Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I make my remarks, I would like to pay tribute to our armed forces and veterans who came together on Remembrance Day yesterday. I was on Plymouth Hoe yesterday morning, but wherever we were we saw a nation pause, thank those who served and remember those who did not come back and those who were forever changed by war and conflict.
We are now on day 264 of Vladimir Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine, and with each day it becomes clearer that he is failing in this misguided war. Putin has not achieved his objectives: indeed, he has strengthened the western alliance, and with each of his decisions he further strengthens our resolve.
The Ukrainian liberation of Kherson, a region Russia had illegally occupied for more than eight months, is a testament to the skill, bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainian military and is a significant blow to the Kremlin. The Ukrainian advance comes only weeks after a ceremony in Moscow in which Putin announced the “forever” annexation of Kherson along with the Russian-occupied areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia.
Russia’s retreat from Kherson is a significant moment in the war, and the withdrawal shines a light on how badly the invasion is going for Putin. He has already forcibly enlisted more than 200,000 new recruits into the Russian army, and with around 100,000 Russian soldiers having been killed or wounded since the war began in February, the casualty rate of poorly trained, poorly equipped troops with low morale remains catastrophic. Body bags and burnt-out tanks are all Putin can offer his people.
As the Ukrainians continue to show incredible resilience in defending their homeland, we must continue to do all we can to support Ukraine both now and in the months ahead. The Minister will know that we on this side of the House fully support the help the Government are providing to our friends in Ukraine, and I want to put on record our thanks to the United Kingdom’s armed forces not only for their work supporting Ukraine and co-ordinating supplies of military aid and humanitarian support, but for reinforcing our allies on NATO’s eastern flank and training Ukrainian troops here in Britain through Operation Interflex.
On Britain’s military help to Ukraine, the Government have had, and will continue to have, our fullest support. We welcome last week’s announcement on the provision of further surface to air missiles to Ukrainian forces and welcome the announcement of support to protect and upgrade Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, but given the parameters of the support we want to provide I wish to press the Minister gently but seriously on some of the uncertainties in that. The UK must support Ukraine for the long term, and I believe that there is cross-party support on that, but that means that we must move beyond the ad hoc announcements made by Ministers about donating weapons to being clear about a long-term strategy for military, economic and diplomatic assistance through 2023 and beyond.
Luke Pollard
And humanitarian support. In August, the Government announced that the UK and its allies would begin to establish a plan of action to support Ukraine into 2023, but we still have not seen one. Will the Minister say where it is and why there is a delay in producing the plan? We are running out of 2022—will the report and strategy be ready by the end of the year? What state is it in now, and is it a costed plan or just a set of ambitions? We ask those questions not to put the Minister on the hook or in a bad place but to press him, because we want to see the support gotten right, and scrutiny and clarity for the United Kingdom will help our allies to ensure that they are equally as robust in supporting Ukraine.
Even before the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Labour had been making the case for an updated integrated review. The Defence Secretary previously argued against that, but now argues for it, which is a welcome U-turn from the Government. I know that the Minister has had a similar change of heart, and that is also welcome. However, the Government have given little signal as to what will be in the integrated review refresh and how it will be updated. I would be grateful if the Minister also set out what he believes needs to be updated in the integrated review. Does the review have clear terms of reference that can be scrutinised? Will he tell us which cuts to the armed forces he now wants to reverse and whether further Army cuts will be halted?
At the last Defence questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) asked a fair question about why the Government are pressing ahead with cuts to our armed forces before the integrated review reports. What happens if the integrated review says that we should have kept the capabilities and equipment that the Ministry of Defence is scrambling to scrap now?
It is no secret that next-generation light anti-tank weapons have been vital to the defence of Ukraine, but the Secretary of State has yet to adequately explain whether a new contract to replenish UK NLAW stockpiles has been signed, and with whom. NLAW production will require old production lines to be rebuilt and restarted. If an order was placed today, how long would it be before a new NLAW rolled off the production line? Would it really be two years away? If that is true, that delay is dangerous and one that the UK can ill afford.
I turn to a technical but serious area that has not been addressed: dual-use technology, which is civilian technology that can have a military application. Last month, the United States imposed a set of new sanctions on Russia targeting a network accused of procuring military and dual-use technologies from US manufacturers and illegally supplying them to the Russian war machine. The Royal United Services Institute, the UK defence think-tank, confirmed in August that UK components are appearing in Russian weaponry. That can include oscillators and standard crystals. No UK-produced equipment should end up in the hands of Putin and his generals, but it is especially difficult to be sure of that when it comes to dual-use equipment. The House has already passed sanctions on such equipment, but the concern is that western electronics and technologies are still reaching Russian weapon manufacturers. That will be concerning to colleagues, so we need clarity that British firms are not, in good faith, making materials or contributing to the supply chain of western manufacturers whose end products could end up killing Ukrainian civilians.
What steps are the Government taking to identify dual-use technologies that could be used by Putin? What steps is the Minister taking to stop those technologies from getting into the hands of Russia or its agents? Does he feel that the current dual-use technology sanctions are sufficient? What steps can he take, working with our allies, to monitor and shut off possible purchasing routes for Russia of western dual-use equipment like gyroscopes, wi-fi technology, ceramic chips, resistors and semiconductors? This is a complex area, and I realise that I have put the Minister on the spot, with his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), replying to the debate, so if he cannot set that out, I would be grateful if he put a letter in the House of Commons Library. It is a difficult area but one that we must ensure that we are getting right.
Since the war began, Russian troops have been committing atrocities against Ukrainian civilians. Just as in Bucha, Izium and Mariupol, there is now evidence of Russian war crimes in the Kherson region. We will not know for some time how many civilians the Russians have butchered, but we must be unrelenting in our pursuit of those war criminals until each and every one of them has stood trial for their crimes.
As Ukrainians face the arrival of winter, it is becoming increasingly clear that Putin’s strategy is to target civilian infrastructure, including energy and water plants. The Minister set out some support that the UK Government are providing, but what additional missile defence is the UK providing to its allies to protect Ukrainian infrastructure from missile attacks by Russia? What plans does he have to deal with the potential for an additional flow of cold and hungry refugees this winter? The effect of Russian bombardment of civilian infrastructure is already degrading Ukraine’s ability to provide clean water and power to all of its population, and that will drive a further humanitarian crisis.
I turn to how we can afford the defence of the UK and our allies in Ukraine. The Government’s disastrous mini-Budget cost £30 billion—the equivalent of 60% of the UK’s current defence budget, which could have been better spent on hospitals, teachers and the cost of living crisis. That sheer amount of money—abused by the Government—is the cost of 23 brand-new Type 26 frigates. The MOD is the only Government Department in the current spending round with a real-terms revenue cut each year. New figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that, adjusted for inflation, that is a £2.7 billion real-terms cut to defence spending. At the Defence Committee, the Secretary of State for Defence said that with additional defence inflation, he has £8 billion of additional costs on his budget. If we are to continue to provide support to Ukraine and ensure that we can afford an enhanced forward presence for our NATO allies and our other NATO commitments, we need certainty that funding will be available as required for our armed forces.
I have been re-reading the rather good “Shifting the goalposts?” Defence Committee report, which shows that Labour Governments have always spent more on our nation’s defence than Conservative Governments. Does the commitment to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 still exist? Can the Minister see a point where Government defence spending will fall below the NATO 2% of GDP target? Given the Minister’s and Secretary of State’s previous comments on defence spending, can the Minister say whether he and the Secretary of State will still be in their places if Defence funding is cut in the Chancellor’s autumn statement on Thursday?
Catherine McKinnell
On defence spending—I do not believe that this has yet come up in the debate—Putin is clearly using propaganda as a serious weapon in this battle, and it is one that we all have an interest in countering. It would be helpful if the Minister, in summing up, could give some reassurance that the UK is committed to the counter-disinformation unit and working in collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that we play our part so that this propaganda does not win in Ukraine or elsewhere?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right. Putin has invested heavily in disinformation technologies and resources to spread misinformation and disinformation in social media news feeds right across the world, including here in the United Kingdom. That investment was not made on a whim. It was made against a clear strategy, with the wish being to divide, split and misinform western populations and use our democracy against us. To protect our democracy and our allies, we must be absolutely determined to tackle disinformation, misinformation and those dark cyber-activities online. We are talking about not just state-sponsored hacking and cyber-attacks—that is one end of the spectrum—but all our constituents seeing things on their Facebook news feeds that are deliberately deployed and shared to try to split and degrade public opinion and create the impression that the United Kingdom’s support for our friends in Ukraine is somehow coming from a dark place, when it is not. That means further action to strengthen our work on social media. It means looking at where Russia is investing in disinformation and how we can strengthen our civil society against that in future. I hope the Minister and his colleagues, for instance those looking after the Online Safety Bill, will take that seriously, too. It is not just military grade activity we need to look at; it is everything through to how each of us uses our social media.
To conclude, let there be no doubt that Labour Members share the Government’s resolve to support Ukraine for as long as is necessary to defeat Putin. As the Ukrainian countryside turns to mud and then freezes over, we are about to enter an incredibly difficult winter, as military doctrine normally suggests, with frontlines frozen and civilian populations suffering further. The Ukrainians are showing incredible resolve in standing up to Russia, but they cannot do it without continued western support. How we use the winter months to prepare for the expected spring offensives—ensuring our supply lines, commitment, resolve and technologies are available to our friends in Ukraine—will be crucial in keeping the pressure firmly on the Kremlin and ensuring that Ukraine wins.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine has led many NATO members to reboot their defence plans. The Defence Secretary now agrees with Labour that the integrated review needs updating. Would it not be absurd to cut the Army any further when Ukraine and our NATO allies are facing such clear and rising hostility? Can the Minister tell us which cuts he wants to reverse? Can he tell us whether further Army cuts will finally be halted, as Labour has consistently argued for?
James Heappey
The integrated review is indeed being refreshed—quite rightly, because in the past nine months we have seen war in Europe and growing belligerence by China in the far east. Exactly what the shape of our nation’s armed forces must look like must be a consequence of those new threats. I am not going to rule anything in or out at the Dispatch Box today, because we need to look at what those competitions with Russia in the immediate term and China in the longer term look like, and what our armed forces therefore need to look like.
Royal Navy: Conduct towards Women
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Minister to his position. Those who serve in our armed forces should expect the highest standards of professionalism and personal conduct, which must be supported and reinforced by the Government. As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I know that the Submarine Service is on the frontline of our national defence. Every submariner must be confident that the people they serve alongside in the Royal Navy have their back. These claims of abuse are extremely serious and must be thoroughly investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable.
These reports lift the lid on a culture of abuse and cover-up in our armed forces. In far too many cases, victims are unable to raise their experiences within the chain of command. Women account for 11% of our forces personnel but, between 2019 and last year, 81% of victims of sexual assault in the military were women, and almost half of them were at the start of their military career. Behind these statistics are hundreds of women who have been let down. This cannot be allowed to continue. Victims of sexual abuse serving in our armed forces must have confidence in the processes that allow them to report their experiences, and they must know that robust action will be taken.
I suggest that the Minister reads the Defence Committee’s report before coming back to the House to tell us how he will implement all of it. Will he make the investigation he has just announced a public investigation so we can see what action is needed? Can he explain why the Government continue to resist Labour’s proposal that the most serious cases, including murder, manslaughter and rape, should be tried in civilian courts instead of military courts? What progress has been made on the RAF’s review of allegations of sexual assault, which was announced in August? Will those findings be made public?
Our armed forces are the very best in the world, and they deserve the very best, too. The Government must step up and protect those who protect us.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. I agree with him about external scrutiny. That is why the investigation that has been set up, which will report soon, to which I referred, will include an individual from outside Defence, who is currently being selected for his or her independence, probity and integrity, who will be alongside that investigation. I do not know where this is going to go. I suspect it is going to be complicated and may take a while. I want it to report quickly, but I do not want to put a time limit on it necessarily.
However, it is going to report “soon”—that wonderful, plastic term. It will have within it an independent individual —the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a divergence from the norm—because I am absolutely clear that there needs to be oversight of this that is outside the process. He will know full well that these investigations are conducted properly always—I have been involved with a number myself—but there has to be the appearance also of their being transparent. I hope that that will give him some reassurance.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Henriques report, most of which of course was accepted. He may also be aware of the joint protocol that will be drawn up for the very serious offences that he cites between the civilian and the service prosecuting authorities. I hope that that goes some way to addressing that outstanding concern that I know he has.
A parallel strand of work is being set up by the commander of the submarine flotilla to look into conduct and culture. That will be headed by Colonel Tony de Reya from the Royal Marines. That will report, I hope, by the end of the year. It is separate from the investigation on the specific that I have cited in my opening remarks, but, obviously, it will touch on much of the same material. I look forward to returning to the House to discuss that once Ministers have had a chance to examine its findings and conclusions.
Draft Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022
Draft Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see you in your place, Ms Bardell.
I welcome the Minister to her first statutory instrument Committee on the Front Bench. I hope that the Prime Minister was listening to her speech because, having sat through an enormous number of statutory instrument Committees since I was elected in 2017, it is good to hear a Minister on top of their brief and able to speak beyond the words given to them by officials. That is welcome, and I hope that the Minister stays in her place if any reshuffle comes her way. At a time of such severe international difficulties, we need good people who know our military and can make good decisions.
Labour will oppose neither of the draft statutory instruments. They both move in the right direction. However, I have a few questions and a few points to make. A number of Opposition colleagues have participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as I know have Government Members, which gives parliamentarians an opportunity to look at service life. Indeed, I have just returned from Estonia, where I saw the amazing work of the King’s Royal Hussars and 2 Rifles in defending our allies there. We need to make sure that the systems put in place are suitable for not only service personnel but, importantly, their families. I know that the Minister has an interest in defence families, which is a fresh injection into the way the Ministry of Defence works, and I wish her the best of luck with that. I will ask a few questions about defence families, but I encourage the Minister and all parliamentarians to fully participate in that scheme if possible.
The AFPS could benefit from a slight tweak. At the moment, the three basic courses do not include a module on defence justice. Given the important role that defence justice plays for our service personnel and the confidence that we must have in defence justice, the ability for parliamentarians to have a passing understanding of how the defence justice system differs from the civilian system and why there is a difference would not only aid Committees such as this in scrutinising legislation, but would help us to understand daily service life.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thought the hon. Member was going to add the experience of women. Although the Minister has done a huge amount of work on the issue, that would be another useful addition to the parliamentary scheme, so that parliamentarians could sit down and hear, behind closed doors, the true lived experience of women in the armed forces.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree. It is quite refreshing to see the freedom that service personnel have to speak to parliamentarians on visits, and experiences of sexual violence within the forces, which the Minister will know about from her time on the Defence Committee, are very relevant to what we are discussing today.
I will first talk about the covenant regulations and then move on to service justice. We need to recognise that it is not just our service personnel, their families and people who have served in the past who need to have a robust armed forces covenant that is as effective as possible. Across the country, there are some locations—Plymouth is one—that do the armed forces covenant very well. There are other locations where the armed forces covenant sits gathering dust on a shelf, and the ability to make sure it is truly implemented and lived is a challenge that still has not been fully met.
I would like the Minister to consider important ways in which the covenant could be strengthened. One of those is the extension of the covenant beyond education, healthcare and housing to include other areas of central Government activity—employment, social care, pensions, compensation and benefits, to name but a few. Our service personnel, veterans and their families should not incur unfair disadvantage in any walk of life, and the importance of the armed forces covenant as a principle needs to be extended to all public bodies.
There is a second area where this SI could seek to go a little further. Despite the Minister mentioning the 2023 review of the covenant, there are still no plans for the covenant to apply to central Government, including the Ministry of Defence itself. It is worth taking a moment to consider that omission. If the armed forces covenant is to be real, and if service personnel, their families and veterans are to have confidence in it, the Ministry of Defence must lead by example. I would like to see Ministers, including the Minister here today, put more effort into making sure that happens.
A whole host of service charities, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and the Confederation of Service Charities, have expressed concern that central Government do not have a duty under the covenant. In terms of the duties under the covenant, it is fine for this place to put additional responsibilities on local government—which has a lot of responsibilities already, but not the resources to go with them—but the Government need to walk the walk if they are to talk the talk, and that means applying these duties to central Government as well. This is not a small point. National Government oversee many policy areas that service personnel experience difficulties with, so they should have clear, measurable duties under the covenant to deliver for personnel, their families and veterans.
Satisfaction with service life has dropped below 50%, according to the Government’s own figures, which should worry Members on both sides of the House. I seek not to make a party political point; we need to make sure that we increase morale among our armed forces personnel if we are to retain their skills and experience, and honour our obligations as, in effect, employers. There are still clear failings when it comes to housing, healthcare, social care and other issues.
As we approach Remembrance week, attention will naturally turn to how the covenant is implemented, and rightly so. As parliamentarians, we should not only ask questions publicly, but challenge constructively in private and ask when it will apply and whether the 2023 review of the covenant will include consideration of its greater applicability to central Government. I am afraid 2023 is already too late.
Let me turn to the draft Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022. The Minister will know, because she and I have spoken about this many times, that the Labour party stands four-square with our armed forces and backs the Government’s effort in Ukraine to support our NATO allies, but we do need to make sure that we get all aspects of service life right. Although the rules are a step in the right direction, I have some questions about how we can make sure that they are delivered appropriately.
It is entirely sensible to introduce the overriding objective that the Minister has set out for courts martial and to give the Director of Service Prosecutions responsibility for warning prosecution witnesses of trial dates. Those were pragmatic recommendations from the Lyons review, which we welcome.
Likewise, it is welcome that the statutory instrument will ensure that there is at least one woman on the board of each court martial in circumstances where there are lay members on the court. A normal board will have between three and seven people, so it is a step in the right direction to have one woman there, but I would like to have a greater sense that we are moving towards balance. We need to see more women in our armed forces full stop, but the explanatory memorandum could have shown a greater sense of the direction of travel that Ministers wish to take. I would be uncomfortable with the idea that it is good enough that there is a woman on the board and that some additional women may, although not necessarily, be provided by the shuffle that the Minister explained. We need a sense of the direction of travel.
I encourage the Minister, in the implementation of the SI, to look at how the language can be tweaked to make sure we have greater representation, which is particularly important when the board considers cases that include servicewomen or situations in which a servicewoman has been affected as a victim. The lived experience of the people who are judging someone and making decisions on their career and on prosecution should have an element of familiarity with the experiences of either the person on trial or the witnesses and victims.
Some Government statements on upholding military justice are still more rhetoric than reality. I wish to put on the record the Government’s rejection of the headline recommendation of the Lyons review that murder, manslaughter and rape should be prosecuted in civilian rather than military courts when the offences are committed in the UK, with the Attorney General able to rule otherwise in exceptional cases.
It is a shame that the Government have chosen not to adopt fully the proposal—the headline recommendation—but it is more than disappointing, because the Minister may not have listened to her own recommendations. I do not wish to embarrass her, but last year she co-authored a Defence Committee report on women in the armed forces that argued that the Government should remove court martial jurisdiction over cases of rape and cases of sexual assault with penetration, as well as for cases of domestic violence and child abuse. I know the Minister has been in post for only a short time, but I encourage her to continue to provide challenge within the Ministry of Defence in respect of why the full recommendation was not included in the statutory instruments before us and on how quickly the change will come. Will she set out whether any work on that is in train in the Ministry of Defence?
There is a litany of reasons why this issue is important, including serious backlogs, investigators missing obvious lines of inquiry and the unnecessary retraumatisation of victims. Let me give the Committee two examples taken from the written evidence submitted by the Centre for Military Justice to the Defence Committee inquiry on women in the armed forces. In one case in which a servicewoman reported an alleged sexual assault, the Service Prosecuting Authority accidentally revealed the victim’s home address to the alleged assailant by sending to the alleged perpetrator a letter intended for the victim. That is clearly unacceptable. In another case, where a servicewoman reported sexual assault, court martial transcripts show that a judge advocate remarked of the
“quite appallingly bad police investigation…how stupid was it not to interview the people who were at the scene”.
There is still work to be done, and I encourage the Minister to look at whether that recommendation can be brought back.
It is unsurprising that the recent service justice system policing review said:
“The Service Police do not investigate enough serious crime to be considered proficient”.
That makes a clear distinction between service policing and the civilian role. We must understand the particular demands, stresses and secrecy that may apply in a military environment, and have examples of where that should not apply and where the expertise and familiarity of civilian policing could produce better results for victims and greater confidence in the justice system. The numbers speak for themselves. Ministry of Defence figures show that from 2015 to 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%. Recent data shows that the conviction rate was 59% for similar cases that reached a civilian court. We know that prosecution rates for rape are far too low in civilian courts, but that comparison shows a problem.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered a number of questions. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent made a point about the explanatory memorandum. I am afraid that if the Minister is to serve on Delegated Legislation Committees with me, she will need to know that I, too, read the explanatory memorandums quite closely. I am interested in why the territorial extent of the regulations includes United Kingdom overseas territories but not Gibraltar. Considering the large UK military presence in Gibraltar, why is that particular overseas territory excluded from the regulations? Are the provisions replicated elsewhere, or is a separate statutory instrument needed to deal with Gibraltar’s specific legal jurisdiction?
I am not a fan in impact assessments of the phrase
“no, or no significant, impact”
because I believe that those are two very different things. I know that it is not the Minister’s fault, and that officials who write such explanatory memorandums must use the house style, but there is a difference between no impact and no significant impact. When looking at the impact of any SI, it is unhelpful to have those blurred together.
My final question is about the quite helpful expansion of what a “family member” means in the SI. As someone who believes that families should be at the heart of our community but that we should not specify what a family is because each of our families is different and each is loved by the people within them, I was interested to see how the Government have laid out what a family is and what a relation is. When a service person has a foster child, or when there is one in a defence family, I think that would be included within the broader remit, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed it for the record.
May I politely challenge the use of the language
“of the full blood or of the half blood or by marriage”
in the Bill? There is language that, as parliamentarians, we should encourage movement away from. When we talk about the “full blood” or the “half blood”, it suggests that some children have a legitimacy that is different from that of adopted children, for instance. I encourage the Minister to look at whether in future SIs that type of language can be retired.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am pleased that the hon. Member has raised the issue of family make-up, especially when fostering is involved, as well as adoption. Of course, there is also special guardianship. That is another area that we need some clarity on, to ensure that it is not missed out in the definition.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention. We want the rules around service life to better reflect the way the world is. Having come from a service family myself—my old man was a Royal Navy officer—I recognise that the family that I grew up in was very different from the families that were on the marry estate on either side of us. The regulations must adopt the full range. That speaks to the need for us to develop a better understanding of what defence families are like. Parliamentarians and the Ministry of Defence have a good understanding of service personnel and an increasing understanding of veterans, though there is more work to be done there, but defence families are often a bit of an afterthought.
I mean that in a constructive way, to encourage the Minister to challenge the Ministry of Defence further about whether that language could be updated—even if it is strictly defined by primary legislation elsewhere—and replaced with more inclusive language that reflects how service families are structured in real life. I know that she feels passionately about this and takes such concerns seriously.
I wish the Minister the best of luck in her role. We need people with experience and expertise in the Ministry of Defence at this difficult time, and I hope that she stays there for quite some time to come—until she is replaced by a Labour Member in due course.
Sarah Atherton
I will get back on track, Ms Bardell, and return to the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I would like to see more women on the court martial, but we have only 12% women at the moment. There is a raft of measures that have gone in to try and help recruitment and retention of women in the armed forces, not only with regard to what I have said about when things go wrong but with terms and conditions for uniform and body armour. The culture issue will be addressed, but it will take time. We will see more women in the military—I am confident of that—and as a consequence we will see more women in the court martial system.
Luke Pollard
Is it possible for the Minister to publish the data, on an annual basis, of how many men versus women are on the boards? It would be useful to be able to see the change. The stats that the Minister gave earlier were useful, but seeing the direction of travel on an annual basis as part of normal MOD reporting could be helpful. Is that something she would consider?
Sarah Atherton
Yes. One thing I did not mention is that the intention is to review this after a year to look at its success, and to ensure that women are on the boards. If there are operational requirements as to why someone has to be withdrawn, that is something we need to keep an eye on. I will write to the hon. Member to see if we can do it on an annual basis, rather than just at the 12-month mark; hopefully we will see more women on the court martial board.
Duty of due regard will be reviewed. It is a starting block; when it was introduced, it was always a starting block. It will be reviewed with regard to the devolved administration involvement and the central Government. If the requirement is there to include these statutory agencies and if there is a requirement to extend the scope to other fields outside health education, we will do so, but we need evidence to say that that is necessary first.
Let me turn to Gibraltar. The Gibraltarian regiment is a civilian-raised regiment, and does not come under the definition of the UK regular forces. It falls outside the Armed Forces Act, but if it wants to be included it can write to the MOD and request that; that is not a problem.
Luke Pollard
May I press the Minister on that point? She is right about the Gibraltar regiment, but for non-Gibraltar regiment personnel stationed in Gibraltar—there are UK service personnel outwith that regiment—this legislation, according to the territorial extent, would not apply. Is that her understanding? That regiment and the additional personnel we have there seem to be dealt with differently.
Sarah Atherton
That is a fair point. I will get back to the hon. Member on that.
Families extend to foster children and special guardianships. I reiterate that the definition of an extended family goes outside the scope of the Armed Forces Act, because we recognise that it needs to be more encompassing. Again, we will keep an eye on that.
In response to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, LGBT is not quite in scope, but I will say quickly that Lord Etherton is undertaking a review. We need to right some wrongs, and I will look into that. Murder, manslaughter and rape have been mentioned— again, slightly outwith. The independent pay review body will report in spring, but at the moment the armed forces have the highest salaries they have had in 20 years. A cost of living package is in place to support them going forward. I am conscious that we will also be looking at our BAME community. I will work with representatives to ensure that they are not outside what we are focusing on, and that they are included in how we go forward with the transformation and modernisation of the military.
The hon. Lady also mentioned children going into schools. Children already receive a service pupil premium, but some work is going on as to how beneficial that is and whether we can do more to help service families as they move around the country and abroad. The Army Foundation College Harrogate is an exceptional college, taking in a lot of young people from all sorts of diverse backgrounds and educating them to a higher level than when they joined. It also educates them in future military life. There have been some issues—it would be wrong to say that there had not been—and I will look into them. I think that is everything.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022.
DRAFT ARMED FORCES (SERVICE COURT RULES) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) RULES 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022.—(Sarah Atherton.)
Ukraine Update
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. At a time of much Government chaos, I also thank him for his calmness and professionalism in the job.
The incident with the RAF Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft that the Defence Secretary described is serious. He outlines that the correct steps have been taken, the malfunction has been confirmed and the incident has now been resolved. It is welcome that RAF flights have restarted and that there has been a clear recognition from Russia that the aircraft was flying in international airspace. The RAF has this House’s full support; we are grateful to it, to other UK forces and to our NATO allies for their work protecting the alliance and protecting freedom. The incident is a serious reminder of the importance of avoiding escalation and miscalculation while continuing with the UK’s united support for Ukraine.
Almost eight months on from Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine, I pay tribute to the remarkable and continuing Ukrainian resolve in the face of Russian aggression. Putin has made a huge strategic miscalculation in invading Ukraine, which has resulted in Russian forces suffering heavy losses: the MOD estimates 25,000 Russian dead, tens of thousands injured, tens of thousands who have deserted and more than 4,000 armoured and protected vehicles destroyed.
At a time when Ukrainians have shown incredible resilience in defending their homeland, Britain must honour their bravery by remaining unwavering in our support for Ukraine. I am grateful that the Defence Secretary has set out the UK’s continued support under Operation Interflex for training Ukrainian forces; we thank UK members of the armed forces for their work. I would also be grateful if he confirmed when the promised action plan for continuing UK support for Ukraine will be published, outlining the type and quantity of military, economic and diplomatic support that Ukraine will receive. Putin needs to be in no doubt that our resolve will continue; whether the Defence Secretary’s party or mine is in charge, that will not change.
I think it is time the Defence Secretary made a statement about the planned drawback of troops from Estonia and about how that decision can be properly scrutinised. I would also be grateful if he set out whether orders have been placed for the replacement next-generation light anti-tank weapon missiles and when our stockpiles will be replenished.
There has been a concerning increase in Iranian drone activity. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State set out what additional support can be provided by the UK and our allies to ensure that the Shahed 136 and Mohajer 6 drones from Iran can be properly intercepted and defeated to protect Ukrainian infrastructure.
In his speech last night, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, threw into doubt the planned rise in defence spending to 3% of GDP, referring to it as a “potential increase”. I would be grateful if the Defence Secretary spelled out the Government’s position on defence spending and whether the increase is confirmed or—as Admiral Sir Tony Radakin says—only potential.
The Opposition’s support for Ukraine is unwavering. The Defence Secretary knows that he has Labour’s full support in the provision of military aid to our friends in Ukraine. Putin must fail in his aggression. As we enter an incredibly difficult period of the war, with cold weather drawing in, we must make sure that we support not only our friends fighting in Ukraine, but those civilians who are there fighting on its behalf. I would be grateful if the Defence Secretary set out what support the UK can offer to civilian infrastructure. The protection of energy sources is particularly important, not only for Ukrainian industry but for the Ukrainian people.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. To assure the House, I did not choose to make my statement when my counterpart on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was not here; I spoke to him at length yesterday. I also assure the House that although there are some things that are of the highest sensitivity and cannot be said in public or in this House, I continue to engage with the party leaders on the most sensitive areas to ensure that they are fully apprised throughout this process.
Calibration is incredibly important to me. We are dealing with a President and with Russian forces who, as we have seen from the Rivet Joint incident, are not beyond making the wrong calculation or deciding that the rules do not apply to them. That is why I ask those constituents who are fearful that this report could lead somewhere to have faith that all of us in this Chamber are working on a detailed response to ensure that we walk what is sometimes a tightrope.
On Rivet Joint, as I said, we have made sure that the flight path is pre-declared, so that it is no surprise to the Russians and is logged in the normal manner. Indeed, I informed the Russians that they would be escorted, so there were no surprises.
The shadow Minister asked about the action plan; I think he was referring to the broader Government action plan, including foreign aid and support. I concur that the foreign aid package and helping Ukraine’s economy to survive, stand on its feet and go from strength to strength are as important as an effective military response. I will press my colleagues in other Departments to ensure that we get the shadow Minister details of the time and date, but it is a fundamental plank for Ukraine. Some of what I discussed when I was in the United States was in that area.
On the second battlegroup deployed in Estonia, hon. Members will remember that after the invasion a number of countries deployed what we called enhanced forward presence groups in Bulgaria, in Romania and around Europe. There was some talk about deployment in Hungary, but that did not materialise. Germany stepped up in Lithuania, and so did we in Estonia. The second battlegroup was always going to come back; our fixed position in Estonia is effectively a battlegroup that we vary in size and capability. To recognise the changed threat, we will keep our guided multiple launch rocket system, our longer-range deep fires and indeed our air defence capabilities, which are not always an accompaniment to that battlegroup. We have effectively beefed up the existing battlegroup, but we need to bring back the next battlegroup, which has been extended for another six months. I thank the men and women of the armed forces whose time out there has been extended. That battle- group will come back.
We should not forget that we also have a squadron of tanks in Poland, more forces, a company—a sort of small battlegroup—in Bulgaria, part of a US strike brigade, and we are now exploring having more Royal Engineers in Poland to assist with training Ukrainians and with things like combat engineers. That is why the battlegroup came back. I engage with my Estonian counterparts, whom I met only last week; indeed, I met them the week before in Poland to talk them through this, and they were given prior notification. We are very keen to continue to work strongly with them.
We have given an extra commitment on Estonia to have a brigade headquarters and a brigadier. In the same way, the German plan in Lithuania is to allocate a brigade for fast response to deploy, and that is one of the ways we seek to go. We are also helping Estonia to develop its own divisional headquarters, hand in hand, but we always keep things under review. We are all waiting for the NATO regional plans that will set out in detail how our forces should be deployed across Europe as part of a bigger comprehensive plan. It is really important for us all to be guided by that.
The Ukrainians are having success in shooting down a number of the Iranian drones, but it is a question of sheer scale. Members will not have missed the similarity with V1 rockets. I urge the Iranian Government to understand that supplying Russia so that it can indiscriminately kill civilians, including women, children and babies in prams, is surely not an activity with which Iran wants to be associated. I urge them to desist as soon as possible. We are not at all convinced by the Iranian Government’s denials that they are not supplying the drones.
We will use some of the funding that I have mentioned to invest in other novel capabilities that we can find to deploy. In the meantime, we are continuing, and will step up, our supply of low-velocity missiles to Ukraine to work with the Stormer system and ensure that we can help with detection or electronic warfare schemes. Obviously the Ukrainian conflict has flushed out counter-drone technologies that we all need. Members will recall the Gatwick airport scenario. Everyone came up with magic solutions, but, if memory serves, when we tested them almost none of them did what it said on the tin. However, we are helping rapidly, and the best of innovation is being used to help the Ukrainians.
When I was in Washington, it was made very clear from No. 10 that the commitment on 3% of GDP by 2030 would stand. I should be interested to know whether the Labour party will match that important commitment. If Labour Members are getting ready for government, as they seem to think they are, these are the questions that they will need to answer for the British public and the British armed forces as they lay out their timetable and their plan. They will have at least two years in which to do it, so I am not too worried—[Interruption.] It is when I am guessing the election will be, but that is definitely above my pay grade.
As for how we can get the Ukrainians through the winter, we are all working internationally to see what we can do. The European Union has announced a fund, and we will ensure that we do what we can to help Ukraine with critical infrastructure and energy.
Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. I reiterate what I said at the start: President Putin’s comments are irresponsible. No other country is talking about nuclear use, and we do not see this as a nuclear crisis. President Putin should be clear that, for the UK and our allies, any use of nuclear weapons at all would break the taboo on nuclear use that has held since 1945 and lead to severe consequences for Russia.
President Putin has launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. His forces continue to commit senseless atrocities. The people of Ukraine seek only to restore their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to support Ukraine’s right to defend.
My right hon. Friend speaks of tactical nuclear missiles, but nuclear is nuclear. I reiterate what the Secretary-General of NATO said:
“President Putin’s nuclear rhetoric is dangerous. It is reckless. NATO is of course vigilant. We monitor closely what Russia does. Russia must understand that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. And it will have severe consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons. And this has been very clearly conveyed to Russia. So we will continue to support Ukraine. And we will continue to support them in their efforts to liberate even more territory, because they have the right to do so.”
It is not and never has been tactically smart to outline exactly what the response would be to any potential situation. We will continue on the lines that this Government and, indeed, the Secretary-General have outlined.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Minister to his place. It is because Ukraine is winning that Putin’s behaviour is becoming so volatile. The sham referenda, the irresponsible nuclear sabre-rattling, the missile attacks on civilians—these are the hallmarks of a tyrant on the ropes and a tyrant who is losing.
Labour stands with our friends in Ukraine. With our unshakeable commitment to NATO, the Minister knows that he has our full support for the actions the Government are taking to help Ukraine win. Yesterday’s missile attacks on civilians are a significant escalation. The NATO Secretary-General was right to describe the attacks as “horrific and indiscriminate”.
Ministers have Labour’s full support in countering Putin’s aggression. In that spirit, I ask the Minister when he will set out a long-term strategy of support for Ukraine, so that we can make sure that Putin’s war ends in failure. Can he confirm that the NLAW—next generation light anti-tank weapon—replacement orders have finally been placed? When does he expect to replenish our depleted weapons stockpiles? What assessment has he made of the worrying statements by Lukashenko and the continued presence of Russian troops and armour in Belarus?
I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the concerning media reports of the withdrawal of almost 700 British troops currently deployed to our NATO ally Estonia, without any planned replacement. That risks sending the wrong message at the wrong time, and it has worried our international allies. We cannot walk away until the job is done. With that in mind, will he reassure the House that he will not withdraw any further UK troops from our allies, and that the UK will meet our NATO commitments?
Finally, as more bodies are unearthed at the sites of war crimes, we remember them and we remember those killed yesterday in Putin’s criminal missile strikes. Does the Minister agree that the best justice for those killed is victory for Ukraine, a free and sovereign nation, and war crime tribunals for those responsible?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and I look forward to working across the Dispatch Boxes on these vital issues.
On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the horrific war crimes we have seen unfold every time there is a Russian retreat, I think that every decent human being is appalled. I am proud that the UK Government are funding the International Criminal Court, and we will do everything we can to support Ukraine in bringing the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to justice.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I come back to him with a written answer on the postures from Lukashenko.
On Estonia, the overall capability of our commitment there is far more important than the number of troops alone. We have committed to strengthening that capability over the forthcoming years. I was in Estonia, and indeed Latvia and Lithuania, in my previous role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have seen at first hand the work that takes place there. All our NATO allies can be reassured that we are committed to making sure that the NATO frontline is secure. We work with colleagues and there will be variation in how that is done.
With regard to support, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has set up the international support fund. This country contributed £250 million to that, and I believe the total figure is now above €400 million. That is in place to help support Ukraine as this war moves forward and the conflict carries on, so that it can use that money not only in the conflict but to rebuild and, of course, ensure it has the ammunition supplies and things it needs.
With regard to NLAW and our weapons supply, we are working with industrial supply chains and are confident that we will have the ability to defend ourselves and to give support, but we do not comment on operational capability beyond that.
Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by welcoming the wonderful news of the release of British prisoners of war overnight. It is welcome that they are returning home, but we recognise the pain and hurt of all the families involved, because not everyone is returning safely.
I also welcome the Minister’s new job in the Cabinet. Before the last reshuffle, the shadow Front Bench team said to the Front Bench team that we were hoping that he and the Defence Secretary would stay in their positions, and they have. I also welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), to her place.
Seven months on from Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine, we have reached a new and critical phase of the ongoing conflict. We should all be inspired by the remarkable resilience of the people of Ukraine, who have refused to bow to Russia’s oppression. I recognise the extraordinary Ukrainian counter-offensives that have taken place in recent weeks, which the Minister set out in such detail.
Our argument has never been with the Russian people but with the dictator in the Kremlin. Overnight, we have seen brave Russian civilians stand up to the authoritarian state that curbs their freedom, restricts their voice and keeps the people in poverty while the oligarchs count their yachts and villas. Today, possibly thousands of Russian civilians are in jail, arrested simply for exercising their human right to protest. As we have stood with the Ukrainian people against aggression, I make special mention in the House of the courage of those protesters.
The horrors of war that we have seen in the newly liberated areas remind us of the atrocities and the pain that many Ukrainians have suffered in the past weeks. I join the Minister in setting out a clear determination that those responsible must be prosecuted and brought to justice for the hideous war crimes that we are seeing unfolding.
Dr Murrison
It is welcome news that a load of generals and colonels have been sanctioned and placed in The Hague’s waiting room, as it were, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to go much further down the food chain than that? Each and every one of the individuals involved in those atrocities needs to have their card marked. They have dishonoured the profession of bearing arms and need to be dealt with sooner or later.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Anyone who perpetrates war crimes against civilians must know that, in the 21st century, they will be prosecuted and followed in the pursuit of justice from the day they commit that atrocity to the day they die. We must not leave any space, justification or excuse for war crimes— at all, anywhere, ever. That is a message that will be sent from hon. Members on both sides of the House to those people, regardless of rank, who have persecuted civilians and committed war crimes against them.
Alicia Kearns
One of my grave concerns is the prosecution of sexual violence in conflict. The issue is that, often, we cannot get the evidence, because by the time the prosecution has come—once the shame has been allowed to pass and there has been discussion—it is too late to collect that evidence. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on a special tribunal formed to collect evidence and prosecute sexual crimes to ensure that, in all conflicts, evidence is collected at the start to ensure prosecutions at a later stage.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention. The shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I were in Kosovo only a few months ago, where we witnessed the effects of the horrible sexual violence that was used as a weapon of war. The determination of the international community then was that it would never be repeated, but it has been in conflicts ever since. We need to make sure that not only is the evidence collected, but the victims are given the support that they will need, in many cases, for the rest of their lives. As we made it clear that killing civilians will not be countenanced, so we make it clear that using rape and sexual assault as a weapon of war will not be countenanced. We will come after those people as well.
Bob Seely
In the Syrian war, the Russians and their Syrian allies targeted hospitals as primary targets. Does the hon. Member agree it is regrettable that at the time we did not say and do more and that the international community did not say and do more to hold responsible those senior army officers who were responsible for the deliberate targeting of hospitals, which is one of the most basic breaches of the Geneva conventions?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, and I do tend to agree with him. As a country, we need to take stock of the freedom that Putin has been given over many years—not just in Syria or parts of the countries bordering his country, but in Crimea—because the tactics the Russians are using in Ukraine now have been perfected over many years and the space the international community has given him to do that has encouraged the use of many of those tactics. We need to look carefully at how we stand up for such individuals in the future, but we will do that by standing firmly with the people of Ukraine at this time. I will make some progress before I give way again.
It is clear that Vladimir Putin is a bully. His partial mobilisation announcements along with his sham referendums to illegally annex large swathes of Ukraine are shameless. They are a cynical attempt to justify a war that has gone badly wrong for Russia. We should view partial mobilisation as weakness—an attempt to hide the fact that, so far, Russian strategy has failed, weapons have failed, command and control has failed, and none of Russia’s war objectives has been met. Putin’s latest miscalculation will lead to more Russian families losing their sons, more Ukrainians being killed and more suffering. The mobilised forces sent to Ukraine will be on the receiving end of high-end western weaponry, and a determined and morally just Ukrainian military defending every inch of its country. In these circumstances, with the poorly equipped Russian conscripts facing cold weather, it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing so many reports of desertion and troops being unwilling to fight. That means Putin will, I regret, resort to more and more fear to try to achieve his objectives.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I think the cross-party support we are hearing today for Ukraine and for the victims of murder and sexual violence sends a very powerful message. Does the hon. Member agree that the next challenge, even though it feels early to be thinking this yet, is to be preparing to win the peace? Quite often in the past, when we have left military successes—Iraq would be the outstanding example—we have not laid strong foundations to win the peace. Does he agree that we could use our soft power and places such as Wilton Park to hold conferences with the Ukrainians about what sort of democracy and peace we can help them create after this is all over.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him that our commitment to the people of Ukraine has to be long term—ensuring not only that they win and Putin fails, but that they can rebuild a nation that is proudly sovereign, proudly independent, safe and secure, and able to stand tall on the international stage, which is precisely what Vladimir Putin would fear the most. That is what our commitment must be, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that that commitment and determination is cross-party—from every single party in this place.
The actions and rhetoric we are seeing from Vladimir Putin are not new, sadly. I agree with the Minister when he says that Putin’s words on the use of nuclear weapons is sabre rattling, and it is a weakness of his argument that he is resorting to it. These are the actions of a desperate man clinging to power at the helm of a pariah state. His threats should not only be condemned by every party in our Parliament, as they are, but by every country—every peace-loving country—on this planet. His actions show how desperate he is, how weak he is and how much he has miscalculated, and those actions show that he must fail.
We must not downplay the seriousness of the situation. People at home and abroad, having heard those words, are understandably worried about the gravity of the threats that have been made by Russia. In this House, however, we must be careful not to fan the flames of Putin’s information war of fake news. I think I speak for everyone in this place when I say that now is not the time for the UK to weaken or dilute our resolve for Ukraine, but to remember that at heart Putin is a bully and the only way of standing up to a bully is by making sure that we do so firmly and determinedly, and that such a commitment is long lasting.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I completely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying about Ukraine now, but we could have been saying it back in 2014. One problem is that we did not take this issue seriously enough in 2014, because that emboldened Putin and now we see what we see. I worry that sometimes we focus exclusively on things that Putin says about nuclear weapons, and not enough on the warfare in which he has already engaged with this country through cyber, targeting many Members of the House and the political establishment. Do we need to do far more to ensure that we are protecting ourselves?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend. His has been a siren voice that has been warning this House and the public about Putin’s actions for a great many years, and we must ensure that those lessons are learned. Putin has been telling the international community what he wants to do for many years, and he has been engaging in economic warfare, cyber-warfare, disinformation and political interference for many years. We need to strengthen all our fronts if we are to deter that type of behaviour, not only from Russia but from other states that wish to do us harm in the future.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
To follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) was with me in Kosovo a couple of months ago where we heard about a Russian disinformation, misinformation, and hacking centre that employs thousands of personnel in Serbia. Do we also need to take this fight to third countries that are facilitating Russian misinformation, disinformation and hacking, including in Ukraine, the Balkans, the Baltic states and around the world?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right. The cyber-campaigns against the west and against freedom and democracy are not contained only to bot factories in St Petersburg; they are deliberately being deployed around the world through, in many cases attempts of deniable cyber-warfare. We know that is coming, and we must ensure that we strengthen our own defences—political, military, economic and cyber—against that. At this very moment there are probably enormous numbers of posts on social media feeds across Britain that are seeking to spread misinformation. We must be alive to the reasons why they are there, to why Russia is investing in that capability, to what effect they are seeking to create in our society, and we must counter that. That is a job not only for ourselves, but we must also support our allies in doing so.
We need a long-term joined-up strategy. We know that despite Putin’s strategic miscalculation, Russian aggression will continue. The Government have had Labour’s full backing to provide military support to Ukrainian troops, and they will continue to have that. We welcome the new Prime Minister’s confirmation that this year’s military funding for Ukraine will, as a minimum, be matched over the next year. However, we now need to set out a clear strategy for what military, economic and diplomatic support for Ukraine will be. In summer the Government said that they would set out a roadmap for that, and I would be grateful if, when he responds to the debate, the Minister said when he expects that to be published.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one important aspect of that is that a great many other eastern European countries and former Soviet states along the Russian border have been carefully watching what happens in Ukraine with some trepidation? It is as important to have a long-term strategy for Ukraine as it is to reassure those countries of NATO’s commitment to their future.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Lady. Our commitment to our allies in eastern Europe must be concrete and long-term, and we must also consider the tactics and strategies used by Russia in Ukraine to update how we plan to defend and deter any aggression. We have seen with the development of pinpoint accuracy artillery fire and loitering munitions that some of the tactics we once thought we would deploy may need to be updated to ensure that we can deter any threat and, if a threat moves to actual military conflict, that we can win in those circumstances. I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention.
The strategy that I hope the Minister will outline should set up long-term, politically broad support for Ukraine in the future, because only a long-term strategy will reassure the Ukrainians, and also the British people, that we will stand unwaveringly with their country. It will also send a clear, unmistakable message to the Kremlin that Britain will continue to stand with Ukraine and our NATO allies for as long as it takes to see off Russian aggression, not just in Ukraine, but in the Baltic states, in Bosnia and Kosovo, in the Mediterranean and the middle east, in the north Atlantic and the high north, and on social media as well.
That means that we need to look at the Prime Minister’s announcement in updating the integrated review. The Prime Minister’s commitment to match the funding for military assistance to Ukraine next year is welcome, but we are yet to see the action plan that will give us the detail. We need to see that in the context of the UK’s wider defence arrangements. A few weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary visited the British Army’s outstanding training program for Ukrainian forces, meeting the brave Ukrainian troops who are by now on the frontline, fighting in the Donbas, having been armed with British skill on that training program. This is a vital training program for the Ukrainians, which should be expanded and extended throughout next year and beyond, if the Ukrainians need it, and should also include cold weather training.
This week the Prime Minister also confirmed that the Government will update the integrated review of foreign and defence policy in response to the ongoing situation in Ukraine. I welcome this U-turn, which is good news. While Labour has been arguing for months for the need to update our defence plans, 20 of our NATO allies have already rebooted their defence plans and their spending since the invasion of Ukraine started in February. The decision that has now been taken should have been based on national security, not the Conservative leadership contest, but it is a welcome U-turn. Labour is ready to contribute and happy to support the Government in making sure that the next integrated review corrects the mistakes of the current one. However, if we want to pursue the persistent global engagement that was so present in the last integrated review, we must not cut 10,000 troops from our Army, and should look again at scrapping Hercules military transport planes, the plans to cut 10% of the reserves and our failure to have a war-fighting division able to be contributed to NATO until 2030.
An updated integrated review must also make British industry and our peacetime defence procurement systems a major priority. We cannot support Ukraine in the long term or ensure our own UK security when, on day 211 of this conflict, the MOD has still not proved capable of signing the contract to produce replacement stocks for the highly valued NLAW—next generation light anti-tank weapon—missiles that the Ukrainians are using to defend against the Russians. I would be grateful if, in summing up, the Minister set out when the Government expect that contract to be signed and when those missiles will be delivered, because depleting our stockpile is not a good strategic answer.
Wayne David
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Does he also agree that it is essential that, at this crucial time especially, the Government do not make snide remarks about our European partners? It is very important to have the maximum unity in opposing what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Luke Pollard
Rebuilding our European relations is a key part of making any integrated foreign policy review work. Those of us on the Opposition Benches can say very clearly that our friends across the channel are our friends. They are not our foes—there is not a question mark about it—and we stand with them in the face of Russian aggression. This is not a political game to be played. When the Kremlin can find division between the allies of the west, it will exploit it. We must stand firmly with our allies against this.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the armed forces’ incredible contribution on display last week during the late Queen’s state funeral. As a Plymouth MP, I am especially proud of the contribution of forces based across the south-west of England. I would like to put on record Labour’s thanks for the armed forces’ steadfast dedication to our country. They really have shown the best of Britain, and we are incredibly grateful for the part they played and continue to play in supporting Ukraine against Russian oppression. It was an honour to meet today, on a cross-party basis, some of the pallbearers who carried the Queen’s coffin.
Finally, on the Labour Benches, we are taught, as part of the trade union movement, that unity is strength—that we stand together and we are not divided. I say to the Minister that this is now a cross-party sentiment in this place, because it is the strength of Westminster when the party that I represent, the party now in government and every other party stand together in the face of such aggression, and we will continue to do so until Ukraine is free.
Draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2022
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr Dowd. On what could be the Minister’s last appearance in a statutory instrument debate I feel somewhat cheated on behalf of the Committee that his remarks were so brief. We wanted to hear more from him, but fear not, I have plenty of words to share.
We are considering an important piece of legislation, because it is an opportunity to demonstrate on behalf of all political parties in the House that we back our armed forces. Labour backs our armed forces. They embody the very best of Britain from deployments abroad in response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments at home, especially during the covid pandemic. Our armed forces are therefore an essential part of our national defence, our national resilience and our NATO obligations to our allies. We are all proud of how our servicemen and women demonstrate the finest of British values, at home and abroad, and it is right that we give them another year to do so, with the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
We have a real responsibility to reflect on the service of our armed forces, the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way to guarantee our safety and that of our friends and allies. We should be incredibly grateful for their continued service. That is why military personnel must continue to be at the heart of our defence plans. It is not just about the equipment; it is about the people who serve, both those in uniform and the civilians who support our armed forces.
Labour’s support for our armed forces is unshakeable. Indeed, we are here because the last Labour Government passed the Armed Forces Act 2006, and we will of course support this draft order so that the provisions of that Act can remain in force. However, while expressing Labour’s pride in our armed forces, I must draw the Committee’s attention to some issues and ask the Minister to provide an update. It is the moral imperative of any Government to keep our country safe from hostile threats and to protect our citizens. If we have learned anything from the past year, it is that the increasing threat posed by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine means that we need to solidify our nation’s defences. The withdrawal from Afghanistan also shows that our commitments to the people we support around the world must be long-lasting.
Regrettably, after the past 12 years of government, some of our armed forces are in a much weakened state than we would all like them to be. At a time of increased tension and threats to our country, now is not the time to cut our armed forces. Indeed, were the Minister to ask each Conservative Member present whether now is the time to make such cuts, I suspect that they would agree with what I am about to say, so I encourage him to look at their nodding faces every now and then.
We must not continue the cuts to our armed forces. Reductions over the past 12 years have meant that our Army is now the smallest it has been in 300 years. The Minister and his colleagues do a good job, and Labour acknowledges the defence leadership over the past six months. I hope that the new Prime Minister keeps the Defence Secretary and his team in place so that that work can continue. However, I want Ministers to reflect on some of the changes that are necessary to ensure that our armed forces are as capable as possible.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I join in with the hon. Gentleman’s admiration for our armed forces. Indeed, the Minister himself served with distinction before coming to this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not fall into the trap of just looking at the armed forces headcount? For example, a new tank with a three-man crew can be just as effective despite having fewer people in it. We should look at capability rather than just at the straightforward headcount, which may fall at the same time as we increase our ability to hit the enemy where they fear it most.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it allows me to talk about Government cuts to our tanks. I recognise what he is saying: this is not just about the size of our armed forces, but the capability as well. However, when cuts are made to both capability and size, we must challenge whether decisions about the size, strength and structure of our armed forces are the right ones. I am deliberately trying to make my points as non-partisan as possible, because I want the Minister to reflect on the legitimate concerns about the structure and size of our armed forces that are shared by both sides of the House.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the Army, said the UK must
“forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”,
but the Government continue to push ahead with a planned cut of 10,000 troops by 2025. It is a significant worry that, during this period of elevated threat against our country and our friends, Ministry of Defence statistics published this month reveal that the strength of our armed forces has fallen by 2,631 personnel in the past year alone. I want the Minister to look again at the figures and to check that our military has the necessary size and strength. The best way of doing that is to halt the cuts now.
It is right that our regular forces get much of the attention in this debate, but the Government also plan to cut our reserves by 10%. These are the civilians who undertake another job, but have the ability to be called up. Indeed, the armed forces are using reserves much more as part of regular operations. The interoperability between reserve and regular forces is welcome, and it is good that those who sign up to the reserves have experience and can seamlessly integrate into regular units when required. However, if we are to continue with cuts to regular forces, cutting our reserves at the same time does not seem the best of plans. Will the Minister set out whether it is still his Government’s plan to cut reserve forces by 10%, and what impact that will have on operations?
As a Devonport MP, let me say that cuts are not confined to the Army. The Royal Navy has seen cuts too. I fought against the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil without replacement, and I led efforts to see off plans to scrap the Albion class amphibious assault ships. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will now remain in service until the early 2030s, and that is a good thing, but as yet we have no plans set out for how they will be replaced. Will they be replaced on a like-for-like basis with large, amphibious ships with command and control centres as part of them? Or, with the development and evolution of the new royal marine strategy—which is good and welcome—will they be replaced by greater use of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service Bay class in its amphibious capability? Could it be new, multi-role smaller ships or souped-up Point class ships, for instance? I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the direction of travel.
As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby set out, it is not only a question of the shape, but the capabilities. We have one of the finest navies in the world but it is very small, and orders for many of the high-end ships that were originally planned— the 13 Type 26 frigates for instance—have now been slimmed down. We are seeing fewer high-end ships and they are less capable in a military sense, but there are more hulls in the water. There is a balance between more hulls and high-end capability that needs to be achieved, and with the increasing development of autonomy in the maritime space there is an opportunity to look afresh at some of those areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what he expects to happen with our amphibious capabilities.
Turning to Ukraine, the ongoing aggression inflicted by Vladimir Putin’s regime on the world stage is surely paramount among the threats facing our country. It is vital that we, as politicians but also as people in the public eye, do not become normalised to the situation in Ukraine. The war is entering a critical new phase, where the direct threat posed by Putin’s Russia does not stop at Ukraine’s borders. International support cannot falter at a time when we know Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is expected to continue in the long run. We must be strong in our unwavering support for Ukraine and in doing so, we must better protect ourselves and our NATO allies. Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and I place that firmly on the record again today.
That turns me to the integrated review because our armed forces operate under the strategy set out in it. Labour has long argued that we need to reboot our defence plans and review our defence spending. Until recently, Ministers have opposed those plans. That was until the new Prime Minister said that it was time to reboot defence plans and review defence spending. I am glad that we have seen a change in approach from Main Building, but it would be useful if the Minister could set out what he expects that to mean.
Until a new defence review is published, the current defence review continues, and that sees a reduction in the headcount of our Army and cuts to our reserve forces. If the new defence review is to say that now is not the time to cut our forces—as I suspect it will—does it not seem prudent to pause further reductions in our armed forces so we do not lose expertise, headcount and experience, before we seek to re-establish that at greater cost of training and recruitment?
A debate on our armed forces so quickly after the summer recess also allows Members a chance to ask the Minister for updates on some live defence issues that affect those forces. I would be grateful if the Committee bears with me as I ask a few questions. I like to think we are all friends in this room, so as the Minister is among friends, will he give us an update on the status of HMS Prince of Wales? We were all concerned when she broke down, and we would like to know how long she is likely to be out of action, the plans for her recovery and repair, and whether there is a cost and a timeline available at this point.
Having two carriers operate around the world is a real show of strength and ambition for our country. One breaking down is embarrassing, but I want to give credit, especially to the senior Royal Navy officers, who were so clear and transparent through social media about what had happened and what they were doing about it. I think we can agree that has not always been the military way, but it is welcome that we are seeing that transparency, especially in a ship as important as the HMS Prince of Wales. Secondly, there were a number of disturbing reports over the summer from the Royal Air Force, which highlighted unfair and what could be seen as unprofessional practices in some of our most decorated and important squadrons. It was good to see the RAF move swiftly to address those reports, but can the Minister offer an update about what happened, what the rot is that needs rooting out and when Parliament will be updated about the full changes?
Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what the changes in the basing strategy that were announced just before the summer recess mean for our armed forces. For those who were not following it closely, a number of bases throughout the UK had their closure dates delayed quite considerably, including two bases in Plymouth. In nearly all cases, those changes were welcome, not only by the units involved, but by the communities in which those bases are located. However, now that there is a large delay in the closure, could the Minister set out whether it is now the Government’s intention to invest in those bases, especially in the accommodation, to make sure that our armed forces enjoy suitable and safe accommodation when stationed at home? We all need confidence in that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that.
Finally, I come to the Ministry of Defence’s energy bills. We all know that bills are going up, and there has rarely been a military building I have been in that is not really warm.
Luke Pollard
Indeed. What is the expectation about energy use in the MOD? I suggest to the Minister that now might be a good time for the MOD and the Treasury to get together to look at whether single-year spending cycles are right for investment in the MOD—I do not think they are—and to see whether now is the time for proper green energy investment, especially in the many south-facing MOD-owned roofs on the defence estate, so that we can start offsetting some of the energy use involved in our armed forces. If we were to make the case that every solar panel on our roofs is one less tank that Putin can put into the field, because energy use that draws gas from Russia fuels his regime, that would be a strong signal, and something that could not only save the MOD money, but strategically benefit the country.
The procurement of our armed forces is another area that needs addressing, because it is something that wastes enormous amounts of money that could be better spent. Since 2010, the Government have wasted £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through mismanagement of defence procurement programmes, with £5 billion of this wasted since 2019 when the current Secretary of State for Defence took his post. Defence Ministers have no systematic plans to fix the broken military procurement system, which the Public Accounts Committee describes as,
“broken and repeatedly wasting…money”.
This risks our frontline forces going without the kit and equipment they need to fight, and risks our ability to field full-strength units. There are real questions to be asked about this at the heart of the Government’s incredibly poorly handled Ajax programme. We ask these questions because we want the armed forces to have the best equipment, and for it to be delivered on time with the capabilities that they ordered. However, increasingly with some of those large programmes, the equipment is delivered late and in a poor condition, which, as we have seen with Ajax, could potentially be dangerous to our soldiers through hearing loss, vibration problems and other issues. The UK’s defence industry is incredibly important, and standing next to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney today, who represents a constituency where defence manufacturing is very important, it is worth saying that we want to see this got right, because there are jobs, as well as national security, on the line.
A new threshold is needed for equipment to be sourced inside the UK, requiring proof that defence projects can be built under similar terms in Britain, because far too many of our defence contracts are being sent abroad. The fleet solid support ship is a good example—that entire ship to supply our Royal Navy should be built in Britain using British steel. A fleet solid support ship whose parts are bought from foreign yards and made from foreign steel, only to be assembled in the UK, is not a ship properly built in Britain. That means we are leaking jobs, tax revenues and skills from our shipyards. Ministers should reflect on the procurement process to make sure that all our Royal Navy ships—our Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships—are built in Britain.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about procurement and building the support ships here in the UK. Does he also agree that rather than working on year-to-year budgets, it would be more reasonable to work with much longer defence budgets, maybe covering five to 10 years, so that we could include the economic multipliers he talks about?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady raises a good question about the spending strategy. One reason the Treasury is so reluctant to give the Ministry of Defence a longer running budget is that it has constantly demonstrated its inability to manage those budgets. There is a balance to be struck between longer budgets that enable projects to spend wisely, especially when coming to the end of an accounting period, and processes that ensure grip on total procurement. The hon. Lady sets out a good argument. I know Defence Ministers would like that as well, but their friends in the Treasury might not be so supportive. Such a change would be useful on a cross-party basis to those who have an interest in defence, because annual spending cycles build in waste towards the end of that cycle. We need to look at the current system because it does not drive efficiency in the manner for which we should be asking. Labour would make the Ministry of Defence the first Department subject to its proposed office for value for money’s tough spending regime and commission the National Audit Office to conduct a comprehensive audit of MOD waste to deal with that problem.
In conclusion, Labour backs our armed forces, in opposition as we did in Government, and as we will do again. There has been much cross-party agreement in recent months about our military, our armed forces and Britain’s important place in the world, but it is the job of the Opposition to inquire and scrutinise. There are big improvements still to be made in the culture, efficiency and approach of not only the Ministry of Defence, but sometimes our armed forces as well. I hope the Minister will recognise that I ask these questions from a position of pride in our armed forces. Indeed, I am proud to come from a military family and proud to represent a military city.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, Labour will support the draft order today, but I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on the issues I have raised.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
We are now only a few weeks away from the one-year anniversary of the start of Operation Pitting, the evacuation from Kabul. A year on, thousands of Afghan citizens are still waiting for their applications to be properly processed, too many are still in temporary accommodation, and the promises made to many of them about relocation and family reunions have been left unhonoured. With the one-year anniversary a few weeks away, what will the Minister be doing to speed up this incredibly slow process, so the promises that this country made to those Afghans who worked with our armed forces can truly be honoured?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman probably just heard me answer the previous two questions. There are hundreds of thousands of applications, many of which are duplicates, and many of which are from people who have no eligibility under ARAP whatsoever. ARAP is a very tightly bound scheme. It is not the same as the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme or other mechanisms where each case might be judged on its merits. There is a list of people who worked with the British armed forces in Afghanistan, so our focus must be on finding the people on that list and bringing them out. We are doing so quickly.
The hon. Gentleman says that it has been nearly a year. That is correct, Mr Speaker, but it is not as if we can just wander around in Afghanistan and find these people. It is not straightforward. A lot of them are undocumented. He may want to speak to some of the charities that are working on this, as I know that some of his colleagues on the Back Benches do. When I spoke to them last week, they realised that the situation was exactly as I have said: it is not easy; people do not have documents; and we are working fast to get people out. We think we have found of way of doing so quicker, and we will be getting on with it now.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Before Labour lifted the ban on LGBT personnel serving in our armed forces, thousands of LGBT personnel were hounded out of service, removed and abandoned after serving with pride. I welcome Ministers allowing sacked personnel to wear medals, but there are further restrictions, including written orders from commanding officers saying that the sacked personnel will not be able to wear headwear or insignia as veterans. Does the Minister agree that until all restrictions are lifted on those personnel, and pension issues resolved, the MOD will remain in breach of the military covenant?
Leo Docherty
Of course, I absolutely agree and I am pleased to say that the scope of the review will be very broad and that the Government will listen with compassion and sincerity to the recommendations of the independent reviewer. We hope that will provide a path towards delivering justice.