Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept the contention that there has been any loss of evidence. Baroness Hallett has confirmed that her investigation will begin once the terms of reference are finalised. It is logical that evidence has to be gathered before it can be heard, and she has said that she intends to gather evidence throughout this year, with public hearings beginning in 2023. She has made it clear that she will do everything in her power to deliver recommendations as soon as possible. We all want that.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to promote British industries around the world.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to promote British industries around the world.

[James Sunderland]

Bracknell lies at the heart of the silicon valley of the Thames valley, and we are very proud of our overseas businesses and British firms. Can the Minister confirm what we are doing to make sure that the sanctions against Russia do not negatively impact British businesses?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for businesses in Bracknell, and he makes a very good point. I reassure him and businesses all over the UK that the overall impact on the UK economy of sanctions will be limited. Some firms will be more exposed than others to Russian trade and financial market measures, but we have put in place mitigations to manage the impact on UK businesses and workers. We are also putting in place the appropriate licences to allow certain businesses to keep running and pay staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to topicals, where I suggest there are a lot of free hits, as we have quite a little bit of time.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

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

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)]

This month we appointed Baroness Gisela Stuart, who is well known to the House, as the new civil service commissioner to oversee the body guaranteeing that civil servants are selected on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. Baroness Stuart brings a wealth of experience, having been a Member of this House for 20 years and a Government Minister for the Labour party, and brings a non-partisan spirit to roles including her time at the University of Birmingham, the Royal Mint and as a non-executive director of the Cabinet Office. We have also been working on taking forward the Prime Minister’s work on Brexit opportunities; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency has identified almost 2,000 EU regulations remaining in British laws, which he is reviewing in order to reduce the burdens on business and the public. I have also written to Departments across Whitehall to ensure that we make the necessary regulatory changes to ease the burden of the cost of living, and will have further meetings with colleagues to take that work forward.

[James Sunderland]

Events in Ukraine prove that the international rules-based order continues to be threatened by aggression and competition. What is being done to increase and improve the UK’s strategic independence and self-sufficiency for its needs?

[Steve Barclay]

That is an extremely important point in terms of both our energy security and our wider commitments building on COP26 and net zero. That is why the Prime Minister, the Trade Secretary and I hosted a number of Australian investors, who collectively have committed £25 billion of inward investment in green technology to the UK, at No. 10 Downing Street last night. That is both an indication of our commitment to energy security and to ensuring that we learn the lessons of Russia and Ukraine, and a signal of the attractiveness of the UK for foreign investment, which reflects this Government’s commitment to supporting business and levelling up across the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady is really saying that we should not have rolled out the furlough scheme at the speed that we did, I think everybody in this country understands that it was a heroic thing. I remember that, two years ago, the Opposition were yammering and clamouring for us to go faster—and we did; we produced a fantastic scheme. And yes, fraudsters will be hunted down: we have put another £100 million into tracking down fraud in this country. Some £23 billion a year was lost under Labour in fraud.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I was delighted to learn this week that 37 of the 39 state schools in the Bracknell constituency are now graded good or outstanding. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our fantastic teachers, staff, governors and pupils? Does he agree that the new education White Paper offers a blueprint for our schools that we can all be proud of?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. I think it is a fantastic White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

On 3 February this year the Government announced that the Northern Ireland Executive will receive an additional £250 million to help them to support households with the cost of living. He mentions tax changes, but it would be imprudent of me as a junior Minister to comment ahead of the Chancellor’s making statements to the House.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It was a real pity that we could not land the return of the world rally championship to Belfast in 2022. Can the Minister please confirm that we will pull out all the stops for 2023?

[Conor Burns]

I can. We did extensive work with the Department for the Economy and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was heavily involved in lobbying on that. We think it would be a great thing to bring to Northern Ireland and we are determined to build on the work we have already done to see whether that is possible next year.

Ukraine

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must have missed what I already said. We already have a very wide package of sanctions in place since the Russian incursion of 2014. We have personal sanctions and other sanctions for what the Russians did in Crimea and Sevastopol. What we are going to do now is to ratchet those sanctions up very considerably. I am afraid he is not right in what he says about abandoning Ukraine since 2014. With Operation Orbital, the UK has been out there in the front, helping to train 21,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will know that Ukraine is not a full member of NATO, but may I ask him to comment on the feasibility of direct military action by NATO, notwithstanding that article 5 does not apply?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I go back to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I know that, emotionally, many people will want to commit NATO troops to the defence of Ukraine. We have UK troops there now, and members of the Ranger Regiment are going to supplement those we already have.

I have to say that no member of NATO is currently willing to deploy in Ukraine in large numbers to fight Russian aggression in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. Indeed, we have to beware of doing things that would constitute a pretext for Putin to invade. We have to calculate and calibrate what we do very carefully, and I think that the right approach is to build a strong package of economic sanctions, continue to supply defensive weaponry and do all the other things that we are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

If the hon. Member was at COP 26 or was following what was going on, he will have seen the huge commitment to protecting nature. Of course, we also want to ensure that CBD15 is a success.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

T6. How does the COP President reconcile his narrative of the global leadership required for COP26 and net zero with the acute reality that we still need to extract hydrocarbons, not least to keep energy costs down?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course, as I said earlier, we want to see an orderly transition to net zero in our energy mix, which includes oil and gas, but the answer to delivering net zero, keeping bills under control and ensuring security of supply is to continue to build out our world-leading offshore wind sector and invest in nuclear and hydrogen, as this Government are doing.

Afghanistan

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I am very sorry to hear what happened at Hamid Karzai International airport. I hope they will be successful under the resettlement scheme. If she would be kind enough to send details through to the Home Secretary, I would be very grateful.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is very easy to apportion blame with the benefit of hindsight, but this is a really complex environment and the current situation is as much a failure of leadership in Afghanistan as anything else. While we may not want to engage with the Taliban, does the Prime Minister agree that we have no choice but to do so, perhaps with a forward presence in Kabul in the same way as our Chinese and Russian adversaries?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is very wise in what he says. I believe that it is inevitable for us to engage with the Taliban. Indeed, we have been: at the airport, British troops were working directly with their Taliban counterparts to ensure that the operation went through. That was an inevitability. We will of course look at further co-operation, but as I said to the House, we will judge the new regime in Kabul not by what they say, but by what they do.

Afghanistan

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Afghanistan has dominated much of my working life, so I am grateful to have been called to speak this afternoon. The situation there is galling, and one can only imagine the horrors that are unfolding in that most challenging part of the world. Were all the blood, sweat, tears and lives lost worth it? Well, now is not the time for an introspective look at how we got where we are today, as our priority is the here and now, but I will raise three quick points, if I may.

First, the fall of Kabul will reopen wounds for our service personnel, our veterans and their families. Huge sacrifices were made by so many, so I express my deepest sympathy to all those who lost loved ones and those with ongoing mental and physical scars. I also pay particular tribute to the 3,487 allied service personnel who lost their lives, including 457 British men and women, many of whom I served with.

There are no winners in war—it is a horrible, dirty business—but I believe that the MOD and the FCDO acted in good faith throughout the conflict. There were significant successes: schools, education, women’s rights, markets, jobs, town centres. People were given hope, and no terrorist acts in the west were orchestrated from Afghanistan’s soil. It may just be that some wars cannot be won, that strategic aims may be too ambitious and that some parts of the world are simply ungovernable.

As for the here and now, the non-combatant evacuation operation is in full flow, but I want to see an enhanced FCDO presence on the ground to ensure that we get it right. We must secure the airhead. We also need to take advantage of the relatively permissive environment—for now—to extend the lines of communication and ensure safe passage for UK nationals and entitled personnel to the airhead. In tactical terms, we need to go ugly early.

In addition, we need to be honest with ourselves. The FCDO must be realistic about the task at hand, not least in its messaging, by not writing cheques that cannot be cashed in terms of offering a safe haven for the non-entitled. I regret that we need to accept the harsh reality of what is happening in Afghanistan. Whether we like it or not, the overriding imperatives are UK nationals, foreign nationals with whom we have an arrangement and those entitled Afghan personnel we can lift.

Finally, we need to be honest about our place in the world and our global ambitions. The fall of Kabul, like Suez, has shown that the UK may not be able to operate autonomously without US involvement. It may be that our foreign policy is decided as much in Washington as it is in London. I am being provocative, but with so much being spent on defence and with global Britain at the forefront of our foreign policy, just how independent are we?

Armed Forces Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

There are welcome steps in this Bill, but in delivering on the special responsibility we have to our armed forces personnel, we believe the Government can and should go further with this legislation. Labour believes that the armed forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and our service communities. This legislation is an opportunity to strengthen and improve it and, through Labour’s amendments, to go further and ensure that we tackle all areas of disadvantage.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the new shadow Minister, and I wish her well in her new role. I also empathise with much of what she said this afternoon, but of course the Government position is quite different, and I will explain why.

As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am probably more familiar with this Bill than most, and it is a good Bill. As before, with the armed forces covenant, I welcome the fact that it pays due regard to the placeholder, recognises rightful outcomes, and accurately reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces, and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how this is to be provided.

I note, with the Minister in his place, that prescriptive performance targets are still absent from the statutory guidance, but it may just be impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I just do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations, so I await that with interest.

I want to talk to just a handful of the amendments, if I may. New clause 1, as mentioned, is on the duty of care. It would require the Secretary of State to

“establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations”.

While this duty of care is one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and of the armed forces of course, applying a one-size-fits-all approach could lead to difficulties in the future. Tailored welfare and mental support for those who have served is already very effective and is already offered to all personnel.

New clause 2, on dismissal for sexuality, requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces because of their sexuality or perceived sexuality, and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. As before, while there is no validation of this practice and the Government do see it as an absolute wrong, the Government have resisted this clause at this point in time, as indeed they did in Committee, owing to its complicating the MOD’s efforts to address at pace this injustice. However, for the record, this does need to be done in due course, and I believe that the Government will do it.

New clause 3, on a representative armed forces body, would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, that would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. But, once again, the Government have not been persuaded that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested. The interests of armed forces personnel, of which I was one, are already ably represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of all service complaints.

I would talk to some more amendments, but actually my opinion of all of them is the same as it is of the new clauses: while they are laudable on their own, there are good reasons why the Government are resisting every one—reasons outlined at length in Committee, and indeed during the Select Committee stage. In the interests of time, let me just say that this Bill has been subject to repeated scrutiny at various stages. It is a good Bill, it remains fit for purpose in terms of what can be achieved now, and I will be voting it through tonight.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]]

I start by paying tribute to members of the armed forces both for the work they do in ordinary times and for the work they have done over the last 15 or 16 months with their support for services during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to the organisations that have taken time to engage with Members during the passage of this Bill to ensure that we are fully informed about as many areas and as wide a range of issues as possible.

The Bill started its passage with Members on all sides keen to see real change for personnel in the armed forces. From that start with the very best of intentions, we have ended up with a disappointing conclusion, with non-controversial amendments being rejected without, I believe, any real attempt to make meaningful progress. We therefore find ourselves at this stage with a Bill that will make very little, if any, practical difference to those who serve. Of course, I do hope that I am proved wrong about this, but I have my suspicions that if, in a year’s time, we were to ask personnel whether they knew of any difference this has made, the answer unfortunately would be negative.

As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, it lacks the punch required. The Bill’s commitment to the armed forces covenant falls far short of what it ought to be. Many stakeholders, including the Royal British Legion, have argued that the Bill should go further in strengthening the covenant in law, but many other areas have been missed out, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, Department for Work and Pensions issues, and proper representation for serving personnel.

For veterans who have suffered humiliation, dismissal and loss of pensions because of their sexuality, the Bill simply does not deliver. The Armed Forces Minister has previously spoken of his intention to make real progress in this area, so I look forward to working with him to deliver a just outcome for those individuals who have been affected in that way. This is an example of an issue that the Bill fails to address, and the SNP will be supporting Labour’s new clause 2 on that.

The Armed Forces Minister has previously given us assurances on service accommodation, but accommodation issues are raised year on year by serving personnel. The recent National Audit Office report on single living accommodation describes a litany of neglect. Accommodation for families also falls far short of the standards we expect. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill as it stands will not strengthen the accommodation offer. The SNP’s series of modest amendments, Nos. 3 to 6, asks that service accommodation match the standards set for civilian housing. This should be a matter of straightforward agreement across the House. We should not be asking service personnel, or indeed their families, to put up with accommodation that would be deemed unacceptable to non-military families. If we are talking about non-detriment, basic housing standards would be a good place to start. I am not expecting the Government to accept the SNP amendments on that today, but I hope this issue can be properly considered in the weeks and months ahead.

The SNP has for a long time advocated a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look at the examples of many of our NATO allies, which benefit from armed forces representative bodies. We are used to hearing arguments from Members on the Government Benches about how it could not possibly work, because it could undermine the chain of command or encourage strike action. However, an armed forces representative body would be a federation like the Police Federation. It would not allow strikes and it would not impact on the chain of command, but it would give a voice to our personnel that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. I am therefore pleased to see Labour bringing an amendment forward again. If we are looking to ensure that the covenant is properly fulfilled, such an organisation would substantively carry out that role. It could advocate on housing, pay, terms and conditions and so on. However, I think the real reason for the Government’s resistance is that it would actually give our armed forces and veterans a voice.

The time and effort spent on the Bill should have been an opportunity to significantly improve our offerings to the armed forces, but I am doubtful. Without the ability to enforce—without the teeth the Bill needs—the Bill will sadly fall short. If this is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity, many of us will be disappointed, but the SNP will continue to engage with the Government and the Armed Forces Minister in the hope that we can make a real change for those who are serving.

Armed Forces Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

The Government have got themselves into a real mess of their own making over investigations. I accept that the Minister is new. I have written to him on this matter and asked for a meeting. He clearly has not worked out how to get round his civil servants and insist that something goes in his diary, but he will learn. I have got to say that his intentions are good and he is taking a more grown-up and mature approach to the job. He has a real passion for making sure he does the best for our armed forces, but he must grasp the nettle of investigations. I will ask again for a meeting with him, but I would like to know how the Government propose to legislate when the review is finished. It cannot wait another five years for another Armed Forces Bill.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

After that speech, who on earth would be a Defence Minister? It is a great privilege to speak during Armed Forces Week. We have a clear responsibility in this place to support Her Majesty’s forces, so the timing is neat. As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am familiar with the Bill. It is a good Bill, but may I commend to hon. Members the Select Committee report and the subsequent statement made in this House on 22 April? Both were fully objective and the result of painstaking analysis and debate within the Select Committee. Yes, we did not agree on every issue. In fact, we did not agree on many issues.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It was remiss of me in my contribution not to thank the hon. Member for chairing the Select Committee. He got thrown in at the deep end at the last minute, but I think all members of the Select Committee thought he did an excellent job and ensured that everyone had their say. May I put on record my thanks, and I am sure that of other Members, to him for the way in which he chaired the Select Committee?

[James Sunderland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman —my friend—for those kind words. It was a real pleasure to chair that superb Committee. The report was pretty good. I believe it to be a framework for what lies ahead and perhaps even a template for what we do with this standing legislation in five years’ time. We are progressing all the time, and the future looks good.

I want to discuss two areas: the statutory guidance and the latest amendments to the Bill. First, I thank the Minister for his written response to the Select Committee report and for the draft statutory guidance, which we have now got. We must acknowledge that the covenant is already with us. It has been signed by the vast majority of councils all over the UK, including in Northern Ireland. In fact, it has its 10th birthday at this point in time, so what better present could there be than to bring it into statute?

The door is already open for the statutory guidance, and it is a good bit of work so far. I welcome the fact that it places a due regard on the placeholder, that it recognises rightful outcomes, that it reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It also provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how that is to be provided.

I note that prescriptive performance targets are still absent, but it may be that it is impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but—it is a big but—it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations. I read with interest the line in the guidance that:

“Covenant duty does not mandate public specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the Armed Forces Community. It only mandates that consideration takes place…when exercising certain functions”.

That worries me, as the local authority complaints process does not cut it in terms of what I believe is still needed. Simply inviting disaffected personnel to contact their MP fills me with horror. I urge the Minister to please look again at this, dig deeper and do the right thing.

I turn to the amendments. I am comfortable with what the Government have tabled, and I want to talk to a handful of the others. New clause 1 would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving members of the UK armed forces. Similarly, new clause 7 provides that foreign and Commonwealth veterans applying for indefinite leave to remain following four years of service will pay only the unit cost of an application.

I am clear in my mind that the Government have this key issue in hand, and I welcome the consultation recently announced by the MOD and the Home Office. I personally wish to see an amnesty for those F and C personnel who slip through the net, and I agree that it is right to abate the cost of visa fees as a function of time to incentivise longer service. As a former commanding officer of the largest and most diverse unit in the British Army, I say that is the right way to go, even though it may set a precedent for other Departments.

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standards in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel. The MOD takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, and over the years it has established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans. We have come a long way from the early days of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with which I am very familiar. The covenant has also been enshrined in law, so I think that the new clause may be redundant at this point.

New clause 3 would require the Government to publish a report on changes to personnel numbers across all services and to detail the impact of reductions on operational capabilities. However, none of that is a closely guarded secret. The MOD recently published its Command Paper “Defence in a competitive age” and noted that the size of the Army would be reduced. I believe that that new clause is also redundant; the information is out there.

New clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces due to their sexuality and make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. Restorative justice is difficult due to the policies that were legally enforceable at the time, but I am comfortable, for now, that the Government are making strides to tackle this, not least by restoring medals and engaging much more broadly with the LGBTQ+ community. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

As for new clause 6, the duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders is already there. It is called good leadership—and also the covenant, which is being enshrined in law.

Lastly, new clause 8 is laudable, but we are not there yet. The new clause would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. The Government have not been persuaded at this point that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested.

The interests of armed forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least, again, the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides impartial scrutiny of service complaints made by members of the UK armed forces regarding any aspect of their service life. However, for the Minister’s benefit, I would, in this case, welcome an independent body to provide additional rigour for service complaints. In my experience, service complaints are very awkward, and it may just be that taking them out of units and out of the chain of command is the right thing to do.



To conclude, one of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but as an ex-serviceman I refute that. Any new legislation has to be deliverable, proportionate, pragmatic and responsible, and has to attract the necessary due diligence and analysis, for it needs to consider the effect on those it relates to, and no Government can write cheques they cannot cash, as they have to maintain the fundamental ethos and integrity of the organisation itself. Our armed forces are pre-eminent in their field and must be afforded the autonomy they need to do their job. So this is about evolution, not revolution, and I believe that we will get there in due course through what the Select Committee has recommended.

I say to those who wish to turn this unique organisation into what they would wish it to be by clipping its wings, softening its operational capability and ignoring its hard edge or negating the importance of the chain of command: please be careful what you wish for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

I am delighted to hear that and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the effort to let us know that in the Chamber.

Armed forces charities provide life-changing services, particularly for those with substance abuse problems, but access remains a postcode lottery. I think it is wrong that the state takes so little responsibility for ensuring that veterans receive the treatment they need. Requiring public bodies to give due regard to the principles of the covenant is not enough. The Bill was an opportunity to set measurable national standards that would end the current postcode lottery through the armed forces covenant. Once personnel have left service, they rely on the NHS and local authorities, and of course on the UK’s third sector organisations which provide excellent help and support. Their work is fantastic, but the MOD has a responsibility to those men and women that it has shirked for too long.

For too many veterans, their service to this country has come at a devastating cost. Drink and drugs are often an escape; a way to cope, a way to manage or medicate mental health conditions and past trauma. One of the worst failings of the system is that many drug and alcohol services simply do not have the competencies to deal with mental health issues in-house and many mental health services are not able to offer support if a patient presents with substance use disorders. Being bounced between services effectively prolongs people’s suffering for longer and longer.

[James Sunderland]

I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman talking about veterans. I will make two points if I may. First, of course, not all veterans are mad, bad or sad. The picture you paint is very negative. The vast majority of veterans in this country live very successful, happy, fulfilling lives. My second point is this. I visited Veterans Aid yesterday in London, which is a very impressive organisation focused very much not on alleviating symptoms, but on outcomes. Do you agree that outcomes is the right way to go?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I just offer a gentle reminder that we speak through the Chair, rather than directly.

G7 and NATO Summits

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have a free trade deal with the EU. It is a fantastic deal, and our trade with the US is growing the whole time.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will have enjoyed formal and less formal dialogue with EU leaders at the G7. May I ask him whether any empathy was expressed for the trade frictions that we are currently experiencing with the Northern Ireland protocol at the behest of a third party? Was there any sense that the EU might acquiesce to unilateral action by this country because of the frankly bonkers situation in which the UK cannot sell sausages to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts the matter very succinctly. There are many ways in which we are seeing the disproportionate and unnecessary application of the protocol. I think our partners understand that, and we are hoping for some pragmatic solutions before too long.