Situation in the Red Sea

Debate between John Healey and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

One way in which one can stretch the terms of the debate a little further than its precise wording without infringing any rules is to remark upon the fact that in the Red sea, British naval assets are particularly important. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there should be no question, now or in the near or medium future, of our losing our amphibious assault ships, which are so necessary for the combined operations that one must engage in when taking on piratical opponents?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Perfectly done, Sir Julian.

[John Healey]

One other way of stretching the limits of a tightly drawn debate is experienced interventions of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated. One advantage of debates such as this is that we hear from the Government not just at the start of the debate, but at the end, so we can look forward to the Minister picking up and responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s question when he winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has insights into the situation that are rare, even in this House, from his own experience and his particular interest. He is totally right. It is not just about the risks of Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq: the Iranian interests in Iraq, and the attacks on American bases and personnel—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some of those bases are shared with UK personnel—constitute one of the flashpoints and risks of wider escalation. Mercifully, none of those attacks has led to any deaths, but they have led to some injuries. Given that we have 2,500 UK personnel in the region, and given the heightened risk they may face, it would be good to hear what additional protections and measures the Defence Secretary is ensuring are put in place.

Our UK military presence in the Red sea protects international shipping and strengthens regional security. If anyone doubts that, consider what the consequences would be of no action being taken to deal with the Houthi attacks. That extremist force, backed by Iran and with a long record of brutal piracy in the region, could attack commercial ships at will and attack our Navy’s ships without consequence. They are targeting the ships of all nations, threatening the freedom of global trade and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why last month, 20 countries joined the Red sea maritime protection force, Operation Prosperity Guardian; it is why this month, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Houthis’ actions and demanding that their attacks stop; and it is why the UK and the US, with operational support from four other nations, have conducted joint strikes on Houthi missile sites, command centres and weapons stores.

We back the two UK-US joint air strikes carried out this month. We accept that they were targeted, necessary and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life, and we will judge any future UK military action on its merits. Ministers have said that the aim of these strikes is first to degrade Houthi capabilities, and secondly to deter their attacks. We accept that the attacks were justified, but we ask the Defence Secretary to confirm how they were also effective. We know that deterrence is a sliding scale, so we ask the Defence Secretary how the Government will guard against Britain being sucked deeper into the Yemeni conflict.

We also back the leading role that the Royal Navy plays in the continuing military defence of shipping from all nations against further Houthi missiles, drones and attack boats. However, the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world for nearly 80 years. What action are the Government taking to persuade other countries to join the maritime protection force? What are they doing to persuade those already involved to deploy more ships? What efforts are they making to encourage other nations with a big global trade interest to play a part in protecting freedom of navigation and using their influence to stop the Houthi attacks, and how long does the Defence Secretary expect Operation Prosperity Guardian to be needed?

The US aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been essential to the operations to date in the Red sea. Is the UK carrier ready to deploy to the Red sea if required? Has the Defence Secretary made the decision to not deploy HMS Queen Elizabeth, and if not, why not? A UK destroyer, HMS Diamond—to which the Defence Secretary has paid tribute—has also played a hugely important and impressive part in the maritime task force. She has been in the Red sea for nearly two months and will need to be rotated out. Do we have a second UK destroyer available to replace HMS Diamond in the Red sea, and if not, what will replace her? If that is to be HMS Richmond, when will she arrive in the Red sea, and how will that change the capabilities that we can contribute to Operation Prosperity Guardian?

We must cut the illegal flow of arms to the Houthi militia. The US intercepted a weapons shipment about two weeks ago, and the UK has successfully done similarly in the past. What is the UK’s capability and plan for doing so again now? Rather as the Defence Secretary indicated, military action on its own cannot solve the problems in the region, so what diplomatic action are the Government taking to pressure the Houthis to cease their attacks, to settle the civil war in Yemen, and to pressure Iran to stop supplying weapons and intelligence to the Houthis?

Like the Defence Secretary today and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I totally reject the Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking oil tankers and seizing ships for least five years, not just in the past 109 days since 7 October. These attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people. We want the Gaza fighting to stop, with a humanitarian truce now and then a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent citizens, get all remaining hostages out and get much more aid into Gaza. This is what we have been calling for in public, and what we have been working for in private. Our leader, our shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and our shadow International Development Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have all been out in the region in the last three months.

The humanitarian agonies of the Palestinians in Gaza are now extreme. Parents are starving, children are drinking dirty water and there are even reports of amputations being carried out without anaesthetic. More aid has to get to Palestinians now. Surely Britain can do more. There have been just four RAF aid flights and one Navy shipment in nearly four months. We got 100 tonnes of aid to Turkey in the first 10 days after the earthquake last year. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Armed Forces Minister has told me recently that the RAF and the Navy stand by ready to do more, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has not asked it to do so. What is going on? There should be a steady stream of aid from Britain. Our aid efforts must be accelerated.

For long-term peace, there has to be a political process, and one that has the capacity, conviction and commitment to turn the rhetoric around two states living side-by-side in peace into reality. Many across this House, like all in the Labour party present, will have found the Israeli Prime Minister’s recent rejection of the two-state settlement utterly unacceptable and wrong. Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is the only long-term hope for peace and stability, and for normalisation for both Israelis and Palestinians. If elected to form the Government, Labour will lead a new push for peace, working with international allies, in the confidence that, as the Prime Minister said to this House yesterday, we in this country and we in this House are

“united in support of a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 152.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has worked as hard as anyone in this House on this Bill and I am really grateful to him for that. He has been part of what the Opposition, certainly, are now set to do, which is to forge a consensus on the changes needed to the Bill so that it better serves the interests of British troops, British justice and Britain’s standing in the world. I believe that we, as the official Opposition, and we as a House, have a duty to try to make this Bill fit for purpose as the new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. It falls short of that test at present. We will not let those matters rest.

This is a classic case of a Government who will win their legislation but have lost the arguments. When that is the case, the Government will find that those arguments come back again, not just from the Opposition but from all parties, not just from this House but from both Houses, and not just from Parliament but from all the range of outside organisations that together have been the chorus of criticism about so much in this Bill that is still left undone but will be done in future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that the knife falls at 4.32 pm and we have nine speakers, plus the Minister to respond. That gives hardly any time, so can I implore those contributing either remotely or physically please to use self-discipline? With nobody specifically in mind, I call David Davis.

HEALTH

Debate between John Healey and Nigel Evans

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)

- Hansard -

I wish to take the unusual step of telling the House and the Minister about the individual case of little Vinny Duggan to highlight a wider problem that the Government can solve by making legal changes so that other patients and other parents such as Andy and Andrea Duggan do not have to go through what this family has gone through in the past two and a half years. As Andrea has said to me, this is their fight, but it is also a fight for other people in their position.

I have been involved with the parents in the quest for information for only 10 months, whereas Mr and Mrs Duggan have been battling since Vinny was born nearly two and half years ago. At times, Vinny has fought for life. He is now a little lad who is full of life. I was with the family on Saturday, and he was smiling, laughing, climbing on the sofa and climbing on me, but he has a very serious congenital heart and lung condition. He has brain damage, likely to have been caused by a lack of oxygen, and he is unlikely ever to be able to speak. His parents have told me that they are very proud of Vinny and very grateful that they still have him here.

It has been touch and go at times. He was born on 20 August 2010 at Doncaster royal infirmary. He was full term and was a healthy 7 lb 9 oz. However, within the first day his mum, in particular, became concerned that he was very blue, that he was not feeding properly and that he was very sleepy. The following day, he was diagnosed with a heart murmur and the day after that he was discharged against the parents’ wishes, as they were concerned and wanted tests done before he was discharged. He was at home for two days and after that time, when he had not properly woken up or properly fed and had stopped wetting his nappies, they phoned the hospital and were advised to take him to the children’s observational unit, where they arrived at 7 o’clock that evening.

Within the first hour, they were assessed by a triage nurse as non-urgent—green, in other words—and had to wait almost another five hours before a doctor saw them. During that night, Vinny was put on a heart monitor and given the tests he needed. He had a very high heart rate and was transferred rapidly to the specialist unit at Leeds general infirmary. He was diagnosed as having a very serious life-threatening heart and lung condition. He was given open heart and major lung surgery and spent five months in Leeds hospital, six weeks of that in intensive care and 10 weeks in the high-dependency unit.

The internal investigation at Doncaster hospital afterwards concluded that there were “no real concerns” about the standard of care in Vinny’s case, despite the fact that there were many chances to notice that he was unwell, to do the tests that could have been required and to listen to Mr and Mrs Duggan’s concerns. There remain important discrepancies between the evidence of the parents and that of some of the staff and the hospital in the investigation. It took two years and a new chief executive before, six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Duggan received a welcome letter from the new acting chief executive, Mike Pinkerton, who ended by saying:

“The care that Vinny received fell below the standard you have a right to expect from us and I do sincerely apologise.”

Like so many other parents, Mr and Mrs Duggan had principally wanted an explanation—not retribution or compensation. However, like many parents, they were driven down the route of trying to get answers through the courts, and that is what they are having to do. They also rightly turned to the professional body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is responsible for regulating Britain’s 670,000 nurses and midwives. Mrs Duggan submitted a complaint in September 2011, which was turned down in January 2012. She challenged it, which caused the council to look again at the argument that there was no case to answer, and the internal review concluded that the case should be referred back to the investigating committee for reconsideration.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, however, has limited powers to review its decisions and that has been reinforced and restricted further by a High Court judgment in May in the case of R(B) v. NMC 2012. In other words, the NMC does not have the legal powers it needs to review its own decisions. The chief executive, Jackie Smith, was good enough to meet me in the summer and to agree to commission independent legal advice on Vinny’s case and on the NMC’s restrictions. That independent legal advice came from Mark Shaw QC, who concluded:

“The Order and Rules makes it plain that the NMC has no statutory power to review, re-open or reverse a disciplinary decision (in particular, a decision of the Investigating Committee that a registrant has no case to answer) beyond the specific circumstances stipulated in rule 7, namely: receipt of a fresh allegation within three years of the dismissal of a previous allegation against the same registrant.”

He went on to point out:

“Typically, other professional regulators have wider review powers, granted explicitly by secondary legislation.”

Those other professional bodies include the General Medical Council, which is responsible for regulating Britain’s 250,000 registered doctors. The GMC’s powers were rightly extended in 2004, so it has the power to review and reopen a complaint, to take a view that its earlier decisions might be flawed, to take new evidence into account and to act. It is considering a review of the complaint lodged with it about a doctor involved in this case and we expect a decision imminently.

The General Optical Council and the General Pharmaceutical Council have similar powers; the General Dental Council does not. At a time when complaints from patients are rising and pressures on staff are increasing, if we are to maintain trust and confidence in our health professionals and the NHS, we must have a better and more open system of complaints and we must have regulators with the powers to do the job they are set up to do: safeguard professional standards and safeguard patients and the public, too.

I know the Law Commission is reviewing the common enabling legislative framework for all health regulators. That could take three years, so I want the Minister to confirm today that he knows that there is a problem and that in the meantime, in advance of the Law Commission’s report, he will act to change the operating rules and orders so that those professional bodies can do the job. Otherwise, many other patients and parents will face the same fight for the truth—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Order.

Local Government Finance

Debate between John Healey and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has tried to help the House and said he wanted to be clear, but he has just made the fundamental mistake, which I think he needs to correct, of citing precepts and not levies in the examples he gave. He therefore underlines rather than undermines my point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The right hon. Gentleman has got his point across.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between John Healey and Nigel Evans

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am more interested in what we will be facing in future. I am more interested in the claim by the Health Secretary that there will not be, as he describes it, a rigged market in future, but a level playing field for all providers. However, my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Well, we will see. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Health, and he follows such matters closely. I urge him to read page 42 onwards of the impact assessment, because there he will see the preparations for being able to pay for the sort of thing that he criticises in the health service.

As the hon. Gentleman gives me this opportunity, let me say to him and his Lib Dem colleagues that what we are facing is clearly Conservative health policy, not coalition health policy, and certainly not Lib Dem health policy. The main evidence of any influence of Lib Dem ideas on health policy in the coalition agreement was the commitment to

“ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust”.

The Bill abolishes PCTs. The Lib Dem policy priority before the election was to ensure that local people had more control over their health services. The Bill places sweeping powers in the hands of a new national quango—the national commissioning board—and a new national economic regulator, which is charged with enforcing competition, to open up all parts of the NHS to private health companies. The Lib Dems’ principal concern was to strengthen local and public accountability of health services, but the Bill seriously restricts openness, scrutiny and accountability to both the public and Parliament. It will lead to an NHS in which “commercial in confidence” is stamped on many of the most important decisions that are taken. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman and his Lib Dem colleagues: this is not your policy, but it is being done in your name. The public will hold you—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I know that this debate is attracting a lot of emotion and generating a lot of heat, but will Members please try to speak through the Chair? I have been accused by both sides of doing many things in this debate, and I have not done any of them.

[John Healey]

I accept that correction, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me put it in these terms. The policy is not Liberal Democrat policy, but it is being done in their name, and the public will hold the Liberal Democrats responsible if they allow the Tories to do this to our NHS.