 5:27:05 | |
and papers and debates. I urge the
other side to get behind Britain, | 5:27:05 | 5:27:11 | |
get behind Brexit and get behind the
Government. | 5:27:11 | 5:27:16 | |
The refusal of the Government to
publish these impact assessments is | 5:27:16 | 5:27:20 | |
sadly part of a pattern of shutting
out scrutiny and opposition | 5:27:20 | 5:27:24 | |
throughout. The base issue is that
the Government are being driven by a | 5:27:24 | 5:27:29 | |
hardline ideological Brexiteers who
want to leave the side of elected as | 5:27:29 | 5:27:34 | |
possible. They want a blank canvas
to paint the UK in their own | 5:27:34 | 5:27:38 | |
desolate vision to take away
protections and create a market. | 5:27:38 | 5:27:46 | |
When the Prime Minister warned the
public of the UK setting itself up | 5:27:46 | 5:27:51 | |
as a tax even if we did not get a
free deal, that is what Brexiteers | 5:27:51 | 5:27:55 | |
want and she is too weak to stand up
to them. The slowness in | 5:27:55 | 5:28:00 | |
negotiations is difficulty in the
consoling the needs of the party | 5:28:00 | 5:28:04 | |
with the needs of the country and
the Conservative Party comes first, | 5:28:04 | 5:28:08 | |
leading to a situation I suspect in
which we leave you without a deal | 5:28:08 | 5:28:12 | |
but engineers will Brexiteers then
seek to blame the EU for its | 5:28:12 | 5:28:18 | |
intransigence. The danger is that Mr
Brexiteers are seeking to connect | 5:28:18 | 5:28:21 | |
his nastiness in the country caused
by the referendum. Remain MPs like | 5:28:21 | 5:28:26 | |
me have been described as the
saboteurs. The governor of the Bank | 5:28:26 | 5:28:29 | |
of England is described as an enemy
of Brexit and we heard the phrase | 5:28:29 | 5:28:32 | |
the will of the people used to
describe a narrow victory for leave | 5:28:32 | 5:28:35 | |
in the referendum as all 40% never
existed and last week we saw an | 5:28:35 | 5:28:41 | |
attack on academic integrity and
freedom. It is like corrected | 5:28:41 | 5:28:45 | |
inquisition designed to discriminate
in silent scrutiny. They know how | 5:28:45 | 5:28:53 | |
badly things are likely to go. If
they are so confident as other | 5:28:53 | 5:29:00 | |
members have made a point today, why
don't they publish impact | 5:29:00 | 5:29:04 | |
assessments? Let's see how strong
the Government's can't actually is. | 5:29:04 | 5:29:08 | |
What is for certain is that the
Brexiteers want to rush through any | 5:29:08 | 5:29:11 | |
deal before the absurdity of their
position is exposed, hence the | 5:29:11 | 5:29:14 | |
anti-Eric Gill is all -- anti
intellectualism. There is increasing | 5:29:14 | 5:29:24 | |
evidence of the manipulation of the
referendum by foreign powers. | 5:29:24 | 5:29:30 | |
Supporters of Brexit, Trump and
Russia are perhaps the more sinister | 5:29:30 | 5:29:34 | |
aspects of this whole affair and be
Brexiteers want to align themselves | 5:29:34 | 5:29:38 | |
with Putin's Government in seeking
the break-up of the EU? I call for | 5:29:38 | 5:29:42 | |
an inquiry that would have to be
blocked by the Brexiteers opposite. | 5:29:42 | 5:29:52 | |
We need the disinfecting light shed
on the Brexit process and the first | 5:29:52 | 5:29:56 | |
step to do that would be the
publications of these reports | 5:29:56 | 5:30:00 | |
because when things go south after
Brexit, and they will, the British | 5:30:00 | 5:30:04 | |
people who will suffer will never
forgive this Government for not | 5:30:04 | 5:30:07 | |
revealing the truth weather still
time. | 5:30:07 | 5:30:14 | |
It's a pleasure to be called to
speak in this debate. As some of my | 5:30:14 | 5:30:18 | |
colleagues will know, when it comes
to discovering new and arcane areas | 5:30:18 | 5:30:22 | |
Parliamentary procedure, it was an
interesting moment in the chamber so | 5:30:22 | 5:30:25 | |
to see this one has been
particularly good this afternoon. I | 5:30:25 | 5:30:29 | |
would bring to the motion we are
debating because there seems to be | 5:30:29 | 5:30:33 | |
some people under the impression,
some listening to this debate, who | 5:30:33 | 5:30:36 | |
would think this motion would say
everything should be released | 5:30:36 | 5:30:39 | |
publicly and immediately. That's not
what this motion says, this motion | 5:30:39 | 5:30:43 | |
says to the committee on exiting the
European Union, for some of those | 5:30:43 | 5:30:47 | |
who have been shouting the sugar out
of the public in a speech haven't | 5:30:47 | 5:30:51 | |
read own motion. Secondly I was
interested to hear what can | 5:30:51 | 5:30:55 | |
celebrate tones from the chair of
the committee. They would be an | 5:30:55 | 5:31:03 | |
element of that action and an
acceptance that there is information | 5:31:03 | 5:31:08 | |
that would have to be legitimately
held in the national interest. For | 5:31:08 | 5:31:16 | |
me, this is about a motion that
Webster tried the Government is not | 5:31:16 | 5:31:22 | |
opposing it, they need to be much
clearer what it is talking about and | 5:31:22 | 5:31:25 | |
some the torn has not been as clear
-- the tone. It's also an | 5:31:25 | 5:31:34 | |
opportunity to rerun the referendum
and ensure it has been fascinating | 5:31:34 | 5:31:38 | |
to listen to but people did make a
decision in June last year and | 5:31:38 | 5:31:42 | |
agreed to make sure that as a
successful process. For me, when I | 5:31:42 | 5:31:45 | |
hear the talks about issues of no
deal, I'm yet to hear a European | 5:31:45 | 5:31:51 | |
country said the EU must stay with
Britain for the negotiation until | 5:31:51 | 5:31:54 | |
they give in. The EU has left the
possibility of no deal on the table. | 5:31:54 | 5:32:04 | |
I was reassured to hear the comments
from the Minister Elliott and I'm | 5:32:04 | 5:32:08 | |
sure there will be a genuine wish to
engage with this House and he wants | 5:32:08 | 5:32:12 | |
to engage with information that
helped to engage and advance our | 5:32:12 | 5:32:15 | |
debate but some of what we have had
this afternoon has been playing to a | 5:32:15 | 5:32:20 | |
gallery, trying to pretend
information is not being put out | 5:32:20 | 5:32:22 | |
there when it will be, trying to say
people are demanding it should be | 5:32:22 | 5:32:27 | |
published immediately get in their
own speeches, they say they accept | 5:32:27 | 5:32:29 | |
some of it needs to be redacted or
in the national interest or that a | 5:32:29 | 5:32:34 | |
summary could be presented and I'm
sure the Government will consider | 5:32:34 | 5:32:36 | |
that seriously about whether a
somebody could cover the points | 5:32:36 | 5:32:41 | |
being made. For me, I think people
should be upfront and clear that | 5:32:41 | 5:32:47 | |
arguing about this sort of process
isn't actually getting us to want a | 5:32:47 | 5:32:51 | |
final deal and what we mustn't do is
do things in this House that | 5:32:51 | 5:32:57 | |
actually put the national interest
behind because that's what people | 5:32:57 | 5:32:59 | |
would forgive us for and if we truck
stuck into the paper that actually | 5:32:59 | 5:33:02 | |
sees real impact on the Government
has a chance to explore options, but | 5:33:02 | 5:33:10 | |
most of this has been an interesting
trends to export procedure and we | 5:33:10 | 5:33:13 | |
need to be clear what this motion
was actually about -- interesting | 5:33:13 | 5:33:16 | |
chance to explore procedure. I would
like to thank my honourable friend | 5:33:16 | 5:33:27 | |
for bringing this important debate
today and for the members who have | 5:33:27 | 5:33:30 | |
called for the publication of the
sectoral impact assessment. Our | 5:33:30 | 5:33:34 | |
economy is on the brink of the
biggest change for generations. | 5:33:34 | 5:33:38 | |
Sharing these reports is an
important part of her Parliament and | 5:33:38 | 5:33:41 | |
the Government planned together for
the big change ahead to achieve the | 5:33:41 | 5:33:45 | |
best deal for British businesses and
families. It is unclear to me why | 5:33:45 | 5:33:49 | |
the Government is determined to keep
29 million British workers and | 5:33:49 | 5:33:54 | |
representatives in the dark about
the impact Brexit could have on | 5:33:54 | 5:33:56 | |
their jobs. Cheers of select
committees have supported | 5:33:56 | 5:34:06 | |
publication. 180 MPs across parties
have backed a letter to the | 5:34:06 | 5:34:10 | |
Secretary of State. The situation we
face is potentially very serious. | 5:34:10 | 5:34:17 | |
There is one sign the Bank of
England believes that up to 75,000 | 5:34:17 | 5:34:19 | |
jobs could be lost within the
financial services industry as a | 5:34:19 | 5:34:22 | |
result of Brexit and in the years
since the referendum, we went from | 5:34:22 | 5:34:26 | |
the top of the G-7 growth league
table to the bottom. To have a | 5:34:26 | 5:34:32 | |
proper debate about the impact of
Brexit on our economy, jobs and | 5:34:32 | 5:34:35 | |
living standards, we need to go to
the full as possible extent the | 5:34:35 | 5:34:38 | |
effect it will have on every sector.
This is not about leave or remain, | 5:34:38 | 5:34:42 | |
it's about country before party.
It's not about taking sides but a | 5:34:42 | 5:34:47 | |
nation planning together. It's about
leadership, transparency, clarity | 5:34:47 | 5:34:53 | |
and responsibility. I will give way.
Does she agree with me that the | 5:34:53 | 5:34:59 | |
opposition from the Government side
is wholly confused? The last two | 5:34:59 | 5:35:02 | |
speakers, one said it can't be
released because it would lay open | 5:35:02 | 5:35:06 | |
our hand in negotiations on the
other admitted it wouldn't because | 5:35:06 | 5:35:09 | |
it would be in confidence to the
select committee. I thank my | 5:35:09 | 5:35:14 | |
honourable friend and I will come on
to talk about the confusion that is | 5:35:14 | 5:35:19 | |
holding back the common sense in
this debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, | 5:35:19 | 5:35:23 | |
we are getting the sensor is a
change of heart by the Government | 5:35:23 | 5:35:26 | |
and I welcome that because
supporting this motion is the right | 5:35:26 | 5:35:29 | |
thing to do but I hope that before
the ports are provided to Parliament | 5:35:29 | 5:35:33 | |
that the ministers will read them
first. I hope today that we will | 5:35:33 | 5:35:37 | |
also have confirmation of the timing
by which this will happen. The list | 5:35:37 | 5:35:42 | |
of studies was published this week,
four months after they were first | 5:35:42 | 5:35:47 | |
promised, but with 70 months until
Brexit date, time is of the essence | 5:35:47 | 5:35:54 | |
-- 17 months. The Secretary of State
has gone into gears from saying that | 5:35:54 | 5:35:57 | |
freedom of information has been held
from the public to spare the blushes | 5:35:57 | 5:36:02 | |
of the powerful to say the
Government needs safe spaces for | 5:36:02 | 5:36:05 | |
policy development to be conducted
in private. In a year, he has gone | 5:36:05 | 5:36:09 | |
from saying we have far more to gain
then we have to lose well the | 5:36:09 | 5:36:12 | |
opposite is true for the EU. The EU
Lords select committee heard | 5:36:12 | 5:36:18 | |
yesterday that the withdrawal
agreement will probably favour the | 5:36:18 | 5:36:22 | |
EU. The confusion about the
Government must not now get in the | 5:36:22 | 5:36:25 | |
way of a nation planning together
for the huge challenges to our | 5:36:25 | 5:36:30 | |
economy that clearly lie ahead. The
Government has interpreted the | 5:36:30 | 5:36:36 | |
motions on the opposition days on
the 12th of October and the 7th of | 5:36:36 | 5:36:39 | |
December 2016 as binding. In the
interest of the country, it should | 5:36:39 | 5:36:44 | |
do so with emotion that I am sure
I'm confident the House will pass | 5:36:44 | 5:36:48 | |
today. Let me make it absolutely
clear that when someone who has the | 5:36:48 | 5:36:55 | |
floor takes on intervention and
allows someone who has not been | 5:36:55 | 5:36:58 | |
sitting here waiting to speak
therefore to make their point, what | 5:36:58 | 5:37:01 | |
then happens is that at the end of a
busy debate like this, there are | 5:37:01 | 5:37:06 | |
many people who will not have the
opportunity to speak. That is what | 5:37:06 | 5:37:10 | |
is about to happen and every member
of this House ought to be | 5:37:10 | 5:37:15 | |
responsible for not taking
interventions offered keeping their | 5:37:15 | 5:37:17 | |
remarks short. It is honourable
members who are stopping other | 5:37:17 | 5:37:22 | |
honourable members from speaking.
Jacob Rees-Mogg. I should like to | 5:37:22 | 5:37:30 | |
begin by congratulating the
honourable member for Holborn and St | 5:37:30 | 5:37:34 | |
Pancras for his motion. I think the
opposition is absolutely right to | 5:37:34 | 5:37:39 | |
put down motions on opposition days
that forced the Government to do | 5:37:39 | 5:37:42 | |
things. I think it has been a
general waste of this House's time | 5:37:42 | 5:37:47 | |
to have motions on motherhood and
apple pie which has been the trend | 5:37:47 | 5:37:50 | |
in recent years and to ensure we
have a serious, substantial matter | 5:37:50 | 5:37:55 | |
on which to vote is a very
encouraging trend and one that I | 5:37:55 | 5:37:58 | |
hope will continue. I have no doubt
that this motion is, in all senses, | 5:37:58 | 5:38:06 | |
binding. It is not parliamentary
wallpaper. It is exercising one of | 5:38:06 | 5:38:14 | |
our most ancient rights to demand
papers. It is interesting that in | 5:38:14 | 5:38:20 | |
the instructions given to select
committees, they are given the right | 5:38:20 | 5:38:25 | |
to send for people and papers but
that is the right of this House | 5:38:25 | 5:38:30 | |
delegated to those select
committees. It is not something | 5:38:30 | 5:38:33 | |
inherent in select committees and it
is therefore something that this | 5:38:33 | 5:38:37 | |
House can at any time call back to
itself. As quite lately, the | 5:38:37 | 5:38:43 | |
opposition has put forward today. As
to the papers themselves, I have no | 5:38:43 | 5:38:48 | |
particular view that this is normal
circumstances and matter for the | 5:38:48 | 5:38:51 | |
Government and I would have gone
along with the Government had it | 5:38:51 | 5:38:53 | |
wished to oppose today's motion, but
in the event that it does not, it | 5:38:53 | 5:38:58 | |
must publish these papers to the
Brexit select committee info. This | 5:38:58 | 5:39:06 | |
motion does not allow for redaction
and a happy chat across the dispatch | 5:39:06 | 5:39:11 | |
box between the shadow spokesman and
the ministers does not reduce the | 5:39:11 | 5:39:17 | |
right of this House to see the
papers. Having said that, it may | 5:39:17 | 5:39:23 | |
well be that the select committee of
which I happen to be a member, may | 5:39:23 | 5:39:28 | |
decide not to publish large sections
of those papers for confidentiality | 5:39:28 | 5:39:33 | |
reasons but on the basis of this
notion, unless a further motion is | 5:39:33 | 5:39:38 | |
passed to amend it at some stage,
that right must be with this House | 5:39:38 | 5:39:41 | |
and not with Her Majesty's
Government. | 5:39:41 | 5:39:47 | |
My one criticism of the motion is
that it was a discourtesy to the | 5:39:47 | 5:39:54 | |
Select Committee not to ask if it
wanted the motion to be put forward, | 5:39:54 | 5:39:58 | |
but I think that is a minor
complaint. The Canadian example is | 5:39:58 | 5:40:04 | |
important, and the honourable lady
criticised me for referring to the | 5:40:04 | 5:40:11 | |
Canadian Parliament, but it is a
sister parliament of this one. I | 5:40:11 | 5:40:15 | |
would like to say here, here to
everything he says. It I am | 5:40:15 | 5:40:22 | |
grateful, because one of the reasons
I was so keen to leave the European | 5:40:22 | 5:40:27 | |
Union was for the right of this
House to hold the Government to | 5:40:27 | 5:40:33 | |
account, and to use the procedures
open to it in a powerful and real | 5:40:33 | 5:40:38 | |
way, and that is something this
motion does. The Canadian example | 5:40:38 | 5:40:44 | |
over Afghanistan showed that failure
to meet the requirements to this | 5:40:44 | 5:40:47 | |
House is a breach of privilege, and
there is no protection for any | 5:40:47 | 5:40:54 | |
information that the Government has
received from outside sources on the | 5:40:54 | 5:41:00 | |
grounds of confidentiality. Once it
is required by this House, any | 5:41:00 | 5:41:04 | |
agreement the Government has made is
superseded by the powers of this | 5:41:04 | 5:41:09 | |
House and cannot be challenged in
any court, because it is a | 5:41:09 | 5:41:14 | |
fundamental privilege of this House
that it should be guided by its own | 5:41:14 | 5:41:17 | |
rules. I have no view on whether it
is right or wrong to publish these | 5:41:17 | 5:41:22 | |
papers. But I am pleased that the
House of Commons is exercising its | 5:41:22 | 5:41:29 | |
historic powers, albeit from a
19th-century precedent. Very few | 5:41:29 | 5:41:35 | |
people will have an opportunity to
speak and I am reducing the time | 5:41:35 | 5:41:39 | |
limit to two minutes. I spoke many
times over the last few years in | 5:41:39 | 5:41:46 | |
this House on freedom of
information, and I would like to | 5:41:46 | 5:41:50 | |
be... Focus on that today. I have
pressed for Freedom of information. | 5:41:50 | 5:41:58 | |
The Government's side has focused
very much on wide publication of | 5:41:58 | 5:42:03 | |
these documents would damage the
interests of the UK, but the Freedom | 5:42:03 | 5:42:08 | |
of Information Act requires the
Government to consider the public | 5:42:08 | 5:42:13 | |
interest, and that is why, having
submitted freedom of information | 5:42:13 | 5:42:19 | |
requests to the Government asking
for them to release a sample of | 5:42:19 | 5:42:23 | |
these reports, I am appealing
against their refusal to issue them, | 5:42:23 | 5:42:28 | |
on the following grounds - the
release of these reports meets all | 5:42:28 | 5:42:33 | |
the key public interest test,
demonstrating accountable Government | 5:42:33 | 5:42:41 | |
decision-making process,
safeguarding democratic processes, | 5:42:41 | 5:42:44 | |
which would be severely damaged if
the Government pursue a path which | 5:42:44 | 5:42:48 | |
they knew was very damaging to the
UK's interests. There is clearly | 5:42:48 | 5:42:56 | |
great public and parliamentary
interest in examining these | 5:42:56 | 5:43:00 | |
documents, as Brexit will have a
greater impact on people | 5:43:00 | 5:43:05 | |
economically and socially, and on
the UK diplomatically, than any | 5:43:05 | 5:43:09 | |
other decision taken in the last 50
years. The Government have failed to | 5:43:09 | 5:43:14 | |
take this into account, and I will
be submitting a further Freedom of | 5:43:14 | 5:43:20 | |
information requests to ask them to
set out how they set out the public | 5:43:20 | 5:43:25 | |
interest tests versus damaging the
UK's public interests. We are left | 5:43:25 | 5:43:31 | |
with the impression that the reason
for the refusal to release these | 5:43:31 | 5:43:36 | |
reports is that they confirm that
the UK will be worse off after | 5:43:36 | 5:43:41 | |
Brexit. The motion as drafted
requires the Government, some would | 5:43:41 | 5:43:49 | |
say compels the Government to
release the reports in their | 5:43:49 | 5:43:54 | |
entirety. The honourable member for
North East Somerset made that point, | 5:43:54 | 5:44:01 | |
get a consensus seems to have
emerged in this House this afternoon | 5:44:01 | 5:44:05 | |
that it would be detrimental to the
public interest to release these | 5:44:05 | 5:44:11 | |
reports in its entirety. Therefore,
I give way... What I said in my | 5:44:11 | 5:44:21 | |
opening was in criticism of the
blanket ban, to save the Government | 5:44:21 | 5:44:26 | |
should consider first whether any of
it needs to be withheld, and if so | 5:44:26 | 5:44:30 | |
whether bits of it could be
released, summaries or jests. I was | 5:44:30 | 5:44:36 | |
criticising the Government's
approach for not going through that | 5:44:36 | 5:44:43 | |
already. Many members have made
clear they believe publication of | 5:44:43 | 5:44:48 | |
either a summary or a redacted
version would strike the best | 5:44:48 | 5:44:52 | |
balance between keeping the House
informed and protecting our national | 5:44:52 | 5:44:55 | |
interest. If the Minister from the
despatch box made a commitment to | 5:44:55 | 5:45:04 | |
publish a summary of these reports,
whether the opposition front bench | 5:45:04 | 5:45:09 | |
would not move the motion. If
published as written, there is a | 5:45:09 | 5:45:16 | |
danger it would compel the
Government to publish all the | 5:45:16 | 5:45:19 | |
reports that members on both sides
appear to agree would be damaging. | 5:45:19 | 5:45:24 | |
It would be damaging for two
reasons. First, because contributors | 5:45:24 | 5:45:31 | |
to those reports, companies, would
have their information revealed, | 5:45:31 | 5:45:35 | |
even though the Government had given
them an undertaking of | 5:45:35 | 5:45:41 | |
confidentiality. Second, it would
reveal our position to our | 5:45:41 | 5:45:46 | |
negotiating counterparts. There is a
history of confidential material | 5:45:46 | 5:45:52 | |
leaking out of select committees.
Although the chairman of the Select | 5:45:52 | 5:45:55 | |
Committee said he would seek to
prevent any confidential material | 5:45:55 | 5:46:01 | |
leaking out, there have been a
number of times in the recent past | 5:46:01 | 5:46:05 | |
when that has happened. In 2012, a
DCMS Select Committee report on | 5:46:05 | 5:46:12 | |
phone hacking was leaked. Another on
arms export control was leaked to | 5:46:12 | 5:46:18 | |
Newsnight. In 1999, a Social
Security report was leaked. Robin | 5:46:18 | 5:46:25 | |
Cook received a leak in 1999. In
2013, a Public Accounts Committee | 5:46:25 | 5:46:34 | |
report on Wonga was released to
Wonga. There are concerns whether | 5:46:34 | 5:46:39 | |
the material given to a Select
Committee will remain confidential. | 5:46:39 | 5:46:45 | |
There has been a measure of
consensus in the House this | 5:46:45 | 5:46:48 | |
afternoon that a redacted version of
these reports would strike the right | 5:46:48 | 5:46:53 | |
balance. It may be the Minister from
the despatch box gives an | 5:46:53 | 5:46:58 | |
undertaking on those lines. It would
be in the national interests if the | 5:46:58 | 5:47:05 | |
front bench find those assurances
satisfactory to not move that | 5:47:05 | 5:47:07 | |
motion. I believe the Government's
position on this issue is symbolic. | 5:47:07 | 5:47:15 | |
The unwillingness of ministers to
furnish a committee in this House | 5:47:15 | 5:47:19 | |
with basic information is a sign of
a Government in trouble seeking to | 5:47:19 | 5:47:25 | |
avoid scrutiny by members of this
public. I believe that the | 5:47:25 | 5:47:29 | |
Government's position on this motion
today is symbolic of what is wrong | 5:47:29 | 5:47:33 | |
with the Government approach to
Brexit, and how we find our company | 5:47:33 | 5:47:38 | |
moving through these times. The
Prime Minister found herself leading | 5:47:38 | 5:47:43 | |
and motion on which the House was
divided. The Government should be | 5:47:43 | 5:47:51 | |
aiming to bring the country
together, but an unelected Prime | 5:47:51 | 5:47:57 | |
Minister is determined to press
through with a who knows what | 5:47:57 | 5:48:02 | |
Brexit. The Government are willing
to do it with as little scrutiny as | 5:48:02 | 5:48:07 | |
possible. Instead of bringing the
country back together, this total | 5:48:07 | 5:48:17 | |
lack of transparency and engaged
with people is very real concerns is | 5:48:17 | 5:48:22 | |
creating further distrust and
division. In the north-east, we know | 5:48:22 | 5:48:27 | |
the Government has undertaken the
modelling of the impacts. It has | 5:48:27 | 5:48:35 | |
been reported that the north-eastern
Scotland would be the two areas most | 5:48:35 | 5:48:41 | |
affected. 60% of our exports go to
the EU. We were told loudly and | 5:48:41 | 5:48:49 | |
clearly last year that leaving the
EU was about taking back control, | 5:48:49 | 5:48:53 | |
that voting leave would ensure the
primacy of this sovereign | 5:48:53 | 5:48:57 | |
parliament. But we have a minority
Government determined to obfuscate | 5:48:57 | 5:49:04 | |
at every turn, overriding
Parliamentary democracy. This must | 5:49:04 | 5:49:08 | |
end today. The Health Select
Committee will shortly begin its | 5:49:08 | 5:49:17 | |
enquiry into Brexit, medical devices
and substances of human origin. We | 5:49:17 | 5:49:26 | |
need to know how we guarantee the
timely access to medicines and | 5:49:26 | 5:49:32 | |
substances of human origin. We will
be talking about the future of | 5:49:32 | 5:49:37 | |
development and how we collaborate
across the European Union after we | 5:49:37 | 5:49:42 | |
leave, and access to the appropriate
workforce. The stakes could not be | 5:49:42 | 5:49:48 | |
higher. The Health Select Committee
does not want to damage the national | 5:49:48 | 5:49:53 | |
interest. We want to do our job on
behalf of patients, this House and | 5:49:53 | 5:49:59 | |
the public. We know there are
sectoral analyses in life sciences, | 5:49:59 | 5:50:05 | |
pharmaceuticals, medical devices,
medical services and social care. I | 5:50:05 | 5:50:11 | |
did discuss with the committee in
advance of our hearing yesterday | 5:50:11 | 5:50:16 | |
whether we wished to call for these
papers, and we discussed many of the | 5:50:16 | 5:50:21 | |
issues that have been raised. The
committee was unanimous in giving me | 5:50:21 | 5:50:26 | |
the authority to formally request
these papers from the Secretary of | 5:50:26 | 5:50:30 | |
State, and I did so. Although there
has been much comment this afternoon | 5:50:30 | 5:50:35 | |
that there was a discourtesy in not
raising this with the Select | 5:50:35 | 5:50:40 | |
Committee, it has considered this,
and we would like these papers, on | 5:50:40 | 5:50:46 | |
behalf of our patients, to allow us
to better do our job. I believe in | 5:50:46 | 5:50:52 | |
transparency. I understand the
issues raised. I would be prepared | 5:50:52 | 5:50:57 | |
to see these documents in a private
setting. But I can do a better job, | 5:50:57 | 5:51:02 | |
the committee can do a better job on
behalf of this House, if we have | 5:51:02 | 5:51:07 | |
access to this information, and I
call for this Secretary of State to | 5:51:07 | 5:51:11 | |
release it to us. The 58 impact
assessments that we know of have | 5:51:11 | 5:51:23 | |
been carried out on the instructions
of the Government and cover every | 5:51:23 | 5:51:28 | |
area that will be affected by
Brexit. Withdrawal from the European | 5:51:28 | 5:51:31 | |
Union will be the most important
decision taken by Parliament in over | 5:51:31 | 5:51:37 | |
40 years. It is right and proper
that parliamentarians know what | 5:51:37 | 5:51:43 | |
impact leaving the EU will have. To
give some examples. Aviation. If I | 5:51:43 | 5:51:52 | |
fly to Spain on the 31st of March
2019, will my flight to be able to | 5:51:52 | 5:51:57 | |
take off as it does now? Legal
services, will lawyers be able to | 5:51:57 | 5:52:05 | |
practice in other European countries
who currently recognise their | 5:52:05 | 5:52:08 | |
professional qualifications? Higher
education - will universities lose | 5:52:08 | 5:52:17 | |
funding for not being able to get
students from EU countries to easily | 5:52:17 | 5:52:22 | |
be able to come over and study. Will
universities stop attracting top | 5:52:22 | 5:52:28 | |
academics from other European
countries? I could ask many more | 5:52:28 | 5:52:33 | |
questions on the areas covered by
the impact assessments that the | 5:52:33 | 5:52:39 | |
Government are refusing to release.
They say that it will affect their | 5:52:39 | 5:52:43 | |
negotiations with the remaining EU
countries. They honestly believe | 5:52:43 | 5:52:46 | |
that the EU has not done their own
assessments of the 58 areas where | 5:52:46 | 5:52:54 | |
the impact assessments have already
been done? We have the right to be | 5:52:54 | 5:52:57 | |
as informed as possible about the
effects of Brexit. The decisions we | 5:52:57 | 5:53:02 | |
take by the end of March 2019 will
have a big impact. We must be given | 5:53:02 | 5:53:12 | |
the impact assessments as soon as
possible and we should not be kept | 5:53:12 | 5:53:15 | |
in the dark by the Government. We
have a right to know. The impact | 5:53:15 | 5:53:21 | |
assessments should be disclosed to
the appropriate Select Committee 's. | 5:53:21 | 5:53:29 | |
The vote to leave the European Union
was healed by those who championed | 5:53:29 | 5:53:33 | |
Brexit as taking back control and as
we see, the power of this House on a | 5:53:33 | 5:53:39 | |
daily basis, it seems the Government
has no intention to respect that | 5:53:39 | 5:53:43 | |
vote. Another Government is keeping
away from the British people what | 5:53:43 | 5:53:49 | |
the realities of Brexit should be.
This lack of transparency and | 5:53:49 | 5:53:53 | |
erosion of democracy is an utter
insult to every single person who | 5:53:53 | 5:53:56 | |
voted in the referendum, leave or
remain. Standing up for democracy is | 5:53:56 | 5:54:01 | |
more important than ever and I will
do that. The referendum campaign was | 5:54:01 | 5:54:06 | |
full of fake news and it is about
time we led the British people to | 5:54:06 | 5:54:11 | |
assess what they want for this
country based on the truth. That is | 5:54:11 | 5:54:15 | |
why I will continue to call for not
only these impact assessments to be | 5:54:15 | 5:54:20 | |
released but also for a referendum
on the deal. What began with | 5:54:20 | 5:54:24 | |
democracy should not end in a
Government plot shrouded in secrecy. | 5:54:24 | 5:54:29 | |
There can only be one reason why the
Secretary of State refuses to | 5:54:29 | 5:54:34 | |
release the impact assessment. He
must be hiding bad news. The EU must | 5:54:34 | 5:54:39 | |
be fully aware that Brexit will
probably have a very negative impact | 5:54:39 | 5:54:45 | |
on the UK. The Secretary of State is
kidding himself a few things hiding | 5:54:45 | 5:54:51 | |
this impact assessment will solve
any of it. I asked the Brexiteers of | 5:54:51 | 5:54:56 | |
this House as they sit on oppose a
referendum on the deal and oppose | 5:54:56 | 5:55:03 | |
releasing the impact assessment,
what are you hiding? What are you | 5:55:03 | 5:55:06 | |
afraid of? I would say it looks to
me like they are hiding the reality | 5:55:06 | 5:55:11 | |
of Brexit because you afraid that
the promises you sold to the public | 5:55:11 | 5:55:15 | |
will now be revealed as fake news. I
do support this motion. Thank you, | 5:55:15 | 5:55:20 | |
Mr Speaker.
I am pleased to wind up on the | 5:55:20 | 5:55:29 | |
debate on an issue which is
fundamental to the way in which we | 5:55:29 | 5:55:36 | |
approach the most important
negotiations our country has faced | 5:55:36 | 5:55:40 | |
arguably since the Second World War.
I'm pleased that strong voices have | 5:55:40 | 5:55:45 | |
been raised on both sides of the
House in support of our motion. | 5:55:45 | 5:55:52 | |
There has clearly been some noise
from benches opposite seeking to | 5:55:52 | 5:55:56 | |
defend the indefensible that no part
of these documents should be | 5:55:56 | 5:56:02 | |
published in any circumstances and
to do so is in contradiction with | 5:56:02 | 5:56:09 | |
our own front bench. I apologise for
raising a point of order. As you may | 5:56:09 | 5:56:15 | |
have heard there was a certain
amount of confusion earlier in the | 5:56:15 | 5:56:18 | |
debate about whether this motion is
binding or not and I would be | 5:56:18 | 5:56:22 | |
grateful if you could give your own
view on that. I am grateful to the | 5:56:22 | 5:56:27 | |
honourable gentleman price point of
order. I thought this might arise at | 5:56:27 | 5:56:32 | |
the end of the debate. Motions of
this kind have been seen as | 5:56:32 | 5:56:38 | |
effective or binding. I will leave
it there for now but if this matter | 5:56:38 | 5:56:41 | |
needs to be returned to at the end
of the debate, no doubt it will be. | 5:56:41 | 5:56:49 | |
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to
take this opportunity to do what | 5:56:49 | 5:56:55 | |
this motion seeks so there can be no
misunderstanding. We have not and | 5:56:55 | 5:56:58 | |
would not advocate publish damning
publishing any information that | 5:56:58 | 5:57:02 | |
would compromise the country's
negotiating position. We are | 5:57:02 | 5:57:06 | |
requesting that the impact
assessment of how the Brexit process | 5:57:06 | 5:57:12 | |
will affect the industries that
account for 88% of our economy, the | 5:57:12 | 5:57:17 | |
jobs of up to 30 million people and
their livelihoods of many more are | 5:57:17 | 5:57:22 | |
released to the select committee for
exiting the European Union and it | 5:57:22 | 5:57:26 | |
will be for that committee as a
cross-party body of this House to | 5:57:26 | 5:57:30 | |
agree upon the process for
publication and the chain of that | 5:57:30 | 5:57:33 | |
committee made a powerful
contribution on why that publication | 5:57:33 | 5:57:39 | |
is so important to -- the chair of
that committee. A blanket ban on | 5:57:39 | 5:57:44 | |
publishing any information from the
assessment is simply not acceptable. | 5:57:44 | 5:57:48 | |
This is about pursuing an honest
debate about the future of our | 5:57:48 | 5:57:51 | |
country. It is about grown-up,
serious politics. Members have | 5:57:51 | 5:58:00 | |
talked about many sectors. Let me
cite another, the nuclear industry | 5:58:00 | 5:58:04 | |
which hasn't been mentioned so far.
It employs 15,000 people will stop | 5:58:04 | 5:58:08 | |
at the number of colleagues is
currently serving on the nuclear | 5:58:08 | 5:58:13 | |
safeguards committee. Access to the
nuclear industry assessment would | 5:58:13 | 5:58:16 | |
enable us as Members of Parliament
to scrutinise and in turn make more | 5:58:16 | 5:58:20 | |
informed decisions on the
legislation. That bill is the first | 5:58:20 | 5:58:26 | |
of many Brexit related bills that
will come to this House and it is | 5:58:26 | 5:58:30 | |
vital that as members we have access
to these assessments are doing our | 5:58:30 | 5:58:33 | |
jobs for the people we represent.
Too often the Government regards | 5:58:33 | 5:58:39 | |
this House as an inconvenient hurdle
to be sidestepped. We've seen it in | 5:58:39 | 5:58:44 | |
their refusal to vote on Opposition
Day motions, we've seen it in their | 5:58:44 | 5:58:48 | |
power grab in the delegated powers
in the withdrawal bill and we saw it | 5:58:48 | 5:58:53 | |
in pounds they spent on making sure
the south could not trigger Article | 5:58:53 | 5:58:59 | |
50. One of their own members has
criticised them for reducing this to | 5:58:59 | 5:59:08 | |
a student debate chamber. There
cannot be proper accountability if | 5:59:08 | 5:59:15 | |
we are not able to assess the
approach to Brexit on the jobs and | 5:59:15 | 5:59:24 | |
livelihoods of our constituents. In
opening this debate, the honourable | 5:59:24 | 5:59:33 | |
member said we are open to hearing
from the Government if they have | 5:59:33 | 5:59:36 | |
alternative mechanisms or procedures
to allow publication inappropriate | 5:59:36 | 5:59:41 | |
fashion. If the front bench you such
an appropriate alternative in the | 5:59:41 | 5:59:45 | |
next few minutes, will be withdraw
their motion? -- if they hear an | 5:59:45 | 5:59:52 | |
appropriate alternative.
Facing defeat, it appears there have | 5:59:52 | 6:00:01 | |
been attempts on the Government
benches to below what is being asked | 6:00:01 | 6:00:06 | |
for -- blur. We have no intention of
withdrawing this motion. We are | 6:00:06 | 6:00:17 | |
saying that the Government should
release these documents in full and | 6:00:17 | 6:00:24 | |
unredacted to the select committee
for exiting the European Union. We | 6:00:24 | 6:00:30 | |
should trust our colleagues on that
committee to decide upon a sensible | 6:00:30 | 6:00:36 | |
and transparent process for
publication more widely. Let me | 6:00:36 | 6:00:44 | |
return to the Brexit Secretary's own
words at a different time. When | 6:00:44 | 6:00:50 | |
attitude of the public accounts
committee in December 1999, he | 6:00:50 | 6:00:55 | |
applied a simple test on the release
of information and I quote, whether | 6:00:55 | 6:00:59 | |
it makes democracy and Government
work better, and he went on to say | 6:00:59 | 6:01:04 | |
that, a class exemption applying to
all information relating to | 6:01:04 | 6:01:08 | |
formulation development of
Government policy including factual | 6:01:08 | 6:01:10 | |
information is a ludicrous blanket
exemption. It was wrong then, it is | 6:01:10 | 6:01:15 | |
wrong now. This is a motion in the
interests of transparency and | 6:01:15 | 6:01:24 | |
accountability. It draws support
from both sides of the House. It | 6:01:24 | 6:01:29 | |
should command the support of
Government and not simply as the | 6:01:29 | 6:01:35 | |
honourable member for Worcester said
in his opening remarks to be | 6:01:35 | 6:01:37 | |
regarded to this motion but as the
honourable member for North East | 6:01:37 | 6:01:43 | |
Somerset said, to respect it. The
credibility of our democracy is at | 6:01:43 | 6:01:49 | |
stake. If the Government do not plan
to honour this motion, they should | 6:01:49 | 6:01:55 | |
vote against it. If they choose to
sit on their hands, it should only | 6:01:55 | 6:02:01 | |
be because they intend to respect it
and respected in full and I hope | 6:02:01 | 6:02:06 | |
that they will. I call the Minister
Steve Baker to apply. It's a | 6:02:06 | 6:02:14 | |
pleasure to rise at the end of what
has been a fascinating debate and I | 6:02:14 | 6:02:20 | |
would like to thank all the members
who have taken part and I | 6:02:20 | 6:02:26 | |
particularly welcome the tone and
substance of what was said by the | 6:02:26 | 6:02:31 | |
honourable gentleman for Holborn and
Saint pancreas in his opening | 6:02:31 | 6:02:36 | |
remarks -- St Pancras. Members of
this Government are first and | 6:02:36 | 6:02:43 | |
foremost parliamentarians. The
Government recognises... Members of | 6:02:43 | 6:02:56 | |
the Government are first and
foremost parliamentarians. The | 6:02:56 | 6:03:03 | |
Government recognises that
Parliament has rights relating to | 6:03:03 | 6:03:05 | |
the publication of documents but
ministers also have a clear | 6:03:05 | 6:03:10 | |
obligation not to disclose
information when doing so would not | 6:03:10 | 6:03:14 | |
be in the public interest. If this
motion were to pass, we would need | 6:03:14 | 6:03:24 | |
to look at these conflicting
responsibilities and I think in the | 6:03:24 | 6:03:28 | |
course of this debate, whether
people have talked about Hansard, | 6:03:28 | 6:03:33 | |
whether people who have talked about
Hansard, whether they have talked | 6:03:33 | 6:03:36 | |
about prior practice or our
responsibilities directly in the | 6:03:36 | 6:03:41 | |
best interests of this country. I
think when we go back and reflect on | 6:03:41 | 6:03:45 | |
Hansard and what has been said
today, I think there has been a | 6:03:45 | 6:03:49 | |
surprising degree of consensus which
has emerged about our | 6:03:49 | 6:03:56 | |
responsibilities. SHOUTING I will
give way to the honourable member | 6:03:56 | 6:04:05 | |
was a majority of two. He is very
kind. There is a tweet that the | 6:04:05 | 6:04:12 | |
Government will agree to publish the
impact assessment. | 6:04:12 | 6:04:14 | |
Is that tweet from the sun right or
wrong? We have not stated any | 6:04:14 | 6:04:24 | |
intention to publish redacted
documents although I -- will in the | 6:04:24 | 6:04:31 | |
coolant leak of tomorrow revisit
what was said in Hansard. -- the | 6:04:31 | 6:04:35 | |
cool light of tomorrow. I'm very
grateful to members opposite. Order! | 6:04:35 | 6:04:48 | |
There is excessive gesticulation
taking place from members in | 6:04:48 | 6:04:53 | |
sedentary position is. The Minister
is perfectly aware of the attempted | 6:04:53 | 6:04:57 | |
intervention. It is inconceivable
that he would now be unaware of it. | 6:04:57 | 6:05:02 | |
He is aware of it. I am grateful to
the members opposite and I have been | 6:05:02 | 6:05:10 | |
looking forward to this moment. I
give way. I'm very grateful for the | 6:05:10 | 6:05:15 | |
gracious response from the
honourable member. Could you confirm | 6:05:15 | 6:05:20 | |
or help the House understand, if the
Government is not going to vote | 6:05:20 | 6:05:24 | |
against this motion, will it commit
that it will therefore handover | 6:05:24 | 6:05:31 | |
these documents? If it says it is
not going to hand over the | 6:05:31 | 6:05:35 | |
documents, then it must fought
against this motion. What is it to | 6:05:35 | 6:05:38 | |
be? Come on. IFS the honourable
lady, my honourable friend, to what | 6:05:38 | 6:05:47 | |
I said moments ago and it would come
back to my honourable friend's | 6:05:47 | 6:05:51 | |
remarks because Hansard is available
very quickly these days and it is | 6:05:51 | 6:05:55 | |
the case that the honourable
gentleman said, according to | 6:05:55 | 6:05:59 | |
Hansard, we are open to hearing from
the Government if they have | 6:05:59 | 6:06:02 | |
alternative mechanisms or procedures
to allow publication in an | 6:06:02 | 6:06:06 | |
appropriate fashion. | 6:06:06 | 6:06:16 | |
Honourable members opposite say
disgrace, but this surely can be no | 6:06:17 | 6:06:21 | |
disgrace in reading back to Hansard
record of their front bench | 6:06:21 | 6:06:30 | |
spokesman. I'm currently on page one
of my remarks with less than two | 6:06:30 | 6:06:34 | |
minutes to go so I apologise that I
have not got through the I wish to | 6:06:34 | 6:06:40 | |
say will stop throughout this
process, it has been clear that the | 6:06:40 | 6:06:46 | |
Government has always acted in line
with the remit given to it by | 6:06:46 | 6:06:51 | |
Parliament. The Secretary of State
has been consistent in stressing the | 6:06:51 | 6:06:56 | |
importance of parliamentary scrutiny
and oversight of the Brexit process. | 6:06:56 | 6:06:59 | |
It was a widely supported referendum
bill which gave us the historic vote | 6:06:59 | 6:07:04 | |
that has taken us out of the
European Union -- is taking us out | 6:07:04 | 6:07:08 | |
of the European Union. It was
legislation on the triggering of | 6:07:08 | 6:07:11 | |
Article 50 which preceded the Prime
Minister's letter to Donald Tusk | 6:07:11 | 6:07:17 | |
setting out our ambitions for the
negotiation including delivering a | 6:07:17 | 6:07:20 | |
deep and special partnership with
the European Union which the | 6:07:20 | 6:07:25 | |
Government is determined to deliver.
Coming to the matter at hand, it was | 6:07:25 | 6:07:29 | |
Parliament's bought last year that
we should not put into the public | 6:07:29 | 6:07:32 | |
domain things that could compromise
our negotiating positions and we | 6:07:32 | 6:07:36 | |
have heard time and again from both
sides of this House that we should | 6:07:36 | 6:07:39 | |
not do that and good reasons have
been given for it. I beg to move | 6:07:39 | 6:07:47 | |
that the question should be now put.
As many as are of the opinion, say | 6:07:47 | 6:07:52 | |
"aye". To the contrary, "no".
The ayes have it. It may be wise to | 6:07:52 | 6:08:09 | |
let me put the question first, but
the question is as on the order | 6:08:09 | 6:08:13 | |
paper. As many as are of the
opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, | 6:08:13 | 6:08:16 | |
"no".
The ayes have it. The ayes have it. | 6:08:16 | 6:08:29 | |
The motion just having been carried
unanimously, and the wording being | 6:08:29 | 6:08:35 | |
that the impact assessments arising
from the analysis in question be | 6:08:35 | 6:08:41 | |
provided the committee on exited the
European Union, does this mean that | 6:08:41 | 6:08:49 | |
this is effective or binding, and
whether that means that a failure of | 6:08:49 | 6:08:52 | |
the Government to comply with this
is a contempt of the House? I'm very | 6:08:52 | 6:09:00 | |
grateful to the right honourable
gentleman for his point of order. | 6:09:00 | 6:09:05 | |
First, as I have previously said,
motions of this kind have | 6:09:05 | 6:09:12 | |
traditionally been regarded as
binding or effective. Consistent | 6:09:12 | 6:09:22 | |
with that established pattern, I
would expect the Vice Chamberlain of | 6:09:22 | 6:09:30 | |
the household to present the humble
address in the usual way. I say what | 6:09:30 | 6:09:39 | |
I do as colleagues on both sides of
the House, on both sides of any | 6:09:39 | 6:09:45 | |
argument, will recognise, on the
strength of advice received in | 6:09:45 | 6:09:50 | |
relation to precedent grounded in
Erskine May. When I am asked, as I | 6:09:50 | 6:09:59 | |
think I was by the honourable
gentleman about contempt or breach | 6:09:59 | 6:10:05 | |
of privilege, what I would say to
the honourable gentleman is that if | 6:10:05 | 6:10:08 | |
anybody wishes to make an accusation
of a breach of privilege or a | 6:10:08 | 6:10:17 | |
contempt of the House, that must be
done in writing to the Speaker. If I | 6:10:17 | 6:10:26 | |
receive such a representation in
writing, I will consider it and | 6:10:26 | 6:10:32 | |
apply my best endeavours, and take
advice in reaching a view and | 6:10:32 | 6:10:37 | |
reporting it to the House. I have
explained the position, I think, as | 6:10:37 | 6:10:44 | |
clearly as I am able, but of course
on this sensitive matter, I will | 6:10:44 | 6:10:49 | |
take further points of order if
there are such. I'm saving the | 6:10:49 | 6:10:56 | |
honourable gentleman up. A point of
order. I'm grateful, Mr Speaker, and | 6:10:56 | 6:11:02 | |
the whole House is grateful for that
very clear ruling that you gave. I | 6:11:02 | 6:11:09 | |
observed a defiance from the
Government in face of the ruling | 6:11:09 | 6:11:13 | |
that you'd very clearly given, that
this was binding. Other than what | 6:11:13 | 6:11:17 | |
you had said that procedures that
are open to members of the House, in | 6:11:17 | 6:11:24 | |
order that the Government agreed to
this binding motion and come to the | 6:11:24 | 6:11:28 | |
despatch box and say that they
accept it and these documents will | 6:11:28 | 6:11:32 | |
be published. There is no other
avenue open to the honourable | 6:11:32 | 6:11:37 | |
gentleman, whose commitment is
understood in all parts of the | 6:11:37 | 6:11:43 | |
House. Moreover, it would not be
right to read into what I have said | 6:11:43 | 6:11:50 | |
anything more than what I have said.
Traditionally such motions have been | 6:11:50 | 6:11:55 | |
regarded as binding or effective.
Consistent with that established | 6:11:55 | 6:12:02 | |
pattern, I would expect the address
to be presented by the Vice | 6:12:02 | 6:12:06 | |
Chamberlain of the household in the
usual way. However, I would add that | 6:12:06 | 6:12:11 | |
I think it is sensible for us, for
the House, to wait for the | 6:12:11 | 6:12:19 | |
Government's response. I do not
propose to leap ahead. I will wait | 6:12:19 | 6:12:24 | |
for the Government's response, and
if I receive a representation, I | 6:12:24 | 6:12:31 | |
will reflect on it and then I will
revert to the House. The honourable | 6:12:31 | 6:12:35 | |
gentleman generously refers to my
ruling, but I had given only a very | 6:12:35 | 6:12:41 | |
limited ruling to date. What I have
given is on the record, but I would | 6:12:41 | 6:12:47 | |
need further to reflect on the basis
of the Government reaction and any | 6:12:47 | 6:12:53 | |
written representation that I made
received. I would revert to the | 6:12:53 | 6:13:00 | |
House sooner rather than later, but
it would not be tonight. A point of | 6:13:00 | 6:13:05 | |
order. Would it be helpful for you
to inform the House what you feel | 6:13:05 | 6:13:14 | |
would be a reasonable time frame for
the Government to respond? I don't | 6:13:14 | 6:13:22 | |
think I'm obliged to do that, and
I'm not sure how much difference it | 6:13:22 | 6:13:27 | |
would make. The issues are
important, but I don't myself think | 6:13:27 | 6:13:32 | |
- I may be contradicted by senior
procedural experts - that the | 6:13:32 | 6:13:40 | |
matters are particularly
complicated. One can take a view on | 6:13:40 | 6:13:44 | |
this, one can consult Erskine May,
and I think one should reflect in a | 6:13:44 | 6:13:50 | |
considered fashion. If the
honourable lady is asking me whether | 6:13:50 | 6:13:54 | |
I think this is something that needs
to be deliberated on over a period | 6:13:54 | 6:13:59 | |
of several days, the answer is no. A
point of order. It would you assist | 6:13:59 | 6:14:07 | |
the House, Mr Speaker, and
explaining how serious it is for any | 6:14:07 | 6:14:13 | |
person, member of this House or
outside the House, to be in contempt | 6:14:13 | 6:14:19 | |
of this House. Were an individual to
be found in contempt of this House, | 6:14:19 | 6:14:24 | |
it is not a frivolous matter. Page
191 of Erskine May sets out the | 6:14:24 | 6:14:31 | |
consequences of individuals found in
contempt of the House. I would be | 6:14:31 | 6:14:37 | |
very grateful if you could explain
to ministers present that this is a | 6:14:37 | 6:14:43 | |
serious matter.
It is a serious matter, but I think | 6:14:43 | 6:14:50 | |
that the honourable gentleman, who
has a cheeky countenance, is trying | 6:14:50 | 6:14:51 | |
to push the chair. The answer is put
very simply that if there were a | 6:14:51 | 6:15:04 | |
contempt of House, it would be a
serious matter, but the short answer | 6:15:04 | 6:15:10 | |
to the honourable gentleman, which
may not satisfy him, is that it | 6:15:10 | 6:15:15 | |
depends on the circumstances of the
case. The ultimate arbiter of the | 6:15:15 | 6:15:21 | |
seriousness of the contempt is the
House. In the course of the debate a | 6:15:21 | 6:15:31 | |
number of members seem to be in
favour of publishing summary | 6:15:31 | 6:15:36 | |
versions of these papers, but that
was not on the motion, nor was the | 6:15:36 | 6:15:41 | |
motion amended. Were a new motion to
be put requiring the Government to | 6:15:41 | 6:15:50 | |
publish summary or redacted
versions, would that then replace | 6:15:50 | 6:15:54 | |
the motion just passed? In answer to
the honourable gentleman, I would | 6:15:54 | 6:16:03 | |
say this - the House can always
consider new motions if new motion | 6:16:03 | 6:16:09 | |
are tabled in an orderly way on a
specific day, and the House debates | 6:16:09 | 6:16:15 | |
them and chooses to vote upon them.
What I would say to the honourable | 6:16:15 | 6:16:20 | |
gentleman, who is fast becoming
interested in Parliamentary | 6:16:20 | 6:16:25 | |
procedure, and I respect that, is
that he may think it's useful to him | 6:16:25 | 6:16:31 | |
to reflect on the wise words of a
distinguished representative of his | 6:16:31 | 6:16:40 | |
own party, well-known to his right
honourable friend, the member for | 6:16:40 | 6:16:45 | |
Rushcliffe. I refer to the late Lord
Whitelaw. Lord Whitelaw was known to | 6:16:45 | 6:16:51 | |
observe, on the whole, I think it
better to cross bridges only when I | 6:16:51 | 6:16:57 | |
come to them. As you know, Erskine
May says on page 133 that each House | 6:16:57 | 6:17:10 | |
has the right to call for production
of papers by motions of a return. | 6:17:10 | 6:17:15 | |
Can you just underline how important
it is that we police that power. It | 6:17:15 | 6:17:23 | |
is the Powell by which Select
committees are able to ask for any | 6:17:23 | 6:17:27 | |
papers from anybody. It is the power
by which individuals are required to | 6:17:27 | 6:17:38 | |
appear as witnesses. If we do not
produce that power, we make | 6:17:38 | 6:17:43 | |
ourselves utterly impotent. Erskine
May also makes absolutely clear that | 6:17:43 | 6:17:51 | |
things that include contempt our
actions which instruct or impede the | 6:17:51 | 6:17:56 | |
Commons in the performance of its
functions, or art offences against | 6:17:56 | 6:18:02 | |
its authority, such as disobedience
to its legitimate commands. The | 6:18:02 | 6:18:08 | |
short answer is that it is very
important that the House polices the | 6:18:08 | 6:18:16 | |
enforcement of its own powers. That,
I think, is an observation so clear | 6:18:16 | 6:18:25 | |
as really to brook of no
contradiction. The power to which | 6:18:25 | 6:18:30 | |
members have referred is a power
that has been deployed by both sides | 6:18:30 | 6:18:36 | |
of the House today. The power was
deployed on another matter, as the | 6:18:36 | 6:18:41 | |
order paper testifies, by the
Government. In this case, the | 6:18:41 | 6:18:47 | |
opposition has sought to deploy that
power, and a motion to that effect | 6:18:47 | 6:18:51 | |
has been passed. On the issue of the
importance of overseeing the | 6:18:51 | 6:18:56 | |
operation of its own powers, the
honourable gentleman is correct. It | 6:18:56 | 6:19:00 | |
is very important that the House
does so, and I say that without | 6:19:00 | 6:19:06 | |
prejudice to a ruling on privilege
or contempt in any particular case. | 6:19:06 | 6:19:12 | |
Further to the point of order that
was just raised, can I seek | 6:19:12 | 6:19:18 | |
clarification in relation to the
timing of taking forward what was | 6:19:18 | 6:19:23 | |
passed in the motion today from the
point of view that the list of | 6:19:23 | 6:19:30 | |
sectors that were published were
published four months after they | 6:19:30 | 6:19:34 | |
were promised, and bearing in mind
the urgency of the situation, with | 6:19:34 | 6:19:39 | |
17 months to Brexit day, could he
confirm whether there could be an | 6:19:39 | 6:19:45 | |
interpretation of contempt if there
was an extended delay as to make the | 6:19:45 | 6:19:50 | |
usefulness of the information far
less so. If that proposition were | 6:19:50 | 6:19:55 | |
put to me as part of a
representation of anybody alleging | 6:19:55 | 6:19:59 | |
contempt, I would consider that
matter most carefully, and goes so | 6:19:59 | 6:20:04 | |
far as to say that it would be a
most material consideration. I | 6:20:04 | 6:20:16 | |
understand the desire of the House
for clarity on this matter. The | 6:20:16 | 6:20:19 | |
question of time, both in the
context of tonight's decision, and | 6:20:19 | 6:20:22 | |
in the context of the wider policy,
is important, and it forms part of | 6:20:22 | 6:20:27 | |
the wider occasion which the chair
would have two address. Further to | 6:20:27 | 6:20:33 | |
that point of order, last week the
Leader of the House came to the | 6:20:33 | 6:20:40 | |
House and said that when motions are
passed unanimously, there is a 12 | 6:20:40 | 6:20:46 | |
week gaps before ministers have two
respond. Because this is a | 6:20:46 | 6:20:51 | |
substantive motion, can you confirm
that the option to kick the can down | 6:20:51 | 6:20:56 | |
the road for three months does not
apply to the Government, and they | 6:20:56 | 6:20:59 | |
should respond to the House
forthwith. The Leader of the House | 6:20:59 | 6:21:04 | |
said what she did in response to
representations that were made by | 6:21:04 | 6:21:08 | |
members on both sides of the House
and specifically in the context of | 6:21:08 | 6:21:15 | |
earlier opposition day debates. The
motions for these were not binding. | 6:21:15 | 6:21:23 | |
Forgive me, but the Leader of the
House, in a perfectly legitimate | 6:21:23 | 6:21:30 | |
fashion, procedurally legitimate
fashion, offered to the House is an | 6:21:30 | 6:21:38 | |
indication of intended Government
handling of situations of the kind | 6:21:38 | 6:21:43 | |
that occurred in recent weeks.
Today's debate is on a different | 6:21:43 | 6:21:48 | |
type of motion, so I would go so far
as to say that I think it wrong to | 6:21:48 | 6:21:54 | |
conflate tonight 's motion with the
instruction that it contains with | 6:21:54 | 6:21:59 | |
the response by the Leader of the
House to a different set of | 6:21:59 | 6:22:05 | |
circumstances a week or so ago. The
situations are different, and the | 6:22:05 | 6:22:10 | |
response offered then you shouldn't
be thought necessarily to apply to | 6:22:10 | 6:22:14 | |
the situation now. Mr Speaker, I
rise as somebody who quite enjoyed | 6:22:14 | 6:22:24 | |
voting in this place, but it was our
determination not to do so. On that | 6:22:24 | 6:22:30 | |
basis, I also understand that you
were not in your chair at the time, | 6:22:30 | 6:22:35 | |
Mr Speaker, but as I was listening
to the debate, I thought the | 6:22:35 | 6:22:39 | |
Government responded to this point
and said that they should not choose | 6:22:39 | 6:22:42 | |
to ignore this particular binding
motion. If that were the case, | 6:22:42 | 6:22:47 | |
rather than some of these points of
order which seemed to be asking | 6:22:47 | 6:22:51 | |
whether this House of commons is in
fact a court of law, therefore any | 6:22:51 | 6:22:57 | |
Government, in choosing not to vote
against a motion, excesses to the | 6:22:57 | 6:23:02 | |
idea that it is bound by that motion
and will respond in due course. | 6:23:02 | 6:23:08 | |
Given that earlier response, I think
your earlier pronouncement was an | 6:23:08 | 6:23:11 | |
end to the matter, as far as I can
see. The Government does have to | 6:23:11 | 6:23:17 | |
respond. He is quite right that I
was not in the chair, though there | 6:23:17 | 6:23:25 | |
was a distinguished occupant of the
chair at the time, and I received | 6:23:25 | 6:23:29 | |
advice as to what took place when I
was not in the chair. I think from | 6:23:29 | 6:23:34 | |
an earlier point of order that there
was some exchange about what | 6:23:34 | 6:23:38 | |
constituted ignoring a motion and
what didn't. Suffice it to say that | 6:23:38 | 6:23:44 | |
I think tonight enough has been
said. Points of order have been | 6:23:44 | 6:23:49 | |
raised. I think I have given a clear
indication of what the general | 6:23:49 | 6:23:58 | |
practice has been, what I would do
in the event if I were approached in | 6:23:58 | 6:24:01 | |
writing, and I think it right that
we leave it there for tonight. But | 6:24:01 | 6:24:06 | |
who can refuse the honourable
gentleman the member for Bolsover. | 6:24:06 | 6:24:15 | |
I know the Speaker later apply to
points of order so I'll just all in | 6:24:15 | 6:24:20 | |
one -- likes to reply so I will just
throw him one. Does the Speaker feel | 6:24:20 | 6:24:28 | |
like me, that we've been here a long
time, that the Government is dying | 6:24:28 | 6:24:31 | |
on its feet? It is not for me to
make any such assertion. I think | 6:24:31 | 6:24:45 | |
I've done my bit in allowing the
honourable gentleman to indulge his | 6:24:45 | 6:24:50 | |
appetite but I think I should leave
it there. I honestly think I've said | 6:24:50 | 6:24:55 | |
enough for tonight. Members know
that what I've said so far is clear | 6:24:55 | 6:24:58 | |
at least in terms of the intended
sequence of events but I thank the | 6:24:58 | 6:25:02 | |
honourable gentleman. I know he made
his point with a smile. Thank you. | 6:25:02 | 6:25:13 | |
If there are no further points of
order, and there are not,, we come | 6:25:13 | 6:25:19 | |
now to the adjournment. The question
is that this House do now adjourn. | 6:25:19 | 6:25:32 | |
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like
to start by declaring an interest in | 6:25:32 | 6:25:37 | |
that the landlord of my current
constituency home in Newcastle | 6:25:37 | 6:25:41 | |
funded by the taxpayer is
potentially affected by the | 6:25:41 | 6:25:45 | |
grotesque situation I am about to
outline. Because Mr Speaker, I have | 6:25:45 | 6:25:51 | |
called this debate on the Mary
Magdalen and holy Jesus trust to | 6:25:51 | 6:25:56 | |
expose a situation which combines
the worst parts of Dickensian legal | 6:25:56 | 6:26:07 | |
tragedies, bureaucracy and Catch-22
conundrums with charitable | 6:26:07 | 6:26:10 | |
oppression thrown in. My
constituents who have worked for | 6:26:10 | 6:26:19 | |
lice invested in property as they
had been encouraged to do and are | 6:26:19 | 6:26:26 | |
now -- have what they are all lights
are being encouraged to invest and | 6:26:26 | 6:26:32 | |
because of an obscure loophole in an
obscure 1960s law, the failure of | 6:26:32 | 6:26:37 | |
the Charity commission to give clear
advice on the good citizen role of | 6:26:37 | 6:26:43 | |
charities and the complexity of the
leasehold system. I do not know the | 6:26:43 | 6:26:51 | |
total number of my constituents in
this grotesque situation, but five | 6:26:51 | 6:26:56 | |
of them have made the brave decision
to come forward and speak publicly. | 6:26:56 | 6:27:02 | |
Howard Phillips and Phil Buchanan
published the leasehold house on the | 6:27:02 | 6:27:06 | |
open market in 1998 will stop at the
time there were no caveats raised by | 6:27:06 | 6:27:11 | |
the conveyancing solicitors or by
the solicitors that handled their | 6:27:11 | 6:27:17 | |
remortgage in 2003. They are now in
their late 70s and they feel the | 6:27:17 | 6:27:22 | |
time has come to move on. As they
say, the House is not suitable for | 6:27:22 | 6:27:27 | |
old age, the cost of maintaining
these Victorian grade two listed | 6:27:27 | 6:27:33 | |
house is and will be a substantial
burden on the remaining years for | 6:27:33 | 6:27:38 | |
the lease. We cannot easily manage
the six flights of stairs or afford | 6:27:38 | 6:27:42 | |
to maintain the property. But they
can't downsize because they can't | 6:27:42 | 6:27:48 | |
sell their property. There are these
has a 70 years remaining and no | 6:27:48 | 6:27:52 | |
mortgage company will advise on loan
until the lease was extended and | 6:27:52 | 6:27:57 | |
they cannot extend their lease
because the charity who owns the | 6:27:57 | 6:28:01 | |
freehold, the Mary Magdalene and
Holy Jesus Trust, refuses to do so. | 6:28:01 | 6:28:07 | |
The trust was formed for the benefit
of the three men of Newcastle, their | 6:28:07 | 6:28:13 | |
wives and children, and it is now a
considerable property owner in | 6:28:13 | 6:28:17 | |
Newcastle. It all is -- it owns the
freehold of the St Thomas area in | 6:28:17 | 6:28:23 | |
Newcastle as winners -- as well as
properties in other areas. The | 6:28:23 | 6:28:30 | |
home-brew or housing association. --
home group. In refusing to extend | 6:28:30 | 6:28:38 | |
the leasehold, the trust are causing
misery for leaseholders and forcing | 6:28:38 | 6:28:42 | |
many into financial distress. For
example, Michael Armstrong says, we | 6:28:42 | 6:28:48 | |
had a low income family with three
children and had planned to pay off | 6:28:48 | 6:28:52 | |
our mortgage by selling the House
and downsizing was our children had | 6:28:52 | 6:28:57 | |
grown up and left the family home.
Due to the fact that we cannot | 6:28:57 | 6:29:02 | |
extend our leasehold or buy the
freehold, we're basically trapped in | 6:29:02 | 6:29:09 | |
a very worrying and insecure
situation and faced the real | 6:29:09 | 6:29:12 | |
possibility of losing her family
home. Another woman tells me, when I | 6:29:12 | 6:29:21 | |
arrived in the United Kingdom as a
refugee having lost everything | 6:29:21 | 6:29:25 | |
during the war in the former
Yugoslavia, I never imagined that I | 6:29:25 | 6:29:29 | |
would be facing yet another battle
to save my home. Since purchasing | 6:29:29 | 6:29:35 | |
the property, he has married, had
two children, the property has only | 6:29:35 | 6:29:42 | |
1.5 bedrooms so the family cannot
live there. He has to let it out but | 6:29:42 | 6:29:46 | |
that does not pay the mortgage and
in effect he is working to subsidise | 6:29:46 | 6:29:50 | |
somebody else living in it. What
would happen, he asks, if you fell | 6:29:50 | 6:29:55 | |
seriously ill? I quote again, that
question has haunted me many times | 6:29:55 | 6:30:03 | |
and sleepless nights. I usually do
any repairs on the property myself | 6:30:03 | 6:30:07 | |
but this is getting harder and more
difficult as my physical health is | 6:30:07 | 6:30:11 | |
preventing me from doing as much as
I once could. When he purchased the | 6:30:11 | 6:30:17 | |
property, he was not made aware of
any restrictions that could occur in | 6:30:17 | 6:30:23 | |
future years and indeed she was
offered to purchase the freehold by | 6:30:23 | 6:30:26 | |
the trust in 2005. Unfortunately, he
was not financially able to do so at | 6:30:26 | 6:30:34 | |
the time. There is also Dennis Cook,
Denise Cook, who bought a house for | 6:30:34 | 6:30:41 | |
her elderly mother to live in or
stop she says, my mum spent | 6:30:41 | 6:30:45 | |
thousands on this property and to
find out we can't extend or by the | 6:30:45 | 6:30:50 | |
lease has been extremely upsetting
for us. We now find ourselves having | 6:30:50 | 6:30:56 | |
to still pay the mortgage in
associated costs for the next 60 | 6:30:56 | 6:31:02 | |
years. We are now 60, my husband and
myself, and our own mortgages coming | 6:31:02 | 6:31:08 | |
to an end. We have no idea what the
future will hold and it is of great | 6:31:08 | 6:31:14 | |
concern that we be passing on this
debt to our family. I could go on, | 6:31:14 | 6:31:20 | |
Mr Speaker, as there are many more
constituents affected but I hope you | 6:31:20 | 6:31:25 | |
and the minister now comprehend the
worry and misery that this situation | 6:31:25 | 6:31:29 | |
is causing. Let me try to explain as
best I can the complex combination | 6:31:29 | 6:31:37 | |
of circumstances which have caused
the situation. We all know that the | 6:31:37 | 6:31:46 | |
leasehold system has fallen into
disrepute. This is why the | 6:31:46 | 6:31:52 | |
Government has conducted a
consultation that received over 6000 | 6:31:52 | 6:31:55 | |
responses. I welcome this and hope
the Government will soon bring | 6:31:55 | 6:32:00 | |
forward legislation on the matter,
but the specific legal issue | 6:32:00 | 6:32:08 | |
surrounding the Mary Magdalene and
Holy Jesus Trust relates to the | 6:32:08 | 6:32:11 | |
amendment of the 1967 Housing act.
This amendment and section 172 | 6:32:11 | 6:32:18 | |
states that if a charity owns a
freehold, it is not obliged to | 6:32:18 | 6:32:24 | |
either sell or extend the lease of
houses on its land. So my | 6:32:24 | 6:32:32 | |
constituents cannot extend their
lease and they cannot buy the | 6:32:32 | 6:32:35 | |
freehold and Mr Phillips -- in Mr
Phillips's words, we are devastated | 6:32:35 | 6:32:42 | |
to find that our house cannot be
sold and own nest egg is worthless | 6:32:42 | 6:32:48 | |
because the charity that owns the
freehold refuses to extend our | 6:32:48 | 6:32:52 | |
lease. Mr Speaker, under this
Government, social housing tenants | 6:32:52 | 6:32:58 | |
have a right to buy after only two
years, but my constituents are not | 6:32:58 | 6:33:05 | |
even allowed to extend their
leasehold. The minister has said we | 6:33:05 | 6:33:12 | |
needed to help more people achieve
the dream of home ownership, so how | 6:33:12 | 6:33:16 | |
can it be acceptable to the
constituents of main stand to lose | 6:33:16 | 6:33:22 | |
their home because of this legal
anomaly -- constituents of mine. Mr | 6:33:22 | 6:33:30 | |
Phillips says, every day we have
today is this nightmare and it is | 6:33:30 | 6:33:33 | |
taking a toll on our health. Mr
Speaker, this situation is | 6:33:33 | 6:33:43 | |
additionally Kafka-esque because it
applies only to houses. To quote Mr | 6:33:43 | 6:33:47 | |
Phillips again, our neighbours who
won maisonettes and that in a | 6:33:47 | 6:33:50 | |
similar situation to ourselves --
who own maisonettes, have the right | 6:33:50 | 6:33:59 | |
to buy freehold from the charity but
the owners of houses have no such | 6:33:59 | 6:34:01 | |
right. Will the Minister attempt to
justify a situation where house | 6:34:01 | 6:34:08 | |
owners are discriminated against in
this way in comparison to flat | 6:34:08 | 6:34:13 | |
owners with regard to leasehold law?
It is 100 years since the Russian | 6:34:13 | 6:34:20 | |
Revolution but this legal conundrum
would not be out of place in Tsarist | 6:34:20 | 6:34:28 | |
Russia. It is not a situation that
should injure in a democracy worthy | 6:34:28 | 6:34:33 | |
of the name and not under a
Government which claims to champion | 6:34:33 | 6:34:37 | |
a property owning democracy -- that
should in -- endure in a democracy. | 6:34:37 | 6:34:52 | |
We have heard in the past the trust
did offer to sell freeholds but more | 6:34:56 | 6:35:02 | |
recently they have changed their
position. My constituents have tried | 6:35:02 | 6:35:05 | |
to be flexible. Mr Savic says I
offered to sell the property at 25% | 6:35:05 | 6:35:14 | |
below what I paid. I am desperate to
be free of the problem and I thought | 6:35:14 | 6:35:18 | |
their aim must be to use the
property for their charitable | 6:35:18 | 6:35:22 | |
purposes but despite spending over
£6,000 on both sets of lawyers and | 6:35:22 | 6:35:29 | |
surveyors, all I got as in response
to my lawyer -- through my lawyer is | 6:35:29 | 6:35:36 | |
no without an explanation.
Leaseholders have become suspicious | 6:35:36 | 6:35:41 | |
of the trust and its motives yet
they have no recourse to the law | 6:35:41 | 6:35:46 | |
either. As Mr Phillips says,
litigation is not an option against | 6:35:46 | 6:35:52 | |
a charity, especially one with
assets of 44 million. The trust did | 6:35:52 | 6:36:00 | |
respond to my inquiries and said, I
quote, they are sympathetic to the | 6:36:00 | 6:36:07 | |
residents and acknowledge this is a
horrible position to be in but they | 6:36:07 | 6:36:11 | |
claim they cannot change it as
things presently stand. This is | 6:36:11 | 6:36:15 | |
because they have received legal
advice informing them that they are | 6:36:15 | 6:36:20 | |
under no obligation to sell or to
extend the lease and they feel | 6:36:20 | 6:36:27 | |
repercussions -- they fear
repercussions from the Charity | 6:36:27 | 6:36:29 | |
commission if they do so. They have
pointed out to me that they, | 6:36:29 | 6:36:33 | |
quoting, have a duty to existing and
future beneficiaries to preserve the | 6:36:33 | 6:36:37 | |
assets of the charity. In other
words, Mr Deputy Speaker, they would | 6:36:37 | 6:36:43 | |
like to extend their lease but they
feel they cannot contravene the | 6:36:43 | 6:36:48 | |
advice that has been given to them
as the Charity commission would take | 6:36:48 | 6:36:52 | |
a dim view of this. I'm grateful to
my honourable friend forgiving way. | 6:36:52 | 6:37:01 | |
Is she aware that the beneficiaries
are potential beneficiaries of this | 6:37:01 | 6:37:06 | |
trust are particularly needy or
destitute people? I thank my | 6:37:06 | 6:37:11 | |
honourable friend and neighbour for
his intervention and they would like | 6:37:11 | 6:37:19 | |
not necessarily to pass judgment on
the beneficiaries, but the | 6:37:19 | 6:37:23 | |
beneficiaries of the trust are the
three men of the city -- free men of | 6:37:23 | 6:37:35 | |
the city of Newcastle, their wives
and widows, so I don't think they | 6:37:35 | 6:37:42 | |
can be considered to be the most
needy people in Newcastle, no, and I | 6:37:42 | 6:37:47 | |
do not believe either that these
assets would meaningfully enrich the | 6:37:47 | 6:37:54 | |
most needy in Newcastle in that
respect. When the Charity | 6:37:54 | 6:38:03 | |
commission, when contacted, said
charities are independent... | 6:38:03 | 6:38:13 | |
Organisations and their trustees are
legally responsible for all aspects | 6:38:13 | 6:38:19 | |
of administration and compliance
with charity law is important to | 6:38:19 | 6:38:25 | |
emphasise that although the Charity
commission includes the better | 6:38:25 | 6:38:32 | |
Administration of charities and
taking remedial action to tackle | 6:38:32 | 6:38:37 | |
misconduct or mismanagement, the law
prohibits the commission from acting | 6:38:37 | 6:38:41 | |
directly in the administration of
the charity. Basically the | 6:38:41 | 6:38:44 | |
commission claims it has nothing to
do with it, even though it does | 6:38:44 | 6:38:49 | |
advice charities to take legal
advice but does not advise them to | 6:38:49 | 6:38:53 | |
be good neighbours are good
citizens. -- or good citizens. My | 6:38:53 | 6:39:01 | |
citizens are left without justice
well the charity and Charity | 6:39:01 | 6:39:04 | |
commission pass the blame between
each other. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am | 6:39:04 | 6:39:08 | |
calling on the Minister to put an
end to this situation. Will he | 6:39:08 | 6:39:13 | |
commit to closing this loophole as
part of his proposals for leasehold | 6:39:13 | 6:39:17 | |
reform? My party has pledged a
review of leasehold so I hope you | 6:39:17 | 6:39:24 | |
can commit to freeing my
constituents from this grotesque | 6:39:24 | 6:39:27 | |
impasse. Will he also join with me
in employing the Charity commission | 6:39:27 | 6:39:34 | |
to make clear that Wales charities
must act in the interests of the | 6:39:34 | 6:39:38 | |
beneficiaries, that should not be at
the expense of making life a misery | 6:39:38 | 6:39:45 | |
for others. These charities must be
good citizens of the communities in | 6:39:45 | 6:39:50 | |
which they are part of and on whose
generosity they depend. | 6:39:50 | 6:40:05 | |
As a good socialist, I find it
ironic I am advocating for property | 6:40:10 | 6:40:16 | |
rights this Conservative Government
is denying. Some might argue... | 6:40:16 | 6:40:24 | |
Some might think they had a point.
Housing remains one of the top three | 6:40:28 | 6:40:33 | |
issues in my constituency and we're
aware that house-building is at | 6:40:33 | 6:40:38 | |
164,000 homes per year is far below
the required level. | 6:40:38 | 6:40:42 | |
Subtitles will resume on
'Wednesday?In?Parliament' at 2300. | 6:42:12 | 6:42:22 |