International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Jim Murphy and John Bercow

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on that. He talks about his experience in Tanzania and the sense of pride in some of the remarkable achievements on international development under the previous Labour Government. Many hundreds of thousands of lives were saved and transformed. It is important that we take that impulse, instinct and record and try to enshrine them in law.

My third point is that promises without action mean nothing, which is why we must lead. Many other rich nations are not pulling their weight: the UN appeal for Syria is almost 60% underfunded; just five richer nations have hit the 0.7% target; and the second most generous G8 member state is France, with a figure of about 0.4%. That is not a reason for us to do less; it is a reason to convince others to do more. After a process begun by Labour and continued under this Government—again, I commend them for it—ours is the only G8 nation to hit the target. Just as we have built international coalitions in the past, we must do so again to urge others to go further.

My final argument is that we are not giving a blank cheque. A fixed commitment from the UK is no blank cheque for wasteful spending. Taxpayers’ money must be guarded in every Department, but in one where a small amount of money can save a life, every pound wasted is a lost opportunity to save a life. That is why we welcome the provisions being introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk in his Bill, and we look forward to discussing the details on the oversight in Committee.

Finally, this Bill honours a commitment our country gave more than four decades ago to the world’s poor. It is a promise we have reaffirmed time and again, and it is a law that each of the main parties promised to legislate for in our manifestos. Passing this Bill is without doubt the right thing to do, and we should go further. British aid should not be treated as some sort of hidden secret. At times it feels that the consensus in this House has never been stronger, but that very sense has contributed to a lack of a heated debate on aid, implying that there is complacency. Often with the British public it feels that we are losing an argument that we are not properly making. Protecting the DFID budget while most other Departments are being cut of course leads to some anxiety, but we have to make an argument. Not only is development investment saving lives abroad, but it is improving the chances of our own nation, and not only in terms of trading with newly prosperous countries: such investment can help make our people and our country safer. The careful investment of world-class diplomacy and world-leading development can sometimes avoid the painful cure of military action, denying the opportunity for inequality to grow where terrorism and those who wish us malevolence exploit the sense of worthlessness and hopelessness that visits far too many families.

We should be proud of what we are seeking to achieve today. A very small Bill, on just a few sheets of paper, will save many hundreds of thousands of lives of people we will never meet and whose names we will never know. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his Bill, and we will, in years to come, look back with a real sense of pride on what we are, together, achieving today.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the economy of his speech. It is just short of 11 am, but everybody is present and correct, and we shall now proceed with the urgent question.

Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4))

Points of Order

Debate between Jim Murphy and John Bercow

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I happily accept that offer from the Secretary of State. As he will know, I am principally concerned with matters of order and good form. Although in a human sense, no doubt, particular sites are of interest, they are not within my sphere of competence, and he knows that. What I am interested to hear about is the handling of the matter. He has given me a commitment on that, and I am grateful for it.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has just raised a point of order about Kilmarnock being on the list of reopened or opening sites. The only place in Scotland that is determined as a location appears to be in Edinburgh, which is nowhere near Kilmarnock. It seems that every Member of the House, including Ministers, was reading this list for the first time.

I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, because I was handed a copy of the Secretary of State’s oral statement as I arrived towards the end of Prime Minister’s questions, which is why I did not thank him for advance sight of it. The written statement was provided late. In fact, I have an e-mail from the House of Commons Library confirming that it arrived at 12.55 pm. That is well after the Secretary of State spoke and well after I spoke. When the House of Commons Library receives it only at 12.55 pm, something deeply untoward has happened. At 1 pm, a few minutes later, the supporting paperwork arrived.

Then, in the midst of all that, at about the same time, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), took it upon herself to scurry round the Chamber with a poor photocopy of documentation that we should have been provided with earlier. It does not have Kilmarnock on the list, so it was not only a rushed photocopy circulated informally but perhaps also incomplete.

My point of order, therefore, is to ask whether you would look kindly, Mr Speaker, on a request by the Minister for the Armed Forces to make a supplementary statement tomorrow in light of the fact that the weighty impact assessment arrived only in the past couple of minutes. No Member apart from myself and, I suspect, the Secretary of State is in possession of the impact assessment of the measures announced today. Would you look kindly, Mr Speaker, on a request by the Minister for the Armed Forces to make an additional statement tomorrow, so that this sordid mess can be clarified once and for all and so that we can have proper scrutiny?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a matter for Ministers to decide whether they wish to make oral statements to the House. As he will be aware, the convention whereby a Minister delivering an oral statement begins it by saying, “With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement”, is just a convention and, frankly, a courtesy that is, I think, on the whole appreciated by the House, but Ministers can make statements to the House when they wish. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to wait to see whether there is an offer of a statement, but there are various parliamentary devices open to Members to deliver the scrutiny that they think a particular measure warrants and everything ought to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps I can leave it there for now.

Bill Presented

Defence Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Secretary Hammond, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Danny Alexander, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Chris Grayling, Francis Maude, the Attorney-General and Mr Philip Dunne, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with any arrangements that may be made by the Secretary of State with respect to the provision to the Secretary of State of defence procurement services; to make provision relating to defence procurement contracts awarded, or amended, otherwise than as the result of a competitive process; to make provision in relation to the reserve forces of the Crown; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 84) with explanatory notes (Bill 84-EN).

Reserve Forces

Debate between Jim Murphy and John Bercow

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his officials for giving me advance briefing, but I am disappointed by the fact that we have been given only half a statement. The House does not have the luxury of possessing a list of the bases that the Government intend to close, because that has not been shared with Members on either side the House. It does not appear to be in the Library either, and it is not contained in the White Paper. I will happily accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether I should continue.

[Mr Speaker]

It is certainly open to the right hon. Gentleman to continue. If it was the Government’s intention that such further details should be available in the Vote Office and they are not, that is at the very least regrettable, and arguably incompetent. If it was not the intention for the material to be available, it should have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the Secretary of State can respond at this stage. He will have to do his best to respond to questions later, and we shall have to cope as best we can, but the situation is deeply unsatisfactory.

[Mr Murphy]

Is it your advice that I should continue, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that the House has not been provided with the information relating to the statement?

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order! I cannot take points of order in the middle of a statement.

The shadow Secretary of State is his own best adviser. He has material, he is a dextrous fellow, and I suggest that he will wish to continue.

[Mr Murphy]

Under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I shall of course do so, but I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will, like me, consider it utterly unacceptable that we are being expected to comment on a statement that has not been shared with the House. We have been told that a number of bases are to be closed—26, I understand—but the House is not in a position even to scrutinise any of the measures that have been advocated by the Government. I do not think that that is malevolent; I believe it to be utterly incompetent. However, on the basis of your advice, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue.

We support an enhanced role for the reserve forces, working alongside regulars to project force globally. Our reserves make an enormous contribution here at home in many ways, including the 2,000 who helped to protect the Olympics. Many serve overseas in faraway terrain in the name of national security. It is right that we pay tribute to each of those who have served, and above all to those who have lost their lives. It is even more important for us to reflect on their courage, professionalism and patriotism so soon after Armed Forces day.

While we champion reserve forces, we recognise the need to modernise. However, it is worrying that rather than synchronising the reform of the Army with that of the reserves, today’s announcement appears to have been belated. There are also fears that the reserves uplift is designed not to complement our Army, but to supplement lost capacity. Many people will reasonably want the Government to explain the defence rationale. They will want to know why the cuts in the regular Army are happening regardless of the success of any uplift in the reserves. Concern about that is only added to by the fact that the TA recruitment targets were missed by more than 4,000 last year.

Labour Members welcome much of today’s announcement—that which has been shared with the House—including the information about mental health. Increased training alongside regulars and investment in equipment will enhance reserves’ capability. Transferability of qualifications will encourage recruitment, and the change in the name is welcome. However, there will undoubtedly be concern and real hurt in the 26 as yet anonymous communities in which centres are being closed. We will examine the detail of that as soon as the Secretary of State and his team deign to share it with the House, as they have already shared it with the media.

There will be concern in certain parts of the country, particularly Scotland and south-west England, about some of the decisions that seem to have been reached. We have said repeatedly that we want, and the country needs, a reservist plan to succeed, but much of that will depend on getting the offer right for employers and reservists. A central challenge to be overcome is ensuring that reservists’ employment patterns are compatible with longer deployment periods, and that they do not face discrimination in the workplace. Service experience is an enormous asset to business, but despite that, a recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that one in three employers believed that nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the balance between transparency and security, particularly in respect of reservists in Northern Ireland? Will he also tell us what measures he will introduce to ensure that the employers who are least well equipped to absorb the impact of large-scale deployment, such as small businesses, are able to manage requests for leave?

Engagement with public sector employers is compulsory. We should not be inviting demands on the private sector that we would not make of the public sector. Will the Secretary of State explain how the process will be managed and monitored across Departments, and will he tell us how many Departments currently bill the Ministry of Defence for the cost of members of their work force who are deployed as reservists?

It is essential that those who volunteer to protect our country are protected in their workplace. The announcement on access to unfair dismissal tribunals is welcome, but, on discrimination at the point of hiring, I fear that the Secretary of State may be missing an opportunity. We need to get this right, rather than be rushed, but many will worry that time spent on consultation on the principle could be better used by consulting business on specific proposals.

A number of reservists who have recently lost their jobs will be on welfare. We have heard assertions from the Government on the bedroom tax and the armed forces that have turned out to be unfounded. I do not doubt Ministers’ intentions on welfare, but question the implementation, so for the purpose of clarity will the Secretary of State publish full detailed tables on how reservists in receipt of benefits or credits will be affected?

On niche specialisms, can the Secretary of State say more about how he would seek to recruit reservists with specialisms where there are current skills shortages, particularly in languages, with targeted recruitment among diaspora communities?

These reforms must succeed to fill the capability gaps, but, more importantly, they should mark a change in culture where we strengthen our front-line force with a greater and more integrated use of civilian expertise. Our modern forces must be as diverse as the threats we face, and that means having a new, high quality Army Reserve. In the interests of national security, we will work with the Government to make that a reality—but I wish to say again on behalf of the whole House how unacceptable I find it that I am expected to respond to a statement about the closures of bases, the detail of which was not shared with any Member of this House, whereas those who gather to record our proceedings have the full detail. It is a shameful way to behave, and occasionally Ministers have to have the courage to come and advocate their own policy in this Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and John Bercow

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy]

For the purpose of this question, I shall set aside the partisanship and ask the Minister about the issue again. When one in five members of our forces is shouted at in the street and almost as many are refused service in a pub, hotel or elsewhere, we must all go further. There are sensible examples of legal protections for other specific groups that go much further than the military covenant to protect against discrimination, harassment or abuse. In the light of the research, in the build-up to Armed Forces day and as part of these indulged in—or indulgent—all-party talks, will the Minister consider new legal protections for those who keep our country safe?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister should make particular reference to access to social housing.

Defence Treaties (France)

Debate between Jim Murphy and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The whole House joins the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the family of Sapper William Blanchard who died while showing remarkable bravery in serving our country. All our thoughts and many of our prayers are with his family and friends.

Today is historically important for our nation’s defence: our country is entering into two defence treaties with France. The treaties, which we are told will last for 50 years, cover aircraft carrier capability, shared nuclear infrastructure and joint rapid reaction capability. The UK media, the French media, the French National Assembly, and our allies in the United States and across world capitals have been informed of the contents of the agreement; with the announcements about this strategic shift in defence, it is a very real pity that the House of Commons seems to be the only place kept in the dark. After the summoning of the world’s media to Downing street to witness the signing of the agreements, I am sure that the Secretary of State does not mind being invited to Parliament to explain the Government’s thinking.

For almost 700 years, for historical reasons of the old alliance between Scotland and France, the House of Commons has traditionally had a degree of reticence about a Scot arguing for a military arrangement with France, but on this occasion most of us on both sides of the House support and welcome in principle further steps to improve what is already a very strong relationship. That approach makes sense for two strategic reasons. First, the UK and France face many common threats across the world, including global terrorism, cyber-security and piracy on the high seas. Secondly, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, the UK and France have unique capacities. They are the two largest investors in defence capability in Europe and among the highest in the world, significant players in the EU and the only two EU member states with permanent seats at the UN, as well as our independent nuclear deterrent.

In supporting this general approach of closer co-operation, I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. I seek an absolute guarantee that the agreements that have been entered into today do not place any limitation whatever on the UK’s ability to act independently in all circumstances in the protection of our unique interests across the world, including the defence of our overseas territories and in respect of the deployment of our armed forces or our military assets.

Turning to the specific agreement on aircraft carriers, the Government’s intention is to share capacity when our respective carriers are in refit. The UK is currently building two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. As we understand it, one of our carriers will be placed in extended readiness. The question that many will be asking is what guarantees we have, when it is France’s responsibility to provide carrier capability, if we disagree.

We hope and expect that the UK and France will increasingly find common cause, but there is no guarantee that that will be the case in all circumstances over the next 50 years. Reflection on even the past few years shows that that was not the case on the Falklands, Desert Fox in 1998, Sierra Leone and of course the Iraq war. Can the Secretary of State give some assurances about guarantees of UK capability and support?

Are the treaties legally binding on both the United Kingdom and France? If they are, who adjudicates in the event of a dispute about legal purpose and meaning? The seven-sentence written ministerial statement that the Prime Minister tabled to the House today states:

“The treaties will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.”

May I invite the Secretary of State to say a little more, based on what he has already said, about how that will be handled?

In opposition, the Conservative party tabled motions to amend multilateral European treaties. In the light of that, is it the Government’s view that the treaty is amendable by Parliament now or in the future? In the light of the Government’s commitment to have five-yearly defence and security reviews, will it be necessary to update the treaties as the capabilities of the two nations are adjusted every five years?

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about nuclear co-operation. I welcome the commitment to bring greater efficiencies in infrastructure for our nuclear capabilities, but can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that that does not in any way jeopardise the bilateral arrangement between ourselves and the United States and the 1958 mutual defence agreement?

On employment, the Secretary of State spoke about access to markets. Will he say a few words about sovereign intellectual capability and employment as a consequence of today’s announcement? Will he guarantee, for example, that when the UK carrier goes in for a refit, that will take place in a UK shipyard? Has he been able to persuade the French that their carrier should go into a UK yard as well?

Finally—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. May I very gently say that the Secretary of State modestly exceeded his allotted time, and the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) has rather significantly exceeded his allocated time? [Interruption.] No, that is the end of it. In future we must stick to these times, otherwise it is grotesquely unfair on Back-Bench Members. The times are known. The times are communicated both to the Government and to the Opposition, and they must be followed. That is the end of it.