Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Tim Roca Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing the debate. I was proud to join him, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Lord Richards of Herstmonceux in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We are discussing a topic that we all agree on: the threat that faces the country and the necessity for us to rearm.
I had hoped that the tone of the debate would have been slightly less political. I feel like we have had a little bit of amnesia as to how we have got to where we are. I do not intend to focus on that too much, but I am sure that others will make the point about the decline in the size of the Army over the past 14 years, the decline in the size of the Air Force, and about the frigate fleet—we talk about the frigate gap—and what happened to frigate and destroyer construction.
We should remember that the threat has not just arrived. There was not a meaningful increase in defence spending after the annexation of Crimea, and there was not a meaningful increase after Putin violated Minsk I or Minsk II. Indeed, there was not a significant increase in defence spending after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That context is really important.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member is right on the funding—I will mention that later—but one important thing that did happen after 2014 was under what was then called Operation Orbital. We began training Ukrainian soldiers on Salisbury plain, because they knew what was coming—and, I think, perhaps so did we. We will talk about the money in a minute, but the training of Ukrainian troops in Britain did start fairly shortly after 2014.
Tim Roca
I agree with the right hon. Member, but I am not sure whether his point is relevant to the one I was making about the broad context of defence procurement. There has been great cross-party consensus on what we are doing with Ukraine, and we should ensure that that continues.
I also want to comment on the defence nuclear enterprise. Under the DIP, we will be spending £45 billion over the forthcoming period on the incredibly important nuclear deterrent. It is right that we do that, but that amounts to 25% of the defence budget. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is in his place. The other week, I was reading his arguments at the time of the coalition Government, urging them to press ahead with the renewal of Trident, which they did not do. That cost us many years and has cost us many billions of pounds that we could be spending today on conventional forces. It means that we have tired Trident submarines heading out to sea beyond when they should be doing so, and we have crews on extended patrols of 150, 200 or 250 days. That is the cost of the decisions made at that time.
I want to talk a little about ensuring that we do not fall into Russia’s trap. Of course, there is a significant threat from Russia, which is both conventional and hybrid—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I happen to agree with the hon. Member about the failure of the coalition Government to make progress with the deterrent, but there were many of us complaining about that at the time, including my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). Indeed, as shadow Defence Secretary in the early 2000s, I was complaining about the cuts in defence spending that were then being made as we went to war in Iraq and as we went to war in Afghanistan. I very much welcome the hon. Member’s bipartisan approach, but rather than pretending to be bipartisan, and making oblique references to what happened under previous Governments, he should be bipartisan, and then we would all get on much better.
Tim Roca
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. If he gives me time, he may find that comes later in my speech.
We should not allow Russia to make us talk ourselves into a place of weakness. As the then Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff put it to the Defence Committee,
“If the British Army was asked to fight tonight, it would fight tonight.”
Our readiness is not where we would want it to be, but that is not the same as saying that Britain is defenceless. I am not trying to be complacent; I am just making the point that we have excellent armed services and excellent people in uniform, and we should not talk as if those things do not exist. What we are saying is that we need more.
In Ukraine, we have watched a country that is considerably smaller than our own, with far fewer resources, resist Russian aggression with extraordinary determination. We have to remember that Russia’s greatest weapon these days tends to be psychological. It wants us to believe that it cannot be beaten, that resistance is useless and that despite four years of attritional warfare and 1.4 million casualties, it somehow remains an unstoppable European military power that could overwhelm Britain and her allies, but it is not.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent, well thought-out speech. He talks about the weapons that Russia is using. Will he also reflect on how we need to be alive to its use of disinformation on social media and the internet as weapons? We need to be alive to that. I look across to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who I talk to regularly about the importance of the BBC World Service. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that service is vital to the defence of this country as well?
Tim Roca
My hon. Friend makes the point well. Indeed, in a recent interview my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about how the recent attacks on Iran had destroyed a huge propaganda apparatus, which had contributed to 3% of total nationalist propaganda for Scottish separation from the United Kingdom. It is an important point.
Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak made the important point about strength being a foundation of deterrence. We are trying to deter war, not just by having capable armed forces but by having industrial capacity, well-stocked armouries, cutting-edge technology and a properly funded plan—because the stronger we are, the less likely conflict becomes. Every capability we field, every production line we expand and every drone we manufacture add to our deterrence, and that is incredibly important.
At the beginning of the debate we talked about the credibility of getting to where we need to be. To be straightforward, it is my belief that we need to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the minimum needed for us to show that we are committed to our plans and to our NATO allies in having the capabilities that we need. In fairness to the Government, they have made significant progress and we will be at 2.7% in 2027-28, which is the highest defence spend in three decades. The defence budget will also be 27% higher in real terms than it was at the start of the Parliament. Those are significant commitments that need to be recognised, but unfortunately, I am worried that they do not meet the strategic moment that we are at.
The pace at which Russia might reconstitute, the lessons that are emerging from Ukraine over technology, the threats in the far east to our allies and our interests, and the demands placed upon us by NATO to meet certain targets mean that we have to move faster than the Government currently say. A spending review published in 2027 could, in theory, postpone most of the increase until the final year of the period. That would technically fulfil the commitment, but it would not reflect the urgency of the moment. There is a significant difference between spending 2.8% in 2028, 2.9% in 2029 and 3% in 2030, and remaining broadly flat and trying to make a leap—if we can prove that we can do that—at the end of that spending period. The Government deserve credit for changing the direction of travel from what it was in the past, but events have accelerated and so we need to accelerate our rearmament beyond those plans.
There is no shortage of priorities, and the DIP was a significant document, as colleagues have described. I share their concerns about some of the autonomy in the Royal Navy. It is unlikely that we will have the new ships designed, tested and deployed within 10 years, and there will have to be service life extensions for the Type 45s. I worry about the lack or absence of—
Ben Obese-Jecty
The hon. Member is making a very important speech. I agree that there should be a life extension plan for the Type 45, but we know that there is not one. It is not costed, it is not in the DIP, and the plan is to take them out of service over several years from 2035. Does he agree that the common combat vessel would be better suited, in terms of putting that capability within the Type 31s that are being built, and that, indeed, that is what will likely happen?
Tim Roca
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, eventually, we will have to look at the Type 31 hull as a possibility. Maybe the Minister will comment on contingency plans if continuous capability sustainment does not develop as it should.
On the lack of commitments around ballistic missile defence, we are now an outlier in Europe in terms of air defences. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France, and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T—
Defence Readiness
Tim Roca Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I have spoken in this Chamber at some length about defence and the urgency of rearmament, and I was proud to join the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and Field Marshal Lord Richards in creating the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament.
Before I turn to what the Government are doing about defence readiness, I think it is worth pausing, as we always should, on how we got here, because context always matters. A century ago, the Member for Epping—one who understood well what it meant to watch a nation sleep while danger gathered—described the period of neglect and lost opportunity in defence as
“the years that the locust hath eaten”.
I think we can apply the same epitaph to the years of stewardship of defence of the previous Government and the coalition Government. The locusts were busy: armed forces’ pay was cut in real terms in nine out of 14 years; forces housing was in such a state of disrepair that complaints reached a record 13,000 in a single year; troop numbers fell to the lowest level since the Napoleonic era; frigates and destroyers were cut by a quarter, minehunters reduced by half and ground-based air defence spending was slashed by 70% in their final years in office; and the defence industrial strategy sat on a shelf gathering dust, with a commitment on paper, but nothing in practice. They certainly were the years that the locusts had eaten.
That is the inheritance Defence Ministers have to contend with. I have spoken before about the urgency of rearmament, and I will not repeat myself, but I will say that I am incredibly proud of the Government’s Front-Bench Defence team. I believe they have brought coherence, great industry and a genuine patriotic determination to sort out the mess they inherited, and they deserve to be recognised for that.
I am glad that the Government are investing over £270 billion across defence during this Parliament—not as an accountancy exercise, but as a genuine strategic commitment to rebuilding our national security from the ground up. As we meet our commitments made at The Hague NATO conference to reach 3.5% in the future, I understand that there will be difficult discussions to be had, just as there were difficult discussions about foreign aid. However, there is no magic bullet when we are talking about increasing defence expenditure, and pretending that one thing will solve the issue is simply not realistic. In the two previous periods during which this country had to rearm significantly—the 1930s and the 1950s—it was a combination of increased taxation, increased borrowing and difficult choices about public expenditure that did it. I am not convinced by wishy-washy words about how just cutting welfare will sort it all out.
Crucially, something else this Government understand and the previous Government never grasped is that defence spending is not just a cost. It is an investment and an engine for growth. We spend £32 billion annually with industry, equivalent to £460 for every person living in this country. UK defence supports 463,000 high-quality, well-paying jobs—one in every 60 jobs across the UK.
Gideon Amos
In the south-west where I come from, 96,000 jobs relate to defence, so it is a huge sector. In my town, SMEs are key to those jobs. Despite welcome changes, with the Defence Office for Small Business Growth from the MOD, portals are still unnavigable for many small businesses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the MOD should do more to make contracts available for our small businesses and SMEs?
Tim Roca
I was in Bristol recently at the National Armaments Director Group, the renamed defence Government support group, and I was glad to hear that it is doing more on SMEs. Maybe the Government Front Bench will comment more on that later, but it is right to recognise that SMEs are crucial and that, in the hon. Gentleman’s area of the country, they are really important. These are livelihoods, communities and the kind of good skilled unionised jobs that those of us on the Labour Benches have always stood for.
I want to acknowledge the other work the Government have done: last year, £1.5 billion was committed to building the factories of the future, including the first energetics factories in two decades, creating over 1,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands; the £8 billion deal with Turkey sustaining a 20,000-strong workforce across Scotland, Lancashire and Bristol; and the Type 26 frigates selected by Norway which were mentioned earlier in the debate. I was disappointed to see Sweden choose France over the UK in its frigate decision today, but we will just leave that to the traditional UK-France enmity. There is a genuine defence dividend that is measured not in press releases, but in real jobs in real communities the length and breadth of this country.
Turning briefly to something I hope will receive the attention it deserves, the SDR rightly made several important recommendations on strengthening home defence and resilience in the context of a whole-of-society approach to national security—several hon. Friends have talked about that today. The threats we face are not confined to the battlefield. They reach into our infrastructure, our supply chains and our communities. Resilience must be built across the whole of society, not just within the wire fences of our military establishments. With that in mind, I was reassured to hear the Minister, at the beginning of the debate, say that Ministers are working hard and that we will in due course see a defence readiness Bill. The legal and institutional framework for defence readiness matters and I think we all want to see that Bill come forward.
I am by temperament an impatient person when it comes to defence—as you will be impatient for me to finish the speech, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the threats are not waiting for us. I am a fair person and it is only fair to say that in my view the Government are doing serious and sustained work for the renewal and rebuilding of our armed forces, restoring our industrial base and making Britain once again a country capable of defending itself. I certainly hope that the years the locusts have eaten are behind us.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
Tim Roca Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
I can indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a Defence Minister in the last Government, the state of the forces that he passed over to this Government. When it comes to frigates—I could bore the House on this; it is one of my favourite subjects—he will also know that the incredible deal we have signed with Norway sustains Type 26 production on the Clyde for many years to come and involves not only the eight British Royal Navy Type 26s but five Norwegian ones. We are currently working with Norway on build slots. That will create a combined force—a truly interoperable, interchangeable force. Indeed, the only difference between a Royal Navy Type 26 and a Norwegian Type 26 will be the language on the signs. That interchangeability is at the heart of the new defence agreement that we have signed with Norway, and part of an agreement about how we can work more closely with our joint expeditionary force allies in northern Europe, which I hope can be expanded to other nations as we look to sell the Type 31 frigates to more of our partners.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister will have recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about wanting to see the defence investment plan published as soon as possible, and I hope Treasury Ministers will share that understanding. I believe that history is important. When Russia annexed the Crimea, we saw no meaningful increase in defence spending. When Russia violated Minsk I, we saw no increase, and when it violated Minsk II, we saw no increase. When it launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European country, we saw no meaningful increase. Does the Minister agree that the debate about defence needs to be constructive and, hopefully, cross-party, and that the country expects us to fund defence properly and urgently?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he asked his questions. I notice that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was agreeing with every word that he said in relation to the cuts and the lack of increase in defence spending. I recommend to my hon. Friend and all colleagues in the House the report produced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when he was in charge of the Defence Committee, called “Shifting the Goalposts”. It sets out the amount of GDP spend on defence going back a number of Governments. It shows that the last Labour Government left defence spending at 2.5% of GDP in 2010, a figure sadly never matched in the following 14 years. We are getting back to 2.5% of GDP. April 2027 is when we will hit that, and we will set out how we will be spending that in the defence investment plan that will be published shortly.
War in Ukraine
Tim Roca Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I add my commendation to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. Hearing the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) speak reminded me of our trip to Ukraine earlier in the year. Thinking of surreal moments, it cannot be more surreal than being on a road outside Kharkiv watching him try to fix a car that was not working properly.
In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that many of us underestimated the sophistication and intent behind the Trump Administration’s manoeuvres regarding Ukraine, Europe and Russia. What at first seemed like a genuine pivot towards supporting Ukraine now appears, in retrospect, to have been a carefully orchestrated performance designed to protect Russian assets, pave the way for future business dealings and shape a narrative in which Ukraine’s defeat was treated as inevitable.
At the heart of that strategy lies the $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets that hon. Members have mentioned repeatedly this afternoon. For many years, including in this place, we have debated whether those assets should be used to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild. But we now know from reports that US officials have been placing intense pressure on European Governments to leave those assets untouched, and indeed insisting it is their view that they be returned to Russia after any peace deal, while feigning, for months, a willingness to ramp up support for Ukraine.
That illusion was crucial, because the more Europeans believed that Washington might still back Ukraine, the less likely European Governments were to take unilateral steps, including seizing or repurposing those Russian assets. It was a calculated sleight of hand, and it succeeded. Even now, European leaders remain hesitant, while Washington has now made its position unmistakably clear that Ukraine is expected to accept a settlement that has been shaped by Russian interests—because, I believe, it is Trump’s assessment that Russia will ultimately prevail.
We have to face the facts: the September-October pivot, when Trump and Vance claimed that Russia was losing and Ukraine could win, was most likely theatre. Trump has always accepted the Russian narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat, and once the pretence ended, US officials made their message clear to the Ukrainians: “Accept a deal now or face a worse one later. Russia can fight indefinitely; Ukraine cannot.” In my view, this is not diplomacy; it is coercive pressure on Ukraine, and it carries an unmistakable message that the United States Administration are now structuring their policy around the assumption of a Russian victory in the long term. Many of us will be incredibly worried that Trump will pressure Ukraine into giving up territory and ultimately fail to give any meaningful security guarantees. It is for Ukrainians who have paid a price in blood to decide for themselves what price they are prepared to pay for peace.
What does this mean for Europe and for Britain? First, it means that we must accept the truth that if Ukraine is to resist Russian maximalist aims, we must step up now, not in six months or in two years. Secondly, it means that the fate of Russian sovereign assets is not a technical financial matter but a strategic one, and every delay, hesitation and concession on this issue weakens Ukraine and emboldens the Kremlin. Thirdly, it means we must recognise that 2026 will likely be the decisive year in this war. Yes, Russia faces mounting economic difficulties, fuel shortages and internal discontent, and the Kremlin still insists on its war aims, but its capacity to sustain the war is not limitless, and a sense of futility in Moscow is a necessary condition for peace. Ukraine’s ability to hold the line, supported through European unity, is central to bringing that moment closer.
I do not think that we have touched this afternoon on the fact that Ukrainian resilience is not endless either. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of desertion—a stark measure of exhaustion and eroding morale among frontline soldiers. Many units are under-strength and increasingly reliant on poorly trained conscripts rather than experienced volunteers. Some brigades operate without adequate rest, rotation or munitions. Commanders describe troops who are physically depleted, mentally exhausted and losing confidence in the strategic direction of the war. The result is a brittle front, with units stretched to breaking point, lacking resilience and vulnerable to sudden local collapses. Without substantial support, I really worry that the Ukrainian military could face a cascading breakdown as Russia continues to pile on the pressure.
The strain on Ukraine’s civilian population is equally acute. After three years of missile and drone attacks, millions of Ukrainians endure repeated power outages, damaged infrastructure, deep psychological trauma and limited access to heating, electricity and clean water. Mental health support has deteriorated sharply, especially as winter approaches. Displaced families have exhausted their savings, livelihoods have vanished, and the cumulative stress of air raids, mourning for the dead and uncertainty has driven a marked rise in depression, anxiety and long-term trauma. Communities live in a cycle of destruction and partial recovery, eroding resilience with each passing month.
We should be clear-eyed about our own position. We had warning after warning, but we never did enough—the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion several years ago, yet still we did not ramp up defence spending. The British armed forces have experienced years of hollowing out, cuts to troop numbers and chronic under-investment. Only now are we finally beginning to reverse some of that decline, but can we honestly say that the pace is adequate to the threat we face?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am struck by what my hon. Friend has just said. About eight years ago, during Trump’s first term, I was in the United States with a group of Latvian MEPs. I remember being almost bemused by how often the Latvians wanted to turn whatever discussion we were having to defence. To some extent, it was kind of annoying me by the end, but now I realise that I was completely and utterly wrong; they knew what they were doing in that instance and I did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to sell this concept of a peace dividend? I was really sold on it, but it did not exist at that moment, because investment is required first in order to get peace in the long term. What we are really looking for is peace in Europe in the long term, so once again we genuinely do need a peace dividend.
Tim Roca
I completely agree. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised earlier, it is the Baltic countries—Poland, Finland, those that have had direct experience of Russian aggression—that are most clear-eyed about the Russian threat. We do not want a wishy-washy peace that does not deliver genuine security. There has to be genuine security as the basis of any peace.
We in this House must not dodge. We are building a coalition of the willing, and in any peace agreement we may potentially be asked to agree to put British troops on the ground and contribute to maintaining ceasefire lines or to deter Russian aggression. We have to be honest about where the British public are at, and I am not convinced that the British public are yet psychologically in the place they need to be in for that commitment. We all have a duty to contribute to the understanding of the threat that Russia faces to our security here at home. We must speak honestly with the country about the risks that we face, the commitments we may be asked to make, and the moral and strategic imperative of ensuring that Russian aggression does not succeed. If Ukraine falls or is coerced into a settlement that gives the Kremlin what it could not win on the battlefield, Europe will not be safer.
An essential truth that has been revealed in recent months is that Ukrainian resilience is not infinite. Its morale depends on it knowing that the world has not forgotten it. Every air defence system, shell, economic sanction on Russia and measure to support Ukraine and its statehood matters—not just materially but psychologically. Every equivocation, delay and wavering signal emboldens Putin and his gang of thugs. We are clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom but for the principle that aggression should not be rewarded. I believe that Members of this House agree with those principles. Therefore, we must act with urgency, clarity and resolve.
I think there have been two references by hon. Members this afternoon to Munich. We are 87 years on from what was described as a “total and unmitigated defeat”. Today, I do worry that the Trump Administration’s push for peace, shaped by Putin’s interest, risks making the same mistake in pressuring Ukraine to accept a settlement that serves the aggressor rather than justice or security. Let us be clear in this place that we stand with Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and security, because we do not want to repeat the errors of the past.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Tim Roca ExcerptsTuesday 9th September 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
It has been a long afternoon, but I should say from the start that I genuinely believe that the motivation of all of us is the national interest of the United Kingdom. Whatever differences of opinion there might be, I think it is important that we try to avoid hyperbole in this matter and think coolly and calmly about what is in the UK national interest.
There are tests we need to apply to what we are discussing: first, does it protect UK national security; secondly, do our allies and the professional military and security establishment support it; and thirdly, are the costs and obligations reasonable and proportionate? We also need to have a weather eye to our responsibility to the Chagossians, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for speaking passionately on behalf of his constituents. I believe the answer to those three tests is yes, and I will address them in turn.
Diego Garcia is not just another overseas facility; it is fundamental to our security. It is where our forces and US forces have launched operations against high-value terrorist groups. It is a communications and logistics hub, and it is where we monitor hostile states and safeguard global trade routes that underpin our economy. Without this treaty, all that is at risk.
Ministers have outlined that international rulings could make the base inoperable. I spoke earlier to Dr Marco Longobardo, a specialist in international law, and it is clear that even the non-binding ICJ judgment is nevertheless a matter of international law and potentially gives hostile countries the opening that they need to contemplate interference in the islands—in the same way that Chinese claims in the South China sea are not recognised by many countries. That is all at risk. Our ability to berth submarines, patrol waters or launch operations would be compromised, and a vacuum would be created.
Tim Roca
I believe that the hon. Member has had quite a lot of turns today, and I have been waiting a long time without intervening, so I will proceed. If we allowed a vacuum to be created, it would be filled by China or others in a region that is vital to our security. I will come back to China in a moment, because what China thinks about this treaty is important as well.
Turning to the first test, the treaty secures 99 years of guaranteed access, with the option to extend it by a further 40 years; 99 years was good enough for Lord Salisbury, so it is good enough for me. It gives us full operational control over installations, logistics, communications and the electromagnetic spectrum. It establishes a 24-nautical-mile buffer zone and bans any foreign military presence on the outer islands. We have talked about how it protects a unique maritime environment and provides tangible support through the trust fund for Chagossian communities. On the first test I am satisfied.
On the second test—whether the agreement commands the backing of allies and experts—other colleagues have spoken powerfully about this, but Lord Goldsmith, a former Attorney General, said it was
“consistent with our national security interests and with our respect for international law”.
The international support is equally strong. Australia’s Kevin Rudd called it a
“good outcome for Mauritius, for Australia, for the UK and for our collective security interests”.
Canada’s foreign ministry said that it ensures
“the long-term, secure and effective operation”
of the joint base, strengthening a free and open Indo-Pacific.
In the United States, where there is not much that gets bipartisan support, it is a bipartisan matter. Antony Blinken said that America “strongly supported” the negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended the “leadership and vision” shown. The Democratic former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the agreement will
“safeguard strategic security interests into the next century.”
I believe an hon. Member has already quoted President Trump, who described it as an amazing deal, a beautiful deal or whatever kind of deal—but a good deal, that is the main point.
The international consensus is clear. Our allies, partners and experts back the deal. I was very taken by the comments of Professor Benjamin Sacks of the RAND school of public policy in the United States. He said:
“I contend that Beijing privately views the agreement, even if modified to ameliorate some Chagossians’ outstanding demands, somewhat as a setback. In practical terms, it gains little if any advantage from it.”
He added:
“The Chagos issue constituted a perennial problem for British foreign policy; one that China could simultaneously exploit to demonstrate its supposed adherence to existing RBOs”—
rule-based orders—
“and undermine the UK’s traditionally important role in maintaining it.”
He also said that the deal deters Port Louis—Mauritius—from becoming an effective client state of Beijing. On the point of whether our allies support it, I believe that the treaty meets the test.
Tim Roca
I will not. I experienced the right hon. Gentleman defending the hereditary principle last week, and I do not think I have the strength in me this week to listen to another argument.
The final test was on costs and obligations. Again, Ministers have talked powerfully about the deal being less than 0.2% of the defence budget. Comparisons have been made with what the French are paying in Djibouti, and I am glad that we are getting a better deal than the French. Of course, Diego Garcia is 15 times larger than those bases and in a more strategic location. The treaty gives us immense operational freedom. It therefore seems to me that this is a modest investment for an irreplaceable asset. The risks from delay or abandonment—in this argument, we have to balance the treaty with the risks of what could happen—are vastly greater.
Dr Pinkerton
The hon. Gentleman describes Diego Garcia as an irreplaceable asset, but the Chagossians sitting in the Gallery do not see it as an asset; they see it as their home. Even though they have been displaced from their home for the best part of 50 years, they tell me that they see the actions in the Chamber as a new round of the same colonial humiliation they experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. What does the hon. Gentleman say to those Chagossians here today?
Tim Roca
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. We should all be honest that, as was put powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), our country’s history with the Chagossians has been very poor—if we look at some of the diplomatic cables from the 1960s, we see that disgraceful language was used—but I was reassured by what Ministers said about the preamble of the treaty and some of the provisions put in place.
It is a matter of fact that the previous Government were in negotiations with Mauritius over this issue. That was the case, and there will have been motivations for their doing that. I am worried about how our other overseas territories are being dragged into this. A couple of months ago, I was in Gibraltar with colleagues who privately told me they were horrified that party politics were being played with their communities. I am glad to see that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister was clear on the record that there was “no possible read across” to Gibraltar, and the Governor of the Falklands said that the
“historical contexts…are very different.”
I am confident that we meet the three tests.
Tim Roca
No, I am afraid that I will not.
In closing, I believe that the three tests have been met: the treaty meets our national security requirements, it has the backing of our allies, and it comes at a reasonable cost. It would be very dangerous for us to dither or delay any longer in view of the potential threat to that base.
War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary
Tim Roca Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.
I have been working on Ukraine with many colleagues in all parts of the House for a considerable time—we have shared that work. The reality in this Chamber, which may mark us out slightly from other countries, is that we have been completely united in our support for Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, who are fighting for their freedom as we have had to do in the past. We therefore recognise their sacrifices and the risk that they have taken. To anybody who assumes that that is of no relevance, I say that the only relevant issue that pervades this debate is that we should always be on the side of those who believe in freedom and democracy. That is what we exist for.
I recently came back from another trip to Ukraine. I have done a few trips there, helped by a charity called HopeFull. What it has done is quite remarkable and is another example of how people in Britain see things sometimes slightly differently from the rest of the world. When Russia invaded Ukraine and there was a serious danger of it taking Kyiv in those early weeks, the charity—which had been working in Scotland, in the area around Dundee, helping to support people in difficulty and in poorer circumstances—upped sticks and decided that its real cause was now to help those fleeing from the Russians at the border of Poland, which it did. In fact, the charity turned up two weeks earlier than even Oxfam managed, simply by getting trucks and driving across. That is a very British way of doing things.
Eventually the charity crossed over the border, and over the past three years it has supplied many people, organisations, towns and cities with food. The way in which it has done that is to take pizzas in pizza trucks to feed them.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he and I were recently cooking those pizzas close to the front. That charity has fed more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in that time, using charitable money and support from other countries, which is quite remarkable.
The charity has now turned its attention to the other huge issue of combat stress and the disaster post-war that will haunt Ukrainians, for those who will suffer internally and externally, and I will come to that in a few minutes. I am therefore proud that people from the charity are in the Gallery today to watch the debate— I know that we should not normally refer to the Gallery, but in this instance it is quite relevant. Of its own accord, the charity has launched a rehabilitation programme in Ukraine, where it is trying to set up treatment for those with serious combat stress, and then trying to multiply that out by teaching other veterans to help people through programmes all across Ukraine. We have a lot to learn from Ukraine on the scale of that and from what they are seeing at the moment, and the figures are absolutely staggering. That addresses the psychological and physical needs and the moral injuries, which are huge—on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war.
It is worth looking at a couple of pieces on this subject. Apart from combat stress, the scale of the damage is quite interesting. There are 5 million veterans in Ukraine. Some 50,000 of those veterans and young people now need prosthetics. I will repeat that figure—50,000 Ukrainians are waiting to get prosthetics. They have lost legs and arms through the mines, the shells and the shellfire. Civilians have been treated just like soldiers; they have been attacked by the Russians, who bombard hospitals. I have been to hospitals—the military hospital in Kharkiv, which I visited, was shelled regularly and deliberately. Who shells hospitals deliberately? They did.
On my last visit, I visited a wonderful children’s hospital in Kyiv. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) may have been with me on that visit. The children’s hospital had received a direct hit from a ballistic missile. We do not get misfires on ballistic missiles; they are targeted to within a yard of their destination point. That was deliberate, and it tried to blow apart the work that the hospital was doing to help children suffering from cancer and all the ailments of war. That is the real horror of how Russia has fought this war. The very fact that it fought the war and invaded Ukraine is bad enough, but it has not stuck to all the usual rules that apply to those who fight. Civilians should be left out of it as far as possible, but Russia targets them.
I went to the prosthetics labs to see this, and we in this country have a lot to learn from the Ukrainians. They are making advances in prosthetics that we simply could not have believed was feasible. I say to the Government that we really need to be sending people over there to look at what they are doing and bring it back, because it could be applied to civilian injuries in this country. All of the work that the charity HopeFull is doing is aimed at helping those people, and I salute it for that.
There are those who say that Ukraine was somehow guilty of causing the war. I have been to Ukraine with other Members, and one need only see the sheer brutality of what has been happening on the ground to recognise how wrong such statements are. Russia’s aggression was not caused by anybody else; it was caused by Russia’s greed, its avarice, and its wrong-headed idea that it can recreate Greater Russia along the old Soviet Union lines. That is what is driving this war. That is what has led to probably over 800,000 dead and injured Russians, whose families will never see them again. Many, of course, will never see their bodies, because Russia systematically cremates them, so that there will not be a series of funerals in Russia, which could cause problems at home—that shows the cynicism of the country. We therefore need to remind everybody—we did not think that we did—that Ukraine is fighting a war of defence, not of aggression. It is Russia that has created the problem.
Because of all the things that have been going on and milling around in the air, and all the rows that have been taking place, I also want to say that we need to take a pace back. This is not about pointing fingers at anybody; it is about trying to correct some of what has been said. I have to say straight off that peace is not just the absence of war—if it is just the absence of war, it becomes a ceasefire; an intolerable ceasefire that will break down. For peace to be durable and long-lasting, we need it to contain freedom and justice. There can be no real peace without justice for those who have been fighting for their country and for peace. That has to apply to us in NATO—in America and in Europe. We need to recognise that there can be no peace unless there is justice in that peace for those who have suffered most.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for calling this debate. I was proud to support his application. I was with him on the trip to Ukraine a few weeks ago, with that fantastic charity, HopeFull, which he mentioned. If someone had told me a year ago, “A year later you will be stood with the Conservative Sir Iain Duncan Smith in the snow, cooking pizzas, in Ukraine,” I would never have believed them. It was a fascinating visit and an important one.
The visit highlighted the cross-party nature of the support for Ukraine that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—I will call her my hon. Friend—has pointed out. It is so important, particularly in comparison with other countries. There is also a role for Back Benchers across the parties to put pressure on our respective Front Benchers to ensure that we work together on this issue into the future.
We are marking the three-year point of this absolutely terrible war, started by Vladimir Putin. It is an illegal war, and one of brutality and barbarism, and a conflict in which Ukraine is literally fighting for its life—for its existence as a free and independent nation state. However, as the first line of the national anthem of Ukraine says:
“The glory and freedom of Ukraine have not yet perished”,
despite the best efforts of the dictator Vladimir Putin.
We heard earlier about the scale of the war and the destruction it has wrought. We have heard about the hundreds of thousands of deaths of young men and women on all sides of the conflict; the thousands of civilians—women, girls and boys—killed and the many millions injured; and the almost 7 million Ukrainian refugees, and many more internally displaced people. The longer they are away from their home, the less likely it is that they will return. Civilian casualties rose by 30% in the last year of the war. Russia has increased its use of aerial bombs, drones, missiles and loitering munitions.
We heard about the Ukrainian hospital in Kyiv—their version of Great Ormond Street hospital—which has been visited by many hon. Members. What kind of a regime deliberately targets a hospital? Landmines now contaminate 139,000 sq km of Ukraine, posing a real risk to civilians and the future of the country. In the last 12 months, there were 306 attacks on medical facilities and 576 attacks on schools—nearly double the number in the previous year.
We talked about the rules of war not being followed by Vladimir Putin’s armed forces. Disgracefully, the UN has recorded an alarming spike in the number of Ukrainian soldiers executed by Russian armed forces. There are credible allegations of at least 81 executed in the past six months. People made reference to Ukrainian prisoners of war who are subjected to appalling crimes—torture, sexual violence, and much, much more.
Then there are the children. Vladimir Putin faces a warrant from the International Criminal Court for abducting thousands of children. The Yale School of Public Health humanitarian research lab says, conservatively, that there are at least 6,000 children held at camps in Russia at the moment. There has also been the incredible spectre of North Korean troops fighting on this continent for a terrible dictatorship.
I want to talk—very briefly, because time is short—about the security guarantees that Ukraine needs. As the discussion about peace in Ukraine develops, one of my concerns is the way that Vladimir Putin suggests that there should be limits on the Ukrainian armed forces after a peace. The best security guarantee is the one operating at the moment: a well-equipped, well-armed Ukrainian armed force—the brave men and women of Ukraine who have held back Vladimir Putin’s evil army. The first principle in any discussion of security guarantees or peace is “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. A further principle in those negotiations has to be the need to understand the character of the man we are dealing with. He is a compulsive liar who breaks his word at every opportunity. That is why the guarantees are so incredibly important.
After Munich, and the destabilising comments made by some characters in foreign Governments, it is natural to be cautious in this place. We should be hard-headed, and should talk realistically about what Britain needs to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman find it ironic that the conference at Munich seemed like the shadow of a previous conference at Munich, at which the Sudetenland was given away, and which made it certain that the second world war would take place? Does he think that we may end up in the same position, if we are not careful?
Tim Roca
I do. One interesting thing to note after Munich and recent discussions is that some of this stuff is not new. The United States has been telling Europe to pay for its own defence and to step up for many, many years. If the commitment to 2%, made in Wales in 2014, had been kept by all the countries that signed up to it, we would have spent another £800 billion on our collective defence since that time. Countries need to step up and ensure that they meet their commitments.
We need to be realistic about our role. We are a leading European partner, a leading member of NATO, and a leading ally of the United States. I worry that in the past two weeks, some people have been very quick to throw out 80 years of important transatlantic alliance, but it is crucial for the security of this country, and the security of our continent.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Does he agree that talking about the end of NATO is a very dangerous way of putting things? We in Europe cannot continue with NATO without the United States in it, and it is important to remind the United States of that.
Tim Roca
I completely agree, and that is why I have been reassured by the Government talking about our having a NATO-first defence policy; the Prime Minister reaffirmed that this week. Given all the drama in the past couple of weeks, it has been reassuring to see the steady hand and leadership that the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Government as a whole have shown on these issues. They have reacted calmly and coolly to the challenge that has been posed. Yesterday we saw the whole House give the Prime Minister its good wishes, and offer him good luck with his urgent task of convincing President Trump of the importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe. There is also the very important link, referred to earlier, with dictatorships across the world; we should not allow the principle of “might is right” to succeed, because then we go down a very dangerous road indeed.
When this country was fighting for its life—there is a dangerous tendency for British politicians to always refer back to that time; I am going to fall into that trap—Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s great personal friend, was here in the UK. He gave a speech in Glasgow, to reassure Churchill in those dark days of December 1940, which he finished with a quote from the Book of Ruth:
“‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people…’ Even to the end.”
That should be the attitude of Britain, Europe and the United States to Ukraine—solidarity, unyielding support, and remembering that the glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished.
Ukraine
Tim Roca Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that in a period of more instability on a political level, our NATO allies value the United Kingdom’s certainty and stability. For that reason, we are pushing forward on our efforts to co-ordinate more NATO activity. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that NATO has stood up a number of additional capabilities, especially in supporting the training functions that Ukraine desperately needs, and we are supporting those efforts wholeheartedly.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the Ukrainian objectives is to create more joint ventures to develop and iterate technologies, especially missiles and drone technology. That has the support of the UK Government, so we have been supporting our Ukrainian friends to do so not only in-country, but with UK industry at the same time. How we do that is being worked through. The new treaty that we signed is really beneficial in enabling some of that work to take place. It is certainly true, though, that to keep Ukraine in the fight, we not only need NATO allies to provide more resources, but we need to create the environment in which Ukraine can develop more of its resources in-country to be used on the frontline.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, which demonstrates again the ironclad commitment of this country to the defence of Ukraine. Ministers will have detected nervousness across the House regarding political changes in January, so may I change tack? There are 6 million Ukrainian refugees across Europe and millions of displaced people within the country itself. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to communities across the United Kingdom who have supported the Ukrainian people, and indeed in many cases opened their homes to Ukrainians coming to this country?
Luke Pollard
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those families across the country—those in his constituency, those of everyone here, and those in Plymouth—who have supported the Homes for Ukraine scheme and those Ukrainians getting to safety. As of 16 December, 218,600 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK, including just under 160,000 via the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Our new Ukraine permission extension scheme will open on 4 February 2025, as announced at the end of October. That will provide an additional 18-month permission, and access to the same rights and entitlements as the current Ukraine schemes. It is really important that as well as lending support to Ukrainians in Ukraine, we support those Ukrainians in the United Kingdom. I thank all the people who are working so hard in particular to ensure support for those families in the United Kingdom today.
Defence Programmes Developments
Tim Roca Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to arrange that soon.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?
John Healey
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment
Tim Roca Excerpts(1 year, 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
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his arguments, and I welcome his contribution. The Treasury will have noted it, and will probably take it as an early representation for the next Budget. In the meantime, I will ensure that the strategic defence review starts with the threats that we face: war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and growing threats globally, as well as Russian aggression more widely beyond Ukraine. We will ensure that we are able to match the capabilities that we develop with the threats that we face, and we will do so within the resources that we have available.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made the important point that the new Government inherited £167 billion-worth of projects, none of which were rated green by the National Audit Office. Does the Secretary of State agree that more money is one part of the equation, but spending it well is the other part?
John Healey
Indeed; that is one reason why, early doors in Washington, the Prime Minister not only reaffirmed our iron-clad commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% but said that the strategic defence review comes first, as a pathway to 2.5%. That is exactly so that we can ensure that we increase what we spend, but also spend it better.
LGBT Veterans Independent Review
Tim Roca Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) for securing this debate. He is proving himself to be a powerful advocate for his constituency. May I also welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister to his place, and thank him for all the work he does? He is a credit to the Government. Finally, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to speak this afternoon.
The very fact that we have to hold this debate is a reminder that there was once a time when a person’s ability to serve was questioned because of the person they loved. Discrimination against any LGBT person is of course appalling, but it takes a special kind of cynicism and bigotry to punish, denigrate and demean volunteer servicemen and women—soldiers who served willingly, fought beside their peers willingly, and in some cases died or were injured in the line of duty—because of their sexuality. There was never any excuse for the laws being what they were. There was no justification on account of ability in combat, no rationale based on individual discipline, and no standards that those servicemen and women could not and did not reach. The laws existed simply because of a fear of difference, and an intolerance of LGBT people. It was inexcusable.
It is worth reflecting on the sad truth that there used to be consensus about those laws. Shamefully, in 1996—quite recently—a cross-party Select Committee rejected calls for the removal of the ban, but it is important to note that 30 years on, there is a new consensus. Before, brave individuals such as naval officer Duncan Lustig-Prean, RAF sergeant Graeme Grady, RAF nurse Jeanette Smith and Navy weapons engineer John Beckett had to stand alone, but now this place is united in condemnation of that policy and—alongside the phenomenal charities that have been referenced, such as Fighting With Pride—supports the thousands of LGBT soldiers, sailors and airmen in our armed forces.
I am pleased to say that a member of my new team here in Parliament is an Army reservist and has seen in his own military career an improvement in attitudes towards himself and other LGBT+ colleagues. It is a journey, but it is worth acknowledging that things are improving. Instead of being seen as a threat and a source of disruption, difference is seen as an advantage. Celebrating difference and diversity of thought, avoiding group-think and fostering a “thinking soldier” environment are parts of a wider conceptual component that gives our military an edge. It is not enough simply to say that we tolerate LGBT people in our military or our society. We value their unique contribution to our forces.
However, even though we are far beyond the ban of the ’90s, we need to support those whom we let down. I am worried, as other hon. Members are, that a cap was placed on the compensation scheme for the 4,000 veterans that lost their careers because of institutional bigotry by the British state. I agree with my hon. Friends: how can £12,400 be deemed sufficient compensation for someone’s own chaplain initiating an investigation and subsequent interrogation of them by the Special Investigation Branch?
The British state treated many thousands of people with contempt in exchange for their willingness to serve. It exposed them to state-sanctioned, institutionalised homophobia and to discharge, leaving them isolated from their friends and family. I am glad that we are building a new consensus, but let us go a step further and make sure that those 4,000 brave, selfless servicemen and women get the compensation and redress that they deserve. And they are only the ones we know about. How many more managed by hiding their true selves? How many more denied their true self to themselves? We must do right by these people.
Finally, as we approach Remembrance Day, I hope that we can all add to our reflections a moment for LGBT veterans specifically. I will be thinking of Edward Brittain. Edward was born in Macclesfield, my constituency. At 21, as a temporary lieutenant in the Sherwood Foresters, Edward fought in the battle of the Somme. He was injured twice, shot in the arm and then in the right thigh on 1 June 1916. His gallantry won him the Military Cross, just as the Minister’s did. Edward’s citation was precise and understated:
“For conspicuous gallantry and leadership during an attack. He was severely wounded, but continued to lead his men with great bravery and coolness until a second wound disabled him.”
On returning to the front, he was tipped off by his commanding officer that he would face a court martial when he came out of the line, as Army censors had read in his personal correspondence that he had had an intimate relationship with a man in his company.
On 15 June 1918, as Edward led his company on a counter-attack on the Asagio plateau to recapture a trench and stop an enemy advance, he was shot and killed by an enemy sniper. He was 22 years old. Whether he deliberately put himself in a position to be killed, as his sister and his CO believed, is unknowable, but what is knowable is that had Edward come out of the line alive between 15 June 1918 and 12 January 2000, he would have been court-martialled and shamed by the country he had shed blood for.
Edward had a Military Cross. He was shot twice at the Battle of the Somme, but returned to the front and led his men with bravery. However, none of that mattered—he would have been considered a disruption to the unit. Let me be the first person in this place to thank Captain Edward Brittain MC for his service. He deserved better from his country.