Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me thank the hon. Lady for her thanks. She has raised the case of Primodos many times. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has been gathering evidence for a review by an expert working group on medicines, and it has met on three occasions. I think we are making progress.

On universities, until Britain leaves the European Union, we get the full amount of funding under Horizon and other programmes, as we would expect. All contracts under them have to be fulfilled, but it will be for a future Government, as they negotiate the exit from the EU, to make sure that we domestically continue to fund our universities in a way that makes sure that they continue to lead the world.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Q7. As my right hon. Friend will know, the potential closure of the BHS store in Torquay town centre with the loss of more than 100 jobs has again raised the need for major regeneration of town centres across Torbay. Will he outline what support will be made available by the Government to ensure that plans can be taken forward?

[The Prime Minister]

First, it is worth making the point that it is a very sad moment for those BHS staff who have worked so long for that business. For them, it was not simply a high street brand; it was a job, a way of life and a means of preparing for their retirement and their pensions, and we must do all we can to help them and find them new work. There are many vacancies in the retail sector, and we must ensure that there is help for them to get those jobs. As for our high streets, we have put around £18 million into towns through a number of initiatives, and we should keep up those initiatives, because keeping our town centres vibrant is so vital. This sits alongside the biggest ever cut in business rates in England—worth some £6.7 billion in the next five years—and we need to say to those on our high streets that they should make the most of that business rate cut.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This House is sovereign. Under the reforms put through by the coalition Government, this House has all sorts of opportunities to take an issue unto itself and to vote on it. That now happens much more than when I first became a Member of Parliament when it was impossible to do that. My advice would be that the House must accept the will of the country. The next Government will have to bring forward their proposals on article 50 and the rest of it, and there will have to be discussions between the Government and the House about how that goes ahead.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that it would make as little sense for us to put trade barriers between us and 44% of our market as it would for Scotland to put barriers between itself and 90% of its export market?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, Scotland benefits from two single markets, and I am keen to keep it in one and as close as possible to the other.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am absolutely clear that the reforms that the Prime Minister brought forward will improve the EU for pensioners and citizens right across Scotland. I also believe that this is not the end of the reform process. The EU is not perfect, even after these reforms, but it is up to the UK to lead in reforming the EU, not to withdraw from it.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the EU is based on its current member states. What assessment has he made of last week’s Scottish Parliament election results in regard to ensuring the integrity of one of its largest members and removing the prospect of Scotland having to apply to join as a new member?

[David Mundell]

There was one clear message from last week’s Scottish Parliament elections: the people of Scotland do not want another referendum. I hope that the First Minister has heard that message loud and clear. The EU referendum is about the UK’s membership of the EU. It is not a rerun of the Scottish independence referendum.

National Defence Medal

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection; that story about his constituent is illustrative of the stories of members and former members of the armed services who have contacted me. There are people in so many different situations who fall down gaps that we perhaps did not realise were there.

How can this situation possibly be justified? If, as Churchill said, we want

“to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved”

medals, is it any wonder that some people might consider that they are not being recognised equally? And is it any wonder if some former members of our armed forces consequently shun Remembrance Day events and other commemorative events? That concern has been raised with me and it is a great shame that some of those who have served, sometimes in very difficult situations, are not entitled to a medal, which causes them to be anxious about remembrance ceremonies. That is very unfortunate and entirely avoidable.

In the same 1944 debate that Churchill spoke in and that I have quoted, Leslie Hore-Belisha MP commented on exactly that kind of discrepancy in recognition. He said:

“The fact that such anomalies exist is no excuse for deliberately adding to them. It is the function of good legislation and administration to remove them and, if not to remove them, at any rate to diminish them.” —[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 908]

That is what we should consider. The British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign advances the simple and logical proposition that one way of diminishing such anomalies is to ensure that all members of the armed forces get the recognition they deserve for stepping into that role.

Other Governments have recognised this issue and acted to recognise the contribution made by their service personnel. The UK Government should now do the same, and acknowledge in this tangible way the work and the willingness to face peril that is common to everyone who signs up as a member of our armed forces.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I am sure she will agree that when people sign up for the military, they sign up to put life and limb on the line for this nation, and for them not to have a medal that recognises that contribution is part of the insult, given that—depending on which operation they were involved in and what medals were awarded—they have made that core decision to put their life and limb on the line for the nation, which would be recognised by this medal we are discussing.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That intervention absolutely gets to the crux of this issue. The Australian Government have recognised that point with their new defence medal, which was instituted in 2006, and they describe the purpose of that medal as being to recognise

“the outstanding contribution to our proud military history made by Australian men and women in uniform.”

That is all of them. Similarly, when New Zealand instituted its defence medal in 2011, the country’s Defence Minister, Wayne Mapp, described the basis for issuing the medal as follows:

“Many thousands of New Zealanders have met the demanding requirements of military service. They have served their country and community loyally and well...Up to now, there has been no recognition of this service, on which the Government places high value. This medal remedies that.”

That is exactly the type of recognition that I am looking for.

Here, however, the Ministry of Defence seems to place great store on the argument that a national defence medal would devalue other awards, which is an absurd proposition. When I asked a question about this topic at business questions recently, the Leader of the House of the Commons said he did not think that medals should be handed out in this way, and that the value of medals for particular examples of valour and service would perhaps be devalued by the issuing of a national defence medal. I could not disagree more. People who join our armed forces do so knowing that they are putting themselves into peril, and it is high time that we recognised that.

I believe that those who have been awarded medals for bravery do not feel that their awards are devalued because other colleagues receive the same campaign medal as they do, and nor would they feel that their awards were devalued by the receipt of a national defence medal. Those who were awarded a General Service Medal do not feel that it was devalued because others were awarded it, too. Arguments such as that made by the Leader of the House of Commons are simply camouflage for an unwillingness to listen.

Having already quoted Churchill, I will close my remarks today by doing so again, and this time I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to his advice. Writing on the conduct of negotiations between states, he advised:

“In war and policy one should always try to put oneself in the position of what Bismarck called ‘the Other Man’. The more fully and sympathetically a Minister can do this, the better are his chances of being right.”

I commend those sentiments to the Minister and I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to take forward the recognition by Sir John Holmes that the case for a national defence medal deserves proper consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

Of course what has happened since 1944 should not necessarily be dictated by 1944, but in that quotation Churchill summarised the issues and the anguish involved. I was merely trying to reflect that in my comments, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire did in hers.

[Kevin Foster]

Does the Minister agree that the slight difference between today and 1944 is that in 1944 adult men and women of a particular age were conscripted, under threat of imprisonment, at a time of war? What sets the veterans of today apart is that they volunteered to serve our country.

[Mr Wilson]

Of course there is a clear difference between what happened in the second world war and what happens today, but Churchill’s comments summarised the issues that needed to be carefully weighed up when making the decision. There is a strong lobby in the military for not making the changes, as well as the one we are getting from veterans about the national defence medal. The Government’s job is to try to make decisions about where the line falls in a fair and honourable way, and that is not easy. We will upset one group of people whichever decision we come to.

Although the Ministry of Defence instituted the armed forces veterans lapel badge in 2014 as a way of identifying all those who had done military service, it has never been the tradition here in Britain to consider service in the armed forces as the sole justification for a medal. It was right, therefore, that in 2012 the Prime Minister gave medallic recognition its appropriate attention, by commissioning Sir John Holmes, a retired senior diplomat, to review the awarding of military medals. I can assure hon. Members that great thought has already been given to all the points raised this morning. Sir John’s review team received more than 200 submissions and spoke to more than 50 people, including representatives of various veterans’ groups. Sir John independently reviewed a number of cases as possible candidates for changed medallic recognition, one of which involved Arctic convoy personnel and led to the Arctic convoy medal being given.

The national defence medal was worthy, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire pointed out, of full consideration in the 2012 review. Its supporters seek recognition for all those who have served, irrespective of where they were called upon to do so. The review estimated the cost of the medal at £475 million, and although it went far beyond the narrow consideration of cost, there would be implications for other activities and choices if the Ministry of Defence had to take that burden.

UK-EU Renegotiation

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we read section D of the main document, we see that it is quite refreshing about the number of instances in which the control of migration and the limitation of free movement will be possible. That document bears careful reading.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statements so far. I particularly welcome the fact that, for the first time in my lifetime, a Prime Minister is doing a deal in Europe and coming back to this country to give all the British people a chance to have a say on it, rather than just Members of Parliament. Can he reassure me that, even if people do vote to remain in the European Union on the basis of this deal, we will still have a vision that Europe should be doing less and doing it better?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with that; the idea of Europe only where necessary but nation states wherever possible is absolutely right. There will be people who say, “Maybe we have addressed some issues of concern to the British people but there is more to be done.” Let me say again that that is a perfectly acceptable view, but I would argue that the “more to be done” should be done from inside the EU, rather than by us slamming the door and trying to do it from outside.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to look at what the hon. Lady says. If we take a view across the country, before 2010 we had those huge queues round the block when a new NHS dentist turned up because there were not enough of them. We have seen a very big— [Interruption.] Labour Members may shake their heads, but that is what happened, and some of us can remember it. We have seen a big increase in NHS dentistry since, but I will look carefully at the situation in Bradford.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the peninsula rail taskforce is set to deliver its report on a resilient railway to Devon and Cornwall. Would he be willing to meet me and a number of colleagues to ensure that Network Rail and the taskforce have enough funding for the two studies into the electrification of the line and the necessary reduction of journey times?

[The Prime Minister]

I had an excellent meeting with the south-west peninsula rail taskforce, which has been working closely with the Government. I will make sure that we continue to liaise closely with it. Clearly, we need to find an answer and we need to find the funding to make it work. We cannot allow to happen what happened in the past when a problem on our railways led to the peninsula being cut off. We cannot see that happen again.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and we both experienced that in our time volunteering in Rwanda as part of the social action there. We thought we were going there to give, but we learned and benefited a great deal from that experience. Whether overseas or in my own constituency, I feel very humble every time I go to see a charity.

During our day spent volunteering, my staff and I met all the charity volunteers, the staff and the trustees. Trustees play a very important role in a charity—in the past, I have been a trustee of two charities. Before being appointed as a trustee, on both occasions I went through a selection process and was put under scrutiny. This is only right, as trustees hold very responsible roles. Sadly, we have heard some bad news stories recently of instances when trustees may not have been quite as scrupulous as they should have been. This should not happen, as it reflects very badly, and undeservedly, on every charity across the board, even those not involved. That is why I support this Bill and its aim to strengthen governance and give more powers to the Charity Commission to remove inappropriate trustees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out, regulatory abuse in charities is rare, but it is vital that measures are in place to ensure that the public, and indeed the many charity volunteers, do not lose confidence when such incidents happen.

Another aspect of the Bill is to protect members of the public from unscrupulous and unrelenting fundraisers. Once again, there have been some very disturbing stories in the media recently, which simply end up reflecting badly on every charity, even though so many are not involved in such procedures.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that “chugging”, as it is called, also puts people off donating, particularly when they hear about the sorts of fees these people receive for the donations they collect from the public?

[Maggie Throup]

I completely agree. When we see these people on the streets, we tend to avoid them. I think it affects the local shopkeepers as well, as people get a bit fearful of what they are going to find on their high streets.

It has another effect, too. In their later years, my parents stopped donating to charities when the donations were in any way traceable. This was because after making one donation, they got phone call after phone call trying to persuade them to set up a direct debit. My parents were subjected to just a fraction of the pressure that Olive Cooke suffered, which ended in such a tragedy. With 44% of adults reportedly giving money to charitable causes every month, it is very important that donors feel they can make their donations freely and know that their donations are being spent wisely. This Bill ensures both things.

Of course, our small local charities do not employ third-party professional fundraisers, but have to use their ingenuity to raise their funds. Members will have heard me talk before about the fundraising events organised by my local hospice, Treetops, which provides amazing care in the community. I have awarded prizes at its dog show, which raised money, and taken part in its sponsored bike ride taking in all its charity shops across Derbyshire—and I did that on a tandem. There is always something happening somewhere in Erewash; there is always a charity event going on somewhere.

Only last Saturday I popped along to the Christmas fair organised by the League of Friends of Ilkeston Community Hospital. When I got there I was delighted not just to see Father Christmas but to find that Ilkeston Rotary had a stall there, as I knew from last Christmas that it would be selling locally made Christmas cakes which are very tasty, and which have saved me trying to find the time, rather belatedly, to make one. At the Long Eaton Christmas lights switch-on last Thursday, I was able to win on the Scout’s tombola—every ticket was a winner—and buy some handmade Christmas tree decorations from the Women’s Institute stall. All these make fantastic contributions to my local area, and it is much richer as a result.

I said earlier that I would come back to the Canaan Trust, a Long Eaton-based charity providing much more than just a bed for homeless young men. The social investment part of this Bill will provide the ideal vehicle for this charity, should it wish to provide low-rent accommodation for those young men once they get their lives back on track, and help them move on even further with their lives. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, social investment is the way of the future, and I am delighted that it forms part of this Bill.

I believe this Bill provides a suitable means of protecting our many charities from unscrupulous behaviour, so maintaining the confidence of the public, the confidence of the many donors, and the confidence of the amazing volunteers as well as those who are employed by the charities. I will want to ensure in Committee that our small local charities will not be penalised in any way as a result of these changes, but I do like the way the Bill provides a mechanism to enable charities to develop social investments that can be of great benefit to those they serve.

I am delighted to have been able to speak in support of this Bill, with my reservation about its potential impact on small charities such as those I have talked about today, and to outline its benefits to the constituents of Erewash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I could not agree more. Even I got out the knitting needles and learned how to knit again. It was a case of knit one, purl one and then drop several, but I did my bit, as did everybody else. The community came together, worked together and had a bit of fun for an incredibly worthwhile cause.

Small charities often play a huge part in our local communities. They provide something over and above, or in addition to, what the Government or the public sector provide. Those small things often make a big difference to the lives of individuals and their families.

Through my involvement with social action projects over the years, I have been extremely fortunate to get to know many charities, both in the UK and overseas. I have also spent time with other Members on projects working with charities in Rwanda.

As some Members will be aware, a private Member’s Bill of mine is going through this place, to help Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. I had the great pleasure of visiting the hospital and seeing some of the fantastic work it does in supporting patients. It is involved in building projects and has a chapel, and it does a huge amount of paediatric research. None of that would be possible without the work of the charity and all the people involved in it.

Sadly, the results of high-profile charity crises can damage trust in charities. It is really important that we do all we can to maintain and strengthen that trust, and the Bill demonstrates the importance of having an effective charity regulator.

I support the Bill because it will provide stronger protection for charities in England and Wales. It will also equip the Charity Commission with new and stronger powers to tackle charity abuse more effectively and efficiently.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making some strong points in support of the Bill. Does she agree that, in order to keep the flow of funds coming in from the public and from donors, it is vital that abuse is not possible and that the public have confidence that there is a mechanism to tackle it?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely. Trust and confidence are critical. That is why I believe that robust but proportionate action should be taken where serious mismanagement occurs. It is about maintaining and strengthening trust in a vital sector and enabling all charities, both large and small, to continue to do their work.

I have one plea, which is that the Bill needs to ensure that smaller charities are not disproportionately affected by any bureaucracy or too much legislation. It does not matter whether a charity is small or large: charities have so much to give to our country, society and communities, and I will do all I can to ensure that they get the support they deserve.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill, which is a much needed and sensible Government reform. I am delighted that they have introduced it.

Before entering this place, I practised as a solicitor for several years. I practised corporate governance, among other areas, and over the course of the past year, I think we have all come to realise that the governance of charities is in crisis and it is affecting all charities. The large charities are infecting the small charities, which is why it is so important for this House to act.

As has been said by many Members on both sides of the House, we all support the charities in our constituencies, including those we give to and those of which we are trustees. We want them to thrive and we want public confidence in them to increase, because, undoubtedly, public confidence in charities has been knocked this year. As the head of a charity based in my constituency recently told me, charities are different from many other parts of our society. When large businesses get knocked by scandals, the public turn towards the little guys and confidence in them rises. If there is a horsemeat scandal at Tesco, we all go to our local butchers and sales there start to rise. Charities seem to have the inverse situation. If the big charities get hit by scandals, the little guys suffer as well.

It is essential that we protect the thousands of excellent small charities that we, as Members of Parliament, get to know more than most members of society. It is for them that we must ensure that the larger charities, in particular, have the highest quality of governance. That comes down to trustees. It has been a torrid year in many respects for how the large charities have behaved, whether the scandals have been about the high salaries of chief executives and the management teams of big charities, about the question of politicisation or, above all, about the question of the inappropriate use of fundraising on our high streets. Of course, there has been the tragic case of Olive Cooke.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. Does he agree that part of it is about the public having confidence about how much of the pound that they donate ends up going to the good work of the good cause, particularly as with some of the larger charities there have been issues about how much ends up going on overheads and administration?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I want to come on to how we can ensure proper financial management of our charities. That cuts in both directions: how they govern themselves and what percentage of their organisation and resources is deployed on central management.

Kids Company has seen the last and perhaps most prominent scandal, which has raised all manner of questions about the governance of our most high-profile and largest charities, particularly their capacity to handle their finances appropriately. I do not want to dwell on Kids Company, which is an outlier, but it has done huge damage to other charities. That is why those who have been at the heart of it and those parts of Government that have worked with Kids Company have to take it seriously. It is damaging all our charities throughout the country. The powers in the Bill to bar ineffective and inappropriate trustees from acting as trustees will be tested if there are Kids Company-type scandals in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous with his time. Does he agree that it is also important that we ensure that anyone who wants to do the best for their community or to support a good cause does not feel excluded from being a charity trustee merely because they do not have formal qualifications? It is important that the Charity Commission helps to build the skills they need, as I would not want to see trusteeship become a graduates-only zone.

[Robert Jenrick]

That is very important, but I do return to the theme of some of our biggest charities. They are major organisations dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds of not only the public’s money, through charitable donations, but the taxpayer’s money. I am nervous to dwell on the case of Kids Company, but its trustees had very little relevant expertise. One was a celebrity hairdresser—there is nothing wrong with that, but I do not expect that person necessarily to have expertise in running a major multinational business, as Kids Company had become. It is therefore essential that those organisations step up and have appropriate trustees. I would like this Bill and the Government to push our biggest charities to have those individuals.

I know that charities are now required in their annual return to confirm whether or not they have reviewed their financial controls. Clearly, that important lesson has come out of recent scandals, and such a provision is essential. Anything we can do to beef it up, without deterring the little guys, is essential.

Another issue is that, unlike as happens in companies, most trustees do not meet in mixed board meetings with their management, and so the interplay between the two is often limited. Those trustees who take their role most seriously and work hardest at it no doubt get to know the senior management of their organisation, but others do not and often rely, crucially, on the chief executive, who may be, as we have seen in other scandals, an overbearing founder. Such a person may be incredibly charismatic, powerful and knowledgeable about the organisation, but it is difficult to scrutinise them, stretch them and hold them to account. That is important, and our larger charities have started to have mixed board meetings involving executive and non-executive directors— I use the corporate setting there.

I would like the Government to think about the role of overbearing founders, because it is an incredibly important issue. Anyone involved in the charitable sector sees examples where someone who may be a brilliant individual founds a charity and then it gets out of control, as they become extremely difficult to scrutinise and perhaps the time comes when they should step aside or hand over to somebody else. Perhaps it would be appropriate for these individuals to have term limits, as we might have for a chairman of a public company, where they have to go through a rigorous procedure at the end of a certain term in order to be reappointed.

A number of our charities, even the largest ones, are riddled with conflicts of interest. We see trustees having friends and relatives employed in the organisation, and trustees sometimes getting benefits that are not appropriate. I do not think the Bill particularly deals with that issue, but it does a lot of damage and undermines confidence in the charitable sector.

Lastly, I wonder whether the Minister really believes that the Charity Commission has the capacity to regulate the vast number of charities. We have thousands of charities in this country, some of which are extremely complex organisations, as we have seen. Does the Charity Commission have the resources to do that work? I suspect it does not, a view shared by many in the sector. Some of our most experienced chief executives believe the time has come for some form of beefing up of the Charity Commission through self-funding, whereby the big charities, which are the holders of public trust and confidence, might contribute some money towards ensuring that trust in the wider sector is maintained through a Charity Commission that has the funding required to see that happen.

I know that the Minister wants to speak, so in conclusion, trustees are absolutely essential and those of our biggest charities are letting down the entire sector. Scandals such as what happened at Kids Company matter, because they are harming the small charities, which are the lifeblood of charitable giving. As a Member of Parliament, I have taken huge pleasure in getting to know and working with these charities in my constituency, and I know other Members feel the same. Those who hold those positions in the big organisations need to step up and behave as if they are non-executive directors of large and important organisations, which they are.

ISIL in Syria

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the national security briefings that we have received, and the discussions that we have had with him and others in recent weeks. We are considering serious matters, and it is right for this debate to take place in a respectful way, both inside and outside the Chamber.

What has been proposed is the extension of action that is already taking place in Iraq, and the test for the DUP has been one of realism. Our experience in Northern Ireland has taught us that no other approach can be brought to bear when facing terrorism. Terrorism must be fought, and fought with all means realistically at our disposal. We have not sought this conflict; terrorists have inflicted it on us, and we must now respond. We know only too well the consequences of terrorism being appeased and indulged. Terrorism must be faced up to. This is not a choice between political initiatives and fighting terrorism, because both go hand in hand. That is why it is important that the motion is about action now.

Our case to the Prime Minister has been clear and consistent throughout, and four things were necessary for our support. First, we needed to know that the vile terrorists of Daesh/ISIL would be the target. That is explicit in the motion and I welcome that clear objective. We all know the convoluted complexity of the Syrian civil war, and today we are not being asked to take sides in that war; we are being asked to take the side of civilised people everywhere—the side of our own citizens. We are being asked to strike at the terrorists who have decided to wage war on us.

Secondly, we had to be sure that those people represent a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom and our own citizens, and nobody can be in any doubt whatsoever about that because our citizens are under threat of attack in the UK and abroad. Some say that this action will merely serve to increase that threat or bring violence and retaliation, but as we have heard again and again, in reality we are already at the top of the terrorist target list. The Russian airliner that was blown up over Egypt could just as easily have been a plane carrying British holidaymakers, and the fantastic work done by our security services in thwarting attack after attack illustrates the level of the threat against us.

Thirdly, we needed to be convinced that British action would make a real and practical difference. The Prime Minister is right to say that the proposed action will not in itself resolve the terrorist threat, but if it helps to reduce, degrade or lessen the threat to British citizens—and I believe it will—it would be utterly wrong not to act. We require an overall political and diplomatic strategic framework to address the underlying problems and work towards a settlement of the Syrian civil war, and those factors make the situation very different from the vote in 2013.

I commend again the UK Government on the humanitarian support that they provide day in, day out to those fleeing conflict in Syria. It should not be forgotten in the midst of this debate that the UK is the second highest donor of such aid in the world, and British aid workers—backed up by massive British resources and in collaboration with our international partners—are providing enormous help to civilians and refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. That, of course, should continue.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does that not demonstrate that this debate is about one aspect of our strategy? It is not a purely military strategy.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Military intervention on its own will not solve the problem, and it must be part of an overall package. However, to say that we should wait until there is a political or diplomatic outcome is like saying that we should have waited 30 years for the Belfast agreement or the St Andrews agreement to bring about a settlement in Northern Ireland. We must protect our own citizens now when there is a real and present danger to them. Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty.

Paris, and the downing of the Russian airliner, were assaults on civilised values. If we can realistically do something to destroy or degrade that evil, and prevent it from spreading still further, we must act. That is a heavy burden of responsibility. This is not a choice between military intervention and political or diplomatic initiatives, because both go hand in hand. There is now a realistic chance that overwhelming pressure can be brought to bear against ISIL/Daesh in Syria, and therefore DUP Members will vote in favour of the motion.

Now that a British force is to be employed—if the House votes that way in the common good—it is the duty of every credible political figure to offer their full support to our armed forces. We wish our armed forces success as they do the hard and necessary work, and we pray for a safe and swift return for them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have the chance to speak straight after the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). He has given us a range of problems, but he seemed somewhat lacking in potential solutions. The one thing I agree with the Scottish National party on is the change that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) was pushing for—namely, that we should call those people Daesh. They are neither true to Islam nor a recognised state, and we should not give them credence by calling them anything other than Daesh.

For me, this is not about making some political statement. If there is a statement to be made, it is about the fact that when one of our allies is attacked, we will come to their aid. The bedrock of our defence is article 5 of the NATO treaty—the NATO that the SNP still wants to be part of—which deals with mutual defence. We will respond to an attack in Europe.

[Callum McCaig]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the solidarity that we must show with our allies. Would he apply that to the Kurds, and to our NATO allies in Turkey?

[Kevin Foster]

We stood with the Kurds a year ago. This Parliament voted to intervene when the murderous thugs of Daesh were on their way to overrun the Kurdish Autonomous Region, which could have resulted in a massacre on the same level as that of Srebrenica. Members of my party—and, to be fair, members of other parties—wanted to do something about that. Some of the arguments we have heard today have been in favour of pulling away the air support that has helped to prevent Daesh from massacring the Kurds. It is the air support—not warm words—that represents solidarity.

In approaching the motion, I have asked myself a number of questions. What specific objectives do we have for our involvement, along with our allies? Is there a clear legal basis for the action? What will a post-civil war Syria look like? Who or what will be the Government there, and how will our intervention assist in bringing that about? The question of legality is now much easier to answer. There is a pretty clear UN Security Council resolution. Had that resolution not been passed, we would have been hearing today about how we needed such a resolution. Now we have one, we are hearing that it is not quite enough. The reality is that no resolution would be enough to satisfy some in this Chamber, despite the clear wording of the one that we now have. The action is definitely legal.

What are our specific objectives? The ultimate objective is to clear Daesh away from the territory it controls, which gives it its power base.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of interventions. I will not take this one.

This is about ensuring that we can assist our allies. It would be ludicrous if our allies were fighting a Daesh unit and they reached an invisible line in the sand that happened to be the Syrian border—which Daesh does not recognise—and our allies had to say, “Sorry, you’ve gone one foot over the border. We’re not going to do anything more.” This is about being part of a coalition. [Interruption.] It is ironic that I am being shouted at by Opposition Members for not doing enough. The present situation is an argument to do more, not less.

I want to talk about what a post-war Syria would look like. That is what the Vienna process is there for. It is a negotiated agreement to deliver a stable Government in Syria for the future. [Interruption.] I must say that I always love having—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Stop the clock. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) must be heard with courtesy. I say to one hon. Gentleman, whose loquacity has been notable today, that he is perfectly entitled to seek to intervene but he must not seek to deny the hon. Gentleman a courteous hearing. Let us be fair and decent to each other.

[Kevin Foster]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was about to say that it is always a pleasure to have an accompaniment.

Whatever comes out of the Vienna negotiations, the one solution that would be unacceptable is that Daesh should carry on to have a role in the future Government of Syria. Daesh will not be cleared out by warm words or by hopeful diplomacy. Part of the solution is a military intervention, and it is right that we should start to degrade Daesh now while we work to build up the coalition that will clear it out permanently. We cannot just say that this is too difficult.

National Security and Defence

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have moved to an Army of 82,000 and an Army Reserve of 30,000. We are trying to make sure that as much of that is deployable as possible. That must be in our national interest. When we take money off taxpayers and spend it on defence, we must spend it as effectively as possible. Clearly, we want as much of our military to be deployable as possible. Because of these reforms, we will be able to deploy a force of 50,000 if we ever need to. I argue that that is good progress.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement on the SDSR and the fact that we will once again have a carrier strike capability. However, carriers cannot be deployed on their own; they need to be part of a group. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the Royal Navy will have the resources and the fleet to provide a carrier group?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly provide that assurance. It is important that we have the frigates, submarines, helicopters and other things that are necessary to protect our carriers.