Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Seventh sitting)

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Wednesday 30th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for City of Chester. A substantial number of hon. Members in my party entirely agree with both points. First, we should keep pressure on the Government to get this sorted and get back to 650 and, secondly, the amount of legislation we must deal with puts pressure on Back Benchers much more than normal. Let us get it done and get back to 650.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I will briefly reply to thank hon. Members for understanding why the my hon. Friend the Minister is not here. I will certainly ensure that the good wishes of the hon. Members for City of Chester and for Manchester, Gorton are passed on to her. Other than that, I have no further update to offer the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Middle Level Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the Minister for her intervention. Yes, that is partly why Lords amendment 7 allows an ability to provide some charge for a more commercial operation. It could perhaps be a block charge to British Canoeing for those who are using the waterway, so that people pay a membership fee to British Canoeing before they are able to use particular waterways rather than paying individual fees to each individual operation. I see some nodding from those in the Under-Gallery. It is about trying to avoid a situation where a person with a canoe finds themselves having to register as a boat user to get on the water and pay a fee as if they were a large operation. They will not be completely barred, but they will be in a different charging regime from the standard one for the major pleasure boats and crafts using the waterway.

As the Minister will be aware, the current system of regulation means that fairly large pleasure and commercial boats can use the Middle Level with absolutely no charge at all. That is severely hindering its development and opportunities. Most worryingly of all, the current legislation does not provide for a modern system of safety regulation. This Bill does, hence why the commissioners are very keen to get it in place so that they can ensure that there is a modern and recognisable standard of boat safety on the Middle Level.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could I be quite clear about this, because I am slightly worried? There is no question, is there, of a family taking a canoe out having to pay when they go on these waterways? That would seem excessive.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The Lords amendment that I have just briefly covered is designed to deal with some of those concerns. It would be quite common on other waterways to have a system whereby if someone was a member of the British Canoeing Society, that membership fee would cover the cost. The commissioners may also put in place some restrictions regarding, for example, children wearing life vests. I think most of us would feel that that would be a sensible form of regulation on the waterway.

The general intention of the Lords amendment is to recognise that the Middle Level is a key part of the local community. Many use it informally. Although we need to bring in a form of safety regulation, it is not intended to bring that into the main scheme, although, as on other waterways, there might be a requirement to be a member of a recognised organisation that then contributes to the upkeep of safety equipment and other areas. There would then not necessarily be an additional charge to go on the Middle Level.

Lords Amendments 2, 3 and 4 deal with some of the issues that were raised on the membership of the navigation advisory committee and how it would work. Lords Amendment 2 would be familiar to anyone who has served on a local authority, with the idea that one should declare any personal interest or any matters that would be relevant to one’s decisions. Some of the petitioners raised a concern that the navigation advisory committee must fairly represent the users. In essence—the promoters may not thank me for saying this—it should not be the case that, for example, the commissioners’ mates or one particular group end up finding themselves on the navigation advisory committee.

However, the promoters were happy to accept the idea that relevant interests should be declared and that there should be clear processes for how that works. I do not think that any of us would see it as unreasonable that someone appointed to a representative body should declare to those they are representing what potential interests they may have that are relevant to their position on, in this case, the navigation advisory committee. They would not have to give a life story of their entire business affairs, but they would certainly have to declare anything that was relevant to their being on that committee—for example, what their interest is in the Middle Level, what they are doing there and how their business might operate. Those using the waterway for navigation could then satisfy themselves that there was a broad range of people represented there.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), although we usually do this in Westminster Hall, rather than here in the main Chamber. It is also a pleasure to be called in this debate and to congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing it, as it gives many of us an opportunity to speak up for businesses that were so badly treated by their banks. At a time when these businesses needed support and a relationship that looked to the future, they instead found short-term attitudes being taken by their lender, offering them little, other than something they did not want or the opportunity to go bankrupt. It was pretty obvious what the outcome of those choices would be.

My involvement in this has been prompted by the case of Rew Hotels Ltd, which has a number of hotels in my constituency. The business is family owned, and they have been developing and running their service for many years.

[Bob Stewart]

Fawlty Towers!

[Kevin Foster]

Thankfully, a stay in a Rew hotel is nothing like Fawlty Towers, although I understand that Basil Fawlty might be about to leave the country following one of this week’s votes.

I have only a short time, so will come back to what I was saying. Around 10 years ago, Rew Hotels was offered a hedge that it really did not want. Its bank at the time was Barclays. It was not a constructive discussion; it was basically a choice of the company either taking a hedge that it really did not want, that would cost it a large amount of money and that would not have any great benefit to the business, or trying to refinance multimillion-pound debt in the middle of a credit crunch. It was obvious what the choice was going to be. The company was saddled with it for several years, but in the end bought itself out. It is estimated that, all in, it lost around £850,000 in the process.

That £850,000 is not just a figure; as Tim Rew, whom the Minister has met, says, it is not just lost money but lost jobs, lost investment and lost opportunity. It is a lost chance to develop new rooms and facilities, and other things to bring guests into Torbay. This is not just a debate about what a profit margin might or might not have been. Fundamentally, there is a feeling of injustice that a small company has had to work to produce that for a very large banking corporation that could have done a whole lot better in its attitude and support.

The Minister will know from his meeting with the Rews that their next frustration came with the methods of redress. One of the initial offers was for them to be given some compensation and, oh yes, to sign up for another hedge. They did not want a hedge in the first place, and now they had the chance to sign up for another. It was literally ridiculous.

The potential alternatives for smaller companies are difficult. Rew Hotels was caught by the fact that, because it is a hotel group and has large numbers of waiting staff and general hospitality staff, it was classed as a slightly more sophisticated investor. I could understand that argument if it was a solicitors company, with 50 or 60 solicitors and accountants and a small percentage of non-professional staff. This company, though, was clearly going to be limited in its capacity to make a professional investment decision, yet because it has a large number of employees, it was designated as though it was a great expert in the financial markets, which was clearly unfair.

I was interested to hear the suggestion in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about looking into a more tribunal-based approach to dealing with some of these cases. Rew Hotels feels that the existing system is like the banks marking their own homework and deciding to give themselves an A, and then saying that even along with compensation a company should have what it does not want.

I have every confidence in the Minister, who I know has an understanding of tourism, given his previous role. I hope that he will consider carefully some of the arguments made in this debate and that we can give companies and those who have been victims a proper system of redress, other than costly legal action.

Middle Level Bill: Revival

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to support the revival of this important Bill and pleased to have the chance, once again, to discuss it on the Floor of the House.

Some Members will recall that the Middle Level Bill received its Second Reading on 29 March 2017, following a debate including a range of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members, but it was lost at the Dissolution of Parliament ahead of the general election. I do not intend to repeat the whole of my speech from that debate—[Interruption.] It is lovely to hear a request from Labour Front Benchers for more, but I will contain myself, despite their obvious enthusiasm. I will set out the basic details of the Bill and the reasons why we should legislate, as well as what has happened since we last debated the measure and the changes that have been proposed to respond to concerns raised in petitions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has assiduously followed the progress of this Bill.

To be clear, the Bill is being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. The commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. Many Members who have seen the title of the debate on the Order Paper will probably wonder what the Middle Level is. The Middle Level is the central and largest section of the Great Level of the Fens, which was reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. The area is bounded to the north-west and the east by the Nene and Ouse washes, to the north by the previously drained marshland silts, and to the south and west by low clay hills.

The Middle Level river system consists of more than 120 miles of watercourses, approximately 100 miles of which are statutory navigations, and it has a catchment of just over 170,000 acres. Virtually all the fenland within the Middle Level catchment lies below mean sea level. The Middle Level Commissioners, together with the local internal drainage boards, therefore operate a highly complex flood protection and water level management system to balance the various water uses and requirements, and to alleviate the risk of flooding to land and properties. The efficient operation of the system is vital to the safety and prosperity of the more than 100,000 people who live and work in the area and the 26,000 properties that depend on it. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local boards, much of the fenland would be underwater for a lot of the year, access from higher ground would be cut off, and many of the present land uses would be completely impossible.

Although the Middle Level was built primarily for drainage reasons, it has gone on to be used by a range of craft, particularly pleasure craft and motorboats. That brings us to the key point with any legislation: why do we need to legislate? The current system of regulation is hopelessly out of date and based on a different era of waterways usage. Our forebears in the 19th century viewed canals as a practical method of transporting goods and a working location, rather than as an attractive place for a holiday, hence measures such as an exemption from charges relating to manure-carrying. The success of many waterways today in recreation is due to the fact that they have a system of regulation and income generation that reflects the needs of boat users today, rather than those of the 19th century. That is why the current legal framework for the Middle Level needs to be updated.

That legal framework does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels used on the waterways, or for the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. In particular, the commissioners may levy charges only on commercial traffic, not on pleasure craft. That is presumably because, in the past, the extent of commercial traffic was considered sufficient to pay for the costs of navigation. Again, that shows a different understanding of the use of waterways. However, commercial traffic on the Middle Level is now virtually non-existent. Almost all the vessels are pleasure craft, and they benefit from an exemption from charging under the old Acts.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend—he is a very good friend—for giving way. I am listening to him with rapt attention, and I heard him say that the entirety of the Middle Level is below sea level. I do not know the area, so could he tell me if that means that the rivers cannot get out—does the stuff have to be pumped out?—and traffic on the waterways cannot get out of this sunken level? I admit that I am pretty ignorant about the area.

[Kevin Foster]

There are ways of getting from the Middle Level to other waterways. It connects to some waterways that have much more modern systems of regulation. Most of it is below mean sea level, but my understanding is that it is possible to get boats into and out of other watercourses.

The Middle Level was built as a very large drain—that is the best way of putting it—but in its usage it has become more like a canal. Such waterways work very successfully in other areas of the country, but the problem with the Middle Level is that its ability to generate income is based on its original design and conception, rather than its modern-day usage. Following on from my hon. Friend’s helpful intervention, I will talk about the issues concerning the income for maintaining the Middle Level.

At the moment, the commissioners do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways because of the virtual non-existence of commercial traffic. That has meant that monies raised through drainage rates and levies have had to be used to fund navigation, instead of for flood defences. In the financial year ending 31 March 2016, that unfunded expenditure amounted to £178,000. The commissioners therefore seek to update and clarify their powers to enable them properly to regulate and fund their waterways. For comparison, the powers sought are similar to those already used by other large inland navigation authorities, such as the Canal and River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority.

The commissioners consulted on their proposals between February and June 2016. They notified affected parties, including navigation interests, land drainage interests and local authorities. They published newspaper notices and placed details on their website. Some 23 responses were received, 18 of which were supportive, with three neutral and two opposed. Supporters included the Inland Waterways Association, the East Anglian Waterways Association, the Association of Nene River Clubs, the National Association of Boat Owners, the Middle Level Watermen’s Club, the Residential Boat Owners Association, the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs and five local councils.

After the Bill was deposited, six petitions were received against it. They raise a range of issues to which the commissioners intend to respond in their evidence before the Opposed Bill Committee, but some significant work has already been done—assisted, I must say, by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—to respond to many of the issues raised in the petitions. Likewise, work has been done to respond to concerns raised by Members on 29 March 2017, although I was pleased to note that the Bill then had the support of both Government and Opposition Front Benchers. There was a pledge to respond to the issues in the Opposed Bill Committee, but that Committee could not sit before Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

The six petitions deposited against the Bill were from individuals with varying interests in the navigation of the waterways forming the Middle Level, as well as from the March Cruising Club and the National Bargee Travellers Association. It should be noted that none of the operators of the private marinas in the Middle Level has objected to proposals to include their marinas within the scope of the commissioners’ regulatory powers. The commissioners met all the petitioners in July and August, and responded to each of their petitions in writing in September. One of the petitioners has indicated that he is now willing to withdraw his petition, but the irony is that he cannot do so until the Bill is formally revived. I am advised by the commissioners that, as yet, no other responses have been received.

It should be noted that although some of the petitioners did not accept during those meetings that there was a need for the commissioners to raise funds from navigation users, more were concerned that the fees should be predictable and affordable, and that the commissioners would guarantee to provide improved services and facilities in return for those charges. In addition, none of the petitioners, as is logical, took issue with the need for vessels to meet the standards of the boat safety scheme or to carry third-party insurance, as required by the Bill. Another problem with the age of the existing legislation is that it dates from before modern considerations of boat safety and third-party insurance.

The commissioners intend to give an undertaking, and to propose amendments to the Bill before the Committee stage, if the Bill is revived. They include setting up a users’ panel that would discuss an annual programme of maintenance and improvements before each year’s charges were set. The commissioners propose an amendment to clause 5(3) so that Well Creek is not closed to navigation between Christmas and new year. They also propose an amendment so that the person in charge of a vessel is not required to provide the names and addresses of others on board.

If the Bill is revived, I am confident that the remaining outstanding issues will be appropriately considered by the Opposed Bill Committee. At that stage, both the commissioners and the petitioners will have the opportunity to give evidence supporting their cases before the Committee determines whether the principle of the Bill has been proved. In addition to the points I have outlined, I am aware that the commissioners, via their solicitors, have been in contact with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to deal with a number of the individual issues that they have raised, which they may wish to set out again in this debate.

I hope my speech will satisfy Members to the extent that they will agree to revive the Bill. I accept that some users of the waterway are happy with an arrangement under which they are provided with a facility that others pay for, yet the current situation cannot be sustainable, and the provisions in the Bill reflect the system used to manage other waterways.

It is worth noting that locks have to be maintained to provide access to the system—if this was purely about drainage, the locks could be converted into weirs. In response to the query raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I confirm that it is possible to get out of the system via those locks. That reflects the fact that this is not just a big drainage canal that happens to have some boat usage, but a system—built for drainage, and funded as though it was drain—that is actually maintained to provide access for motorboats and particularly for pleasure craft, which at the moment contribute absolutely nothing towards its maintenance and do not meet some of the most basic standards. I hope that that explains to Members why the Bill needs to be revived.

The commissioners accept that any use of new powers must be proportionate, and that the Bill will not give them anything beyond what other waterways have. A sign of their good faith is that some of the outdated byelaws, such as the requirement for a mast, are not enforced on the Middle Level. It makes sense to clear up the system and to remove some of those things that merely clutter up the statute book and inconvenience the organisation. Finally, as I have said, there can be no sensible objections to measures such as the implementation of third-party insurance and a requirement that vessels meet boat safety standards. It is my great pleasure to commend the revival motion to the House.

Veterans and Service Personnel

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

It is wonderful to be able to pay tribute to so many who have given so much.

To finish my story about Johnny, I want to mention his reaction to the campaign to get him knighted. A lot of us probably feel that that would have been an appropriate honour, but his reaction was typical of the unassuming gentleman he was. Basically, he said, “Why me?” He felt that he would rather be remembered along with the rest of his comrades. He had faced so much danger, he lost many comrades, and he was among the first to sign up to do his bit for king and country and defeat Adolf Hitler. It is wonderful to think about the past and to remember the huge sacrifices that have enabled us to have a free Parliament here today.

I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Royal British Legion, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. Its Rethinking Remembrance campaign is a thought-provoking project in which second world war veterans read out experiences that sound as though they are from the 1940s until, at the very end, we realise that they are experiences from Afghanistan, Iraq or the Gulf war. They are the experiences of people who are the same age as me, and that certainly cut through to me. I suspect that it will have the same effect on many others.

I took part in an event earlier this year in Paignton entitled the “22 for 22”. I am sure that many other Members took part in such events as well. The idea was to do 22 push-ups to mark the shocking statistic—it is an American statistic—that 22 US veterans take their own lives every day. We think of the controversy of the losses on the battlefield in Vietnam in the 1960s, but even today, 22 veterans will take their own life. A chap called Rich McDonald is a resident of Torquay and a constituent of mine. He is a veteran of tours in Northern Ireland and of the Gulf war, and he arranged what he described as a “press-up spectacular” for a few of us at the local leisure centre. It was designed to get us together to mark the campaign. It was all very interesting and enjoyable to show our solidarity, but I do not think he will mind me saying that he then shared his own story of how the non-physical impact of his service nearly defeated him not long ago. It was great to see him not only helping veterans but trying to get the message out to people that if they have a problem, they must tell someone by getting one of the veterans charities involved. He was prepared to use his own experiences to show how valuable those charities had been to him.

When considering the work done around remembrance, it is only right for me to pay tribute to the two very active branches of the Royal British Legion in Torbay. The Paignton branch has long-serving stalwarts in Kevin Jeffery and Major Ron Goodwin—better known as Major Ron—and its new poppy appeal organiser, Nigel Monks.

[Bob Stewart]

Major Ron Goodwin was the regimental sergeant major of my battalion and a very great man. It is delightful to hear my hon. Friend mention Ronnie, who is a legend.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. Yes, Major Ron is quite a figure in Torbay. I understand that he was quite a figure in the military as well, although there was someone that he had to try to keep in order—I am just trying to remember the name of that particular serving officer. Who might it have been? Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend can tell me afterwards. Major Ron has certainly been a great figure in remembrance in the Bay, and in supporting the Royal British Legion branch and enabling it to help others today.

Sometimes we think that the poppy appeal is just about injured veterans from particular wars, but it is not. It is about giving support to the whole family that has been affected, perhaps by helping the son or daughter of a serviceman or woman to achieve a dream, or simply by dealing with more practical day-to-day needs if someone has fallen on hard times. That is why we should all rightly be proud to wear our poppies today.

One of the most thought-provoking things that I attended before being elected to this House was in St Marychurch on the 100th anniversary—to the minute —of war being declared in Europe, which led to the famous remark about the lights going out all across Europe. It was arranged by a local lady called Meg Jolliffe. As we stood there as a group, it occurred to me that there was a wall of 94 names—virtually all volunteers—from what was a small rural community at the time. They had all lost their lives in world war one, and every person named on the memorial was younger than I was. What really struck me was that these people did not go on to have families and that their hopes and dreams had all been lost in the maelstrom of world war one. It was particularly poignant. We naturally think of veterans as being a bit older—if one is younger—but the majority of people who lost their lives in those conflicts were younger than many of us who are considered young Members of Parliament today.

It is good that we are focusing on how we support the veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf war and ongoing deployments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I have taken part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which included a survival night in a tent with six commandos. For those who are wondering, we were all assured that we would be safe.

Contaminated Blood

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and to be able to follow on from all the work done to bring this debate to the Floor of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing it; it was a pleasure for me, as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, to support the proposal that this debate be held today.

Contaminated blood and the impact on victims was one of the first issues to come into my inbox after I was elected. Someone came to my surgery who had had a condition but had been otherwise healthy, only to find that they were to have decades of pain and disability because of the treatment they had for that condition—that is almost heartbreaking. Virtually all their life prospects have disappeared because of a treatment they received that they thought would make them better.

It is worth examining the scale of this disaster in our NHS system. We are talking about 4,700 people with bleeding disorders and 28,000 other people becoming infected with hepatitis C; and 1,200 with bleeding disorders and 100 other individuals getting HIV. Of course these people were getting that condition at a time when the medical understanding of it was very limited and the life expectancy was incredibly short. Thankfully, many people have benefited from the advances in medical science since 1985, which have allowed them to keep living, but they still face all the issues that come with that illness and—let us be candid—the stigma that still comes with it from those ignorant about what can cause it.

The issue is about looking at the time that has elapsed. I am sure that, like me, my predecessor, Adrian Sanders, who pursued a number of cases diligently during his time as the MP for Torbay, would not have expected that after 18 years his successor would still be talking about this issue and still be having to speak up for the constituents affected by this scandal, at least one of whom is in the Gallery today. We know that a patchwork of five schemes is in place, and reference has been made to that. To be fair, £390 million has already been paid out, but the impact on these people has been so devastating that it is right that we are looking again at what the appropriate level of compensation is.

It was appropriate that last year the Prime Minister issued an apology. That is something so simple, but it took until 2015 for it to happen. I agree that we are not in a court of law today, but it is right that we seek to provide some form of justice to those who for so long have found themselves on the receiving end of life-changing conditions.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We have used the word “justice” all the way through this debate. I have listened to it all and I was not intending to intervene, but I must say that in fact there is no justice we can give people who have contaminated blood—that has been taken away from them. All we can do is give them the best possible help, financially and in care terms. They will never get justice, and it is improper to suggest they can—we cannot do it, it is too late, they have had that taken away and money will not compensate.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for such a thoughtful intervention. We cannot give them justice; we cannot restore them back to where they were before the impact of this scandal, but we can compensate them. We can try to mitigate the impact and give them a life that is appropriate, as best we can. Today’s debate is right to focus on that.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Indeed. This is a bit like the reforms to school governors, where we have reduced the number of local authority appointments. Although some were very independent minded and focused solely on the school and its interests, in other areas it was almost a tradition to have a certain number from Labour, a certain number from the Conservatives and a certain number from the Lib Dems.

[Bob Stewart]

None from the Lib Dems.

[Kevin Foster]

I accept that at the moment a Lib Dem and an endangered species have something in common. I will return to the subject of the Bill, despite the generous opportunity offered by my hon. and gallant Friend to make a remark about the political situation west of Bristol.

Why, as a Devon MP, am I keen to see the Bill make progress, given that it relates particularly to Great Ormond Street? As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), the hospital provides specialist services that benefit the whole of the UK. The provisions on the “Peter Pan” copyright apply to all four nations in the United Kingdom, not just to England and Wales, as some of the other provisions in the Bill do. This hospital provides services that it clearly would not be practical to provide in individual areas and individual hospitals, because that pure specialty is needed. At least one person who has been in my surgery recently has benefited from Great Ormond Street’s work even though they are a resident of Torquay, because of the specialties that the hospital brings.

It is therefore right that we should make this provision that the J. M. Barrie bequest and copyrights can be properly applied, to the benefit of the hospital. It is nonsense to have two charities in place purely because of law that made sense at the time but which now looks like a legal accident, whereby the money has to go into one pot and cannot go into another pot, even though almost any other bequest in this country would be going into the one charity. As has been said, that means that money for patients—money for services—is going to lawyers and accountants. That is not right, which is why the Bill is so timely. It seeks to resolve that anomaly and give that certainty, particularly to Great Ormond Street, and to all the other trusts.

I am very pleased to be here to support this Bill, which will make a real difference. It may sound very technical—it sounded exceptionally technical when I first read it—but it will make a real impact on the ground in providing better services and better outcomes, and helping some of the sickest and most vulnerable people in our society. That is why it is right that the Bill receives its Second Reading. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills decided that this subject was the right choice for her private Member’s Bill slot, given the number of choices that would have been available to her, and it is good to see so much support here this morning from hon. Members.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say in response to today’s debate—[Interruption.] I am glad he is looking forward to it, too. We are anticipating every moment of his speech, which I am sure will be a tour de force, given his knowledge of this area. We hope it will confirm that giving the Bill its Second Reading makes eminent sense and that it will move into Committee, so that we can turn it from a worthwhile Bill into a worthwhile Act of Parliament. I am delighted to endorse the Bill and I hope the whole House will support it.

Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Kevin Foster

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I understand and accept that, and in a way that is good. Some good things are coming out of it.

As my right hon. Friend has just demonstrated, many countries are clearly deeply worried about Russian intentions close to their borders. No wonder NATO membership is so attractive now. It is a great deal. For those countries, the NATO guarantee is cheap security and insurance. Far too many of the new members of NATO have simply got to pay more. Only Estonia, France, Greece, Poland, Turkey and the UK will come near the NATO minimum target of 2% in 2015. Some NATO members will spend far less than that. According to the IMF, some—such as Albania, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain—spent 1% or less of their GNP on defence last year.

I am sorry for spending so much of my speech on statistics, but I hope that I have made the point about the huge importance of NATO’s minimum target of 2%. Achieving it and keeping above it shows commitment, and is also a symbolic gesture of genuine support for the alliance.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the 2% is like an insurance policy? Countries get the protection of article 5 mutual defence, but it is the premium that they need to pay in exchange.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Indeed, our Navy has always been part of our diplomatic missions across the seas. It has provided a platform not just for war fighting but for trade and diplomacy. It has literally flown our flag for all purposes, not just the traditional purpose of deterrence. Plenty of treaties have been signed on board our ships in the past, and hopefully plenty more will be signed in the coming years.

It is appropriate to commit to the target in the Bill because we do not know exactly what the future threats will be. Two hundred and ten years ago, our predecessors in this House were still awaiting the news of Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar, because HMS Pickle was still on its way to Falmouth. The threats we face today would have been unimaginable at that time. For me, this is about making sure that we have a minimum expenditure on capability enshrined in law, so that whatever threat comes along over the next 20 to 30 years we have armed forces that are able to respond to it in their current form or able to expand, as they did in the great crises of 1939 and 1914 to meet a new aggressive threat. At the core of those forces must be professionals who have been in the military for many years and can take their skills with them into an expanded military.

I believe that this is the right step to take. It is certainly one that many of our constituents wish us to take. If we had not put into law one international target, I would accept the argument that we should not put such targets into our national law, but the precedent has been set. It is therefore time to put this target into our law and send a similarly powerful message to other countries about our commitment to the north Atlantic alliance as that which we have sent about our commitment to the UN’s development goals. I might have accepted the arguments about relevance and so forth, but they were all dealt with in the consideration of the other Bill.

As has been said, NATO has now expanded to 26 members, and it is vital—

[Bob Stewart]

Twenty-eight.

[Kevin Foster]

I happily stand corrected by my hon. and gallant Friend.

This House needs to send a clear message to all the other members that we expect them to play their role in the alliance and not just rely, as has traditionally happened, on the United States to fund the majority of NATO’s capability. As we approach a presidential election next year in which it appears domestic issues will again be the greatest priority in US public debate, it would be naive at best to continue to believe that the US will not take the opportunity to ask Europe to pay for its own defence. Hence, it is important that we, as one of the key European powers, set this benchmark into our law and give it a more permanent basis.

In conclusion, it has been a pleasure to listen to so many colleagues in this debate. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I pay tribute to the improvements in the spending of our money in the area of defence procurement. Hopefully, we will see massive new capabilities coming on stream with projects such as the Type 26. The Bill is not about being spendthrift on defence or about spending money on things that we do not need. It is right to make sure that our procurement is accurate. We do not want another situation like the Type 45 project, where a £6 billion budget for 12 destroyers became a £6 billion budget for six. That is not a situation that anyone in this House wants.

With the new carriers coming on stream, the new Astute class submarine being available for deployment and the new kit across our armed forces, I think we will have capable and effective armed forces into the future, but we need to give them certainty over future funding. That is why it is right that the Government made the pledge that they did and why it is right that this House puts into law the minimum we will spend for the long term, making it much harder for any future Government to change it on a whim. I do not believe that this Government will, but there is always a chance that others will.

It is right that we take a leading role in NATO, it is right that the Government are committed to the target and it is right for us to give the Bill its Second Reading.