Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to make that commitment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in this current four-year period, we are spending £2.3 billion, compared with £2.1 billion in the previous period. The money is going into flood defences. As I said, in the early December flooding, about 800,000 homes were protected by previous flood defence work and over the Christmas period a further 200,000 houses were affected. Whenever there is flooding, it makes sense to look again at the proposals in the programme for flood defence work and to see what more can be done. In addition to Government money, we are keen to lever in more private sector and local authority money, which is now possible under the arrangements. I am happy to commit, as the right hon. Gentleman asked, to the Environment Secretary coming back to report to the House on the level of expenditure in the years going ahead.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Q2. Further to the Prime Minister’s remarks on the recent flooding, will he join me in paying tribute to Bournemouth borough council and Dorset emergency services, as well as local residents, in dealing with two evacuations in my constituency, one of which, owing to the River Stour bursting its banks, is still ongoing? Given the changing weather patterns we are experiencing, what more can be done in the long term towards improving river and sea defences?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend knows, 290 homes have been flooded so far in Bournemouth and the Dorset area. I agree with him that the work of the emergency services and the Environment Agency has been excellent. Many local authorities, including my own, have developed very good plans and carried them out very competently. However, not every authority is doing so well, and there will be lessons to be learnt.

As for the Bournemouth and Poole area, about £14 million will be invested over the next five years under the Bournemouth beach management scheme. That should protect about 2,500 properties by 2018-2019, but I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend what more he thinks can be done.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I cannot compete with some of the moving and absolutely amazing stories of personal interaction with Nelson Mandela that we have heard today. I met him only once, along with 5,000 other people, in Trafalgar square in November 2010. His speech was as electrifying as the shirt he was wearing. I knew that I was in the presence of an exceptional human being and I am simply one of the millions who was moved and encouraged by his story of fortitude as he attempted to change the world around him—and succeeded in that attempt—which we have heard expressed so passionately by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that the House is too, for interrupting our normal proceedings to pay tribute to the life of an incredible man. He stands head and shoulders above any other in shaping and influencing our modern world.

Some might say that Nelson Mandela was destined to lead. First, coming from a family with heritage and influence, he was politically motivated from an early age, studying law, opening the first black law firm in South Africa and focusing on human rights. That background, coupled with his unique style of leadership, convinced his peer group that he was worth supporting in the fight against apartheid. He displayed a rare combination of determination, humility and integrity, willing to engage with the hotel porter he met in passing with the same energy and enthusiasm as with the VIP guest he had arranged to meet. To put it simply, he had enormous personal presence, not just because of his rank or appointment but because of his infectious smile, his provoking message and his tenacity and endurance in thinking that good would triumph in the end.

His political activities saw him tried and imprisoned for 27 years. Who would have thought that just four years after his release apartheid would be over and Nelson Mandela would be President? As many others have, I visited Robben Island off Cape Town and peered through the bars of Nelson Mandela’s cell. It is very hard to imagine anyone emerging from such an experience without feeling embittered towards their captors, so it was with some apprehension that South Africa, and the world, waited to see what Nelson Mandela would do with his power as President and where the country would go. He continued, after all, to have strong ties with Russia and the South African Communist party. Such was his popularity that he had almost a free mandate to take South Africa in any direction he chose.

I recall Nelson Mandela’s release from prison. I was president of Loughborough student union at the time and I must confess that that was an academic establishment that was as yet unknown as a cauldron of simmering political activity. I recall that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was the president of the National Union of Students at the time and we conversed on many occasions. We debated a motion at Loughborough students union to change the name of the union building to the “Nelson Mandela building”—something that many other universities had already done. At Loughborough, perhaps unwisely, the motion was defeated, because although Nelson Mandela’s cause was very much supported, students were not sure where he would take South Africa, bearing in mind the fact that the ANC still had an extremist wing. It is perhaps that second significant chapter of his life, evolving from a campaigner to a statesman, that distinguishes him from many others who have liberated their country, then taken the reins of power. Perhaps the best and saddest example is Robert Mugabe, not far away in Africa, who not only failed to endorse any system of democracy but continues corrupt practices to retain power, as well as encouraging racial division and, indeed, hatred of Britain, the former colonial power.

Nelson Mandela’s ability to face down hardliners in his own party and convince a sceptical white community helped South Africa to re-engage with the world community. In government, he proved to be pragmatic and even-handed, taking time to look at and, indeed, learn from a number of models of government, and working with de Klerk, who had his own task of winning over people with extremist views if civil war was to be avoided. How different things might be, for example, had Mandela not supported the freedom of the press or an independent judiciary. Establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a stroke of genius—a concept that has been copied, but not used as successfully, in countries attempting to heal the wounds of division.

Most astonishingly, as has been said by hon. Members, Mandela stood for only one term—perhaps a lesson for us all in recognising our sell-by date. Interestingly, such was his ability to reach across divides, even in death his work continues. Attending the memorial service alongside obvious leaders such as the Prime Minister and President Obama will be President Castro of Cuba and the new Iranian President Rouhani. Who knows what diplomatic developments might result from an imaginative seating plan?

There are difficult questions for the ANC now that it has lost its iconic figurehead, and it must ensure that South Africa’s multiracial free-market democracy can flourish. Those are questions, however, for another day, and Britain’s involvement in that is for another day too. Today and this week are about saying goodbye to a man who survived and defeated apartheid, and united a country. Sadly—and this applies only to a minority—some people have questioned why in this country so much attention has been given to Nelson Mandela’s death. A small but arguably growing slice of our society takes for granted the leadership and sacrifices that he and others closer to home have made. I pondered that very point this weekend, as on television tributes to Nelson Mandela contrasted with reality TV shows on which household names are engineered.

That raises awkward questions for us in the House, as some members of the younger generation know more about James Arthur, perhaps not the best role model, than leaders who triumphed over adversity to give us the very freedoms that we could be in danger of taking for granted. Thankfully, many people of our generation have been inspired by Nelson Mandela and others to recognise how their own high profile can be used to shape a better world. AIDS awareness is a clear example of that. Rightly, they will take their seat alongside world statesmen at the funeral this week.

I am pleased that the House can pay tribute to Nelson Mandela today. We cannot match the wonderful poetry, the song and the colour that we have seen on our screens displayed by the people of South Africa as they remember the architect of their country. As we consider Nelson Mandela’s legacy I hope that we all recognise, learn and gain inspiration from one individual who became a global symbol of tolerance in standing against injustice, regardless of the odds.

Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have tried to be generous. We have heard the point. The Prime Minister has made his point of view very clear. We do not need to rehearse the position of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman needs to be a bit more delphic and perhaps a little less clumsy.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May I welcome the statement and the taskings of HMS Daring and HMS Illustrious, which are joining the USS George Washington? This situation underlines why we need both new aircraft carriers and to ensure that one is always available. Does the Prime Minister agree that the new aircraft carriers and the new Type 26s must have the ability to assist in upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks, as well as having the high-end war-fighting capabilities?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of the aircraft carriers and the capabilities that they will bring. In particular, they will be used as a platform for helicopters, for desalination and for command and control. They will bring a huge amount of capability to tasks like this one.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis]

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). Her speech was well thought through and persuasive. We do not always agree on these issues, but on one aspect she persuaded me, and I shall say in a minute what that was. In this area of argument, which goes right to the heart of what makes British justice special and right to the heart of our national security, we are all inclined sometimes to put things rather too heavily in black and white. I have every sympathy with the agencies that are trying to preserve their own security. They have plenty of threats: past agencies, the David Shaylers, the Richard Tomlinsons, leaking their information, even Ministers—I remember that Ted Rowlands once in the House gave away some Crown jewels—and most ironically of all, Washington. Given the genesis of the Bill, some of the biggest leaks relate to our biggest ally, whether it is Pentagon papers four years ago or, only two months ago, what sounds from the British papers to be the putting at risk of the life of an Anglo-Saudi agent whom it used in one of its operations and then talked about afterwards. Nobody, certainly not I, would challenge the right of the agencies to preserve their own proper security—I stress “proper security”.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentions how things have changed over 40 years and how things have happened. It is clear from this debate how things have moved on. The clandestine community is very different from what it was in the past. It is now scrutinised in a way that has never been done before. We can now mention John Sawyer and Jonathan Evans, names that could never even be mentioned in the Chamber, let alone in MI5 or MI6. Will he concede that we are now having to look at a new level of scrutiny, and that that is why these CMPs have to be put in place. Forty years ago, we could not even discuss the matter.

[Mr Davis]

As one of the two junior Ministers who took the Secret Intelligence Service Bill through the House and asked the then head of MI6 whether he really meant this, I can take his point. But the simple truth is that we have to live up to those standards of accountability, and that means open justice wherever we can have it.

One of the interesting divides that has taken place in all this is almost a generational one. We have had closed material procedures only since—

--- Later in debate ---

Interestingly, unless things have changed since I made PII applications, special advocates have no role in the PII process. Nobody challenges what the Secretary of State has done apart from the poor old judge, whereas in respect of applications for CMPs there will be special advocates acting like terriers, as we have seen from SIAC. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, if at any stage the special advocate believes that the CMP should not continue, he or she will make an application to the judge.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he is still here, and I think that the House very much appreciates that given what he is offering to the debate with his experience. Does he agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, PIIs offer an opportunity for judges to redact information that could otherwise be used in the processes proposed for CMPs, or for that argument to be put forward?

[Mr Straw]

Of course. Those of us with experience of SIAC will know that it too could be seen as a parody of a secret court. In SIAC cases, the chairman of the tribunal, who will be an experienced senior judge, issues a closed judgment with all the argument in it and a redacted judgment with a very great deal of evidence in it. The idea that it is—fortunately nobody in the Chamber has used the term, “a parody”—a secret court worthy of Kafka’s “The Trial” is, frankly, utter nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

That is a good question. We like to hold our justice system up as an example to the world, yet if we go down this route, we will fundamentally undermine some of the principles of British justice that we have rightly been proud of for many years, and people around the world will look on with genuine shock.

Last week, more than 700 figures from the legal profession, including 40 QCs, had a letter published in the Daily Mail—not a newspaper that I have often quoted in the Chamber—stating that the proposals in the Bill to allow a huge extension of court hearings behind closed doors would

“erode core principles of our civil justice system”.

They argued that if the Government’s changes were allowed to go ahead, they would

“fatally undermine the court room as an independent and objective forum in which allegations of wrongdoing can be fairly tested and where the Government can be transparently held to account.”

The proposals, they concluded, were “dangerous and unnecessary”.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice also has serious concerns about the Bill’s provisions relating to closed material procedures in certain civil proceedings, and the Scottish Government have concluded that they are

“unable to support any extension—under any circumstances—of the Bill into devolved areas.”

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument and the position that her party takes, but does she recognise that the House’s first obligation is the protection of the nation? One way in which we thwart many potential attacks against this nation is through our work with intelligence services from other countries. If we go down the route that she suggests, that relationship will break down. No other country will trust us with information if it is then exposed in court, which will make our country even more vulnerable to attack.

[Caroline Lucas]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that, right now, other countries are not sharing their information with us because of the current situation?

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes, that is exactly what happened.

[Caroline Lucas]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. No one is suggesting that PII will not still be available so that we can have measures such as redactions.

Libya

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly we will make available our advice, services and help for the new Libya. As I have said, we must allow the Libyan people to choose what they want to do, rather than force things on them. I do not think we should have the attitude that because we have helped to liberate Libya we should therefore get some sort of automatic preferred status. We should do it on the basis of what we have to offer, and on the basis of all the normal rules and regulations that we bring to this.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister’s resolve on this issue. He is right to stress that it is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but the removal of Gaddafi unearths a complex network of tribal alliances, and we are not out of the woods yet. Does my right hon. Friend agree that stability over the next few months will be critical if we are to see a role reversal in which the rebels become the state and the pro-Gaddafi tribal forces become the insurgents?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the risks involved in moving from a situation in which Gaddafi is in command to one in which he is on the run and the NTC is taking over. There are all sorts of risks, and we should not be complacent or over-confident about what will follow. All I would say is that those who warned that Libya was a country riven with tribal loyalties, divided between Benghazi and Tripoli and prone to extreme Islam have so far not been proven correct. This revolution was not about extreme Islamism; al-Qaeda played no part in it. It was about people yearning for a voice and job, and it is our duty to get behind them and help them to build that new country.

Public Disorder

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, what we saw in London over the past few days, where we have 32,000 officers in the Met, was a greater deployment of more of those officers on to the street. Frankly, it was not good enough that there were only 3,000 deployed when this started. It shows how much can be done, getting up to 16,000 deployed, with help from outside. Those numbers will be available at all times in the future, even with the reductions that we are making in budgets.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Today marks the start of a long, sober and difficult post mortem to find out why parts of our society chose to rob the very communities of which they are part. The Prime Minister implied that we must start by looking at the powers given to the police. May I ask him to assure the House that if the police choose to use water cannon they can do so without influence by Ministers? If necessary, they should also be allowed to close down mobile phone rebro masts, as was done after the 7/7 bombings, to make sure that we isolate the use of Twitter and Facebook, which allowed the mobs to be one step ahead of the police.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course conversations have to take place between the Home Office and the police about the use of different technologies or tactics. The point that the Home Secretary and I have been making over recent days is that they should feel free to examine whether they need these capabilities in the knowledge that they will have political support for doing what is necessary to keep our streets safe.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered the question and the point I would make is that unlike the party that the hon. Gentleman has been supporting for the last God knows how many years, this party has set out all its contacts, all its meetings and everything it did—in stark contrast to the Labour party.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Judging the mood of the Chamber, this might be an unpopular thing to say, but outside the Westminster bubble I get the impression that the nation has had its fill of this subject and is getting fed up. It wants answers about the police corruption, it wants answers about the hacking and it wants answers about relationships with the press, but there is an inquiry under way and that is where the answers will actually come. It is time that this Westminster bubble frenzy was placed on hold. There are other pressing matters that this nation expects us to focus on.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: we have set up the fullest possible inquiry—an inquiry that was never held under the 13 years of the previous Government—and we have to let that inquiry find the answers to all these questions. It looks at the police, at media, at BSkyB and at the conduct of politicians—it is able to ask all those questions and we should allow it to get on with the job.

Counter-terrorism

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think we do. I am not sure that I avoided the word “evil”—I will always take religious advice from the hon. Gentleman, who has more experience in that—but his point is a good one. We must remember that al-Qaeda’s narrative is not Muslims against the rest of the world, but Muslims against Muslims, before moving on to the clash of civilisations with the rest of the world. It is hopeful that we are seeing Arab and Muslim states saying that what they want is not that sort of sharia law society, but to move towards the building blocks of democracy, which will make for a better and more peaceful world.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I visited the UK Bali memorial today—a tribute to the innocent victims of just one of the many terrorist bombings that defined the past decade. News of bin Laden’s death did not fill me with any sense of victory, for the world is no safer, but I did feel that we are starting a new chapter and that the world is a better place. Bin Laden’s removal is long overdue. Is it not telling that the Arab spring is calling not for a seventh-century caliphate, but for a change towards a non-violent, democratic and secular society?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that he suffered a loss in that Bali bomb. We can never bring back someone who has been lost, but he is right that the best tribute we can pay to the people who were lost in the murderous attacks in New York, London, Istanbul or Bali is not only to roll up the terrorist network that has created so much hatred, poison and death, but to see the Arab and Muslim world move towards democracy and freedom. That would be the most fitting tribute of all.

Libya and the Middle East

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. The reach of the International Criminal Court and of international law applies not only to people in the Gaddafi regime and those in the armed forces who commit atrocities but to any mercenary who goes to Libya and takes part in those activities. As I have said, the reach of international law is very long, and its memory is also very long, and quite right too.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has described a very fluid series of events. If we step back from them, we can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to encourage democracy to spread across the middle east. He gave a robust message to Colonel Gaddafi. Does he have an equally robust message for the other dictators in Africa who have chosen not to support democracy but to send mercenaries to support Colonel Gaddafi’s dictatorship?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is a test for everyone. It is a test for NATO, for the European Union, for the Arab League and, yes, for the African Union as well. The Arab League has, commendably, suspended Libya’s membership, and we should be looking to the African Union to take robust action as well. My hon. Friend’s point about mercenaries is certainly well made, and we should be making that very clear to African armies and leaders who are contemplating that sort of measure.

G8 and G20 Summits

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have supported—and, indeed, before the election we put forward a case for—gender pay audits, particularly based on those companies where any unfairness is found. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, quoting from my FT article, which is that that is one of the structural reforms that we in the west in the developed world should be carrying out in order to increase our growth rates, and as the right hon. Gentleman is being so friendly, I shall have to take away his thoughts and think about them again.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Whether it be Afghanistan, the global economy or, indeed, tackling climate change, the G8 and G20 summits are becoming useful vehicles for tackling global issues, but they make decisions that are then passed on to an organisation created just after the war, the United Nations, which is woefully out of date. Were there any discussions about updating the United Nations so that it can tackle these issues much better?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. The UN Secretary-General was, of course, at the G20 meeting and made a number of contributions, but my hon. Friend is right that the architecture of international relations is badly out of date. We have the rise of India, we have the enormous strength of Germany and Japan, and we have the great growth of Brazil, yet none of those countries is on the Security Council. We have to recognise that it is all very well all of us—we all do this—saying that we must share global leadership with India and China, but if we are going to share global leadership we need to change these institutions. This was discussed. It is fantastically difficult because people have so many vested interests—as, indeed, do we—but I do think that it is absolutely right for countries such as India and Brazil to have the sense that they should be on the UN Security Council.