Welfare Reform

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Sheridan. I also thank the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for securing this debate. If it had been an hour-and-a-half debate, it would have been more conventional to have several people speaking. I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) that it is not only a convention, but a rule of the House that only two people are allowed to speak in these half-hour debates. We are therefore engaging in a rather unusual practice this afternoon, which is why things are slightly confusing. The hon. Member for Dover gave a rather short speech—the debate’s promoter normally takes 15 minutes—and he devoted quite a lot of it to saying nasty things about the Labour party. I understand why he wants to do that, but I want to correct some impressions.

The Labour party has been engaged in a process of welfare reform and was when in government. One of the key things that we wanted to achieve was ensuring that work pays. In my constituency, which has historically high levels of people on one form or other of sickness benefit, people have been trapped in a style of poverty that ends up being inherited from one generation to the next. Opposition Members are desperately keen to ensure that we have a system under which work always pays. That is why we supported the introduction of the national minimum wage, which we see as part of welfare reform, and why we introduced tax credits as another means of making it possible for people to get into work.

I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Spelthorne that Labour has never been in favour of welfare reform. Indeed, key elements of what the Government are doing now are right. The move towards universal credit is right. The Government have been too ambitious in the time scale that they have set themselves, and it would help the Government’s cause were they a bit more honest about the fact that the scheme is neither on time nor on budget and that a great amount of money has been wasted. Ministers have not yet made key decisions, such as when somebody goes on to universal credit, whether their children will be entitled to free school meals. At the moment, there is a difference between those on in-work benefits and those on out-of-work benefits. The latter’s children get free school meals, but the former’s do not. Universal credit does not recognise the difference between the two, which is a key policy issue that will have to be determined.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Labour party initially voted against universal credit. Labour should be more supportive of the Government during a big, important reform, rather than too often appearing to throw rocks from the sidelines.

[Chris Bryant]

We are keen to try to help the Government make universal credit work, but it is difficult so to do if the Secretary of State is mouthing inanities and presenting such an optimistic version of events that some might construe it not to be entirely true, which is what the Labour party believe has happened. It is a convention that people receive absolution only after confessing, and the Government need to own up to a few more of the problems that they are experiencing with universal credit. We would then be more than happy to help them.

Another classic example is the bedroom tax. People have different views about whether it is right and proper, but my argument is that while it might be a legitimate thing if we knew that everyone had smaller properties to move to, in truth, when those smaller properties are not available, it is a fairly cruel and vindictive assault on some of the most vulnerable people in society, including hundreds of thousands of disabled people. Even more bizarrely, the Government managed to mess that up by not spotting the loophole in their legislation. On the same day, three different Ministers said different things: one said that only 3,000 to 5,000 would be affected; another said in the House of Lords that the number would be insignificant; and a third Minister said that she had no idea how many people would be affected. Through freedom of information requests, which the Government should have submitted, we already know that, from the third of local authorities who have replied, 16,000 households are affected. In other words, it is likely that some 48,000 to 50,000 people are affected.

The Labour party is engaged in a process of welfare reform. We always have been. We want to make welfare work, so that it both supports those who desperately need it at key times in their lives and gives people an opportunity to stand on their own two feet. In your constituency, Mr Sheridan, and in mine, the vast majority of people are not looking for handouts; they are looking to stand on their own feet, to put food on the table for their family and to provide a better future for their children.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will, although I am aware that not even the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues think he knows how this industry works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman forcefully makes the point that this would be a matter for lawyers, but on my reading of some of the Opposition amendments, they would bring vicars within the ambit of the Bill. That would be a very odd and unintended result, would it not?

[Chris Bryant]

I think I am the only ex-vicar in the Chamber. It is perfectly legitimate for people to lobby, even vicars—and, for that matter, tarts. I have no problem with vicars and tarts lobbying. For that matter, I have no problem with vicars and tarts lobbying together on a piece of legislation, if that is what they want to do. That would be absolutely legitimate, but I just want to have a level playing field.

If somebody is being paid to lobby on behalf of others, I think there is a higher requirement in respect of our being able to know, but I just say this to the Government: they have brought forward a Bill that is so narrowly drawn in its first part that I think it will do far more harm than good.

This Bill should not be advanced as a Government Bill. It should be a private Member’s Bill. It should be advanced on a non-partisan basis. It is the kind of legislation where we desperately require people to come in and give evidence before we start considering amendments, so that Members such as the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) who has just tried to make a pointed intervention on me would be able to learn from the experience of those who are actually—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, here comes another intervention—on bishops, doubtless.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My concern with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that this should be a private Member’s Bill is that he and I both know that the process for that is tortuous because this House does not lack for wreckers who would destroy any such moves to any kind of legislation that would be more considered and sensible, which is a shame.

[Chris Bryant]

I have been campaigning for a very long time to get rid of the entirely mendacious private Member’s Bill process and to replace it with a system that works better, but I do think this Bill would be better advanced on a cross-party basis without Government-Opposition divide and on the basis of practical experience of how the industry actually works. There is a danger that we will introduce bad legislation here, and we may well—irony of ironies—have to resort to the House of Lords to try to improve it because the Government nearly always have a majority on any legislation in this House.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It was partly because Russia has made a large number of extradition requests to this country to which we have said no because Timothy Workman, the judge in charge, has decided on each occasion that they were being advanced merely for political reasons, whereas when we make extradition requests, such as for Mr Lugovoy, who is sought for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian state simply says that no Russian national will be extradited. I do not think that there should be a distinction between different nationalities.

My second minor point is that I suspect that statistics throw far less light on the matter than one might think. It is true, for instance, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned, that the number of extraditions from the UK has risen dramatically since 1975, but then so has international travel. Moreover, although there was just one extradition to Spain in the decade up to 1973 compared with 61 in the past seven years, I suspect that that had more to do with the relations with Franco’s regime than with anything to do with the extradition system.

The same is true, I believe, of the US-UK extraditions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Since 2004 there have been 73 extraditions to the United States from this country, and just 38 to the UK from the US, yet 70% of UK requests for extradition have been successful compared with just 54% of US requests to the UK. In other words, a US request is less likely to succeed than a UK one. Moreover, far more British nationals go to the US every year than the other way around. I know that that seems counter-intuitive, but the Library’s figures suggest that roughly 4.5 million British people go to the US every year, and fewer than 2 million come from the US to the UK.

Thirdly, cybercrime almost inevitably crosses borders, whether we are talking about conspiracy to fund terrorism, illegal file sharing or industrial espionage. Consequently, I agree with hon. Members who have said today that we have to ensure that we have a better way of dealing with the question of where individual matters may be resolved.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in taking interventions. I put it to him that the original arrangements with the United States were entered into under the cloud of the history of 9/11 and terrorism, and now we are hearing cybercrime as the latest excuse. Is there not always another excuse to worry people about why we should go further in taking away their rights and protections?

[Chris Bryant]

I was actually agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in my remarks about cybercrime. I think it is legitimate for there to be a point at which we decide where is the right place for something to be tried. I believe that was the point that he was trying to make earlier, so I am grateful to him for his support for my argument.

Having dealt with the minor issues, I want to turn to the more significant ones, and first the operation of the European arrest warrant. It is true that there have been several cases in which the justice system in other countries included in the European arrest warrant has been far from ideal. Several hon. Members have mentioned those cases today. We are all mindful of the horrific experiences of some people who have been held for considerable periods for crimes that, as it turns out, they never committed. Incidentally, that is of course sometimes true in the United Kingdom as well.

Although I believe the EAW operates successfully in the main, there is one key matter that I believe needs to be addressed—the question of proportionality. Between 2004 and the end of March 2011, Poland accounted for 1,659 and Lithuania 355 of the UK’s 3,107 EAW surrenders. In part, that was because of the prosecutorial system in each of those two countries, but in many cases the warrants were for relatively minor offences. We believe that a proportionality test should apply. Indeed, I believe that the majority of members of the European Union would prefer to see some form of proportionality clause inserted into the provisions. It is important, of course, to bear it in mind that in many cases the UK imposes longer sentences than other countries in Europe, so there is a danger that if proportionality is introduced some countries will retaliate in the wrong direction. However, I believe that such a clause should be included.

Extradition

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Leigh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing an extraordinarily important debate and the Backbench Business Committee on doing such great work to ensure our chance to have this discussion. I want to keep my remarks brief, because so much has been said in the evolving consensus of the debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for their powerful contributions.

There has long been a tradition that Parliament is the last backstop for the liberty of the subject and the protection of the rights of property. It is right for us to be deeply interested in the liberty of our electors and citizens, and it is particularly great to see in the Chamber the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who has remained in his seat throughout the debate and who has been such a powerful advocate for his constituent, Babar Ahmad. There seems to be a strong, cross-party feeling that things are simply not right.

To pick up on one issue, if people are in the UK and commit a crime in the UK, the deep, natural sense that we all—the person in the street—have is that such people should be prosecuted in the UK for that act, if it is an offence in this country, and not be taken away from home, loved ones, community and everything familiar to be prosecuted in a foreign country. In particular, I have long found the US-UK extradition treaty troubling.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I issue a slight corrective? Everyone thus far has talked about British nationals being extradited. Quite often, a request under a European arrest warrant, or for that matter an extradition request, is for a non-British national. One reason for the number of European arrest warrants from Poland being so high is that a lot of them are for Polish people whom the Polish Government want to take back to Poland.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I am concentrating on our citizens and our electors.

The situation has long troubled me: in principle, if people commit an offence in this country, they should be prosecuted in this country. Many of us feel that way. According to paragraph 4 of article 8 of the treaty on extradition with the States:

“If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances.”

Perhaps I am an old-fashioned lawyer—that is my background and training—but I feel deeply that the right forum for prosecution in such a case is in the UK and that people in this country should be tried by their peers. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, perhaps it is our jurisprudence and long legal tradition, but that is how I feel, as so many of us do.

[Chris Bryant]

One area in which we in this country have changed direction slightly in the past few years—rightly so, and I suspect the hon. Gentleman would agree with me—is sexual offences, possibly committed in a country such as Thailand by a British national, that might not be prosecuted in Thailand, but could be in this country.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case for the extradition of a British citizen to another jurisdiction where the offence was committed and, arguably, if a sexual offence was committed in Thailand, the right forum for the case would be where the offence took place. I am speaking, however, about when the actus reus of the offence is alleged to have taken place in the UK—in particular, in internet-type cases—so the evidence, and the proper forum, would seem to be in the UK. That is my deep sense of how things should be: if a crime is committed in the UK, it should be prosecuted in the UK. One should not be seized from the UK, as the NatWest three famously were, and sent before a jury in Texas. Having been a partner in an American law firm and having talked to colleagues, my understanding is that Texan juries are simple: people from Texas get a good hearing, but if people are not from Texas, it is a bit more hit and miss. One needs to be cautious in such cases.

Another thing that I and many people feel strongly about is reciprocity, in particular the remarks in the Scott Baker report about probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. That takes us to paragraph 3(c) of article 8 of the treaty. It says

“for requests to the United States,”—

it is only to the United States—

“such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.”

That “reasonable basis to believe” finds its origin in the fourth amendment to the US constitution, which was passed in 1791. Interestingly, in our jurisprudence that principle found its heart and motivation in the famous, landmark case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765. I feel that in our Parliament we sometimes forget our finer and more enduring principles, while the Americans seem to embed them slightly more effectively. The Scott Baker report states, in effect, that there is no real difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I do not share that conclusion.

The table in paragraph 7.30 on page 237 of the Scott Baker report, which I am sure everyone has read in great detail, clearly states of requests to the United States:

“Information satisfying the probable cause test”,

but of requests to the United Kingdom it states:

“Information satisfying the reasonable suspicion test”.

Is there a difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion or not? Scott Baker says not.

Let us look at more of the detail. The Scott Baker report then mentions the definition of “probable cause” in paragraph 7.35 on page 239:

“A well-known definition of probable cause is, ‘a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime’… The Oxford Companion to United States Law defines probable cause as, ‘information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime’.”

We are talking about the difference between reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief, and I say that belief is a rather higher test than simply suspicion.

Let me give an example. An hon. Member’s Order Paper has gone missing in the House and the Member thinks that a colleague has taken it—but which colleague? There are so many around. The Member sees the Order Paper, or part of it, poking out of a colleague’s jacket, so the Member has a reasonable belief that that colleague has taken it. If the Member does not see anything and merely suspects the ne’er-do-well in the next seat, that is reasonable suspicion, because that colleague has done that kind of thing before. Belief is a higher test than suspicion, and there is strong feeling of concern—rightly—that the treaty does not have the degree of reciprocity that it should have.

Another matter that I feel strongly about, because I believe strongly in the liberty of the subject and the proper testing of any case, is the fact that there should be the old prima facie test that we used to have. I know that that would raise the objection that it leads to long hearings and so on, but why should we not have the same test for extradition as for a committal for trial of the old style? That seems to me to be the right way to go, because we should be cautious before sending our citizens abroad. I appreciate that that may cause difficulties with the European arrest warrant, because it is bound up with the wider European issue, where angels fear to tread. However, leaving that aside, we have wider discretion with other countries, and perhaps we should consider firmer testing of the proof, particularly with jurisdictions where we are unsure whether they will provide the proper level and quality of information and fair trial, and when we worry that they might not be entirely straightforward and honest about their level of evidence. Today, we have heard about cases in which there has been concern about the level of evidence.

I would like the Minister to provide some clarity. I understand that 24 British citizens have been extradited to America, and that one American has been extradited to the UK. Given that the treaty was entered into to deal with terrorism, how many of those 24 cases involved extradition for terrorist-related charges, and how many did not? That is germane to how correctly the House was led when the treaty was introduced. It was told at the time that the treaty covered terrorist activities, but not wider activities.

The Secretary of State should have a backstop power to decline to authorise extradition, and reintroduction of that should be considered to provide extra, discretionary protection in favour of liberty of the subject. We should be super-cautious before sending any of our citizens to face trial in another jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The honest truth is that it is a right old mix. That is why, as we consider the matter, there is a danger that we proceed only on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman referred to as anecdotal evidence of individual cases, rather than properly garnered substantive evidence that covers the whole realm.

I know the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent very well; I have met the family. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was a Member of Parliament, I answered debates. At the Foreign Office, we tried as much as possible to rectify the problems with Greek justice. His constituent’s case was far from a unique example, not specifically regarding extradition, but regarding British people facing justice in Greek jails, in a criminal justice system that was falling apart at the seams in many ways. The Foreign Office had a difficult job to do in trying to ensure that those people got justice.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman cited the case of Russia. Does he think that, in such dealings, reciprocity is an important underlying principle that we should follow?

Border Checks Summer 2011

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There have been many striking things this afternoon. The most striking one at the beginning was how few members of the Cabinet came to offer their support to the Home Secretary. I have been in this Chamber on many occasions when people have called for a resignation. I have nearly always on those previous occasions seen at least half the Cabinet present. I presume that she does not have much longer, in light of the support from her colleagues.

There have been a great many contributions. I think I am correct in saying that we have heard from three members of the Home Affairs Committee—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), although I know she is unable to join us now, and, of course, the much-respected Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have also heard from a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

We heard, too, from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I must say that when he said he thought the Labour party should have taken a humility pill, I thought that was—well, talk about “pot” “kettle” “yellow”! The Liberal Democrats should be swallowing a humility pill in respect of a whole load of things at the moment—but I think we will leave that to the electorate.

Other contributors were my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael); my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound); the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Margot James), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab); and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).

All spoke and made interesting contributions, but what have we learned today? First of all, we have learned that the Home Secretary experimented with lowering our border controls—and unlike the Home Secretary, who made up her contribution, I am not making this up—in the year before the Olympics. She chose to experiment with border controls in the year before the Olympics!

Secondly, we learned that the Home Secretary did not even know what she agreed to in the first place. We saw that classically on Monday afternoon, when Members asked whether the experiment applied to Manchester airport, to Glasgow or to Belfast, and she did not know. She did not have the faintest idea; she was completely clueless. She still does not know today how, where or when her experiment with our border controls was applied. Even after days and days of this issue being the main one in the media, she has not chosen to brief herself to find out how it was applied.

The one member of the Cabinet who was here to provide his paltry support was the Secretary of State for Education. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I forgot about the Secretary of State for Wales, because we always do. We have heard that this was a pilot, but I would have thought that a pilot would be introduced in just one airport to see how it worked out, not become an experiment in changing the whole policy on our border controls across every single airport and port of entry into this country. This was no pilot; it was a change of policy.

We have also learned that the Home Secretary extended the experiment for a couple of extra months without even getting a view from the front line on how it was operating. It was only because John Vine happened to go along to Heathrow that we were able to find out exactly what was happening. [Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that Ministers cannot be expected to do inspections, yet we heard from the hon. Member for Dover that at least he has been able to go and visit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman went, but the Minister did not bother.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already spoken.

We also learned today that data do exist. The Home Secretary admitted that for the first time this afternoon, but she is refusing to publish them. [Interruption.] She is looking confused again; of course she is, because she has not bothered to burrow down into the detail. We want her to publish the data as soon as possible. She also admitted that the interim operational instruction, which we have referred to over the last couple of days, represents Government policy and that it does not stretch Government policy at all.

We have learned today, too, that the Prime Minister and several hon. Members who have been given Government Whips’ handouts think that this policy was a good idea. Well, if it was a good idea, are they going to do it again next year? I suspect not because they know it was not a good idea in the first place. What have we seen in this country?

European Union Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree. My anxiety about the codification process is that it is dangerous of itself, because it invites the courts to make judgment on the matter.

The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to referendums on whether we should stay in the EU or leave it. Would he support an amendment calling for such a referendum?

[Charlie Elphicke]

If the hon. Gentleman is planning to table an amendment on an in-out referendum, I will consider it. That is a matter for the House to debate, but I am concerned that he is trying to tempt me to stray from the subject matter of this group of amendments, which is sovereignty.

I am concerned about paragraph 106 of the explanatory notes, which states that clause 18 places on a statutory footing

“the common law principle that EU law takes effect in the UK through the will of Parliament.”

As a lawyer, I know that that is not a common law principle, as I am sure most lawyers do. It is a constitutional principle. No one case decided that Parliament was sovereign. It is sovereign, and it cannot resile from that sovereignty.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not think that the Bill will do much directly for the cadets, except in so far as putting the military covenant in statute will make us focus on these issues more keenly. If there was one niggly point that I tried to make to the Labour Government when we were in power and would still make to this Government, it is that the sea cadets do not receive the amount of support that other cadet forces get directly from the relevant armed forces. That is a problem, especially because at the moment the sea cadets in the Rhondda spend almost all the money that they receive in support on just paying their insurance bill every year. I wonder whether we could ensure that the Ministry of Defence provides insurance support for all cadet operations. We could thereby release the sea cadets and other such forces to get on with their important work without having to spend all their time fundraising.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I could not agree more strongly with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The sea cadets are often the Cinderella of the cadets. Dover sea cadets are trying to buy the shed in which they train from the MOD but are having some difficulty. There is not the help that one would hope to see, so I echo and support his comments on the sea cadets.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for those comments and I will pass them on to Minerva in the Rhondda.

My other reason for wanting to take part in this debate is that Wales has a particular tradition of its own in relation to the armed forces, not only in successive wars but in producing a much higher quantity of young men and, increasingly, of young women to go into our armed forces than would be proportionate to its population. It is difficult, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, to get accurate statistics, but roughly 9% of the armed forces come from Welsh constituencies. That compares with just 5% of the UK population coming from Wales. There is, therefore, over-representation. That may in part be to do with the fact that we have higher levels of deprivation—multiple levels of deprivation —in certain parts of the country.

One of the ironies is that little of the time that Welsh personnel spend in the armed forces will be spent in Wales. They might have to go to Sennybridge. They might spend a very cold, wet, hideous, horrible time on the mountain tops in training, but the likelihood is that the vast majority of their time will be spent, even when they are in the UK, not in Wales but elsewhere.

I make a plea to the MOD and the Minister. I hope that he will be able to answer this later. When we are considering future bases in the UK, of course, as the Secretary of State said, the most important thing is ensuring the security of the realm. Every member of the armed forces would agree with that, but I argue that part of the military covenant is saying that deployment when at home, rather than when in theatre, should allow for a wider spread than is currently the case.

We have not mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme, but it is an important element of the way parliamentarians obtain information from those who have served or are reservists and from others from other backgrounds, and ensure that that informs our debate. In my time in the scheme, nearly everyone I met in the armed forces—this is not a partisan point—came from a Labour constituency, but all the sites we visited were in Conservative constituencies. That is not because anyone has decided to put them in Conservative constituencies; it is just because of a series of historical flukes. I urge the Government, as they consider what to do about the redeployment from Germany, to think about whether there is a base, for example, at St Athan, that might be used to base Welsh troops in Wales. I say that not as someone who supports a separation of Welsh armed forces from British armed forces but as someone who wants to reinforce the Welsh armed forces.

I believe that there are several elements to the covenant that are not mentioned in clause 2 but are equally important. We have debated one—equipment—at some length in the past few years, in particular because our troops are in theatre in Iraq and Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North said that he felt that the equipment he was given when he was last deployed was far more suitable and up to date than previously. He is right, but there is going to be a constant process of change.

Likewise, ensuring that our troops have the most up to date, effective training possible is important. Several hon. Members have referred to whether it is possible to unify posts between the three services in relation to the military police. I argue that we need to go much further and extend that combination of training. Those who have had an opportunity to visit Shrivenham will know that bringing the training of officers in the Army, Air Force and Navy together in one place, which was at one point thought unthinkable—the idea that the Royal Navy would leave Greenwich was believed to be unthinkable—has brought enormous dividends to all three services. Notwithstanding the decision that seems to have been made in relation to St Athan and defence training, we need to be able to do more of our training on a shared forces basis because there is more that each of the services can learn from each other.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has a long record of campaigning on veterans issues, for which I pay tribute to him. All too often, people think of veterans as people who served in the first or second world wars, but many of the veterans in my constituency are 25, 26 or 27 years of age and their service will not just be for the few years that they spent being paid by the armed forces; in terms of the psychological and physical issues that they have to deal with, their service will be for the whole of their lives. Not only will they be serving in that way, but their families will, too. He is right to point to the need for continuity of care beyond—in many cases far beyond—the day when someone goes into civvy street.

I caution the hon. Gentleman, however, as I tried to do earlier—this crops up quite regularly in our debates—about the difference between correlation and causation. For example, it is often argued that couples who co-habit and have children are far more likely to split up than those who marry and have children. It is factually true. The question is: is that because they got married, or because they are the kind of people who felt differently about the institution of marriage in the first place? In other words, is there correlation between these statistics, or is there causation?

That is where we need to be precise in relation to the ongoing care of those in the armed forces. Many of the young people who join the armed forces from the Rhondda go in with many of the problems that they will leave with. They go in, as we know, with lower levels of literacy, which is why the armed forces in recent years have had to do much more to ensure that our troops have a high level of literacy. Some of them will have difficulties with other educational issues that need to be addressed.

The point is that it is not necessarily because those people were in the armed forces that some of the problems follow. Where the problem is because they were in the armed forces—perhaps because their training was so effective that they do not realise the lethal nature of the punch that they could deliver compared with someone else—it is all the more important that the MOD and the whole of society take action to ensure that young people, as they go into the armed forces and see through their years in service, and when they leave, have the full support and training that they need.

I know that many others want to take part in the debate and I do not want to delay others from speaking any further, but I hope that the Minister will respond on the issue of Welsh troops being based in Wales because it is one of the ways that we can ensure that there is continuity for young people who are removed from the Rhondda to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who spend all their service career living in Wiltshire. When they are finished, they come back to the Rhondda—

European Union Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is a man of great integrity. I am sure that his integrity will see him through all the way to Thursday afternoon. He is absolutely right to say it is essential to British interests that we play a key role in the European Union, but the Bill will do nothing to assuage Euroscepticism; if anything, it is intended to enhance and inflame it. He said that the Bill is a coalition product as though that places some kind of trade mark on it. I look forward to the trade mark being planted on all coalition products, as it would automatically bring them into disrepute with most Conservative Members.

The hon. Gentleman referred to our having locked ourselves in the boot of a car with regard to Europe in recent years. It is very difficult to lock oneself in the boot of a car, but I think the Liberal Democrats feel a little as though they have managed to do that at the moment—or at least that they are being locked in the boot by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to other Government measures.

I shall let the House into a very small secret: I am slightly pro-European. Indeed, I am almost ludicrously pro-European for the very strong reason that in my lifetime Europe has embraced countries that have lived under dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, Greece and across the whole eastern bloc. In those countries, there was no right to freedom of association or freedom of speech, the death penalty was used ubiquitously and there was political repression. In future, we will all recognise that one of the European Union’s greatest successes is the fact that in all those countries there has been an aspiration for political freedom largely because of the EU’s success.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thought that the achievements in the countries the hon. Gentleman mentions were those of Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain and the United States.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think Margaret Thatcher had anything to do with the advance of freedom in Spain, Portugal or Greece. Mrs Thatcher achieved many things—in the Rhondda we are certainly aware of, and resent, many of them—but the hon. Gentleman cannot claim that the advance of freedom was because of her, except that she was pro-European; in that regard, she did do something in the interests of the whole of Europe.

My problem with the Bill is that it does not do what it says on the tin. It is not an effective referendum lock, which was the promise. Two or three hon. Members have already made the point, in questioning the Foreign Secretary, that the House has perfect freedom to amend these measures in future, so if a Minister wanted to advance legislation implementing some change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU, and if they thought it would offend against the measures in this Bill, they would have only to add a clause saying that the measures in this Bill did not apply. Of course they would have to take that change through both Houses, so there is an element of a brake, but the Bill is in no sense a substantial referendum lock.