Debate on the Address

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Geraint Davies

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

That is for another day and another debate, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. China dominates on a scale that we simply cannot comprehend over here. Its technological capabilities and its investment in quantum computing, and so on, mean it already owns 40% of the world’s data, and it is moving further afield. Once a country moves into the Chinese way of thinking—Huawei, and so on—it is very difficult to get out.

It is only a matter of time before countries that are already financially compelled or obliged to support Chinese methods and systems will have to move over to China’s global positioning system, and so on. Then they will have to move over to the Chinese reserve currency, instead of the dollar. We will potentially see the world split into two huge domains unless we check it, but that is for another debate.

Back to Turkey and Syria, I make it clear that the Syrian Democratic Forces were our allies. They were our boots on the ground, and now we see them pivoting towards the Assad regime—a regime against which we rightly launched weapons strikes because it was using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against its own people.

This has been a disastrous week for international foreign policy. We are losing any leverage in pursuing a peaceful outcome in Syria, so I cannot stress enough the implications of Turkey’s incursion. I simply ask the Government to lead calls for Turkey to withdraw, and I call on them to impose an arms embargo until that happens. Let us lead Europe. Let us stand up and bring America with us, if it will not lead on this front.

We cannot complain about the erosion of the international rules-based order if we are not willing to defend it. Ironically, as the west becomes more risk averse, the world is becoming more unstable, giving space for our competitors to avoid effective scrutiny and to advance their own interests illicitly beneath the threshold of any international response. Simply put, the old Bretton Woods organisations that stood us well after the second world war are now out of date, and they are being rejected by newer nations, too. We need to step up to the plate, recognise what is actually happening and lead on updating the standards and norms by which we expect nations to abide.

I make it clear that the threat picture has also changed, as illustrated by the rise of non-state actors such as Islamic State. Their ability to recruit and finance themselves through the internet, and so on, will not go away. We need to recognise that we had no viable plan for the aftermath of the combat phase in Iraq and Syria. Thousands of hard-line jihadi fighters, who for months sat behind barbed wire guarded by the SDF, are now able to escape and our counter-Daesh partners are being attacked by a NATO ally.

It is not enough for Britain to deny dual-national fighters any right to return to the UK, while expecting the SDF to process them and their families. We are now seeing orphans caught up in this with nowhere to go. If the United States, to give it its due, can take back youngsters and orphans who are caught up in the mess over there, so can we. Let us get on the front foot and lead by example. Let us show other nations around the world what we can do.

I encourage the Government to show much needed international leadership and help to update international protocols so that all countries can take responsibility for their own nationals and dual nationals, rather than abandoning them to fate, with the very real prospect of allowing them to regroup to fight another day. This is about national security. Please do not say I am making Britain less safe. This is at the forefront of my mind, not just from a personal perspective but because of my interest in Britain’s national security. We need to sort out this problem. It is not an unconditional surrender, as we saw in the past; it is a new phenomenon that we need to get our heads around.

Changing technologies are another critical aspect of the Bill that is affecting the threat picture. Over the next decade, technology will advance to dominate our lives, with machines talking directly to machines, smart city infrastructure, artificial intelligence and automation. Our reliance on the infrastructure supporting this new technological world is critical, so I am pleased that we are investing in this area and that we have leading businesses capable of doing so.

Our ever greater reliance on technology comes with a risk. Cyber and space capabilities are so integral to civilian, commercial and military applications that a total or even partial loss of their use would have an instant and dramatic impact on our lives. Our ability to communicate, share information, conduct transactions, use the internet, fly planes or predict the weather would all be severely affected.

I welcome the 2% commitment, but it will soon be inadequate to meet the wide spectrum of threats that we face, especially our technological vulnerability. Data is now taking over terrain as the arena of choice to disrupt an enemy. Why resort to conventional attacks when greater devastation can be caused to an economy or an electoral outcome simply with a laptop?

We are now also seeing the weaponisation of space. In military terms, space has become the ultimate high ground. We require a space command, so we need to follow the United States and France. We saw the evolution of the Air Force 100 years ago and we now need to do the same for space, because both Russia and China have reorganised their military structures to include space as a fighting domain. We need to recognise the changing parameters of conflict and adapt in that area, too.

We also need to invest in our conventional forces. On a day when we have seen the F-35 land on the aircraft carrier, we can be very proud. In the Gulf War we had 36 fast-jet squadrons, but today we have just six. Our main battle tank is now over 25 years old and is in dire need of an upgrade. Our Navy is getting smaller and smaller, and China is increasing its navy by the size of our Navy every single year. If we want to protect our trading routes after Brexit, we need a surface fleet that is able to do that.

Listening to this debate, I feel that colleagues, in some cases, are not even aware of what is actually happening this week. There is a small possibility that we will strike a deal—not a no deal, as SNP Members spent their entire time talking about—but I stress this is part 1. This is getting us to the transition. Part 2 is the relationship beyond that.

I am pleased that last week we saw some consensus, a sense of compromise, with people being willing to step forward from their original anchored positions to say, “This has gone on long enough. Let’s move forward.” I wish more colleagues were able to think that way, rather than going back to their original position and saying, “I am not willing to discuss this.”

[Geraint Davies]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way, because I am running out of time. I do apologise.

The nation has now watched this debate continue for three years, and there is now talk of dragging it beyond 31 October. I have made my views on a no deal absolutely clear. I do not want a no deal, but the SNP Members spent their entire time saying that it is our objective. It is not my objective. I want to get this across the line, and it can happen. The planets are aligning, and we are hearing voices from the EU saying that it is possible. Technical talks are taking place, so let us wish them the best at the EU summit. Let us come back on Saturday and get this deal done.

We have to conclude that Brexit has damaged the reputation of this Parliament and has not been good for the country, the Government or the Conservative party. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak about the importance of one nation, because the complexion of my party has been challenged a bit during this difficult period. I am a Conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe that a right-of-centre Government are good for Britain in their approach, being progressive, modernist and willing to speak for and represent the entire country. We cannot do that if my party moves to the right, and becomes smaller and more condensed. We can do it if we remain a broad church, and I am pleased to see the Prime Minister articulate that very message.

We should also remind ourselves that we are good at things in this country and we have much to be proud of. We lead in oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, creative industries, life sciences, aerospace and financial services. Those are things we do well. Not only that, but this is a great place to invest: we are a champion of free trade; we have a legal and justice system that people can rely on; we have low corporation tax; and we have stable governance. We should be proud of who we are, but perhaps in all this debate we have lost sight of that.

If global Britain is to mean anything, let us step forward with international reach and resolve, to confirm and update the respected standards for the rule of law. We must start with a sober view of the Bretton Woods organisations, recognising that the world is changing from a technological perspective and that this is a crucial week. This is the biggest week for me as a parliamentarian and it is arguably our biggest week for a generation. It is up to us in this House to take a binary decision: do we want Brexit to continue and pursue our own pure form, or do we call an end to this, support this deal and allow the nation to move forward?