Iran-Israel Update

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to their counterparts over the weekend, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Iranian Foreign Minister specifically to urge de-escalation and condemn what happened over the weekend. I will be speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly, and I can reassure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that we will continue, together with our allies, to urge calm heads to prevail and de-escalation. That is the right course forward, and across all levels of Government that is the message we are taking to everyone.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

There is another country that is under almost constant daily bombardment by Iranian-made drones: Ukraine. Some three years ago I pleaded with the Israelis to help Ukraine against Russia, and they refused even though Russia was spending half a billion dollars in the Iranian drone programme. I know the Prime Minister will be speaking to the Prime Minister of Israel later today; now that RAF pilots have quite rightly gone to the defence of Israel, could he perhaps ask that Israel now decides it is time to help Ukraine in its hour of need, and we can see off both Russia and Iranian aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the role he has played in ensuring the security of the UK and our allies over previous years. My statement alluded to the fact that the Ukrainians were suffering from Iranian drones over the same weekend that this happened. Not only will I, as always, be taking up his points with all our allies in urging them to do more to support Ukraine, but I know he will have welcomed the recent announcement a few weeks ago of more support from the UK to Ukraine, specifically in the areas of uncrewed platforms on autonomous warfare to make sure the Ukrainians have the ability both to protect themselves and to conduct their operations. The majority of the 10,000 new platforms we are delivering to the Ukrainians have been developed in the UK, which my right hon. Friend was keen to ensure we saw the benefits of here at home. I am glad that has been realised, both supporting Ukraine and its security and bolstering the British defence industry here at home.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

There is no doubt about the strength of support in NATO and the G7 for this defence of Ukraine and this defence of the legitimate freedom of Ukraine, but there are credible reports that it is now becoming increasingly difficult to get weaponry and ammunition across the globe.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

indicated dissent.

[Tony Lloyd]

The Defence Secretary is shaking his head, but there are reports. Was this raised at all at NATO, and can we guarantee that the supply of armaments and the supply of ammunition will be available?

Armed Forces Bill

Ben Wallace Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Let me declare at the outset that I am president of the Scots Guards Association for veterans and have been for nearly 20 years.

I pay tribute to all Members who have spoken in this debate. Looking after our veterans and our armed forces does not belong to any one political party, nor to any one Member of Parliament. Reflecting on the contribution from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), one would easily be forgiven for thinking that serving personnel’s experience of the armed forces is that they all live in substandard accommodation, have an awful time and want to leave. One would also think that the veterans in this country are not enjoying successful careers, becoming incredibly employable, working hard, contributing to society and using their skills. Up and down this country, tens of thousands—nay, even hundreds of thousands—of people who have enjoyed service to this country, whether short or long, show those skills to all and sundry. They show their loyalty to their country, they show their patriotism, they show their ability to work, and they are incredibly employable.

For many people, the system works and they have a great time in the services. For many people, the best part of their lives—probably the best part of my life—was as a serving soldier in the armed forces. Was it perfect? No. Did I lose 30% of my sight? Yes. Did I find myself rushed to hospital being told that they would not save my sight? Yes. Did I feel slightly abandoned when afterwards, with a one-inch gash in my eyeball, I woke up alone in a hospital in west Belfast, and did not really know how to transition? Yes. But do I regret a minute of my service? No. Do I regret the skills it gave me? No. Do the hundreds of thousands of veterans in this country regret it? No.

It is true, however, that for a proportion of veterans and serving personnel, all is not well, and we all recognise in this House that we could always do more and do better. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made the very important point that the journey never ends. The reason the journey never ends is that conflict never ends, and the nature of conflict never ends. The distance between society and the people who serve in the armed forces—fewer and fewer people—never ends. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who is a very thoughtful Member of this House who seeks the best for the armed forces, and, as a member of the Scottish National party, is always open to listening, understanding and exploring ideas, made the very real point that there are fewer and fewer serving personnel in society and the gap between the understanding of what they do and what others do is growing greater. We must address that.

This Bill is a good step in the right direction. It improves many of the things that in my day were not even really in existence. I served as a member of the armed forces under both a Conservative Government and a Labour Government. If we just consider the treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder—the transition and liaison service, the complex treatment service and the high-intensity service now delivered by the NHS for the mental welfare of our veterans—we can see that all that is much, much better; a step change from what it was.

This Bill takes another step forward—it goes further—because clause 8 puts the armed forces covenant into law. As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, this has been a long journey. It started off with a charter, then a Green Paper, then it became a duty to report, and now this is a step forward whereby we will put a duty on a number of services to pay regard to the covenant.

The Bill is also a step forward in improving the assurances around investigations, which many Opposition Members said during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was something that is missing. It is about improving the quality and the independence of those investigations, alongside that of the prosecutions and the judiciary. It is about improving the training so that our soldiers—men and women of our armed forces—are never again in the position they were in in the early years of the Iraq war, where they were accused of war crimes when they thought they were simply doing what they were trained to do. That happened because the training had fallen far behind the development of the law and human rights legislation.

Many Members called for the Bill to go wider and deeper, and I will do my best to respond, given that nearly 60 colleagues spoke during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) suggested a £500 thank you payment to our troops in the same way as was provided for NHS workers in Scotland. She also said that we could do more in health and education. The Scottish Parliament has those devolved powers, and there is nothing to stop the Government of Scotland tomorrow morning doing even more on a whole range of issues to support the covenant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) pointed out the excellent report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), “Living in our Shoes”—an extremely good piece of work. As Secretary of State for Defence, I have not only listened to and read the reports from my colleagues and from Select Committees on issues such as protecting veterans and legacy, but have made sure that the Department does not put those reports on the shelf and ignore them. I believe that many of our colleagues have some of the best ideas, and throughout the conduct of this Bill, I assure the House that the Government will be open to suggestions about how to improve it. Everyone in the Government will be interested in doing that, because we all have that interest at heart.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and many others raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans. I refer him to the written ministerial statement on 18 March by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and add that we are all keen to get the legacy over the line as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) gave us an insight into what it means to be a commanding officer, having to discipline soldiers and balance military discipline with the needs of the unit, sometimes on operations—that experience is unique. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) referred to his experiences as a magistrate in the civilian world. I have sat on a court martial in the military world—before the reforms—but the military world and the civil world are different, so that is a unique experience.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire talked about why it is always the military that is called upon to do the resilience. The fundamental reason is how we are trained: it is the pressure, the different discipline and structure, and often the difference between life and death in operations. There is no need to always replicate that across society. It is a unique experience—a unique set of circumstances—because only we in the armed forces are called upon to kill or be killed. It is a unique thing, one that we often take with us for the rest of our lives, and that is why we provide resilience at pace in anything from a pandemic to flooding and snowstorms. That will always continue, because that is the very nature of why our armed forces are special, and we must make sure we protect that special nature. At the same time, we must modernise welfare and aftercare for our troops, but the military is different, and will always be different.

That is why when it comes to co-jurisdiction, there is the obvious difficulty around murder, manslaughter, rape and other offences, but there are many serious offences. There is attempted murder; there is grievous bodily harm; there is armed robbery. Why is it okay for those offences to remain in a service system, but it is recommended that three other offences be potentially removed into a civil system? It is perfectly legitimate to argue against the concept of service justice, although I would disagree, but if we accept that there is such a concept, where we draw the line has to balance the needs of the victim with those of the accused. That is why I think the solution we came up with, which was not the Lyons recommendation of Attorney General consent—which can happen behind closed doors—but consent based on an open and transparent protocol that will be decided between the Crown Prosecution Service and the service justice fraternity, was the right one.

I will just make one other point on this topic, because a number of colleagues make this mistake: the service justice system is independent. I do not appoint the judge advocate; I do not appoint the judges; I do not interfere with the police and the justice system, in the same way that the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor do. It is independent. People seem to think that it is all cosy because we are in the armed forces, and that we sit around and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. We do not. Yes, the service justice system and the quality of investigations have been found wanting over many years. That is why we commissioned the Lyons report, and it is why Sir Richard Henriques has been commissioned to increase the assurance, because that is the best way to make sure we do not constantly get taken to court under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to ensure that people are not dragged through the courts. We will continue to do that.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about the need for the 16-year-olds. In response to his question, I urge him to visit the Army Foundation College in Harrogate—I will happily make that possible.

All I will say in conclusion is that at their heart, our armed forces are about the people. Over the next few months, we will have debates about equipment, integrated reviews, and which service wins over which—which regiments do and do not—but in the end, if we do not invest in our people, we will not have anything for the future of our armed forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

Select Committee

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.

(2) The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 29 April 2021.

Committee of the whole House, Consideration and Third Reading

(3) On report from the Select Committee, the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.

(4) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(5) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming committee

(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill (Carry-Over)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:

(1) The Committee shall have 16 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

(2) The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;

(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and

(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Bill.

(3) The Order of the House of 24 March 2020 (Select Committees (Participation and Reporting) (Temporary Order)) shall apply to the Committee as if it had the power to report from time to time.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

First, I acknowledge the hard work that has got us to this point today and the thousands who responded to our public consultation and shaped the measures in the Bill, as well as the legal and legislative experts who have ensured that it provides measured and calibrated protections. I thank Members from all parties who have participated in debating the Bill’s merits, including in Committee. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. His passion and determination to do the right thing by personnel and veterans is genuine and his commitment to his cause is unwavering. Such central determination and duty should be a lesson to us all.

The Bill is more than just a manifesto commitment; it is a necessary and overdue strengthening of the legal framework for dealing with the vexatious claims and repeated investigations that have arisen from recent overseas military operations. There have been many inaccurate and wild accusations about the measures in the Bill. It does not prevent armed forces personnel from being prosecuted for crimes they may have committed. It does not remove prosecutors’ independence or ability to prosecute on the basis of any new or compelling evidence of any crime at any time. It does not undermine the UK’s adherence to the UN convention against torture, its commitment to international law or its willingness to investigate and prosecute any alleged criminal offences. As such, it does not increase the likelihood of International Criminal Court prosecutions.

But do not take my word for it; take the words of the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC, probably the lawyer most experienced in dealing with legacy military and security investigations across the United Kingdom, who said in a paper published this September that

“the Bill does not create, or come close to creating, ‘de facto immunity’ for serving or former service personnel in respect of serious crimes.”

However, the Bill does raise the threshold for prosecution, thereby reducing the likelihood of investigations being repeatedly reopened without new and compelling evidence. It does ensure recognition of the unique circumstances of overseas operations, including the constant threat to life and repeated exposure to traumatic events. It does take into consideration the public interest in criminal and civil cases’ being brought to a timely resolution, so that the courts can assess them while memories are fresh and evidence is more readily available. That is entirely in line with the principles of the ECHR. In short, the measures do provide greater protection from the likes of Phil Shiner Solicitors, whose motivations were not justice but money.

It is the right thing to do to defend the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. It is for all these reasons that the House should support the Bill’s Third Reading. But it is just one piece in the jigsaw to fix this issue. Let us not forget that the overwhelming number of these incidents that triggered the pursuit of veterans happened under Labour’s stewardship of defence. They failed to keep training compliance with the ECHR. They failed to equip personnel properly. They failed to reform the service justice system to ensure that they were ECHR-article 2-compliant, including the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who was a Minister in that Ministry at that time, so it is a bit rich—

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Wallace]

No, I will not. It is a bit rich for them to come here today and condemn the legislation. On the other hand, it is we who have commissioned—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman has had plenty to say on the Bill; I will not give way. We do not have time to conclude these exchanges. On the other hand—[Interruption.] They can shout me down, but I will just continue to use up Third Reading time, and I will then listen to other speeches. I will not give way; I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has now added mind-reading to his many skills. The Minister, who is actually a good friend of mine, has just made an accusation against me and has not given me the right to reply to it. It was his Government, in 2010, who set up IHAT and Northmoor, not the Labour Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I do not want the point of order to become a subject of debate, but obviously—[Interruption.] Thank you; I can cope. Obviously, the Secretary of State has referred to the right hon. Gentleman, and he may feel it appropriate to give way.

[Mr Wallace]

It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman used up more debating time by raising a bogus point of order, but nevertheless, in case Opposition Members think the way to conduct a Third Reading is to shout people down, I will repeat that this legislation is one very important part of the jigsaw. We must not forget, given the point raised by the Opposition about the thoroughness of the investigations, that it was not under their stewardship that the investigative capability of our armed forces was strengthened; it was not under their stewardship that the training for men and women about detention of suspects was improved; it was not under Labour’s stewardship that article 2 compliance was met, often, on some of these investigations that allowed those lawyers to come back and repeat inquests, inquiries and investigations into our veterans.

On the other hand, it is we, a Conservative Government, who have commissioned and started implementing a service justice review programme, who appointed a respected former judge to review and scrutinise the investigative process, and who have brought legislation to actually do something about it.

The Government have listened to many of the contributions throughout the Bill’s progress, but we have been unable to accept the amendments because they would have undermined rather than strengthened the Bill. In the case of the Opposition, they are simply, as it turned out, opposed to its aims, as Momentum has boasted today.

Despite all the warm words and sympathy, the Labour leopard has not changed its spots. In this week of all weeks, with Remembrance Sunday approaching, veterans up and down the country will note Labour’s opposition and recognise what fair-weather friends they are. However, this Government have been determined and resolute in acting to protect our armed forces, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

G7

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have always made the point that I do not particularly see the point of going back over these issues. I voted and acted as I did, and I do not see the point of going over the history books. What we have to deal with now is the situation today. There is an extremely serious situation in Mosul. I agree with the United States that the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and the region needs a strong and co-ordinated response. It needs Prime Minister Maliki to pursue inclusive policies that can unite his country, but it will also require a security response from the Iraqis. At the same time, as a generous country that supports humanitarian aid, we should look at what we can do for those people who are displaced.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Although it is obviously desirable that the Germans seek an alternative nomination for President of the EU Commission, it is not entirely essential should Italy perhaps join Britain, Sweden, Holland and the Czech Republic. May I urge my right hon. Friend to seek wider support across Europe, including Italy, to try to back our position? As someone who wants to stay in the European Union, I think it is vital that Europe demonstrates that it gets the message of what the people want and picks a new, forward-looking generation of Commission.

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly doing everything I can to make a series of points, including that we need reform in Europe, which means a particular programme of reform, and people who are capable of carrying it out. I also keep coming back to an important point of principle: if Britain were to give way on this issue and say that we accepted it, we would effectively be saying that we accepted a change to the whole way in which Europe worked for ever into the future. I sometimes find it frustrating that many other European leaders agree with me completely about the need for reform and for people who can carry it through; we need to make sure that everybody works together to get the right outcome, but I am absolutely clear that this is a point of principle and one on which we should not budge.

European Council and Nuclear Security Summit

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have taken a robust approach against this sort of Russian action whether, in opposition, with respect to Georgia or, in government, with respect to Ukraine. What has changed is that, while I have been in government, the EU has been able to go further, not least because Britain has pushed firmly, consistently and clearly for the sort of action that is required. When we look at Georgia, we see a good example in the two frozen conflict states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We did not take action against Russia with respect to those areas in the way that we have with respect to Crimea.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

In the past, President Putin has used his intelligence services aggressively not only to undermine his neighbours, but to suppress dissent at home and abroad. In the light of the annexation of Crimea, will my right hon. Friend look again at whether our intelligence services have the correct level of funding and capabilities required to counter Mr Putin’s FSB and to make sure that we are in a good place to resist any of the so-called consequences, as Mr Putin and his Russian friends have described them, of European sanctions?

[The Prime Minister]

I strongly support the work of our intelligence services. Obviously, we never comment on the specifics of their work, but I can tell my hon. Friend that they got a good outcome from spending rounds and reviews of the national security strategy in terms of ensuring that we maintain and in certain ways enhance their capabilities.

Deregulation Bill

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Maynard, I do not need comments like that. We are listening to a debate. I know that it is not normal for everyone to agree with every word, but we have had enough of comments being shouted across the Chamber.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made the comments; I would not like my colleague to be accused.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is very gallant of the hon. Gentleman to offer that information. I will say to him as well that, although his hon. Friend has also been making comments across the Floor of the House, I hope that it will stop now.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

I will not give a detailed exposition about climbing guides in France and Germany, save to say that they have a formalised responsibility for health and safety.

[Mr Wallace]

As a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I am sorry to break the convention of the House by rising to speak, but I am a qualified Austrian and British ski instructor, as well as an avalanche safety instructor, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman, to put him out of his misery, that a person’s qualification, by its recognition, gives them not only insurance, but cover from being sued, and that the people who grant the qualification are obliged under health and safety and other legislation to instruct people in accordance with recognised standards.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman will therefore know that he has a legal duty, if he is taking people with him, to carry out a risk assessment, and the removal of precisely that legal duty is the danger of clause 1. That is the danger of ill-thought-through legislation—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall pause to ensure that Government Members are listening.

I can give another example of good regulation that was absent for a century but which the Government dare not include in the Bill. I am talking about safety at football stadiums. For 100 years, there was disaster after disaster—two at Ibrox; one at Bolton, Birmingham, Bradford and Hillsborough—but no effective regulation. It was a case of, “Make it up as you go along.” In 1968, a stand burned down at the stadium of the Minister without Portfolio’s local team, Nottingham Forest, but no safety regulation was brought in for football or sports stadiums. Had it been introduced, it would undoubtedly have covered wooden stands. A repeat incident took place in 1985 in a virtually identical stand, which shows the danger of not having effective regulation.

There is another contradiction with this Government. We have heard several times about the one in, two out principle, but the precise definition of “one in” is regulation under statutory instrument. The Department for Communities and Local Government has handed to local authorities regulation in disguise. Over the past year, the Government have put a range of regulatory barriers in the way of self-builders, but they have not classified it as new regulation. They have introduced the barrier of pre-planning consultation fees and extra charges on developers and new builders, and they have introduced the community infrastructure levy and applied it to self-builds, which is another form of regulation. Being a Nottinghamshire MP, the Minister will know that in Nottinghamshire self-building has come to a complete stop. The first local authority to apply the levy was Newark and Sherwood, since when there have been no self-builds. Builders are not building one or two-plot developments because of the burdens on industry.

The Government have gone further, however, and brought in the affordable housing levy for single dwellings, meaning that in Newark a builder or a couple wishing to build their own home have to face those barriers and pay up to £50,000 in new taxes. That is not counted as regulation, but I say it is regulation and a burden on business. In Nottinghamshire, the policy is decimating small family building companies that rely on this kind of work, which is why there are virtually no one, two or three-dwelling property starts in Nottinghamshire. Newark and Sherwood led the way, and others have followed, using new regulation—new burdens on small builders and aspiring home owners—brought in over the past 12 months.

I trust that the Minister will confirm that there will be a change and that these burdens—[Laughter.] The Minister for Government Policy laughs, but it is no laughing matter for the couple in Tuxford who are told they have to pay £64,000 in taxes before they can even start building their own property under policies introduced by this Government. I want confirmation in this debate that that burden on business will be classified as regulation. In terms of one in, two out, they can be classified as part of the in; at the moment, they are not. This is fundamental to the Government’s approach of shifting the burden on to the courts—we will see more cases going to court—and insurers under the pretext that this is all the fault of Labour regulation.

I will end on this—[Interruption.] I have never been in a debate like this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with such rudeness—

EU Council

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There was some progress on banking union, but this is an issue predominantly for members of the eurozone. A single currency necessitates some form of single bank regulation and resolution system, and that is what its members are putting in place. They are doing so quite tentatively, however, because they are beginning to realise what an enormous transfer of sovereignty it could amount to—theoretically, of course, it would see German citizens standing behind Greek banks and vice versa. Some progress was made. Britain is not taking part in this banking union, of course, but we have achieved some excellent safeguards to ensure that we have a real say over those parts of financial services regulation to which we are still subject. I suspect that progress towards full banking union will be fairly slow, but in any case Britain will not be involved.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to our security services, whose members not only risk their lives to keep us safe, but have to sit in silence while ludicrous conspiracy theories are often thrown at them. If the first rule of intelligence is the “need to know” principle, the second is do not throw stones in glass houses. At the European Council, did he have a chance to speak to his French counterpart, the French President, about his intelligence services’ record on industrial espionage, and will he seek assurances that the French will not use the Snowden affair as a political football for another agenda and therefore undermine the EU’s and Britain’s intelligence capabilities?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I insisted that we were clear that intelligence services were a national competence, not an EU competence, which was why the statement, of which my hon. Friend can see a copy, was issued by EU Heads of State and Governments, not the European Council or the European Commission. That is very important. Certainly, there was a lot of discussion at the dinner of the point my hon. Friend raises. Different Prime Ministers and Presidents made different points and I listened carefully to their contributions.

G8

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that Libyan semtex played an appalling role in the violence and destruction in Northern Ireland. For all we know, Libyan semtex may still be in the hands of dissident republicans, so this is a serious and live issue. Let me commend the Libyan Prime Minister for wanting to settle all these issues with the United Kingdom. He knows how important it is to communities in Northern Ireland and elsewhere to do so. My sense is that he wants to deal with these issues, not least because he knows that Britain played such a key role in getting rid of Gaddafi. Let us not forget that he was the person who provided the semtex in the first place.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for choosing Northern Ireland to host the G8 conference. It looked very different on the television screens from when I was there some 19 years ago. Many internet providers exploit the global nature of the worldwide web to ensure that they avoid their fair share of tax. I congratulate the Prime Minister on reaching an agreement to commission the OECD to consider what tax regime can ensure that providers are taxed where transactions take place, not where they declare their profits. Will he let us know the timetable?

[The Prime Minister]

We commissioned the OECD to help us. The simple principle is that there should be a tool to enable a country to see how much revenue, profit and tax a company is paying in each jurisdiction. Sometimes non-governmental organisations and others have asked for full disclosure of every piece of information, but, frankly, boxfile after boxfile of information does not necessarily get us the high level tax tool we need to see whether there is a problem, to share information with other tax authorities and to find an answer. This is the right approach for the reasons I have just given.

EU Council and Woolwich

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said at the press conference after the EU Council, I raised at the meeting of my business advisory council my G8 agenda on tax transparency and aggressive tax avoidance and said how important it was that companies followed that, and Eric Schmidt contributed to that conversation. He supported the steps that we are taking in the G8, which is welcome. There is an important point here: one country taking action on its own will not solve the problem. We need to make sure that we do this not just across the EU, but in the G8.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

When our security services and the police are trying to piece together a terrorist attack, they need to pore over comms data to find out where and when events were planned and by whom. Will the Prime Minister make it clear to those who oppose the comms data proposals that far from being a knee-jerk reaction, those proposals were first mooted in 2007 by the previous Government, who produced a draft Bill, and that this Government produced a draft Bill way before the recent attack?