Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Vince Cable and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Vince Cable]

Of course, not all information could be made available. That is why having trust in the Prime Minister, which I do as an individual, and in our security services and military, as I do, are absolutely imperative. If that were in place, the House would have a mature debate on the principle. I think that the Prime Minister would have had a significant majority had she followed that path.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the coalition Government, he made decisions as part of that Government. He is now part of the legislature. Does he not accept that there is a distinction? He says that he trusts the Prime Minister, and surely that is what today’s debate is all about.

[Sir Vince Cable]

I am also well aware that I have had to fight my way back into the legislature and I am no longer a member of the Government. When I was a member of the Government, I supported military intervention in this place. I think that, on that occasion, Parliament got it wrong. I also think that it got it wrong over the Iraq war, but the process was a necessary discipline. It is a pity that we are now having to talk about legislative remedies when there was a perfectly good and sound convention that successive Prime Ministers were following, but this one is not.

That is all I wish to say about the process issues, but I want to raise several specific questions of substance that I do not think were dealt with in yesterday’s debate. The first, which was raised by me and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), is whether this is a one-off operation, or a continuous series of strikes for which we need to be prepared. That is not an academic question. A lot of open-source material suggests that the number of chemical attacks in Syria is far greater than the number—five, I think—that was cited yesterday. The White Helmets, the Syrian human rights organisation, has come up with the figure of 213 in the last five years. In other words, every week the Syrian armed forces are using chemical weapons. Low-level divisional commanders are using crude chemicals, notably chlorine, and it strikes me as being perfectly plausible that they will do so again.

The question, then, is this: what is the threshold at which we once again intervene? Is it any use of chemical weapons? Is it a certain number of deaths? Is it the indignation of the President of the United States when he has seen something on television? What is the threshold for continuing involvement in this struggle? This is all the more reason why we need parliamentary authorisation for continuing action.

My second question, which relates indirectly to that, is about the role of the President of the United States. I regard the United States as an ally and a friendly country with which we have long and strong bonds, but I think that we all have problems with a President who is erratic, capricious and regarded with open contempt by the public officials who have worked with him, and who even now, in the middle of this crisis, seems to regard President Assad and President Putin as less of a problem than Stormy Daniels and Robert Mueller.

The question is, in our continuing dealings with the major power of the western world, where do we go? We know that in the last few days the President has introduced into his Administration John Bolton, who is absolutely open about the fact that if there are further strikes he will wish to include Iranian targets—we know that will inflame the issue in relation to Israel—and who wants to derail the agreement on nuclear weapons with Iran. I would like some assurance at the end of the debate that the British Government are holding fast with France and the rest of the European Union in honouring and supporting that agreement, and are not being over-influenced by the American Administration.

My third and final question relates to Russia. In her statement, the Prime Minister linked Salisbury with the chemical weapons attack. It is very striking that while we have followed the United States—perhaps rightly—in military action, we have not followed the Americans in imposing penal sanctions on oligarchs and stock market dealings. The impact is blatantly obvious. The Russians must be asking themselves, “Why haven’t they done it? Are they afraid of retaliation? Are there vested interests in the City?” That is the kind of question to which we need an answer.

We should have had answers to all those questions last week. I hope that we will improve the processes of the House to ensure that they are given in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Vince Cable and Nigel Evans

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I would hope that all parties continue to support the industrial strategy, which has been a considerable success, particularly in the aerospace industry, and Airbus has been one of its beneficiaries. To be frank, when I came into office I was warned by the industry that it was gradually drifting away overseas and that we would no longer be able to claim that we were the second aerospace power in the world, but with the big, long-term commitment we have made its future is secure, including that of Airbus.

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

2. What steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

We have established the British Business Bank, which is supporting more than £1.8 billion of finance to 43,000 smaller businesses. More than 26,000 start-up loans have been drawn, totalling more than £136 million. The greatbusiness.gov.uk website brings together expert advice for businesses in one place, and the new Business Growth Service provides joined-up support to firms with growth potential. Some 48,000 businesses have been helped by our UKTI support—90% were small businesses.

[Mr Evans]

My constituency is next door to Pendle, funnily enough. It is very similar, but we do not have and do not want an airport. What we do have are many small businesses, from the butcher to restaurants, bars, hotels and independently owned stores that tend to employ local people and source locally whenever they can. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have to bend over backwards to ensure the vibrancy of those businesses so that they continue to be the lifeblood of our communities?

[Vince Cable]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and one of the success stories of this Government has been the massive expansion of small business, with hundreds of thousands of start-ups, many of them now employing people. However, I would caution against attempts to make some distinction between big and small businesses. They are interdependent through supply chains, and the excellent announcement today from Jaguar Land Rover, with its big investment in the west midlands in the new Jaguar, is an example of its confidence in the country, but it will also provide a substantial amount of business for its suppliers, small and large.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Vince Cable and Nigel Evans

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I will take further interventions in a moment. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Vince Cable]

Let me finish this point. Then I will take hon. Members’ interventions, as I have done throughout the debate.

Tourism will not be confined to London. Sports events are taking place in a number of locations: football in Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle and Coventry; sailing in Weymouth; mountain biking in Essex; rowing in Eton Dorney; Paralympic road cycling at Brands Hatch; and canoe slalom in Hertfordshire. In addition, big screens are being put up in towns and cities around the country to enable people to get together to watch the games. We want tourists and visitors right across the country to be free to take advantage of longer shop opening hours.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Vince Cable and Nigel Evans

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purpose of section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004, the higher amount should be increased to £9,000, and to £4,500 in the cases described in regulation 5 of the draft regulations in Command Paper Cm 7986, and that the increase should take effect from 1 September 2012.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall discuss the following motion on education:

That the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.

[Vince Cable]

The terms of the statutory instrument are narrow, but I think you ruled yesterday evening, Mr Speaker, that you would like us to entertain debate on the wider issues involved, because they arouse very strong feelings inside and outside the House. The instrument represents a central part of a policy that is designed to maintain high-quality universities in the long term, that tackles the fiscal deficit and that provides a more progressive system of graduate contributions based on people’s ability to pay.

I shall briefly go over the sequence of events that has led to this debate. I became Secretary of State in May, when the Browne report was being conducted. It had been commissioned by the previous Labour Government last November. They had asked the former chief executive of BP to conduct a report in order to prepare the way for an increase in tuition fees following the earlier introduction of fees, and then top-up fees, by the last Government.

Tuition Fees

Debate between Vince Cable and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I have made it absolutely clear in all the interviews that I have given today that my wish and strong inclination is to vote for a policy that I believe in passionately—[Interruption.] This is a policy that I believe in. It is a significantly better policy than I inherited. It is right.

The hon. Lady knows, because it operates in her party as well as in mine and in the Conservative party, that decisions on who votes are taken collectively. We will take a collective decision—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady asked me a question. I am trying to give her an answer. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) want an answer or not? We will make a decision based upon the coalition agreement as it affects my colleagues and our Conservative coalition partners. That is how we will vote, and we will do it in a disciplined way, but my own views are clear. [Interruption.] This is a significant—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Would hon. Members now please be quiet? I am finding it incredibly difficult to listen to what the Minister has to say, and if I cannot hear him, neither can they.

[Vince Cable]

Opposition Members will discover, when the regulations are introduced—