Hong Kong

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not comment directly on security matters.

On human rights, I hope I made it clear in my opening remarks that human rights and trade and prosperity are two sides of the same coin. I indicated that there is nothing to prevent human rights from forming part of any agreement that we might have. That is not to say that any agreement would necessarily contain clauses along those lines, but there is nothing to prevent the United Kingdom from insisting, in such an agreement, on particular measures of the sort that I think she would find very acceptable.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Government have suspended the licences for sending riot control equipment to Hong Kong. Are there any indications that our diplomats or, indeed, the media are being restricted in their movements on the island of Hong Kong?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is right to say that on 25 June my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave an undertaking to ensure that the material to which my hon. Friend refers would not be the subject of any UK licences. Sometimes, the material that has been sold to Hong Kong has been misunderstood. For example, both my hon. Friend and I would agree that bomb disposal equipment and body armour are perfectly reasonable things to export to Hong Kong.

On the freedom of journalists, Hong Kong has been a place within the region where, historically, there has been a free press, and it would be very disturbing if there were a significant reversal of that. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made reference to the deteriorating political situation in Hong Kong, and, in my answer, I agreed with her—that is my assessment as well. Clearly, that would include the situation with respect to a free press, as it is difficult to see how a deterioration in the way journalists go about their business would, in any way, be compatible with political freedom.

Syria: Civilians in Idlib

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and questions. It is important that we work with international partners to apply pressure to those who are responsible. He will be well aware of the difficulty of working with the regime in Damascus and its supporters, but the Sochi agreement at the end of last year held out such promise. Those were baby steps, perhaps, but it was the start of a process that might have brought some sense to this troubled region. I very much regret that Russia has decided to take the steps that it has and I prevail on it, even now, to think about its responsibilities that it signed up to with Turkey at Sochi.

It is important that the UN continues to meet in emergency session. I look forward to its deliberations this afternoon and we will take a full part in them. Ultimately, UN Security Council resolution 2254 has to be applied. That is the only way that we can restore peace and equanimity to this very troubled part of the world.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is definitely a war crime to attack either a school or a hospital—there is no doubt about that. Do we have good evidence that Russian aeroplanes have attacked such targets and if so, are we raising the matter in the Security Council, which is in emergency session, as the Minister stated?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Russia is clearly a party to the current situation. It is supporting the regime and is responsible for a lot of the trauma that is now afflicting the Idlib governorate, and it must be held to account. It must be answerable for the consequences of its actions. As my hon. Friend said, the deliberate targeting of schools and hospitals is a crime. It is caused by criminals and, as with criminals everywhere, they must ultimately be called to account.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is right on two counts. First, my Committee is mindful of its responsibility at this difficult time to scrutinise. Although constitutionally our position is to scrutinise the Northern Ireland Office’s work, we feel it incumbent upon us to be part of the process of scrutiny in a way that perhaps did not previously apply.

I know that investigating possible future models exercises the minds of members of my Committee, and the hon. Gentleman may think that we would like to work further on that. I do not want to pre-empt the Committee’s determinations, but when we have completed our current inquiry into the land border and Brexit, we would perhaps wish to consider and contribute to the debate on those possible models. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tacit endorsement of such a position.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I also sit on the Committee, and in support of my hon. Friend’s comments, I point out that we are trying to find a way of policing the border without its being obvious. We will suggest that in our report, and our way of looking at that seems fruitful.

[Dr Murrison]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend tempts me down a path, with which you might have some issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he is right, and our inquiry will continue to consider how we can make that border as invisible as possible. I referred earlier to the Committee’s recent visit to Newry, when we took the opportunity of eyeballing the border. It is a remarkably unexciting experience since the border is invisible—beautiful, but invisible—and we need to ensure that that continues to be the case.

Hon. Members have mentioned the Hart report into historical institutional abuse. The point is well made that there will be decisions that have some financial consequences—perhaps not primarily financial, but they need ministerial input in the weeks ahead. It is difficult to see how civil servants can make those determinations, given that the subject is so politically loaded. Little that happens in and around Northern Ireland does not have a political element, but something so clearly political requires ministerial input. I therefore gently suggest that it is unfair and unwise to put civil servants in the position of making such decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Wales has provided a disproportionate part of our Army, and I pay tribute to it for that. As he will know, St Athan is of great interest to the Welsh Government, who want to develop an aerospace business park there. The MOD is working closely to reconcile our continuing MOD defence needs for that site with the need to advance the prosperity agenda and the Welsh Government’s requirement to ensure that jobs are sustained and supported there in the long term.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my view, possibly the best infantry training area in the United Kingdom is Sennybridge. Is there any possibility of infantry battalions being positioned around Sennybridge, where they would have ease of access for training, perhaps in Crickhowell?

[Dr Murrison]

I agree with my hon. Friend that Sennybridge is a first-rate training area—I have had casual experience of it myself. I am more than happy to consider and discuss his precise proposition, but we have no plans to do that at the moment.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening; I expected him to do so. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and it would be reasonable to do as he suggests. However, Morocco’s concern would be that there was an implicit assumption that its human rights record is not particularly good. In a region that is troubled with its record in that respect, Morocco is something of a beacon, and I would encourage it in the direction of travel that its new Government, and their predecessors, have taken in improving human rights. I would be very reluctant to see that country held out as failing in some way on its human rights record, although I agree that there is every imperative to ensure that it improves in that respect.

I hold out Morocco as having done a great deal in recent years, particularly last year, to take itself further forward on the path towards constitutional democracy. In the middle of the year, there was the referendum on the new constitution, with elections in November. At a time when we have seen chaos sweep through north Africa and the middle east, Morocco has stood as a beacon of stability and relative calm. That is because it has a multi-party tradition. While its democracy is evolving—some of us have had the opportunity to witness that at first hand—it has had a tradition of nascent democracy for some time, and that is what has kept it free of some of the insurgency and mayhem that has enveloped the wider region. The Moroccan autonomy plan for the Western Sahara is undoubtedly imperfect—most plans are—but it does offer a credible and pragmatic way forward. It is supported by France and the US and, in truth, it is the only show in town. Next year marks the 800th anniversary of the first diplomatic contact between England and Morocco. One of our oldest friends deserves our unequivocal support as it tries to stabilise the region and control the ingress of enemies that we hold in common and must do all we can to defeat.

We have heard a great deal today about international development. Charity begins at home, but it most certainly does not end there. I am very proud that the Government have maintained their commitment to international aid. I am perfectly happy to face down populist demands to have it cut, and more than happy to explain to dissenters how it has helped to eradicate smallpox, reduce polio, tackle malaria, and even assist tax collectors, necessary as they are in state-building. If I had a criticism of this Government, and indeed of their predecessors, it would be that they have been insufficiently willing to present aid as being in the UK’s national self-interest. If it is explained in that way, we are more likely to get buy-in from the voting public. At the end of the day, our views are interesting, of course, but we need to represent the views of the public, and it is certainly the case that they are not entirely signed up to granting aid at a time when they are being expected to tighten their belts.

[Bob Stewart]

The public would be greatly more interested in international aid if they realised that we have stopped, as much as we possibly can, money being siphoned off and sent to offshore accounts rather than going to the people to whom it was directed. If we could explain to the public that we have stopped malaria and are doing things to help the little people, that would make international aid much more acceptable.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s attempt to cut aid to relatively wealthy countries with nuclear weapons, such as Russia and China, together with the UK aid transparency guarantee, should help to reassure a doubting public. However, it is the duty of all those of us who believe in international development to take the message out to our constituents and persuade them that it is in the recipients’ interest and in our own national self-interest that we should maintain our aid programme in very difficult times.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what part of the 0.7% of GNI in aid that we intend to spend will be channelled through the European Union. I commend him for his desire to have transparency in aid, which is absolutely right, for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) touched on. It would be perverse if, having gone to the trouble of making aid transparent in the UK, the large portion of our aid that goes through the EU and the European Commission was obscure. A lot of EU aid is used to prosecute foreign policy in relation to its near abroad, seemingly as an extension of the External Action Service. As chairman of the all-party group on Morocco, which is the largest recipient under the European neighbourhood policy, I can say that in general terms the money seems to be reasonably well spent.

Armed Forces Personnel

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is correct. However, I am not trying to give exact figures; I am merely trying to draw attention to a trend, and to suggest that our forces are top-heavy.

[Dr Murrison]

Does not part of the difficulty lie in the MOD, whose civil servants, during both my hon. Friend’s service and mine, have been keen to equate themselves with starred officers? I believe that that has driven some of the current inflationary pressure. Does my hon. Friend agree that the first priority for Ministers must be to deal with that management overhead?

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree, and I am sure that the Minister does as well. We must get that under control. Someone told me—again, the Minister probably has the figures at his fingertips—that the Army has some 1,700 lieutenant-colonels. If that is the case, they could man three battalions, and we have only 38 of those.

I will not go into the same details about the Royal Air Force, but the principle is the same: it remains quite top-heavy. I know that the Government intend to have a crack at reducing the problem. What we want in our armed forces are people coming in at the bottom—that is, people who actually do the business, rather than those who are in the background sitting behind desks.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Andrew Murrison

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I particularly appreciate his remarks about clause 2 and health care. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have accepted my report “Fighting Fit” on the mental health care of veterans. Part of it stated that we should indeed scrutinise people far more closely at the point when they depart from the services to ensure that we consider mental health. In my 18-year career as a medical officer in the Navy, we rarely did that. The matter was neglected, and I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted the report and that the armed forces will now assess people when they leave and before they become veterans so that we can take timely action when necessary.

I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In addition, in connection with clause 27—an obscure provision, which I suspect is largely uncontroversial—I am a member of the naval medical compassionate fund. I call it a potential benefit because one has to be deceased for any benefit to be obtained from it. Although that is ultimately inevitable, I hope that it will not happen during my time in this place.

I pay tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have done so much for the military covenant and in raising its profile. Over the past 10 years or so, public support for our armed forces has increased. That is in large part because of the profile of the armed forces and, although it may not be fashionable to say so, I think we in this place ought to take a certain amount of credit for promoting the interests of the men and women of our armed forces. Members on both sides of the House do that, so this is not a partisan matter at all.

However, I welcome this Bill as the next step in the process of ensuring that the military covenant is a key part of the way in which we deal with our armed forces, and not just now. It is very easy to do that now, as every night we see images on our television screens highlighting the plight of the men and women of our armed forces, and the excellent job they are doing and the professional manner in which they are doing it. The problem arises 10 or 15 years down the line when, God willing, we are living in a time when the armed forces are less high profile. In those circumstances, it will be very welcome to have an opportunity to assess, on an annual basis, how we are dealing with our servicemen and women, and, of course, with our veterans and service families.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the problems in respect of Help for Heroes is that we must deal not only with the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have problems that go all the way back to the second world war, and we must put in place resources to look after the people who were involved then. Speaking personally, I had about 35 soldiers wounded on 6 December 1982. Those people require to be looked after, and two of them were paraplegics. I simply want to endorse my hon. Friend’s point that we must look after all our veterans who have been hurt, not just the people who are now in the public eye from Afghanistan and Iraq and, perhaps, Kosovo and Bosnia. The issue goes back well beyond that, and let us also remember all those people who were hurt in Northern Ireland over many years.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and I think the Government have recognised that need. One of my report’s recommendations was that we should be more proactive in addressing our veteran population, and I am pleased that it has been accepted. Ministers recognise that we need to do more for veterans.

Having just been nice to my Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps I might say that I disagree with them in one respect. Clause 2 is entitled “Armed forces covenant report” and I take exception to the term “armed forces” in that context. May I gently suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be more appropriate simply to use the term “military covenant”? I say that because I think that term has had a certain amount of purchase. It is now understood by the general public. It is in the public domain, and the media understand it, and I think they would be somewhat confused if we were now to make this rather semantic change of using the term “armed forces” instead. To argue against myself, the word “military” excludes naval of course, but I think that in the public’s mind “military” refers to the entirety of our armed forces. I do not want the value of the concept of the military covenant to be degraded in any way by a confusion over this title. That point might, perhaps, be considered in Committee, of which I hope very much my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is successful in becoming a member—I wish him the best of luck in his endeavours in that respect. As he says, it will be fascinating to serve on the Committee, and I hope to talk a little more about that shortly.