Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Williamson and Patrick Grady

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)]

Leaving the European Union with a deal remains the Government’s top priority. We will work in an energetic and determined manner to get the very best deal, and a better deal than has previously been put to this House. We are supporting the sector to manage the transition through Brexit, including providing reassurance on participation in EU-funded programmes, future migration arrangements and access to student support.

[Patrick Grady]

The right hon. Gentleman was always energetic and determined when he was the Government Chief Whip and we worked together. What reassurances can he provide to the University of Glasgow in my constituency, which is having to issue emergency advice in the event of a no deal? It is reminding research teams to conduct inventories of their materials in case it is not possible to pre-order perishable goods such as gases. It is reminding staff and students

“that, in the event of a no-deal withdrawal, EU countries may not admit individuals with passports which are due to expire within six months of the date of travel.”

This is the kind of debilitating effect it is having. Would it not be better to accept the inevitable, and rule out no deal and ask for the extension now?

[Gavin Williamson]

We have worked and will continue to work closely with higher education institutions, including the University of Glasgow, to ensure, if we do leave without any deal with the European Union, that all mitigations are put in place. I very much look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman in this role as I did when we were both Chief Whips together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Williamson and Patrick Grady

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

25. How much and what proportion of his Department’s expenditure he estimates will count towards the Government’s 0.7% of GDP aid spending target in 2018-19.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)]

I must confess that I did not expect to get to this question.

[Gavin Williamson]

Official development assistance, or aid, exists to support the welfare or economic development of recipient countries. As such, military activity can be reported as aid only in certain very limited circumstances, as defined by the OECD. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defence budget assumes £5 million a year—0.01% of the budget—for activity that may be counted as aid.

[Patrick Grady]

Thank you for getting through the Order Paper, Mr Speaker.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that none of the money spent financing the recent military action in Syria will be in any way counted towards the aid budget?

[Gavin Williamson]

I can confirm that is the case. Sometimes with a certain element of sadness, much of what the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces do cannot be counted towards aid expenditure. Our peacekeeping in South Sudan and our hurricane relief operation in the Caribbean alone come to £100 million-worth of expenditure. None of that can be counted as humanitarian aid and support, which I think all of us in this House would agree it most certainly is.

Modernising Defence Programme

Debate between Gavin Williamson and Patrick Grady

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

And very fine engines they are! We have had a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent for almost 50 years. The work of our submariner force inevitably goes unnoticed—that is the aim—but what they do to protect our country is truly magnificent. Without their commitment and dedication, the country would be a lot less safe.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This is the first chance I have had to welcome my former opposite number from the Whips Office to the Dispatch Box. May I ask him at what point Trident would become a burden on the defence budget, or indeed on the budget of the whole country? Surely, if it takes up a greater proportion of our defence spending, it will put pressure on conventional forces and put us in harm’s way, rather than keeping us safe.

[Gavin Williamson]

I dearly miss my former honourable counterpart and the work that we did together as Chief Whips. The continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is a vital part of our defence and we should never see it in isolation. People often talk about it without recognising that it is part of the whole spectrum of deterrence, involving the infantry, Royal Navy frigates and destroyers, Royal Air Force helicopters and fast jets and the British Army itself. The continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is an integral part of all that, and if we got rid of it, we would make Britain less safe. We have to have it. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed it, because it brings an awful lot of wealth, prosperity and jobs to Scotland. On this side of the House, we are very proud of that.