Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I add my tributes to his. I also express my admiration for the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which does a fantastic job in informing and educating colleagues.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In July, the Government published a review of the treatment of LGBTQ+ veterans. The previous Secretary of State’s response to that won him many plaudits and his reaction was welcomed, but he did say that he would take his time to ensure we got things right. Can the Minister give us an update on when we can expect a response to the recommendations?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to raise that. At the time I said that the community should allow us time, but not too much time, and I am sure they will hold us to that. We will respond in full to the large number of recommendations, but we are broadly supportive of Lord Etherton’s work and there is much in it that we utterly agree with, plus some that we would like to add in the way of changes for the future.

Veterans Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend’s last point is incredibly valid. Yes, we train people all over the world to protect their societies, but what is the point if we do not also train them to uphold international humanitarian and human rights laws? On many occasions we do that. I once stood in Lebanon to listen to former British soldiers, under a British scheme, train the Lebanese army in human rights. That is incredibly important, otherwise what is it all for?

I understand my hon. Friend’s point about senior commanders, but it would be wrong to focus on only one cohort. Ultimately, the institutional organisation, culture and mindset—and society’s mindset that affected diplomats, the judiciary and everything else—were collectively responsible for the environment that led to this. As a rather junior officer I did not have a role and did not come across anyone who was going to be locked up or prosecuted, but I take responsibility as much as the senior people in the Department who made the policy.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement, and I sincerely welcome the manner in which it has been delivered. It shows the Defence Secretary’s leadership qualities, which have been all too lacking in many other leading politicians in recent times.

I pay tribute to my constituent Simon Hinchley-Robson, who urged me to bring his case to the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate. He was horribly physically abused after being outed by a doctor who had given him a medical examination, before being summarily dismissed from the RAF. He was denied his pension and his opportunity to serve his country. He, like many others, deserves redress.

What I do not want to see are the interminable cases we are seeing with contaminated blood, Grenfell and the Post Office. What can the Secretary of State say today to ensure that we do not see such delays and obfuscation in this case?

[Mr Wallace]

Some of the delay and obfuscation was driven by a rush to get a scheme that satisfies speed. The obfuscation is not always deliberate. We have seen a list of examples where things have been written incorrectly. I remember the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) campaigning on the vibration white finger scandal. The intention was good, but the lawyers were the ones who profited, so we have to get it right.

If the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) would like to write to me personally on behalf of his constituent, I will make sure of his pension rights, which were not taken away from these people. They may have been informed as such, so we must make sure that their pension rights have not been taken away. If there is a reason why they were taken away, I am very happy to explore making sure they are restored.

Ukraine: UK and NATO Military Commitment

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for that question, which shows that Putin is losing: his bluster is illustrative of his massive loss of confidence. He thought he was going to get less NATO because of this outrageous invasion, and he is getting more NATO. We very much look forward to Sweden and Finland, and their highly capable militaries, joining the alliance.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This argument of more for less that we are hearing from the Government is what we have heard from them in virtually every area of public expenditure, whether it be the health service, social care or local government services, or the cutting of 21,000 police officers that we were told would not result in a rise in crime, but did. Is the Minister aware that the 10,000 planned cut in troops will result in the smallest Army we have had since 1714? Should the Government not review that in the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

[Leo Docherty]

It is not more for less; it is doing more with more, because we have a £24 billion uplift. Defence expenditure is going up, and I hope the hon. Member appreciates that.

Ukraine Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is really about bilateral enabling rather than NATO, as an organisation, but he is right. In fact, the Ukrainians are after ground attack aircraft more than air-to-air ones, and so, rather than the MiG-29s, the Su-30s and those sorts of aeroplanes. I will certainly raise it tomorrow with my US counterpart when I see him. It is important, but at the moment we are focused on the deep long-range artillery.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

While taking nothing away from the incredible performance of the Ukrainian army in defending its country, we all cannot help but be struck by how completely useless the Russian forces seem to be and how inefficient in organising themselves in this campaign. Having said that, there are increasing reports of mercenaries being used by the Russians. To what degree are they involved in this conflict, and is there any way to prevent them from getting into positions where they can participate?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the Russians’ woeful performance. I do not celebrate the loss of anyone’s life, and when I see the huge casualty rates of Russian soldiers, I think, as a former soldier, that it is a disgrace and a betrayal of those young men. It is hard to have sympathy when clearly it is not just the generals who are engaged in the war crime and butchery that we have seen, but mothers and wives in Russia are left behind because the arrogance of generals, poor performance and corruption has led many of those young men to their deaths.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about mercenaries, yes, we see evidence of the Wagner Group now being actively deployed in Ukraine. We have seen some free Syrian fighters. We have seen media reports around Chechnya volunteers. The Wagner Group is a pain and a pest globally used—deniably, apparently, but it is not really that deniable—as an arm of the Kremlin. We have seen it in Africa. We see it in Mali now. We have seen it in Libya and elsewhere. The international community needs to come together to deal with the Wagner Group because whatever happens in Ukraine—its members are not getting very good kit and they are being some of the first to die, so it is not a great recruiting advert for it—it is going to be a problem that we have to deal with.

Ukraine Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I think there have been two major miscalculations by President Putin. The first was that his military was invincible and that the Ukrainian people would welcome him. His other major miscalculation was that somehow the international community was not united. He is wrong on that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish the Secretary of State well in his discussions with the Home Office—it is a hard nut to crack. I spoke with a constituent of mine over the weekend who has family in Irpin. When she asked me about a no-fly zone, I explained the situation to her, but the words came with some difficulty. Much as I support the position we are taking, when facing somebody who has family in a war zone, it is difficult to explain why we cannot intervene. She responded, “We need to be able to defend ourselves,” and said that they want access to more weaponry which we can supply to them. I know the Secretary of State is providing Starstreak high-velocity anti-air missiles and that he hopes that that will fall within the definition of defensive weapons. Is that definition a difficulty in providing the support that people in Ukraine are asking for, and is it something that will have to be kept under review?

[Mr Wallace]

That is always kept under review, depending on the actions of President Putin. I winced when the hon. Gentleman said the town was Irpin, because they are under daily artillery and missile bombardment, being literally flattened by the Russian forces. I can only pass on my support and hope for his constituent that she gets through this. We will do everything we can. When I speak to Ukrainians, it is about the outcomes they want. They do not want to be bombed, they do not want to be shelled and they want to be able to patrol their own skies. We think there are currently other ways of doing that without risking a wider war in Europe, and that is why we think it is important. Some of the mass devastation we see comes from artillery and missiles rather than the air, so we must find other ways of dealing with those.

Ukraine

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We are hosting the 10 nations of the joint expeditionary force, which includes the Nordic states plus Iceland and Holland, tonight and tomorrow at a summit. I have invited colleagues across the House, including Members on the Labour Front Bench and in the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats, because it is important that we recognise those countries’ importance to us as our allies. They are the ones on that frontline. My hon. Friend is right that they will be the ones most worried; some of them are territories that President Putin and his like have often felt are not territories. As I have said before, we should look at President Putin’s essay from July last year. That is one of the consequences, I fear, of President Putin being successful in Ukraine. Where will the ripples land next? We will need forces for that. We have been managing to double that up into a brigade. The enhanced forward presence is currently four multinational battlegroups; I suspect that it will grow. We will be open to more suggestions.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We should be moving against Russian dirty money in the City of London, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. I do not doubt the determination to deal with it that the Secretary of State has expressed today, but the lack of activity suggests that others in the Government do not share that determination. Can he assure us that should there be an invasion, even tonight, we are ready to take action against that dirty money?

[Mr Wallace]

It will not have been missed by anyone in this House that we are all vulnerable not only to dirty money, but to illicit lobbying or influence by foreign agents—all of us in this House. We have to wake up to the threat of sub-threshold challenges, whether those are money, corruption or political interference—all of us. I am not going to throw stones in glass houses, but all Conservative Members and all Opposition Members know what that looks like. We have to have more transparency, as the beginning of that process, and we have to enact some of the laws that we already have. I would be very happy, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to engage with the National Crime Agency to see what more we can do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The United Kingdom supports the French forces and Operation Barkhane in Mali with a squadron of Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. At the same time, we also have some 300 British forces deployed on the UN multi-dimensional integrated stabilisation mission in Mali, which is one of the most dangerous UN deployments, to help nation building and peacekeeping. We also talk about the threat through intelligence channels, and we are both concerned about the Russian mercenary group Wagner, which is now appearing in many parts of west Africa.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

9. How many people have been assessed as being eligible for support under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy since 28 August 2021.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

Since 28 August, 7,900 applications have been made to the ARAP scheme, of which 900 appear eligible from the MOD’s perspective. Obviously, there are Home Office checks that need to follow, and 50 applicants have thus far completed their Home Office checks and are being advised on how to proceed.

[Clive Efford]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I have cases of people who worked for the Afghan supreme court, the Afghan Government or the Afghan armed forces. Clearly, they assisted in our operations in Afghanistan. Surely the Minister accepts that these people are at severe risk and should qualify under category 1 of ARAP, yet they have been refused. In the figures he has just cited, how many people who clearly qualify for ARAP have been turned down?

[James Heappey]

I have just given the numbers for those who have applied since 28 August. I completely accept that there will be interpretation but, having looked at a number of cases that we have been invited to review at ministerial level, I am satisfied that the right judgments are being made. I know that is a disappointment to many hon. Members who are working hard to support people in Afghanistan whom they consider to be at risk but, under the ARAP scheme, it is not possible for us to bring out everybody who has had a connection with UK armed forces. That is why the terms were set as tightly as they were. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to look at any particular cases, I look forward to having that in writing and I will do what I can.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I suggest that Iraq 2003 ranks with Suez in a catalogue of British foreign policy disasters. It cost the lives of more than 200 British nationals and many tens of thousands of Iraqi nationals and citizens, and set in train a terrible sequence of events, including a vicious civil war and a fundamental alteration in the balance of power in the region. Thirteen years later, we are still living with many of those consequences.

Given that I resigned from the shadow Front Bench in 2003 to vote against the war, I suppose it could be said that it marked a pivotal point in defining my political career, such as it has been, so for me it has been of rather more than passing interest to observe the progress of the Chilcot report. I defended the time that Sir John Chilcot took, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him and his team for the thoroughness of the report.

As a former soldier, I believe that, whatever has been said previously, war should always be the measure of last resort, to be taken when all other possibilities have been exhausted. We should never lose sight of that simple fact. Of course there is such a thing as a just war, but at the same time we owe it to our citizens, to our Parliament and, above all, to the soldiers whom we are committing to battle to recognise that it must be the measure of last resort. In my view, the overriding, the most important and the most damning conclusion of Sir John’s report was that Iraq was not, in fact, that last resort and that other possibilities had not been exhausted.

The report made other points. It said that the premise on which we went to war—the existence of weapons of mass destruction—was oversold and that there was a discarding of caveats attached to the intelligence. It referred to a lack of preparedness in respect of our armed forces, to deficiencies in equipment and to an absence of post-war planning, all which have been touched on before. That litany of errors was compounded by an overestimation of our influence over the United States. We could not, at the time, believe that it could be in our interests not to be on the frontline. I think that one of the proudest and best moments for Prime Minister Wilson was when he said no to the Americans over Vietnam. That did not fracture the so-called special relationship, which, within 15 or 20 years, was on a very firm footing indeed.

I do not intend to look back at all the errors in that litany, but I suggest that there are two key lessons from this episode on which we would do well to reflect. First, Parliament should have done more to question the evidence put before it. That was a failure at almost every level. If the legislature does not examine the evidence and question the Executive at times like that, when is it going to do so? There was also the failure of those in the know—at all levels, in my view, but particularly in the Cabinet—to challenge what was being presented to the public. I think that the one figure who stands proud among that select group of people in the Cabinet is Robin Cook. Everything that he said during that eventful debate in 2003 has been proved right. I contributed to that debate as well, but his was one of the best speeches that I had heard for a very long time.

We should have questioned more. We should have examined the detail. I was told to stop asking awkward questions, but we, the official Opposition, were asking so few awkward questions that it was suggested to me from the other side that we were trying to play political games with the issue, perhaps hoping that, if it blew up in the Government’s face, we could take advantage of the fact. That is how bad it got during that debate in 2003. We were simply not asking enough questions, and we should have done so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I was here in 2003, and I was one of those who rebelled against the leader of my party and voted against action in the Iraq war. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous, because it was one of the biggest rebellions that there had been against a Government from that Government’s side.

I remember how difficult it was to make that judgment against the leader. When someone is being led by a party leader whose judgment they respect, it is a tough call to say, “I am going to disagree, and vote against action of that kind.” I had a difference of opinion, and I have had no cause to change my mind about the decision that I made, but can the hon. Gentleman not accept, as I do, that the people who made those decisions did so believing that they were doing the right thing?

[Mr Baron]

I do not think that we are saying different things. I am not suggesting that there was intentional deceit. What I am suggesting is that many of us in this place did not question sufficiently the evidence that was before us. The report from the Joint Intelligence Committee was full of caveats and holes, yet we relied on the Prime Minister’s interpretation, which was given in his foreword to the report.

I fully respect Members’ views as expressed on that fateful evening itself. If one cannot trust the Prime Minister, standing at the Dispatch Box making the case for war and, perhaps, privy to intelligence that we have not seen, it is a sad turn of events. However, I must return to the fundamental point that we should have questioned more, because there was a firm lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and such evidence was the premise for war. We must not forget that central consideration.

The reason the United Nations inspectors were pleading for more time, by the way, was that they could not find any weapons of mass destruction, and they could not find them because they did not exist. We should remember that it was the UN that was asking us to give it more time. The problem was that, at that point, we were marching to a military timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that, and he is right. This is why it is important to set out the context of what that day was like. It was a horrible, ugly, dreadful day, and we can never get around some of the things that went on.

Let me get on to the Conservatives, as the second category is mainly comprised of them. I have listened to several Conservative Members. I cannot recall which one made this case earlier, but there is a sense among Conservative Members that they were misled. They range from those who are angry and upset about the way they were duped by the former Prime Minister, to those like the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), who resigned as Prime Minister yesterday, who are a bit more morose and philosophical about it. They say, “A Prime Minister was giving us information. We had to go along with it because it was a Prime Minister and of course he will know all this.” What the Conservative party failed to do—it absolutely failed to do this on that day—was hold that Labour Government to account; it did not question and it was not inquisitive. It did not look at the case presented to it and say, “Hold on a minute, this is a lot of nonsense.” It should have known—the rest of the country knew this was wrong.

Some 100,000 people marched through Glasgow—I was at the front of that procession with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—and 1 million people in London marched against that war. More than that, there was an atmosphere in the nation among the public, who just knew profoundly that something was wrong with this case. They knew instinctively that what they were hearing night after night from Tony Blair and all his cronies was uncomfortable—there was something wrong. The Conservatives should have picked that up. Had they done their job, we would not have been presented with this utter failure and disaster.

Let me now deal with those in the third and last category, and I have listened to some of them today. They seem almost still to be making the case for war, as if that was somehow justified and right. They point to all sorts of things, saying, “The world’s a better place without Saddam.” Well, of course it is, but what a price we have paid. What world do these people live on? We have seen half a million people dead; a region destabilised; a generation radicalised; foreign policy discredited like never before—and it is unlikely that we will ever restore that faith in foreign policy again; and distrust in politics. That was a key point when the public fell out of trust with what we did in this House. And what about the place where Saddam was removed? Of course, we all welcome that, but no one, least of all the Iraqis who have to live with the consequences, would start to suggest that Iraq is a better place now than in 2002.

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman just said that this decision led to the public losing faith in this House, but many of the accusations that were made against the Government are not found in the Chilcot report. Those led to people coming to that conclusion about this House. Does he not accept that that day was difficult for all of us? Even those who voted against were not certain that we were making the right decision. We cannot be so exact about our judgment call on that day. Surely he can accept that those who voted in favour did so believing that they were doing the right thing. At least he could be graceful about that.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, as it brings me on to my next point, which is that we should look at the case for the war. I believe he was in the House in 2003—

[Clive Efford]

indicated assent.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman, like me, will therefore have been recalled to Parliament in September 2002. We would march to the Members’ Lobby and take out what has become known as “the dodgy dossier”. Did he, for a minute, believe the fabricated nonsense it contained? The case for war was appalling. As we find out from Chilcot now, most of it came from the post-doctoral thesis of a student called Ibrahim al-Marashi. I have just read a report from him, and he is now saying that his evidence and his post-doctoral work were doctored by the Government at the time. That was the case for war—the hon. Gentleman had to make a judgement on it, as did I—and it was nonsensical. It was fabricated and it was a flight of fancy, but it was what we were asked to go to war on. It was a disgrace. This was like a comedy sketch for a case to go to war on; it was more sexed up than some teenage starlet embarking on their first video. That is what I would say about the dodgy dossier. It was an appalling document and this House should never have been taken in for a minute with the rubbish included in it.

I listened to Tony Blair last week and I was appalled at what I heard in his response: the lack of contrition; the half-hearted apology, which will probably do nothing other than incense the victims; the flights of fancy still there, almost with an attempt to rewrite several sections of the Chilcot report; and the failure to acknowledge the enormity of what was unleashed. What happened was appalling, and so several things now have to happen.

My view is that we are not at the end of the process, despite having had 1 million-odd words; there is still a journey to go in this sorry saga in which this House has been involved. We are not at the conclusion in terms of what happened in Iraq. That is mainly because of a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) have raised: Chilcot was not able to judge on the legality of this conflict. We still have that extra mile to go to see whether this was an illegal war. Until we get that verdict, big issues will remain outstanding on the assessment of the conflict. There are further journeys to go on, which may disappoint hon. Members who have waited years and years for the Chilcot report.

The second thing that must happen is that those who are responsible for the biggest foreign policy disaster ever—this is bigger than Suez—must be held to account for the decisions they made, for the things they did in the course of the conflict and for how it was pursued. I overwhelmingly support the case that the chief architect—the designer—of the Iraq war, Mr Tony Blair, should be brought in front of this House to face the charges that have been suggested. I hope that the House gets that opportunity to discuss this, because the public expect us to do it. They do not want us, after all this time, to let it go. The only people who have lost their jobs in the course of the conflict are two BBC journalists. Is that not an appalling way to leave things? That has to be addressed and I believe that there is a real public desire to move to the next stage now, which is holding people to account. I hope we do that.

I hated every minute of the debate about the Iraq war—the build-up to it and the post-conflict resolution. It was dreadful; it was this House at its worst. We must never get there again. If there is one thing we can take from this, it is to learn lessons and never to do this again. We must hold the people responsible to account. We must apologise for that conflict and start to try to move on from all of this. Let us vow that we will never do something like the Iraq war ever again in this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend’s recollection is the same as mine. My recollection is that, prior to the debate and the statement by the Prime Minister, which was criticised by the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), the Conservatives had been calling for action earlier, before that evidence was presented. For them to turn up now and say that it was all because of what Tony Blair said on that day is a little disingenuous.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I would not go quite that far, because I am more kindly than my hon. Friend. My recollection is that the Leader of the Opposition got this completely and utterly wrong. The official Opposition failed in their constitutional duty to ask the difficult questions and hold the Government to account. It was left to other parties in the House and the Labour Back Benchers to hold the Government to account. The failure of the official Opposition to challenge the Prime Minister and the Government effectively made his wrong decision easier. This is a big lesson for the official Opposition today.

There were a number of things that the Government did right on the Iraq issue. For example, they did hold a vote. It should be remembered that that was, I think, the first time that that had happened.

First World War Commemoration

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This has been a very fitting and moving debate. I always feel that the House is at its best on such occasions. I cannot, in the time available, do credit to all the speeches. We heard from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and the hon. Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Stone (Mr Cash), for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). All I can say is that it is an honour to have taken part in this debate with them.

How we should approach this commemoration is symbolised by Harry Patch’s insistence that German and British veterans should carry his coffin. For the past 20 years, long before I became a Member of Parliament, I have been attending the remembrance service in Eltham. Over the years, it has become a much more diverse affair. In fact, the people who attend nowadays represent the diversity of the armed forces who took part in the first world war more than they ever have in previous years. It is a real community event with everyone coming together. More recently, we have been happy to welcome a large contingent of the Gurkha community, and it is a pleasure to see how their presence is warmly welcomed by the entire community. British Future’s publication about the first world war refers to

“the graves…of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus lying side by side, just as”

they

“had fought side by side”.

It is often at these times in the field of human conflict that humanity shows its greatest attributes. Whether it is the brotherhood of those diverse cultures or the symbolic events that took place in no man’s land at Christmas 1914, there is more in human nature that binds us than divides us. When Harry Patch sadly passed away in 2009, we lost one of the last direct connections with the British soldiers who fought so bravely in that war. Our generation will be the last to have had direct contact with these soldiers. We must therefore reflect on how the 150th anniversary might be remembered.

When this Chamber suffered a direct hit from a German bomb during the second world war, Winston Churchill instructed that some of the rubble from the bomb damage be incorporated in the renovated Chamber of the House of Commons to remind us not only of the fortitude of those who fought in that war but the damage and harm that was inevitably caused by wars. So this Chamber itself, in a way, has a form of remembrance. That is a reminder that we, as politicians, must exhaust every political and diplomatic avenue before we ever consider sending our armed forces into harm’s way. War is a breakdown of the political process and, as such, can only be the last resort in any conflict.

It has been an honour to take part in this debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and what he has done to bring us to this point. I also pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, to the Imperial War Museum, to the BBC for what it has planned over the next four years, and to all the countries of the Commonwealth that will be doing so much to help us to mark this important event in our collective history.

Forty-one million British people lived through the first world war while what was described as the flower of British youth went off to fight. Nine million soldiers lost their lives and 16 million people died overall. For them, we must be a nation at our best when commemorating these events. We must lay the foundations for future generations to go on learning the lessons of just how devastating war can be. If we can achieve that, we will have achieved something that is worthy of those whom we aim to remember.

Defence Responsibilities

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am sure that is correct, but although we may understand that, it does not allow any of us to absolve ourselves of our responsibility to ensure that it is fully transparent and understandable. As I said in a previous answer, although the code is clearly set out, we must now ensure that we put in place processes that make it properly waterproof.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It would appear that if anyone wanted to breach the Secretary of State’s security arrangements all they had to do was check the travel plans of Mr Werritty. Can the Secretary of State take me through this: one day Mr Werritty just happened to be in a Dubai restaurant at the table next to that of somebody who had a pecuniary interest in defence procurement and defence expenditure—Mr Boulter—and that just happened to be the day before the Secretary of State was passing through Dubai? We are being asked to accept that, but can the Secretary of State say—I did not hear his answer earlier on—how Mr Werritty knew of the Secretary of State’s travel arrangements?

[Dr Fox]

Very simply, because I told Mr Werritty, who was in Dubai with his girlfriend at the time, that I would be passing through and that we should meet up. The hon. Gentleman will have to take my word for it that there was a chance meeting with Mr Boulter, and I think that that is perfectly reasonable. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying, “It is classified”, but we are allowed to tell our friends and family where we are going to be as Ministers, because all Ministers, in ministerial down time, will want to try to get their diaries to coincide. If the Opposition are saying that we can never, as Ministers, divulge to anybody—friend or family—what is in our diary, that is an utterly ridiculous position to take.