UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Speech on the Iraq Inquiry Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat MP for Carshalton and Wallington, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2016.

    I welcome the fact that the Government have allocated two days for this debate. This is an opportunity to remind the House that although all Members considered the same evidence, presented to the House by Mr Blair, some—from all parties—came to a different conclusion from others about whether military action was timely or legal.

    The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) is no longer in his place, but I thank him for the service that he has given this country, as have other Members. I reassure him that although I, along with many other Members, marched against the Iraq war, I have always been fully supportive of our troops who were dispatched by our Government to fight that war, or indeed any other war. I have no criticism of them; I might have some for their senior officers, but that is a different matter.

    Since the publication of the Chilcot report, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem has provided a helpful summary of events in a speech in the House of Lords:

    “We know that the Cabinet was not provided with the full, detailed opinions of the Attorney-General. Sir John Chilcot forcefully finds that that was not proper and should not happen again…He found that military action was not yet the last resort, that diplomatic options were still available, that there was no imminent threat, that Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei were still able to fulfil their responsibilities, and that there were conflicting views about Resolution 1441. When you add to that Article 2 of the United Nations charter which prohibits regime change, it is a legitimate judgment that this was not a legal war.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2016; Vol. 774, c. 135.]

    We also heard from Lord Tyler, who said that Chilcot was explicit that

    “going to war without a majority in the United Nations Security Council ‘undermined the authority of the UN’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2016; Vol. 774, c. 144.]

    The Liberal Democrats have always put great stead on the importance of supporting the United Nations.

    In the same debate, Lord Beith focused on some of the inadequacies in preparation, from a military perspective, by the Ministry of Defence, and asked why there was inadequate preparation for the known dangers of improvised explosive devices, and a failure to provide adequately armoured vehicles. I would therefore like to speak for a few minutes about the focus on post-conflict reconstruction—an area that has not had much of an outing today. Better planning and preparation for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq might not necessarily have prevented the events that have unfolded in Iraq since 2003, but Chilcot identified the major issue that there was no planning to speak of at all for the post-conflict stage.

    Before I was elected, I worked in project management, and a cursory examination of paragraph 590—on page 78—onwards of the report’s executive summary highlights that if we consider the work done in Iraq as a project, it failed the most basic tests of initiation and execution for even the smallest project. For instance, is it clear who was responsible for which tasks? Paragraph 593 says no, and that

    “the UK assumed that the US would be responsible for preparing the post-conflict plan”.

    Were there any contingency plans? Paragraph 601 says that none were made for the possibility of the UK being drawn into a huge commitment of UK resources. Is there clarity about who had the power to take decisions? Paragraph 603 stated that no one had sufficient authority

    “to establish a unified planning process across…the FCO, the MOD, DFID and the Treasury.”

    Was it clear who was in overall control? Paragraph 609 states that no single person was in charge of

    “overseeing all aspects of planning and preparation”.

    Were sufficiently trained and experienced people available? Paragraph 610 states:

    “The FCO…was not equipped by past experience…to prepare for nation-building of the scale required in Iraq,”.

    Were the assumptions challenged? Paragraph 618 states that assumptions were not systematically challenged, and that in fact, they were very seldom challenged. Any project manager—even the most junior one—in IT, construction, or any other field, who designed a project that was as poorly planned, initiated, resourced and executed as this one, would have been sacked. Yet in 2002-03, our Government planned to invade a country, support regime change, introduce democracy, and rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure without so much as a plan written on the back of a fag packet. This lack of planning for the post-conflict period was one of the most shocking aspects of the Iraq war.

    In conclusion, the Iraq war and its legacy—internecine religious war, some 180 UK troops killed, many casualties, car bombs, suicide bombers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens, millions displaced and instability—reverberates around the region to this day. We can argue about whether this was all linked directly to our intervention in 2003, but I do not think anyone could claim that our intervention in 2003 helped to stabilise Iraq—on the contrary. What we need from the Minister today is reassurances that the UK Government will never, ever again launch into such a reckless adventure on such a flimsy premise, with so little preparation. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to give us that guarantee.

  • Johnny Mercer – 2016 Speech on the Iraq Inquiry Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Johnny Mercer,  the Conservative MP for Plymouth Moor View, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2016.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in the debate. The Chilcot report, published last week, made sobering reading. Many things have been said already on the issue—I shall not repeat them—and the chief protagonists at the time have received, in my view, fair criticism. I am in the fortunate position of both having been in the Army at the time of the Iraq war and now being a Member of this place. I did not serve in combat in Iraq; my theatre was another unpopular war, in Afghanistan.

    At the time of the Iraq invasion, the Army was a strange place to be, particularly if you were just beginning your career. It is difficult to be positive about a mission when over 1 million people march against your deployment just before you go. But it is testament to the character and professionalism of the UK armed forces that the initial operation was the success that it was, despite cruel losses—including from my own regiment on 23 March 2003, when Ian Seymour, Les Hehir and Welly Evans of 29 Commando were killed during the insertion into southern Iraq.

    However, what happened following the initial operation in that country and for the following seven years—indeed, perhaps right up to today—has been a tragedy for Iraq. I visited the country last autumn and met the President. It remains a place of extreme violence, heavy corruption and deep division. It was a challenge to return from a visit to Baghdad with much of a sense of optimism, although recent changes in the Iraqi security forces, and the international coalition’s mammoth efforts in the fight against Daesh, give real cause for hope, and I want to pay tribute to all UK forces engaged in that fight today.

    How did we get to this point? I absolutely understand the public rage. The actions of some of those at the top of Government at the time—and yes, at the top of the military—were negligent. I am concerned, however, that the public’s fixation on Tony Blair could make us miss some of the learning points that must be taken from Sir John’s comprehensive work. Those learning points are the whole point of this process. It was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister who left office yesterday say that it would be impossible for these events to happen again today because of the structures he and his team had put in place, and I commend him and the Secretary of State for Defence for that.

    However, there is a deeper issue here—one of basic moral courage—that I have found most distressing. In the military, that moral courage can be a rarer and therefore more treasured commodity in an organisation configured to imbue and nurture physical courage in the face of the enemy. That ability to stand up for your men in the face of a seemingly unstoppable sequence of events, and to speak truth to power, is an integral part of the military’s duty to this nation. We drill it into our subordinates and we preach it to anyone who will listen. So where was that courage in the build-up to this disastrous war?

    It is inconceivable to me to allow a political Administration in this country to hamper preparations for war because they did not politically want to be seen to be making those preparations. It is inconceivable to me to allow soldiers out of patrol bases and into contact with the enemy without body armour, not as a tactical decision or a result of enemy action against a supply route, but simply because of bad planning. It is inconceivable to me continually to allow patrolling in Snatch Land Rovers when they were known to provide no protection whatever to our men and women against a well known and obvious threat from improvised explosive devices. But those things happened, and they directly cost UK military lives. These lessons must not be missed amid the almost visceral fixation of hatred on Tony Blair, lest we do a further disservice to our men and women who serve.

    The Prime Minster does not make tactical decisions. She does not plan logistics; she is advised by those who do. I cannot in all honesty conceive of a time when I, as a very junior and insignificant commander in another unpopular war in Afghanistan, would ever have sanctioned an operation knowing that it lacked the equipment required to protect my men from a threat that I clearly knew about, because I was not prepared to say no. I find it hard, as do many of my cohort, to understand why that was sanctioned, yet it was.

    We as a military betrayed the individuals who lost their life in this conflict as a direct result of equipment shortages. That is the point that really sticks in the craw. The political arguments and the strategic comings and goings will be debated ad infinitum, as they must be, to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again, but the military and tactical lessons must also be learned. What happened in Iraq had a profound effect on my whole generation of junior commanders in the military. We grew up with a deep sense of distrust in our superiors as a result of their actions, or lack thereof, during the Iraq war. That affected many of us at a formative stage in our career.

    Finally, I want to speak strongly against the idea that the lives of British servicemen and women were somehow wasted in this war, or that they died for nothing. I simply cannot reconcile it with my not insignificant personal experience of commanding men in combat that lives lost in the pursuit of protecting the freedoms and privileges that we enjoy in this country were lost in vain. For the families, many of whom I know intimately, nothing—no mission, no cause—can be worth losing a loved one. As a soldier, however, I feel that I must represent the intimate conversations we shared, and the deep motivations that we fell back on to get through yet another day in the sweat, heat, blood and dust of these recent wars. We soldiers are drawn from all backgrounds, races, religions, colours and creeds. We all have different views—usually much more informed than anyone gives us credit for, and no doubt crafted by our own personal experiences—but we wear one uniform, with one Union Jack on our sleeve. We sign up to the same core value of protecting this nation, in exactly the same tradition of immense sacrifices as our forefathers, who wore the same cap badges and were under the same flag.

    The truth is that, when a soldier leaves his patrol base in the morning, he is not thinking about how his particular contribution that day will help to advance the cause of Iraq’s future prosperity or Afghanistan’s place in the world. He is not thinking about whether we should have believed the dossier about weapons of mass destruction or whether he is going to stumble upon Osama’s house in downtown Sangin. He is thinking of calling his wife later, of covering his arcs and of trying not to blink in case he misses something. He is making sure he has some spare batteries for his radio. He is more frightened of letting his mates down than he is of the enemy. He is more focused on doing his section, his platoon, or his battalion proud than whether he should be there in the first place. In those endeavours he is showing that courage, that fortitude, that resilience, that commitment, that discipline and that humanity that we all aspire to on the most revealing stage of all: warfare, where norms do not exist and brutality and raw human emotion are everywhere.

    We aspire to those things because they are good, because they are noble, because they are to be desired, and young men and women made sacrifices demonstrating such qualities, which those of us who witnessed it and were lucky enough to return refuse to remember as futile. They did make a difference. They saved comrades’ lives through their bravery. They shielded civilians from a brutal enemy intent on showing the very worst of humanity. They improved individual communities and made them safer and better—perhaps not on an overall strategic level, but it was not all a waste. That courage, that resilience, that discipline, that commitment, they are what we must remember from these conflicts. They cannot and must never be forgotten, for that would be an even greater betrayal than the ones laid out in the report. The lives were not wasted; they were engaged in noble pursuits in the generational struggle of our lifetime.

    In conclusion, let us learn these painful lessons. Let us not fixate on Tony Blair—he is yesterday’s man. Let us not commit to things that we cannot fulfil and pass the buck to the lower end of the command chains.

    Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his powerful speech. One thing that has always worried me about the Iraq war debate is the idea of the military as victims who were forced to go to fight when they in fact were trained and wanted to do so. What they did not want, however, was bad equipment, and they do not want bad equipment today. Does it not behove this House and its Members to be much more interested on a daily basis in what we are providing service personnel with, rather than just focusing on past decisions?

    Johnny Mercer

    Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have come an extraordinarily long way. The processes at the time were simply unacceptable. Under this Government and this and previous Defence Secretaries, we have made real progress, but she is right that we do not want sympathy. We want a little more empathy and understanding of what we are doing. There is sometimes too much sympathy. We sign up and are proud to do so, but we do not expect to be ill- equipped or to be part of a mission that is ultimately badly planned and resourced.

    Let us never lose the courage to speak truth to power—no matter our rank or position in life. Let us remember with humility the courage and sacrifice of our servicemen and women in Iraq. Let us make sure that we learn the lessons for the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives on either side, civilian or military. The human race can only evolve if we learn, and I sincerely hope we do.

  • Rob Wilson – 2016 Speech on Local Charity Day

    robwilson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rob Wilson, the Minister for Civil Society, in London on 14 July 2016.

    Good Morning.

    Thank you Pauline for your introduction.

    Many thanks to The Leatherseller’s Company for hosting us. Our civil society has a long, proud history so it is fitting that today’s event is generously hosted by an organisation with a similarly rich history.

    Today, as our civil society continues to evolve, we still see the same selfless generosity, warmth of spirit and sheer determination to make a difference.

    The result of the EU referendum is bringing about change for our country. In light of these changes, our work with you is becoming even more imperative.

    We must continue building a bigger and stronger society with compassion at its heart – small charities and community groups exemplify this spirit.

    It is one of the great privileges of being the Minister for Civil Society that I see first-hand your amazing work.

    A few weeks ago, I visited a small, local charity in Guildford called Halow, which supports young people with learning disabilities. I was privileged enough to meet with their beneficiaries and to see the impact that Halow has on their lives.

    Following this meeting I will visit MyBnk, which empowers young people to take charge of their futures.

    Yet whilst small charities make up 97% of all registered charities in the UK, all the media coverage seems to go on the big guys.

    It ignores what the vast majority are doing, day in, day out, to serve their communities.

    Through tough times, I’ve been impressed to see many small, local charities adapting to challenges by finding different sources of funding and banding together to reduce costs.

    It is impressive to see these charities adapting whilst keeping focus on what is best for their communities.

    Local Charities Day

    We should shout from the rooftops about the energy, the commitment, the expertise that small and local charities bring.

    And that’s why I am delighted to announce plans for a Local Charities Day – a celebration of local charities and community groups that will take place later this year.

    Raising their profile to help them get the recognition they deserve.

    We want to help small, local organisations become more independent, more resilient and more sustainable. That is why we are building capability, encouraging giving, supporting investment and cutting red tape.

    On capability: through our Local Sustainability Fund we granted over 260 smaller organisations close to £18 million to help them secure and improve the future of their services.

    The Small Charities Fundraising Training Programme has helped hundreds of small charities increase their income. A great achievement.

    On giving: we have provided match funding for fundraising campaigns like Localgiving’s Grow Your Tenner because we want to get more people giving to small local charities.

    The Independent Dormant Assets Commission could help government identify hundreds of millions of pounds for good causes too. This will become a big opportunity for small, local charities.

    On investment: I launched our new £80 million Life Chances Fund last Monday. This fund will develop more Social Impact Bonds, helping charities and social enterprises get the finance they need to deliver payment by results contracts.

    Good for charities, great for local public services.

    But as small and local organisations reach out into their communities, I am only too aware that small charities have been impacted by the poor fundraising practices of some large organisations.

    That is why we have supported the setup of a new Fundraising Regulator. That regulator will put the public back at the heart of fundraising.

    I have been very clear that small, local charities should not be unduly burdened by any changes to fundraising regulation.

    In fact, we have cut red tape for small, local charities, by raising the audit threshold from £500k to £1 million.

    As you can see, small and local charities are a major focus of our work.

    But I want us to do more.

    To get this work right, I need to hear directly from small and local charities and all of you here.

    Fundraising

    Organisations like the Foundation for Social Improvement and the Small Charities Coalition tell us that fundraising, public services and governance are vital issues.

    Let’s take the first one: fundraising.

    The reason we are all here today is to discuss how to encourage more giving to small and local civil society organisations.

    Take for example organisations with an income of £100,000 or less. They make up 83% of the sector in terms of the number of charities. But they account for less than 5% of the total income.

    So how do we help direct resources to all the small, local groups?

    It is part of my mission as Minister for Civil Society to challenge how we can do more to encourage giving and philanthropy.

    A recent report by New Philanthropy Capital suggests that an additional £4 billion could be unlocked from the affluent in Britain. That is serious money.

    Many on high incomes already make huge contributions to causes close to their hearts. Some of you here today are amongst them.

    Yet studies show that overall those on higher salaries give less, relative to their income.

    I want to know what more we can do to encourage giving by those who have more. That’s our focus for the second roundtable this afternoon.

    I want these roundtables to have a real impact on our next steps, within government and across the sector.

    That’s why government is committing up to £1 million over the next 2 years. £1 million to take forward ideas that develop our culture of giving.

    I’ll be particularly interested in ideas that bolster the efforts of small and local groups to fundraise effectively.

    So please don’t be shy in sharing your views!

    We also need to raise awareness of their vital work. Too often it goes under the radar. We need to change this.

    That is why I said earlier, I want to hold a celebration of local charities and community groups later this year.

    And as part of that celebration, we will encourage giving to these groups.

    So we will offer £250k in match funding for a fundraising campaign that does just that.

    Helping them to raise vital funds for their work on the front-line. Helping them to reach new donors. And helping them get the recognition and support they deserve.

    Public services

    Let me now turn to the second issue: public services. We greatly value the positive impact that small, local charities can have. These organisations work hard to reach communities and those most in need. They can improve the outcomes of public services.

    We want to unpick the barriers that prevent charities from playing an effective role in improving public services. That is why we are hosting a series of open policy events.

    Governance

    And the third issue, governance and leadership in civil society organisations: These must be of the highest quality to enable the sector as a whole to reach its full potential.

    The sector itself must take the lead in this. But government recognises we have a role to play.

    This is why we are developing joint proposals with our partners in the sector for stronger leadership and governance. This work will support small, local organisations in particular.

    The results of all these conversations will drive what the Office for Civil Society and Innovation does to support small and local charities in the next phase of our work.

    And we will share what we are going to do as a result.

    Small and local charities are passionate about the people they help. They serve their communities. They are accountable to them.

    I will be doing all I can to ensure these responsive, locally engaged and committed organisations get the recognition they deserve.

    Thank you.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Speech on the Iraq Inquiry Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2016.

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow the previous speakers, who have a great wealth and depth of information and knowledge to bring to it. If I wanted to sum up my comments I would say, “Mistakes made and lessons learned.”

    British forces peaked at 46,000 during the invasion phase, but of course due to the way the tours system worked at the time, more actually served. I pay tribute to the 179 very brave and courageous servicemen and women who gave their lives during the campaign, and also to those gallant Members of this House and the other place who served.

    The Chilcot inquiry and report have raised many questions, and the general public need answers. The lack of answers on key issues is the cause of much of the public’s rage. We followed the American lead without properly analysing intelligence. That is absolutely clear from the now public comment of Mr Blair to the then President of the United States:

    “I will be with you, whatever”—

    unconditional support.

    We need to be much more discerning about the way we interrogate intelligence material and information. It is imperative to note that the plan for success was absent. In 2003, there was outrageous and unexpected success, for which we had no plan. No one was able to foresee Hussein capitulating so early, and thus Iraq fell apart with no one to deliver the stable, successful programmes that existed, such as the oil for aid programme. We did not have a plan, a vision or an understanding of what would happen if we were successful in battle at that time. The vacuum that plunged the entire region into instability is felt strongly to this day, not only in the region but across the world.

    We also did not understand the complex society of Iraq. There was no understanding of cultural sensitivities or local divisions, sectarianism or politics, which meant that our presence was further resented as time went on and things did not get better. There was also the unprecedented Shi’a majority uprising in Basra, where the Iran-Iraq war was most pronounced. All these things were unforeseen.

    We cannot keep sending forces to places that they are unprepared to go to, in terms of equipment and understanding the reason. Estimates of the length of time a mission may take need to be more conservative and honest in future, not only to prepare our armed forces fully, but to regain the much-damaged public trust. I was not a Member of this House at the time of the Iraq war, but constituents have come to me who were sending socks, boots, food, body-warmers and, on one occasion I am aware of, body armour, to their people in Iraq. There is something wrong when our people serve overseas and we, their families, have to send them stuff the Army should give them when they first go out. There needs to be an honest conversation about that.

    A lot of the things that went wrong can be explained by a lack of resources. We simply have not got the capacity to fight on so many fronts anymore. It is now clear that we greatly underestimated the capability of the enemy. What worked against rocket-propelled grenades in Ulster was not fit to take on 250-lb improvised explosive devices in Iraq. That is another important learning point that must be taken forward.

    I want to talk about veterans, and the family support package when the soldiers were away. At that time, just two soldiers were left at headquarters to look after family affairs, and given the number of deaths and injuries, the situation became almost overpowering for them. I know things have changed, and I welcome those changes, but we have to build on this and make sure that the veterans are not forgotten, as some in the past have been. We need foresight, and we need to build on lessons learned and to continue learning, so that we only move forward in how we treat our armed forces.

    I want to talk about the pension of a gentleman who served in uniform. His story will be well known to those who read The Sunday Times. His name is Chris Braithwaite, 41, a former major in the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment who served in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. He said:

    “When we were in Basra, we were subjected to rocket and mortar attacks daily for seven months. This was a great worry for my wife, Laura, but we believed that the financial support which is provided by the army in recognition of long service would reflect that family sacrifice—until the rug was pulled from under us.

    On the same day that I received the Queen’s diamond jubilee medal in recognition of my service, I was given the news that I would be made redundant just 87 days short of the 16 years’ service I needed to receive an immediate pension.”

    We are talking about people who fought for Queen and country. They did their bit, but when they needed support back home, it fell short with a vengeance. We must take care of our veterans. We must make sure that they receive absolutely first-class service from the state. It is vital that they are offered, and get, the best.

    I have asked this question before and I ask it again today: will we see the statistic some day that more Iraq veterans have committed suicide than were killed in the conflict? We must confront the issue of how we treat our veterans. The Chilcot report gives us the opportunity to do just that, and it must be fully assessed. More British soldiers and veterans took their life in 2012 than died fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan over the same period. These are statistical facts. I do not like having to put them before the House, but we need to recognise them.

    I want briefly to mention the reserves. This is another imperative issue, and there could be awful consequences if it is not addressed. We were using the highest number of reservists on record, and we have no method of tracking what happened to them when they came home, or of finding out whether they have fallen victim to any of the problems associated with veterans. Despite all this, the number of reservists was cut from 45,000 to 30,000 after the Iraq war. Clearly there needs to be a rethink.

    Referring to the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the Belfast-born commander Tim Collins, who led the Royal Irish Regiment into Iraq in March 2003, has said:

    “It may well be he was actually drunk on his self-importance having had successes in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and having brokered the Good Friday Agreement, he genuinely believed he could do no wrong”.
    This is in keeping with the

    “I will be with you, whatever”

    memo that was sent to President Bush. It is increasingly clear that our soldiers were being sent to war by Tony Blair, no matter what. Tim Collins said at the time that people believed there had been a plan in place for the aftermath. Sadly, we all know now that this was not the case, and the results of the lack of planning were disastrous for too many. It is easy to point the finger at Tony Blair, but there were others involved. Alastair Campbell, Geoff Hoon and others in that circle of friends, or of decision makers, should take this on board as well.

    Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the poem by Rudyard Kipling entitled “Tommy”, and I should like to read out two verses from it—the second and the fifth. Its theme is just as applicable today as it was in its time.

    “I went into a theatre as sober as could be,

    They gave a drunk civilian room, but ’adn’t none for me;

    They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,

    But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!

    For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an ‘Tommy, wait outside’;

    But it’s ‘Special train for Atkins’ when the trooper’s on the tide

    The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,

    O it’s ‘Special train for Atkins’ when the trooper’s on the tide.”

    And:

    “You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:

    We’ll wait for extra rations if you treat us rational.

    Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face

    The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.

    For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’

    But it’s ‘Saviour of ’is country’ when the guns begin to shoot;

    An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;

    An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!”

    We have a duty to look after our veterans, and to ensure that those who have served this country well are looked after.

    The Iraqi vulnerable persons resettlement scheme was set up after the war, but it has not delivered the capacity that it should have. The current reflections on Iraq are important, but they will have no impact on the ongoing dire situation in that country. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made the point yesterday—I shall make it again today—that many Yazidis, Shi’as, Syriac Catholics, Protestants, Sabean-Mandaeans and Sunnis, as well as many others, continue to be targeted by Daesh on the basis of their identity. Around 3.3 million have been displaced due to the instability in Iraq, and many minority groups are on the verge of disappearance.

    In June, the United Nations independent international commission of inquiry on Syria determined that Daesh had committed genocide against the Yazidis. Around 90% of Yazidis are Iraqi. Despite this evidence, the Gateway, Children at Risk and Mandate resettlement schemes, which are not nationality-specific, have taken in only a very low number of Iraqis—up to 300 in 2015. While some Iraqis might fit all the criteria under the current Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, they are not eligible for asylum in the UK because they are not Syrian nationals.

    I want to call for a modest expansion of the SVPRS and the Iraqi vulnerable persons resettlement scheme to permit Iraqis who fit the SVPRS vulnerability criteria to qualify for asylum in the UK. A modest expansion is particularly pertinent, because Iraqis have suffered as much as their Syrian counterparts at the hands of Daesh, and the death toll in Iraq continues to rise. The UK cannot absolve itself from assisting Iraqis, and making them eligible for resettlement in the UK, with the UNHCR’s recommendation, is the least we can do.

    We have heard about the mistakes, and we can learn from them and move forward. We can make the world a better place for our soldiers to serve in, with the uniform and equipment that they should have and with the support for veterans and their families that they need when they come home. Let us learn from the Chilcot report, and from those mistakes, and move forward.

  • Pat McFadden – 2016 Speech on the Iraq Inquiry Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pat McFadden, the Labour MP for Wolverhampton South East, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2016.

    I am happy to be a substitute for my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), Mr Speaker.

    The decision to go to war in Iraq was, certainly in foreign policy terms, the most controversial decision of the Blair premiership and, indeed, of the entire Labour period in government. One hundred and seventy nine British troops died, as did more than 4,000 American troops, and many thousands of Iraqi civilians in the chaos and destruction afterwards. Sir John’s inquiry was asked to look at how the decision was taken and what lessons can be learned.

    First, there is the crucial question of whether the war was based on a lie. On this, the report concludes:

    “there is no evidence that intelligence was improperly included in the dossier or that No 10 improperly influenced the text.”

    Prior to the report’s publication, there had been years of accusations about fabricating intelligence. In the wake of its publication a different question has been raised, which is why the intelligence was not challenged more.

    The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) quoted from some Joint Intelligence Committee reports. I do not need to repeat those particular quotes, but in 2002 the reports say that the intelligence was “sporadic and patchy”. They also say:

    “it is clear that Iraq continues to pursue a policy of acquiring WMD and their delivery means”,

    that

    “Iraq has an offensive chemical warfare programme”

    and that

    “Iraq has a chemical and biological weapons capability and Saddam is prepared to use it”.

    This view turned out to be wrong, but it was genuinely felt and reported to the Government time after time. It was shared by many intelligence services around the world, including in countries fiercely opposed to the war. Sir John makes important recommendations about how intelligence is to be assessed and challenged in the future, but they are not the same as accusations of fabrication, lying or using intelligence deliberately to mislead.

    Sir John concludes that the war was “not a last resort”, that the inspection process should have been given more time, and that the decision to use military action “undermined the authority” of the UN Security Council. This finding raises a huge and fundamental question, particularly in view of the fact that Saddam Hussein had been in breach of a whole series of UN Security Council resolutions over a period of 12 years, and that he had in the past used chemical weapons against his own people. One therefore has to ask who was really undermining the UN. Was it the country in breach, or the countries trying to enforce the UN’s will?

    What does this finding mean for the responsibility to protect? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) raised that issue yesterday. Is one of the lessons that we should never engage in military action, no matter how multiple the breaches of previous UN Security Council resolutions, unless there is full support from the Security Council itself? If that is our conclusion, what does that mean for the authority of the UN? This was not the view that we took in Kosovo. That action, although it was opposed by some, is generally felt to have produced a positive outcome for the people and to have prevented a disaster in the Balkans.

    Thirdly, I turn to the aftermath, and the chaos and destruction that ensued.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael

    The question for the House is whether there is the weight of evidence to justify action, not if we should never act without express authority from the UN Security Council, which would be just one piece of evidence that the House should take into consideration. In the case of Kosovo, which is a good example, there were other reasons for acting as we did. I supported that action then and continue to support it now.

    Mr McFadden

    I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. My point is that the finding about undermining the authority of the UN raises huge questions. It is one of the most controversial findings in the report.

    Colin Powell famously remarked:

    “If you break it, you own it”.

    It is undoubtedly the responsibility of countries that remove a brutal dictator to put in place security measures afterwards. On this point, Sir John’s report is understandably critical of the UK and the US. With intervention comes responsibility. Security is a key part of that responsibility, but we should be clear about two other points: first, the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq was carried out not by UK or US armed forces, but by terrorists and militias that blew up the UN headquarters, attacked mosques, destroyed already fragile infrastructure and bombed marketplaces; and, secondly, that sectarian violence and killings in Iraq did not begin in 2003. Prior to that, it was carried out by the Saddam regime itself: the Anfal campaign; the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the north; and the brutal suppression of the Shi’a uprising after the first Gulf war in 1991. It was a reign of terror. Decades on, mass graves are still being discovered. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who was campaigning for the victims of Saddam’s brutal regime long before the Iraq war in 2003.

    Fourthly, what is the lesson for our own security? I believe that people supported the Iraq war for different reasons, and many opposed it for different reasons. They should not all be put in the one bracket. Not everyone has drawn a direct line between this intervention and all the security problems we face, but some have. Foreign interventions will anger jihadists, and may also be used as a recruiting sergeant for jihadists, but it would be a fundamental mistake to believe that the mass murder of innocent people is only a response to what we do, and that if we stopped doing it, they would leave us alone. We should remember that Islamist terrorism existed long before the Iraq war. The USS Cole was bombed in 2000. The World Trade Centre was first bombed in 1993 and then destroyed in 2001, with the loss of 3,000 innocent lives. In Bali in 2002, we saw the murder of hundreds of innocent tourists, and there have been many more attacks around the world since, including last year in Paris. That attack took place in the country in Europe that was the most opposed to the Iraq war.

    Let me repeat something I have said here before. Understanding Islamist terrorism simply as a reaction to what we do infantilises terrorists, fails to confer responsibility on them for what they do, and fails to stand up for the pluralism, equality, diversity and religious freedom that we hold dear. Whatever lesson we learn from past interventions, it should not be to franchise out our foreign policy decisions for the approval or veto of the terrorists who oppose our way of life.

    Finally, there is the lesson on intervention itself. Sir John makes a number of recommendations on this point—about how intelligence should be treated, ministerial oversight, the challenge of arguments and so forth. The recommendations look eminently sensible, and I am sure that any future Government will take them on board. The truth is, however, that this is not just a matter of process.

    Mr Bradshaw

    My right hon. Friend made a strong critique of one of Sir John’s findings about the undermining of the United Nations. Another finding that I consider problematic is the “last resort” suggestion, which was also criticised by the Chair of the Defence Committee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at that time, it was clear that time was running out? Saddam had been given 90 days when the resolution specified 30 days, so saying that other avenues could somehow be explored was not realistic at the time.

    Mr McFadden

    I agree with my right hon. Friend. At some point, there is always the issue of deciding. Every debate about intervention since 2003 has taken place in the shadow of this decision. Iraq has already increased the threshold for military action and the Chilcot report will raise it further. There is an inescapable question, however. To put it bluntly, we can have all the committees and processes that we want, but we still have to decide. The decision can go wrong, and everything that will happen in the aftermath cannot be predicted.

    Much has been said about the size of the report, with its 2.5 million words. If we stack the volumes on top of one another, the paper would stand about 2 feet high. The very sight of the report will be a warning to future Prime Ministers. Since 2003, Prime Ministers and Presidents have been very conscious about learning from Iraq, and this report will make them even more conscious in the future. The biggest question of all is this: in reflecting on what went wrong after the invasion and the findings of the report, and adding in the reduced size of our armed forces in recent years, what if the conclusion was, “Never intervene again”? What message would that send out to the oppressed of the world, to dictators or to terrorist groups?

    I was not an MP in 2003, so I never had to face the responsibility of voting for the war in Iraq. The most significant vote on foreign policy since I was elected was over Syria in 2013, and that vote was heavily coloured by our experience in Iraq. I have a slightly different interpretation from that of the right hon. Member for New Forest East. I voted against military action in 2013, even after Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. Yet Syria, where we did not intervene beyond the limited airstrikes we voted for last year, has been a humanitarian disaster even worse than Iraq. Hundreds of thousands are dead, millions have been displaced, and we have seen the greatest movement of refugees since the end of the second world war. It is not a vote to intervene that has troubled me most in my 11 years here; it is that vote not to intervene, as the international community, with the exception of Russia—where have the demonstrations outside its embassy been?—stood back and decided that it was all too difficult. There is no Chilcot report on Syria. We can tell ourselves that because we did not break it, we did not buy it, but that makes absolutely no difference to the human cost.

    So let us learn, but let us not sign a blank cheque for despots and terrorist groups around the world, or delude ourselves that the security issues that we face stem only from our foreign policy decisions, rather than from an ideology that encourages the killing of innocent people in countries around the world. Yes, intervening has consequences—2.5 million words detailing those consequences are before us—but so does standing back, and leadership is about deciding the difference.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Statement on the French Terrorist Attack

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 15 July 2016.

    I am shocked and saddened by the horrifying attack in Nice last night. Our hearts go out to the French people and to all those who’ve lost loved ones or been injured.

    While the full picture is still emerging, it seems that at least 80 people are feared dead and many others have been injured. These were innocent victims enjoying a national celebration with their friends and families.

    We are working urgently to establish whether any British nationals were caught up in the attack. Our ambassador is travelling to Nice today with consular staff and they will be doing all they can to help anyone affected.

    I have asked my deputy national security adviser to chair a COBRA meeting of senior officials, to review what we know and what we can do to help, and I will speak to President Hollande today and make clear that the United Kingdom stands shoulder to shoulder with France today, as we have done so often in the past.

    If, as we fear, this was a terrorist attack, then we must redouble our efforts to defeat these brutal murderers who want to destroy our way of life. We must work with France and our partners around the world to stand up for our values and for our freedom.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Statement After Becoming Prime Minister

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Downing Street, London on 13 July 2016.

    I have just been to Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new government, and I accepted.

    In David Cameron, I follow in the footsteps of a great, modern Prime Minister. Under David’s leadership, the government stabilised the economy, reduced the budget deficit, and helped more people into work than ever before.

    But David’s true legacy is not about the economy but about social justice. From the introduction of same-sex marriage, to taking people on low wages out of income tax altogether; David Cameron has led a one-nation government, and it is in that spirit that I also plan to lead.

    Because not everybody knows this, but the full title of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that word ‘unionist’ is very important to me.

    It means we believe in the Union: the precious, precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it means something else that is just as important; it means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the United Kingdom but between all of our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we’re from.

    That means fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others.

    If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.

    If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.

    If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.

    If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand.

    If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.

    But the mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone means more than fighting these injustices. If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise. You have a job but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about paying a mortgage. You can just about manage but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school.

    If you’re one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly.

    I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best, and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle. The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.

    We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.

    We are living through an important moment in our country’s history. Following the referendum, we face a time of great national change.

    And I know because we’re Great Britain, that we will rise to the challenge. As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold new positive role for ourselves in the world, and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.

    That will be the mission of the government I lead, and together we will build a better Britain.

  • Nick Gibb – 2016 Statement on Initial Teacher Training

    nickgibb

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, in the House of Commons on 12 July 2016.

    I am today publishing the reports of the three initial teacher training (ITT) expert groups which I commissioned last year, following a review of ITT carried out by Sir Andrew Carter OBE. Alongside these reports I am also publishing a Government response setting out how we intend to take forward the groups’ recommendations.

    The review groups were tasked with developing a new framework of core content for ITT; behaviour management content for ITT; and a set of standards for school-based ITT mentors. The three groups were chaired by, respectively, Stephen Munday CBE, Tom Bennett, and the Teaching Schools Council (under the leadership of Vicki Beer CBE and, latterly, Dr Gary Holden).

    Sir Andrew Carter’s report, published in January 2015, highlighted that the system in England is generally performing well, but that more needs to be done to ensure all trainee teachers receive a strong grounding in the basics of classroom management and subject knowledge development, as well as key areas of practice such as assessment and an increased understanding of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Sir Andrew also suggested that the quality of school-based ITT mentoring is not as good as it could be, and his report made a number of recommendations to both Government and the sector in this regard.

    Good teachers are the single most important factor influencing pupils’ achievement in school. The Government are therefore committed to ensuring that the education system can recruit, train, develop and retain the best possible teachers in our schools. Key to this is to strengthen the quality and content of ITT programmes so that new teachers enter the classroom appropriately equipped in essential areas such as subject knowledge development and subject-specific pedagogy, practical behaviour management strategies, a sound understanding of SEND, and the ability to use the most up-to-date research on effective teaching practice.
    The Government welcome the reports of the three expert groups as an important step towards realising our goals of further improving the quality of teacher training and raising the status of the teaching profession, while directly addressing the issues raised by the Carter review. Our recent White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, published in March 2016, set out plans to develop a new set of quality criteria that will in future be applied when training places are being allocated to providers. We will therefore consider how best the new framework of content can be used to inform those criteria, with a view to ensuring that all providers who are allocated training places are clearly demonstrating the quality of content in their courses. Further detail of how we intend to apply the new criteria to the allocation of ITT places from 2017/18 onwards will be published shortly.

    Tom Bennett’s report sets out some clear recommendations for the teacher training sector on how behaviour management should be delivered within ITT. An abridged version of his full recommendations has formed part of the new framework of core content for ITT. It is clear from the report that providers of ITT should ensure that trainees are able to access high-quality training before they are ready to enter the classroom; this is a recommendation with which we strongly agree, and we would encourage all providers to ensure that their programmes are structured accordingly.

    Linked to high-quality training programmes is the critical role that school-based mentors should play in supporting teacher trainees to develop into effective teachers. This is particularly true as we continue to drive the move towards more school-led teacher training, as set out in the White Paper. The Teaching Schools Council, led firstly by Vicki Beer CBE and subsequently by Dr Gary Holden, has developed a set of standards that I believe can help to bring consistency to the practice of mentors, raise the profile of the mentoring role in school-led training, and contribute to building a culture of coaching and mentoring within the teaching profession. All of these are crucial if our next generation of outstanding teachers is to have the greatest possible impact on improving standards of teaching and allowing our children to reach their full potential.

    I am placing copies of the reports from Stephen Munday CBE, Tom Bennett and Dr Gary Holden, along with the Government’s response to their recommendations, in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech on NATO Warsaw Summit

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2016.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the NATO summit held in Warsaw last Friday and Saturday.

    The 2015 strategic defence and security review reaffirmed NATO’s position at the heart of UK defence and security. The United Kingdom remains a leader within the alliance, with the second largest defence budget after the United States, and the largest in Europe. The range of challenges that the alliance faces, including Daesh, migration and Russian belligerence, meant that this summit was of major importance for Euro-Atlantic security. The overwhelming message from Warsaw was one of strength and unity. We believe that the summit has delivered an alliance that is now more capable and that projects stability beyond our borders, based on stronger partnerships, which collectively protect our citizens and defend Europe.

    At the Wales summit in 2014, NATO agreed its readiness action plan to ensure that the alliance can respond swiftly and strongly to new challenges. The UK is at the forefront of these efforts: our Typhoons are currently conducting Baltic air-policing missions from Estonia; our ships are making a significant contribution to NATO’s naval forces: and we will lead NATO’s very high readiness joint taskforce next year, with 3,000 UK ground troops ready to deploy within days.

    To demonstrate the allies’ solidarity, determination and ability to act in response to any aggression, Warsaw builds on the Wales’ commitments by delivering an enhanced forward presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. I am proud that the UK is one of four nations to lead a framework battalion alongside Canada, Germany and the United States. These battalions will be defensive in nature, but fully combat capable. The UK force will be located in Estonia with two UK companies, a headquarters element and equipment including armoured vehicles, Javelin anti-tank guided missiles and mortars. Denmark and France have said that they will provide troops to the UK battalion. In addition, we will also deploy a company group to Poland. That is our response to Russian aggression. NATO’s approach is based on balancing strong defence and dialogue. Dialogue remains right where it is in our interests to deliver hard messages to promote transparency and to build understanding to reduce risks of mis- calculation.

    Credible alliance defence and deterrence depends on NATO’s ability to adapt to 21st-century threats through both nuclear and conventional forces. The summit recognised the important contribution that the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent makes to the overall security of the alliance. I can confirm that we expect the House to have the opportunity to vote to endorse the renewal of that deterrent next Monday.

    Initiatives on cyber and hybrid warfare among others will give the alliance the capabilities that it needs to respond quickly and effectively. However, modern capabilities require appropriate funding and here good progress has been made against the defence investment pledge, a key commitment from Wales. Following this Government’s decision to spend 2% of GDP on defence and to increase the defence budget in each year of this Parliament, cuts to defence spending across the alliance have now halted, with 20 allies now increasing defence spending, and eight allies committing in their national plans to reaching the 2% target.

    Delivering the best for our country also means maximising the talent in our armed forces. The Prime Minister has accepted the recommendation of the Chief of the General Staff to open up ground close-combat roles to women. NATO’s role in preventing conflict and tackling problems at source has become ever more important as threats to alliance security grow out of instability and fragile or weak states. NATO’s defence capacity-building initiative, which was first announced in Wales, is a powerful tool in projecting stability and we in the United Kingdom continue to provide significant support to Georgia, Iraq and Jordan.

    Building on that, the allies agreed that NATO will conduct training and capacity building inside Iraq. In Afghanistan, local forces are taking responsibility for providing security across their country. Our long-term commitment, as part of NATO’s Resolute Support mission, is crucial. Next year, we will increase our current troop contribution of 450 by 10% to help build the capacity of the Afghan security institutions.

    The summit also reiterated its support for our European partners, including Ukraine and Georgia. I was delighted that Montenegro attended the summit as an observer, as a clear sign that NATO’s door remains open.

    However, the scale of Europe’s security challenges means that NATO must work with a range of partners to counter them. This summit sent a strong message of NATO’s willingness to build strong relationships with other international institutions. I welcome the joint declaration by the NATO Secretary-General and the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission on NATO-EU co-operation. We continue to support a closer relationship between NATO and the EU to avoid unnecessary duplication.

    Our strong message to our allies and our partners was that the result of the referendum will have no impact on any of our NATO commitments and that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. The United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union, but we are not reducing our commitment to European security—we are not turning our back on Europe or on the rest of the world.

    HMS Mersey will deploy to the Aegean from late July to continue our support for NATO’s efforts to counter illegal migration. We will also provide a second ship—RFA Mounts Bay—to the EU’s Operation Sophia in the central Mediterranean, and NATO has agreed in principle to provide surveillance and reconnaissance support to that operation too.

    It is a United Kingdom priority for NATO to do more against Daesh. NATO’s airborne warning and control system will now support the counter-Daesh coalition. In addition to our own assistance to the Government of national accord, we will consider what NATO can do in Libya—for example, through capacity building of the Libyan coastguard.

    It is our firm view that the Warsaw summit successfully demonstrated that the alliance has the capacity, the will and the intent to respond to the range of threats and challenges that it may face. The summit also showed that Britain is stepping up its leading role in the alliance by deploying more forces to NATO’s eastern borders and to NATO’s support to Afghanistan and in countering illegal migration. With that strong UK leadership, Warsaw will be remembered for the concrete steps that were taken to deliver a strong and unified alliance that remains the cornerstone of European defence and security. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Ben Bradshaw – 2016 Speech on Cycles on Great Western Railways

    benbradshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2016.

    I am going to tell the House a story about myself—although it is not just about me but about the thousands of people who use the Great Western Railway service every year, and the many thousands who have signed a petition protesting about its so-called new policy.

    I have not owned a car for more than 20 years. Before being elected to the House and every week since then, I have cycled from this place to Paddington railway station, put my bicycle on a train, travelled back to Exeter, taken my bicycle off the train, and gone about my constituency business. At the end of the weekend, I have done the same in reverse. First Great Western—or Great Western Railway, as it has now rebranded itself—has had a perfectly good and workable cycling policy, which has encouraged people to book a space in advance but has allowed people such as me to turn up and, if there is space in the cycling carriage, to put their bicycles on board. There is a designated space at the front of the train, with room for six bicycles.

    In the nearly 20 years for which I have represented Exeter in the House, I have generally not reserved a space. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on which I have arrived at Paddington or Exeter and not been able to get my bike on to a train because it has been full. There are nearly always spaces in the cycle carriages. So the House will understand why, when I was told by a Great Western Railway employee at Exeter station in April that the company was about to introduce a compulsory booking system for people with bicycles, I was somewhat concerned. I immediately asked to speak to a senior manager, who reassured me that this was not the case, and that discretion would be allowed. However, I took the precaution of writing to the managing director of Great Western Railway asking him to repeat that assurance. I explained to him the scenario that I have just outlined: it seemed to me to be ridiculous—Orwellian, even—that if people turned up at a station with a bicycle and there were spaces in the carriage designed for carrying bicycles, they should not be allowed to take their bicycle with them.

    The managing director gave me a very reassuring response. On 26 April, he wrote:

    “We understand that there will be times when booking is not possible and space is available on board.”

    Booking, of course, is not possible for people like me, and many of the thousands of other people who do not know what train they will be able to catch. The business of the House is very unpredictable, as are my constituency commitments.

    The managing director went on to say:

    “Station staff have been briefed to allow bikes on board if this is the case, and we are checking that this message has reached colleagues, and you should not therefore have any issues travelling without booking a space for your cycle if there is space on board.”

    That was back in April. I have to say that, in spite of that reassurance from Mark Hopwood, I was subsequently inundated with emails, letters, tweets and Facebook messages from other people in my position, who told me that they had encountered difficulty getting their bikes on to a train without a reservation, even when there were spaces on board.

    I wrote my letter to Mr Hopwood from a train on which I had put my bicycle, without a reservation, and there were spaces on board. To this day, at many Great Western Railway stations, there are signs and Tannoy announcements saying “You cannot put your bike on this train unless you have a reservation”. That is a lie. It is not true. It is not the policy, as Mr Hopwood told me in his letter. But it is still being represented as the policy at stations, in Tannoy announcements and in messages. So it is not surprising that there is confusion among GWR staff.

    I was then contacted by a constituent of the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who has also been lobbied on this. Sadly, she is unwell and cannot be here today. Her constituent had received a missive from another GWR management member that completely contradicted the assurance I had been given by Mr Hopwood. He said: “To be clear, we require you to reserve your bicycle on our high-speed trains, as our publicity states.” He went on to say, or to imply, that this was about preparing for the introduction of the new high-speed trains, which we are very much looking forward to serving our part of the world in the far south-west. I understand, however—the Minister may like to clarify this in her reply—that they are not due to come into service for another two years, so I was not quite sure why he was preparing for this event.

    Simon Pritchard goes on to explain in his email that the reason they are doing this is that in the new high-speed trains the cycle spaces, instead of being in a designated carriage at the front of the train, will be in three separate areas along the train—two in each area, or more if the train is longer—so in order to try and avoid the chaos and confusion that would ensue from people trying to get their bikes on a train if they had not booked, they were trying to encourage people to book in advance. That is all very well, and I will come back to it in a moment.

    Another problem that has exacerbated this whole issue is that it is incredibly difficult, complicated and clunky to book a bicycle on a train. People either have to telephone, although the telephone service operates only within certain working hours, or they can book online, but that can be done only when booking a ticket. So the only way people returning from a journey who already have a ticket can book is by phone, which, as I have said, does not operate for many hours of the week, or by going to a station. Of course, that is massively inconvenient for customers.

    I went back to Mr Hopwood to seek clarification. I applied for this Adjournment debate, too, in the hope that this might make something happen. Indeed, as is so often the case when one secures an Adjournment debate, I received another letter from Mr Hopwood today, written last Friday, which is moderately reassuring. He has invited me to a meeting with cycling groups, which I am very happy to take up. He says that this discretion of people being allowed to take their bicycles on a train without a booking will continue, and implies it will do so until the new trains are introduced. He goes on to say they are working on a reservation system that will allow customers to take a bike on a train independently from their ticket purchase at short notice, even after the train has started its journey. Up until now, people have only been able to book a bike on a train up to two hours before that train has started its journey. On the long journey from Penzance to Paddington that is completely impractical because by the time the train has started its journey and someone has decided what time train they are going to get, the train has already left the station at Penzance so they cannot book their bike on. He also says that there will be an online service, a telephone service and service at stations and that they hope to have this facility available to customers by the start of the December timetable.

    That is a welcome improvement and concession by GWR, which I am convinced has happened only as a result of the pressure put on it by customers who have used its service over the years. Mr Hopwood then argues that this will provide the flexibility cyclists have asked for and allow bookings to be made much closer to departure. If that is the case, it is an improvement. However, he also goes on to claim that the requirement to book space on long-distance services is not unusual and he says that other railway companies—he quotes more than three, but the three I am concentrating on are the three I know: CrossCountry, Greater Anglia and South West Trains—also have mandated bicycle reservations.

    Well, I can tell Mr Hopwood that I took my bicycle on a CrossCountry service on Saturday without a reservation. I have taken it up to Norwich on Greater Anglia in the past six months without a reservation, and I have also taken it on South West Trains without a reservation in the past six months, so what he says is simply not the case. At a time when we should be encouraging people to use sustainable transport and to travel sustainably, rail companies should be bending over backwards to encourage people to use their bicycles.

    Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and absolutely agree with everything he has said so far. Does he agree that it was clear from the Get Britain Cycling inquiry that he and I served on in the previous Parliament that active travel to work is a key aspect of encouraging people to get cycling, and that the health benefits that that brings are not in dispute?

    Mr Bradshaw

    Yes, I completely agree. I have described the system as Orwellian partly because of the confusion and the contradictory messages that are being given to the public, but the hon. Lady is exactly right that this is a moment in our history when we should be encouraging people to use sustainable transport and to take their bikes on trains. If there is space on trains, people should be allowed to put their bikes on to them.

    This is a classic example of a big organisation announcing a policy without consulting any of the people who use the service and without thinking through its implications and repercussions. It then has to backtrack and try to clarify the situation, but does not really clarify it properly. It ends up thinking, “Oh dear, we’ve got ourselves into a bit of a mess here. How are we going to get out of this?” If only it had consulted the people who actually use the service, it could have avoided this situation. I can think of many examples of this happening in public life. I am sure that the Minister, who has a lot on her plate at the moment, can think of some as well.
    The company has introduced this mandatory reservation system, which turns out not to be mandatory, in advance of the introduction of the new trains, but why on earth did it not wait until the trains were actually introduced? Instead, it has introduced the policy now, which has been confusing and might put people off taking their bikes on trains. It is okay for me because I have this letter from Mr Hopwood saying that I can take my bike on a train without a reservation if there is space for it. I have put a copy of it on my iPhone so that if I ever have any problems, I can flash it at the guard and say, “Look, I have an assurance from your boss that this is okay.” I have also put a photograph of the letter on Twitter and elsewhere. For the ordinary tourist or non-regular traveller, however, the policy will be a real deterrent to their doing exactly what the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has said is the right thing to do.

    I ask Great Western Railway to issue a clear, comprehensive clarification of its policy, and to make it absolutely clear publicly in the notices that it puts in railway stations and in the announcements on the tannoy, which are still inaccurate, that people can still put a bicycle on its trains without a reservation until the new trains are introduced. Also, as I mentioned a moment ago, Mr Hopwood is wrong about the practice on CrossCountry, Greater Anglia and South West Trains. Those trains already have a system whereby bicycles can be accommodated, with two at the front, two in the middle and two at the back. That is the system that Great Western is about to introduce. It is not difficult for someone to put their bicycle on a train if there is a space for it; they just need to move up and down the platform and put it into the space. This idea that people should be required to book in advance because of the new configuration of the trains, even if no one else has booked and spaces are available, is Orwellian and against the whole thrust of Government policy.

    I hope that the Minister, given all the other problems on the railways that she is facing, will be able to have a quiet word with Great Western Railway and sort this issue out to reassure people who, like me, have been using the system perfectly happily for many years. This unnecessary change that has created an almighty mess and confusion, and I hope that she will be able to get Great Western to see sense.