Derek Twigg
MP for Widnes and Halewood · Labour · United Kingdom
“Further education colleges play a crucial role in apprenticeships and in supporting education. Will the Minister tell me what extra measures the Government are bringing in to ensure that further education colleges naturally provide a wide range of education and technical skills to apprentices?”
“I will call Ben Obese-Jecty to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“As I say, we have listened to the campaigners and the ISC has accepted a way forward that addresses the concerns raised in respect of the security services. However, I believe that could have been achieved much earlier, and I would like to make a few comments about that.”
“Our intelligence officers and agents do difficult and sometimes dangerous work so that we can live safely. They deserve our sincere thanks and praise for the job that they do and it is right that we hold them to the highest standards.”
“I speak from a unique position, in that I was at the Hillsborough disaster, I have worked closely with the Hillsborough families to obtain justice and there are families in my constituency who lost loved ones or were injured at the Hillsborough disaster and in the Manchester Arena bombing.”
“There has been a lack of direction and grip, with no one taking control. It seemed all too difficult for some, and that has caused the lengthy delays that we have endured. We should not ignore the fact that that has added to the anxiety and concerns of the families and campaigners.”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Derek Twigg, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“Could the hon. Member point to current legislation that has a gap and does not give the protection to the intelligence services that we all wish to see?”
“Whatever the problems faced by the Government in getting to this stage, they clearly wanted the Bill to go through and have worked very hard to try to do that. It could have been done better, but I believe that, in the long run, we will look back on the tenacity and drive of the families as being what got us to this stage. Today is a landmark day for the Hillsborough families and other campaigners. It will help to ensure that the truth will out in the future. The state will not be able to repeat the appalling cover-up that we saw with Hillsborough. This landmark Bill will have a profound influence in helping prevent future injustices.”
“Establishing a new duty of candour is key, but I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also bring forward the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade, so that any family facing the might of the state will no longer have to beg and borrow to afford a lawyer, as the Hillsborough families know too well from the early stages of their campaign. Many of my colleagues have made important contributions to the Bill and ensured that we got to this stage; my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) have been instrumental in that. I put on the record my thanks to them. There has also been support from the Prime Minister.”
“There has been a lack of direction and grip, with no one taking control. It seemed all too difficult for some, and that has caused the lengthy delays that we have endured. We should not ignore the fact that that has added to the anxiety and concerns of the families and campaigners. As I stated earlier, the ISC has oversight of the intelligence community. If it felt that the Bill did not address the concerns aired about the impact on the intelligence services or threatened the safety of agents or officers and the security of our country, we would say so—and I, for one, would not vote for it. I do not believe that that is the case; I believe that this Bill, with its amendments, addresses those concerns.”
“As I say, we have listened to the campaigners and the ISC has accepted a way forward that addresses the concerns raised in respect of the security services. However, I believe that could have been achieved much earlier, and I would like to make a few comments about that. I genuinely believe that if the ISC had not got involved in these matters, we would not be discussing the Bill today. That is not to take anything away from all those who had been working so hard on the Bill before that, but it had reached an impasse. I praise the work of the ISC Chair, Lord Beamish, and the Deputy Chair, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is in his place. It is the view of the ISC that the concerns about the Bill could have been addressed much sooner, as I have said.”
“Our intelligence officers and agents do difficult and sometimes dangerous work so that we can live safely. They deserve our sincere thanks and praise for the job that they do and it is right that we hold them to the highest standards. As a member of the ISC, which has oversight of the intelligence services, I been involved in trying to find a way forward with colleagues in addressing the concerns about the impact of the Bill on the intelligence services. I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole. It is welcome that the Government have listened to the campaigners and the ISC. I particularly praise Pete Weatherby KC, who has always been available to talk to me and others about the issues, and help us get to the point where the legislation gives clear protections.”
“I speak from a unique position, in that I was at the Hillsborough disaster, I have worked closely with the Hillsborough families to obtain justice and there are families in my constituency who lost loved ones or were injured at the Hillsborough disaster and in the Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, I have become a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has oversight of the intelligence community. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), also a member of the ISC, in his place, although unfortunately he is unable to speak in today’s debate because he co-chaired the Bill Committee. I will keep my comments primarily to aspects of intelligence and controversies around the Bill. Our intelligence services keep us safe every day.”
“I support the Bill and the amendments put forward by the Government. Back in May 1998, when I first spoke in a debate about the Hillsborough disaster, I could never have imagined that 28 years later I would be debating new legislation to address the state’s failings in respect of that disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) was there with me. She and I first uncovered the altered statements in the House of Commons Library; she played a very important role in getting to the stage we did and in getting justice for the Hillsborough families.”
“I recently met a number of small and medium-sized enterprises and start-up companies that want to produce drones and autonomous systems and to integrate AI more, but they are concerned about the pace of change in the MOD. Does my hon. and gallant Friend believe that the MOD needs to start pacing up and getting on with the job of working with these companies to provide us with the sort of protection we need?”
“The hon. Member is making a good and strong point. Does he agree that, frankly, it boils down to the fact that the Government must be much blunter with the British people about the nature of the threat we face?”
“Otherwise, it also leaves a great deal of uncertainty in the defence industrial base about the ability to ramp up and upskill to meet those requirements.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to read the DIP this morning in the reading room. There are some important questions that need to be answered. It is clear that the last Government left the armed forces in a poor state, and this Government have been doing all they can to try to repair that, but for me, the key question is this: given the threats we face today globally and in Europe and the state of the world economy, does this plan meet those threats and provide us with the security and defence capability that this country needs at this time? My view is that it clearly does not, and I think we have to make a much greater contribution. We need to get to 3% by the end of this Parliament, and we need to set out a plan to achieve that.”
“I will call Sir Jeremy Hunt to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I call Sir Jeremy Hunt to move the motion.”
“The Opposition spokespeople will probably have around six and a half minutes. That will give time for the Minister to wind up and, of course, for the mover of the motion to reply.”
“Time is moving on, so before I call the next speaker, I kindly suggest that Members keep their speeches to about six minutes so that we can get everybody in with a similar amount of time.”
“I note with interest that the Minister rightly says that the need to focus on drone production is gaining more and more ground, but are we anywhere near understanding in the Ministry of Defence the sheer size and numbers of drones and counter-drones that will need to be produced now and in the future, and on a mass scale, should any conflict break out? Can he assure the House that that is understood in the MOD?”
“I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts, not least over the past few days. Although many of us have a difference of opinion with President Trump about the way he talks and the actions he is taking in terms of Iran—those are obviously things that we on the Labour Benches do not agree with—I am a little concerned that we should not get his views mixed up with what those in Congress and the Senate in the United States of America think, where there is significant and overwhelming support for NATO and Europe. It is important that we remember that, because our relationship with America is very important, not least in terms of NATO. I hope the Prime Minister will comment on that.”
“I was in Latvia at the weekend, where they very much know what the threat is from Putin and the Russians. I thank the Minister for his statement and the helpful way in which this has been described in public. It is clear that we need to do a lot more to explain to the British public what the threat is from the Russians and how it is getting worse—not least if we are to increase defence expenditure, as I have been advocating in this place for some time, and tough decisions have to be made. We need to have a better programme of education and information to demonstrate how serious a threat Putin and the Russians are to the security of this country.”
“The Secretary of State is right to draw to attention to the fact that when he became Secretary of State, our armed forces were underfunded and very stretched. He and his team and the Government have done much to improve that, including bringing about additional funding for the armed forces. However, I am concerned that this further commitment, because of what is happening in Iran, will put a lot of strain on our already overstretched armed forces, and I am concerned about the sustainability of our continuing investment there. What discussions are taking place in Government to accelerate expenditure to at least 3% in this Parliament and as quickly as possible?”
“Order. Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so it will be difficult to get every Member in. I am going to impose a two-minute limit to start. It is not in my gift to stop this, but if Members take interventions, that may further restrict the time that people have to speak. That is in your gift.”
“I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“Given the present focus on the war in the middle east, there is concern that we should not lose focus on what is going on in Ukraine. On developing and strengthening our relationships with our allies, what are the Minister and his fellow Ministers doing to ensure that Putin does not take advantage of the current situation in the middle east, and that we ensure that Ukraine continues to get the full support, weapons and assets that it needs?”
“I recently co-authored a paper produced by Civitas called “Understanding the UK’s Transition to Warfighting Readiness” with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the renowned defence expert Chris Donnelly. I hope that hon. Members get a chance to read it. It is not perfect or an absolute blueprint for moving to war-readiness, but it is a start. That is the debate that we have got to have today; and we have to move on today.”
“We see it all the time across Europe in cyber and the grey zone, whether it is Russian drones in Polish airspace, Russian jets flying into Estonian airspace, attacks and sabotage on factories and railway lines, the use of criminal gangs by states to destabilise other countries, or disinformation and so forth. We really have to wake up to the fact that these threats are real, and that Russia considers itself—certainly, Putin considers himself—already at war with the west. I urge that we get a move on. We cannot waste any more time if we are to secure the protection and security of this country. Whether in industry or finance, and obviously in the military, we have amazing people, who, working together, can take this country forward and deliver the defence needed for its protection. We need to utilise that ability, but time is running out.”
“As to whether lessons have yet been learned, we shall see, but we clearly have to get procurement right and move it forward, and the report sets out a template for us to start doing that; it is another big area that we have got to sort out. When it comes to spending the extra money, we have to get our procurement system right. We have to make sure that we produce the right assets—the ones that will give the most capability to our armed forces—and really take account of the modern battlefield today, as well as the pressures and threats we will face without those assets. We cannot wait. We face a serious threat to our national security.”
“Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), a fellow member of the Defence Committee, will go into more detail about private finance and defence, as it is not just about the Government putting in public money. The Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned 3% defence spending. I have been saying for some time that we need to start spending 3% now, but that does not mean just saying, “Let’s spend 3%”, as has been outlined by others; it is about spending the money well and intelligently, and doing so in a different way than we have previously. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) knows the Defence Committee’s report on procurement. I think that report was welcomed, and it was on the ball in raising the issues that need to be addressed and the ways in which we can move forward.”
“That leads me to another point that I would stress: we need a whole-of-society approach to the dangerous situation that we now face in this world, and we need to work out how we can get that message across to society. This is about not just the individual on the street, and the households in this country, but how our financial sector, Government Departments and education system are set up, and how quickly our industry—not just the defence industrial base but our wider industrial base—can be turned to producing the defensive equipment and assets that we need. I have concerns about all those things, and they need to be addressed. Let me turn to defence spending. My hon.”
“That is really important to understand, because we have trained Ukrainian service personnel and we need to utilise their knowledge and depth to ensure that our personnel are also trained to that level. They must have the ability to use and manage drones in the battlefield. We need those skills as widely as possible within the armed forces. I am concerned about that as well. There are some key messages that we need to give our armed forces. The first is that if we are going to send them in harm’s way, we will make sure that they are fully resourced and have the capabilities, protection and support that they need—not just from the Government and Parliament, but from the country as a whole.”
“We have been failing for many years when it comes to our ability to deliver the capabilities that we should be providing to NATO, and that is a real worry given that we are putting our NATO policy first. We have just seen the resources that we needed to be able to send naval ships to Cyprus. It is a real worry that we struggle to do that. Technology is advancing rapidly. That applies not just to drones but to cyber and the grey zone. Again, we need to move forward more quickly, more intelligently and in a more agile way. I believe we are still struggling in that area. A week or so ago I met two Ukrainian officers who told me that they were concerned about the ability of the British armed forces when it comes to how we use and produce drones and how they are managed on the battlefield.”
“That is what we need to address. We need the ability to produce mass both in terms of service personnel and of equipment. We need to be able to generate drones, armoured vehicles, ships, aircraft and so on. We have lacked that ability to generate mass for some time. We are now in a situation where we may well have to do that, but we do not have the systems in place to be able to deliver it. That is something that I am particularly concerned about. We live in a perilous and fragile world, and it has just been made even more fragile by the events of the last few days in Iran. When it comes to Britain, we already have great commitments. We are committed to helping Ukraine, and we have our NATO commitments, which we are already failing on.”
“If we are to spend our money better—that is what we are talking about today—we need to make sure that the system in the MOD addresses the needs of civilians and the military, has the ability to spend money wisely and achieves the greatest efficiency. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee said, Treasury sources often cite those things as reasons not to give more money to the Ministry of Defence. The current ministerial team clearly has that in mind and its work will change that. I shall come back to the actual amount of money that we should be spending. To put it bluntly, we are in a perilous situation. This country would have difficulty defending itself for any period of time, or sending out and sustaining any sort of sizeable armed force on the European continent given the Department’s current supply of resource.”
“I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to bring that plan to fruition very quickly, because the Defence Committee has been denied the ability to scrutinise MOD expenditure for several years now. We have heard a lot today about capabilities, the changing world, how war is fought, technology, the defence industrial base and how we have to change the way the MOD works and its culture. Clearly, the new ministerial team appointed after the election has made great strides in reforming the Ministry of Defence and has made a number of significant changes. I am sure that that is starting to bear fruit, but there is still a long way to go. I know, too, that other things will need to get done.”
“I put on the record my appreciation for their work, not least as we enter yet another dangerous period in this world with what is happening in Iran, when, again, they are being asked to do things on behalf of our country. Given the time available, I do not want to repeat the things said by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, but I will focus on a couple of things before I come to the matter of overall defence expenditure. The defence investment plan has been mentioned, which is important because, apart from it telling us what we are spending money on, the previous Government did not produce an equipment plan after about 2023, so we could not scrutinise the Ministry of Defence or hold it to account. We are in the same position now because of the continued delay in the defence investment plan.”
“I congratulate the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on his well-thought-out speech. I know the good work that his Committee is doing on defence expenditure. It is a real privilege and pleasure to see so many of my colleagues from the Defence Committee in the Chamber. They all do an excellent job—particularly the new members—in holding the Ministry of Defence to account. The most important factor in this debate is our people. The defence and security of our country is paramount for any Government and Parliament, but to deliver that, we need to have the people, and our armed forces have some of the finest people in the world. The professionalism, courage and commitment that they show on a daily basis is absolutely unparalleled.”
“Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. If speeches are kept to around seven minutes, we will get everyone in.”
“It is disappointing that neither the Opposition nor the Government have referenced the important role that the ISC could have here. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I have spoken to its Chair, the Lord Beamish, and we heard earlier from its deputy Chair—we feel that the Committee should be involved to help this process on behalf of Parliament, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak to No.10 to ensure we get that, and that it happens quickly.”
“Can I give an assurance that we in the ISC are very confident that we can do an effective job on this? It is worth pointing out that we cannot be told what we can and cannot publish. That will be a matter and a decision for us. May I ask for an assurance, following on from what the Minister has just said, that there will be no block whatsoever on the documents that the ISC should be getting?”
“I place on the record that I support completely what the deputy Chair of the ISC, of which I am also a member, just said. The process issue needs looking at urgently, and the deputy Chair was clear about the problems we faced. An important letter today from the GCHQ and MI5 heads to the Foreign and Home Secretaries says clearly: “the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.” Would the Minister like to comment on that?”
“I do not believe that anyone who has ever visited the Catalyst has gone away disappointed; I urge the Minister to come and visit the as soon as he possibly can.”
“It dates back to the beginnings of the chemical industry and overlooks the Mersey but, again, it is an old building that needs a lot of maintenance and support. Centres including Catalyst do truly remarkable work every day to preserve our heritage and work towards a better, greener future. I pay tribute to all those who contribute to this vital sector, and I hope we can demonstrate that we recognise their support and invaluable work. There are a lot of people who work very hard at Catalyst, but I want to point to a couple of people: Dr Diana Leitch MBE, who is a trustee director of Catalyst, and Chris Lewis, who has been involved in Friends of Catalyst for as long as I can remember. They keep these centres going.”
“As we have already heard, increased financial costs are having a major impact, so I ask the Minister to consider carefully every feasible option to support these centres. The Government are right to take such an ambitious approach to their green energy plan, but without the skills pipeline and a framework to help young people—our future scientists and engineers—to engage with that future, our targets will be far more difficult to meet. The Catalyst centre receives no public funding of any kind and operates as an independent charity. Its trustees tell me that they spend a huge amount of time fundraising because of the rising operational and salary costs and the ageing capital and building, as we have heard from previous speakers. The catalyst building, I must add, is stunning.”
“I am very grateful that Catalyst continues to raise awareness and belief among the local population, making them aware that science is relevant to them, their lives and their future careers. Other Members today, as we have heard already, will have similar appreciation for the science and discovery centres in their own communities. We therefore share the same concerns that the hubs are now at real risk. Financial pressures threaten not just individual centres, but a network of technological heritage, research and development that has made an important contribution to our national development. The Government are well aware of a petition signed by more than 3,000 scientists and leading figures urging us to work with the sector to find an urgent solution.”
“It is situated on the River Mersey, with amazing views, including of three huge bridges—the Railway bridge, the Silver Jubilee road bridge and the huge new billion-pound Mersey Gateway bridge, and looking across to Runcorn. That brilliant institution is a hub for research, development and learning. Generations of people from our region have benefited from the pioneering work done at the centre and its outstanding STEM education. It is a point of pride that my constituency serves as its home. The centre plays a very important role generally in bringing science, technology and engineering to young people, including in disadvantaged areas such as mine in Widnes and Halewood. We cannot overestimate the importance of these science and discovery centres in doing that and enthusing young people to want to get involved.”
“There were not many people without a family member who worked in the chemical industry when I was growing up, not least in Imperial Chemical Industries, which also dominated the town. The legacy is reflected in the prosperity of many local businesses. That chemical industry is now gone, but we still have many really good prosperous, local businesses—a fact reflected recently when the Prime Minister came to Hutchinson Engineering in my constituency to launch GB Energy, heralding a new chapter in our national industrial history. That rich, local legacy leads me on to today’s debate. John Hutchinson’s original administrative building is now the grade II listed Catalyst Science Discovery Centre.”
“It was once a rural village on the northern banks of the River Mersey, and in 1801 it had a population of just 1,063, most of whom were engaged in farming and fishing. By the end of the 19th century, it had become a town of more than 28,000 people. The cause of that remarkable transformation was the creation of the chemical works on the banks of the Mersey. Progress was made possible thanks to the superb infrastructure, with the likes of the Sankey navigation canal, railway links from the river to St Helens and a dock created at the southern end of the town. Immigration from Ireland and eastern Europe brought workers, while industrial entrepreneurs such as John Hutchinson, Sir John Brunner, Henry Deacon and Holbrook Gaskell helped to turn Widnes into the heart of the modern chemical industry.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing the debate and on making such a brilliant case for science and discovery centres. I am not sure many of us could add much more to the core case he made, other than to talk about our own areas. I am very pleased to speak about this issue today and its importance to our communities and, more widely, to the UK’s proud history as a world-leading pioneer in science and technology, which we should not forget. My hometown of Widnes is somewhat different from Devon; it was a very industrialised area in the ’60s and ’70s, when I was growing up, and it was dominated by the chemical industry.”
“I will call Sarah Hall to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.”
“I record my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the work they are doing to improve our defence capabilities and leadership in NATO and Europe, as well as on the defence industrial base. We have heard from Conservative Members, who of course are responsible for the massive underspending on defence. However, we have to move on from that. Given the threats that we face, today and in the coming months, from Russia and other adversaries, it is clear that we need to accelerate our spending on defence as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to ensure that we get more resources into defence, so that we can maintain our leadership position in Europe, and so that our armed forces are fit to deal with the threats that we face?”
“I think that many of us are still somewhat bemused by the fact that somehow, despite the three witness statements, the Crown Prosecution Service thought that it could not go ahead with a prosecution. I welcome much of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, but I think it would be useful, following the questions asked and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), if he agreed to come back to the Committee after the Government has responded to its report and recommendations, so that we can be given a clear timeline for the changes that rightly need to be made.”
“The Home Secretary’s statement is most welcome. The proposals that she set out today are a significant step in the right direction. The comments that she made about the damage to the social fabric of this country are important. I have a specific question about asylum seekers who have committed crimes and are deported, but are then allowed to make a second application to come back to this country. Will she look at the law to see how that can be addressed?”