Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Howell]

I see my right hon. Friend is nodding, so perhaps he will not intervene on me, having made that point. But there is another point on that—the strategic investment that the Royal Air Force will be making, which I will come back to. I am very conscious that it is not just us increasing spending now but countries such as Germany and Denmark. I encourage them to increase their spending further.

Before I come to the Royal Air Force, let me say a word about the Navy. Before the crisis between Russia and Ukraine started, I got the Navy’s leading expert on Russia to come to speak to my delegation to the Council of Europe. Hon. Members may ask why I got a naval expert to come to a delegation that has said it has nothing to do with the security apparatus of Europe. The reason is that I do not buy that argument and actually what the rear-admiral concerned said filled us with a tremendous amount of horror. He pointed out Russia’s interest in the Baltic passages in particular and, more generally, how ill-equipped we were to be able to deal with that. I therefore ask for more investment to be made in that area.

Something like £2 billion of strategic investment is to be made in the Royal Air Force. I think that that should be increased. If Russia has taught us anything, it is that investment in tanks is not a very good investment. If we look at Ukraine, a huge amount of anti-tank missiles are there already and something as fleet of foot as the Royal Air Force is to be commended. I do not want to set a hare running, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that bases such as RAF Benson are not earmarked for closure. They play a vital role and Benson does in particular in looking after the helicopters that we use all the time in our Air Force. They also have another use; they provide training.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I had the privilege of visiting RAF Benson just a couple of weeks ago and I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments on that base’s contribution to training the next generation of helicopter pilots and supporting the wider RAF and, indeed, the local community. I echo his remarks and hope that the Minister will confirm that Benson is not earmarked for closure.

[John Howell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and support. I was going to mention some of that training—and, indeed, some of the training that I have gone through there. Benson is home to CAE, a company that provides a tremendous amount of simulator training for the RAF. He will no doubt be pleased to know that I flew a Chinook and a Puma on the simulator so successfully that I did not crash them. I think that is a tribute to the success of the training, rather than to my dexterity at the controls of two very large aircraft.

On the relationship with companies that provide equipment and larger things to the military, over the years I have tried to put across to the Minister’s Department the idea of a conflict avoidance board for such projects. They work incredibly well in industry. People who are skilled in mediation sit on them and their aim is to stop something becoming a conflict. As we all know, all projects have such problems during their lives and conflict avoidance boards are good at ensuring that we can avoid such conflicts. What is the benefit of that? It goes straight to the heart of the budget. Doing that is much cheaper than spending vast amounts of money going through the courts, with QCs and whoever else is needed to settle a particular argument. I urge the Minister to look at the scheme again for his larger projects. The feedback that I got was closer to a kick in the teeth than anything else, yet I think the boards have tremendous potential. On that note, I will finish and allow somebody else to take over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I have been nearly five years in this place, and every six months or so—periodically at least—we come together to discuss defence. Usually, it is the same old voices and the same points being made, and we all go away saying, “It is good to hear a unified Chamber all speaking as one asking for more to be spent on defence and for more interest to be shown in the defence community or the armed forces in general.” Undoubtedly, we would hear a polite and eloquent response from the Minister at the Dispatch Box—I am expecting no less from today’s Minister—espousing the great extent to which the UK Government were investing more in the armed forces and where it was being spent. The difference today is that we are conducting this debate at a time when images are being shown on our television screens of events happening in Europe now that we thought we would be witnessing only in history books or documentaries—a Europe of 1942, not of 2022. That puts this debate into context. We are talking about defence spending and the estimates, so the debate gives us the chance to interrogate the MOD’s expenditure and to look at wider defence spending. As I was mentioning those on the Treasury Bench, I must pay tribute to the excellent work that Ministers, specifically those in this Department, have been doing over the past few weeks, keeping us all informed, carrying the message to the British public about what we are doing to support the Ukrainian people and ensuring that the Ukrainian armed forces got the training and the equipment that they need to stop Russia and to stop Vladimir Putin doing what he is doing.

I wish to make two points. The first is on the continual debate about percentage spending. We should always remember that 2% is the minimum we are expected to spend on defence by NATO. We now need to look very much at what that 2% is. What does the 2% mean when it comes to UK defence spending? A 2016 report by the Defence Committee called “Shifting the goalposts?” showed that now the 2% includes war pensions, contributions to United Nations peacekeeping, pensions for retired civilian MOD personnel and MOD income, among other things. Fair enough, if that is to be included in defence spending, that is to be included in defence spending, but we should not for one minute assume that if we are saying we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, it is being spent on defence equipment or on personnel; it now covers a far bigger, wider range of things than it used to when we were calculating what we were contributing to the overall NATO budget.

The report also said:

“The 2% pledge, while necessary, may not be sufficient. We believe that the focus should not be merely on a headline figure, but on whether this expenditure can possibly provide a sound defence for the UK.”

Never has that been more true than today, given what we are witnessing in Europe. As has been said time and time again, mass still matters. When the integrated review was published last year, I welcomed much of it. I think we do need to invest in cyber and psy-ops—psychological operations—and we need to spend more on the Royal Navy, in a period when our need to be in charge of the seas, to protect freedom of navigation, especially in the South China sea, with our allies over there, is very important. But it is absolutely true that, as so many Members have said today, a plan survives only until first contact with the enemy. We must now look at the assumptions made in the integrated review, because they are simply out of date. I am not saying we should review the review—goodness me, we all know how much time and effort is taken by defence reviews in general—but it is essential that we look at what we are currently doing and at where we will spend money in the near future.

It is simply inconceivable that we are about to reduce the size of our Army by 10,000 personnel. At a time when allies of ours are being invaded by an aggressive foe, it is simply untenable for us to send the signal that we are reducing the size of our armed forces. That has to be looked at again. I echo the words of so many of my colleagues when I say that we really must increase spending on defence. Defence is not a luxury item, a “might have” or an addition; it is essential to who we are and what we deliver for our allies around the world. We do deliver for our allies around the world, but we need to ensure that we do so in the most efficient manner possible.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If Border Force vessels are fitted with a capability that the Royal Navy commander feels is inappropriate for use, he will not direct that it is used. That is his judgment. The hon. Gentleman, as the proud MP of the Royal Navy in Devonport, probably appreciates that in the MOD we deal with operational mission command and the Royal Navy uses its judgment to bring to bear what it thinks is best. I trust Rear Admiral Utley entirely to make the right decisions in that regard.

I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I am not entirely clear about the custom for publishing rules of engagement. Perhaps he will let me write to him with that in due course.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend guarantee that no resource—be that manpower or asset—will be removed from another theatre to which an already overstretched Royal Navy is currently deployed, carrying out its primary role of protecting the UK and its interests, and those of our allies around the world?

[James Heappey]

I can. Commander UK Strike Force is a UK-based two-star commander—I suspect that my hon. Friend, as a former Navy man, knows that—and the ships mentioned as possibly having utility in this context are already committed to home waters.

UK Military Personnel Serving Overseas: Vaccination

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The detail of vaccines and positive tests by country is held, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not sure you would indulge me if I were to go through the spreadsheet. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept it if I were to write to him and place a copy in the Library, so it can be a matter of record.

The headline stat, as I said in my answer to a parliamentary question last week, is that 98.6% of people deployed overseas have had their first dose, and 56% have had their second dose. I accept that there could be a debate on all professions, whether they be clinicians in the NHS, teachers or members of the armed forces. We made a judgment that, where the medical facilities are sufficient to safely administer the vaccine in a deployed environment, those people would receive their vaccine in line with their age cohort in the general UK population. Where it is not possible to do that, such as with the continuous at-sea deterrent, they were fully vaccinated before deployment.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the activities around HMS Defender in the Black sea earlier today. No warning shots have been fired at HMS Defender. The Royal Navy ship is conducting innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters, in accordance with international law. We believe the Russians were undertaking a gunnery exercise in the Black sea and provided the maritime community with prior warning of their activity. No shots were directed at HMS Defender, and we do not recognise the claim that bombs were dropped in her path.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

While it is, of course, welcome that 98.6% of our service personnel overseas have been vaccinated, just for reassurance, of those men and women serving overseas and their families back here in the UK, can my hon. Friend confirm that it is now and will be a priority of the Ministry of Defence, if it is not already, to ensure that all those serving overseas in our name, for this country, have access to both their jabs as a matter of urgency?

[James Heappey]

First, let me just correct myself for fear that I have inadvertently misled the House: the figure for all overseas deployments is 95%; 98.6% refers to the deployment in Mali. I apologise for that inaccuracy.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Given where we are in the national vaccination programme, one might argue that that is now the case, as everybody is within days of receiving their first jab. In fact, the way that the vaccination programme was administered whereby everybody over 50 received their jab in one go towards the front end of the priority groups at home meant that many in their 50s and 60s overseas—although in the defence population that is not very many—ended up receiving their jabs ahead of their age group in the UK. Likewise, for those under 40, jabs were effectively being rolled out in line with people in their 40s here in the UK. That means that many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen who were in their late teens or 20s were getting their jab well ahead of their contemporaries.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will endeavour not to be cut off.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which has been very interesting. It is actually a very thoughtful motion that we are considering—much more so than some of the other Opposition day motions we have been used to considering of late. Maybe that is why it has had such a sympathetic hearing from so many of my hon. Friends. We only have to look at what is happening on the Ukrainian border to see that even today, despite all the advancements that we have in technology, mass still matters.

Yet I cannot support the motion, primarily because of the very last sentence where it talks about the Government’s plans to reduce the capability of the armed forces. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. They are reducing the size—the overall manpower—of the armed forces but they are not reducing the capability. In fact, the £24.1 billion investment—the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war—should be welcomed. The investment in new technologies and in accommodation, supporting forces’ families, is also something that we should all welcome. It is especially welcome in Scotland, where the review and settlement cement the armed forces footprint north of the border, guaranteeing the presence of the armed forces on the Clyde, at Lossiemouth and elsewhere across the country, investing in our shipyards by placing orders for 20 warships to be built on the Clyde, and providing jobs across the country in our world-leading defence industry sector at companies such as Leonardo in Edinburgh, which is providing the UK-led future combat air system.

I thank the Opposition for putting forward a very thoughtful motion. This has indeed been a very interesting debate with good contributions from all sides. However, because of the simple truth that we are not reducing the capability of the armed forces, I cannot—

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry to have to disagree with my very good friend. We are reducing the capability of our armed forces. We are reducing their capability to do peacekeeping, limited operations, counter-insurgency and peacemaking. We have not got the men to do it. That is what we are doing.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend—my very good friend—for his intervention. I would never seek to disagree with him on matters of defence, but on this issue, although not wrong, I think that the investment that we are making in technology will allow this country to be at the forefront of expanding our capabilities as a country in doing all the things that he spoke about, which we are very proud that our armed forces do for us and for our allies around the world. That is why I cannot support this motion.

Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I do not think it does. When the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, it did not reverse the reductions from the time that I was in the Army. As I have said throughout this afternoon, the key is getting the balance of giving our soldiers and sailors the right protections they need, ensuring that our ambition does not overstretch them, and ensuring that they have the right training and investment in themselves so that they not only stay, but have a fulfilled career.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s words from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, especially his commitment to more than 20 frigates and destroyers by the end of the next decade, but I was slightly concerned by the vague reference to the new automatic mine-hunting system, which will replace the Sandown and Hunt classes. My right hon. Friend knows that these two classes do far more than just hunt mines; they are a great deterrent and deliver a presence in supporting our allies around the world. Will he give us more detail on what this new automatic mine-hunting capability is, and on whether the Sandown and Hunt classes will be replaced like for like?

[Mr Wallace]

If my hon. Friend would like me to, I would be delighted to get him a briefing on the exact progress of that system. Automated mine-hunting can currently cover, in key points, far more area than a ship, and it is really important for some parts of the patrols and areas that we cover. I would be delighted to give him some more detail; I will get him a briefing.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and especially to follow the brilliant, eloquent speeches that we have had so far this afternoon. Over the years, I have been privileged to observe Armistice Day and the two-minute silence in some unique and special places. Twelve years ago, as part of the team that organised the 90th anniversary of the great war, I was at the Cenotaph with Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone, the three remaining veterans of that awful conflict. I defy anyone who was there that day or remembers watching it on TV not to have been moved by the sight of Henry Allingham, who was determined to lay his own wreath at the foot of the Cenotaph to pay tribute to his fallen comrades but was sadly unable to do so.

In 2015, I was with colleagues who worked with me at the European Parliament in Loos in northern France on a cold, grey northern French morning as the gloom lifted upon row upon row of British gravestones in the cemetery, many of which were marked “Known unto God”. We witnessed the residents of that town paying tribute to the British soldiers, 7,766 of whom gave their lives at that battle. Many of them were from the north-east of Scotland and Tayside. They fell in defence of that town for their country and for the freedom of France and its allies.

Of course, I think of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle who, at 19 years old, a young lad who had never left Greenock in his life, fell at Gallipoli and lies buried alongside 600 other British and Commonwealth soldiers at the Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. We often focus very much on the sacrifices made by the generation of world war one and world war two, but this weekend I was struck that we should, of course, also be thinking of the guys and girls who served in our armed forces much more recently. It struck me that, barely six years after British troops withdrew from Helmand province in Afghanistan and the end of that operation, the sacrifices made by the men, women and service families much more recently are, if not being forgotten, already fading from public consciousness.

I will not forget, nearly every morning in those awful days of 2007-08, being at Dartmouth or Portsmouth, on deployment overseas or, indeed, here in London, opening a newspaper or turning on the news to read yet another name or hear about another cortège passing through Royal Wootton Bassett. I remember while based at RAF Uxbridge remarking to an oppo of mine as we watched the festival of Remembrance how sad it was that the war widows’ procession, which when I was much younger had been predominantly made up of widows from the world war two generation, was much more the families of young men and women of my age.

Although life in the rest of the country went on pretty much as normal, as we fretted about the financial crisis, the coalition Government or preparations for the Olympics, our young boys and girls were under fire and were prepared to give their lives for our country and for us in a foreign field. We should never forget them or those men and women who should still be here with us today, who might otherwise be standing in the House today or walking among us in the streets.

This debate is titled “Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society,” and one of my earliest and clearest memories is as a seven-year-old going out with all my primary school to watch the Gordon Highlanders parade through Inverurie, a town Madam Deputy Speaker knows well, to mark their disbandment and amalgamation with the Seaforth and Cameron Highlanders to form 1st Battalion, the Highlanders, which subsequently became the Highlanders, 4th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland—4 Scots. In this identity, they have seen tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember so many people being sad about that 200-year-old local link ending—the link to the north-east of Scotland, the unique, beautiful and fiercely independent part of Scotland where the regiment was proud to come from. The finest regiment in the world, as Winston Churchill called it, had come to an end.

The north-east is not unique in feeling that. Every area feels an attachment to its local regiment, and every area feels a deep sense of loss when the British Army, as it has throughout its history, goes through a reorganisation and modernisation process and merges, disbands, renames or moves regiments. However, there is a danger in removing that local link and taking the Army, or the Navy or Air Force for that matter, out of a local community, shrinking the size and therefore the visibility of the defence footprint across the country for whatever economic, strategic or political reason, that we run the risk of removing our armed forces, the men and women, from public consciousness and their becoming out of sight and out of mind.

I represent one of the biggest constituencies in the country. It covers Aberdeenshire, the fourth largest county in Scotland. Between Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, we have a population of 490,000 people and cover an area of 6,498 square miles. We have not one regular Army, Navy or Air Force presence. It is incumbent on all of us, as we mark Remembrance Day today and go about our lives from now on, to remember the men and women of the armed forces serving today. Although they are not physically present in all the communities where they used to be, we should make sure they are ever present in our thoughts as we move forward throughout the rest of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I served alongside RUC Special Branch in my time, and I have the highest regard for the RUC officers, many of whom lost their lives in fighting during the troubles. Obviously, we will look at what we can do around other Crown servants to make sure that they are protected from that same vexatious industry that is going on at the moment in Northern Ireland.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

2. What plans he has to increase the number of Royal Navy (a) frigates and (b) destroyers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (James Heappey)]

The Prime Minister has announced that the Government will undertake the deepest review of Britain’s security, defence and foreign policy since the end of the cold war. We remain committed to ensuring that the Royal Navy will have the ships required to fulfil its defence commitments.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. While I welcome that commitment, may I raise concerns that many are bringing to me—that at the minute we simply do not have enough ships to protect our two new aircraft carriers should they ever have to go to sea at the same time? Is it still the commitment of the Government to have two wholly UK sovereign deployable carrier groups to deploy at the same time, should we ever have to, while maintaining our other commitments overseas?

[James Heappey]

Although that has never been the policy of the Government, both aircraft carriers have been brought into service to ensure that one is always available 100% of the time. Although the precise number and mix of vessels deployed within a maritime task group would depend on operational circumstances, we will be able to draw from a range of highly capable vessels, such as Type 45 destroyers, Type 23 frigates, and the Astute class submarines—and, in the near future, Type 26 frigates as well.