Saudi Arabia: RAF Support
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I think you also meant a new order for aircraft, but we will put that to one side.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly.
Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.
Mr Bailey
There was a multiplicity of questions within that question. First, on why a statement on the deployment was not made, I have made it clear that the strategic parameters were set out by the Prime Minister and that the deployment was laid out by the Secretary of State. I am pleased to be here to talk about the extension of an existing deployment; this is not anything new. With regards to the word “defence”, the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbouring MP, as a gallant person with a significant military background, will understand that a layered air defence system is exactly that, and defensive counter air is a capability. We are not conducting strikes and there is no capability to conduct strikes. We are not seeking to present that in any other way.
Oral Answers to Questions
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a former Royal Marine, will join me in paying tribute to our forces who courageously interdicted the Russian shadow fleet vessel just last month. This Government take the security of our military bases and critical infrastructure incredibly seriously. Through the Armed Forces Bill, we are giving defence personnel greater powers to defeat drones that threaten our bases. Our defence investment plan sets out significant funding for radars, sensors and counter-drone systems, including more than £750 million to provide short-range drone protection for our forces in the UK and those deployed overseas.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Prime Minister agreed that he would use all his might to tackle the shadow fleet tankers that were coming through British territorial waters. Since then, one has been taken, and just under 200 shadow fleet tankers have passed through our waters with nothing happening. Are the Government serious about stopping these tankers? Are they so serious about it that they will revisit the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which they seem to think prevents them from boarding the tankers?
Dan Jarvis
Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. We are serious, absolutely. That is why, in my first couple of days as the Defence Secretary, we interdicted the Russian shadow vessel, and we will not hesitate to take further action in the future.
Defence Investment Plan
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who makes an important point. It is right to emphasise that we are the third-largest spender of resource on defence in NATO. He is right to point out the £63 billion that has been committed over the next four years. That is a very large figure, and a very significant commitment. As he will know very well, not least because his constituents benefit from that investment, it also means good, skilled jobs for people right around the country, including in his constituency.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Is it not the reality that the plan the Defence Secretary has put forward barely scrapes into 2.7%? It is not 3%. It leaves us £9.3 billion short, every single year of the process. If he is not going to achieve 3% by 2030, how in heaven’s name will he ever achieve the NATO minimum by 2035? It is not going to happen in ’35. He will not get 3.5% out of this Budget, will he? Will he give us the dates?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The defence investment plan represents a very significant commitment from this Government on defence spending—nearly £300 billion over the next four years. There is £15 billion of new money in this plan. He has heard the point I made about the real-terms spending increase of 27%. I have been very clear about the need to spend more on defence, and the fact that the next spending review will provide the resource required to chart the trajectory from 3% to 3.5%. I agree with him that that is precisely what our allies want to see, and I am confident that we will make good on that commitment in the context of the next spending review.
Defence Spending and Readiness
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who was speaking a great deal of sense? He mentioned the threat that we face in the High North. He might be interested to know that the Defence Committee was in Norway last week. We went up to the Arctic circle, to the Combined Air Operations Centre at Bodø, where we were told an extraordinary story. When the forces there were doing a security exercise, they put a baddie on the roof of a sangar near the air base’s gate, and took a dog round to find the baddie. The dog did not want to know about the bloke they had put on the roof of the sangar; he would not stop indicating an issue with the sangar itself. He kept on indicating, “There’s something there.” They thought, “Oh blimey, we’d better go and get the keys.” They got the keys and found a Chinese spy, who had been in there for a week. He was arrested and is doing time in prison in Norway—pre-trial, I believe, on remand. That brings home exactly what the hon. Member said: we are talking about real threats and real enemies, and in that case, they were are literally at the gate.
I joined the Army in 1986, and it generously paid for me to go to university to study theology and philosophy—that was very broad-minded of it at the time. I went back to Sandhurst to confirm my commission in 1989. That was a significant moment. I was on college guard, polishing my boots, as I watched the Berlin wall fall. I did not really understand that the geopolitical glue that had helped keep the world safe for the last 40 years was coming unstuck, or what the implications might be for Officer Cadet Jopp, but the implications were certainly there. Those bonds, which had kept the cold war in stasis, did indeed start to melt, and that meant that I had a very busy military career.
I went to war when the Conservatives were in power, and when Labour was in power. I have had poor equipment. Both sides of the House have been responsible for part of what happened following 1989, as we started to manage decline. Do not get me wrong: I am so proud of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those I led. I buried men from my regiment, and I try not to forget to always pay tribute to them and what they did; it enabled me to stand here and be their voice today. Essentially, from the end of the cold war, successive Governments started to take risks. This ticking time bomb has been passed on from Government to Government. Bad luck, Labour: it has gone off on this Government’s watch; that is the fact of it. Essentially, a very big lie has been told to the British public; they have been told that we can have the defence we want at the price that we are prepared to pay for it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he recall that at the end of the cold war a paper was written by Francis Fukuyama called “The End of History?”? Does he agree that on the basis of that, everybody believed somehow that no longer would there be war, no longer would there be pressure and no longer would we need armed forces? That was such a mistake, as has been documented, which has affected everything since.
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend and fellow Scots Guardsman makes a good point. The zeitgeist throughout that period of time was to say, “Look, wars are a thing of the past. We can take risk against defence.” That risk has rarely crystallised, so people have been tempted to take more and more risk.
We have also seen it in the hypothecation of defence spending. I get an Army pension, which contributes to the 2% of GDP being spent on defence. The last time I checked—despite the Minister for the Armed Forces having threatened to mobilise me more than once—my pension was not making a huge contribution to our ability to face down a resurgent Russia.
Everyone was taking risk and passing on that risk to one another. Now, I am afraid, that risk has crystallised in that we do face real enemies, and those enemies are very close. We do have to rearm—I should declare an interest as a founder of the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament—but unfortunately our record on that is not great. The numbers were run the other day and of the 32 NATO members recorded we came 31st for rearmament. The only trouble is, in 32nd is Iceland, which does not have any armed forces. That is not a great record for going over to Europe and trying to convince our European and NATO allies that we are pulling our weight.
One or two other things happened in that period of time. First, the MOD got pretty bloated, in particular in procurement. It is deeply unhelpful that we are now on our third Procurement Minister in less than 22 months, which makes it look like we are not taking it seriously. Equally, it shows no consistency in the building of approach. When the Government came in, they appointed the national armaments director, who will be the second-highest paid civil servant in the country. I hope that he is a massive success. I tried to set up the national armaments director up for success before his appointment by asking two Procurement Ministers whether the director would be given carte blanche to tear up the book when it comes to procurement. One of them said not only would he be given the ability to tear up the book but that they would hold him to account for doing so. I said, “The last thing anyone on the Defence Committee wants is for the national armaments director to come in front of us, after being in post a year, to say, ‘Well, we did want to change things, but I wasn’t really allowed to.’” The way is set fair: the national armaments director can rip up that book.
When the Defence Committee went to Ukraine last year, we were briefed on its procurement structure, which is extraordinary. Ukraine has put together an Amazon-like marketplace with 1,700 sovereign Ukrainian defence companies as suppliers and the customers being the fighting brigades, who simply write a requirement for a new bit of kit. For example, let us say that the Russians have got a new screen so the brigades cannot fly their fibre optically guided munition right into the Russians’ command post and have it blow up on the general’s desk. The brigade simply writes up that requirement, saying “I need a pre-charge of some sort to burst through that screen so I can fly my fibre optic guided missile in and get the baddies.” That gets put out to industry, which churns the problem; the record, from flash to bang—from requirement to kit delivery—is five days. That is what can be achieved.
Hon. Members must look at what is being bypassed to achieve that level of agility: the whole of the military chain of command above brigade level, bypassed; the Ministry of Defence, bypassed; the Treasury, bypassed; and equally, all the regulators, bypassed. That should give the national armaments director a sense of where we have to go to generate the relevance.
I think I heard the Armed Forces Minister—I cannot remember whether it was the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) or the current one—say the other day that it is rather tricky buying drones, because as soon as we have them they go out of date, so we will not buy any. That is pretty defeatist. We should redo the way in which we are thinking about things so that our land forces in Estonia have drones.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a tremendous privilege to take part in this debate. It has to be clear to us on both sides of the House that this is the most critical debate that we will be involved with. This is the most critical thing that we face but it often escapes our notice, and I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for centring on the very thing that is important. I say gently to those on the Government Benches that it is very easy to go around the whole time saying, “Well, of course, you did this and we didn’t.” The truth is, we can go right back and see how much previous Governments failed with regard to defence.
I was serving in the late 1970s when the Labour Government were in terrible difficulty. They were slashing the budgets, and military personnel from the captain and senior sergeant ranks were leaving the Army in droves. I remember having one depressed conversation after another—helped by a certain amount of Scottish water. [Laughter.]
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. [Laughter.]
In those conversations, we decided that there was clearly no future for us in the Army. Now, I did stay on a bit longer, but many left who I knew were very competent and very good people, and it is difficult to fill those posts. That is the bit in the armed forces that is critical to everything else that happens. If we do not have a cadre of middle-ranking and senior non-commissioned officers, we do not have an Army. We just have a lot of orders from the top down but are unable to do them.
What we speak about today is critical, because we have to send a message to our armed forces that we believe in them fully and strongly and will support them in every way. That is why it is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) sitting in his place after his resignation. He has the respect of many of my colleagues on these Benches, without question, not only for his past but for his present. I know what it is like to resign when you disagree with the Government—I have done it a few times myself—but the reality is that he will never regret it. The thing that matters most of all when we come to this place is not us or the debates that we have here and away; it is the people out there who put us here. If we do not plan to speak up, even when our own side does not want us to, we are not worthy of being in this place. I therefore congratulate him, not because I am in a party political game but because I respect him for having called out a problem that the Government face. All the Ministers on the Front Bench know that, as does he. The question is: what will we do about it?
I want to start by talking about Northern Ireland, and I shall be here on 4 September, cheering my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne on with his private Member’s Bill. We cannot for one moment forget that we have reduced the morale of British soldiers who have served—veterans who are now often in their late 70s and 80s—and who find themselves persecuted. I say to the Defence Ministers that this really started in the Northern Ireland Office, which was overly persuaded by Sinn Féin that they could somehow change what had happened and come out as victors. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak said in his resignation speech, they lost; they lost because of the efforts of the armed forces, and of all those who did not see another day and who died in the service of their country.
More importantly, we forget that walking down the streets in your own country armed and trying to protect civilians against aggression is quite different from anything else that the armed forces were trained to do. In doing it, they had to figure out all sorts of complications. The trouble with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is that it does not deal with the sense of what we asked our soldiers to do in risking their lives to protect the British public on the streets of the United Kingdom. We therefore have to understand that the legislation that the Government have brought forward is wrong. That does not mean to say that what the Conservative Government brought through was fantastic. It was not. There were many flaws and failings in it, but many of us felt that we would support it because it did one major thing: it stopped the constant attacks on those poor veterans whose lives are now coming to an end and who see themselves being dragged through the courts all over again.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is exactly the point. I hope that we will be able to drag this point out again on 4 September and make it very clear that if we in this House do not stand by those whom we order to go to war or to bear arms for the sake of the country, who is going to do that? We have the power to sweep things away or to make them. I have disagreed with my own Government many times, but I say gently to this Government: think again. Do not allow the Northern Ireland Office to drive this thing through when Ministers know full well that it is wrong; they need to defend those soldiers, despite the rows that might take place in Cabinet or among Ministers.
Mr Francois
Does my right hon. Friend recall he and I and others having multiple meetings in the Northern Ireland Office when we were Back Benchers, going through the detail of the Bill—almost line by line on occasions—and trying to defend the interests of veterans, and bit by bit overcoming the resistance of civil servants at the Northern Ireland Office? Does he recall how difficult that was, and does he still believe, like me, that it was worth it?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do; it was difficult and we stuck to the task. We were not very popular at the time, but that has been a constant in my life. [Laughter.] I think you only know you are successful when you are not popular, and we were not popular on that. What we were trying to get was not perfect, but it was better than what we now have, and that is the key. At the heart of it was the aim of protecting those who have been sent, bearing arms, to defend the British people. We need to defend them and respect the sacrifice they made.
Sir Julian Lewis
Another spurious argument, which I am afraid we heard earlier in the debate, is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth is that everybody is on the same level before the law. In any case, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sold the pass on that anyway, because under it nobody—even if they were convicted of first-degree murder, as the Americans might say—goes to jail for more than two years. That put everybody on the same level before the law, as any such legislation has to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Yes, that is quite correct, and my right hon. Friend is exactly right to make the point now.
We really must understand that, if the first priority of Government is defence of the realm, then the second priority is defence of those they send to fight to protect the realm. If we cannot defend them, we are not worthy of being here. I say gently to Ministers that the House would support them if they went back to the Government and said about the Northern Ireland position, “This is quite wrong. It is unbalanced and deeply unfair.” I hope that they will do just that.
The real reason that I decided to speak today is because I am really, really worried. As I have been saying for some considerable time, we are now in a more dangerous situation than we have been in not since the cold war—at least we arrived at the cold war knowing what we had to do; Governments co-operated, NATO was fairly newly formed, we were full of the attitude that we would defend one another no matter what, and we were armed and ready—but since the 1930s. I am not in the business of saying that this Government are responsible; all Governments bear responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said. We are seeing the rise of a threat very similar to what we saw in the 1930s, and our behaviour towards that threat is exactly the same as it was in the 1930s.
My father wrote a book many years ago about his time. He was a highly decorated fighter pilot, with five gallantry medals; he commanded in the war and fought all the way through. He said that he could never forgive politicians for having placed the country in the parlous situation of being close to losing the war because they did not see the danger and did not want to be involved in spending more on defence. That was the point he made, and it has resonated with me forever.
I happen to believe that we are seeing in front of us the growth of totalitarian states. China is at the centre, but North Korea, Iran and Russia are there, and others, like Myanmar, are developing. More totalitarian states are coming to fruition around the world, and they now outnumber democratic states in the United Nations. The axis has shifted. Over the last 15 or 20 years, not only have we not made ourselves ready—even today we are not—but we have simply failed to recognise that they have made themselves ready. One naval shipyard in China now builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. I am told that China now has 130 times the capacity of America to build naval vessels. It is no good looking at Europe, because we hardly build naval vessels any more either. The difference between now and what happened in 1937, 1938 and 1939 is that we then had major industry here—an industry that could build tanks and aircraft, had brilliant aircraft designers, and could build ships. We had probably the most powerful fleet in the world ready to go to war if we had to. We are not in that situation today.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him. My father said that the biggest mistake in the late ’30s was that we had our head in the sand. The right hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time—[Interruption.] Sorry. When the Labour Government left office in 2010, they were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. If we had kept spending that, £90 billion more would have been invested in defence by now. Does he accept that that is the case, and that what happened is a great shame?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
All these things are a great shame when we look back at the past, but no matter how much we fight the issues of the past, we always lose, because we cannot alter them. What we have to do is learn the lessons of the past. By the end, the previous Government had learned the lessons, were committed to spending more, and were spending more and doing more. The sad part is that the new Government have come in and there are differences, but I am not going to focus on that. We learn from our past and from our mistakes. If we do not do that, we are determined to repeat all those mistakes. This time, it may be too late for us to correct them.
This should not be a debate at each other, but a coming together of this House to require that this Government finance defence at the necessary level. I am one of a number of hon. Members who are old enough to remember that, when we finally faced the threat of the Soviet Union, which increased the number of medium-range missiles threatening targets in Europe, we stepped up. Spending went to 5%. That was tough, but we did it. All of NATO did it. No one was lagging. Germany stepped up, even though there were massive crowds on the street saying no. We saw off that threat, because the Soviet Union realised that we were ready.
The Government should appeal across the House for support for a higher level of spending. Three per cent in this Parliament should be de minimis. It is not enough: we should be at 3% before the end of this Parliament, with a commitment to rise at least to 4% or 5%. Other countries in Europe would in the past have looked to us for leadership in a crisis like this, but they are finding that they cannot do so, because we are behind them on spending and in the determination to defend NATO and our home countries. If we want to lead, we have to show the way through our financial commitments.
I therefore urge the Government, this evening and beyond, to hear what the Ministers who sadly resigned from the Government have said to them, and to hear what the House in general terms wants. We are ready to commit that spending, we will work to find the savings and we will give support to those who are dedicated to defence. What we must never do is forget the lessons of the past and be unready for the greatest threat since that faced by those brave men and women who died for us to have freedom back in the 1930s and 1940s. It would be a shame if we forgot why they died.
Andrew Lewin
I am pleased that we were on the same side in 2016, and maybe we will be at some point again in the future. Let me fast-forward to 2024, because that was an important moment for the country.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Member talks about 2014 and the invasion, and he is quite right. I was in Cabinet at the time, and one of the points that I and some others raised was what our position was over this. But the EU got this badly wrong because the President of France and Mrs Merkel headed over, on their own decision, to set up a negotiation that left Russia in control of Crimea, forgetting all the original support and our promises to Ukraine. They were reducing spending and did not want to go to war, and so they sacrificed Ukraine in the process.
Andrew Lewin
I am not sure that I would agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I am also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I am saying that we had a period of history after Crimea where much of the west was not investing sufficiently in defence, and it is also the case that the Conservative party was in government at that point in time.
The point about 2024 is an important one—we had an important general election for the country. We hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence, so I looked back at their record and their manifesto. What was their offer to the country on the eve of the general election? It was a big cut in national insurance—a cut that would have cost £10 billion a year. Again, when faced with the decision, two years into the Ukraine war, “Are you going to prioritise defence spending?”, that was not the choice they made, was it?
Defence Readiness
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge
I respect the hon. Lady, and I respect the strength of her view on this matter, but we have to deal with what is certain. In my view, it is extremely unlikely that any new cases would lead to prosecutions. It is, however, certain that were this process to recommence, it would damage the morale of our armed forces at a time of war on two fronts, and that would not be in the national interest.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Having served in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many veterans I was there with and others who were there before, and there is a scintilla of a real question mark about how they will be treated. The vexatious nature of these complaints will, of course, eventually drag them back into the courts. That is the fear. They are sure that they are innocent, but by the time the courts have finished with them, innocence would not matter at all, because their life would have been destroyed. Does my hon. Friend not agree?
James Cartlidge
I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). He will recall that I voted for him to hold his position, and I will come for payback later on. It is also very good to see my area neighbour, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), in the Chamber. I will listen with great interest to what he has to say, and I hope that the Labour party finds another use for him through its talent spotting, if I can put it like that.
Before coming to the topic of defence in this debate on the Address, I want to touch on another issue that has arisen. My brilliant assistant, Alice Stuttaford, spotted yesterday something that tells me that we have a slight problem with the Government’s commitment to the legal position on the use of slave-made products by Great British Energy. In answer to a question from Politico about whether they were implementing what, thanks to many Labour Back Benchers and many Opposition Members, is the law—my amendment passed and became law—and applying it to the producers as well, a spokesman for the Government said:
“We have strict procurement controls in place to ensure that any solar panels”—
it is not just solar panels, but all elements to do with net zero—
“are free from forced labour, as far as possible”.
That is not the law. There is no caveat to the law. Everybody rebelled on the Labour Benches, and Opposition Members also voted for it, and we implemented an absolute, which is that it is not for Great British Energy to use any products that have been produced using any kind of forced labour. I know that this is not the speciality of the Ministers present, but I ask them to raise it, because I also saw that the Gracious Speech contained very peculiar commitments to using immigration as a way of tackling forced labour. That is not good enough.
We need to reinforce the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and make it an offence for any company to import or use any items or goods that were made using forced or slave labour. That should be a unifying factor across this House, and I do not know why the Government have now watered down their intention. Madam Deputy Speaker will know this full well as she has been party to it: this cause goes to the root of one of the issues I will come on to, which is the threat that we face from places such as China. If we go on strengthening such places by buying their slave-made goods, then we do our own defence no good at all. What is needed is a wide-ranging commitment through the Modern Slavery Act to ban all products made by slave labour.
This debate is on defence, and we are now facing the greatest threat to our freedom across the western world since the 1930s. I do not believe that the threat is less than it was during the cold war; in a way, it is a greater threat, because at least during the cold war we already knew and recognised what war was about, why we had to be prepared for it, and what we were defending. We have lost lots of that. Many people out there do not fully understand how the threat has changed and grown.
The reality today is that one shipyard in China makes more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. China has over 130 times the capacity to build naval ships than Europe and America have at the moment. I say to people who do not think that this is a threat: do not necessarily listen to what those totalitarian states say; go and have a look at what they are doing. They are producing and preparing for war. I am not, I hope, scaremongering, as I believe this to be a reality.
China is reinforcing and supporting Russia in its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Without China, Russia could not have continued this war. Russia was running out of ammunition, but China brokered an arrangement with North Korea, which now produces millions of rounds of ammunition for Russia, and even provides soldiers who, once used, abused and wounded on the battlefield, are then assassinated so that they are not a source of shame when they go back.
This is about totalitarian states. The Government should not use the phrase authoritarian states. They are totalitarian states, and there is a difference. Authoritarian states are about dictators and others who have risen to power and at some stage have to be brought down. Totalitarian states are ones where every element of how people live their lives is controlled, run and spied on—with people arrested as a result—by the state organs, regardless of who is in charge. Communism is the key here; those states are communist.
There are other extremist versions of such states. Iran is part of that alliance. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an extremist organisation, and I do not understand why the Government have failed to proscribe it. It really is high time, as it is present in our country stirring up violence and hatred. We should deal with that and say it is a criminal act for the IRGC to be here.
To that extent, how the Government respond to this challenge in defence terms is critical. I am one of those people who has argued since the end of the cold war that we made a mistake in reducing defence. Nobody listened to me then, and there is no reason why they should listen to me today, but I tell the Minister that I am going to keep on saying it. I hope Members on the Government Benches and others will ask that question.
I know what the restrictions are, and that the Treasury dictates to Departments and says, “We can’t afford this. We won’t do it.” People at the Treasury are the last people in the world to ever recognise a threat to anybody, at any time, from anything. The Treasury continues as if all was sweetness and light because it does not want to make any changes. It is for Defence Ministers to make the point about the threat.
Why in heaven’s name have we not published the defence readiness Bill? It is the Ministry of Defence’s greatest weapon in the fight with the Treasury. Every other Department—Health or whatever—know what I am talking about. It is always a fight, but it has to be, because we are facing what is likely to be our greatest threat since the 1930s. To face that threat, Ministers need to make it clear to the Treasury that we cannot skirt around this any longer; we have to spend that money and commit.
The Government have talked about being committed to 3% in due course, but that will not be enough. When I was serving, we were committed to 5% of GDP to face down the Soviet Union. We will need the same again, because I believe we are about to face an even greater threat. Ministers will know that the Conservatives will give them our full support if they are prepared to fight for that.
Let us get the defence investment plan published right away—that is really important. Those totalitarian states do not face the restrictions that we do. We have those restrictions for a good reason: we believe in democracy. But freedom is the most expensive thing that we will ever try to own, and it can be taken away with just a wish. The Government’s job is to stand firm and say that the No. 1 priority is to defend the realm from threats, internal and external. If we do not do that, we will have failed in our obligations, failed the British people, and failed our allies and friends, who look to us for leadership.
We can only lead, however, if we have the equipment to show our allies that we have the endeavour. When we took the Falkland Islands, we had 53 frigates and destroyers available to us. We could not do that today. That is the measure of how far we have gone under both Labour and Conservative Governments. The Ministry of Defence must tell the Government, “Enough is enough. We are going to publish this Bill and the defence investment plan—and, by the way, where is the China audit? Let’s publish that too”.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I genuinely congratulate the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on a remarkable speech and wish him well in his future ambitions? His speech and its content were, I am afraid, not as germane as the contribution of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who chairs the Defence Committee. I agree with everything that he had to say; I only regret that I could not put it as elegantly as him.
The resignation letter of the right hon. Member for Ilford North is worth reading, and I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have read it closely. He wrote on Thursday that
“where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift”,
and that should worry the Government. I agree with him, and I am thinking in particular of the defence investment plan, which we have not seen. I am conscious that the defence readiness Bill, which we were expecting in this King’s Speech, has yet to materialise, and that is of deep and profound concern.
In the 1930s, we arguably faced a similar situation to what we are up against now, and the Government of the day decided about five years in advance of the outbreak of the second world war that they must gear up our defence industrial base for the future. They created things such as shadow factories, initially with opposition from industry. Those were centred largely, at least initially, on the automotive industry and the production of aircraft, but went on to extend much further than that. It was a truly co-operative venture that led eventually to this country being able to turn out more aircraft in those early years than Germany could.
I would have thought that this Government would have learned those lessons and now be bringing forward, as a matter of urgency, its own defence readiness Bill. The Government have missed an opportunity, and I am sorry about that, because there is no shadow of a doubt that industry is being held back, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, in its ambition to partner with the Ministry of Defence and with Ministers to get things going, whether that is reprovisioning what we have rightly sent to Ukraine or fitting our armed forces for the future.
Some have already mentioned hollowing out. It is worth saying that in 1989, every country in the western world was taking a peace dividend. It would have been extraordinary had they not, and they would have been punished by the voters, but that was then. The big lesson I have learned from what has happened in the years since 1989 is that Governments can afford to titrate what they provide in order to defend this country against the threats facing it—although that is never popular electorally—but they must do nothing to reduce the armed forces below an irreducible minimum, so that armed forces can regrow rapidly, as happened in the years immediately preceding 1914 and 1939.
Governments must also do nothing that will damage long-term projects, because procurement is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap—procurement takes decades. I think we have learned from that mistake. One of the mistakes that the previous Government made was delaying the Dreadnought class. That was because, as I referred to in the intervention that the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) generously allowed me to make, of pressure from our then partner in the coalition Government.
Right now we are facing the prospect of our principal ally, the United States, backing off in terms of its support for us and our European allies. We can no longer entirely rely on that on which we previously relied heavily. If, as seems likely, the United States proceeds with this particular course of action, we will be the only provider of a nuclear deterrent declared to NATO, and it is therefore important that in the defence readiness Bill—when we see it—we have a reaffirmed commitment to reprovisioning the continuous at-sea deterrent apace. Much work has been done in respect of infrastructure and at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but we are still facing a rundown Vanguard class that is obliged to go on patrol for upwards of 200 days, with a consequent impact on the men and, now, women who man the submarine service. Of all the pinch point trades in our armed forces, it is those in the submarine service that should keep us awake at night. It is imperative that we accelerate that programme.
I also ask Ministers to look at the F-35A provision, and to agree with me that providing 12 airframes is hardly sufficient given the threat that we now face. I need to know, I should like to know, and I am sure the whole House would like to know when the F-35As will be operational, as opposed to the provision of training airframes. Is it the intention of the Government to expedite that programme? Is it the intention of the Government to exploit the option that they have kept open to have more than 12 of those airframes, and will Ministers confirm that they will be nuclear-enabled?
I strongly urge Ministers to consider the sovereign defence fund Bill in the alternative King’s Speech, which would repurpose the National Wealth Fund to overhaul our vital defence industrial base. Governing is about difficult decisions, and it seems to me that defence is a more urgent priority right now than using the fund—in the words of the Government—to help tackle climate change, and, indeed, a more urgent priority than ramping up welfare, as Lord Robertson has made very clear. The defence industrial base will be pretty useless if it is not populated by men and women with the skills that are necessary to deliver what is needed in order to keep this country safe.
The youth opportunity Bill, which also features in the alternative King’s Speech, has the kind of imaginative content that I would have expected from an incoming Government who had 14 years to think about these matters. Unfortunately not: all that we had from the Prime Minister on young people on Wednesday was a load of waffle. Time and again, it is as if he is a passive observer rather than an active participant. The youth opportunity Bill explains how genuine investment in our young people will power and grow the economy, delivering a virtuous circle from which everyone benefits. It will cap state funding for pointless, work-irrelevant, badly taught degrees from third-rate institutions that are perpetrating a fraud on a generation, and will grow well-focused apprenticeships such as those offered by Wiltshire College in my constituency.
Let me now say a few words about special forces. We must approach these issues with a great deal of care. I am extremely concerned by the messaging that has gone out from this Government in relation to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—not so much the case that has been put before the House by the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the way in which it has been received. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sitting next to the Secretary of State for Defence, will know very well—because his contacts are probably better than mine—that this messaging has caused a degree of disquiet, particularly among units that are crucial to this country’s defence and security. They will perceive that, in years to come, a future Government may decide that what is happening now, and what is acceptable now, is no longer acceptable.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
This business with what is going on over Northern Ireland is not alone, because it builds on a perception and on the gratuitous pursuit of soldiers involved in Afghanistan and Iraq—partly by the Prime Minister in a previous life, but certainly by lawyers knowing full well that what they were pursuing were in fact complete untruths. That has made those former soldiers wonder what is the point. If politicians will not stand up for them, who will?
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with him. This is about more than Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland has a read-across to a number of theatres where our men and women are actively engaged or could be in the future. The exodus from some of these units will cause irretrievable and irrecoverable damage to our ability to protect the men and women of this country.
I have no doubt that Ministers are acting with the best of intentions, but I urge them to look at the messaging that is being given to the men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent, and to decide what they can do to address this legislation. I would say “Scrap it and start again”, but if they cannot do that, I ask them to consider what they can do to prevent the idea from gaining penetrance among those units that the Government are simply not on their side, and in any event even if they were, that Governments in the future might, by the standards of the day, decide that what is being done at the moment in the name of the state and in the King’s name was no longer acceptable. Lawfare is a real and present danger to the men and women of our armed forces, and, knowing him as I do, I feel certain that the Secretary of State is cognisant of the threat that it poses.
Conscious of the frog in your throat, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall end my remarks there.
John Healey
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, then I will make some progress.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge regard for him. We go back quite a long way, and I hope that what I am going to say now will be helpful to him and his Defence team. Poland is planning eventually to spend 9% of its GDP on defence. It is approaching 5% today from a standing start. Everybody in this House with an ounce of common sense wants the right hon. Gentleman and his team to succeed and to get the money they require to increase our defences, but we are behind the curve. I am not blaming him; I am blaming other elements in Government. Will he use this opportunity to send the message to the Government that the House requires that we get the money, publish the plan and get on with making defence successful? The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), has said this, and Members on both sides of the House want the Secretary of State to have it. Please take this message back to the Chancellor: “Enough is enough. We have to do this for our security.” Will he now do that?
John Healey
We have to do this for our security, and we will do this for our security. In the meantime, we are getting on and doing what is necessary for Britain’s security.
Defence
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
Defence is very clear about what it requires. We are working collectively across Government to come to a joint decision on where that spending portfolio will fall.
There are points in this motion that are obvious. The world is more dangerous, and we are investing more in defence, but recognising that is the easy part; the real question is whether we are prepared to make the decisions required to deal with it. Defence is not a shopping list, and it must not be treated as such. It is not about picking a number of troops, as mentioned in the motion, and it is not about shifting money around on paper. It is about building a force that works—one that is properly equipped with the correct equipment, properly supported and able to operate alongside our allies. In my time in uniform and since coming into this role, I have spent time in multiple different operational theatres, and I know that this is not about the size of the armed forces; it is about the plan. This is about the purpose, the equipment and how people will be integrated. Simply stating that we should add 20,000 extra troops to the Army, with no clear or concise understanding of how they will be used, is not the way to go about business.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Minister is making a powerful case. A man with his record and history coming to this place is to be congratulated, and I am enthused to see him in his place today, as I think we all are.
We have talked about the non-appearance of the defence investment plan, but there is another review that has not appeared that has even more impact: the review on China and the threat that it poses to us. That was promised again by the Government. I raise this issue because under Conservative and Labour Governments, I have gone on constantly about the growing threat, and we have not faced up to it. China is critical to this matter; if we watch the tankers going into the strait of Hormuz and out again without any problems, we begin to realise the incredible links that China has with Iran, Russia and North Korea. Is the Ministry of Defence demanding that that review is handed to it and published, or has it forgotten about it?
Al Carns
I will continue and then give way in a minute.
We have taken more action in the past 20 months than the Conservatives managed in the 14 years before that, with more than 1,200 major defence contracts, 86% of which have been awarded to British-based businesses. The Conservatives argued that we should spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030; we are delivering it by 2027.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.
However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. I will raise them with the Security Minister, and push exceptionally hard.
The motion suggests that we are failing to learn lessons from Ukraine. Let me make it absolutely clear that these are two separate issues. This Government are leading. We committed £4.5 billion in military support last year, building on £3 billion annually. We have co-led the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has helped to secure over $45 billion of investment, and in February alone a further $35 billion was raised. However, we have not just provided funds; we have adapted.
At this point, I want to recall my own history. I left the military in 2024. I left because the Government and the military collectively were not learning the lessons from Ukraine. That is the very reason I left to come to this place. Labour was not in government at the time, and we were already years into the conflict. Opposition Members will recognise this as being one of my hobby horses since I have been in the Ministry of Defence.
There has been a tenfold increase in drone delivery, with a target of 100,000 this year. A new cyber and electromagnetic force has been built on lessons from the battlefield in Ukraine, and £4 billion has been committed to autonomous systems over time. We have seen Project Asgard, a hybrid Navy, a defence uncrewed centre of excellence in the SDR, a cultural change within the Army, Navy and Air Force in respect of uncrewed systems, an increase in uncrewed systems training, and cultural development in phase 1 and phase 2 training. I am therefore confused as to how no lessons are being learned. We must go faster, and we are pushing as hard as we can, but I want to be very clear about this, and I will bring you back to the first point. I left the military because your Government—[Interruption.] I left the military because the Conservative Government were not learning the lessons effectively from Ukraine.
Let me turn to the topic of Northern Ireland and morale. I do not recognise the argument advanced in the motion.
Al Carns
I am going to a make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
We come to perhaps the most revealing part of the motion: the suggestion that defence should be funded through changes to the two-child benefit cap. Let me say this plainly: you do not strengthen national security by setting it against support for working families, you do not ask the country to choose between security abroad and stability at home, and you do not build credible defence policy on that basis. It is the job of the Government to make life easier for families, not harder.
I will say something else. I grew up in a family where decisions about money took place, and I see the same pressures on the communities that I now represent. Security is not just about what happens overseas; it is about whether families feel that they can cope, whether they feel stable and whether they feel that the system is working for them. The Conservatives’ motion is not a serious way to approach defence funding, because the strength of a country rests both on armed forces that can deter and defend, and on a society at home that is stable, resilient and confident. Pitting one against the other does not strengthen either; it weakens both.
This Government are taking a different approach. We are making decisions in the national interest, and we will not be pushed into those decisions by noise or pressure—we will take them carefully and responsibly. We are increasing defence spending, strengthening our forces—whether it be recruitment or outflow, or the morale component as a whole—and ensuring that our forces are ready to face threats both now and in the future. We will publish our defence investment plan, but we will not rush it for the sake of a headline. As has been demonstrated over the past 14 years, a plan that is not properly funded or deliverable does not strengthen our security, but weakens it.
Middle East
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman makes his case. He knows, as I do, that our British services have foiled around 20 sabotage or assassination plots with the Iranian hand behind them on British soil. He makes the case for proscription. That is a decision in other parts of the Government, but it something we keep under review, and a decision we will take with a broader view of the way that we are challenging, confronting, and working with allies to deal with the Iranian threat.
Oral Answers to Questions
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
The UK-US relationship remains stalwart. Our collective leadership on Ukraine has been second to none; the Defence Secretary’s leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group has stimulated billions of pounds of investment; and through what we are doing in Ukraine, we are delivering in support of not just UK security, but European security.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the last few weeks, the Prime Minister has been very clear about what he considers our role to be, under international law, if we believe that allies are being attacked. Does he see Ukraine as having exactly the same status as an ally? Does he believe that we are, of necessity, directly involved, given that it is under attack?
Al Carns
As the right hon. Member will know, we continue to support Ukraine with almost as much capability as we can. Through leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, through capability and through industrial working groups backed by the United Kingdom and across Europe, we will continue to support Ukraine, and do everything possible to ensure the sanctity of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Middle East: Defence
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
My hon. Friend will have heard me set out in my statement, and in response to other questions, the principles on which the decisions that we have taken are based. They will continue to inform any future decision that we take, as circumstances in this conflict may change.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Nobody supports the armed forces more than I do. The Secretary of State has my full support and respect, as he knows, but I want to ask a simple question. There seems to be some confusion among Government Back Benchers, who think the Government have somehow kept them out of this war. The Government have not kept Britain out of the war: our bases and allies are in the firing line. The Chancellor spoke about the strait of Hormuz and the necessity of taking action where applicable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will—and, under international law, can—take action against Iranian threats to oil tankers and other facilities in the strait of Hormuz?
John Healey
We will take the action we need to defend British interests, personnel and civilians. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our personnel are at risk—as he puts it, they are in the firing line. I am incredibly proud of the work they are doing not just to protect our bases and each other, but to protect our allies in the region and to lead the co-ordination of defensive operations that help to keep the middle east safe in the face of these Iranian attacks.
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows of my support for the Government’s persistence over Ukraine, and I welcome his statement. We have spoken endlessly throughout this process. I am, however, deeply worried about deploying British troops into what is basically a first-world-war war, as it were. The fact that more than 2 million are dead or wounded as a result of the conflict puts it on a wholly different scale from anything that we have done in the last 10 or 20 years. Afghanistan and the others are very small in comparison with what we are discussing now, and I have a certain amount of cynicism. I will support the Government’s pursuit of this, but I worry desperately that we will get it out of proportion. Are we peacekeepers, or are we going to enforce the peace? These are big questions to be asked, surely, before full support can be given.
There is, however, one thing that I think the Government can do. The Secretary of State talked about Iran and the shadow fleet, the support that Iran has given to Russia and the brutality that it has, and I absolutely agree with all that, so I have a simple question for the Government: will they now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is at the heart of everything that is bad, deceitful and despicable from Iran? Will the British Government now proscribe the IRGC, full stop?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman has returned to a subject that has been raised and debated in the House before. He was a member of the last Government, and he will know that in advance of any decisions, they are never disclosed or confirmed by Ministers. As for the concerns that he has expressed, I welcome his support for the Government’s decision and their participation in and leadership of the coalition of the willing, and for the declaration of intent that was signed yesterday.
Let me make three points. First, there will be no deployment unless there is a peace agreement. Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal. Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression. We would do this alongside the negotiation of similar commitments and security guarantees with the United States. Finally, the role of any British forces is to ensure that—as I have argued in the House before—Ukraine is its own best deterrence, and its own best defence, against future Russian aggression. That is why the primary focus of the multinational force for Ukraine will be to regenerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces, and we are ready to do that, alongside them, for the long term.