Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentRobert Jenrick

    Jury Trials

    That is the subject of this debate, isn’t it? England and Wales have their own legal tradition, and Scotland has its own. Those of us who represent constituencies in England and Wales are here to defend our constitutional rights and settlement, and we will. It is up to those in Scotland to choose their path forward. The hon. Gentleman’s point raises another important question: is this debate a technical, bureaucratic one about how to get the backlog down in the most expeditious way, or does he speak to an ideological view that jury trials are wrong or superfluous, and that ordinary people do not know what they are talking about and their views should be casually set aside? I do not know the answer to that question in respect of the hon. Gentleman, but some in our politics do take the latter view. They think that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted. As Baroness Helena Kennedy suggested, some in the Labour tradition take the view that led Tony Blair and Jack Straw to take the original decision. Clearly, that is not everyone in the Labour tradition, as we see today—it may be a very small minority—but that view is not one that we support. We want ordinary people to continue to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is why we have brought forward the motion. This is an Opposition day debate, but opposition to this proposal is not restricted to those on the Conservative Benches, or to those in the other Opposition parties; it is found on both sides of this House and in the other place. It comes from the solicitors, barristers and judges who can speak out, and from those who cannot, when they speak privately at their kitchen table. It comes from ordinary citizens of our country, who want jury trials preserved—poll after poll shows that clearly. We are talking about 800 years of legal tradition. Let us not toss it aside; let us defend it, because it matters, and then let us unite and find a way to fix the bureaucratic failures of the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we have swift justice. Justice delayed is justice denied; we all agree on that. We can do this without ruining a gift that this country has given the world, and a fundamental part of our constitution and our democracy. Vote for our motion to defend jury trials, and tomorrow let us work together to fix the court backlog.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentRobert Jenrick

  3. ParliamentRobert Jenrick

    Jury Trials

    The hon. and learned Lady is being very generous with her time. The nub of her argument is that reducing the number of jury trials will make a material difference in cutting the backlog. She has quoted some conversations she has had with judges in Canada and so on, and I do not doubt her sincerity and the work she has done. Why will she not commit today to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for the assertions she is making, not in the months to come, but this week or next week—as soon as practicable? I will happily return to this Dispatch Box if she proves me wrong on the basis of the evidence she presents. Will she make that commitment to all of us today?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Rural Communities

    It has been clear that this Government have been a disaster for rural communities. We have heard that loud and clear in the many excellent contributions from Opposition Members that have highlighted the deep concerns of many of our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) highlighted the challenge of the family farm tax, the challenge faced by pubs, and the challenge of funding rural councils such as North Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) highlighted the funding challenges that Gloucestershire county council faces and the implications of the changes to shotgun licences, which will be disastrous for our shooting community. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is a doughty campaigner for our rural community, highlighted the challenges associated with the pig industry, the shooting industry and the family farm tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who I was proud to serve with as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before the general election, highlighted the challenge of the family farm tax for his constituents, the way that this Government have cut productivity grants, the implications of the Baroness Batters review, and the fact that the Government have not even announced yet what they will do on the 57 recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) highlighted the implications for many rural local authorities of measures such as the cut to the rural services delivery grant. He also highlighted the impact of the family farm tax and the family business tax on the wider supply chain. That is impacting many of the family businesses that support our farmers.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Rural Communities

    I agree with the hon. Member, and I will come back to that, because it is ridiculous. My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made the critical point that this Government should stop playing cat and mouse with our rural businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) referenced the fact that rural Britain and our rural fishing communities have lost trust as a result of this Government’s choices. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly highlighted the challenges being faced in her constituency and the north of Scotland right now as a result of the bad weather, and the fact that it is our farmers who are doing the hard work to support our rural communities. Throughout the debate, we have heard about the immense pressure that our entire hospitality sector is being put under. I heard it from my own constituents Michael, Kath and Jodie at the Dog and Gun pub in the Worth valley just before Christmas. We now know that since the autumn Budget alone, more than 1,100 pubs and restaurants have closed, and more than 89,000 hospitality workers have lost their job. The rise in employer national insurance, the rise in the minimum wage, the Unemployment Rights Bill—these measures are making doing business nearly impossible. The Government are robbing many young people of their first job opportunity and are tearing the heart out of our rural economies. All that is in addition to the skyrocketing business rates being foisted on our pubs by this Government. Many are looking at 30% increases in their valuation rates, a staggering amount that they will simply not be able to afford. The Conservatives would scrap business rates in full, so why on earth will the Labour Government not do it? Is it any wonder that, up and down the country, it is harder and harder for Labour MPs to find a pub that will serve them? However, if they thought the situation was bad for pubs, it is just as bad for our farmers. Let us look at what rural Britain has been hit by in the last 18 months alone through the choices of this Labour Government. De-linked payments have been dramatically reduced. Capital grants have been closed overnight. The sustainable farming incentive has been stopped with no warning—and how embarrassing was it when Ministers were forced to admit that they had wrongly refused SFI funding to about 3,000 farmers when they shut the scheme? That was pure ignorance and incompetence. The farming budget has been slashed, and is now referred to as the farming and nature budget, a combined term to create the false impression that the Government actually care and that funding has increased. There are new taxes on fertilisers, and on double-cab pick-up trucks. There are plans to reclassify shotgun licences, making it harder and more expensive to renew and apply for a licence. Country pursuits and sports that drive the rural economy are to be banned, and a land use framework threatens to take 18% of our land out of UK food production. We have a US trade deal that totally destroys the UK bioethanol industry, and robs our farmers of a sixth of the domestic wheat market. Prime agricultural land is being covered in solar panels by the Energy Secretary, regardless of local opinion or food security concerns.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Rural Communities

    My right hon. Friend’s excellent point feeds into the narrative that this Government are not making the sound decisions that we want for our rural economy; they are industrialising much of our prime agricultural land with heavy metals that will damage soil nutrients. Closer to home for me in Keighley are the plans to roll out England’s biggest wind farm on our protected peatland. It is a disgrace that the moratorium on onshore wind has been removed by this Labour Government. The young farmers grant has been cancelled for the first time. Our rural councils have been hit hard too: the £110 million rural service delivery grant, which supported many rural communities, has been axed. Fairer funding for rural councils has been scrapped, and the £2 bus fare cap has gone, which makes it more expensive for people to travel around our rural areas. To top it all off, there are the 14 months of anxiety over the disastrous family farm and family business tax—14 months in which families who have worked hard all their lives have been completely terrified about their future. Parents and grandparents of young farmers have been in tears, and yes, lives have been lost, only for the Government to finally admit what was obvious to everyone else from the start. It is disgraceful to see some Labour MPs treating this as a victory lap, and seeing others now come out of the woodwork to say that, actually, they supported these changes all along is even worse. The reality is that right up until Christmas, Ministers were adamant that there would be no changes in APR and BPR. Labour Members voted against this policy four times, and only one of them had the backbone to vote against the Chancellor. Time and again, this Labour Government have failed to understand and, worse, have ignored rural Britain. As a result, family businesses’ confidence is now at a 15-year low. The Government’s own farmer opinion tracker shows that only one in three farmers in England feel positive about their future. A third of farmers are planning to scale back investment because of this Government’s policies, a record number of farms have closed since Labour came to office, and the Government’s own profitability review is being rolled out at the slowest of speeds. I urge every hon. Member who has sought to defend the Government’s record in this debate to get real and recognise the dire situation that rural Britain is in. This Government have chosen to ignore warnings, dismiss experience and gamble with the livelihoods of the people who feed this country and care for its countryside. Farmers and rural communities see exactly what is happening, and our pubs and hospitality sector are struggling. They feel it, and they are paying the price for it. Rural communities will not forget who stood with them and who turned their back.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentRishi Sunak

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, and specifically on Ukraine may I commend him, the Prime Minister and the Government for their continued efforts? The whole House will be proud of how Britain has led on this from the very beginning. The future of Ukraine, and indeed the security of Europe, is an issue of vital UK national interest—a point that the right hon. Gentleman, and others, have made. I believe there are three prerequisites for a lasting peace in Ukraine: first, a western military presence there; secondly, credible and durable security guarantees; and thirdly, a well-armed and resourced Ukrainian military. In his work with allies in the weeks ahead, will the Secretary of State ensure that any ceasefire or peace agreement does not give Russia a veto in any of those three vital areas?

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentRebecca Paul

    Jury Trials

    Plans to restrict access to jury trial take a sledgehammer to one of the most important protections for the people of this country. I would expect any Government suggesting a change of that magnitude to have a strong rationale for doing so. Instead, we hear the nonsensical argument that curtailing jury trials will address the courts backlog, yet the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services told the House that only 3% of court cases are jury cases. So before we even get into the debate, we need clarity on what this change will mean for the backlog. That means modelling and timescales, not justifications based on religious belief. I suggest that the Government are getting desperate when that is the best they can offer—perhaps next we will hear that the tooth fairy backs digital identification or that Father Christmas supports giving away the Chagos islands. Back in the real world, in 2024 the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Justice Committee that our courts faced around 100 unplanned closures every week, with 200 near closures per month. That is in line with credible data suggesting that just yesterday, 15% of our Crown courtrooms sat empty, and it is the same today. If the Minister wants to tackle the backlog, might that not be the best place to start? Let me turn to the key benefit of jury trials: the involvement of our peers in delivering justice. These are people in our own communities with no obvious axe to grind or political motivations. Any justice system that concentrates powers in the hands of a small number of repeat decision makers inevitably risks groupthink and unconscious, or even conscious, bias. A jury is a built-in safeguard: 12 ordinary people drawn at random, bringing different instincts and experiences, and forced to test the prosecution’s case in a way that a single decision maker cannot. Simply put, it is safer to spread human fallibility across 12 people than to concentrate it in one. A system in which liberty hinges solely on inputs from various arms of the state—the police, the CPS and then a judge—cannot be as inherently fair as one in which justice is done with the people’s direct involvement. The curtailing of jury trials is not the only concern. Ministers want to expand sentencing powers in the magistrates courts by allowing them to hand down sentences of up to two years, while at the same time restricting the ability to appeal decisions taken in those courts. It is extraordinary that this Government think that someone who can sit as a magistrate from the age of 18, with no legal qualifications or experience, should be able to decide whether someone loses their liberty. If you were in the dock, would you be happy with that? Juries may not be perfect, but I know what I would prefer. If the Government are determined to push ahead with this, they are knowingly increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and excessive sentences. We know that more than 40% of appeals against decisions taken by magistrates courts are upheld. How many miscarriages of justice are this Government willing to accept? Ministers would be foolish to trade away a centuries-old safeguard for a headline about swift justice, only to discover afterwards that our courts are no speedier, just less just. I believe that the British people must remain participants in their system of justice rather than mere observers. I urge Ministers to think again. Do not curtail jury trials. Do not concentrate yet more power in fewer hands. Fix the courts. Protect our legal heritage.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

  12. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. To ensure that everyone is able to contribute to the debate, there will be a speaking time limit of eight minutes to begin with, but it will come down further.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. The time limit has now dropped to four minutes.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. No “yous”—it is not me responding.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. Just to make sure that the hon. Member does not make a further mistake, I remind her not to mention colleagues by their first name.

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. The speaking limit is now three minutes.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

  18. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Jury Trials

    Order. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has been here for a while. He was not allowed to make a speech because he was not here at the beginning of the debate, but he has been here for a while.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    Order. For colleagues’ information, I should say that I intend to take everybody, but how long that will take depends on the length of the questions; we could be here for quite some time. Can questions and answers please be short?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    Order. We do not need chuntering from the Back Benches, and I can determine whether the House has or has not been misled.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    I call Mark Sewards for the final question.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    I do not doubt that the matter is indeed serious, but it is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair, whose powers do not extend to Staffordshire county council. The hon. Member has nonetheless got his very important matter on the record.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    May I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to advance peace in Ukraine, and his joint statement on Greenland? The last few days have seen significant international events, with the US operation in Venezuela, threats towards Greenland, and an agreement to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine. It is therefore frankly astonishing that the Prime Minister is not making a full statement to Parliament today. No Prime Minister—Labour or Conservative—has failed to make a statement to the House in person after committing to the deployment of British troops. His comments about making a statement in due course are frankly not good enough. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for all of us here, and for the people we represent. The United States is Britain’s closest military ally. However, we are clear that the sovereignty of Greenland is sacrosanct, so can the Prime Minister tell us what influence he is bringing to bear on the United States Administration to ensure that that is respected?

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Why is today not the earliest opportunity? The truth is that the Prime Minister does not want everybody in this House to be able to ask him questions, so he leaves that just to Prime Minister’s questions, which last for half an hour. At least on Monday his Foreign Secretary stood up to speak for two hours and 15 minutes. It was a non-event, but at least she did that. The Prime Minister is scared of our being able to ask him questions—six questions. [Interruption.] Yes, he is here—

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Someone said, “He is here.” The Prime Minister has no choice but to be here for Prime Minister’s questions. That is why he is here. We know that if he could skip this, he would. Let us return to the matter in hand. All of us, or at least most of us, agree that NATO is the bedrock of our security. The future of Greenland is of fundamental importance to the future of the alliance, and I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees that it is essential for NATO leaders, including and especially the United States, to meet. Will he call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders?

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister did not answer the question. I asked him whether he would call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. We can all see that the situation is moving rapidly. I also note that the Prime Minister has still not had a call with President Trump. That is concerning, four days after the events in Venezuela. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that Britain and France had signed a political agreement to put troops on the ground in the event of a peace deal in Ukraine. Given that he is not making a statement about that deployment of British troops abroad—one of the most serious decisions that a Government and a Parliament can take, irrespective of what he says—can he at least tell the House how many troops would be sent to Ukraine, and whether they would be in a combat role?

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    It is clear that the Prime Minister either does not have the detail or does not want to give us the detail, but this is important. He should be calling an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. He should have spoken to President Trump by now. This is important, because if any such peace deal is breached, we would be in direct conflict with Russia. If the Prime Minister is committing troops, he must give more detail on how he intends to ensure that our armed forces are fully resourced. Before the Budget, the Prime Minister said it was his “ambition” to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament. That could be as late as 2034. It is time to move from ambition to commitment. We have had the Budget, so can the Prime Minister now tell us in what year the UK will spend 3% of GDP on defence?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I heard what—[Interruption.] Wait for it—wait for it! What Ben Wallace said was that spending had fallen under all Governments. The last time spending was at 3% was under a Conservative Government. Yes, while we welcome the increase—something that we supported—can I remind the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a man who sat in the shadow Cabinet and tried to make Prime Minister a man who said we should not even be in NATO at all? I do not need to take any lectures from him. The world is changing. We need to spend more on defence. He did not answer the question about when we will get to 3%, yet he knows up until 2031 how much he is going to be spending on welfare. He does not know. That is in the Red Book; the Red Book has no money allocated for defence. We need to move from ambition to commitment. This is important because it is not just about money. If the Prime Minister is deploying troops to Ukraine, those troops need to know that we have their backs. Last week, seven former SAS commanders warned that Labour’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will “wreck” our special forces. It was not me who said that; it was the SAS. In November, nine retired four-star generals warned that his Bill was “a direct threat to national security”. Even his own Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner has said our veterans are being treated “worse than terrorists”. Is it not madness to be putting veterans in the dock for serving their country at the same time that he is deploying today’s soldiers into Ukraine?

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentMrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Let me start by talking about the shadow Attorney General. [Interruption.] Yes! Do Labour Members know what the shadow Attorney General is doing? He is defending veterans pro bono against the actions of this Government. We on this side of the House will defend those who defended us. But why do we not talk about the actual Attorney General, who is sitting in Cabinet: the man who defended Gerry Adams; the man who is trying to bring Shamima Begum back into the country; the man who is helping to surrender the Chagos islands? I will take our shadow Attorney General every day of the week against the Prime Minister’s Attorney General. We protect our veterans. I want the Prime Minister to know that we protect our veterans. What he is doing to veterans is disgraceful. But this is serious, and I do not want the House to be under any illusions. The Prime Minister should know that we will absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine and we will work with him to ensure NATO remains the bedrock of our security, but we cannot write a blank cheque when he is also surrendering the Chagos islands, surrendering our veterans to lawfare and surrendering to his Back Benchers by prioritising welfare handouts over defence spending, as if the world has not become more dangerous. Is it not time that the Prime Minister changed course, and for once put the British national interest first?

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentMr Peter Bedford

    Engagements

    Q3. Unlike many of his parliamentary colleagues, I actually do not think that the Prime Minister should resign. But at the start of a new year, it is time to reflect—reset, detox, if you will—on his Government’s appalling economic policies and tax rises, particularly business rates and the impact they are having on the hospitality sector. Will the Prime Minister commit to doing that today?

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentMike Wood

    Public Services

    Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at their lowest ever level. Both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Policy Exchange have warned that reopening cases from the troubles will place a huge additional financial burden on the police, which would mean risks for both policing numbers and national security. Is the Minister happy with that situation? Will he let it happen, or will the Secretary of State be compensating the PSNI for the decisions made by his Department?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentMike Wood

    Rural Communities

    claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentMatt Vickers

    Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026

    It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for his remarks on these proposals. We recognise the need to give enhanced powers to those who enforce our immigration and customs laws. It is right that we equip them with all the necessary resources to stop any form of behaviour incompatible with our legal regime. The equality impact assessment shows that the nationalities encountered by immigration officers in Northern Ireland are comparable to those who have arrived in the UK by small boats, demonstrating the continuing need to give sufficient powers to immigration officials to tackle the problems associated with migration. Conferring powers on to immigration officials to search, seize and arrest should always be welcomed when it is done to stop illegal activity on our border. Much of the debate about the security of our border has rightly focused on the matter of illegal entry, which has increased significantly under the Government. A range of issues encountered by immigration officers require the Government’s attention. I hope the measures achieve the Government’s stated goals, such as greater interoperability between law enforcement agencies, to tackle immigration issues in Northern Ireland. Critically, I recognise the Government’s point that “Colleagues in the devolved bodies requested assurances around accountability which were discussed at working level and resolved to all parties’ satisfaction.” I welcome those robust assurances, but will the Minister say whether any other issues were raised during those discussions or whether any other matters needed to be resolved? Given the comments in the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister also say what progress has been made to ensure that the guidance is up to date, ahead of the predicted date for operationalisation in March this year, and whether work is under way to ensure that happens within that timeframe?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    Rural Communities

    Is the shadow Secretary of State aware of the great concern in Shropshire among the rural community, in particular farmers, that the Government are conflating lethal firearms with shotguns? Of course, shotguns should be controlled, but they are already strictly controlled, and they are a vital part of rural life, especially for farmers controlling vermin, or those undertaking other rural pursuits. I appeal, through the shadow Secretary of State, to the Minister to look again and disregard the consultation. The changes have not been called for and are unnecessary.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    Rural Communities

    It is humid in here. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is talking about important subjects for all our communities, including infrastructure, SMEs and transport. We can differ on who is to be praised or not. On the Government’s legislative priorities—many of these things require legislation or have already had legislative time spent on them—why are the Government going to spend so much time on banning trail hunting? Is she aware that, if that goes through, in Shropshire alone we will likely see the death of at least 300 hounds? That will impact on many rural SMEs. As the Minister has been in the House a very long time, she will know that I have had at least three animal welfare Bills in the House—[Interruption.] That was long before the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) even set foot in the Chamber. My record on animal welfare is long and established. Today, I stand up for all the people in the hunts who do not want to destroy all those dogs as well as jobs.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentMark Pritchard

  37. ParliamentMark Pritchard

  38. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today, but I want to press him a little on a vote in Parliament. In his statement—it is pretty much the same wording as the Prime Minister’s, as I would expect—he states that a decision on deployment will be brought to the House “for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment”. That is not the same as having a vote before the deployment. There are very good strategic and military reasons for not making public an immediate, surprise or secret deployment beforehand, but this is a public, planned deployment, as set out in the Paris agreement. It could not be more public than that. Will he commit to a vote in this House before the deployment, and not a debate in the House only? He will know that in 2013—he was in the House; I think he entered Parliament in 1997—the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron of somewhere in Oxfordshire —[Interruption.] Under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in beautiful Oxfordshire, there was a vote, which was lost by 13 votes. As a result, the UK did not deploy RAF support of the Americans into Syria. It is right that the Government get the balance right, and I support what they are doing, although we have to see the detail, but will he commit to a vote before deployment, and not just a debate?

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentMark Garnier

    Bromsgrove: Local Government

    My hon. Friend and Worcestershire neighbour is making a strong argument about the risks of a north-south divide, in which the north could be subsumed under a greater Birmingham. That is a very important point. Is he as surprised as I am that, of the district and city councils across Worcestershire, Wyre Forest was the only one to advocate a single Worcestershire unitary authority rather than the split model?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentMark Garnier

    Bromsgrove: Local Government

    My hon. Friend has been very indulgent of me. I suspect one interesting point was not taken into account by the survey. That would be the fantastic cost of splitting up all the county-wide services, which range from adult and children’s social care to waste disposal. To divide that into two and then merge the district authorities would in itself be an unnecessary cost if we have two authorities rather than one.

    Hansard source