Telford Child Sexual Exploitation: Inquiry

Lucy Allan Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

It is a privilege to have secured the first Adjournment debate after the summer recess, and I am grateful for this opportunity.

The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford reported on its findings on 12 July this year, at a time when Parliament was in some turmoil, so I am particularly grateful to now be able to put on record the findings of that important inquiry and the response of the authorities to those findings.

This inquiry has relevance for every council and every police force, and it marks a turning point in the fight against CSE and the organisational culture and attitudes that for so long have allowed this horrendous crime to pass unnoticed. I am very glad that the Minister is on the Treasury Bench to hear and respond to the debate. I urge her and her officials to read the report, because this is a landmark inquiry and a turning point in this ongoing battle. The Telford inquiry is a testament to the victims and survivors and their families—to their determination and bravery—because it will improve safeguarding across the country, and there are many good people to thank for the role they played.

The inquiry was chaired by Mr Tom Crowther QC. He makes it clear at the outset of his report that inquiries of this kind can drive change only if organisations that are subject to criticism accept the spirit in which the comments are made and view the findings in a way that is self-critical and reflective. It is not enough to say, “Well, this happened a long time ago” or “Our practices have substantially improved.” As Mr Crowther says in his report, in child welfare and safeguarding there is no place for corporate pride; there is no place for reflexive denial, deflection of blame or excessively optimistic statements.

Tom Crowther conducted his work sensitively and thoroughly. His report is measured and balanced, his recommendations constructive and clear. He shows insight into the silence around CSE and the way that authorities, not just in Telford, too often respond when questioned. He tackles, too, the key issues of institutional blindness and complacency and the failure to take CSE seriously.

It was back in the summer recess of 2016 when I first met with CSE campaigners, victims and survivors. I listened to their experiences and offered to help them secure this inquiry, which they felt would give them a voice and would mean that their experience was not just brushed aside and forgotten about so that people could move quietly on to other things. To them, it was an important part of their recovery. These meetings came after a high profile police investigation and successful prosecution known as Operation Chalice. A group of seven men in Telford were jailed for serious sexual offences against young girls, some as young as 13. It was apparent from the work of Operation Chalice that this was not a one-off, and that there were serious underlying problems.

When something has gone wrong, it is understandable that any organisation will feel uncomfortable when practices and procedures are challenged and scrutinised and shortcomings are identified. However, child sexual exploitation is a horrendous crime that affects whole communities and damages young lives. No one in authority charged with responsibility for young people should shy away from improving practice when something has gone horribly wrong, and those that do embrace an inquiry such as this as if it were an opportunity—which, indeed, it is—are to be commended. That is why I welcomed the response of West Mercia police to the inquiry’s findings. Speaking on behalf of West Mercia police on the day the report was published, 12 July, Assistant Chief Constable Richard Cooper said:

“I would like to say sorry. Sorry to the survivors and all those affected by child sexual exploitation in Telford…our actions fell far short of the help and protection you should have had from us, it was unacceptable, we let you down.”

That acknowledgement that mistakes were made is exactly the right way to respond. It is the first step towards accepting that things went wrong. It also makes a huge difference to victims, and provides reassurance that culture and attitudes have changed and new ways of working can be adopted for the future.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The scale of the abuse suffered by young, vulnerable women in my hon. Friend’s constituency over a number of decades is truly shocking and repugnant, as are the failings on the part of the authorities to which she has alluded, going back years and years. In Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Halifax and countless other places, those vulnerable young women were failed by the authorities because they were too politically correct to call out what was going on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time we had a new approach to dealing with this abhorrent crime, and that all police forces should be required to prioritise its investigation?

[Lucy Allan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making two important points: first that this happens throughout the country, and secondly that there is much more work to be done. He is also right to emphasise that the role of the police is vital. They can and should view the report by Tom Crowther—the Telford report—as a model to be followed, and note the way in which West Mercia police responded to its findings. That, too, can be a significant learning for many police forces throughout the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady. It is hard to listen to stories such as this because they are so heart-rending and personal. I think we all accept that these issues are real for the hon. Lady and her constituency, but, as she has said, they are also real throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every police force, every authority, every public body can learn from this report. Is it the hon. Lady’s hope that this report will be dispersed across the United Kingdom by the Minister, if that is at all possible, so that all of us, everywhere, can learn for the betterment of the children?

[Lucy Allan]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I call him my hon. Friend—who makes exactly the point that I would like the Minister to take away from today’s debate. There is so much learning in the Crowther report that could be disseminated throughout the country.

In his report, Mr Crowther urges all stakeholders to commit to a reflective response, and refers specifically to Telford and Wrekin Council. He observes that the council has shown a reluctance to accept criticism, and goes on to say that its approach has been essentially defensive. He stresses that to foster a culture of openness and learning it is necessary to recognise and admit mistakes; but he found, instead, a long-standing culture of resistance to ever admitting that provision was imperfect. Disappointingly, that is what we saw when the council came to respond to this important report on its publication.

In a very brief statement, which was issued on the date of publication and which no one put their name to, the council did not acknowledge or recognise that any mistakes had been made, and the press release claimed that the inquiry had in fact found that the council had made significant improvements and that, in any event, the council was already carrying out many of the recommendations. The press release did say that it was sorry for the pain and suffering of the victims, but it very specifically did not make any apology for or any mention of the mistakes the council had made. There was no acknowledgement that it could have done things differently and no suggestion that the council had a responsibility for what went wrong. There was repeated reference to the fact that child sexual exploitation was a problem that dates back many years—as long as 30 years in this case—as if to create some kind of distance between what had happened and the people responsible.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

That is infuriating. We must never forget who is at the heart of this: it is the victims and their families who have had these traumatic experiences, and situations have been imposed on them for many years. The report referred to institutional blindness as a key point. Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? In order for us to reinstall trust in those organisations that have failed many of our constituents for a long time, we have to get those authorities to recognise and realise where mistakes have been made. That is why I am frustrated at the council’s response. Does she agree that in order to get to the position of being able to reinstall that trust, we must get our local authorities, including Bradford Council in my constituency, to trigger an inquiry to get to the bottom of the issues to do with child sexual exploitation that have been going on in Keighley and my constituency?

[Lucy Allan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that it is essential that councils not only acknowledge but know what has gone wrong. This happens in lots of institutions, not just councils. Too often it is easy for them to say, “Nothing happened here really,” and to see it through their own eyes rather than view the reality through the eyes of an outsider or, indeed, the victim. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the suffering of victims. I do not think that any one of us who has ever spoken to a victim will forget what they have told us. It is an extraordinarily hideous crime—its deviousness, its manipulation and its way of making people do something they do not want to do without even realising that it is happening. It is the most hideous of crimes. I recognise how difficult it is to identify it, but that means that it is all the more important that inquiries such as this happen. It is such a healthy exercise to actually look at what has gone on, examine responses and challenge oneself. It is very difficult to do that on the inside. I think that having an outside, independent person asking these questions in the same balanced, measured and blame-free way as Tom Crowther is vital, and there is scope for many more such learning opportunities in many other areas.

The response of Telford and Wrekin Council was not just a missed opportunity to learn lessons or reassure the community that it knew that things had gone wrong, but a clear indication and evidence of the resistance, the reluctance to accept criticism, the defensiveness and the corporate pride that Mr Crowther references in the inquiry report. It is that same reluctance to be open about shortcomings that created roadblocks to the inquiry taking place in the first place. Although I would not expect any organisation to be enthusiastic about such an inquiry, the resistance to it in this case was clear for all to see.

For two long years, the council gave various reasons why this inquiry was simply not necessary. First, it hid behind the national child abuse inquiry, which it claimed would cover Telford when it did not do so. Then, it said that it was going to cost too much, then that it had a good Ofsted report, and then that there was nothing to see anyway. When the council did finally agree to it, it took another year to appoint a chair, and when it did that, it produced 1.2 million pages of evidence for the inquiry to sift through. That shows that it was not taking seriously its duties to improve its procedures and practices, and that was extremely frustrating. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) mentioned being frustrated. Don’t block it, don’t stop it; just accept it as a learning opportunity and as an opportunity to do things better, because these are children and young people, and this is about lives being ruined. No one should stand in the way of making sure that best practice is in place.

For me, most disheartening of all was the formal response to the inquiry by the leader of Telford and Wrekin Council. The report had said,

“It is…the responsibility of the elected members, particularly the cabinet members, to give direction and to assert priorities; to determine what is essential and what may be foregone. I have seen…no indication that before 2016, a CSE response was ever regarded as an essential service. I consider that a glaring failure on the part of a generation of Telford’s politicians.”

Having read that in black and white on the printed page, the council leader who joined the cabinet in 2011, far from accepting responsibility and being humble about the shortcomings, in his response talked defensively about how proud he was of Telford, as if there had been criticism of our town—of course, there had not. He talked about the significant improvements, despite the report saying that such progress as there had been was “unconscionably slow”, and he made repeated reference to the way that CSE dated back 30 years. He went on to say that he was only three years old at the time.

CSE is not all in the past. CSE is not something that happened 30 years ago. Forgive my frustration, but we had the same approach—the same institutional denial—with the maternity death scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital. Before the Ockenden inquiry into maternity negligence, we saw the great and the good reassuring anyone who asked that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all in the past. But it was still happening at that very time, because there was a refusal to accept shortcomings or have any insight into the problems that the organisation faced.

The leader of the council is the corporate parent, the person ultimately responsible for young people in our borough. Instead of saying, “Yes we got it wrong, yes we made

mistakes, and yes people suffered as a consequence,” he says, “Well, I was only three years old at the time.”

I am heartened that all stakeholders have committed to implementing all the findings of this important report, and it is my job as Telford’s MP, as the representative of victims and their families and all young people in Telford, to ensure that the recommendations are implemented, and to seek updates on their progress. We all know that it is the perpetrators who are to blame for horrific crimes. It is impossible, however, not to feel a deep sense of sadness and anger about the entrenched culture and attitudes that allowed CSE to go unchecked for so long. I invite the council to do as West Mercia police have done and acknowledge the shortcomings identified in the report, and apologise to victims, families and the community for those failings. I ask all stakeholders in Telford and Wrekin to work together with our community to implement all the inquiry’s recommendations promptly.

I thank Mr Crowther for his excellent work and steadfast determination to get the job done, and all the victims who have worked with me on this issue and who were able to give their evidence to the inquiry. I hope that CSE victims and survivors in Telford and elsewhere feel confident that they are now being taken seriously and together have shone a light on this issue, and that no one anywhere will be complacent about CSE in the future. I know that the Minister will confirm that in her response.

I want to take this chance to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who at the time we were battling for this inquiry was the local government Minister. Without his help, I wonder whether the inquiry would ever have taken place. I am very grateful to him.

I doubt any of us would have been able to speak out on this issue but for the pioneering work of the inspirational hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It was her support that enabled me to keep going to make this inquiry happen, and I commend her on her bravery on holding those responsible to account. It is not an easy job, as I can now say from experience.

I am privileged to be Telford’s MP and to have the platform to speak up for victims. I am grateful that other hon. Members have taken the same opportunity. Together, slowly and bit by bit, standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, we will make change really happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Allan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. My colleagues in the Department for International Development are working on precisely those issues. As a Government, we take these sorts of issues very seriously.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

6. What discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on steps being taken to maintain order in the west bank.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

Responsibility for security in the west bank is shared between the Palestinian authorities and the Israeli security forces, depending on whether we are talking about areas designated A, B or C. In my discussions with the Israeli authorities, I have encouraged this area to be transferred from C to B and B to A.

[Lucy Allan]

Israel and the Palestinian Authority continue to work together closely to maintain security in the west bank. Last month, however, a Palestinian Authority police-officer-turned-terrorist shot and wounded Israeli soldiers. Does the Minister agree that security co-operation is vital to maintaining stability, and will he join me in condemning the wave of attacks against Israelis that we have seen over the past year?

[Mr Ellwood]

I join my hon. Friend in condemning those attacks, and I would encourage President Abbas and others in the Palestinian Authority to do so as well. We should not forget that more than 30,000 Palestinian Authority security forces are working with Israeli defence forces to provide that security, and the Israeli defence forces rely on that to ensure that the west bank is kept as safe and secure as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Allan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is important that we keep open all lines of communication. Archbishop Kirill may have some interesting points to make. It would be even more important if he took back a message from the UK that we do not tolerate what is happening in Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, and, above all, in Syria. I hope that his visit will be a factor for change in the Kremlin.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the outcome of the EU referendum.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other European countries on the timetable for the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

Since becoming Foreign Secretary, I have engaged with many of my counterparts across Europe and beyond, including partners as far afield as Turkey and Japan. Those discussions have of course touched on the outcome of the referendum and the Government’s plans to enact the result.

[Lucy Allan]

My right hon. Friend kindly visited my constituency last year, so he will know that there are many Japanese employers in Telford. Will he please tell the House what assurances he has given to his Japanese counterpart that post-Brexit global Britain is still a great place to do business?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend will know that since the referendum result there has been a £24 billion investment from Japan in this country from SoftBank alone, and Japanese investment continues to come into this country. I think that all Japanese investors, and indeed investors around the world, can be secure in the knowledge that we will get the best possible deal for goods and services that will allow their companies to flourish and to prosper in this country as never before.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Lucy Allan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman speaks well for his constituency, but the Member who represents Menai may talk about Menai Oysters and Mussels, which sells most of its catch to Europe and would probably wish to stay in the EU. Even in one industry, there is no single answer, and it is worth listening to the debate of the whole House and to all the people of this United Kingdom, rather than just one pressure group. Of course that does not mean that we have to wait to be ready. As I said earlier, we need to get ready.

The change in the stock market over the past few days has shown that Europe affects not only the fishing industry—for the better in some ways and for the worse in others—but investment in our entire island. Today, people are looking at us and wondering what the future holds.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

I wish to make some progress.

People are understandably concerned that the factors that led them to put money into our businesses may not last. The interconnected market, the skills base and the global trading agreements are not as permanent as they once thought; they are not even as permanent as they looked a few days ago. The implications and the consequences for us are very severe. Some have begun to doubt us, but they are wrong. Britain is a powerful and growing economy, and despite the undoubted hiatus that would follow a Brexit, we will recover. Indeed, for the markets, we will once again become a safe haven, but only by comparison with our neighbours. The implication that the Europe Union could disintegrate is worrying.

Let us be under no illusion as to why the option to leave the EU is bad for Britain. It is not, as some have sadly claimed, because Britain is too small. It is not because we cannot survive in a globalised world—it is clear that we are better connected and better integrated with the global economy than many other nations. No, it is because we are the economic leaders of a continent of more than 500 million people who are crying out for that very leadership and the very reforms that we offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and to return to the topic of my maiden speech barely a year ago, as this country prepares to take what will undoubtedly be the biggest decision of our lifetime, which will determine the direction and destiny of our nation not just in the coming days, weeks, months and years but over the course of this century.

Global power is shifting from the western economies that dominated the 20th century to the emerging giants of the 21st century. Powers are pivoting away from nation states toward global corporations, and in that context the only question that should be on people’s minds as they cast their vote next week is which route and which choice will deliver prosperity, security and opportunity in a rapidly changing and globalised world.

Globalisation is an unstoppable process. It brings many possibilities and many opportunities for our constituents and for our country, and it also brings challenges. The question for any Government, whether our Government or Governments around the world, is how to shape globalisation to serve the best interests of their people, how to mitigate its challenges and how to make the most of the possibilities. How on earth can the right answer to those questions be to say, “Stop the world—I want to get off”? Has it not been striking in the course of this debate on the economy that there has been no debate about which is the best route to achieve what I have described?

Trying to get consensus among economists is like trying to get consensus among Labour MPs or Conservative MPs about the direction of their respective parties—virtually impossible—yet it has been achieved. The overwhelming consensus of our nation’s leading economists is that our country would be more prosperous inside the European Union than outside it. The Trades Union Congress and trade union leaders argue that being in the EU is in the best interests of working people and workers’ rights. Businesses small and large say that they can make the most of the opportunities available to them if we are a member of the European Union.

Well evidenced claims have been made about the impact of leaving the EU on jobs, investment and opportunities for our workforce, but what has been the response of the leave campaign? It can be summed up in the two words uttered by Nigel Farage last weekend when he was asked about the impact of a fall in sterling: so what? I would love to be in the privileged position of not worrying about what the state of the economy means for the financial security of me and my family or that of my constituents. The truth is that when sterling falls and jobs are lost, it will not be the wealthiest who are hit but the opportunities of the vast majority of people on low and middle incomes.

The members of the leave campaign seem to have largely left the Chamber. [Interruption.] They have sailed down the Thames. However, was it not striking that we heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) reinvent himself as an anti-austerity campaigner? We have also heard the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) claiming to be the saviour of the NHS, repeating the untruth that £350 million a week will be saved and invested in the NHS if we leave.

It is not often that I turn to our former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, for words of wisdom and encouragement about the direction of our national health service, but did he not have it right when he pointed out how preposterous it is to believe that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath and their friends have the best interests of the NHS at heart? Even a former Conservative Prime Minister says that we cannot trust those on the right wing of the Conservative party and their fellow travellers in UKIP with the future of our national health service, so why should we believe them?

On economic forecasts, there can be no certainty, only analysis and assumption. In picking figures, we should trust the judgment of every leading economic voice, every university leader, the leaders of our trade union movement, the leaders of our businesses, and our leaders from across the political spectrum. They have come together because they believe remaining in the EU to be in our national interest.

[Lucy Allan]

Does the hon. Gentleman also think that we should trust the voice of the people?

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely do. I voted to give the people a choice, and I will abide by their decision next week.

I say directly to my constituents that they have an enormous responsibility resting on their shoulders. Every day since I was elected to Parliament last year—on a slim majority and against the odds—I have said that I will put their interests first. They may not always agree with me, but they will always know where I stand. Every day, in every vote, the only question in my mind is, what is best for my constituency and my country? Now, my constituents face that choice in a vote that is more important than any that Members of Parliament will take part in during this Session.

Where does our country’s future lie? Leading Europe or leaving Europe? As far as I am concerned, there is only one answer to that question if people want a future for our country that provides economic security, national security and the ability to take on the big issues and global challenges facing us in this century. That is why I urge my constituents to make the progressive, the pragmatic and the patriotic choice to remain in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. I have listened with great interest to the many excellent speeches that have been made.

There is an increasingly healthy trend of Members from all parties coming to this place having had a career outside of politics and life experience that they can bring to our debates. During the year in which I have had the honour to represent Telford, I have seen many fine examples of our debates being informed by that experience and expertise.

I am a chartered accountant. Before coming to this place, I specialised in the financial sector, specifically in investment in financial markets. I want to draw on that experience and bring it to the debate. Over the months, the debate on the EU has, naturally, been characterised by passion on both sides. That has led to increasingly impossible claims and predictions, which have seemed to the outside world, on occasion, alarmist and fanciful. I want to put on record some of the more moderate and balanced perspectives of investors who, because they earn their living generating investment returns for clients, truly understand the meaning of the word risk. We have heard that word repeatedly today and on other occasions. Investors are motivated to put economic considerations before any others.

I am sure that Members present who have an interest in economics will be familiar with the outstanding reputation of Neil Woodford, an investor in UK business. The Woodford report, which was published earlier this year, provides a balanced commentary on the economic impact of Brexit. I encourage those who genuinely harbour fears about a post-Brexit economy to read that report. In case they do not have the chance to do so, its main conclusions are: first, that the most extreme claims about the costs and benefits of Brexit are wide of the mark and not evidence-based; secondly, that a more tailored immigration approach, the freedom to make trade deals with global trading partners, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse, although they will not be huge, will have some positive net benefits; and, thirdly, that the most plausible outcome from Brexit will be a modest positive impact on jobs and growth. Neil Woodford states:

“We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union.”

We have a Conservative Government to thank for that.

Neil Woodford is in good company. Richard Sharp, an external member of the Financial Policy Committee who has more than 30 years’ experience in finance and who is in constant contact with major international investors in UK businesses, said in evidence to the Treasury Committee:

“The UK is a thoroughly investable economy and it would remain a thoroughly investable economy whichever way the vote goes”.

The tone of those professional investors is a welcome relief from the sound and fury that political campaigns inevitably generate—although the debate today has been moderate and considered.

From my experience in the financial sector, and after listening to investors and advisers, I believe that when we look back in the not-too-distant future at GDP, employment rates, the FTSE 100 index and inflation, it will be difficult to identify when exactly Brexit occurred. The FTSE 100 is up £17 billion today; I think that some people may not have been following the markets. I want to reassure the House that despite what is said by the ardent campaigners, whose will to win I fully understand, we can sleep easy in our beds on June 24 because the economy will remain strong either way.

We have heard a great deal from the establishment, the elites and bureaucrats, and all those who benefit from the EU, but they are not talking the language of my constituents in Telford. They are not listening to the millions of ordinary people across Britain whose everyday lives are most affected by our membership. Many people in Telford are affected by increasing pressure on public services, by the difficulty of getting a school place and by waiting times to see their GP. The less well-off are the most exposed to the day-to-day reality of our membership of the EU.

We in this place have said enough. Now it is time for the British people to have a say. They want to be free—free to decide who comes to our country, free to make our own laws and free to trade with the rest of the world. On Thursday, I know that the people of Telford will trust their hearts and their instincts and vote for Britain’s future.

EU Referendum Leaflet

Lucy Allan Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on taking up the e-petition. No doubt it probably now has nearly 220,000 signatures. My constituents often say, “E-petitions make no difference. No one is really listening. What is the point of signing them?” but this debate shows clearly that that is not the case.

When the leaflet dropped through the door, I got three copies. I am not entirely sure why.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I also received three copies, which seems extremely unusual, and it enhanced the irritation that I felt. Does my hon. Friend agree that the leaflet shows a lack of value for money for taxpayers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Stringer. I pay a special tribute to all Members who have taken part so far. I was particularly moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), which was powerful and sobering.

I am yet to find a constituent in Telford who thinks that the leaflet provides value for taxpayers’ money, yet the Prime Minister tells us that it is money well spent. The decision to spend £9 million-plus on a glossy leaflet, sent out 11 weeks before the referendum, sends unintended messages to voters about the EU. It tells us that the Government are willing to spend taxpayers’ money with no regard for the opinions of the people. It tells us that they are willing to waste taxpayers’ money, and it is fundamentally anti-democratic. No Government should spend public money to tell the people they govern how to vote and what to think.

We know that public opinion is divided on whether to leave or remain. It is about 50:50 at the moment, and that is why we are having a referendum. As I remind my local council from time to time, taxpayers’ money should not be used on publicity blitzes or vanity projects, and never to promote political ambitions.

Even those who think that a remain vote would be good for us and in our best interests have doubts about spending £9 million-plus on a leaflet. The BBC’s headline on 7 April was “Will anyone read £9m government leaflet?” Some may do, under duress, but I have to admit that I did not, despite receiving it three times. I read it only when I came to prepare for the debate. Anyone who has ever taken part in a political campaign knows that one glossy leaflet, sent 11 weeks before election day, will be passed over, sent off for recycling and completely forgotten about when the time comes to put an X in the box.

The public deserve and clearly want unbiased, neutral, factual information about the referendum. This is a big issue for our country. Why would we not want to hear both sides of the argument so that we can make up our minds for ourselves? The Minister—I greatly respect him for sitting here this afternoon and listening to what we have to say—may say that the leaflet was produced because there was a thirst for information. The Government should recognise that the reason why there is a thirst for information is that they have not provided it. They have a duty and responsibility to give the public the facts, not just the account they want us to hear.

The leaflet was clearly designed to masquerade as a Government information leaflet, yet from a cursory glance at its contents we can see that it is nothing of the sort. We have been told that the Government are not neutral about our decision on whether to remain or leave. That is true, but the leaflet needed to make that point and not pretend to be factual public information from a neutral and unbiased perspective. For example, there is no recognition in the leaflet that the mutual self-interest of other members of the EU would ensure that a leave decision would be achieved with minimal disruption to existing trading arrangements. There is no comment on the challenges facing the EU, which are set out in the Five Presidents report. I am sure the Minister knows who those five important people are, but I did not until one constituent of mine described them to me as the five best reasons to leave the EU. I would like to name those five reasons: the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker; the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz; the President of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem; the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi; and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. Yes, those are five reasons—very expensive reasons—to leave the EU.

We, the British people, do not like being told what to do by self-important bureaucrats. We do not like being told what is in our best interests or what is good for us. This debate is about liberty, economic freedom and democracy, and if the £9 million leaflet did anything, it served to remind the British people why we cherish those ideals and what the EU is really about. Perhaps the leaflet did have some value after all, and perhaps not all of that £9 million was wasted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Allan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad to hear that he is carefully taking the pulse of his constituents. On the last point, as I have said several times already today, the Prime Minister will set out a comprehensive strategy. That is not just about military intervention, but about how we use that military intervention to achieve the political solution we need in the wider conflict in Syria.

On the specific military point, the UK does have capabilities that will make a difference. The dual-mode Brimstone missile on our Tornado aircraft is a precision weapon unlike anything that any of the other coalition allies are able to deploy. That in itself, because of its precision and its low payload, will ensure minimisation of collateral damage and collateral casualties. That is one of the reasons our allies are so keen that we take part in this campaign.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

T3. There has been another weekend of deadly terror attacks on Israeli citizens, including a brutal stabbing yesterday. Will the Foreign Secretary condemn those attacks, and does he agree that sanctioned incitement to commit terror must end?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I articulated in a previous answer, we need to get all parties back to the table. Unfortunately, it seems that the planets are misaligned at the moment. We need to reconfigure and ensure that all parties are able to come back and prevent the scale of violence from increasing.