Carillion

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think it important that, whether a service is provided by the public or the private sector, every effort is made—both in the designing of the contract or in-house arrangements and subsequently, through management of those arrangements—to deliver a service of the highest possible quality. The hon. Gentleman cannot unfairly point to examples in which the private sector has fallen down on the job, but it is equally possible to point to examples in which the public sector has done so. Many of us remember only too vividly the report on Mid Staffordshire hospital in recent years. It is not a question of private-public, one good and the other bad; it is a question of seeking to drive forward the highest standards, whatever the form of provision.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is not new news that Carillion had financial difficulties, and the Minister himself has referred to the Government having taken a particular interest in the performance of Carillion in the period since July 2017. Why did the Government leave the position of the Crown representative to Carillion vacant from August to November when there was such concern about the performance and financial health of Carillion?

[Mr Lidington]

A Crown representative was appointed a little while ago—before my time at the Cabinet Office started—and we intend to announce the name as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

When I was Home Secretary, work was undertaken by the Home Office on the experience in a number of countries and the different ways they approached the issue of drugs, but I am afraid that I have a different opinion from my hon. Friend on drugs, as would those dealing with people affected by drugs. I think of my constituent Elizabeth Burton-Phillips, who set up DrugFAM after the suicide of her son, who was a drug addict. I think of the work she is doing with families affected because a family member is on drugs, and of the incredible damage it can do to families and the individuals concerned. I am sorry but I take a different view from him. It is right that we continue to fight the war against drugs.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Chesterfield has migrated a considerable distance from his usual place, but we look forward to hearing from him anyway.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Q14. People with the most severe disabilities moving on to universal credit have discovered that they are up to £100 a week worse off because there is no severe disability component in the payment. Whatever happens about the delays in the next hour, does the Prime Minister realise that universal credit will continue to shame her Government so long as it pushes the most disabled into the worst poverty?

[The Prime Minister]

We spend more than £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions—that has increased by more than £7 billion since 2010—and spending on disability benefits will be higher in every year to 2020 than in 2010. As regards universal credit, as I have said in the Chamber before, it is a simpler, more straightforward system, but, crucially, it is helping people to get into the workplace and making sure they keep more of the money they earn.

Grenfell Tower

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Communities Secretary has demanded that the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea Council resigns. Should Councillor Paget-Brown resign?

[The Prime Minister]

That matter will be considered by the appropriate group on Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Debate on the Address

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that the reason why I am not welcoming the former right hon. Member to this House is because he was beaten by a Conservative in the election.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury showed great skill and tenacity over his three years of negotiations on the common fisheries policy. The process started with the UK as a minority of one, and ended with the EU unanimously supporting a reform agenda, the principles of which will be at the heart of the fisheries Bill in this Queen’s Speech. He was also the Minister who secured cross-party support for moving our canals and waterways from the public to the charitable sector, creating the Canal & River Trust, one of the biggest and best endowed charities in this country. He made an excellent speech today in the finest traditions of this House.

The motion was brilliantly seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). He is a distinguished political historian and a prolific writer, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. I understand that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in female Prime Ministers. Indeed, Members may know that his most recent book profiled the most testing six months for our country’s first female Prime Minister. It ran to 272 pages; I fear his next book could be somewhat longer.

My hon. Friend is also widely regarded for his good looks. In fact, The Sunday Telegraph once described him as a Tory “heart-throb”, and during his time on “University Challenge”, I gather he even made it to page 3 of The Sun. Perhaps most significantly, he is confounding the Daily Mail, which cited the 1995 “University Challenge” winning team of which my hon. Friend was a member when arguing that

“all too often the brainy winners of the BBC’s flagship programme sink without trace after their moment in the spotlight.”

I could not disagree more. The House has today seen his talents on full display. He gave a tremendous speech with flair, substance and wit. He brings an historian’s wisdom to the challenges and opportunities that our country faces, and I have no doubt that he will make a major contribution in the years ahead.

Let me welcome the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) as the new leader of the Scottish National party here in Westminster. I am also, of course, particularly pleased to welcome to the Conservative Benches my 13 Scottish Conservative colleagues. It is good that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not have to put up with any more jokes about pandas.

Turnout at the election was higher than in 2015, including many more younger people. While those of us on this side of the House would have preferred more of them to vote for us, more young people going to the ballot box is something that we should all welcome.

Let me also welcome the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) back to his place as the Leader of the Opposition. He fought a spirited campaign and he came a good second, which was better than the pundits predicted and than many of his own MPs hoped for.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is celebrating her immense triumph following the recent campaign, but I could not help but notice something as she and the Leader of the Opposition went off to listen to the Queen’s Speech. Thinking back to when I was at school and we came back having not seen people for six weeks, I thought, “Has she shrunk, or has he grown?” [Interruption.]

[Christian Matheson]

I was hoping that the Prime Minister might answer my—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), but then I will not give way again unless somebody is particularly pressing, if hon. Members will forgive me.

[Toby Perkins]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He is absolutely right that the economy should be a priority. He has mentioned some of the things that might have to wait until further down the line, but he did not talk about immigration. Having spent a lot of time speaking to people in Chesterfield over the last few weeks, I know that if we end up with some kind of deal whereby we leave the EU but nothing changes in terms of immigration, many of the Brexit voters will feel that their vote for leaving the EU was very much given under false pretences.

[Mr Clarke]

I understand the political background to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I get concerned that more and more Labour Members—perfectly reasonable ones—who represent constituencies in the north of England or the north midlands are now suddenly finding reasons for sounding rather anti-immigrant and putting forward that interpretation. We have a problem with immigration—I will address it—but we should not start feeding nonsense like the idea that EU nationals have lowered our living standards or are taking our jobs. The political temptation to start sounding a bit like the erstwhile UKIP opponent should be resisted, particularly by people in what used to be safe Labour seats in the north of England.

Let me turn to the question of the single market and the customs union. We are going to have to seek some compromise, so I start from the proposition that, as far as I am aware, there is not a single protectionist Member of Parliament sitting in this House. Everybody here declares their fervent belief in free trade. It was never always thus in this House. The only real protectionist on my side of the House was the late Alan Clark, which was rather odd as he was Minister for Trade at the beginning of the Uruguay round, although he was exceptional in many matters. The left wing of the Labour party in the days of Michael Foot was ferociously protectionist, as it was ferociously Eurosceptic—it was united with the old imperialist right in our party in opposing the European project.

I am never quite sure where the present Leader of the Opposition has gone to, because he and I have rather consistently stuck to the sort of views we both had when we entered this House many years ago—he a little later than me, but not much. He was one of the stoutest Bennite Eurosceptics in the House of Commons—it was a capitalist plot in those days. He has not exactly had a Pauline conversion. It is not bad, but I kept finding that he was speaking on the same side as me in the recent referendum, although he only seemed able to find arguments about resisting obscure threats to workers’ rights, which I could not see were remotely an issue in the referendum we were holding. But I will accept what he says and his party’s position, so I think that now he probably is in favour of free trade.

Particularly in the referendum, both sides in the campaign were united on the principles of free trade and open trading links with the rest of the EU. I think that everyone would agree that the leave side was led very robustly by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He in particular was very anxious to dismiss the suggestion that the future of our trading relationships was remotely going to be affected by our leaving the EU—it was said that that was the politics of fear and scaremongering. He repeatedly explained that, as the Germans needed to sell us their Mercedes cars and as the Italians needed to sell us their Prosecco, our trading relationships were obviously going to remain completely unchanged. Indeed, at times, he and one or two others in the leave campaign seemed to imply that we did not really need trade agreements in order to trade in the modern world, as we would simply go out there and sell things. However, if we leave the European Union with no deal and we do not have all the EU trade deals that we have helped to negotiate over the years, we will for a time be the only country in the developed world that has absolutely no trade agreements with any other country. My right hon. Friend, with his usual breezy insouciance, seemed quite undisturbed by that spectacle, but I do not think that that is where we are now.

Let me begin by dealing precisely with the key issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) raised. I hope that I can take it as a given starting point across the House that we will seek to achieve no new customs barriers, regulatory barriers or tariffs between ourselves and the rest of the European Union. Tariffs are important, but they are not as important as the other two for quite a lot of aspects of a modern economy. I take it that all sides agree that we shall not seek to put any obstacles of that kind in the way of future relationships.

In the present circumstances, I am anxious to demonstrate my agreement with our friends in the Democratic Unionist party. I share all their fervour that we should have an open border in Ireland. It would be an absolute catastrophe if we found ourselves closing that border again, with all the threats to the stability of Ulster and the Irish Republic that that would entail. Given that no one would argue in principle with what I have just said about no new tariffs, regulatory barriers or customs barriers, I find it odd that those on the two Front Benches are ostensibly agreed that we are going to leave the single market—that is difficult to understand in the case of Labour—and perhaps the customs union as well. I can only assume that either that is mere semantics, or that we are going to see considerable ingenuity in how we achieve what is to people of common sense on both sides of the channel a desirable goal, while at the same time withdrawing from the single market and the customs union.

I repeat that when we received our instructions from the people—to use the kind of phrase that the Eurosceptics are fond of—in the referendum, I do not recall the question of leaving the single market and the customs union being even remotely seriously raised. Certainly in the rather good debates that I had with intelligent Eurosceptics in village halls and so on, none of them ever suggested that we would do that. This is in line with my experience throughout my time in this House, during which every Eurosceptic has argued that there is nothing wrong with the common market. Every right-wing Tory has always been totally in favour of having close and open trading relations with the rest of Europe. The sole basis of their opposition was the politics of Europe, or their version of what they thought that was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank all the voters of the Chesterfield constituency who, for the third time, have done me the honour of sending me back to this place. As the final speaker in today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, it comes as little surprise to me that today we have learned that the Prime Minister’s head of policy is the latest adviser to leave the sinking ship. Not only did today’s Queen’s Speech tell us that this is a Government in search of a programme, but it was the first ever Queen’s Speech that was more noted for what was not in it than for what was.

Never before have we seen a more charmless and negative prescription from any party than the one that we saw in the most recent election, and today we see what is left: a Prime Minister who is in office but not in power, and a Government without a majority or much of a plan for what they want to do with the power they cling to. They are neither strong nor stable, nor particularly able, and they are not certain of whether they even have a partner with which to complete their programme.

I was intending to spend a little time talking about some of the measures that all those votes for Labour MPs have prevented, but the passion and lucidity with which the Conservative programme was savaged by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who stood on it, suggested to me that if we cannot take apart the Tories’ manifesto as passionately as they can, perhaps we should just leave that part of the equation where it is. It is true to say that a strong and stable Tory Government implementing the manifesto that they stood on would have taken money from pensioners, would have taken school meals from infants, would have taken homes from bereaved families and would have further weakened our public services, so today we celebrate the Labour victories, because although they left us short of the victory that we wanted, they have made a real difference to the programme that is in front of us.

Although the Queen’s Speech lacks ambition and detail, it is a Queen’s Speech that has the shadow of Brexit looming large over it. There will be considerable debate about the shape of Britain’s post-Brexit future. It is right that this should be an opportunity for the Government to stop and think about how they can deliver a Brexit that works for the 48% as well as for the 52%.

I know that colleagues on both sides of the House—many of them Labour Members—are keen to try to maintain Britain’s place in the single market as the key priority, but I have to say that it would be premature for us to go down that route. We may well find in a year’s time that the Norway option is the best solution, but we have not yet started the negotiations in any meaningful way. If all we can say to those who voted leave is that they have to accept that we will continue to have freedom of movement throughout the EU, they will absolutely believe that they have been misled about what they voted for in the referendum.

We need to proceed with tremendous caution. Let us see whether the Foreign Secretary can deliver the kind of Brexit that he promised in advance of the referendum. If he cannot, he will have to come back and explain why that cannot be achieved, and we will then have to ask whether the single market is indeed the best option for us to pursue.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there had been no prospect of our immigration rules being changed, there would have been no victory for Brexit in the referendum. It is important that the Government confess to and admit that. Yes, there were people in Chesterfield who recognised the massive benefits that immigrants have brought to our country. I was disappointed that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that any talk about immigration made somebody anti-immigrant. I am not remotely anti-immigrant. Many of the people in my constituency who voted leave want the German anaesthetist here, the Kenyan heart surgeon here and the Singaporean nurse here, but they also want us to have some controls on that immigration. If, as has happened all the way through, anyone who raises the question of immigration is automatically said to be against the immigrants who have made such a great contribution to our society, we should not be surprised when the voters think we are not listening to them. I was therefore disappointed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in his speech today.

I recognise the extent to which a better educated, more highly skilled, more diverse and more outward-looking country has been the result of the immigration we have had, and so would many people in my constituency. I regret that all of us in this place have not done more to discuss the economic benefits that immigration has brought to our country. I speak to pensioners who say, “I’ve worked all my life. I’ve paid into my pension.” I respond, “No, you’ve worked all your life and you’ve paid your mum and dad’s pension. Now someone has to pay yours.” Immigrants come at working age, when they are young and healthy, and make an important contribution.

I hope that the immigration Bill that the Government bring forward will enable us to conduct a full and detailed analysis of the economic and social implications of future immigration policy. If, as a result of cutting immigration—the Government have spoken about that over a long period of time, but have not achieved it—we will be poorer, it is incredibly important that we make people aware that that is what we are saying. The truth is that the immigration policy for those outside the EU has failed to achieve the immigration target that the Government have set, so we need to be candid about what faces us. I will welcome the new immigration Bill, but only if it allows our country to have the discussion we should have had long, long ago. The vast majority of my constituents welcome skilled labour in the workplace, recognise that hard-working, young, fit and skilled employees offer a financial benefit to our country, and want Britain to send out the message that we still want to attract such people so that we have a chance of competing in the 21st-century race.

Voters in Chesterfield who voted to leave expect us to continue trading, to control who comes into the country, and to stop contributing to an institution that we are no longer a part of. That was the promise they were made by the Foreign Secretary and others during the campaign. If that promise can be delivered, the mandate for Britain to leave the EU is clear. However, if it cannot be delivered—if the Government are going to make it more difficult for British businesses to compete in the global marketplace, if they are not going to have the controls on immigration that they promised and if the post-Brexit Britain they promised was a cruel illusion—there will be no mandate for the Government to carry on with a programme that fails to keep the promises they made.

The Government will shamble on, with or without a DUP deal, until the end comes. If the Government were a horse, they would be on their way to the glue factory. There is important work ahead for all of us. I urge the Government to adopt a cross-party approach to Brexit. Most of all, I say to the Government that if they run out of ideas, they should get out of the way and hand over to a party that has not.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the last contributor to our debate, for saying so explicitly to the House what he really thinks.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

London Attack

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words, and, again, for the warm way in which she has spoken of the action of members of the House of Commons staff who were looking after the small children in the nursery. She is absolutely right: the terrorists do not speak in the name of a faith; they have a warped ideology.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The murderer who used both his car and a knife as indiscriminate weapons of murder yesterday cared not what the faith was of the people he killed, or about their nationality. Does it not say everything about why our values will prevail and the values of murder will not that, after the police had shot him, they attempted to save his life?

[The Prime Minister]

It absolutely does show the values that underpin our way of life that the police’s first thought then was to try to save that individual’s life, and that is what the police do; it is what they have done in previous incidents as well. As the hon. Gentleman says, that shows the values that are at the heart of our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 8 February.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Toby Perkins]

The Government chose to launch the pupil premium at Spire Junior School in Chesterfield, where 70% of pupils receive free school meals. The headteacher, Dave Shaw, was going to run the great north run for a cancer charity. However, the Prime Minister’s new schools funding formula means that Spire Junior School now faces the biggest cuts in all of Derbyshire. Running for cash is now the only alternative to sacking staff. Will she go to the finish line and tell Dave Shaw how this is a fairer funding formula?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to say that, in the local authority that covers the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, we have seen an increase of over 17,000 children at good or outstanding schools since 2010. That is down to Government changes and the hard work of teachers and other staff in the schools. For a very long time, it has been the general view—I have campaigned on this for a long time—that we need to see a fairer funding formula for schools. What the Government have brought forward is a consultation on a fairer funding formula. We will look at the results of that fairer funding formula and will bring forward our firm proposals in due course.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Until three weeks ago, I anticipated that I would speak in this debate as Labour’s shadow armed forces Minister, but today I do so from the Back Benches. Either way, however, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for the work he did to ensure Labour’s approach to this debate was evidence based. In his capacity as chair of the PLP defence committee, he conducted an exhaustive series of seminars on the Vanguard renewal, with a wide body of contributors. We heard from the general secretary of CND, the Minister for Defence Procurement, two former Labour Secretaries of State for Defence, trade unions, firms responsible for the thousands of jobs that today hang in the balance, and academics and historians who placed the decision we face today in an appropriate global strategic and historical context.

I, too, have a historical context here. Back in the 1980s, my mother was a Greenham Common protester.

[John Woodcock]

Mine too.

[Toby Perkins]

That is something else we have in common. I believe that both my parents were members of CND. I do not think I ever had the badge, but as a 13-year-old I certainly made some of the arguments we heard from our Front Bench a few moments ago. As with much of the discourse in the Labour party now, we are having a retro debate that we thought had been settled three decades ago. We have previously fought general elections on a unilateralist platform. Some people surrounding the Labour party leader may think that winning elections is just the small bit that matters to political elites, but to most of us—and indeed to my constituents—it is pretty fundamental to delivering the change our society needs.

My instinct was that the policy on which we fought the previous election was the correct one, but I none the less approached the review with an open mind. I heard all the tried-and-tested arguments in opposition to Trident, but I have to say that the weight of evidence in support of the decision the Government are taking today was overwhelming.

I was told many things. I was told that once I got to meet senior military figures, I would learn that none of them really wanted this and all wanted the money to go elsewhere. That simply was not true. From a range of experienced and expert opinion, I heard time and again that our armed forces recognise the strategic importance of sending a powerful message to our adversaries, of the geopolitical role that a credible nuclear deterrent plays and of its importance to our relationship with our NATO allies.

In the past nine months, I have visited NATO with two previous shadow Secretaries of State for Defence. We met representatives from Estonia, Latvia, Poland and several other NATO allies. For those countries, the Russian threat is not a dinner table conversation, but a matter of chilling daily reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was told how desperate they were for Britain to retain the nuclear deterrent and send a powerful signal to President Putin.

We were also told that it was too soon to make a decision, but Lord West made it clear to the PLP defence committee that, because of the existing extension to the lifetime of the Vanguard class of submarines, further delays to the programme would mean that we could no longer maintain a permanent and continuous posture.

As the case for not having Trident has fallen apart, the alternative options we have heard proposed have become ever more absurd. First, we had “Build the submarines, but don’t equip them with nuclear capability”, which would involve all the spending, but none of the strategic benefit. Secondly, we were told we could re-perform the exhaustive Trident alternatives review and have another five years of indecision to match the period provided by the coalition Government.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) told us that all his constituents do not want this. However, only 44% of his constituents voted for a party that wants to get rid of Trident, while 56% voted for parties committed to the retention of Trident, so that does not stand up to scrutiny in the way he suggests.

The most depressing exchange was with representatives of the GMB union in Barrow, when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury suggested that they might like to make wind turbines instead. They politely but firmly informed her that they were involved in designing and producing one of the most complex pieces of technology on the face of the earth, and that wind turbines had already been invented.

The House is being asked today to take a difficult and a costly decision.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. He will have heard, as I have done, the case that many people have put to Labour MPs—that they do not back unilateralism, but would prefer an alternative nuclear weapons platform. What consideration did he give to those points when he represented us on the Front Bench?

[Toby Perkins]

That is a very important point. In fact, the Government tried to come to precisely that conclusion on behalf of the Liberal Democrat allies in the previous Government. The truth of the matter is that having a ballistic missile system based on submarines is crucial to ensuring that it is undetectable by our adversaries and that it provides a genuine and creditable deterrent in relation to our adversaries’ missile defence systems.

Labour Members should have confidence that the world-class technology produced by the very best of British manufacturing, which benefits suppliers in almost every constituency in the land—including, I am proud to say, at Cathelco in Chesterfield—is delivering the minimum credible continuous deterrent that we can deliver. It will aid global security and be viewed with great gratitude not just by the workers whose livelihoods depend on it, but by partners who are nervously watching our adversaries’ every move. Labour Members should know that they are voting in accordance with the policy they were elected on and in support of working trade union members and our heroic armed forces personnel; that they are contributing towards global security; that backing Vanguard is in keeping with our internationalist principles; and that it is the right thing to do.

National Defence Medal

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald]

I agree. I have been contacted by people who have served in many and various ways but are not entitled to a medal. It is an issue of concern, and I hope that we will hear more about it from the Minister. It does not matter how many independent reviews, staffed largely by people embedded in the status quo, take place; the changing facts provide the challenge facing the Government. The facts have changed. It is time that British medal policy changed to reflect them, and that it followed the example set by Commonwealth and other countries.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is absolutely right to say that many people are concerned about having their contribution recognised, particularly people who served in Northern Ireland and feel that they were not recognised for their contribution in the same way as people who served in more recent battles. I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of Robert Scollick, my constituent, and the Cabinet Office response said:

“I have to tell you there are no plans for further work on this issue, nor can I offer you a time scale when it might be sensible to return to this issue.”

I wish the hon. Lady luck in bringing to the Government the idea that the time to discuss it is now.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I agree that it is time to re-examine the issue. Things have changed. We must remember that our armed services are now made up entirely of those who have joined up voluntarily. They do so entirely of their own volition, and they clearly understand the potential peril that they face.

One of the other ways in which the context, and therefore the facts on which to base a decision, have changed involves the adoption of the armed forces covenant in 2010. On page 4, we find the commitment that performing any form of service in the armed forces deserves recognition and gratitude. Indeed it does, but unfortunately, for too many of those serving in our armed forces at present, we do not always deliver them. The armed forces covenant is mentioned often in this place, but such lofty words do not always translate into real and proper consideration of how we ought to support our service personnel and veterans.

Consider the recent poor outcomes of the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or the lengthy struggle to extract fair compensation for service personnel suffering from mesothelioma. The UK Government do not always do enough or act at an appropriate speed. A tangible recognition of service undertaken by means of a national defence medal would be only one way to continue to improve how we deal with our service personnel. We should surely be considering all our obligations.

Significantly, the most recent medals review, led by Sir John Holmes, recognised that the case for a National Defence Medal was worthy of consideration. I agree with him that such a decision would be significant and that it requires a broad political consensus; I am pleased to see a range of Members here. At the time of the review, the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals advised specifically that the issue might usefully be reconsidered in the future, going so far as to consider how criteria might be applied for such an award. I do not propose to do so here, but I agree that the matter would have to be examined properly so that a clear award framework could be set out.

I am interested in the principle of a medal being awarded and that is what we should consider today. In the meantime, Ministers have agreed that the eligibility requirements for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, which is currently awarded only to other ranks and not to officers, should be harmonised in the future, and I hope that today’s discussion will be a way to further that debate.

Having examined the argument against a UK national defence medal, I found it to be thin and inconsistent. Medals are already awarded for service, or sometimes just for being somewhere at the right time. While some people with just 10 years of service may have two Jubilee Medals, I have been contacted by a former member of the RAF who served for 20 years but received no medal at all. It is impossible to argue that that is a coherent position. Many people leave the service with no medal while some people who joined in 2000 and left in 2012 have received two medals without seeing any operational postings. How does that policy address Churchill’s plea that recognition should

“give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and…hurt the feelings of the fewest”?—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]

European Council

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Membership of those organisations helps us not only to get things done for our people and our country, but to make progress on the issues we care about around the world.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister deserves credit for the deal he has got; I will be able to campaign for it with confidence. He is right to say that the three different leave campaigns are unable to say what leave would really look like, but given that he will have to do the negotiations in the event of an out vote, it is also incumbent on him to tell us what leave would look like. When he sets out the alternatives, will he explain specifically what leave, as well as stay, would look like?

[The Prime Minister]

We will, as a Government, set out what we believe the alternatives are. There is the Swiss model, which took nine years to negotiate, and we have discussed the Norwegian model today. The World Trade Organisation option means that we could face tariffs every time we try to sell a car into the EU. The Canada free trade deal has not yet been agreed, but it does not cover all services so we could be seriously disadvantaged. We need to go into detail on each of those and put accurate information in place so that people can see what is on offer.

EU Council

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think there is good will towards Britain. As I said, many of the contributions to this debate were not just about Britain benefiting from being in Europe but about Europe benefiting from having Britain in it. People do not want us to leave, but we have to turn the good will into action. That is what the February or any subsequent Councils will be all about.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I wish the Prime Minister well in his renegotiations. I shall be campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU whether he is successful or not. He should not oversell the difference it will make to Britain whether he is successful or not. It means a lot to those of us who will be campaigning to stay in the EU that we will be able to do so on the basis of an honest and transparent case. It is therefore difficult for him to say that the changes he is campaigning for are irreversible. He knows as well as anyone that a future Prime Minister, Government or Parliament can change the terms in which we are in. Will he withdraw the allegation that the things he is campaigning for now are irreversible?

[The Prime Minister]

What I am looking for are changes that are legally binding and irreversible. Should a future British Prime Minister and the 27 other Prime Ministers and Presidents around the table decide to take Europe in a totally different direction, then that would be very concerning. But, and it is a big but, we should remember that we passed through this House the referendum lock. If any future Labour Prime Minister—or any other Prime Minister—tried to give away powers that we either have or get back there would be another referendum, so I do not think we have to worry about that.