NATO Summit: Vilnius

Debate between Kevan Jones and Alec Shelbrooke

Thursday 6th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and NATO Summit 2023 in Vilnius.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am very grateful for this debate, because it is important that the hard work that goes on across parties gets an airing in the House. To those watching our proceedings, I want to make the point that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a genuine, cross-party Assembly where party politics never comes into the discussion. People seek pragmatism. As leader of the United Kingdom delegation, I have the support of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is the deputy leader. That will one day switch, because the Government have the leadership and the Opposition have the deputy leadership, but everybody works very closely together. I also say to those watching that it is a highly experienced delegation; it includes many former Defence Ministers, Ministers of State at the Foreign Office, Secretaries of State and, indeed, hon. and gallant Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney). There is a wide spread and a lot of experience.

I should start by saying what the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is. It was established in 1955 to bring about political accountability. Above all, we are the political body of the allies. We have political discussions about how NATO should move forward, just as we have discussions about defence—most people would envisage NATO as a defence body. Overall, we contribute to several key areas of NATO policy. For instance, the Parliamentary Assembly made a large contribution to the NATO 2030 strategy, which was adopted in Madrid last year.

I chair the Defence and Security Committee, in which allied nations discuss particular defence areas. There is also the Political Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, and the Economics and Security Committee—all important Committees that look at different issues, go to various countries and deal with partner nations as well as allies. They help to form the global image of which NATO needs to be aware. From there, we can feed into and build to summits, such as that one that will take place next week.

As I said, the Parliamentary Assembly is a political body. The importance of soft power cannot be overestimated. The public will often see the high-level dealings of parliamentarians, leaders of countries and Ministers, and that is what gets reported. The leaders have civil servants with them, and everything is pre-arranged. The Assembly has, by its very nature, the advantage that we are all Back Benchers. Those Back Benchers come from all 31 allies and partner nations. That often allows us to build relationships and get into discussions about things that it may be more difficult to discuss at a higher level. For example, I have been in conversations, as have other members, about Sweden’s and Finland’s accession and Türkiye’s concerns. We were able to discuss with our colleagues from Türkiye where the concerns lay.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that it was very important, post cold war, that the Assembly was able to bring in associate members from former eastern European countries, and build a political consensus in those countries to be part of the future accession to NATO?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He illustrates the political nature of the Assembly, which helped guide those newly formed democracies, as they were starting to flourish and develop in the early days, to ensure that they did not fall off the path to freedom, democracy, free speech and the other things that we recognise as key planks of NATO membership.

We are able to have conversations in the background with colleagues from other ally nations, can feed those back to our Governments, cross-party, and help move discussions forward. It should be recognised that the Swedes made enormous strides in addressing Türkiye’s concerns. The soft power at play in the background at committees should not be underestimated.

I am sure that most Assembly colleagues would agree that the transatlantic relationship remains strong; there is strong support for NATO on Capitol Hill, but our Capitol Hill colleagues tell us that they have to constantly inform and make representations to new colleagues about the importance of NATO and what it does. It would therefore be wrong to say to America deals with that in a bubble. It is important that we show the importance of the relationship between north America and the Canadians, who I will speak more widely about later. This is truly still a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The strength of the partnership has served us well for 75 years, and that cannot be overestimated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Sharma; what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing the debate. May I also say a big thank you to the Members of both Houses who serve on the UK NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation? As the right hon. Gentleman said, I am the deputy leader of the delegation, and next year NATO will be 75 years of age. It was set up in the dark days after the second world war, with the inspiring leadership in the UK of individuals such as Ernie Bevin coming together to ensure that the horrors that faced us for two generations would never again be visited on Europe. Its fundamental aim was to protect the new rules-based order, democracy and the way of life that we have often come to take for granted.

In 1954, Dwight Eisenhower said:

“We do not keep security establishments merely to defend property or territory or rights abroad or at sea. We keep the security forces to defend a way of life.”

That is as relevant today as it was in 1954. The unprovoked Russian attack on the sovereign nation of Ukraine has brought that to stark attention. Some of the threats that we face are the same, with war sadly returning to the European mainland, but there are also new challenges that were not there 75 years ago, such as cyber, disinformation and new technological developments, which we need to keep ahead of to protect the way of life and democracy that the NATO nations strive to defend. Some people say that NATO is an aggressive alliance. It is not; it is a defensive alliance to protect the values that I have just outlined.

I have been a member of the Assembly since 2017. I am currently also a vice-president, and until recently chaired its Science and Technology Committee. I will attend the summit in Vilnius next week on behalf of the NATO Assembly in my position as one of its vice-presidents. What does NATO face today? Clearly, there is the current threat from Russia in Ukraine, and the defence of the democratic values that I outlined. We need to reiterate our support for Ukraine next week in terms of ensuring success in defeating the unwarranted invasion of a sovereign European nation, and we must focus, as the right hon. Gentleman said, on refreshing our own defence settlements, including the accession of new nations, and ensuring that we not only get security guarantees for Ukraine but have a pathway to it becoming part of NATO.

Next week will be difficult, as it always is, in terms of not only ensuring that we reiterate the arguments for why NATO is important, but, importantly, ensuring that its defence and deterrence capabilities are renewed, to deter those who wish to do us harm. I am very disappointed that we have not had the Command Paper from the UK Government prior to the NATO summit. It seems strange that we will make various commitments next week in Vilnius but will then have a Command Paper that, I am told, will be out towards the end of the month.

There are two aspects next week in Vilnius that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly agreed at its spring session in Luxembourg. The first is a united resolution to continue to support the people and Government of Ukraine, and to make sure that we have more integration between NATO, the EU and NATO partner nations on providing the political, military intelligence, financial, training and humanitarian support for Ukraine to prevail and restore the territorial integrity it needs. It is also about how we up the ante and make sure that the military equipment the Ukrainians require is speedily delivered to them.

The other resolution that we passed and sent to the conference was about the Wagner Group—which has been in the headlines in the past few weeks—highlighting that that is a terrorist and criminal organisation. We also need to look at how we can get more integration, and not just in Europe, because the threats are now wider. How do we respond to China, for example?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I notice that we have a Foreign Office Minister with us today. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recalcitrance of the Foreign Office about proscribing the Wagner Group is disappointing?

[Mr Jones]

I do. The right hon. Gentleman and I went to the Foreign Office last year, and we know well the lack of interest there in the NATO PA, which is a marked contrast with every other nation represented there.

Another important resolution we have next week follows a commitment by Congressman Gerry Connolly when he was President of the NATO PA. It is about reinforcing the idea that NATO is there to protect democracy and the rules-based order. His suggestion, which was adopted last year, was that we should have a unit within NATO to make sure not only that we talk about democratic values and the rules-based order, but that we can promote them throughout our nations, similar to the way we did that during the cold war. That will be important.

For people who do not understand the Parliamentary Assembly, we have a direct say about what NATO does. I chaired the Science and Technology Committee for four years, and we have a very good relationship with the NATO chief scientist, Dr Bryan Wells, who has taken on board some issues and the reports we did on hypersonics and new technologies, and on ensuring that we can get some of the new technologies distributed across NATO. The Parliamentary Assembly is a valuable forum, because it makes the case for NATO, as well as bringing together parliamentarians from across NATO. As I said, post the cold war, when the Berlin wall came down, the PA was vital for building important relationships between parliamentarians from the former eastern European bloc, so that they could work on their accession strategy for NATO membership, and this was about underpinning the importance of democracy.

I look forward to taking part in the NATO summit in Vilnius next week and being, as we all are on the Parliamentary Assembly, the political and democratic voice of NATO. I think we need to argue more and more for why NATO is important, because it went into abeyance after the cold war. It has now been brought into sharp focus because of what has happened in Ukraine and it is in the public’s consciousness. NATO is not just a military alliance; it is underpinned by democracy. Having parliamentarians as part of that process is an important way of showing that it is a democratic organisation that not only has, at times, difficult discussions but promotes the rules-based order and democracy, against the alternatives of those who would not only do us harm but destroy the system that we have grown to love over the last 70 years.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and Alec Shelbrooke

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. Given that the Government’s stated purpose in doing this is to look after the interests of the taxpayer, it is ironic that what my hon. Friend says is exactly the case.

As I said, we are dealing with what we have got back from the Lords. We would not have wished this provision to remain in the Bill at all. We support the Lords amendment to remove it from the Bill completely, and I am setting out to the House the consequences of not doing so.

The original clause 13 included a reserve power for Ministers to introduce regulations imposing an arbitrary cap on the amount of time that union reps in the public sector can spend in the workplace improving health and safety standards, promoting learning and training opportunities, consulting on redundancies or on TUPE transfers, negotiating better pay and conditions, and even representing members in grievances and disciplinary hearings. We agree with the Lords that the clause on facility time should have been removed from the Bill altogether. It is an unnecessary interference in the conduct of good industrial relations. It also goes against the Government’s professed desire to support devolution, as other hon. Members have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). As the Minister will know, it is being resisted by the devolved Administrations.

We acknowledge, however, that significant advances have been made in Government amendment (a). We support the Lords and want this clause removed from the Bill, but if the House decides not to do so, Government amendment (a) will at least make some improvement to a proposal that should never have appeared in the first place.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I should like to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. I hope my comments are met in the spirit in which I hope to make them.

I want to outline a frustration that I expressed on Second Reading when I spoke about turnout thresholds within the private sector. In my remarks, I made it clear that trade unions have a very important part to play in the workplace, whether on health and safety, bullying, contract renegotiations regarding a change in working practices or funding, or many such issues. It is wrong to be seen not to appreciate the work that trade unions do. Indeed, as I said earlier, many shop stewards in this country do an outstanding job. I had experience of that when I was a member of Unite, with some excellent shop stewards who worked very well.

I also said on Second Reading that I was not keen on turnout thresholds in the private sector, because, as I outlined, the threshold to go on strike in the private sector is much higher than in the public sector. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it may be, when people go on strike in the public sector, there will generally always be a job to go back to because it is being funded largely by Government through taxation, whereas in the private sector the same threshold cannot be guaranteed, especially in smaller business. If a workforce withdraws its labour, it has gone through a much higher threshold, in its own mind, in perhaps putting at risk the ongoing viability of the company. Therefore, taking strike action in those circumstances means, first, that the conditions that have led to that strike must be very bad, and, secondly, that there has been a complete breakdown of relations between the shop stewards and the owners of those companies.

On Second Reading, I cited Grunwick in the 1970s. I repeat that I do not support the Conservative party’s attempts in the 1970s to break the strike in that company, run by George Ward, because people were working in appalling conditions. Strike action was taken to try to improve conditions that would be unacceptable today. As I said previously, I applaud the last Labour Government for introducing a legal requirement to allow a trade union to operate in the workplace if that is the wish of members of staff.

I therefore hope hon. Members understand my regret that movement was not made on turnout thresholds in the private sector. The flip side of that is that I believe that it is right to have a turnout threshold in the public sector.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many trade unions have thresholds in their rule books to ensure that a certain percentage of members must vote? When I was a full-time official, my union, the GMB, had a threshold. It is therefore not the case that the threshold is uniform across all unions or businesses.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I accept that, but as the hon. Gentleman says, the threshold is not uniform, and in the public sector it is right to have a threshold for taking action when there is a lot of employment protection in terms of having jobs to go back to.

Although I have regrets about the threshold for the private sector, I believe that electronic balloting will lead to higher turnouts and will meet strike thresholds, and as long as the system is secure and can be seen to be genuine, it is the right thing to do. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to apply the policy as quickly as possible because that will enable the private sector to meet the thresholds more easily than perhaps it can now.

There is a balance to be struck. There needs to be some control on those in the public sector who cause great disruption to people who work in the private sector who may not enjoy the terms and conditions that they do. I unreservedly support thresholds in the public sector, but I do not have the same regard for them in the private sector. Hon. Members can refer back to Hansard and my comments on Second Reading, which explain my views further.

The Government’s approach to electronic balloting is right. When it can be proved to be safe and reliable, it should be introduced because I believe the Bill will have the unintended consequence of having a bigger effect on union members in the private sector than on union members in the public sector.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and Alec Shelbrooke

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, but also to make a key recommendation to the Secretary of State for a later amendment on which I hope to speak in Committee.

In the time available to me today, I want to explain why I believe in the importance of workplace representation, and why faith needs to be built into it so that it can expand to help and support workers and move away from being a political plaything. I am a founding member of Unite, by virtue of the merger that caused my Manufacturing, Science and Finance union to become first Amicus and then Unite. I eventually resigned from Unite, because it stopped being a trade union and became a financial cash cow enabling misguided Marxists at the top to play with their members’ lives for their own political fun and games.

A trade union needs to be about much more than just strikes over pay, or Labour party politics. It should be proud of the achievements that it helped to bring about in health and safety law, and of the work that brilliant and dedicated shop stewards do to improve the wellbeing of their members. As a young worker some years ago, I was victimised in the workplace, and there was no union to turn to. I learnt a lot from that. Equally, I have seen shop stewards do fantastic work for those who have faced bullying and victimisation in the workplace. It is often the shop stewards who provide the best example of trade unionism—despite those at the top—but the common factor is frequently their lack of political ambitions, and it is political ambitions that have poisoned the workplace.

Let us consider Grangemouth. Where was the collective bargaining then? There was an attempt to stitch up a Labour selection process caused by the violent actions of a Labour MP in Westminster who was expelled, while all the time the MP’s constituents and the union’s members were left to be exploited and have their pensions destroyed by an unsympathetic employer whom no one stood up to until it was too late.

As in the 1970s, today's unions use hard-working people, through either their money or their work, to try to cause pain to the democratically elected Government because they do not like the verdict of the people. That is a twisted abuse of trade unionism, in which the workers are merely pawns in a wider political game played by some power-crazed leaders whose purpose is usually to disrupt not only the Government but the leadership of the Opposition, against most of its MPs’ will. They always want to call for strikes rather than sensible negotiations, even through those of us who have had normal backgrounds like everyone else, regardless of our party. [Interruption.] Well, I went to a comprehensive school. I know that Labour Members’ new leader went to a public school, but I did not.

Even a founding member of the Labour movement, Robert Blatchford, said:

“A strike is at best a bitter, a painful and a costly thing and no substitute for political action.”

Trade unionism did not start like that. By 1868, the many trade unions had formed the TUC, which had financial plans for sickness, accident and death payments based on contributions—literally the first social security. In his book “Speak for Britain”, Martin Pugh commented:

“Prudent management of union funds won approval from contemporary politicians, but was criticised by socialists”.

He went on to say:

“This was unfair as the Victorian TUC effectively pioneered a political role for workingmen.”

In 1885, with £4 million in the bank, the TUC hesitated in funding 95 working-class MPs as it felt bound to be cautious about introducing political divisions in order properly and honestly to represent all working men. Pugh says:

“They felt incurably suspicious about overtures made by small unrepresentative socialist societies anxious to milk their funds to promote hopeless candidatures.”

But today their funds built by hard-working people have been used for just that.

It is right that the Bill brings in protection for hard-working people who want proper workplace representation rather than just a cash cow to be milked by union leaders for their own political game.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s history lesson, but it is completely wrong because the early trade unions supported the Liberal party rather than socialist candidates. Is he aware that many trade unions have political funds but donate not a single penny to the Labour party? The Minister spoke of union members not having a say, but a ballot on political funds has to be held every 10 years. People can opt out of paying the political levy at any time during their membership.