ISIL in Syria

Debate between Derek Twigg and James Gray

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

There is a group of us on the Labour Benches who are caught between two points: we are not opposed to taking action—indeed, we want to take action—but we do not feel that the strategy is in place.

We are making a decision today based not just on airstrikes, but on an overall strategy. Let me say from the outset that I am under no illusion that there is a perfect strategy, given the complex circumstances of the civil war and insurgency in Syria. There is no certainty in the middle east. We all want to protect our citizens and reduce the threat of Daesh, but I am afraid that a few more airstrikes will not do that. Some of its actions may not even be planned from Syria. We lack an overall strategy to confront ISIS/Daesh, which is established in other countries such as Libya. I want to make it clear again that I am not opposed to military action, but I will support it only if I believe that there is a reasonable chance of success.

I do not believe the argument that bombing Daesh in Syria will somehow greatly increase the chances of a terrorist attack in the UK, nor the argument that the Government are proposing the indiscriminate bombing of Syrians. Those arguments are both wrong.

I understand the argument that we are currently restricted to Iraq, but we were clearly invited into that country by an elected Government and we have forces on the ground. That is not the situation in Syria, which is much more uncertain and complex. We do not have the ground forces in Syria that I believe we should have.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman and I visited Iraq together last year. The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi army is totally destroyed. There were no ground forces in Iraq, leaving aside the peshmerga, any more than there are ground forces in Syria.

[Derek Twigg]

I do not think we can leave aside the peshmerga. The hon. Gentleman may also recall that the Sunnis need arming in Iraq. The Prime Minister keeps agreeing to do that and saying that it is the right thing to do, but we never hear what happens about it. There is therefore a lot more that we could be doing in Iraq. The fact is that there are armed forces that we support, whether the peshmerga or the Iraqi army, on the ground in Iraq when we carry out airstrikes. That is the difference with Syria.

The Prime Minister says that it is important that we stand by our allies. That argument has been stressed to me by some of my colleagues who support the Government’s position. It is a strong point. My response is that doing the right thing must be the primary reason for our decision. Does the strategy proposed by the Government add up? After all, the French, who are an important ally, did not support our decision to go into Iraq. That was a perfectly reasonable position for them to take because they did not think it was the right thing to do. That comes back to my point that we must do the right thing. It is also said that we should not rely on our allies to bomb Syria, but it is not as if we are doing nothing. As I have said, we are doing a lot in Iraq.

On the issue of whether there are 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground, we know that a large number of those groups are less than moderate and more Islamic, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday. There remains considerable uncertainty about how reliable they will be in the fight and what they might bring to any peace negotiations or future Government. Many of the moderates are simply fleeing Syria.

The Prime Minister, in his speech last week, set out the progress of the coalition’s actions in Syria. I welcome the fact that there has been progress. There was also progress at the International Syria Support Group meeting in Vienna. The pathway leading to elections, which the Prime Minister set out, is not tied down. It still leaves the question of what to do about Assad.

The Prime Minister’s memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that there were “differences to resolve”. Yesterday, I asked the Foreign Secretary what those differences were. By way of example, he said that the Russians want to shore up the Assad regime to take on Daesh. That is a pretty big difference from where we are.

Finally, I come to the issue of ground troops, which some opponents of military action will use as cover for not doing anything. That is certainly not my position. I have been consistent on this matter from the start. It is a major stumbling block to my support for the motion. We should look at the example of Iraq, where a concerted campaign against al-Qaeda using drones and US and UK special forces had considerable success. However, that also involved a surge of tens of thousands of American troops on the ground.

The Government have said that ground troops will be needed, but they do not say when and have ruled out the use of British ground troops. It appears wrong to embark on this strategy without having any ground troops or a coherent explanation of when there will be some, who they will be or how many there will be. What assessment have the Government made of the number of ground troops that will be needed and what other military assets will be needed?

It gets more complicated, because the Government say that there is no military solution and that only a political solution will stop the civil war in Syria. What if Assad refuses to go? Is that realistic? I do not believe that we can have one without the other. I am clear that the UN needs to agree to put a huge coalition force in the hundreds of thousands into Syria to stop the civil war and maintain safe areas, while at the same time putting in place a political strategy that is achievable. Preferably, as many Muslim countries as possible should send in their soldiers. A firm deal with Russia and Iran will be needed.

The Government have not convinced me that there is a wider strategy or that this action has a reasonable chance of success. Instead, I think we will have to gradually up our involvement in a piecemeal way and that we will find ourselves in a much more complex situation even than Iraq. I disagree with those in the Government who argue that we would somehow make ourselves less secure by not taking such action. I would support action if I felt that it was feasible and deliverable. At the same time, the Government have cut our armed forces and our police force, which are important in maintaining our security.

I believe that ISIL/Daesh needs to be confronted. It must be defeated ideologically and militarily. It is therefore essential to our security and that of the middle east that the Prime Minister comes forward with a strategy that has a reasonable chance of success. He has not done so today and he must come back with a better plan.

Department for Education Offices (Runcorn)

Debate between Derek Twigg and James Gray

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I do not intend to take all the time that would normally be taken in such debates, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) has a key interest, because his constituency is affected. Therefore, I will cut down the time I have to speak.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

That will be quite in order with me, as long as the hon. Gentleman has the permission of the Minister to do so.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

In that case, that is fine.

[Derek Twigg]

The Department for Education announced on 13 November 2012 its intention to close Castle View house in Runcorn, which is owned by the Department as a freehold property. It proposes to transfer the work to Manchester. The Runcorn site accommodates 450 staff, including 222 Department for Education staff, private sector support staff, staff from other Departments—including the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—and staff from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and national health service procurement staff. Civil service jobs—originally with the Department of Employment—have been based at the site, and previously at the building next door, for more than 40 years, providing an important source of good-quality jobs in the borough of Halton.

The Department has identified the following key areas on which to test its proposal: cost and value for money, needs of the business, estates policy, the effect on staff and the wider socio-economic impact. I will address each area individually, but first, what about the overall handling of the issues by the Department for Education? There was no business case on which to justify a closure, and it was made clear to staff from the beginning that it was highly unlikely that the proposal would be changed, despite a consultation being launched later. Even when I, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and David Parr, chief executive of Halton borough council, met the DFE permanent secretary to discuss the proposal, we came away with a view that the decision was a fait accompli.

I am sure that most independent-minded people would find it odd that there was no business case to base the proposal on. The key arguments made for closure and transfer of the work to Manchester do not remotely stand up to scrutiny, as I shall argue. It is fair to state that the staff and unions have believed for some years that there has been an agenda in the senior management to close down the Runcorn operation for reasons that we could never get to the bottom of. I think the DFE wants the closure now because it fits in with the image that it wants to project of being ahead of the game in Whitehall on how to cut costs, and, therefore, it will be held up as a template for other Departments. The problem for the Department for Education is that the change will not save the taxpayer anything.

In terms of cost and value for money, of the 12 DFE sites, Castle View house is the second least expensive. The cost per person for Castle View house is £2,545. The cost for Piccadilly Gate in Manchester—the building that it is proposed to move the jobs to—when comparing like for like is £4,583 per person. The Department suggests that the refurbishment of Castle View house would cost £500,000. A qualified property survey carried out by Halton borough council suggests that the figure would be nearer to £30,000 to £50,000, depending on whether decoration was undertaken. Castle View house is a modern building with excellent facilities and good IT infrastructure. The Department did not factor in the income from sub-tenants in the figures that it based its original closure proposals on.

I have also been informed today that the Public and Commercial Services Union met the Department on Monday in London to talk about staff relocation costs. The DFE has now accepted that it will have to support Runcorn staff with travel costs of up to £4,250 each year—a significant increase, I understand—to cover travel costs on other, longer routes than the very congested Runcorn East line.

We have not yet seen all the Department’s figures for relocation. The Manchester building that the Department is proposing to move staff to will be demolished as a result of High Speed 2, as I am sure the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will point out, incurring more cost for the taxpayer. Further, we can add to that the cost of running an empty building when a re-let is unlikely, according to Halton borough council, in the short to medium term. The DFE already has an empty site next door to Castle View house.

Let us consider the business need. The suggestion was that Manchester had a wider-ranging skills base, but that has not been evidenced or tested other than by the fact that a number of other Departments are based there. Similarly, the assertion by the DFE that Manchester would attract better staff is flawed—again, where is the evidence? The Runcorn site offers a range of skilled staff, holding degree-level and professional qualifications. The public communications unit at Runcorn offers a centre of excellence. A skills audit by the PCS of its members showed that, among the staff who responded, 139 professional qualifications were held.

It is accepted that Manchester has very good travel connections, but it is quicker to travel to London from Runcorn. There are also local lines to Liverpool, Manchester and Chester. The M56 is only a few minutes from Castle View house and also gives quick access to the M62 and the M6.

On being able to attract and retain good-quality staff at Runcorn, we have only to look back to the heyday of the Runcorn site in the 1980s and early ’90s, when nearly 1,000 staff were employed there. That is a clear indication that staff with good skills can be attracted.

I want to examine the effect on staff. It goes without saying that the morale of this loyal and hard-working work force has been badly affected by the proposal, but also by the way the Department has handled it. The closure of Castle View house will also impact more on the lowest-graded and lowest-paid staff, and those who are made redundant will find it hard to get another job, given the high unemployment in Halton.

The PCS union met departmental officials and representatives of Arriva Trains on 30 January. Arriva has confirmed that it cannot transport the required number of staff from Runcorn East station to Manchester at peak times. I understand that the Department has now accepted that and informed staff that it will explore “alternative options”. There are also few parking spaces at Runcorn East, where staff would travel from. That is a particular concern for disabled staff. A number of staff who live in Halton would have to make two bus journeys to get to the station.

On the socio-economic impacts, Halton is the 30th most deprived borough in the country and the areas that fall within the Halton Lea ward are some of the most deprived in England. Youth unemployment is particularly high in the area. There will be a wider impact on Halton through the largely retail-based employment in Halton Lea, which was known as Shopping City and which relies on the employee daytime population. Castle View house and those employed there are an important source of custom. Therefore, if employment is removed from the Halton Lea ward, wider employment in the ward will suffer. The wider impact on Halton will be worsened by the fact that a large proportion of Halton Lea’s work force live in Halton.

It is important not to forget that Halton Lea is a town centre, not just a shopping centre, and the Government have stated that they want to regenerate town centres. I hope that, when coming to a decision, the Minister will ensure that account is taken of wider Government policy on town centres.

It is important to highlight to the Minister the fact that support for retaining the DFE jobs from both the private sector and the public sector is very strong. That includes Halton borough council, the Liverpool City Region local enterprise partnership—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) is present for the debate—and Halton chamber of commerce.

To summarise, Castle View house is much cheaper to run than the Manchester Piccadilly Gate building. Closing the MPG building would save the DFE more money than closing Castle View house. Closing Castle View house would be an ongoing liability for the DFE. Staff at Castle View house would find it harder to find jobs in the locality. Closing Castle View house puts in jeopardy the other 200-plus non-DFE public sector jobs based there. The socio-economic impact on Runcorn and on the viability of Halton Lea shopping centre will be serious. There are serious issues about Runcorn staff being able to travel to Manchester and about the associated costs.

If, despite what is being said today, the Minister goes ahead and closes the DFE offices in Runcorn, I intend to write to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), to ask whether her Committee will investigate a decision that is obviously a waste of public money.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and I had the chance to meet the Secretary of State on 15 January—I am grateful to him—so that he could hear our case against closing Castle View house. I hope that the Minister will now go back and discuss with him the facts of the situation, which are unarguably weighted against the Department’s proposal to shut Castle View house.