Israel and Palestine

Debate between Steve McCabe and Matt Western

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate, Mr McCabe. I congratulate those who put forward the petitions that enabled it.

Let me start by stating, as all of us in this Chamber have done, that I absolutely abhor the violence of 7 October, which was perpetrated on unarmed civilians in the various kibbutzim and at the music festival. It was shocking; 1,200 people were killed and 200 hostages were taken. It was not just the killing that was so disgusting, but the maiming and mutilation of women, children and men. But in meeting violence with violence, the response from Israel and the IDF has, I think, been utterly disproportionate and remains, for sure, a concern worldwide.

We have seen the various motions put forward by the United Nations Security Council and the Secretary-General recognising that this is intolerable and that we need to bring the sides together and strive for peace, because what we are witnessing is not a conflict where the asymmetry of the conflict is so considerable. We were promised a conflict of precision and intelligence in routing out Hamas, but what we are actually seeing is the indiscriminate loss of civilian lives: women, children and men. As so many colleagues have described, the scenes are so horrifying. It is very difficult for many of us worldwide to watch these scenes on our TVs, listen on the radio and see on social media the scale of the devastation and the loss of life.

I really had believed, and I do wish to believe, that Israel wishes to secure the three Hamas leaders, but the way it is going about it seems to be utterly inappropriate. The only way in which this will be brought to a resolution is through political negotiation and through targeted military action, but the fact that this is now spreading into more activity in the west bank, with even greater numbers of illegal settlements, must concern all of us, not just in the region but around the world.

I do live in some hope. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) recalled resolution 1860 (2009)—how it was brought about, how the UK was able to act, the leadership it showed and the influence it was able to have on our long-term ally the US, which abstained in that particular vote but brought about the necessary ceasefire a week later. We need to see peace in the region and a stable, secure Israel, but the only way we are ever going to achieve that is with a stable, secure Palestine as well. For too long, nations and politicians in this place have ignored the plight of that region. We have to bring focus urgently to that part of the world to bring about a permanent peace, a permanent secure, stable Palestine and a secure Israel.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We seem to have come to the end of our supply of speakers a little earlier than anticipated, so I will now call the Front Benchers.

Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Matt Western

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Gapes, but I was stressing the point that we would not need to know were it not for the fact that this is going to cost so much. If something that costs so much goes wrong—especially when that cost is borne by the consumer—we should fear a situation in which those who were instrumental in making all the decisions up to that point can be absolved of all responsibility, because the Minister steps in to offer a new regime to protect and safeguard the failed organisation without you, Mr Gapes, or me, or anyone in this room having any idea what happened, what will happen, who will pay for it, and what it will cost. That is the object of the exercise.

I am grateful to you, Mr Gapes, for your guidance about not dwelling too much on the figures, but those figures are considerable and I will certainly seek an opportunity to share some of them with you later in our proceedings, if at all possible. I believe that the public have every right to know those figures, but I am grateful for your guidance on that point.

For the purposes of the amendment, I simply stress that it would be wrong to have a situation where the Minister was forced to take such an action, especially if there is any suggestion that that action could be taken behind closed doors and would not be visible, transparent and available to everyone. It should be open to the kind of scrutiny that I think all members of the Committee would believe essential were an operation of this size to go wrong, land the consumer with an enormous bill and require a special administration intervention.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I rise in support of what I think is a simple and honest amendment that seeks only to underline the need for transparency—that is something we should be stressing throughout the Bill. We could ask whether the words “efficiently” and “economically” really need to be included in the Bill, and of course they do, but likewise we also need the word “transparently”.

If I understood correctly, this process started some years ago and we are now legislating for it. A moment ago it was asked why we are doing this only now. That seems a little incredible to someone who walked into this place a few months ago, but be that as it may, we are where we are. What we are picking up from consumers is not necessarily distrust, but there is some confusion out there. Any means by which we can improve the transparency of the programme and provide clarity for consumer and suppliers is surely vital. I support the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

In supporting this amendment, will hon. Members cast their eyes across clauses 2 and 3 that set up the smart meter communication licensee administration, and the special administrative regime—the SAR? We must emphasise what a special circumstance this is. This would be where the body that had been charged with the whole roll-out of smart meters, which had millions of pounds under its guidance, had gone into administration—for whatever reason. As the Minister points out, traditional methods are available for dealing with a company that has gone into administration.

A special administration regime would, among other things, ensure that the special nature of the DCC and its complete centrality to the roll-out was not subsumed under that traditional method of administration, which might cause damage given what the administrator might decide to do with the company if there were not a regime that was carefully worded and sorted out. The administrator might decide that a number of functions that otherwise would have been carried out by the DCC would not be—indeed, we may debate some of those additional functions later. There would be the whole question of the administration of that company being brushed under the carpet, being put in the hands of the administrator and set aside from the public gaze.

A lot of company administrations take place in circumstances of some opacity—that is, it is difficult to ascertain exactly why the company went into administration, the intentions of the administrator or even where the appointment of the administrator came from. It is difficult to find out what the administrator thinks they are going to do with the company concerned. There are whole series of things that, in terms of general company law, ought to be a little more transparent but generally are not; that is how it works as far as company law is concerned.

However, this is a very different circumstance: the entity is an essential public function as well as a company, which might be placed into administration. It is therefore right that, in clauses 2 and 3, we do more than say that we want to make sure that the administration is in the right hands and that nothing happens with the administration that will cause damage to the passage of the DCC as the organiser of the smart meter roll-out. That is what all the paragraphs in clause 3, and some of those in clause 2, are about. They are concerned with the smooth transfer and running of the system. There is not one word about any light that should be shone on what would have happened to that company previously, and what is the public good of the company subsequently, once it comes out of administration.