Ukraine

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

There is no doubt that, when dealing with a country such as Russia that is armed with tactical low-yield nuclear weapons, which we do not have in huge numbers in our arsenal, we need to have a sense of caution. However, there would be a stigma attached to Russia using those weapons systems, and countries such as South Africa, Saudi Arabia, India and even China might stop sitting on the fence or supporting Russia and move away from it. Let us not forget that, as we saw in Mariupol, Russia can achieve the same outcome as a tactical low-yield nuclear weapon using conventional systems and without testing its friendship with other nations around the world by crossing such a threshold.

When I visited NATO recently, I asked what NATO’s response would be. It could be that it is tucked away in an envelope in a drawer somewhere to be pulled out, read and acted on if such an event happens. I would like us to respond robustly, because it will take us into a new era of the character of conflict if we say that low-yield nuclear weapons can be used. If one is used in Ukraine, I would like every F-35 in NATO’s arsenal to take out every single Russian asset on the ground, and I would like us to look Russia in the eye—yes, this would be a “Who’s going to blink first?” moment—and say, “We will punish anybody who uses these weapons.” If we do not respond and we do not react, we again allow Russia to gain more confidence, be more assertive and, no doubt, use low-yield nuclear weapons again in the surrounding areas of eastern Europe. How would we respond then? Let us not forget the mistake that we made in Syria. We said that there was a red line on chemical weapons, but what did we do? We blinked. We must not do that again.

The integrated review was an important document. Its threats assessment was correct, but it was incorrect about the speed with which those threats were going to come over the horizon. It was also, as I am afraid we all recognise, tied to a peacetime defence budget. I offer my support in making the case not just that the world is more dangerous now, but that it will get even more dangerous from here. It will be not lull, mop-up, conclusion in Ukraine and then back to normal, but a new era of insecurity. If we want to lead as Britain has, we need to spend more on our hard power. The big NATO strategic concept document on operating together is about to come out, and greater demands will be placed on all members, including the UK. That, I hope, will be a useful opportunity to take stock of our own position—our numbers of armoured fighting vehicles, troops and so forth—to see how we might advance and revisit the integrated review.

European security is once more in peril. Our adversaries are in plain sight, but I fear that we are still a little in denial. We continue to hesitate, and Europe needs leadership. One thing I can say from visiting conferences and from being in America last week is how impressed much of the world is by how Britain has stepped forward, but there is so much to do. I repeat that Russia is now winning in Ukraine, and it is moving to the point where Putin can claim a success and stay in power. If he stays in power, this does not end in Ukraine. That must be very clear.

I seek support from the House not only in praising the Government’s having leant in operationally but in recognising what we need to do strategically to see victory in Ukraine, put that fire out, humiliate Putin and let the Russian people decide whether they want to continue with that leader.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I briefly interrupt the debate to announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There were 474 votes cast with no invalid ballot papers—it is a relief that Members of Parliament know how to cast a vote. The counting went to four rounds. In the fourth round, 420 valid votes were cast, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 211 votes, and the candidate who has been elected Chair, with 243 votes, is Sir Robert Goodwill, who will take up his post immediately. I congratulate him on his election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the officers of the House and the Clerks who carried out this election so efficiently and all those involved. I also thank my fellow candidates for the very good-natured way in which it was carried out. I thank all the people who voted for me, and I hope that I can carry forward the Committee and follow on from the excellent work done by my predecessor, Neil Parish.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not need to answer that point of order, but it was a perfectly reasonable one. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to thank the House. I also offer the commiserations of the whole House to all the other excellent candidates who took part in the fiercely contested election.

Ukraine

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must reduce the time limit to six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey]

Yes, in the round. That is certainly the case in Poland. Tonight, I am off to Poland to talk through the detail of it, but, as the Prime Minister announced at the weekend, the plan is to put a mission-ready British cavalry squadron into Poland to backfill some of the capability that Poland hopes to provide to Ukraine.

There were a number of excellent contributions to the debate, among which were some questions that I can answer relatively quickly. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) asked whether we are in the process of rearming, given the amount of NLAWs that we have handed across. We are, and that is through a combination of new orders and getting hold of new batteries to refurbish NLAWs that are out of date to backfill those that we have handed over to the Ukrainians.

Many colleagues mentioned food security and energy security, both of which are levers that Russia has held over Europe for too long. I will come back to that in my concluding remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, was absolutely right to point out that the pandemic, Ukraine and Brexit have shown that there is a requirement to reconsider sovereignty and what resilience is required to be truly sovereign.

Many Opposition Members made points about the process for bringing Ukrainian refugees to the UK. As they so asked, I will ensure that my Home Office colleagues read Hansard in full and come back to those Members as they are able.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said that we require the slingshot so that David can fell Goliath once again. He mentioned the missiles that have been provided. He is absolutely right that the radars that enable counter-battery fire are the missing piece of the jigsaw—we are on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) made a wonderfully compassionate speech about support for refugees. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) rightly pointed to the war crimes and the requirement to hold the Russians to account for what they are doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), with whom I have spoken often about this matter, reflected on whether our posture in the British armed forces is the right one as we go forward—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made the same point. As the Defence Secretary has always said, we are threat-based in our decision making. We have learned so far that we are on broadly the right track, but nobody in the MOD is too proud to admit that if the situation changes and the threat has changed, we will consider that as and when the time comes.

In the 90 seconds that remain in this debate, I will quickly reflect that if Putin thought that this was a moment to fracture the west, he has ended up with something very different. NATO is renewed and reinvigorated in its purpose and it has reinforced its eastern flank to reassure our allies there. Today, 40 nations came together at Ramstein air base in Germany, where a US-led conference led to an incredible doubling down of international resolve, in which the US has committed to re-arm and assist Ukraine in a transition to NATO calibres—that is really quite a moment—which the rest of the western countries there agreed to support.

Everybody is clear that Russia must fail. Why? Because the geopolitics of the Euro-Atlantic need to be different in the next 20 years from the way they have been in the past 20 years. That means ending the energy dependency and sorting out food security and the supply chain dependency. It also means standing up against the bullying, and it is time to stand up for some respect for sovereignty and a belief in freedom. Putin’s hubris has caused immeasurable cost to the Russian armed forces. Zelensky’s heroic leadership has brought Ukraine to a place where I think they can win. The UK, the US and our allies around the world will make sure that that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

Business of the House (Today) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords relating to the Nationality and Borders Bill shall have been received and disposed of.—(Mark Spencer.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Under the order that the House just passed, I may not adjourn the House until any further message from the Lords relating to the Nationality and Borders Bill has been received. The House must accordingly be suspended. I will suspend it until 9.45 pm at the earliest and arrange for the Division bells to be sounded a few minutes before the sitting is resumed to warn colleagues that we are about to resume. For the convenience of the House, I repeat that the Division bells will not be sounded before 9.45 pm.

Ukraine Update

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

On that last point, included in the increased package is more body armour, alongside what was donated by many countries in the conference in February. I am slightly in danger of entering into Home Office questions here, although I know that they took place yesterday. Although I was a Home Office Minister, one of the greatest delights was not being the immigration Minister, but the security Minister. All I will say is that I understand the feeling in the House, so does the Home Secretary and so does the Prime Minister, and we are working to resolve that matter as quickly as possible. As for the internal details of different immigration schemes, I gently refer my hon. Friend to the Home Office.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will protect the Secretary of State from the temptation to stray outwith his own territory.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I, too, give my thanks to the Defence Secretary for his work and that of his team and for his compassion. I am afraid that I am going to raise another visa issue with him. My constituent is trying to get his young niece to the UK after she fled her home in Ukraine. After endless bureaucratic checks and delays, they have been told today that she has to travel nearly 300 km across Poland to get the decision on her visa. The Defence Secretary will understand that refugees such as my constituent’s niece have already made long and challenging journeys from Ukraine to Poland and now have to make more journeys just to get the decision. My constituent calls the Government’s approach to people fleeing the war in Ukraine “inhumane”. Given the meeting on the visa process that the Secretary of State mentioned, can he press on the Home Secretary the need to offer a compassionate and human response to refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not want to run the risk of making you angry, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will say that I would be delighted to pass that case to my Parliamentary Private Secretary and press the Home Office to resolve it. If I indulge myself here, Madam Deputy Speaker will rule me out of order, because this is a question about the Ukraine situation through Defence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The Secretary of State is steering a careful and wise course, and I will endeavour to help him in doing so, but it is the case that the Government are acting as one, and we all recognise that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

President Putin was clearly counting on a quick victory, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his statement, but on the far-sighted view of training Ukrainian troops and, indeed, on supplying defensive weapons. What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of both that training and the defensive weapons in theatre, which, of course, can never be tested except in theatre?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, because Russia has not given up its false flags and false narratives. In fact, it has shut down nearly every avenue of information for its people, which again shows the fear that it is under—I think only yesterday TikTok was stopped in Russia. We absolutely must challenge those false flags, and we do—she has heard me call them out publicly. At some stages we did that by declassifying intelligence early, which we do not normally do. We should also be genuinely worried when false flags drop breadcrumbs leading to chemical weapons, nerve agents and biological weapons, because we all worry what is behind that in the first place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to keep us updated and for his thorough answers to a very large number of questions.

Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I should warn hon. Members that there will have to be an immediate time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches, because obviously a lot of people wish to take part in this very important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey]

I really will not give way; I am sorry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let us make this perfectly clear. If the Minister gives way now, some of the hon. Lady’s colleagues will not get to speak in the debate at all. Actions have consequences everywhere.

[James Heappey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

That will not be easy, and we should not get our hopes up, because both sides in the conflict will need to agree. However, we should want to explore that urgently.

I believe passionately that Ukrainians do not want to leave their country. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said in his speech, they do not want to be refugees. Therefore, once they have reached the west of their country—or, in extremis, crossed the border immediately from it—our mission should be about making them as comfortable as possible there so that they can go home as quickly as they want to, because they are patriots who want to be Ukrainians living in Ukraine.

I am afraid that this will get much worse before it gets any better—that is what keeps me awake at night. We must work out how we can alleviate the humanitarian challenge and the sheer misery of the millions of people who find themselves living in cities that are under siege without risking escalation that could make this world war three.

There is cause for optimism as the Ukrainians are fighting heroically, but we must brace ourselves, as the Ukrainian people are, for something much worse. Putin could stop this now if he wanted to. We must all continue to insist that he does and that Ukrainian territorial sovereignty is restored completely.

Ukraine

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If we have shorter questions and the Secretary of State can therefore give shorter answers, we will be able to get everyone in; if not, I am afraid that some people will be disappointed. As we can see, people are coming in for the next item of business, but this statement is important and I would like to give everybody the chance to speak. Shorter, please.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that sovereignty must be respected and that that includes Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that will encourage President Putin to hold back? Should President Putin still invade, what impact will that have on Sino-Russian relationships and how concerned should we be for Taiwan? [Interruption.]

Ukraine

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid that we cannot take any further contributions. It has become normal for every question on a statement to be taken, but that is not actually normal practice. The House must be aware of the next business, which will require some time, so we will have to conclude questions on the statement.

UK Military Personnel Serving Overseas: Vaccination

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating all who serve and have served in our nation’s armed forces, and in thanking them for doing so. She will have heard in my responses to previous questions that we are vaccinating the vast majority of the armed forces community, with the exception of those involved in nuclear deterrence and other niche tasks, in line with wider priorities. In reality, the way that delivery has taken place means that the vast majority of our armed forces, who are in their late teens and 20s, are being vaccinated ahead of their contemporaries in the general population. The decision was taken some months ago that we would not vaccinate the armed forces ahead of the general population, and that we would instead prioritise those who are more elderly and vulnerable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now come—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Oh, I am so sorry! How could I possibly miss out the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? I would never wish to do so.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I saw you looking around, and I wondered whether you would look for me in my usual spot.

We have so much to thank our service personnel for, and they put a lot on the line to serve, in terms of their family life. Those families back home have grave concerns about their service personnel who are serving overseas, and those who are serving overseas have concerns about their families back home. What has been done to assure the members of those families, both at home and away, that they will be safe and sound and will see each other again?

[James Heappey]

The hon. Gentleman was probably waiting for you to start the Adjournment debate before he intervened, Madam Deputy Speaker, as is his normal fashion. He raises an important point; as someone who served overseas on operations, I knew I was okay until I was not, but for those who are left behind—the families of our serving personnel—there is a daily worry about their safety and the threats they are facing. Indeed, many colleagues in the House have written to me on behalf of parents and loved ones of people deploying to seek reassurance about the vaccination programme, and we have made sure that that has been given to them, so that families understand that their loved ones will be vaccinated while in theatre. The families of our armed forces are as vital a part of the armed forces community as those who serve, and the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity, in Armed Forces Week, to remark on their steadfastness and the important role they play in maintaining the fighting power of our armed forces.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes the urgent question, and I thank the Minister.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. There has been an £8 billion real-terms cut to the defence budget since 2010. That is part of the reason that we have seen 45,000 full-time forces cut over the last decade. I will return to some of those points.

For now, I want to make this point: we can destroy enemy forces with technology, but we cannot seize and hold ground without troops. Drones and robots do not win hearts and minds; they do not mend broken societies; they do not give covid jabs. These deeper cuts now planned could limit our forces’ capacity simultaneously to deploy overseas, support allies, maintain our own strong national defences and reinforce our domestic resilience, as we have seen our troops do to help our country through the covid crisis. Other countries have expanded troop numbers even as they develop technology. They do not see this as a “manpower or machines” question, but as personnel and technology together. Although high-tech weapons systems are essential, highly-trained personnel are simply indispensable, and size matters.

These planned cuts are damaging for four reasons. Let us call them “the four Rs”. The first is resilience. Cutting Army numbers reduces the UK’s national resilience by reducing our capacity to react to unforeseen circumstances at home and abroad—not just major wars, but insurgencies such as Afghanistan, international interventions such as Sierra Leone or Kosovo, and emergency support operations such as post terrorist attacks or during covid.

The second “R” is readiness. The rapid response required to the unexpected also requires highly-trained, adaptable, cohesive combat troops, which even the best reserves, called up as last-minute reinforcements, cannot provide.

The third “R” is renewal. The fewer troops and full-strength battalions we have, the less able the Army is to sustain long campaigns. Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq all required the long-term rotation of troops. We are a leading member of NATO. We are one of the P5 countries at the UN Security Council. We may again be called on to deploy and sustain forces away from the UK. We may not seek a major crisis, but we may well face a major crisis that comes to us.

The final “R” is reputation. The current Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to field a single war-fighting division was

“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”,

yet the fully capable division mandated then, including a new strike brigade, will not be battle-ready for another 10 years according to evidence that the MOD gave to the Defence Committee in the autumn. A former CDS, General Sir David Richards, has said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK was

“no longer taken seriously as a military power”

and that this would

“damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO”.

My second argument is that this is not just about numbers. In the face of growing threats and the increasing ambition for the global role that our armed forces will play, there is a strong case against, not for, some of the Government’s short-term capability cuts. Taking two Type 23 frigates out of service in the next two years will reduce the Navy’s anti-submarine strength. Ending the RAF’s E-3 planes will leave a two-year gap in airborne early warning before the E-7 Wedgetails come into service in 2023. The Army is losing nine Chinook helicopters, 14 Hercules transporter planes and 20 Puma support helicopters.

The third argument is one that I am sad to have to make, and it is this: we are faced now with more of the same. After a decade of decline since 2010, which the Prime Minister called an “era of retreat”, the Defence Secretary promised that this defence review would be different from the last two Conservative defence reviews, which weakened the foundations of our armed forces. They were driven by finances, not by threats, cutting full-time forces by 45,000 and cutting critical defence capabilities and upgrades, alongside plans for full capability forces in the future that have not been fulfilled. I fear that this defence review simply makes the same mistakes of the past.

Fourth and finally, in November, when the Prime Minister announced the extra funding as part of a four-year funding settlement, we welcomed it as promising a long overdue upgrade of Britain’s defences, so we are dismayed now by more defence cuts, despite this £16.5 billion boost. But I guess it is not hard to see why. The defence budget was balanced in 2012, and the equipment programme was fully funded, but Ministers since then have lost control. The National Audit Office has now judged the defence equipment plan unaffordable for the last four years in a row and reports a black hole of more than £17 billion over the next 10 years. This black hole in the defence budget has grown by £4 billion in the last year, on this Defence Secretary’s watch. The MOD’s annual report and accounts suggest that the annual marginal cost for 10,000 Army personnel is around half a billion pounds. This deficit alone each year could cover the cost of maintaining Army numbers three times over.

The new defence budget is not all it seems. Ministers talk about the rise in capital funding but not the real cut in revenue funding over the next four years, which means less money for forces’ recruitment, training, pay and families. It means a possible cut of 40% to the budget of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Worse still, over half this year’s £16.4 billion defence equipment budget is revenue-based for equipment support and maintenance. This revenue cut is the Achilles heel of defence plans. No other Whitehall Department is projected to have a cut in day-to-day spending between now and 2024-25. The Defence Secretary should never have agreed it.

This defence review and the defence and security industrial strategy announce nothing new that Ministers are doing to get a grip of the MOD’s budget failings and to make the most of this big, one-off opportunity from the extra funding. So I say to the Minister: get to grips with the budget, consider the concerns raised, rethink the plans and report back to Parliament before the end of June. Britain was promised better, Britain deserves better and Britain needs better from its Defence Department.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, I should tell the House that there will be an initial time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes, but that will reduce quite soon to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

I join the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), in paying tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh. I pass on my condolences and those of my party to the royal family, and to those in the armed forces for whom he has undoubtedly been an inspiration, having left behind such a long and distinguished career as a member of the forces. As the Minister rightly says, they will be preparing to give the late Duke of Edinburgh the send-off he rightly deserves, and we wish the armed forces the best in their preparations for that.

Like the shadow Secretary of State, I think it would be normal to decry the fact that the Secretary of State has not responded at the Dispatch Box, but I too entirely understand why he has to be at the NATO meeting on Ukraine. It is worth pausing to reflect on the fact that here we sit, in the north-west corner of Europe, in relative peace, while an ally in the south-east corner of Europe, already annexed and at war, faces a further military build-up on its border. The Scottish National party supports entirely Ukraine’s right to its territorial integrity.

In every defence session we have had—whether Question Time, debates or a statement—all Members across the House have rightly thanked the members of the armed forces who have done so much for us during the pandemic in terms of resilience and, not least in more recent times, the roll-out of the vaccine, which we are all desperate to receive. They have put in some shift, as we would say in Scotland. It is curious that the Government have seen fit to thank the armed forces by telling them that they are going cut up to 10,000 places.

The context here is important, and not just that of the pandemic. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know—not just as a keen watcher of political events in Scotland, but as a proud Scot yourself—that when it comes to the size of the armed forces, and in particular the things the Government say about them, many promises are made to Scots. That has been the case for quite a few years now, and each and every time, this Conservative Government renege on them. I have mentioned that many times before and I am afraid I am about to do so again.

As the Minister and the Government have confirmed—the Minister reiterated it today—that the cut will go ahead, may I ask the Government to outline to the House, if not today then at some point, and to the people of Scotland, to whom those promises were made, what the impact on the personnel footprint in Scotland will look like? Prior to the independence vote a few years ago, we were promised the permanent stationing of 12,500 Regular troops in Scotland. The Government have never come close to meeting that promise and that target, and it is now obvious that they have no intention of ever trying to, so what will the permanent footprint look like after the cut of up to 10,000 troops is realised?

More broadly on context, it is curious and entirely objectionable as far as I am concerned that the Government would announce such a cut in conventional capability— not just in personnel, but in many of the platforms the shadow Secretary of State mentioned—when they announced their intention to allow an increase in the nuclear weapons stockpile. Now, we could probably have an entire debate on that one issue, but given that this debate is about the armed forces, let me just say this. I am with the Chair of the Defence Committee, whose analysis was spot on. He and I do not agree on the nuclear deterrent and its presence, but he described that increase as an attempt to deflect attention from—indeed, it is a sweetener to allies to cover up for it—the fact that we are having such grave cuts in conventional capability. That is fooling no one.

I plead with the Government to drop the fallacy of trying to play one capability against the other. It is important that we invest in cyber, of course. The new threats that the Minister outlined are real and the Government have our support in trying to meet them, but the shadow Secretary of State was also right: people keep the peace, people deliver resilience, and people put covid jabs into arms—not drones, and certainly not nuclear weapons.

It is curious to see the Government now framing this as though those of us who are against the cuts are somehow old fashioned, and are incapable of assessing modern-day threats and developing an argument on how to meet them. The Minister said earlier that we must not—I think this was the phrase—play “military bingo” when it comes to developing the capabilities needed to meet the threats faced. Well, if it is a game of bingo, like the shadow Secretary of State I would like to read some words from the caller, and the caller is the Prime Minister. During the last election, he said that

“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form.”

During the last general election, he also said:

“We will be maintaining the size of the armed services”.

Why did he say that if he had no intention of delivering? Why did he say it if he knew it would not come to pass? Indeed, the Government have developed that habit when it comes to promises on troop numbers. As I said at the start of my speech, is it not curious that this is how we thank our armed forces after the year they have had, committing themselves to fighting the pandemic?

It is also worth noting that, just after that Defence Command Paper came out, we learned via the media—not via a statement to Parliament or anything we could read in the integrated review paper or its associated documents —that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is to see a budget cut of up to 40%. It already has a tiny budget—of, I think, around £5 million—and it will be cut. That happened in the same week as the announcement, so why did not one single Minister from a Government who claim to be on the side of veterans come to announce that funding cut to the House? It is also worth noting that that announcement—or the news of the cut, rather, because there was no announcement—came in the same week that the Scottish Government announced that they would spend an extra £1 million on support for veterans who find themselves in Scotland.

The Government should cancel the planned cut in troops, and if that costs more money, so be it. Spend it, invest it. We could come up with a million ways in which the MOD could spend its money better, but I have always said to the Government that when they need more cash from Treasury Ministers and when that is sensible, they would have our support. Indeed, they would have the support of many around the House who do not think that this is a wise way to proceed.

We have talked a lot about how we treat the armed forces, and there is a lot of cross-party agreement on that, but amazingly, we cannot seem to get the Government to act. One thing we should do first is prise from the recruitment process the claws that Capita has sunk in so deeply. It is an expensive mess that does nothing for recruitment. The best people to do recruitment are the members of the armed forces themselves, not the share- holders of Capita, who are growing fat on a failing recruitment system.

Let us have a commission to look at pay and conditions. We know from recent National Audit Office reports that only 45% of serving personnel have any sense of job satisfaction—a staggeringly low figure. We also know that less than half of those living in armed services accommodation are happy with that accommodation. How can it be beyond the wit of the Government or the House to get those two things fixed? We have proposed in the past, and I propose it again today—I am sure you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill on the subject published in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes)—the introduction of an armed forces representative body that could be placed on a statutory footing and represent the interests of members of the armed forces to the Government when it comes to pay and conditions. At the moment, they have no such body. They rely on Members of Parliament so to do, and with satisfaction figures as low as they are, the answer clearly does not lie in lobbying MPs whom the Government are ignoring.

It is right that we are having a debate on the specific issue of cuts in the number of members of the armed forces and in other conventional capabilities. We will have plenty of time to dive into some of the other issues in the integrated review, I am sure. As I made clear when the Secretary of State came to the House for the publication of the Defence Command Paper, there is much in there that we understand and indeed support, but there are some things that we do not and cannot support. Such egregious cuts to conventional capability, especially service personnel, are something we cannot support.

When the Minister winds up, I wonder whether he would clarify two things. First, as the Government seek to pivot, in addition to their geographic pivot to the Indo-Pacific region, and to place more emphasis on cyber and on drones and other unmanned devices in theatres of conflict, and as they seek to do more to protect not just people, but data, which the Government rightly identify as an attack surface, where will be the proper democratic and human oversight? Where will be the ideas from Government on how we lead efforts internationally to design treaties and rules of engagement when it comes to cyber, the use of unmanned drones and the protection of data? That debate is woefully lacking. In fairness, it is lacking not just here but in the entire western democratic sphere. We have not heard much from the Government about how they will seek to put that right, and I think it is incumbent on them to bring forward a strategy on those things.

Lastly, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker—this relates more to current events than necessarily to the subject of the debate—might I tease out from the Government a clarification with regard to Ukraine? The Secretary of State is at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council right now, and rightly so. Will the Government clarify whether he intends to give a statement to the House following that meeting, and will he clarify what implications, if any, the current escalation in tensions might have for Operation Orbital, which is ongoing in Ukraine with United Kingdom armed forces?

The Minister said that he was able to look members of the armed forces in the eye and convince them of the merits of cutting jobs and places among them. That is good for him, but he still has a job to do in convincing voters—voters to whom he and his Government made promises, not just in the general election in 2019, but all those years ago ahead of the independence referendum. I am not sure he could look voters in the eye with the same degree of confidence that he came to the House and espoused today. I am afraid this is just one more example of Scotland’s security being ill served by a Government who do not place high regard on their own interests.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now have a formal time limit of four minutes. I call the Chairman of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I think the coalition had something to do with that. I warned David Cameron about that before we even went into that coalition.

The right hon. Member for Islington North accuses his own country of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and suggests that we are somehow escalating our numbers, but he does not even mention the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, Russia has—what was it?—6,800 nuclear warheads. They are modernising every single weapons system that they have got. They are in breach of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. That is escalation, and the right hon. Member for Islington North has nothing to say about that whatsoever.

We all know that the British people will support the United Kingdom’s continuous at-sea deterrent for as long as other nuclear weapons states are keeping their weapons and there are other proliferators around. We just need to remind ourselves what extraordinarily good value the continuous at-sea deterrent system actually is. The Library produced a report last month, pointing out that the annual cost of our continuous at-sea deterrent is just 1% of the cost of social security and tax credits—just 1%. So the idea that this is a Rolls-Royce system that we cannot afford is mythical. Nothing could buy us the security and influence that the continuous at-sea deterrent gives us.

The doctrine of deterrence is just as valid as it ever was. Has the right hon. Member for Islington North ever asked himself why major state-on-state warfare stopped in 1945? Well, I can tell him why: it was because nuclear weapons were invented and that kind of warfare became too costly, too destructive, to contemplate. Does he want to go back to that world by getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether? I hope not.

We just need to remind ourselves that our continuous at-sea deterrent can attack any target at any time, so it is always ready to respond to threats. Its location is unknown so it cannot be pre-empted. It does not require to be deployed at a time of international tension and crisis. The technology is tried and tested. It is not in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; it is completely compliant. It is a sovereign capability, which, if we had to use it, we would. No alternative system could possibly provide all these benefits at such good value, and that is why we should reaffirm our commitment to our nuclear deterrent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now go by video link to Marie Rimmer, with a time limit of three minutes.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]]

The British military is currently engaged in its biggest ever—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot hear the hon. Lady. Shall we try audio only?

[Ms Rimmer]

[Inaudible.]—proving once again that they are the ultimate emergency service.—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we will try to come back to the hon. Lady later, because the sound quality means that we cannot hear what she is saying.

Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Could the hon. Gentleman start again, please? We had some sort of technical problem.

[James Gray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first call attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my involvement in the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, both of which I chair and both of which are supported by the major UK defence companies? They are among the greatest defence manufacturers in the world, and I salute them for it.

Will the Minister acknowledge two other groups whose contribution we nurture? First, he mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises several times. I welcome the fact that there will be a refresher on the action plan produced during this year. When he does produce that refresher, will he please do two things? First, will he increase the number of direct contracts between the Ministry of Defence and the SMEs? Otherwise those SMEs risk being squeezed out by the original equipment manufacturers.

Secondly, will the Minister strengthen the contractual obligations on OEMs to use British SMEs? I understand his concerns about sovereign capability and I very much welcome his commitment to use British manufacturers as much as he possibly can in the future, but will he also recognise and support the very many companies that are overseas in ownership, but that make a huge contribution to our defence? Boeing, Raytheon and Elbit all spring to mind, and Leonardo has already been mentioned. They employ large numbers of people and make a huge contribution to our defence overseas, even if they are actually owned by overseas companies.

Points of Order

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will take the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) first and then come to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East for his point of order and for giving me notice that he intended to raise it. I will repeat what Mr Speaker has said many times from the Chair: if an announcement is to be made by a Department or a Minister, it must be made first in this Chamber. Any announcement must be made to Parliament. If there was an article in The Daily Telegraph or any other medium, I cannot comment on its veracity; that is not a matter for the Chair. However, it most certainly is a matter for the Chair if an announcement has indeed been made by other means than to this House and in this Chamber.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I think that there has been a slight element of confusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. The management of the three services—the Navy, the Army and the Air Force—is obviously a matter for the chiefs of staff. As they manage their services, throughout the year they make thousands of decisions about activity, deployments, training and so on. This is not a matter on which a single statement would have been made by any Government. I think the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was referring to a newspaper article, but there are hundreds of announcements on a weekly basis. I think that that is where the point that he refers to comes from.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding to the point of order. I take it from what he says that he is undertaking that if any notable announcement is to be made by him or his Department, it will be made first in this Chamber and to this House.

[Mr Wallace]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s assent.

[Mr Ellwood]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing a little latitude on this important issue. I am also grateful for the Secretary of State’s clarification, because there are concerns that the size of our reserves will be reduced and that, just as concerning, their training hours will also be reduced at this critical time. It would be helpful if he came forward with more information and at least quashed the stories and rumours that are going around, because they do damage to the reputation and morale of those in the armed forces.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I allowed the Chairman of the Defence Committee his moment, but he knows and we all know that it is not a point of order. He has made his point to the Secretary of State and I am sure that there will be other opportunities to explore the matter further.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful for your indulgence, as I speak as one of the reservists in question. I just want to point out that it is deeply demoralising for members of the armed forces if they are not told about this in advance but learn about it from the pages of The Daily Telegraph, excellent though The Daily Telegraph is. Can I seek your advice on whether you feel that that is appropriate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, the right hon. Gentleman cannot seek my advice, because it is not my business to decide whether it is appropriate. However, given his position in this House I have allowed him to make his point, and I believe that it has been heard and paid attention to by the Secretary of State and the Minister.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your helpful advice on getting a response from the Home Secretary to 17 constituents for whom I have made representations. I have been chasing and chasing for a reply. Some of these constituents have been waiting for years, most for many months, and all have life-changing issues that affect their whole family. Surely it is the duty of the Home Secretary to respond to letters from Members of Parliament?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Once again, I will repeat from the Chair what Mr Speaker has said on many occasions: it is indeed the duty of every Minister to respond to letters and questions from Members of this House. I know that, as constituency MPs, we are all finding it very difficult to get responses to our inquiries on behalf of our constituents within a reasonable time. It is noted that the Home Office is possibly not giving the Home Secretary and her Ministers the support that they need at a time such as this to answer our inquiries on time. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point of order and I merely repeat what Mr Speaker has said many times, but I do hope that not only Ministers but those who are employed and trusted to support Ministers would please pay attention to this situation.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like some guidance on the question of the content of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which we are about to discuss, relating to the question of taxation and, on the basis of a statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the removal of the clauses—the “notwithstanding” clauses—that would otherwise have appeared. They remain part of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, from which they have not been removed. I am putting down amendments to reinsert the “notwithstanding” clauses on Report, and I would be grateful if, first, you could note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, secondly, you could provide some guidance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Is it about the timing by which he can submit amendments for Report? Obviously, the amendments for the Committee stage are already submitted and we will very soon be debating them. We will come to Report tomorrow. Is he asking me by what time he can submit amendments for tomorrow?

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to you for the way you put that, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I want to be clear that I am going to do it, and, secondly, I would like to know by what time I need to put my amendments down. With all this virtual stuff, it is quite difficult to know.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is indeed difficult to know. I decided yesterday to have the deadline today at 12 o’clock. I am not quite certain exactly at this moment what the deadline will be for tomorrow, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am asking the Clerk to note and to pass on to the appropriate offices that he wishes to submit amendments. Thank you.

There was to be another point of order, but the hon. Gentleman concerned has left the Chamber.