Storm Henk

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Finally but not least, I call Tobias Ellwood.

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

I welcome the financial support for flood-hit communities. Storm Henk has left its mark on Bournemouth, with local flooding and damage to our roads in the form of potholes. We know that if they are not repaired swiftly, they cause more damage to cars and bikes, and cost more to repair in the long term. The good news is that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council has received £19 million to fix them, so the money is there, but the potholes are back. Will the Minister join me in encouraging the council to waste no further time in fixing them, and not to direct the money elsewhere?

Urgent and Emergency Care Recovery Plan

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are under a lot of time pressure today, so may I ask the remaining Members and those who are going to take part in the next statement to please think of very short, focused, single questions?

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

I welcome the statement and the extra investment in the NHS. It was a privilege to visit Bournemouth Hospital recently and meet the dedicated staff, and as the Secretary of State will know, it is expanding with a new A&E facility. Will he visit Bournemouth, meet the staff, and see the progress taking place?

Small Modular Reactors: Government Funding

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I commend her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group. I hope that her comments will fall on the welcome ears of the Minister, who is soon to get to his feet.

My plea to the Minister is simple. I ask him please to recognise that the scale of the energy crisis we face necessitates a leaning into this project to secure the greater political alignment that would allow funding models to be completed during this Parliament. That is entirely possible.

Europe is once again at war, and it is time for us to move to a warlike footing if we are to reduce our dependence on overseas power sources which are exposed to volatile international prices and, indeed, adversarial interference which we cannot control. We can enjoy greater energy self-sufficiency with cheaper bills by generating cheap, clean, reliable power within our borders. We have the know-how, we have the desire, we have the industrial advantage; I simply ask the Minister for the political will to make it happen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the Minister to his new role.

Points of Order

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not been made aware of how this information has been disseminated, other than the email that Sir Iain Duncan Smith has just spoken about. I am absolutely certain that all parts of the United Kingdom will be made aware in the dialogue that takes place between the devolved Administrations and the Government.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the sort of grey-zone interference we now anticipate and expect from China but, given the fact that it has happened to this Parliament, there must be a sense of urgency from the Government. Having heard your comments today, I am grateful that you are taking this matter very seriously indeed, but could I encourage and endorse the request for a statement on this before the close of play today, so that we can understand its ramifications and impact and what the Government and, indeed, Parliament intend to do about it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Treasury Bench will have heard what he has had to say. As I said earlier, should a statement be made, the House will be informed in the usual manner. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will be very concerned about the content of the email, and I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) will pass on to the relevant Ministers the comments she has heard today from the Treasury Bench.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The time limit in the Queen’s Speech debate following this statement will start at five minutes, but I am sure it will go down thereafter.

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

I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he visits the vaccination hub in Bournemouth. Today’s partial liberation of covid restrictions will be welcome up and down the country, and not least in Bournemouth where hospitality and tourism are so important, but the development of yet another mutation in the Indian variant illustrates that until this pandemic is brought under control globally, other more deadly mutations may develop. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a shared global adversary? Will it be raised at the G7 summit, and when does he think our spare vaccine capacity can start to be directed abroad?

RAF Scampton and the Red Arrows

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

I will do my best to impress, Mr Hollobone. As is normal practice in these debates, I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his very kind words in recognising the issues I have to deal with—providing the news and dealing with the real estate—and for his courtesy in our discourse about this very delicate matter.

I also take this opportunity to welcome back the Tornado pilots who have returned from their duties in Iraq and Syria for the last time. The Tornado is an incredible aircraft, which came into service in 1979. It has now returned to RAF Marham and will be replaced by the F35 and the Typhoon. That demonstrates the advancement of our incredible capabilities, which were reflected across the nation in the 100th anniversary last year. I think that was a welcome reminder to the nation of just how important our armed forces are. We as a nation step forward when perhaps other countries do not. That is part of our desire and appetite to help to shape the world around us, as a force for good. The RAF has played, and continues to play, an important role in that.

Before I discuss RAF Scampton in detail, I want to put into context the wider picture of defence real estate optimisation that we face. My right hon. Friend touched on that a number of times in his speech. We must recognise that a base or a garrison is not just an operational locality; it is also a place for families and friends, where children grow up. It is part of a community and forms a bond with the society in which it is embedded.

We must also recognise that because of decades—indeed, centuries—of development of the armed forces real estate, the country is peppered with little localities, from Dad’s Army operations to huge bases. Some 3% of the UK is MOD land. Owing to the reduction in the size of all three services, some of that is surplus to requirement, and that means that we must make tough decisions.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that the presence of the Red Arrows makes Scampton more important, because they are such an iconic institution in the United Kingdom. We associate them with the commemoration of important events and anniversaries, and particularly the 100th anniversary of the RAF. We have an important event coming up on 29 March this year. Does the Minister think it might be possible to arrange for the Red Arrows to fly over Parliament so we can properly celebrate that important historic event?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am tempted to say so many things. My hon. Friend, for whom I have huge respect, knows that we were on different sides of the argument. To be clear, where we are is not where I would want to be. However, I am committed to democracy and I recognise the process that we have undergone, so I respect the fact that, if there is a deal, we will depart from the European Union on 29 March. I hope he will forgive me for saying that although 17 million people may be shouting for joy on that day and may demand that the Red Arrows participate, the nation as a whole—43 million voters—must come together, put aside their polarised views and the gridlock we have faced, and move forward.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough touched on the challenges we face, including what Russia is doing. China is tasking us in another void. We must work with our European partners to meet the threats and challenges we face in a diverse, very complex, changing and threatening world. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) will understand if I do not jump at the opportunity to stand with him on the point that he made.

I return to the subject of the debate. To conclude my point about the defence real estate optimisation programme, we must reduce the size of the footprint of the estate and drive down the running costs.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I cannot comment, for the obvious reason that we do not discuss intelligence matters at the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that what he is saying is that he has no evidence whatsoever that Saudi Arabia has been involved in any human rights violations? If there were such evidence, would he suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

[Mr Ellwood]

It is not in my gift to make that judgment—the Foreign Office can only make recommendations—but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if we were to find breaches of international humanitarian law, that would change our view of whether future arms exports should take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is not only finances that are moving out of Iraq and Syria, but people. The fighters are moving to other parts of the world to promote their extremist cause. Afghanistan is one of those places and Libya is another. We are closing in on the individuals who are providing the accounts and we now have the legislative means to close them. It will be difficult, but we need to work with those countries outside Iraq and Syria if we are to defeat extremism and close the financial channels it uses.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

One hundred and eighty-seven countries have ratified the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. What confidence can we have in, and what action can we take against, any of those signatories that are dealing in some of the oil that is funding Daesh?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is right to articulate that point. This is the main funding source that is keeping Daesh alive. It is able to use those funds to pay for the fighters who are causing so many of the problems in Iraq and Syria. It is hoped that the Vienna talks will lock down those countries—Iran has already been named—to ensure that they honour their commitments so that we can close down the financial channels.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my first response, so let me repeat it. I understand that the case is under consideration in the Saudi supreme court. This country, along with many others across the world, made representations at senior levels to ensure that it was understood where we stand as a supporter of freedom of expression around the world. It is now for the supreme court of make a judgment, and we should not pre-empt what the court will say.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Lashing, like stoning and crucifixion, belongs to the Old Testament, not to the 21st century. Please will the Minister keep up his pressure on our friends in Saudi Arabia to make them see sense?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is very important that Britain stands by other countries in pushing for not only the right of freedom of expression, but the right of justice for those in prison, and we will continue to do so. The lashings have now stopped and this case is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court—[Interruption.]—something I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald) still does not understand.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like others, I declare my interest as a member of the Territorial Army. There seem to be enough of us here to form a small platoon, which would perhaps be interesting, although such a platoon would come only from this side of the Chamber. Indeed, there is a noticeable absence of support for today’s debate from the Opposition Benches—[Interruption]—other than from the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who has just walked into the Chamber.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who, with his eloquent speech, raised the standard of this debate—we were getting into the weeds a little bit, talking about the tactics of the SDSR rather than the strategy. We were starting to talk about the individual bits of kit that we enjoy, like or are in love with—we are always quick to quote a retired general or admiral saying, “This is exactly what we need”—rather than stepping back and asking what the strategy is and where we fit in the bigger picture. Fundamentally, the SDSR is about how we protect our people, our allies, our economy and our infrastructure—indeed, our way of life—from the potential risks that we face. It is about how, on occasions working with our allies, we apply the instruments of power to influence and shape the global environment, and how potential tactical threats affect us.

The shadow Secretary of State did not want to get partisan when I intervened on him, but it is important to reflect on what happened over the last decade. Not only did the previous Government not have an SDSR, which was bad time management, but not having one affected our military’s ability to perform. During that decade we saw the September 11 attacks, we were involved in enormous campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we had the July 2005 bombings. The type of threat changed, compared with the cold war stance that we were used to. There were huge changes in operational tactics too, with the introduction of drone warfare, advances in missile systems and stealth technology—ways to introduce force multipliers that did not exist before. The conduct of war also changed, with an emphasis on stabilisation operations as much as war fighting, as illustrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. The kinetic phases of those campaigns were over very quickly, but the lack of an unconditional surrender meant that we then got into protracted stabilisation and peacekeeping operations.

I was saddened to visit Sandhurst not long ago and find that it had only just introduced courses in CIMIC—civil-military co-operation—which are required to enable the military to liaise and work with civilian counterparts, NGOs and the Department for International Development in those other operations, which start in the aftermath of the war fighting. That is what we now need to get good at; that is what was missing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Had the Labour Government held a defence review, those issues would have been identified. However, they did not, and we failed to take the opportunity to fundamentally modernise our armed forces. I think the Chilcot inquiry will reflect that. It will show that our armed forces found themselves in two campaigns with the wrong numbers and the wrong equipment, and without a clear strategy.

I firmly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border about our ability to work more cohesively with other Departments. We need to be able to work with DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that our strategy—the purpose of sending our military into danger—is absolutely crystal clear. It is clear from General Petraeus’s book on counter-insurgency that it is not enough simply to defeat the enemy; we now have to win over the hearts and minds of the locals—the friends that we are trying to support.

The triangle consisting of security at the top, then governance, followed by development and reconstruction has still not been developed. In Afghanistan, the security aspects took far too long to get right. Huge questions still arise as to why we ended up in Helmand province anyway. Those of us who know the history of that country will be aware of the treaty of Gandamak and the battle of Kandahar. Events such as those tell us that we are not particularly welcome in that patch of Afghanistan, given the history there. There might have been other places in which we could have been more strategically helpful. Lessons have been learned from those engagements and put into practice in Libya, where there has been a far more coherent effort, not only within our own Departments but in regard to whom we work with, including our NATO allies.

Labour missed a massive opportunity to understand what exactly our military are expected to do. Our armed forces were placed in danger and given kit that was out of date. I mentioned Snatch Land Rovers in an intervention. Too often at that time, other bits of kit were thrown at the military for testing, to see whether they would work. They included vehicles such as the Jackal, the Cougar, the Vector and the Ridgback. Eventually, the Mastiff came along and proved to be the most suitable for use in those operations. Things should not have had to work in that way, however. A security strategy could have helped in that context.

Procurement errors have been made. The Nimrod has been mentioned many times in the debate. The contract for its development was signed in 1996, and it was due for delivery in 2003, yet not one aircraft ever received a certificate of airworthiness. The Sea Harriers have been cut, which means that there is now no chance of us ever putting a carrier in. The existing Harriers do not have guns; they do not have the Mauser weapon systems. They cannot carry the Brimstone or the Storm Shadow, yet those missiles were critical to the success of the action in Libya.

We get stuck with certain favourite bits of kit. The Apache is now in a new dimension. It travels at two thirds the speed of the Harrier and fires the Hellfire missile, which is just as potent as any of our other weapons. We hear that the Falklands are under threat. We have an aircraft carrier there, so the base already exists, and it has the Typhoon and the Tornado. The Argentines spend only £3 billion on their defence budget, compared with our £30 billion. I believe that we should place the question of Argentina in a separate context in relation to the SDSR. It is a distraction from where we are going.

Finally, I should like to congratulate the Defence team on what it is doing. I think that we are finally progressing—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

Well, let us go through it, shall we? The deficit plan that we put in place would have involved £57 billion-worth of discretionary action—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State just pause for a moment? I know that he has read all 40 pages of chapter 6 of the Budget that was published in March last year, but let me just remind him of their contents: £57 billion-worth of discretionary action; £19 billion-worth of tax rises; and £38 billion of cuts, £18 billion of which would have fallen on capital, and £20 billion of which would have fallen on current expenditure, of which £12 billion would have fallen in Whitehall, £5 billion would have fallen on lower priority projects and £3 billion would have been achieved through a pay freeze and asking public sector workers to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I just want to clarify that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) meant that the right hon. Gentleman was inadvertently misleading the House.

[Mr Ellwood]

Of course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

Energy Efficiency

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 30th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s final point, as I spent much of last year doing a study on this very subject. The point he raises about the far north of England and Scotland is relevant, however, and I will come to it in due course, when, no doubt, he will want to jump up and have another go.

According to Cambridge university, this change to our clocks would mean that electricity prices for the whole of the United Kingdom would reduce by about 5%. Moreover, the UK’s carbon footprint would be reduced by about 500,000 tonnes of CO₂. People should wake up and see that that figure is relevant. That was not even a consideration in the 1970s, when, as hon. Members might recall, there was a three-year pilot project to test this idea; some people enjoyed it, and others did not. It turned out that the voices who spoke most strongly against it were those of the farmers—and rightly, because the business that they operated meant that they had to make best use of the daylight, and it conflicted with their routine. However, the National Farmers Union, and indeed NFU Scotland, no longer object to the idea. When NFU Scotland is asked if it is the first thing it wants, of course it says no—it is not on its agenda at all—but it has withdrawn its objections to it, and that makes sense, because farming is now a 24-hour industry.

The experiment was very positive, and it saw a reduction in fatalities and injuries across the UK. You might be interested to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, however, that the reason why the experiment was flipped back was that farmers told all the Conservative MPs who were in power at the time that they would be denied the poster sites that are so important during a general election were it to continue. That was why they said, “Okay, fine, we will get rid of this”. However, reading the Hansard makes it clear that the argument for dropping it was weak.

I have mentioned the reduction in the UK’s carbon footprint, but there would also be an important boost to British tourism, an industry that Parliament almost neglects. It is our fifth-biggest industry and brings in more than £90 billion a year. According to the Tourism Alliance, daylight saving would boost the industry by about £2 billion, which is worth considering. We are the sixth most visited place in the world, and if we can find other means to encourage people to come here and take advantage of British tourist attractions, particularly those outdoors, it is worth looking into.

Safer roads, which I believe have been mentioned, are another aspect of daylight saving. As I have said, when the experiment last took place there was a reduction in deaths. I agree that more deaths took place in the morning, but the net change was a decrease. That was because in the morning, people tend to make a journey from A to B, with A being their home and B being somewhere they know, such as work or school. In the evenings they tend to make a journey from A to C, with C being somewhere they have not been before. That means that they are not so familiar with the roads, which leads to accidents. Shifting the time so that it is lighter in the evenings rather than the mornings reduces the number of accidents that take place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about energy efficiency, not road deaths, important though that matter is?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, and focus on how daylight saving is very energy-efficient. I will not cover the reduction in crime or the increase in international trade that it would bring, although they are important, or health and well-being, although they are also worth considering.

It is worth my mentioning Scotland, though, and the possible efficiency savings there. With daylight saving, in the Glasgow-Edinburgh conurbation there would be 83 more daylight hours before 4 pm and 5 pm, 120 more between 4 pm and 6 pm and 165 more between 4 pm and 7 pm. The numbers would be larger for the rest of the UK. It is a very simple move that would not cost the Government a penny to implement, other than to put the necessary legislation through. It would align us with our European colleagues, which would mean that we would become more efficient from a business perspective as well, so I recommend it.

I understand that there is finally a private Member’s Bill on the matter, so I am the warm-up act for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who I understand will introduce Second Reading on—