UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I rise to support the motion, and I do so joylessly and with a heavy heart. Nobody can stand in a missile compartment of a ballistic submarine without a sense of terrible awe; our warheads have the capacity to destroy 40 million people. I know that everyone in the Chamber feels that responsibility extremely acutely, and that certainly goes for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and their predecessors.

I spent much of my 20-year naval career at the tail end of the cold war. The cold war is over, however, and one can say it was won. The cold war did not become a real war, in part because of the terrible weapons that we are discussing this afternoon. We must not be preparing to fight the last war. Right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House are right to say that tomorrow’s wars are likely to be asymmetric wars, hybrid wars, wars involving terrorism, or conflicts involving climate change that, as we sit here, we really cannot fully understand. However, simply because those threats exist, that does not mean that nuclear blackmail does not and will not exist.

I fully accept that there are shades of grey in this debate. I absolutely reject the absolutist positions taken by some commentators, and I fully understand and respect arguments in relation to opportunity costs, but we have to make a decision now. We have been here several times before. In 2006, under the Labour party, we conducted what was appropriately called a deep dive. In 2013, very largely thanks to the Liberal Democrats—it pains me to say so, but it is nevertheless true—we undertook an alternatives review and dealt with many of the issues involved. I have no doubt that we will discuss this afternoon the alternatives considered at that time.

In the time available, I would like to speak briefly about the two propositions of redundancy and reputation. Those are respectable arguments that deserve to be dealt with properly.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend speaks about those two crucial points, does he agree that the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was a most powerful argument, based on core beliefs that he has clearly thought about deeply and for a long time? It should be compelling for those of our constituents who are not clear about the party lines on this issue.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is right, and the speech by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) was also extremely powerful.

The redundancy proposition holds that advancing technology will make the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent redundant. It is supposed—despite all evidence to the contrary—that unmanned underwater vessels will appear and render our oceans transparent, but that is pure supposition. We cannot approach our defence on the basis of what might happen in the future. History is usually a guide in these matters, and this year we mark the centenary of the introduction of tanks into the battle space. We could have said then, “We must not develop this technology because of the possibility of sticky bombs and tank traps”, but we did not.

[Mrs Moon]

One lesson from history must be from Nye Bevan, who said as Foreign Secretary that he should not be sent

“naked into the conference chamber”.

What sort of emperor in new clothing would go into a conference chamber with President Putin, for example, and say, “I don’t have nuclear weapons—well, I have some nuclear-powered subs, but there are no weapons on them”?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is right. I am enjoying the consensual nature of this debate—it is the House of Commons at its very best. In 1929, J. F. C. Fuller said that tanks would make infantry redundant. In a sense he was right, but his timeframe was completely wrong, and the infantry was adapted rather than abolished. The imminent end of manned fighters was confidently predicted in a 1957 Government White Paper. The important point, which the hon. Lady was trying to make, is that we cannot base our defence on what we imagine might happen.

The threat of cyber and of unmanned underwater vessels should invigorate our countermeasures and our attempts to detect and potentially disrupt aggressors. Nevertheless, just as the Lightning II joint strike fighter may have only half a life before it is rendered obsolescent, we must be open to the possibility that the Successor submarine may at some point over its long life be made obsolete. However, I do not think that a sufficient argument to deploy against the decision we will make today.

The second proposition that I want to touch on is that of reputation theory. The argument is that unilateralism will in some way raise our standing internationally, but that is hopelessly naive. Try saying that to people in Ukraine; try waving the Budapest memo at them. Many will say that had Ukraine not given up its share of the USSR’s nuclear armamentarium—about a third of it—when it became independent, its territory would now be assured and it would not have been invaded by Russia. I do not want to take that argument too far, because others will make counter arguments about the wisdom of Ukraine having nuclear weapons—personally, I am pleased it does not—but from the perspective of a state that is trying to face down an aggressor, that is a powerful argument.

Some say that if we cut our nuclear arsenal others will follow, but there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. We have cut our arsenal dramatically in recent years, yet other states have increased theirs.

Finally, in this atmosphere of Brexit, when we are re-forging our links with other international organisations and operating in an outward-facing way that I find refreshing, we must think about our permanent membership of the UN Security Council. That membership is contingent on this country offering something. It may pain some right hon. and hon. Members to ponder this, but in large part our membership of that body is down to our continued possession of this terrible weapon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Absolutely, I would support that move. I would love to have all the jobs that would come with that. We would be more than happy to have it and to build on our naval heritage in that way.

[Dr Murrison]

I assure my hon. Friend that all of us who represent constituencies in the south-west would be more than delighted if the work was transferred from Scotland to the south-west, in the event that our deterrent was to move.

[Johnny Mercer]

Absolutely. We are proud of our naval heritage in the south-west—we are very proud of the people we support, our servicemen and servicewomen, and we would be delighted to make their lives easier by providing the facilities the south-west affords. Locally, the deterrent means thousands of jobs in Plymouth and a continuance of the Plymouth naval tradition that makes so many of us so proud. It is part of the fabric of our city. To lose that would be disastrous for the communities I am here to represent.

Let us not abstain tonight. Let us not play to our home crowd. Let us stand up for Britain’s place in the world and renew our nuclear deterrent. I say to Opposition Members—not to Scottish National party Members, because I have been struck by their rather childlike interventions about Libya and Iraq, which are totally separate issues—that I know many of my friends on the Labour Benches are of a similar mind to me on this issue. To those who are not, I say that I do not believe they love the country less in any way than those who support the motion. However, all the things we come into politics for are nothing without national security, and that must come first. To deliver the causes that I know are so dear to them and to me, we must renew our nuclear deterrent.

All steps must be taken to ensure the safety of this country’s people. The highly skilled engineering jobs I have talked about cannot be risked. Now, with everything that is going on—not just last weekend, but in the past year—is not the time to lower our guard. The Prime Minister mentioned North Korea. Can we really lose our nuclear weapons at this time? In an ideal world, I agree that it would be great not to have nuclear weapons, but how do we disinvent something that has been invented? The Government must base their decisions on the reality they face; others have the luxury to do otherwise. Trident remains the ultimate deterrent against an attack by those who would harm this country and our people, as it has been for 60 years. The point was made earlier that the Trident system is never used. It is used, every single day. A nuclear deterrent does what it says. The Government’s first priority is to ensure the safety and security of the nation and its people, and that is why I will support the Government’s motion tonight. I will be proud to walk through the Lobby with colleagues from across the House.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to make both those points. I am sure everyone, like me, came here, listened to the arguments, wrestled with the difficult decision and then took it. We can look back now and see how we feel about all the things that happened subsequently. I am sure that everyone made their decision in good faith. The consequences of non-intervention can been seen clearly in Syria, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). This is true, and it is worth mentioning other humanitarian issues, as I did in my statement with respect to Srebrenica and Rwanda.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Our troops shouldered the burden of Mr Blair’s disastrous Iraq war and paid the price in blood. On a gentler note and speaking as an Iraq veteran, I commend the Prime Minister for the work he has done for our troops, our veterans and their families by improving their lot. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope and expectation that his successor will do the same?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for all the good work he has done, not least in commemorating the battles of the first world war 100 years ago. We have now set up, with the military covenant written into law and with the covenant support group, a mechanism in Whitehall so that every year we can try to go further in supporting armed forces, veterans and their families. This provides a mechanism for ideas to come forward. Whether by providing help through council tax, the pupil premium, free bus passes or better medical assistance, there is a forum for those ideas to be properly considered in a way that I do not think they were in the past.

Voter Registration

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I am delighted that there will be that Lib Dem support. The question he asked is about a very important matter, which we will take into consideration.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister is clearly putting a great deal of energy into ironing out this particular glitch, but he needs to be seen to be fair to both sides, given the likely closeness of the result on 23 June. How much energy is he therefore applying to quantifying the number of non-eligible EU nationals who have been sent postal votes? Clearly, after the event some in the leave camp may call things into question if we have not quantified what correspondence was sent out in error.

[Matthew Hancock]

We know that that number is less than 5,000, according to the Electoral Commission, and the problem has been fixed. By contrast, it will be impossible to know the total number of people—asked for by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—who between 10.15 pm and midnight last night tried to register but did not succeed, because some people tried again and succeeded. That is why seeing what we can do to extend the deadline—which seems to have broad support across the House—is the right way forward.

European Council

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to look at this. I discussed it with the French President. The rules are clear: if someone has direct family here, they apply for asylum and they will come here, but we need to make sure that happens.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In congratulating the ship’s company of RFA Mounts Bay, may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention particularly to the embarked medical team, whose work under the most professionally challenging, extraordinary circumstances is surely in the best traditions of the naval service?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. I had the huge privilege of going aboard one of Her Majesty’s ships when it is was in Malta. It had recently been taking part in combating the people-smuggling operations and picking people up. It had saved literally thousands of lives, and we could see—whether it was the medical teams, the Royal Marines or the royal naval personnel—that there was huge pride in what they had done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The one thing I share with the hon. Lady is that it was right to celebrate mother’s day. I shared it with my mother, but I think I have probably said enough about her for the time being. It was also a privilege yesterday to welcome to No. 10 some inspirational women from all walks of life, to mark International Women’s Day.

I am not saying that this Government have solved all these problems, but we have more women in work and they are getting higher pay, paying lower taxes, getting more childcare and retiring with better pensions. When it comes to the things that Government need to do, we are appointing more women to senior positions and public appointments, and the honours system is now properly reflecting women. [Interruption.] Someone shouted out, “What about the pay gap?” The pay gap is now at its lowest published level. We have abolished the pay gap for under-40s. When it comes to protecting women, this is the Government who criminalised forced marriage, introduced the duty to report female genital mutilation, set out a specific domestic violence measure, and introduced Clare’s law so that people can find out about violent partners.

I accept that there is more to be done, but let me say this to the Labour party: one thing you can help with is no more segregated political meetings. Let us end the process of having people with bigoted religious views treating women as second-class citizens. I think you should all take the pledge—no more segregated meetings!

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The UK still has relatively poor superfast broadband and far too many mobile “not spots”. Great work has been done, but what discussions will my right hon. Friend have with the Chancellor, in advance of next week’s Budget statement, about how we can improve coverage further, particularly for rural small businesses in areas such as mine?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Since 2010, we have nearly doubled the number of homes and businesses with superfast broadband. We are on track on the 90% and 95% targets, but clearly more needs to be done. This is an issue for Members across the House. Ten years ago, we were all rather guilty of leading campaigns against masts and all the rest of it. Our constituents now want internet and mobile phone coverage. We need to make sure that we change the law in all the ways necessary, that the wayleaves are granted, that the masts are built, that we increase coverage and that everyone is connected to the information superhighway.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

What we are saying is that the Government have a position and the civil service will advise on that position. If Ministers have taken a personal decision to campaign personally, in a personal capacity, against the position of the Government, it is inappropriate to ask civil servants to support that other position, which is not the position of the Government.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much appreciate that the Minister has qualified and caveated some of the guidance that has recently been issued. Does he not agree, however, that there is a danger that without further clarification we could have the ludicrous situation where Freedom of Information Act requests, or requests made by Members of Parliament through parliamentary questions, could get information out of Ministers that those Ministers would have been denied by their own civil servants?

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not know whether that was directed at people on the shadow Front Bench, but the situation is as I have set out. The key point is this: if we were to take any other position, we would have civil servants being asked not to support the position of the Government. We are approaching this in the way these things have been approached in referendums in the past—in 1975 and in the Scottish referendum—which seems perfectly reasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course we have had to make savings in the number of civil servants as we have reduced the deficit, but there are far more UK civil servants working in Scotland than civil servants working for the Scottish Government. It just shows that, for Scotland as well as for the rest of this United Kingdom, we are that much better together.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In supporting citizenship and volunteering, what lessons can be learned from the excellent Team Rubicon UK, led by my constituent General Sir Nick Parker? It involves recruiting veterans and ex-servicemen to do great work, notably during the recent flooding.

[Matthew Hancock]

I want to pay tribute to Team Rubicon and all those who work with it. The role that veterans can play in shaping the future of young people and showing what it is to serve their nation is invaluable, and it is a lesson from which all of us can learn.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I was going to come on to the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee in making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. I am very grateful for the work that he did at the end of the last Parliament, after the National Audit Office report, to make sure that when we had a Bill, it gave the commission the necessary powers.

We believe that the Charity Commission has the power to convene meetings in public. However, I recognise that there is a question over whether it does so. During the passage of the Bill, we will look at that point in more detail. We are prepared to accept amendments, if they are necessary to bring clarity on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny are extraordinarily important in this place. Will he observe, for the record, how much legislative scrutiny is being performed by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, since there are precisely no Opposition Back-Bench Members in the House?

[Matthew Hancock]

I hope that this Bill can unite both sides of the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to her place. My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and it will appear on the record, but I do not want to get into an unnecessary dispute with the Opposition, given that I hope we will have all-party support for this important Bill which will strengthen the role of the Charity Commission and, ultimately, be in the best interests of charities throughout the land.

As I said, we want to provide a tough, clear and proactive regulator. Under the strong and capable leadership of William Shawcross and Paula Sussex, there has been a direct focus on tackling abuse and mismanagement. However, an effective regulator needs to have teeth. As the NAO reported, the commission needs our help to address the “gaps and deficiencies” in its legal powers. The Bill will close those gaps in the commission’s capabilities, as well as tackling a number of damaging loopholes in charity law.

Let me briefly outline the five new powers that the Bill confers. These powers will help to protect the public, the staff and the people our charities serve from those who would seek to exploit them. First, the Bill will extend the automatic disqualification criteria. Currently, the focus of the law is on barring people who have misappropriated charitable assets, but the criteria are far too narrow. We will extend them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, to include people with unspent convictions for money laundering, bribery, perjury or misconduct in public office, those on the sex offenders register, and those convicted for terrorism offences, including individuals subject to an asset-freezing designation.

Secondly, the Charity Commission will be given new powers to disqualify in instances where an individual has behaved in a way that makes them unfit to be a charity trustee, acting on a case-by-case basis and using its judgment and discretion. That new power is essential to empower the Charity Commission to tackle those who would bring charities into disrepute, and I hope that it will be used with care and decisiveness.

Thirdly, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new official warning power in response to low-level misconduct. That will allow a more proportionate approach for less serious cases. Fourthly, the Bill grants a new power that allows the Charity Commission to direct the winding up of a charity following a statutory inquiry. That would apply if the commission proves that a charity is not operating, or that its purposes could be promoted more effectively by ceasing to operate, and that to do so would be in the public interest. We expect that power to be used in limited circumstances, and it is subject to several safeguards.

Fifthly, the Bill closes a loophole that allows offending trustees to resign before they are removed by the commission, and then act as a trustee for a different charity without fear of repercussion. That will ensure that trustees are no longer able to escape accountability if they abuse their position of trust. As with all the commission’s existing powers, all five of those proposals would be subject to the general duty to have regard to best practice. With the exception of the official warnings power, all the commission’s new powers are subject to a right of appeal to the charity tribunal.

All five measures that I have outlined are essential to protecting the interests and reputation of the vast majority of charities that are run by people of great integrity. The Charity Commission was closely involved in developing the powers, and it fully supports them. In addition, independent research for the Charity Commission found that 92% of charities supported new, tougher powers for the regulator.

We also intend to remove clause 9, which was added on Report in the Lords. We have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of that clause, as it attempts to encompass complex case law into a single statutory provision. It would also impose a major new regulatory responsibility on the commission. Clause 9 was not proposed because of concerns about charities in general, but in a narrow attempt by the other place to undermine the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. It is regrettable that a Bill with widespread support was used in that way, and we cannot allow that to stand. I urge the House to reject that anomalous clause and consider the matter elsewhere.

The challenge of regulating charity fundraising has already been mentioned. We can be incredibly proud that we are one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to charitable giving, but although people are happy to give, they do not want to be bullied or harassed into doing so. A voluntary donation must be voluntary. Earlier this year we heard about the tragic case of Olive Cooke, Britain’s longest-serving poppy seller. For years, she was targeted with hundreds of cold calls and requests for money. More than 70 charities bought her details or swapped them with other charities, and in one month alone she apparently received 267 charity letters. Sadly, since then more cases of unscrupulous fundraising practices have come to light, and we must act.

We began by asking Sir Stuart Etherington to review the regulation of fundraising over the summer, backed by a cross-party panel of peers, and I thank them for their work. Sir Stuart recommended a new, tougher framework of self-regulation, and we are working with charities to deliver that. Lord Grade of Yarmouth will chair the new independent body at the heart of that framework. It will be paid for by large fundraising charities, and it will be able to adjudicate against any organisation that is undertaking charity fundraising. The body will be accompanied by a fundraising preference service—similar to the telephone preference service—which will give the public greater control over their consent to receive charity fundraising requests.

Next, we will prohibit contractors from raising funds for a charity unless the fundraising agreement between them explains how the contractor will protect people from undue pressure, and sets out how compliance will be monitored by the charity. It will require large charities to include a section in their trustees’ annual report on the fundraising undertaken by them or on their behalf. That will include an explanation of how they protect the public in general, and vulnerable people in particular, from undue pressures and other poor practices.

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome that review, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can consider—and where appropriate take on board—any recommendations to improve it. I am glad that the work of that Committee is taking place concurrently, and I hope that recommendations will come forward in time for them to be considered for the Bill.

[Dr Murrison]

How can we make more explicit the amount of money spent on management overheads, and in particular the £80 to £120 per direct debit set up that goes to chugging agencies? That must be made crystal clear to people. That is, on average, the amount for the first year of any direct debit set up in favour of a charity. At the moment, people are not clear how much of their generosity is being expended on management overall and on that practice in particular.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am a great fan of transparency and a supporter of transparency across Government. We should consider carefully whether further transparency should be applied to charities, and how that is best delivered. I have no doubt that transparency begins at home for charities, and best practice is for them to be widely transparent about their operations. There is a question about whether we should do more in law, and balanced arguments in both directions. I hope we can consider that during the passage of the Bill.

ISIL in Syria

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, in his absence. All Members who have been here for some time know that he is a champion of human rights, but perhaps the greatest human right of all is the right to life. I ask the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him today to rethink their position. If we do not take on Daesh, more men, women and children—in their hundreds and thousands—will continue to be murdered.

I do not believe that anybody enters Parliament to make war. Indeed, I would hope that everyone in this Chamber is a peacemaker. There is enough war and conflict in this world already, as we are discussing today. Indeed, I pay tribute to the pacifists and peacemakers who sit on the Opposition Benches and on the Government Benches. Their views are both valid and respectable. Unfortunately, our enemies—Daesh—are neither peacemakers nor pacifists. They are a brutal, murderous and genocidal enemy that are killing men, women, children and peacemakers—probably at this very hour, as we speak.

Whether it is politically or intellectually palatable or not, it is a case, sadly, of kill or be killed. On a point of law for some of the waverers opposite, I would say that the motion before us is both legal and legitimate—both in terms of UN resolution 2249 and the right to self-defence in international law. As the Prime Minister reminded us, it is a UN resolution supported by both China and Russia—and, I may add, one supported by the Venezuelan Government, who are admired by some in the wider labour movement, such as the Unite leader Len McCluskey, and by many in Momentum. If Venezuela is prepared to support airstrikes in Syria, then why not Her Majesty’s Opposition? Let me say at this juncture that it should be the consciences of individual Members of Parliament that determine the fate of the sombre motion that is before us today, not the bullying and self-interested unions that appear to be engaged in their own insurgency campaign against Labour MPs.

Can there ever be a just war? Many faith leaders believe so, including faith leaders here in Britain. That is recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury—who has said that “forceful force” should be used in the circumstances that we are discussing—as well as by other Christian bishops and religious minority leaders in the middle east. There is such a thing as a just war.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is describing the precepts of St Augustine very eloquently, but may I ask him to desist from describing this conflict as a war? Calling it a war gives the opposition a dignity that it does not deserve.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. and gallant Friend speaks with great experience and wisdom. I both agree and disagree with him, because I think we need to recognise this for what it is. We are at war, but it is a war that we have not chosen, or a conflict that we have not chosen. It is a conflict that our enemies have brought upon us, and we need to defend our interests and our citizens both at home and abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I start by drawing the attention of the House to my interest as a current member of the reserve forces?

The shadow of Iraq is clearly hanging heavy over this debate. In particular, it is hanging over the Labour party, and I understand that. I understand it because I have rebelled against my party only once—I am very pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in his place, because it gives me the opportunity to point out that fact. It was in 2003 and it was over Iraq. The debate around Iraq has overshadowed our politics in this place for 12 years, and I sense that the pain is particularly felt on the Opposition Benches.

What we are considering today has very little to do with what we were considering 12 years ago. Let us cast our minds back to 2003 when we were presented with the proposition of supporting, or otherwise, what the Prime Minister of the day had committed us to. This is different because this vote is permissive; it is different because this is not actually a war at all. That was; it was entering a conflict with all our armed forces against a sovereign state with a Government, however unsavoury it was—and boy was it unsavoury. This is quite different. This is the extension of a conflict that we are already joined in and, I would argue but others may disagree, a conflict in which we are making a real contribution.

The border between Syria and Iraq is not respected by our opponent. That opponent is not subject to any form of reasonable negotiation. It is a death cult. It is an organisation that gives us a grisly form of Hobson’s choice. A person can convert and subscribe to a murderous, barbaric and medieval ideology that crucifies people, cuts off their heads and subjugates women, or they can be killed. That is the choice; there is no middle way. There are no grounds for negotiation and very, very little room for politics. I do not want to convert and I do not want to be killed and neither do my constituents, so the only way to deal with this organisation is by the use of lethal force within the comprehensive arrangements that we have discussed at length today.

Lethal force means the involvement of our armed forces, and our armed forces are uniquely good at that kind of thing, as many of us who have been to a number of the theatres in which they have been effective recently have seen. They are better, much better, than those of our allies, however good those allies are.

Security Council resolution 2249 is quite clear. We are to use all necessary means, and words mean what words say. Sometimes, some on the Opposition Benches seem to have been reading too much Lewis Carroll given their interpretation of what words mean. Words mean what they say. The resolution gives a green light, in clear and unambiguous terms, for this country to do what is necessary. France has made a direct request. Those of us who stood in the Chamber only a few weeks ago and emoted about what was happening in Paris need to think about that very clearly. People who were happy to sing La Marseillaise and expressed solidarity, but are not prepared to support a direct request from our second closest European neighbour, need to think about that hubris, because that is what it is.

May I make a plea on the Vienna process? In Iraq, one of the biggest mistakes was de-Ba’athification, in which everyone, from a corporal or a clerk upwards, was generally stripped out at the behest of ex-pats with an axe to grind. That made our job of reconstruction extraordinarily difficult. We must not make the same mistake.

I should like to conclude with the words of the motion, which I wholeheartedly support, and to express support and admiration for our brilliant armed forces, who are truly the best in the world. Many of them are my constituents, and need the “wholehearted support” of the whole House this evening, and I am confident that we will give it to them.

National Security and Defence

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Countries as diverse as Tunisia, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia can take heart from our strategy, because we recognise that their security and our security are inextricably linked. We want to help with things such as aviation security, on which we are massively extending our budget, and with building their armed services, policing and counter-terrorism capabilities. In the coming years, there will be an important role for our Army to play, in terms of forming training battalions, and for our intelligence services, as they increase their capabilities and trust in partner agencies, which can play an important role in keeping us safe.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome the statement, particularly the commitment to naval platforms and manned and unmanned airframes, but to what extent do the through-life costings for the F-35 reflect the likelihood that UAVs will render the technology therein obsolete by the end-of-service date?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a considerable expert on this. What we have, particularly with our partnership with the French, is a plan for the next generation of fighter aircraft being unmanned combat systems. The research is there, the work is being done—with the French and Americans—and choices about that will have to be made, but I think it is too early to say whether the next generation of fighter aircraft will be manned or unmanned, which is why it is right we are developing the F-35 Lightning with the Americans and that we think seriously about whether to move to fully unmanned platforms in the future. Personally, as an amateur rather than a professional, I have my doubts.