G20 and Paris Attacks
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the bombing in Beirut. Some people posit this as a clash of civilisations—the Islamic world against the rest. The Beirut bomb, as with so many other bombs before it, proved that these people—in this case, ISIL—are killing Muslims in their hundreds and thousands. It is very important to demonstrate to Muslim communities in our own countries that we take this violence as seriously as violence committed in Paris or elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether what we would do in Syria would be about civilian protection. My argument is, yes, it would be about civilian protection in the obvious way—that if we can take out the murderers of ISIL, we are helping to protect the Syrian people whom they are threatening—but, because Britain has precision munitions such as the Brimstone missile, which are in many ways more effective even than some of the things the Americans have, our intervention and our assistance would mean better targeting of the people who should be targeted and fewer civilian casualties.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
In his very welcome statement today, my right hon. Friend is clearly right to focus on the political track in the Syrian negotiations, building in part on the Kofi Annan proposals from some time ago, and on the significant progress that appears to have been made in Vienna last week. If those negotiations are successful, that will of itself remove a huge barrier to the widespread military coalition that all of us want to see, in which Britain, as my right hon. Friend said today, would have the ability, as well as a number of unique assets, to play a very significant part. If the negotiations in Vienna are successful, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister, coming back to this House, will get a huge majority of Members from both sides supporting Britain’s full participation in it.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend, who follows these things closely, makes some very good points. Of course, as I have said, to defeat ISIL in Syria two things are required. First, we need to make sure that the international community—Arab states and others—are taking the military action to degrade and defeat ISIL. Secondly, we need a political settlement that gives us an effective ally in Syria to defeat ISIL in a way that can unite the country. Those two things go together, but if my right hon. Friend is arguing that military action should follow only after some political agreement has been nailed down, we might wait a very long time for that to happen. I caution against that approach.
I want to be clear about what I am proposing here. I am saying that the Government will bring together all our arguments about how we succeed in Iraq, how we succeed in Syria, what a political process should achieve, how we degrade and defeat ISIL, the role that Britain should play, and my argument that we should be going further in Syria as well as in Iraq. We will put all those arguments together in response to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then it will be for Members of this House to see whether they want to assent to that idea. If that happens, we shall have the vote and take the action so that we play a part with others in defence of our own national security.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, who did a lot of work on this in the previous Parliament, that I very much welcome the campaign that has been launched and what it aims to achieve. We set out in the NHS constitution parity between mental and physical health and we have taken steps towards that by, for instance, introducing for the first time waiting times and proper targets for talking therapies. There are now twice as many people undergoing those talking therapies as there were five years ago. But I completely accept that there is more to do in healing the divide between mental and physical health, and this Government are committed to doing that.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I thank the Prime Minister for his support and emphasise that this is indeed an all-party campaign. Does he agree that there is an opportunity now to build on the work of the coalition over the past five years and, with widespread support across all parts of society, end an historical injustice and inequality in the treatment of mental ill-health and physical illness?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right. Let me tell him what we are doing. We are investing more in mental health than ever before—we will be spending £11.4 billion this financial year. Crucially, we have asked every clinical commissioning group to ensure real-terms increases in its investment in mental health services so that it cannot be treated as the Cinderella service, as has sometimes been the case in the past. If we do that and deal with some of the other issues, such as mental health patients being held in police cells inappropriately, we will have a far better system for dealing with mental health in our country.
Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Taking the last question on the ISC first, I think we will be able to do that in the coming days. I am confident of making progress. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response.
On the issue of how many Syrians Britain has already given asylum to, I think the figure is actually 5,000, and the number under the relocation and resettlement schemes that we already have runs to about 1,000 refugees a year. What we are now doing is adding to that with this new scheme, which will be exclusively for Syrians and will see the resettlement of 20,000 Syrian refugees. As I said, we welcome the fact that the First Minister in Scotland has offered to take 1,000. We think that will now have to be increased with this more generous approach.
The hon. Gentleman talks about working constructively within the EU. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is what lay behind my phone call with Angela Merkel just a few minutes ago. The point I would make is that we do not believe the right answer is for Britain to take people who have already arrived in Europe. We think that it is better to take people out of the refugee camps, so that we do not encourage people to make this perilous crossing. We are not part of the Schengen no-borders agreement, so we do not have to take part in that relocation scheme. We are doing work in the Syrian refugee camps: 10 times more money is given by Britain than by some other major European countries to those refugee camps. I think that entitles us to say that we are taking an approach that is about helping people on the ground, rather than encouraging people to move.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Government are clearly right to increase yet further Britain’s immense humanitarian support for the Syrian people, and right, too, to use British aid—entirely in accordance with the rules governing its spending—to support refugees in their first year in the United Kingdom, but will the Prime Minister accept that the failures of the international community to protect, and to tackle the causes of the Syrian catastrophe, evoke memories of the failures over the Rwandan genocide, over which the international community was left guilty and shamed?
The Prime Minister
First, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the use of the aid budget, which he did so much as a Minister to promote and develop? He is right to say that we are dealing with the consequences of failure with respect to Syria. It is an incredibly difficult situation, because not only do we have the terrorisation of people by ISIL, but Assad has been the recruiting sergeant for ISIL because of the butchery of his own people. What we must not do is give up on the idea of a transition for Syria; we need to keep working towards that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend indicated over the weekend that he would like to see greater use made of drones in the fight against terrorism, but is he aware that for every terrorist taken out by a drone between five and 10 innocent civilians, especially women and children, lose their lives? Will he accept that we need to bear that effect in mind as we seek to win hearts and minds in the conflict against the evils of terrorism?
The Prime Minister
Of course we must always think very carefully before we act, but the rules of engagement that both Britain and America follow are there to limit collateral damage to the absolute minimum. But if my right hon. Friend is asking me whether Britain should give up using drones in extremis to take out people who are threatening our country and seeking to bring terrorism to our streets, I would say very firmly no. I will say something that I am sure we both agree with. As Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, a missile can kill a terrorist, but it is good governance and strong Governments that can kill terrorism.
Debate on the Address
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). I much enjoyed serving with him in Cabinet and on the National Security Council. I feel that history is likely to treat his time as our Deputy Prime Minister rather more kindly than the electorate did on what he must regard, but we do not, as a very dark night for his party and for him—but that is the awesome power of democracy.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on brilliantly proposing and seconding the Loyal Address. Some 23 years ago, I had the privilege of seconding the Address, and I know what a terrifying ordeal it is. They both did it with great grace, good sense and humour.
I am obviously delighted to have been returned by the citizens of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield with an increased vote—and, indeed, an increased percentage of the vote. They are, after all, the jury that I trust and respect, and I am delighted with their verdict. Throughout the election on the doorstep—thank goodness the doorstep was right and the polls were wrong—I heard about many important issues, some of which are in the Queen’s Speech and some of which are not, that I intend to champion during the course of this Parliament. I will mention just two. The first is mental health, which was referred to briefly by Her Majesty. The second is individual and collective liberty, which this House has sometimes neglected in the past and to which, during this Parliament, we will undoubtedly return.
Mr Mitchell
Those liberties must be defended—often, I suspect, with a cross-party approach, and I therefore give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Tom Brake
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned civil liberties. Does he agree that the snoopers’ charter is a disproportionate response that puts at risk our civil liberties; a cripplingly expensive response, at £1.8 billion; and a rushed response, because David Anderson handed in his review of RIPA—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—only on 6 May, and therefore the Prime Minister cannot possibly have taken it into account?
Mr Mitchell
We shall return to these issues during the course of this Parliament.
I want to say at the outset that this is an excellent Queen’s Speech. It is a Queen’s Speech, and as secretary of the One Nation Group, on and off, since 1992, I am obviously delighted to see its content.
Thanks to the referendum pledge that the Prime Minister has championed, the Government are in a very good place on an extremely difficult and contentious issue. I got all this grey hair in whipping the party during the Maastricht debates between 1992 and 1994, much of that time spent with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is not in his place. There is a clear road map: renegotiation followed by a referendum when everyone will be able to decide. It will not be politicians in what used to be called smoke-filled rooms making those decisions; it will be up to everyone to decide. The United Kingdom can clearly survive inside or outside the European Union—not because of the whims of politicians but because we are a great trading nation—but I am absolutely certain that the always edgy relationship that we have had with the EU since we joined in the early 1970s can now be rectified by this renegotiation, and I very much hope that it will be. My advice to those on the Government Front Bench is not to fetter Ministers with regard to the referendum but to let this momentous decision be guided by individual conviction and allow all Ministers, including Cabinet Ministers, to vote as they see fit.
I want to express strong support for the Government’s proposals to tackle the deficit. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said that the deficit and the debt in Britain were unsustainable, and in the long term he is absolutely right. Our generation of politicians has been too willing to throw money at problems and has forgotten that it is not Government money—the Government do not have any money—but the money of our constituents and those hard-working people who pay all their taxes. It is the money of the people, whose servants we are as politicians, that we are spending.
If we do not repay this enormous debt and attack all the deficit very thoroughly now, it will be the next generation—our children and grandchildren—who will have to pay it off. It will be an intergenerational transfer of debt and deficit, and a blight on young people, who face many challenges which my generation certainly did not face. For example, those leaving university now pay fees—correctly in my view, although my generation received a grant. They have no idea when they will be able to retire or whether they will receive a pension, whereas my generation expected to retire at the age of 65, quite often on a pension linked to earnings. There are many difficulties to be faced in tackling the deficit, but the Government are right to do that now and to do so urgently to stop it becoming an endemic intergenerational transfer of debt.
But the hard truth is that it is incredibly difficult, as I learned as a Social Security Minister in 1995, to tackle and to cut welfare spending. People argue that cutting £1 billion off the huge welfare budget—less than 1%—is easy, but it is not: £1 billion is £100 from 10 million people, or more than 15,000 people per constituency. The lesson is: do not remove cash, but cut future increased expenditure. That is the sensible, one nation way to do it, and it will make it much easier for the Government to take these extremely difficult and complex decisions.
I want to say that the Government are absolutely right to proceed with caution on human rights legislation, as outlined today. I must say that I never thought a British Government, let alone a Conservative one, would ever consider withdrawing from the European convention on human rights, for which our party was responsible.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May I tell my right hon. Friend that I am rather surprised to hear a former Government deputy Chief Whip speaking up for human rights? Is he telling the House that he has suffered a damascene conversion?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend forgets that it was he who was a Government deputy Chief Whip and that I, albeit briefly, was the Government Chief Whip!
Human rights are not British; nor are they just for nice middle-class people. They are universal. In the past, Britain has been a beacon of light on human rights in some very dark places indeed. However, the Government have rightly decided to delay and to think this legislation through. I cannot think of anyone better than my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to negotiate the Government’s passage on it, and I look forward to his doing so during the coming months.
Mr Graham Allen
I suggest that as well as the good offices of the Lord Chancellor, there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny. Given that we have five years of a Parliament and that reform may well take place, does it not make sense to do this carefully, listening to all parties and all views, rather than to take the advice of the Lord Chancellor solely? We should consult Parliament.
Mr Mitchell
It is not the Lord Chancellor’s advice that I am looking for, but his skills in engaging everyone, including Parliament, in the extremely important debate that we must have before the Government come forward with legislation.
I was talking about tackling dark places. I should say that four newly re-elected Members of this House spent last week in Washington seeking the release of the United Kingdom’s last detainee in Guantanamo. It has to be said that a more unlikely group of political bedfellows would be extremely hard to find—me, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). Although it was clear from the beginning of the visit that we agreed on nothing else at all, the one thing we absolutely agreed on was that Shaker Aamer should be released for transfer to the United Kingdom. I am confident that we made some progress on our visit, but it is the most extraordinary injustice. On his visit to the United States earlier this year, the Prime Minister asked that Shaker Aamer be released for transfer to the United Kingdom, and the President promised to prioritise the matter, but since then virtually nothing has happened.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his company on that important visit. Will he use this opportunity to put as much pressure as possible on the Government to speak up for what was the decision of the last House of Commons and what I am confident will be the decision of this House of Commons? We want Shaker Aamer released. He has twice been cleared for release and held illegally—in my view—for 13 years. He deserves his freedom and his family deserve to see him back.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he is right, too, that this is a thorn in the side of the US-UK relationship. There is a huge online petition, and this has all the appearances of a slap in the face for the United States’ closest ally. I cannot think of any time since the second world war when a UK Prime Minister could have been treated so badly in his request to a President and the reaction to it. The House resolved unanimously on 17 March that Shaker Aamer should be transferred back to the United Kingdom. The message from Britain to the United States is to send Shaker Aamer back to Britain now.
Finally, in the five years since the last opening Queen’s Speech of a new Parliament, the world has become a much less safe and more challenged place, with serious difficulties facing us and our neighbours. One thinks of the threats spelt out by the Prime Minister on Ukraine, the Baltic states and the actions of President Putin, ISIL and the enormous humanitarian disaster that has engulfed Syria and Iraq, where a generation of children will be unlikely to get an education and, in many cases, do not even have a roof over their heads. At this time, however, Europe is facing largely inwards, dealing, quite rightly, with the problems of migrants coming across the sea from north Africa—some of the bravest people in the world—Ukraine, Greece and the euro.
There is precious little leadership from America either. We face this appalling catastrophe in the middle east and this grave threat from ISIL, which might soon have a port on the Mediterranean, but what strategy are the United Nations, America and Europe putting together to tackle this serious threat? There seems to be very little international leadership. Anyone who believes that the solution is to drop weapons worth £30,000 on cars worth less than £500 is living in cloud cuckoo land. It will require long-term, smart policies, political leadership and a political solution, but, in my view, we are nowhere near achieving that.
Tackling the alienation and deep poverty in our world—how right the Government are to stand by their commitment on international development and the 0.7% promise to the poorest people in the world—and making sure that better governance takes hold are the long-term policies that will start to make a difference, but for the moment the House must accept that there is precious little international leadership on tackling this grave problem facing all our constituents and many neighbouring countries.
Iraq Inquiry
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to take part in an important debate that strikes at the heart of our role as Members of Parliament, for many of the uncomfortable reasons presented by the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Bradford West (George Galloway). It touches particularly on our responsibility, as the legislature, to our constituents. Our reaction, therefore, as Members of the House of Commons and on behalf of our constituents, to the grotesque delays in producing the report is a matter of great importance.
This debate is not about former Prime Minister Tony Blair. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was here for that debate in 2003. Although advised by the Opposition Whips, I had not made up my mind how to vote when I entered the Chamber. I could not get a seat, so I sat in the Gangway, and I listened to the Prime Minister. To some extent, this answers the important question from the hon. Member for Bradford West about how we, who were supposedly well educated and informed, knew less than the phenomenal number of people out on the streets demonstrating against the Iraq war. Sitting in the Gangway, with the Prime Minister a few feet away, speaking about the threat to Britain and the international order and the importance of military action, I was persuaded.
Pete Wishart
May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was not persuaded by the Prime Minister, but duped by the Prime Minister, with a fabrication, a fallacy and a pack of lies? Does he not now see that he was misled?
Mr Mitchell
The question whether we were duped is exactly the reason the process of this inquiry is so important. As I sat there, I firmly believed that the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was making a case that I had a duty to support.
This was a hugely divisive matter. In my constituency, there were very deep divisions that had nothing to do with party politics. I remember the bizarre occasion when the entire executive committee of the Sutton Coldfield Labour party—not a large body—came to urge me as their Conservative Member of Parliament to vote against the Iraq war and their own party’s Prime Minister. During the debate, I remember going home to have dinner with my wife, who has always been viscerally opposed to the war and believes it was a terrible mistake. So these divisions run deep.
At the end of the day, however, this is not an attack on the former Prime Minister. It is inconceivable—this is an incredibly important point—that he could have made the case he did that afternoon without the passive acquiescence, if not the active support, of the full panoply of the Government machine. In my judgment, the Chilcot report is required not to expose an idiosyncratic Prime Minister—if that is the charge—but to hold to public account the workings of our Government machine.
Last December, we saw the long-awaited publication in the US of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into the CIA’s use of torture in the aftermath of 9/11. It was certainly controversial, possibly flawed, but such reports, and the problems they throw up for politicians and Administrations, are crucial to the democratic process and our ability, as the legislature, to hold to account those who make these decisions. There is a clear benefit to be derived from revisiting these profound and significant decisions and actions, and although it might leave us open to criticism and reopen old wounds, it is a fundamental step in the process of moving forward and building on past actions.
For this House, therefore, this debate is an important and timely one. It follows the pertinent and important comments made in the other place by former Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd. His remarks should ring around the political establishment. I also congratulate the three promoters of the debate, and as ever my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) did the House credit in introducing it. It is a debate not about the substance of Sir John’s report, which none of us should prejudice, but about the manner of its conduct and timing and the way these issues have been pursued.
In allowing the inquiry to drift on in this way, Sir John and all of us are doing great damage to the process of accountability—a process that Parliament has a right to expect and a duty to pursue in order to hold the Government to account. It really matters that it is taking so desperately long for the report to be delivered. The failure to have this report before us will undoubtedly have had some impact—probably both ways—on the way in which Members voted on the Government motion for action on Syria.
On the Libya campaign, when I was the International Development Secretary, I had responsibility for the Government’s humanitarian duties and role, and my first question to officials in my Department was about the lessons to be drawn from the Iraq war, most especially on the plans for the aftermath of that conflict, which were fundamental to the plans we were making in respect of Libya. The lack of a proper inquiry meant relying on the memory and understanding of officials, which is what we had to do.
We come to the meat of the matter. This inquiry is entering its sixth year; it has already cost £9 million. That is clearly not the fault of the current Government. The events did not take place on our watch. Indeed, both the Prime Minister and I voted to set up this inquiry in 2006. The delay is an insult to every one of our constituents, to every taxpayer in the country and to every parent, spouse and loved one of the 179 servicemen and women who died in the Iraq war and of the many who were wounded and still live with those wounds today.
The Foreign Affairs Committee, led so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, is absolutely right to call Sir John before it next week to ask him not for the contents of his report, but for a full and detailed explanation of the delays, the timing and the process over which he has presided. It is essential that we, the legislature, prosecute this matter vigorously and fully if we are not to bring ourselves into considerable disrepute. It is our role to hold the Government to account, and what could be more important than the issues surrounding a decision like this one—to go to war?
Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I support the motion today, ever conscious, as we all should be, of the young men and women who will be placed in harm’s way on our account.
I support the motion, but for me it does not go as far as it should. It is a snapshot of what will be required. The permission that it gives for the deployment of Tornadoes from RAF Akrotiri, and the fact that we are telegraphing safe havens over the Syrian border to ISIL are matters of concern. The motion is a snapshot of the issues that we need to address, but for me it does not go anything like far enough. I am quite certain that the House will have to return to some of the issues we have discussed today, particularly the point—made more firmly by Opposition than by Government Members—about the need for us to engage on Syria.
Many other things are required, but in the brief time allowed I want to make four points in support of, but in addition to, the motion we are supporting today. First, there is no doubt that this matter requires a multilateral effort. We need to ensure that the United Nations is engaged in every possible way. Of course, as other hon. Members have said, it will not agree at this point to the motion we want on Syria. Nevertheless, we must engage with the United Nations, not least its humanitarian agencies. The vast power, legitimacy and authority that UN support conveys and gives us cannot be understated.
We need to ensure that there is massive regional support, and the Prime Minister deserves credit for having tried to secure the widest possible coalition. It has been a good start and I was pleased to see the successful meeting with Iran in New York, for which the Government deserve credit. Along with many others in this House, I have concluded that the relationship with Iran needs to be rebased and that much more work needs to be done to try to bring Iran into the comity of nations. Let us not be too pious in this House about British policy towards Iran. It was a British coup d’état in 1953 that removed Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, so we should bear that in mind as we consider the policy.
Dr Julian Lewis
Just to illustrate some of the complications of the situation, if indeed we do bring Iran back in, is it not the case that Iran will make it absolutely certain that our other professed wish to bring down President Assad never happens? The relationships are very complex.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right that the relationships are very complex, but that argument must not be an argument against trying. We are not trying to do this on any terms, but we must do everything that we can to achieve it.
Mr Allen
The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished International Development Secretary in a previous incarnation. What is his view on winning the peace as well as winning the war, which clearly was not done with Mr Paul Bremer being put in to run the Iraq regime after the previous Iraq conflict? From the right hon. Gentleman’s previous experience, what are the lessons of that and how will we engage people so that they can have a settled political settlement once all the fighting and death is over?
Mr Andrew Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a point that I will come on to later.
My second point is that Britain’s involvement must be in training, arming and giving strategic support and planning. Many have already suggested that links with the Free Syrian Army, the Kurds and the Iraqi army need to be enhanced, but this is an area in which the British military excel. We need to ensure that we do everything that we can to help train, arm and provide strategic support and planning. Those are issues at which Britain is undoubtedly one of the best in the world.
My third point is that the humanitarian protection of civilians is absolutely essential. I remember during the Libyan campaign, when I had the honour of sitting on the National Security Council, the personal attention that the then Defence Secretary took to ensure that targeting was of such quality and standard that civilian casualties were absolutely minimised. There would be nothing worse than the damage that will be caused by an air campaign if huge numbers of innocent civilians are attacked, as they have been in other campaigns but as they were not in Libya. Libya was successful in that respect at least. We must ensure precise targeting and the protection of civilians. We must give absolute priority to that and must ensure that protecting those who are at grave risk in this conflict is right at the top of the list.
My fourth point, which brings me directly to the point of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), is that anyone who thinks that this crisis will be solved by smart weapons from 12,000 feet is completely and totally wrong, which is pretty widely accepted, at least in the House. It is absolutely critical that there is a plan for when the crisis is over and that the plan is enunciated now, because we need to ensure that we split off the hardliners, those who are intent on military action and advancing their cause through weaponry and ordnance, from those who are biddable and who may be brought back into more sensible dialogue and international comity.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
I am afraid that I cannot.
We must ensure that people know that there is a plan that will provide a better life for their children and grandchildren when the crisis is all over. That means focusing on governance. As has already been said, the brilliant quote from Ban Ki-moon absolutely sums it up. We must focus on local governance and accountability, on providing some sort of basic services, on tackling the extremes of destitution and poverty that fuel such conflicts and on bad governance and unfairness. We must show people that life will be better once the conflict is over and that we are part of the grouping that is insistent on ensuring that they have that better life.
This is not just something that we see in Iraq and, indeed, in Syria. All across this part of the world, including north Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and Libya, the effects of bad governance and alienation from those who govern—the deep, systemic poverty with no hope or opportunity, no economic activity, and conflict being endemic in the lives of everyone everyday, especially women and children, who are the most vulnerable is such circumstances—are the things that we, the international community, need to make clear will be addressed when the conflict is over. It is not just about smart weaponry; it is about smart policies—soft power as well as hard power—which are absolutely essential to the solution.
NATO Summit
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is basically right, but I refer her to the text of the declaration. Interestingly, it says that all allies
“currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2%...will aim to continue to do so”,
which is important, and then it sets out the point about spending 20% on equipment, which is absolutely vital. The declaration then singles out allies
“whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level”.
Page 4 of the document sets out in some detail that those allies will
“halt any decline in defence expenditure…aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows”
and
“aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade”.
It is important that for the first time all 28 countries signed up to that sort of specificity.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
On ISIL, my right hon. Friend is clearly right to have been cautious and to have sought the widest possible support for any international action, including by going through the United Nations and working closely with the Arab League. Will he continue to make it clear that this long and painstaking problem will not be solved only by smart weapons delivered from 12,000 feet, but will need long-term engagement on many fronts?
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am grateful for having been granted this Adjournment debate—my first for at least 10 years—on the subject of the re-assertion of the royal status of the town of Sutton Coldfield. The debate is particularly timely because last Friday Mr Speaker visited my constituency and the royal town, when he addressed my constituents in our historic town hall.
Over the last year there has been a tremendous campaign throughout Sutton Coldfield to validate, prove and reassert our status as a royal town—not a royal borough, for that is a local government structure, but as the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. We were granted this status many centuries ago during the reign of King Henry VIII.
Since 1974 Sutton Coldfield has been part of Birmingham for local government purposes. This is greatly resented, particularly by my elder constituents who at the time marched and petitioned against the loss of our borough council. Indeed, the late Edward Heath, Prime Minister at the time, told me that his office received more letters on this matter, in opposition to the change, in the month before it took place than on all other national and international matters.
This change of status inevitably led to a perceived diminution in our individual identity in Sutton Coldfield, and the emergence of a “North Birmingham” entity with which Sutton has never concurred and has never accepted. Of course, in Sutton Coldfield we understand that local government arrangements are but a small part of what we are. We remain, in our view, an ancient royal town deeply proud of our heritage and history, and conscious of the fact that local government arrangements, while important, are a relatively modest part of the fabric, nature and activity of Sutton Coldfield. Within the town, there is a society, an organisation or a charity for almost every enthusiasm and activity one can imagine, and many of them continue proudly to sport the royal connection.
Over the last year or so, I have led the campaign to reassert our royal status and royal heritage. Of course, we are not seeking something new, nor are we seeking any legal change. We wish merely to reassert something that we claim never to have lost and which we have enjoyed down the centuries: that the royal town of Sutton Coldfield bears this title in perpetuity, as clearly documented throughout our history.
The campaign to reassert our royal status has been supported extensively throughout Sutton Coldfield and hundreds of people have come forward with evidence to support our claim. This campaign has been given terrific support by the award-winning and much admired local newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, under its experienced and respected editor, Gary Phelps, with the support of one of his journalists, Elise Chamberlain, a rising journalistic star who has spent many hours sorting through evidence and has braved many a dusty archive in diligently carrying out her investigation.
The Sutton Coldfield Observer energised the search for historical precedent, with local residents of Sutton Coldfield searching through heirlooms and attics and discovering a mounting cohort of evidence which earlier this year we were able to lay before the Cabinet Office Minister responsible for this matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark).
The senior councillors, including Councillor Anne Underwood and Councillor Margaret Waddington, alongside honorary alderman David Roy OBE, former lord mayor of the city of Birmingham, and members of the Sutton Coldfield Civic Society, led by Elizabeth Allison BEM, have spent much time and effort researching and investigating our case. My distinguished predecessor Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield has given his vigorous support, as has the Lord-Lieutenant of the West Midlands, Paul Sabapathy CBE, another distinguished local resident. Prior to the delegation from Sutton Coldfield that visited the Minister earlier this year, I held a series of meetings with the Garter King of Arms, the College of Arms, the Crown Office, the Cabinet Office and officials at Buckingham palace. I would like to record my thanks to them all for the sympathetic hearing, and the helpful advice and guidance they offered. These matters are both more complicated and more labyrinthine than they may appear, steeped in history and precedent as they are.
Throughout this joint investigation into the history of Sutton Coldfield’s royal town status we have found no evidence to prove that our royal title has been either lost or repealed. Instead we have uncovered a great deal of evidence that shows that Sutton Coldfield was granted royal status in 1528 in perpetuity. Although this fact has been taken for granted locally until comparatively recently, documents show that Sutton Coldfield was referred to as the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in an official capacity up until 1974. However, under the Local Government Act 1972, to which I referred earlier and which heaved Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham for local government purposes, that point was not addressed. We believe we have now found precedents, not least precedents governing Scottish royal towns, which put this right and which I hope my right hon. Friend will address in his response.
In 1528, Bishop Vesey obtained a charter from King Henry VIII which referred to Sutton Coldfield as
“the royal town and village of Sutton Coldfield”.
Born at Moor Hall farm, Vesey became a confidant of the King, a status he managed to maintain throughout his life, in sharp contrast to many of the King’s other confidants, who came to a grisly end, as devotees of “The Tudors”, the brilliant television series, will attest. As a young priest, Vesey was appointed chaplain to Henry VIII's mother, Elizabeth of York, and when the King acceded to the throne he became a close adviser to him and was rewarded for his loyalty with the bishopric of Exeter in 1519. He was one of the six bishops to accompany Henry VIII to the famous meeting with Francis I of France at the field of the cloth of gold in northern France, which at the time, of course, was part of England. For much of the rest of his life Bishop Vesey endowed and supported his home town of Sutton Coldfield by plundering his bishopric of Exeter to our very great advantage—an advantage that still benefits us today in Sutton Coldfield through the work of the Sutton Coldfield Charitable Trust, which dispenses largesse to many worthy and brilliant organisations throughout the town.
In the charter granted in 1528 the following statement is made:
“And that the same town and village shall for ever hereafter be accounted, named and called, The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, in our County of Warwick”.
Bishop Vesey, who still rests in Sutton Coldfield parish church, gave the town Sutton park, the biggest municipal park in Europe. He oversaw the regeneration of the town centre, much as we are seeking to do today on the back of Britain’s rescued and newly vibrant economy. He also built our town hall, in which Mr Speaker spoke last Friday, and founded one of our two grammar schools, which still proudly bears his name. He rebuilt the marketplace to encourage trade, with paved streets, new roads and bridges constructed to promote it.
Sutton Coldfield today abounds with signs of royal association. Our royal status is proclaimed in the arms of Sutton Coldfield. The gold greyhound and red dragon derive from the coat of arms of early Tudor kings and were incorporated as a direct result of King Henry VIII’s decision to grant Sutton Coldfield the charter of incorporation as a royal town.
From that point on, Sutton Coldfield had secured its place in our national history. Shakespeare sent one of his best-loved characters, Falstaff, to Sutton Coldfield on the way to the battle of Shrewsbury in Henry IV Part I. Falstaff says:
“Bardolph, get thee before to Coventry; fill me a bottle of sack: our soldiers shall march through: we’ll to Sutton-Co’fil’ to-night”.
I feel the warm approbation of the Secretary of State for Education upon me at this point. It is believed that this mention was a result of the Bard’s family connections with Sutton Coldfield, where it is claimed he had well-to-do relatives residing at Peddimore Hall, a later version of which still stands and was originally owned by the Arden family, relatives of Shakespeare’s mother. The farmhouse has “Deus noster refugium”—God is our refuge—inscribed above the doorway. Given the constant threat to our green belt in Peddimore, it is probably quite apt.
A second charter was granted to Sutton Coldfield by Charles II in 1662, which simply restored those powers bestowed by Henry VIII 134 years earlier, and confirmed all the privileges previously granted.
A third charter, granted by Queen Victoria on 31 December 1885, saw the ancient and royal town of Sutton Coldfield become a modern municipal borough. Importantly, there is no mention of the royal status being withdrawn.
The royal town status of Sutton Coldfield was recognised again in July 1928 when, on the 400th anniversary of the granting of the charter by Henry VIII, the town celebrated by holding a pageant. Thanks to diligent local research, we have located a printed programme of festivities, which includes a letter from Buckingham palace after His Majesty King George V had received a copy of a book of the pageant. The letter reads:
“In thanking you I am commanded to express His Majesty’s best wishes for the success of the Pageant which has been organised to commemorate the four hundredth year of the granting to the Town of a Royal Charter by King Henry VIII.”
Once again, in 1957, the royal town status was recognised when Her Majesty the Queen visited the town for the world scout jubilee jamboree. Similarly, we have located an official programme of the event, which refers to Sutton Coldfield as both the royal town of Sutton Coldfield and the borough of Sutton Coldfield, which we contend refers both to our status of royal in perpetuity and to our local government arrangements.
Although such programmes and details bear no legal status, they do, I think, indicate what was a clear popular understanding at the time and, significantly, one not contradicted or gainsaid by the authorities. Nor are we seeking any legal instrument affirming all that I have said.
Our conclusions at the end of this long campaign, based on extensive research and evidence and on a case supported overwhelmingly throughout Sutton Coldfield by many thousands of local residents, are that in spite of the vast changes our town has seen over more than four centuries, since Henry VIII granted the royal charter in perpetuity, there is no evidence to suggest that that royal town status has ever been revoked, and we therefore seek reassurance tonight that we can proudly rely on that and use it in a sober and appropriate way forthwith.
Detainee Inquiry
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend. He understands how much the forces in the field, as well as the public in this country, depend on the accuracy of the intelligence available to them and on the ability of the people who work on our behalf to infiltrate the organisations with which we unfortunately sometimes find ourselves faced. I endorse all his sentiments in full.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is to be commended for the candour and openness of his statement to the House today. Is it not clear that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was dealing with unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances in the aftermath of 9/11, and many people, of all different political persuasions, looking objectively at the decisions he took, will conclude that he discharged his duties then with complete responsibility and acted with total integrity?
Mr Clarke
I would expect that, certainly, and absolutely nothing in this report casts doubt on that integrity at all. The right hon. Member for Blackburn has the misfortune of being named in it because he had that most responsible office at the time, but he has already given his statement, as it were, to this House and it is quite obvious that the problems he was dealing with were immense and unprecedented, and that a great deal was done while he was Foreign Secretary to protect this country from further harm.