Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Miller Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
As it happens, I met the chief executive of RBS a couple of days ago. It is making good progress on sorting out the problems with its balance sheet and returning to normal business lending. I have been pointing out for quite a long time that the position of RBS in an independent Scotland would be very difficult, since its balance sheet is 10 times the size of the Scottish economy. It could hardly operate within Scotland as an independent country.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Under the seventh framework programme, our universities were incredibly successful at accessing money, but our SMEs were not. Under Horizon 2020—the next programme —what steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to improve the lot of SMEs? Secondly, will the Secretary of State confirm that universities such as Edinburgh, which were hugely successful under framework 7, will not be successful if the vote goes the wrong way next week?
Vince Cable
On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, he is right that Scottish institutions benefit disproportionately from UK research because of the excellence of their work and that they would no longer be guaranteed access to UK funding streams in an independent Scotland, although I hope they would maintain their excellence. We will certainly try to ensure that SMEs are taken properly into account in the competition for European funding. His point is a good one.
Debate on the Address
Andrew Miller Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful for being called to speak. It is 22 years since I first addressed the House on the first day of debate on the Gracious Speech. It struck me that it would be a good idea to look back at that speech to see what has changed on this planet since. Interestingly, some phrases recurred today, which should be of serious concern to us all.
In 1992, the John Major Government said that they required
“full Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions”,
and that they would
“work for a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia”
and
“support moves to bring lasting peace to the middle east.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 7.]
Those were matters of profound importance and there has been some good news since then, but it is possible to compare it to today’s Queen Speech, which noted:
“My ministers will strive to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria, to reduce violence and promote a political settlement. It will work for a successful transition in Afghanistan, and will work towards a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.”
Major issues still affect the middle east in particular. As this is the last time that I will address the House in a debate on the Queen’s Speech, it is worth putting down a marker that, even after that long period, we still have to look at this intensely difficult area of the world. None of us from any party should either shirk our responsibilities in addressing some of the challenges or pretend that we can ignore them.
The second and obvious point relates to budgetary discipline. In 1992, the Government said that they would
“promote sound finance and budgetary discipline.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 7-8.]
They obviously did not succeed, because there is still apparently a need to
“strengthen the economy and provide stability and security”.
That phrase constantly occurs in every Queen’s Speech, irrespective of the Government for whom it is delivered. That is clearly a matter of great importance, especially as we move towards the next general election, because it will be the determining factor in whether the Government can persuade the electorate that they have succeeded.
Contrary to some of the figures that one hears bandied around in the Chamber, the experience of my constituents is markedly different, and many of them simply do not believe the Government figures. A gentleman came to my surgery last weekend to complain that he could not get on to a training course that is available to the vast majority of unemployed people in my constituency. He is not entitled to receive any benefits because of his wife’s earnings, which means that he is not counted as unemployed. He profoundly feels that he is unemployed, and that he has been badly let down by this Government. Many people in that situation—either in such cases, or because their income is based on zero-hours contracts and low-wage jobs—are really struggling, and they simply do not believe the figures presented by the Government.
The third area that I want, perhaps slightly teasingly, to draw to the attention of the Conservative party—there now appear to be only Members from one party on the Government Benches—is the question of Europe. Today’s Queen’s Speech says:
“My government will work to promote reform in the European Union, including a stronger role for member states and national parliaments.”
I remind Conservative Members that the Queen’s Speech in 1992 stated that the Government would
“lay before Parliament the treaty of Maastricht and introduce a Bill to implement it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 8.]
Of course, that Bill was very controversial. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we spent many a late night in the Chamber—sitting until the early hours of the morning for weeks at a time—while the Government drove it through. To pretend that the Bill and the treaty that it incorporated did not have an impact on the relationship we now have with Europe is simply to ignore history. At least one historian, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), is on the Opposition Front Bench today, and I am sure that he could draw to our attention other examples of how what was said in previous debates has been conveniently forgotten. In several areas, there are similarities—as well as some profound contradictions—in what the Government have said.
It is a pity that the mover of the Loyal Address, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), is not in the Chamber. I know her constituency extremely well, having lived and worked in the Portsmouth area until the 1970s. I remember one of her slightly eccentric predecessors Brigadier Terence H. Clarke, who was the first person in the Conservative party with whom I came into conflict. He was succeeded by Frank Judd, now Lord Judd in the House of Lords, and then by Syd Rapson and Sarah McCarthy-Fry, so the seat has had some strong representatives over the years. The hon. Lady gave us some of the background to the issues that are having an impact on her own city, of which everyone who has an association with Portsmouth is proud. Obviously, the naval ones are hugely important in the context of my opening remarks about international security issues. I also happen to agree with her about the success in rescuing Pompey football club from a bunch of cowboys and getting it into the hands of decent people, but that is perhaps another story.
I want to touch on some other areas. I first want to refer to the section in the Queen’s Speech about cutting bureaucracy and enabling small businesses to access finance. During the last Parliament, I chaired the Regulatory Reform Committee, which did a huge amount of work then, and some work has been done in this Parliament. This matter has a huge impact on the well-being of small businesses. The warning note that I want to send to the Government is that they should not, for goodness’ sake, come back to us with some mixed-up Bill that seeks to diminish employment rights in small businesses. That is not the solution to the problem.
Yes, there are ways in which the bureaucracy impacting on small businesses can be improved dramatically and, cross-departmentally, the Government need to take into account a lot of considerations to ensure that such improvements have an effect. For example, it always seems to me to be pretty daft that a small business that perhaps employs only a handful of people might find itself regulated by four or five agencies under different Departments, with no joining-up between one and another. If that is the kind of regulatory reform impacting on small businesses that the Government want to introduce, fine; if, on the other hand, they mean removing rights that involve the necessary protection of workers—both in terms of employment rights and health and safety conditions—they will certainly not have the support of Labour Members.
Some bits are obviously missing from the Queen’s Speech. There has just been an interesting exchange on hydraulic fracturing. Given where the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) lives, she understandably has real difficulties with HS2. Of course, if HS2 were two miles below her constituency, she would not be raising such issues. We need to get across to the public some important points about the development of what is called unconventional oil and gas, rather than allow emotive arguments to dominate.
I perfectly understand the people of Chesham and Amersham’s concerns about the impact of the railway on their community if they get no direct benefit from it. On the other hand, as has happened in my area, if a pilot well is drilled a couple of miles below the land on which I live, it has no impact on my house or its value. In fact, some of the oldest fracturing operations in the United Kingdom, such as BP’s operations down at Wytch Farm in Dorset underneath some of the wealthiest landowners in the country—at Sandbanks and places such as that—have not exactly knocked value off their houses, have they? We need serious engagement with the public and must take the science to the public, rather than allowing the emotive arguments to dominate this incredibly complex debate.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Wytch Farm oilfield, one of the largest onshore oilfields, is hardly noticed by anybody. It is well done and has no adverse impact on the Poole and south Dorset area.
Andrew Miller
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interest in that site. I first went there 40-odd years ago and saw oil extraction going to Fawley on a regular basis.
We need to get it across to the public that there are answers to some of the technical issues that have been raised. There are perfectly legitimate questions about the intensity of fracturing processes, the protection of watercourses and so on, but it is possible to address them. We need proper and transparent engagement with the public to ensure that we reach the right answer. In the recess, I was involved in two debates. One was organised by the Institution of Engineering and Technology at the Daresbury laboratory. The other was organised by the university of Chester at its new campus at the Thornton research centre, which is now called the Thornton science park. Those debates tried to engage with members of the public on these complicated issues. That is how it has to be done.
The whole issue of science was the missing link in the Queen’s Speech. There was a great big gulf. There is a cross-party consensus that, in future, our economy will be driven by science-led businesses. However, that was a great missing part in the Queen’s Speech.
Finally, I will refer to the section on schools. As I said recently in an article in Tribune, which not too many Government Members will have read, I profoundly disagree with all the nonsense about the structure of schools. We have to get back to releasing inspiring teachers from the burdens on them and enabling them to get on with the job that they are good at. Having a constant debate about structures is not the answer. We have to release more time for those people who are brilliant at their job. We have all been inspired by teachers. We must ask how they did it and ensure that such teachers are freed up to empower other teachers and students. That is the answer to the education debate. We must get away from the nonsense about whether it is a free school, an academy, this type of school or that type of school. We must engage with teachers and get the best out of that group of people who do a great job of educating our young people.
This is an incredibly wide-ranging Queen’s Speech, given that we have only a few parliamentary weeks to implement it. I look forward to seeing the proposed legislation. I hope that we make some progress so that the people who are standing here next year have something to build on. However, I fear that much of the rhetoric in the speech will not be backed up by substantive Bills and that we have a sham of a Queen’s Speech.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who made a perfectly sensible and balanced contribution to this debate. He said that it is 22 years since he first spoke in the House on the first day of the Queen’s Speech debate and he talked about Portsmouth and its naval traditions. I was just musing on whether he had the same grey, sea-dog beard that he is sporting today.
Sir Richard Ottaway
I am obliged.
As someone who spent 19 years in the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve, I join others in paying tribute to an absolutely first-class opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). It illustrated that the Government’s position is strong. This is a Queen’s Speech that shows that we are not running out of steam.
As someone else who is addressing the House during the Queen’s Speech debate for the last time, I declare my interest in the welcome pension reform that has been proposed. It is long overdue.
I welcome the proposed Bill on modern slavery and human trafficking. Human trafficking is the world’s second most lucrative crime. I pay tribute to a former colleague, Anthony Steen, who used to be the Member for South Hams. He has done much to progress this issue.
I welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that the President of Singapore will visit the United Kingdom. We have an awful lot to learn from that country, particularly on pension reform.
When I heard Mr Speaker announce the subjects for debate over the next six days, I asked myself, “Where is the debate on foreign affairs?” That decision is made by the Opposition. A quarter of the Gracious Speech refers to foreign affairs and yet there is no debate on that. It is remarkable that a party that seeks to be the next Government does not feel able to contribute anything on the field of foreign affairs.
Never have there been more foreign challenges than are facing us today. In an increasingly unstable world, we face huge challenges in Ukraine, Syria and Iran. Where is the debate on energy security? Russia is making it perfectly clear that it uses energy as a tool of foreign policy. It has just announced a major hook-up with China in the Russia-China gas deal, which has profound geopolitical consequences and implications, and yet there is nothing from the Opposition on the subject. In a few months’ time, there will be a NATO summit in Wales, which was expressly referred to in the Queen’s Speech. Again, that is of fundamental importance, because we need to increase defence spending. The Opposition have nothing to say on the subject and cannot find the time to debate it.
I hope that the House will understand it if I focus on international issues. In June 2014, we must address how the world will look in the post-2015 era. We still have to deal with the fallout of the vote last August on Syria, when 80% of the House voted for intervention. However, the ghost of the Iraq debate of 2003 hung over the House. That illustrated the loss of trust in intelligence. Perhaps when the Chilcot report is eventually published, it will shine some light on that episode. The question that we have to address today is whether that debate set a constitutional precedent. Must we have a vote every time there is an intervention on foreign soil? Legally, the Prime Minister still has his prerogative and, in my opinion, he should not hesitate to use it. However, we have to address where we have got to on that subject. We must also address the brutal question of why so few countries around the world were prepared to follow us on that occasion.
This year, 2014, is the 100th anniversary of the first world war. I took the opportunity over the Easter break to visit the battlefields of northern France. It was with some emotion that I stood in the exact spot where my wife’s grandfather was wounded on the first day of the battle of the Somme. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition rightly paid tribute to the 450-odd soldiers, airmen and sailors who have lost their lives in recent conflicts. It is sobering to remind ourselves that on the first day of the battle of the Somme, 19,000 men were killed and a further 39,000 wounded. I hope that puts into perspective how war was fought in those days. It is quite revealing to compare the state of world affairs in 1914 with today. In 1914 Britain started its relative decline. After two world wars, it is still, to its credit, one of the top five economies of the world.
The lesson that we learned in 1914 was that we cannot ignore Europe. Then, Russia was seeking to reassert itself, as it did in 1918 after the first world war. We are entering a period of instability. Today we see that the established world order is on the march. We see the rise of China as a world superpower. We see instability in north and west Africa. In all this our key ally remains the United States, but there has been a marked shift in its policy position in recent years. When President Obama walked into the White House in 2009, 180,000 troops were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today there are only a handful. It is unclear when the United States would still be prepared to intervene on the world stage. In an important speech by President Obama just a couple of days ago, he said that when article 5 is invoked—the US’s membership of NATO—and when the US sees mass genocide, it will be prepared to act. I welcome the fact that the United States put down a marker yesterday by announcing a $1 billion European reassurance initiative for the Baltic states, with increased exercises and detachments being deployed, building partnerships with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
We can agree with the United States that the enemy remains terrorism, and we can co-operate on counter-terrorism policy, but we must recognise that this is a new era for the United States. The US cannot solve all the world’s problems, but few of the world’s problems can be solved without the US. Despite the vote on Syria, the US remains our key ally and it remains in our interests to stay close to the US.
Civil Service Reform
Andrew Miller Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I congratulate the Public Administration Committee The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is absolutely right: we need behavioural and cultural change to be at the heart of the system. Successive Governments have argued in circles about the structure of government—about which bit belongs where, and all the rest of it—and have never come up with the perfect structure, simply because there is no perfect structure. Let us take the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Where does the science bit belong, where does the sport bit belong, where does the culture and museums bit belong? The arguments are enormously difficult, and no one will ever come up with a perfect solution.
It is blindingly obvious that there must be a much better porous membrane between the structures of Departments to make things work, but there are massive cultural obstacles in the way of that. During the 1997 Parliament, I did some work for the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on the delivery of technology. The paper that I produced for him pointed out that the problem was not about the technology itself, but about the people and the business processes. For far too long, we have been stuck in the rut of saying “We do it this way because we do it this way.” In case after case, I was able to demonstrate that a fundamental shift in the way in which the business processes operate will produce better efficiencies, better productivity, and—most important of all, as the hon. Member for Thurrock observed—better services for the people whom we are here to represent.
I think that the arguments for having a good look at the structure and the mechanisms that operate are not just philosophical arguments but practical arguments that matter a great deal to the people whom we represent. The way in which we should do that is a matter of debate. My Select Committee recently undertook some work on horizon scanning, which is covered by the Minister’s Department. We heard some very fine evidence from Jon Day, who leads that work for the Government, and who described very clearly the problems of silo government and how it can be broken down. I am sure that that evidence will feature when we write our report, but it is already in the public domain.
A number of Members have talked about the problems of contract management. That, too, has been a massive problem within the system. We need a professional contract management system that is fit for purpose and very few Departments can claim they have cracked that problem.
I conclude, contrary to my very good friend my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), that the place to do this work is inside the House. I agree with the Public Administration Committee. We need the practical experience Members of Parliament bring to this debate: knowledge of what is missing from the delivery of services to their constituents and knowledge of the practical problems of dealing with the complex structures within government. That is where Members of Parliament from both Houses can contribute significantly to the debate.
These are not issues that will necessarily cause any rift between the parties because I think there is a genuine desire to improve the business processes and the way in which the civil service relates to us, the Government and the people we represent. I do not see this creating a great divide, therefore, and I do not think the Government should be worried that it will slow their reform programme at all. This can happen in parallel, and I urge the Secretary of State to think about how we can make that happen and deliver a profoundly important report by the PASC.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Miller Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I looked into this loophole carefully over the Christmas period when the Opposition raised it, and I discovered two things about this loophole. The first is that it was introduced and agreed by the last Labour Government and the TUC. That is loophole fact No. 1. Loophole fact No. 2—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman shouts “CBI”, and this is what the CBI had to say about it:
“further gold plating of EU rules can only cost jobs.”
Then we have the Recruitment and Employment Federation. It said this:
“These arrangements were agreed following consultation between the last Labour Government, business and the unions…Is the Labour party really saying they want to deny British temps the option of permanent employment?”
The Institute of Directors has, of course, added to that by saying—[Interruption.] It is very clear, Mr Speaker: Opposition Members want to know what we think about this, and this is what the IOD thinks:
“It’s a bad idea all round…The initial response to this from employers would be to employ fewer people on higher wages”.
What a great start to the new year: let us come up with an idea to increase unemployment! Only Labour could come up with an idea like that.
Tributes to Nelson Mandela
Andrew Miller Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I do not stand here as a religious man, but I think that the whole House would agree that Rose Hudson-Wilkin got it exactly right on Thursday evening when, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), she appeared on the BBC. I think the mood of the nation was very much on her mind. It got me thinking about some of my early involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle, which was trivial in the scale of things compared with the suffering that many people faced. At the very trivial end was disrupting trade by boycotting tinned fruit—we could not afford the fresh—but I am also talking about causing major blockages of supply lines, boycotting sporting links, protesting in Trafalgar square and elsewhere, and persuading one major, very successful pension fund, which continues to be successful, to disinvest from southern Africa. Those were the roles that I undertook as a trade unionist activist at that time. They were a part of my political life that were frowned on by many of those who today join me in saying what a great man we have lost.
Let me turn now to the period that formed my thinking. As a child, I heard Macmillan’s “wind of change” speech in 1960—I only just remember it. Less than a month later, we saw the Sharpeville massacre. Then came the 27-year jailing of Nelson Mandela. What he went through and how he came out with such dignity is beyond comprehension.
The 1970s were dominated by the death of Steve Biko. In the 1980s, I was involved with the Congress of South African Trade Unions. I remember having visitors from COSATU in my house. We were obviously being trailed by South African secret service officials, even though BOSS was supposed to have been abolished by that time. It is a shame that the British state was a party to that. Then change started to occur. When it was announced late on 10 February 1990 that Mandela was likely to be released, my great friend Ifor Edwards, who is a general practitioner—he is also known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)—and I decided to get in a car to be part of the great party in Trafalgar square where Nelson’s column was quite rightly renamed Mandela’s column.
Last year, it was a great privilege to be with a South African Minister talking about the next generation telescope in South Africa. I was able to say to her that it was a pleasure to see that room from the inside rather than from the outside.
I want to correct the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) got his dates wrong when he referred to the plaque in Westminster Hall, which you played a great part in securing, Mr Speaker. Having started my contribution by praising a member of the support mechanism in the House, I will put in another challenge to you, Mr Speaker. On 8 September, as set out at column 562 of Hansard, I had an exchange with the then Leader of the House, now the Government Chief Whip, in which he effectively said that the wheels of this place turn mighty slowly. It had taken 10 years from the tabling of the early-day motion that I put down the day after Mandela came for that plaque to arrive in this House.
We need to reinforce the great work of that fantastic statesman. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) has come up with one idea, which is to place a great banner in the shadow Cabinet room. We need to go further and update the plaque, reflecting the dates of Mandela’s birth and death. Finally, we must remember that Mandela is the most revered statesman of the 20th century. He is a man who has touched us all, and who has set standards to which every politician should aspire, but only few will reach.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Miller Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q3. Why is the Prime Minister taking away £7 billion a year in support to children up to 2015?
The Prime Minister
We are putting in more support for children. We are providing the child care offer now not just for four-year-olds and three-year-olds, but for two-year-olds. We have introduced for the first time a pupil premium, so children from the poorest homes are going to get more money following them into schools. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Frankly, he should be sitting there in shame at the OECD report that came out yesterday that showed that after a lifetime in education under Labour our young people are bottom of the league in terms of results. That is what he should be focused on.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Andrew Miller Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
In common, I suspect, with all Members, I find this an exceptionally difficult issue. My constituents hate the idea of our getting involved in Syria, and so do I. As I said earlier, I have not yet made up my mind which way to vote, but the Prime Minister’s flexibility over the past couple of days has been extremely helpful.
I should like to look first at the legality of our taking action. The conversations that have been had with the media over the past few days have talked about Syria not having impunity for the use of chemical weapons. The word “impunity” implies that there is a new doctrine of punishment as a reason for going to war—not deterrence, not self-defence, not protection, but punishment. I believe that, if that is a new doctrine, it needs considerably wider international consensus than currently exists.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. The very last sentence of the Attorney-General’s advice says:
“Such an intervention would be directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.”
So there can be no new doctrine.
Mr Arbuthnot
I want to come to the Attorney-General’s advice. My right hon. and learned Friend is an exceptional lawyer, and therefore I have the temerity to question one aspect of what he says. The third of his conditions to be met for humanitarian action is that
“the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need”.
I believe that he needed to spell out an additional point that there must be a reasonable chance of success. Therefore, the legality of this action, in my view, depends entirely on the precise action proposed, and that we do not yet know. That is why the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we need to have a further vote in the House once it is clearer what action is proposed.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I shall be brief. My principal question to pose to the Treasury Bench is, what happens next if Assad does not stop his outrages? My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) posed that question to the Prime Minister and got no satisfactory answer, so let me pose it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I refer tangentially to the sensible comments of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who I see in his place. I also think it important for the Security and Intelligence Committee or an appropriate group of parliamentary colleagues to be apprised of some of the intelligence information. It is hugely important that we understand where the weapons are, whether they are mobile and what volumes we are talking about. We appreciate that a lot of people are working on that.
When we hear the advice coming from such an august body of colleagues, I believe that we will conclude that the guidance in the Attorney-General’s report is almost unachievable; indeed, it will be unachievable. The problem we must face—the House must be mature about it—is that if we are to achieve either the goals set out in the Government’s motion or the programme of events set out in the Opposition amendment, that will almost inevitably mean putting boots on the ground. Now everyone is saying that we are not in favour of that, and I am certain that that is the view across the country. Before we get to a debate next week, it is hugely important that the analysis is done and that the House is apprised of it in a mature way, recognising the need for security considerations.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I am sure my hon. Friend has noticed in this debate that no thought has been given by the Prime Minister—or, for that matter, the Deputy Prime Minister, who will be winding up—about the consequences for the aftermath. Are we going to be in another situation like Iraq, for example, where no thought was given to the aftermath?
Andrew Miller
My hon. Friend is quite right. I am sure that those discussions are happening in private, but the Attorney-General’s briefing, a welcome document, refers entirely to the humanitarian issues. Let me repeat the sentence I cited earlier:
“Such an intervention would be directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and the minimum judged necessary for that purpose”.
The motion, the amendments and the advice before us tonight are about that point, and that point alone. But can we achieve that goal by means of a clinical operation? It is my assertion that that is not possible.
Before we have a further debate, therefore, that analysis needs to take place. Members need to be properly briefed, recognising the sensitivities of some of those briefing issues, so that we can make a decision fully informed of all the facts, because these are hugely important issues. I do not believe for a moment that it is possible to take out the chemical weapons capacity remotely. Does that mean it is special forces on the ground—ours or other people’s? We need to understand such issues fully before we take the decision next week. I hope that Members on the Treasury Bench take those points seriously.
Debate on the Address
Andrew Miller Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I concur with the spirit of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) about carers. The House needs to get to grips with that hugely important subject. A number of aspects of the Queen’s Speech spill over into that complicated debate, and I hope that we can progress in such a way that carers, especially lifelong carers, can feel comfortable that there will be a long-term practical economic solution to their needs. That is a hugely important part of the challenge we face.
The third sentence of the Gracious Speech states:
“My Government’s first priority is to strengthen Britain’s economic competitiveness.”
That is clearly the case and I want to address it by considering three aspects of the Gracious Speech. First, in his eloquent, witty and far-ranging speech the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) referred to one serious issue in particular, namely his passion and commitment to engineering and engineering skills in this country. I welcome the fact that the Gracious Speech refers to apprenticeships. We need to ensure that apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships are developed in conjunction with the engineering professions so that the industries for which we are creating the next generation of necessary skills have a long-term feedstock of them.
During the previous Session I was privileged to attend an awards ceremony in the House arranged by Cogent, the skills sector council for the chemicals sector. One of the most impressive speeches was by a young woman who was an advanced apprentice working for Novartis. She was articulate and knew her industry inside out. She started as an apprentice and is now undertaking an advanced apprenticeship, and she got a degree through the company. She added proudly that, as a result of that process, she does not have a student debt. That programme, which was worked out in partnership between training agencies, universities and employers, provides an important way forward. If we are serious about apprenticeships, we need to develop such programmes in a meaningful way.
A number of important companies are working in that field. The Science and Technology Committee heard a very good presentation from an advanced apprentice from the National Grid. Most people of her age would have struggled to describe her business in the same way as she did, but she grew up with it and has developed skills at an extremely high level. Both of the cases I have mentioned deal with graduates. Interested colleagues will be able to participate in a Westminster Hall debate next Thursday on a Science and Technology Committee report to which the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire has referred.
This is a hugely important area and commitments have been made to it by those on both Front Benches. The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister commended the comments of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire and I want this House to unite and create the momentum needed to create the required skill sets.
The Queen’s Speech also referred to the curriculum. We are missing a serious trick, partly because of this House and partly because of the guidance given to Ofsted. I want to comment on two aspects of the curriculum that are relevant to the development of the skills that we need. First, on science practicals, I was privileged to address a conference alongside Sir Mark Walport, the then head of the Wellcome Trust who is now the Government’s chief scientist. Sir Mark and I sang off exactly the same hymn sheet. We need to get young people to learn about scientific experimentation and the value of how to analyse scientific results, rather than teach them simply how to get the process right in a mechanical way. That is not teaching them how to explore, which is what we need to do.
We also need to break the naive assumption that still exists in some parts of the academic world that there is a brick wall between vocational and academic skills. They are part of a continuum, as shown by my good examples of advanced apprenticeships. We need to look at schools such as the JCB academy in Derbyshire, which has done inspirational work on developing young people aged 14 to 19 in order to prepare them for higher level skills in industry and the university sector. Beyond schooling, we need to think about how to build stronger bridges between universities and industry, and consider the examples of the advanced manufacturing centre in Sheffield, the Warwick manufacturing group and the current work being undertaken at the university of Chester—I am proud to be a part of this—where, having acquired the Shell research centre at Thornton, we have created a partnership. By working with companies in the chemical and chemical engineering sectors, we hope to develop the skills they need in the future. Those are important ways forward. The continuum covers all aspects of the skill sets we need. I presume that the issues of apprenticeships and the curriculum will result in Bills, and I hope that the House will be able to unite around them.
As an aside from my general theme, I join the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and others in welcoming the important reference to asbestos in the Gracious Speech. It is a hugely welcome step, but the devil is in the detail. We need to look at how bereaved families fit into the equation. The issue is not as simple as it seems and I hope that the Government will enter into urgent and open consultation on it.
My third theme, having covered apprenticeships and the curriculum, is immigration, which links back to competitiveness. It was also touched on by the hon. Member for Banbury. It is a hugely important area and one understands the Government’s desire to address the public’s concerns. I want to make two points.
First, as the Leader of the Opposition said—joined, curiously, by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood)—we need to consider some workplace issues. Last week, I listened to some vox pops from Lincolnshire on Radio 4. Sadly, the BBC did not challenge the farmer who said that he was happy to hire labour through a gangmaster. Dealing with such issues and considering the agency workers legislation that I sought to drive forward in the last Parliament will be central to finding a solution. If we do not have properly regulated working practices at the heart of those parts of the economy that need transient labour, we will obviously be a magnet for the populations that have been referred to.
My second point brings me back to education. There is an urgent need for the Government to decouple overseas students from the broader immigration debate. I strongly urge the Government to work with Universities UK to find a better way to deal with this massive industry. Something like £7 billion is at stake in the British economy. We have already seen losses from the Indian subcontinent. Given that about one in eight Chinese hopes to have their child educated abroad and that by 2020 that figure is predicted to be one in three, this is a massive potential market. I would like there to be a dialogue between the Government and Universities UK on creating a regulatory framework. That would put significant responsibilities on universities that some have perhaps not maintained in the recent past. We should separate the process of determining whether somebody is coming here to study from the broader immigration debate. It is important that the figures are separated because this is an enormously important industry, and I use the word “industry” deliberately. We must develop university structures that have tight mechanisms for dealing with applicants for such courses.
That takes me back to my opening point. The Government say that economic competitiveness is their first priority. We need to get the framework of the economy working properly. That will involve the development of skills at all levels. There are challenges with the broader student population and, in particular, with overseas students. My challenge to the Government is to ensure that in the weeks and months ahead, as we develop the legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech, the issues of skills and training are at the heart of the thinking in this House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Miller Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder. I am aware of the excellent work that Lancaster does. I will gladly look into an opportunity to visit. I fully agree that cyber-security is an issue that affects everybody in society—businesses large and small. We are increasing our work with small and medium-sized enterprises to raise awareness of cyber-threats and what we can all do to protect ourselves.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Nelson)
The hon. Lady is right that cyber-security affects everyone in society. Will she therefore put her support behind the annual PICTFOR—the Parliamentary Internet Communications Technology Forum—competition, “Make it Happy”, which is targeted at primary schools and in 2013 will be focused on cyber-security, building on the forthcoming programme for secondary schools?
Miss Smith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s scheme, and I welcome PICTFOR’s support. I look forward to working with him on the scheme because it is important that we get that message out, even to children at a young age, and I am sure that we can all have a happy new year with that scheme.
Leveson Inquiry
Andrew Miller Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
In the first instance, before we get to that, we should seek a cross-party approach. It is nothing for the House to be ashamed of that there are strongly held views in all parties on something of principled importance. I just hope that we do not allow those differences of view to become an alibi for inaction.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will remember acutely having his ear bent by me and others over the creation of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the checks and balances within it. That happened at the time we brought together the European directive and the original Act. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister precisely the same question I asked the Prime Minister. Paragraph 57 of the summary recommendations is for the creation of an information commission that would include members of the media. Does that not provide a vehicle to remove his concerns about some of Leveson’s comments on data protection?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman’s idea is, in effect, to turn the Information Commissioner into an information commission. I am no great expert, but that does not seem, in and of itself, to be the worrisome part of the proposals. As he will know better than I do, it is worth bearing it in mind that further and new European data protection legislation is in the pipeline on a separate timetable. That is one example of something we need to examine, but it would put the cart before the horse were we to pass all these data protection provisions, and then have to reinvent it all in the light of a new EU data protection directive. That is exactly the kind of level of detail I hope we can get into very rapidly.