Debate on the Address

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Let me, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, echo the expressions of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for proposing and seconding the Gracious Speech. I am sure that they do not expect any media or press coverage of their speeches, and I am sure that none of us who are left in the House at this stage expect that either. The part has already been taken, and is always taken in these proceedings, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who gets in early and is therefore guaranteed a prime spot.

It is indeed a pleasure to take part in the debate. As was mentioned earlier, this was the 65th Gracious Speech made by Her Majesty the Queen. I am sure that, as ever, others will point out on her behalf that she is not responsible for the contents of any of her speeches, but given that she recently celebrated her 90th birthday, it was a remarkable achievement. Once again, we pay tribute to Her Majesty for her long service to this country of ours.

I want to deal with a couple of general issues that affect the United Kingdom as a whole before turning to issues affecting Northern Ireland, which was referred to in the Gracious Speech. Let me begin by talking about the security of our country. Security is one of the most important issues facing any nation today. Given the uncertain world in which we live and all the threats that are out there, this is probably one of the most dangerous times in our history, so I am pleased to note that the Government have once again committed themselves to meeting the NATO defence expenditure target of 2% of national income.

Unless we step up to the plate, along with our partners in NATO and other international partners, we will simply fall further and further behind when it comes to protecting our citizens. Currently, five members of NATO meet the 2% threshold: the UK, the United States— which pays three quarters of the NATO bill—and only three other European countries, Poland, Estonia and Greece. That points to a very important fact. As we consider the Brexit debate, and the importance of partnership with our European neighbours and other countries in the context of Europe, I sometimes feel that the United Kingdom’s contribution to international aid, the defence of Europe and, indeed, the defence of western values is taken for granted, and that other countries that speak a great deal about the need to be part of the European Union fall down in that respect. Big countries that talk a lot about the need for European solidarity do not exhibit the same solidarity and commitment when it comes to the defence of Europe and of western democracy.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is indeed a friend of mine, for allowing me to intervene. When he and I were in the United States last week, it came to our notice that many NATO members are paying only one quarter of what American citizens are paying to defend their own country. That is shameful. We really must encourage NATO members—particularly those further east—to pull their finger out.

[Mr Dodds]

As members of the NATO parliamentary assembly, the hon. Gentleman and I participated in meetings with our American colleagues to discuss that very issue. I look forward to the NATO summit that will take place in the summer, and to seeing other countries contribute more to defence spending and defence budgets. Unless more is done, we shall be in danger of seeing, particularly in the United States, growing support for those like Donald Trump who ask, “Why should we pay the bill when people in Europe are not prepared to make a contribution that is modest in comparison with ours?”

I welcome the Government’s commitment to bringing forward the decision on the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which needs to be made soon. My colleagues and I will certainly support a decision to seek renewal of that deterrent. In the context of security and the military, my party and I also welcome the commitment to full implementation of the military covenant. In a year that marks the centenary of the battle of the Somme, and in view of all the more recent conflicts in which men and women from Northern Ireland have served in great numbers and with great gallantry and courage, the military covenant is more salient than ever, and we in Northern Ireland want to it to be implemented in full in our part of the kingdom as well as elsewhere.

There are issues with which we in Northern Ireland are grappling. We look forward to continuing engagement with the Prime Minister and the Government with a view to ensuring that where there are gaps—through no fault of ours—they can be filled by action either here at Westminster or in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that none of our brave men and women who have served in the armed forces miss out on entitlements that they are given, as of right, in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Strong views have been expressed about the introduction of a British Bill of Rights on this side of the House—although, I hasten to add, not on the behalf of my party—and equally robust remarks have been made by Conservative Members. I think it worth reminding the House that that was a manifesto commitment on which the current Government were elected. I find it somewhat odd to hear Government Back Benchers decry it and describe it as terrible, given that they stood for election on the basis of a manifesto that explicitly included that commitment.

My view is simple. As I understand it, we are not talking about the withdrawal of this country from the European convention on human rights; we are talking about an assertion by the House that the final arbiter in decision making will be this sovereign Parliament. We are saying that this sovereign Parliament cannot be overridden, especially when it comes to decisions that are clearly and utterly opposed by the vast bulk of the people of the United Kingdom, not on a party political basis but across the board. We are talking about the injection of a bit of common sense into the issue of human rights.

We shall want to discuss further with the Government the modernisation of the law governing the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the police and others. Given our background in Northern Ireland, we are all too well aware of the importance of enabling the security forces to tackle terrorism and deal with other threats that emerge out there. We know that the law has not always been able to keep up with the advancement of the digital age, the internet and so on, and we are keen to ensure that the security forces are not deprived of any useful and necessary tool that they may require to combat terrorism. However, it is clear that we need adequate safeguards, and we need to be careful about the extent to which outside bodies and third parties are able to access information and data. As I have said, we will discuss the issue further with the Government when the legislation is introduced, but we are concerned about the range of organisations that may be given access to information and data. We are in favour of the principle, but we need to look at the details very carefully.

In the context of legislation to prevent radicalisation and tackle extremism, I thought that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made important and pertinent points about the balance between tolerance and intolerance. It is important for us to tackle intolerance, but, as a number of Members have said, we need to be able to judge when we have overreached the point at which it is a question of tackling extremism on the one hand and denying free speech on the other. We have to be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where there is an accepted norm, an accepted expression of views, and anyone who deviates from the accepted politically correct norm is seen to be an extremist. If we do not deal with the matter carefully, we will go down a worrying and dangerous path. Again, we will give the proposals serious consideration. We do not disagree at all with the main aim of the Government. We support it, but we need to see details of how the proposals will operate before we can give them total support.

Many of the Members who have spoken have referred to the EU referendum. I am on record as saying that the Government’s ability to govern is somewhat hampered at the minute by their concentration entirely on the referendum. I welcome the fact that we are having a referendum. It was an issue that I and colleagues pushed strongly for many years. We wanted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which unfortunately was denied to us by the Labour Government, and then the cast-iron guarantee of the incoming Government was not followed through.

On the referendum and Brexit, there are arguments on both sides, but it is dangerous in the context of Northern Ireland for people to go around saying that if we leave the EU that will result in violence coming back to Northern Ireland, and a destabilisation of the political institutions to the extent that we will have trouble on the streets again. All these “leading economists”— 99% of whom did not predict the biggest single economic shock of the past 150 years—tell us that leaving will lead to a united Ireland, trying to scare people in the most outrageous way. In the debate on Brexit and Northern Ireland, I appeal to people to use careful and considered arguments and not to engage in that kind of language because, whatever the outcome of the referendum, I am convinced that Northern Ireland’s political institutions will endure. They have come through far worse than this and they will be stable. It is important to put that on the record.

The Gracious Speech talks about support for

“implementing the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements.”

I welcome that. Those agreements were forged primarily at the direction and the behest of the Democratic Unionist party, along with others. I pay tribute to our former leader and First Minister, Peter Robinson, who did an enormous amount of excellent work to bring those agreements about. I also pay tribute to the other parties that stuck the course and finalised those agreements, as well as the Government, particularly the current Secretary of State.

There have unfortunately been a number of setbacks on the security front. We have seen the elevation of the security risk in recent days. There is a more serious risk of attack on the British mainland by dissident republicans. Just yesterday, we had a significant find of arms and ammunition in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). In my constituency, we had the tragic and awful murder of a young father, Michael McGibbon, who was killed in the most atrocious circumstances. Again, I pay tribute to his widow, who has spoken eloquently about peace and moving forward in Northern Ireland and has spoken out against paramilitarism. In the implementation of the Stormont House and Fresh Start agreements, one of the key elements is the combating of paramilitarism.

On the negotiations to set up a new Northern Ireland Executive, we had elections just last week, and I am glad to say that our party was returned with an overwhelming mandate to be the leaders of the Executive. Last week, Arlene Foster, our new First Minister, was elected, along with Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister. Issues such as paramilitarism and violence have bedevilled Northern Ireland in the past and are still being pursued by a tiny minority of people on both sides of the community. It is important, as we set out on another Assembly term, that we continue to forge ahead and demonstrate to people in Northern Ireland that politics is working—and it is, as the Assembly elections last week showed. We are now moving into the third full term of uninterrupted devolved government—cross-community partnership government—in Northern Ireland. That is an enormous achievement, but the message must go out that, in implementing the Fresh Start and the Stormont House agreements, with the support of the Government here, the people who want to drag us back and inflict violence and darkness on many people in their communities will not succeed.

We are determined in Northern Ireland, with the new Executive being set up, to major on the issues of health, education, jobs, infrastructure and keeping household bills down. That is what our five-point plan was about. That is what the election was about. It is important that we spend the next five years in Northern Ireland making sure that that happens.

There are some people who unfortunately have decided to walk away from government in Northern Ireland. It is sad that the Ulster Unionists have decided, albeit after a poor election result, the worst in their history, not to take their seat in the Executive. It is sad that the Social Democratic and Labour party is debating whether to take its seat in the Executive. However, I believe that the people of Northern Ireland want an inclusive Government. They want leaders who will stand up and take Northern Ireland forward. If others are not prepared to grapple with that task and to take on the mantle of leadership, we and others who stand with us will not be found wanting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

This has been a very interesting debate. It has been quite lengthy, but some interesting points have been made. It has almost been cuddly at times and quite consensual, but I am afraid to say that I will not be so consensual in my speech. It is the duty of those of us on the SNP Benches to make points where we see them that need to be raised.

The longer I spend in this Chamber looking at the Conservative party, which pretends to be a Government, and at many in the Labour party, on the Benches to my right, which pretends to be the official Opposition, the more I deeply regret our failure to take Scotland out of this Union in 2014 and the more I worry about the kind of shambles we might be tossed into if we are ripped out of the European Union in June.

We heard today a Gracious Speech focused on driving Conservative prejudices down the throats of English voters, ploughing ahead with privatising school education, turning five-year-olds into commodities. That is not something we have to care about very much if tuition fees for private schooling are paid out of daddy’s offshore accounts, but it is something we have to be concerned about if we want our local community to carry on having schools for children whose parents do not have offshore trusts or family companies that do not pay tax.

Prisons are getting the same privatisation treatment as those schools, too. It is as if the private sector has fairy dust to sprinkle everywhere and there is no record of failure in private enterprise. That is not true. It cannot be denied that many private enterprises get ahead by saying, “Devil take the hindmost”, or that many private enterprises fail. That is a process of attrition that I think is singularly unsuited to public services—and I know that that view is shared by my hon. Friends. It winnows itself down by allowing the less successful to die, and no one should ever be doing that with schools and prisons—not if we want to protect society. We cannot just close a school because it is struggling, and we cannot just close a prison because it is not an income generator—not that that is a consideration of this Government.

The move to abolish the Human Rights Act suggests a Government intent on delivering an ideological change, rather than making for a better country. I know that the intention is to have a British Bill of Rights, but I have found myself scrolling back and forwards through the Human Rights Act, trying to see which bits are not British, and which bits most upset the stiff upper lips. Is it the right to life; the right to a fair trial; the right not to be tortured; the prohibition of slavery and forced labour? Would it be the improvements to the treatments of the disabled while in police custody that upset them?

A leader in Scotland, who won an election a couple of weeks ago, puts human rights at the centre of her politics. I would like to quote from a speech Nicola Sturgeon gave in September last year:

“Human rights aren’t always convenient for Governments—but they’re not meant to be. Their purpose is to protect the powerless, not to strengthen those in power. That’s why if you weaken human rights protections—and this is contrary to how things are sometimes portrayed—you’re not striking a blow at judges in Strasbourg, lawyers in London or politicians in Scotland. You’re striking instead at the poor, the vulnerable, and the dispossessed.”

She was right then, and she is right now: the protection of human rights is vital.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Deidre Brock]

I know that some Members think that the human rights of criminals or suspected terrorists are far too often protected when they should not be. Those Members are wrong, and I will tell them why. Unless the human rights of criminals and terrorists are protected, and unless the human rights of the weak are protected, along with those of the infirm, the different, the odd, the outsider, the radical, the truth is that no one’s human rights are protected. If the human rights of, say, Abu Hamza are not protected, neither are mine, neither are yours and neither are those of people calling for his protection to be withdrawn.

Human rights are not divisible; they are not negotiable, and they cannot be given to one human and not to another. Any human being has those human rights. That same consideration should be extended to the refugees fleeing Syria—they are human beings and they have human rights. We should treat them with respect and reach out to help them. We should greet them with blankets and food, not with the cold stare of a bureaucrat demanding to see passports and to take fingerprints. We should be sending aid to Greece, treating the flood of refugees as the humanitarian disaster that it is. If the much-vaunted role of the UK as a world leader is to mean anything, it should surely mean compassion, humanity and respect. Unfortunately, these do not seem to be the driving impulses of this Government. There does not, in fact, seem to be much driving this Government.

The high-speed rail Bill appears to have returned for an encore in this Session. If the speed of that Bill is an indication of the speed of the trains, I think the Bill is badly named—it is more Thomas the Tank Engine than the Flying Scotsman! On that note, I see that high-speed rail, if such it is, will not reach Scotland. Perhaps it would be better to start building it where it is actually wanted—in Scotland.

On the digital economy Bill, there is the fantastic news that every household will have a legal right to a fast broadband connection, with the kicker that anyone living in a remote area will have to pay a chunk of it themselves. There is great news from the UK Government: “You have a legal right to things that you can afford to pay for.” Broadband is just another addition to a long list that includes access to justice, access to medicines when people are ill, and, of course, access to higher education. Tuition fees will rise again while the higher education sector is deregulated. Some would say, “Get a degree from the university of Starbucks, and pay through the nose for the privilege. No taxes involved.” Some Conservative Members seem to believe that they have to think in this way because they are Tories, but that plan suggests that they are sending England’s universities down the same paths that the banks took before the 2008 crash.

I am sure that there will be some degree of welcome for the turning of the screw on visitors who come here on holiday and have the cheek to get ill and need treatment. Charging more for treating them, cutting out some visitors from the European economic area and recovering the full cost of treatment is a wizard wheeze which I am sure was expected to be very popular—except among constituents who discover that the arrangements are reciprocal, and find themselves abroad in need of medical treatment but without the means to fund it.

As has already been pointed out, the move towards driverless cars in the transport Bill may come to be seen as a metaphor for a driverless Government, transfixed by the oncoming headlights of the EU referendum. Never let it be said, however, that a nationalist would come here armed only with criticism and with no suggestions. I would never do such a thing. Indeed, my party has already presented an excellent alternative Queen’s Speech, which, as was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), focuses a little more closely on the needs of Scotland than the original.

Let me offer the Government some small ideas for improving their programme: some pointers with which to up their game. Instead of focusing on their small and mean proposals, let us focus on what will really matter to the people whom they are supposed to be governing. Let us think about reforming welfare so that the poorest, most vulnerable, weakest members of society do not have to rely on food banks to feed their children—and, while we are there, let us go the whole hog, and provide a bit of support for disabled people instead of a cold heart.

The Government could listen to the Black Triangle campaigners in my constituency while there is still time. Those campaigners have noted that it is an offence under Scots law for a holder of public office to neglect his or her duty, and have reported the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to the police for actions that they took when they were Work and Pensions Secretary and Employment Minister respectively. I understand that Police Scotland is considering the evidence with which it has been presented, and will form a view in due course. It could be that the actions of Black Triangle will commend the ingredients of the Government’s poisoned chalice to their own lips; that would be even-handed justice.

The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, listens week after week as the incompetences of the Government are laid bare before us. Week in week out, we hear about the most appalling failures to control Government spending—not on social security or welfare benefits, but on the pet projects that Governments and Ministers pursue. The electronic system for controlling the UK’s borders, which began under the Blair Government, has cost tens of millions of pounds, and still does not work. The costs of Trident are spiralling out of control, this time into the billions, and the renewal has not even been agreed upon.

The Home Office told the Committee that it had reviewed the details of the highly paid consultants and temporary specialist staff on its books, and found that it was buying in skills that its permanent staff already had. Other Departments did not bother to check. The estimate of the cost of electrifying the great western railway main line tripled to £2.8 billion, a cost overrun that puts other rail projects in doubt. HMRC indicated that tax fraud was costing about £16 billion a year. It also indicated that there was a gap of about £13 billion between the VAT that should be collected and what it was actually collecting, and a tax gap of £34 billion a year.

I believe that the Government’s efforts should be directed towards putting their own house in order and collecting the moneys that are due, rather than squandering billions on in-house incompetence. It is not the poorly paid, the disabled or the unemployed who are causing the problems; it is the Government. As has already been said many times today, austerity is not a necessity; it is a choice, a preference, of this Government.

The UK is being failed by this Government and failed badly. This Queen’s Speech is merely the latest example and it is time the record was changed. Stop what you are doing and do something else instead. Develop a vision for the UK, at least. Make it, though, a vision where the weakest are protected, where children can go to school and learn about evolution, science and religion without someone else’s prejudices being the guiding factor. Do not sell the education of those children—invest in it instead. Make decent people proud of what the Government are doing. How about a Bill to formalise good treatment of refugees, of asylum seekers, of human beings fleeing here in fear of their lives? How about a human rights Act that says that we recognise that human rights are universal? UK foreign policy should include provisions to promote human rights, to stand against violence against women and girls and work towards equality?

There could be so much more than this small and narrow vision of what the UK is and can be. I urge the Government to lift up their eyes, set their sights higher, inspire the next generation—inspire this generation—and work towards a better world. It does not have to be delivered this week—God knows, we will be debating this fairly poor example of a Queen’s Speech for the foreseeable future so it will take a while—but surely we can start now.

National Defence Medal

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the National Defence Medal.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is a short debate covering a vast subject, and I hope to chart a way forward to a more substantial debate in the near future. I know that a number of hon. Members will want to contribute, and I am keen to allow that, because the topic is worthy of considerable discussion. However, if time runs short, I hope that Members will excuse me if I fail to take as many interventions as they or I would like.

When I began exploring the subject and took on the task of leading this debate, I was concerned about having time to do the research necessary to do justice to the subject, but as it turned out, I need not have worried. Many people have been generous in sharing their knowledge, for which I thank them sincerely, and copying me in on their correspondence with the Government. I appreciate the many people who have taken the time to get in touch with me, both before and since I secured this debate. However, any errors in my speech are mine alone.

In the time allotted, I cannot hope to cover all the anomalies thrown up by the current policy, but there is one that I cannot let pass. Today is the 51st anniversary of the death of Warrant Officer John F. Lonergan of 131 Parachute Engineer Regiment and Sergeant Cyril Atfield of the Royal Army Pay Corps, both of whom were killed at Al Milah, 60 miles from Aden, South Arabia, in what is now the Republic of Yemen.

The deployment of 131 Para Regiment to South Arabia was the first time a Territorial Army regiment had been sent into conflict since 1945. In the engagement that led to the deaths of those men, five others were wounded and one officer was awarded an MBE for gallantry. It is surely undeniable that all the men were in a dangerous situation as a result of their service, but because of tight medal rules, none of the others involved in the engagement would receive a medal to acknowledge their service, unless they happened to be around long enough to receive one for long service.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am not sure that that is accurate. They would qualify for the General Service Medal, Arabian Peninsula, even though they were killed within the 28 days, if their commanding officer put them forward for one.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman sincerely for that contribution. I will speak about that particular medal, so his intervention is useful.

Much is said about the British medal policy being based on risk and rigour, but as Al Milah demonstrated, anyone who steps forward as a member of the armed forces may find themselves sent into a foreign land, sometimes to be woken at night by the sound of incoming fire. To me, that is self-evidently a dangerous proposition, and it certainly strikes me as enough risk to demand that we recognise it. However, this debate is not about an action or actions that took place a long time ago. It must be about what is right here and now, and that is what I hope that we can address.

One piece of correspondence shared with me relates to the action in Al Milah. It is yet another Ministry of Defence rejection of recognition for the service of Warrant Officer Lonergan, Sergeant Atfield and other members of the armed forces who placed themselves in harm’s way in Yemen at that time. The request was not for bravery medals; it was simply that they be awarded the General Service Medal with clasp South Arabia, which was awarded to other members of the armed forces in Yemen at that time. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has been pursuing the case.

The letter from the MOD quotes Winston Churchill in 1944, in a debate about the medals to be issued at the end of the second world war. I have curtailed it for brevity, but I hope that Hansard will display the citation for Members’ benefit. He said that

“a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of less value…A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does not admit of a perfect solution…All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]

I argue that those points are as valid now as they were then.

European Parliament Elections Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

That system also seems to work here, which I think is wrong.

[Mr Chope]

It can work here, although my hon. Friend should remember the courageous move made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell). He said he did not wish to carry on as a Conservative Member and wanted to change his party allegiance. Before doing that, however, he sought the endorsement of the electorate in a by-election. That was a worthy approach. I hope that the mood is changing and that people will not feel that they can ignore the mandate given to them by their constituents and switch parties without reverting to their electors.

The Bill seems quite complicated in the sense that, although it has only three clauses, one clause has nine subsections, but I have been advised that that is the only way in which we can alter the existing system to introduce the open list system for elections to the European Parliament.

I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister says. I expect him to preface his remarks by saying that he hopes we do not have any more European elections, but that, if we do, he can assure us that they are going to be more democratic than those we have had in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for once again bringing to the House the issue of the voting system for European parliamentary elections. A similar Bill was debated in the final Session of the previous Parliament, so this is a good opportunity to explore the arguments and update the House on the Government’s position.

My hon. Friend clearly feels strongly about the issue and he has made his argument with persuasive force. The way in which we elect our representatives is a topic of great importance and it has a significant impact on the relationship between electors and their representatives. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and I assure those present of the seriousness with which the Government take such matters.

The Bill would make provision for an open list for elections to the European Parliament to be used in all electoral regions other than Northern Ireland. That would represent a change from the current closed-list system, whereby electors vote for individual candidates rather than political parties.

The voting system to be used for European parliamentary elections has been debated at length in both Houses of Parliament, and it is clear that there is a range of views on the merits of the closed list voting system. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), the then Minister for the Constitution, said at the Dispatch Box in the previous Parliament,

“the closed list system is simple for electors, and it ensures that across a region seats are allocated in proportion to the votes cast.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 547.]

I know from that debate and the views expressed today, however, that there is some dissatisfaction with the closed list system. The fact that parties solely determine the order in which candidates are awarded seats achieved by the party has come under fire, as it is said that it puts too much power in the hands of the parties and results in MEPs who are remote from their electorate.

[Bob Stewart]

My concern is that the real electorate of MEPs are the members of their party. People spend their time canvassing at party meetings, trying to garner support so that their party will put them one or two places up the list or at the top of it. That is a clear lack of democracy for the people of this country.

[Mr Wilson]

That is clearly one of the criticisms made of the system. In any debate we would need to think about that carefully and take it into account as part of any changes. There is of course some substance in what my hon. Friend says. I will address some of those issues in further detail as I develop my comments.

At the end of the last Parliament, my hon. Friend the then Minister for the Constitution suggested that this issue might be one for consideration in the next set of party manifestos. As hon. Members will be aware, no party’s election manifesto addressed the issue directly.

We remain sympathetic to the arguments for moving to an open list system for our elections to the European Parliament, and we understand the rationale behind them. For example, we recognise that introducing an open list system might help to address some of the issues about MEPs being seen as distant from their electors. That said, it is important to remember that every electoral system has its pros and cons, and that the choice is wider than one simply between an open or a closed list system, because other systems, such as the single transferable vote, are also options for consideration.

As hon. Members will be only too well aware, the Government have a busy programme of constitutional reform, so this issue is not currently a priority. During this Parliament, we have already introduced rules for English votes for English laws and completed the transition to individual electoral registration. In addition, we are currently working to devolve further powers to Scotland and Wales, remove the 15-year time limit on the voting rights of overseas electors, update parliamentary boundaries and explore further ways to improve the process of electoral registration.

It is worth noting that there have not been widespread calls for change. The country recently voted against changing the voting system for Westminster parliamentary elections. In the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote system, electors overwhelmingly voted to retain first past the post for elections to this place. We remain sympathetic to the arguments for moving to an open list, but for those reasons we have no plans to consider such a change at present.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Making what is called a direction, such as that which I made on Kids Company because I thought that it was worth spending the money to look after those kids—it is right that Ministers should be able democratically to override the advice of civil servants when they choose to, so long as that is published—is about the expenditure of money. The EU debate is not specifically about the expenditure of money, although there are debates about growth, jobs and the economy, and so the question would not arise.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Several of my constituents have contacted me and asked where they can get the facts to decide in their own minds how to vote. It is, after all, the people, not the Government, who will decide this matter, so is it not the duty of the civil service to provide facts to our people to enable them to decide how to vote? In these circumstances, is it not fair to ask the Cabinet Secretary, in his capacity as a neutral observer, to prepare a document for the people who will make this decision?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is absolutely necessary to ensure that information is available on questions about the referendum. For instance, that is why this morning we published a document on the process for leaving the European Union should that be the decision at the referendum. My hon. Friend is right that it is for the people to decide. The Cabinet Secretary is not neutral; he supports the Government position because he is a civil servant, and the whole civil service supports the Government position. If my hon. Friend is responding to his constituents and they really want information, I can always recommend a website called strongerin.co.uk, which has some great information.

[Bob Stewart]

It has to be impartial.

[Matthew Hancock]

There will be a campaign to leave, as well, and I hope that this debate continues so that by 23 June everybody feels fully informed.

Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Last night, two senior French military officers told me how much their country would appreciate our joining fully in taking the fight to the accursed Daesh in Syria. Pinpoint-accurate bombing by the RAF would demonstrate our determination to destroy the scourge of Daesh. I applaud the Prime Minister for trying to get parliamentary approval for co-ordinated offensive action in Syria, and I ask that we bring that highly potent gesture to a vote of this House as soon as next week. Our allies want us to prove that we are fully with them.

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has served in conflict zones. He knows the importance of making these decisions after careful consideration, and he absolutely knows the importance of standing by our allies.

National Security and Defence

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do all that I can on that basis. This issue is always difficult, because on the one hand we want to procure as speedily and swiftly as possible, while on the other hand we want to have a care for Britain’s vital defence industry and the opportunity to help our allies with their capabilities; but yes, I think that, overall, ensuring that procurement was more swift and more speedy would be a good thing.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for stating unequivocally that the British Army might be placed on the streets of the United Kingdom. I remind the House that it has been operating on the streets of the United Kingdom for more than 40 years. I think the public will be very sympathetic to the idea, and will take great comfort in times of peril when they see our wonderful soldiers on the streets protecting them.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the flooding problems and during the Olympics we saw a number of British troops on our streets. The point I am making is that up until now there have been some rather arcane and old-fashioned barriers to stop this happening, for all sorts of very good historical reasons, but I think we are rather over that now. I think that if there were a terrorist attack and we needed to surge uniformed personnel to keep us safe, people would be very happy to see the military perform that role.

Tunisia, and European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady, particularly on rebuilding broken states affected by conflict. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations has said, a missile can kill a terrorist, but it is good government and governance that kill terrorism.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that no security service in the world, including the Tunisian security services, will be able to identify someone who secretly radicalises himself, trains himself quietly and then operates largely independently?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but that reinforces the point that, because we are not necessarily dealing with a network, anybody who has information and is worried about someone who is going wrong—who is getting radicalised and is either visiting extremist preachers or looking at extremism online—needs to act. Otherwise, it could end the way it has in the past few days.

Higher Education Funding

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Binley]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I shall say a little more about my views on the point he raises as my speech unfolds, but I will say now that every small business man in the land—I do not mean small in stature; I mean small in the sense of the size of the business—will know that if he lends money that he will not get back, he will have a cash flow problem that will create real trouble for him, if not now, then certainly in the future. I do not believe that Government money is any different in that respect.

The saga of higher education funding and support has rumbled on for a long time. Reforms in the 1990s created an expansion in higher education that widened participation, which, of course, is welcome. However, those reforms necessitated a change in the financial model for universities and those attending them. That is becoming increasingly unsustainable and could lead, as I have said, to a sizeable black hole in the Exchequer accounting, which the Government seem not to wish to recognise.

Many Government members are also my personal friends, and I am sure they are working on contingencies and do not have this in mind, because I would not ascribe to them the financial inadequacy that not recognising the problem would suggest. I hope my good friend the Minister will recognise that I do not think he is inadequate and I do think he will come up with the answers we require—that he will recognise the problems and consider very carefully the need for a proper review not only of the RAB charge itself and the loans surrounding it, but the way our universities work. I will talk about that as my speech unfolds.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very hon. Friend for giving way. Is it correct that if my children go to a Scottish university, they will pay a lot of money, whereas those from Scotland, or from France or Poland, do not pay tuition fees? That is unfair and should be addressed, too.

[Mr Binley]

I will allude to that problem, which I hope will be corrected when this place discusses—if it has the courage to do so, and I pray it does—devolution and the Barnett formula, because there is no doubt that Scottish students who attend Scottish universities get a much more helpful and lucrative deal than Scottish citizens who attend English universities. This is a matter not of English or Scots, but of devolution, which in this instance works very much against students in English universities. They are ill done by, as are citizens more broadly, on whom less per head of population is spent than on our fellow Scottish citizens.

The much discussed 50% target for participation in universities, although arbitrary, was entrenched in the need for change in the 1990s and was one of the motivators of the current situation. I was a secondary modern schoolboy under the tripartite system, which could have been enhanced and could have flowered in the extent of choice it gave to parents. I regret that, at a stroke, it was done away with. I fear that was to our great cost and genuinely feel that the extension of offers in education that is beginning to flower now is an important development. Most importantly, we must place apprentices, technologists and all those who are so vital to the well-being of our economy on an exact par with university students, and in the past I fear they have not been given that recognition. I want to see a more equitable division between those who have gone on to higher education in technical fields and those who have chosen the academic areas for which the universities are famous. I think that that is part of the answer and I am sure that the Government will take it on board.

The 2011 White Paper promised that higher education would be put on a financially sustainable basis. The Browne review established the principle that the beneficiaries of higher education would need to make a greater contribution towards the costs, and I agree with that. It was also proposed that graduates should pay a proportion of their salary only when they were earning more than £21,000 a year, and that was widely welcomed. That provides a part-answer to a previous question.

The Select Committee inquiry in the first Session of this Parliament, to which I contributed, drew two conclusions about the affordability of the loan system. We agreed that there should be clarity for students about the relationship between the burden borne by them and that borne by the taxpayer, as a function of the performance of the economy. That seemed to me to be vital, because we have turned students into customers and consumers, and consumers have a right to know that they are getting a fair deal. That fair deal will also have an impact on their children and grandchildren, which is why this matter is so important.

I genuinely believe that we are leaving a massive black hole for future generations to deal with, and I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I find that immoral and totally unacceptable. I know that he thinks of politics in terms of an ethical and moral base, and I hope that he will hear my plea. We have no right to lay so much danger and concern on to those who follow us. We are already doing it with a deficit that was built up to far too high a level. That is causing us problems now and will continue to do so for at least the next five, six or seven years. I do not want that problem to be added to by a black hole because we did not take the trouble to consider this issue properly.

That is why I am appealing to my right hon. Friend in this regard, and I do so not for ourselves. Of course the Government can hide the problem away, but if they do so, they will not be acting in the ethical and moral way in which the Minister and I would want them to act. I therefore hope that he will recognise this element of the problem. This is not about the accounting that the Treasury seeks to project; it is about what most Members of the House of Commons want to see. I have served here for almost 10 years, and I believe that Members consider morality, ethics and good practice to be massively important factors in their deliberations, and I hope that we can apply those factors to this issue.

I shall be leaving this place in three months and I want to make a heartfelt appeal to the Minister on behalf of my two children and three grandchildren. The problem could easily be shoved aside, but it will come back to haunt us in a big way in 15 or 20 years if we are not careful.

The Select Committee inquiry drew two conclusions. I have just outlined the first, but the second has greater significance. We stated:

“The affordability of the new system is dependent on a wide range of variables which are outside of Government control.”

The truth is that we doubted that they had been fully taken into account when the system was set up. That gives the Minister the opportunity to say that there is a need to revisit this issue to consider what the other variables outside the Government’s control are. We are not the masters of every issue we face—we are rarely the masters of any issue we face, but that is especially true of this one, which will leave a deficit for our children and grandchildren if we are not careful. This issue is not totally, by any means, within the Government’s control and we need to consider that aspect. If we do not do so, we will be letting future generations down. Consequently, I wish to focus my remarks on the second conclusion.

Let me repeat for the record the doubts I had at the time the reforms were introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) will know of them, because of some friendly, courteous but relatively robust cross-examinations when he was on the Front Bench. He knows that we were deeply concerned at that time, and nothing that has happened since has changed my mind. I do not believe that proper regard was given in the first place to long-term sustainability, and I want to concentrate on that nub of this matter.

In October 2012, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant, a wise and certainly highly intelligent Minister, was reported in The Independent—this was “reported”, so I cannot claim he actually said these things, as we all know the dangers that lie in that term—to have said that the RAB on students loans would not rise above 32%, with a 38% ceiling being the worst possible outcome for the taxpayer. In April last year, in response to a parliamentary question, he asserted that estimates at that time placed RAB at about 45%—in such a short time it had already risen way above what I believe were his genuine and heartfelt estimates. In my view, a level not far off 50% has been reached—perhaps it has already moved above that figure—and that simply highlights how important this matter is. To be totally fair, I should point out that he also stated that the Government had achieved significant savings for students, and increased income for universities. I believe he was right to say that, and I welcomed that view then and do so now. We pay tribute to the work he did in the Department, which will benefit my children and grandchildren. I hope I have given an even view of how I see the work of a right hon. Friend I am criticising just a little.

Looking at the reforms from a more detached perspective, it is far from clear that the Government can claim that these changes were a total success, not least on the RAB. A forecast drop in student loan repayments has raised existential questions about the true sustainability of the new system, and we could face a situation in which the effect of trebling tuition fees has resulted in a more expensive settlement for taxpayers, in the way that I have described. A report in March last year by London Economics found that if the charge increases beyond 48.6%, the cost of the reform

“will exceed the 2010-11 system that it replaced.”

That is a startling fact and it ought to add not only to our concern, but to the need for an immediate review in the way the Select Committee is requesting. As I have said, the RAB index is perhaps already above 50%. No business could sustain, and no Government should be prepared to sustain, such a situation, because it is the worst kind of accounting. It is the worst kind of financial thinking about the future, and I reject it, not only as a business man, but as a parent.

Murder of Lee Rigby

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first reassure the right hon. Gentleman and everyone in Northern Ireland that just because there is a growing terrorist threat from citizens of our own country and from people being radicalised in Iraq and Syria, that does not mean that we have taken our eye off the ball of Northern Ireland-related terrorism in any way. Yesterday we had a National Security Council meeting, which was attended by the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and we discussed in some detail what more could be done to enhance the excellent work it is doing. For every one attack made, it is stopping three or four. It is doing an excellent job, and we continue to keep anything else we can do to help under review—respecting, of course, that under this Government, policing and justice in Northern Ireland has been devolved.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Lee Rigby was killed wearing civilian clothes, and all soldiers are easily identifiable whether in civilian clothes or not. Seeing our armed forces in uniform on the streets gives me great pleasure and pride. People may think that wearing uniform incites or indeed attracts attention from these terrorists. It does not. These terrorists will identify our soldiers, sailors and airmen if they want to. I thus add my voice to those of people who say, “Keep our soldiers on the streets in uniform.”

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and no one is proposing anything different. The point he makes about the tragic murder of Lee Rigby is right, and we have no plans to change that.

G20

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, these are all things that can be discussed and looked at. We should not be raising fears that our national health service is somehow going to be invaded when it is not. Let me quote the EU trade commissioner on this:

“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”

That is what was said on 13 September 2014.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

President Putin has announced large increases in Russia’s armed forces in the past few weeks. As well as protesting about what has happened in Ukraine, did my right hon. Friend ask the G20 NATO members to stress to President Putin that hostile actions against any alliance member would be considered an act of aggression against all 28 members of the Atlantic alliance and possibly, as such, as an act of war, as per the NATO charter?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows these things well. President Putin is well aware that the NATO alliance has at its heart a clause on collective self-defence. That measure would be triggered if there were an attack on any NATO member. That is at the heart of our alliance, and it is obviously worth a huge amount to the Baltic states in terms of stability and security. This also shows how right we were to include those states in the NATO alliance.