Yemen

Debate between Alistair Burt and Lord Beamish

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The UN has made various calculations. I referred in my statement to the fact that some 350,000 people might be displaced. It is not necessarily a question of numbers, however. Should an attack take place and people become displaced, we are all aware that the impact would be considerable. That is why we have sought to discourage the attack and to encourage a negotiated end to the conflict for the benefit of the Yemeni people.

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

A negotiated settlement is clearly the only way forward, but what more pressure can be put on Iran, which is fuelling the conflict by supplying missiles and other armaments to the Houthis? If pressure was put on the Iranians, surely we could get some movement towards a settlement.

[Alistair Burt]

Iran is aware of the international concern about the role it is playing and about some of the areas where it is alleged to be playing a role. That pressure is being applied, and Iran has an opportunity here to demonstrate that it wishes to play a less disruptive role in the region.

Israel: Meetings

Debate between Alistair Burt and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the ministerial code would be tightened in relation to this matter, and I am quite sure that it will be. I do not think it has been reissued this morning, but—again—the common sense of this is very clear. That is why my right hon. Friend has recognised that she should have done this differently, as I am sure we all would were we in a similar position.

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

The Minister has been clear that neither his Department nor the Home Office knew about these meetings. He said that they were not set up in the usual way. Can he explain how they were set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked about when the FCO was made aware of the meetings. Is it not important that that question be clarified? If it knew beforehand, did the embassy make any attempt to attend the meetings and make sure the Secretary of State knew her responsibilities?

[Alistair Burt]

As far as I am aware, no officials sought to attend the meetings. As I said, I think the Foreign Office was made aware of the visits after they had taken place.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That’s not what you said.

[Alistair Burt]

That would seem to be the appropriate thing. The root of this is that my right hon. Friend knows that she should have told the embassy and the Foreign Office in advance.

[Mr Jones]

That’s not what you said.

[Alistair Burt]

I am sorry. I thought I said clearly what I understood the sequence of events to have been. The meetings were set up by Lord Polak through his contacts and interests with Israel, which are widely known.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I was holding the piece of paper because on it is the statement that my right hon. Friend issued yesterday. It lists the meetings that she attended and the subjects for discussion. It is not a verbatim account, but it is pretty detailed in respect of the matters that she discussed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When did the embassy know about it?

[Alistair Burt]

I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. The embassy was aware on 24 August, which I think will have been after some of the meetings. As for who was met and what was said, details have been provided.

I am sure colleagues do not believe that the Secretary of State should not have discussed the Pears Programme for Global Innovation with Dr Aliza Inbal, discussed with IsraAID emergency humanitarian aid and the work that the organisation does, or visited Save a Child’s Heart. If I were on a development-related visit to Israel, I would want to have exactly the same meetings. The root of the matter and the heart of the concern is the fact that my right hon. Friend did not disclose her visit at the outset. She has addressed that, and the details of the meetings have been made clear in her statement.

Mental Health Taskforce

Debate between Alistair Burt and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will take it in the right spirit when I say that it is immensely encouraging that he notices his own answers.

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

Parity of esteem and extra resources are important, but one of the main messages from this report is that we need to hard-wire mental health and well-being into public policy. Twice as many people take their own lives as are killed on our roads each year. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for a national campaign to address this issue?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, I do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his work and interest in this area. Included in the taskforce’s recommendations is a national ambition to reduce by 10% the number of suicides—that would be a reduction of some 400 a year. Three areas are already piloting a “zero suicide ambition strategy”, and this probably needs to be given more prominence than it has been. A national suicide prevention strategy is in place, which I am reviewing to see how it can be better implemented locally, because not all local areas have a similar strategy. It is right that that gets extra prominence, and we had a debate on it not too long ago in Westminster Hall. We recognise that it is a significant issue for men in particular, because three times as many men as women take their own lives. The recent increase in the number of women doing so, which was noted just a few weeks ago, is also significant. It is important that we talk about this more, recognise that suicide is not inevitable, and have a national ambition to challenge it and do more. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will be able to champion that work, just as he has championed other things.

Cities and Local Government Devolution [Lords] Bill

Debate between Alistair Burt and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I know the area well, and I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Yes, that is part of the consideration, but it is essentially part of the consideration of the combined authority. Not only will it have to devise the working of its services within the confines of what is commonly known as Greater Manchester, but it will have to recognise that some of the provision of those services is carried out by those with cross-border responsibilities, and work something out with the adjoining areas. Nothing in the Bill speaks to that, because it does not relate to what I am discussing—the control of standards and the like—but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is part of the process that people will be going through.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will retain overall control.

[Alistair Burt]

Not overall control.

[Mr Jones]

If something goes wrong in the delivery of care, where does the buck stop? Does it stop with the Secretary of State, or at local level?

[Alistair Burt]

I have read the report of the debates in the House of Lords on exactly this topic, because there was a lot of confusion. My understanding is that it depends on precisely what the breakdown is. Let us suppose that the breakdown, or failure, is in the way in which services have been put together by the combined authority. This is purely off the top of my head, and does not refer to anything of which I have any current knowledge. Let us suppose that there was a dispute between two constituent areas of Greater Manchester, one of which claimed that there was some inequity between the service that it was receiving and the service being received by the other. It might be claimed, for instance, that the combined authority’s decision was somehow disadvantaging Ramsbottom in favour of Bramhall. In the event of such a dispute, the buck would stop with those who were making the decisions locally, and that is the combined authority. The matter would not go anywhere near the Secretary of State. What the Secretary of State retains responsibility for is the standards and whether or not there has been a breach of NHS duties in relation to anything that falls within his own overall responsibility. So the buck still stops with the constituent authority that is delivering the service. In relation to a CCG that is not performing properly, the buck will stop with the CCG, not the combined authority. If there is a lapse of standards in anything connected with the NHS, ultimately the regulators govern that and the Secretary of State would be responsible. But if it is a decision being taken by those who are responsible for the new combined authority to do with where services go and it is within their remit, it will be a matter for them—the buck will stop with them. The short answer, therefore, is that where ultimately responsibility lies depends on where the breakdown is, but it is clear in relation to each of the services and it does not mean anyone can evade their responsibilities.

Jobs and Business

Debate between Alistair Burt and Lord Beamish

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has just spoken about talking the economy down. I know it was three years ago, which seems a long time, but we need to remind people of who in 2010 was talking this country’s economy down—it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this coalition Government. They expressed the ridiculous notion that without the draconian cuts that they brought in, which the Business Secretary said earlier they now recognised were a mistake, we would end up with an economy like that of Greece. We heard the nonsense, which was repeated by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, about the fact that we had the largest debt in the developed world.

Let us look at the facts. In 1997 the Labour Government inherited a debt to GDP ratio of 42%. At the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008 that had been reduced to 35%, so irrespective of the Prime Minister’s claim in opposition that we were not mending the roof while the sun was shining, that is exactly what we were doing, which left us in a strong position to weather that financial crisis. The deficit that we inherited in 1997 was 3.9%. That was nearly halved by 2008 to 2.1%. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock throws around figures suggesting that we had the largest debt. In cash terms, yes, but for the millionaires in the House— I do not know whether there are any in the Chamber today, although there are plenty in the Front-Bench team of the Conservative party—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

Not guilty.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that.

If one looks at the debt of a millionaire in cash terms, of course it will be larger than that of someone who is earning the minimum wage. To compare the size of the UK economy to that of Greece takes no account of that.

We need to recognise who talked the economy down and who took the disastrous decision in those early days to take demand out of the economy. We were growing, as the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), rightly said. That destructive early cut, along with talking the economy down, sucked confidence out of the economy. Getting that confidence back is very difficult. Clearly, many people, and certainly those in my constituency, are very cautious about what they are spending.

Let us have this debate based on the facts. I accept that we in the Labour party missed a trick. We were self-obsessed for nearly six months as we selected a new leader of the party, so we did not rebut the nonsense that was put out at the time.

The Business Secretary said, strangely, that the Queen’s Speech is not the mechanism for getting the economy going. I find that remarkable. This is a lost opportunity. The Queen’s Speech was so thin on substance that it could be marketed by WeightWatchers. There is nothing in it that will help the 20% of young people who are in long-term unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke about a lost decade. That is so, and we need to remind the House that that has consequences for individuals. The 20% who are now unemployed—and their number is increasing—will have their lives affected for ever. We must recognise the human cost behind the statistics. The problem will not be solved for those individuals in the short term and will have long-term implications for constituents such as mine and those of my hon. Friend that will need to be addressed in the long term.