Points of Order
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John Healey(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. We do not need any further interventions, but I will take a further point of order if the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne would like to make one.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, me and my family actually live in Rotherham and if I notified him every time I was in his constituency, I would simply swamp his inbox.
Alexander Stafford
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John Healey(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In November, the Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee that
“yes, the inflationary pressure on my budget for the next two years is about £8 billion”.
From the media briefing at the weekend, we know he has a welcome £5 billion earmarked for stockpiles and the UK’s nuclear programme, but the armed forces will see that funding as a defeat for the MOD in Government. There is no new money for pressures on the core defence budget or to help deal with capability gaps, or even to deal with that inflation. The National Audit Office has already said that the MOD cannot afford the capabilities needed in the 2021 integrated review, so how will the Secretary of State ensure that precisely the same does not happen again with today’s 2023 integrated review?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The House will be thankful and grateful to the Defence Secretary for updating it on the latest Op Shader activity. If there are any questions that cannot be raised this afternoon, we will return to them. On tonight’s AUKUS announcement in San Diego, does the Defence Secretary recognise that this has Labour’s fullest support? We want Britain to play the biggest possible role in building the new Australian submarines. But beyond the subs, how will he develop the pillar 2 collaboration on artificial intelligence, cyber and hypersonic missiles?
Ukraine
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John Healey
John Healey
The Minister shakes his head, but let me ask about China. China called yesterday for maximum restraint in Ukraine. Has the Prime Minister spoken to President Xi since the conflict began? When did the Foreign Secretary last speak to her Chinese counterpart? Was that since or before the invasion?
I turn to the contributions from many Members, which I think were in four sections and had four hallmarks. The first was great insight and expertise, and I will only recognise those Members who have returned to the Chamber for the wind-ups.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am checking on that, and it is somewhat disgraceful that there are Members who have taken part in this debate who are not here for the wind-ups. I am saying that as loudly as I can in the hope that it will be heard across this building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. As a matter of courtesy to him, those Members ought to be here.
John Healey
I am less concerned about courtesy to me; I am concerned about courtesy to the House and the public, for whom we speak and are here to represent.
Turning to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), when I talk about great expertise and insight, no one has done more about and knows more about human trafficking, and her warning about traffickers operating from day one among the refugees fleeing Ukraine is a serious wake-up call. She urges work with the UN agencies, tech companies, refugee groups and law enforcement agencies. She urges the Home Secretary to act, and I hope she gets more of a response than we have seen to date.
Turning to another true expert in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is an expert on Russia, with a long track record of exposing Russian corruption and urging action on the dirty money that keeps Putin in power. He has worked hard to get the Government to this point, and he is clearly not going to give up.
I will pass over my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), as he is not in his place. [Hon. Members: “He is!”] I beg your pardon; he has moved. Hon. Members have talked about defence spending, but he made the important point that it is how well, not how much that matters. Bearing in mind that the Public Accounts Committee report on the Ministry of Defence, published just before Christmas, described its system for delivering major equipment capabilities as “broken”, that may be a message that the Chancellor wants to hear and he may be wary of throwing good money after bad. The right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is not here so I will move on.
The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said that we are back in a cold war scenario. I am not sure that he is right; the circumstances are new but some of the old determination on deterrence will certainly be required.
The second hallmark of the debate was the profound gravity with which hon. Members spoke about Russia invading and killing people in that sovereign country. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is not here because he rightly said that Russia is a member of the UN Security Council and is tearing up 75 years of international law.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that he was making a short speech but rightly warned us to prepare for a long conflict. He said that securing long-term peace will require resolve and strength. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) treated us to a history of European treaties, including Maastricht, that have taken for granted our geopolitical stability in Europe over recent years.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was passionate and profoundly expert. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) all spoke about the protest and bravery of Marina Ovsyannikova on Russian state TV yesterday. That is a clear image that Putin is fighting not just in Ukraine now—this is his new front. Domestic doubts about the invasion, protesters on the streets and western sanctions are all putting pressure on him. This must become his costly failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) was right to remind us of, and to offer the solidarity of this House and Britain to, the brave anti-war protesters in Ukraine.
The third hallmark of the debate was great emotional power and passion. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) said that the Ukrainians are fighting this war for all of us and we must do everything possible, short of NATO involvement. She is right. I pass over the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who is not in his place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) rightly said that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy, on peace, on freedom and on the rule of law. She pointed out what is at stake in this war. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) warned us never to allow Ukraine to go back to the horrors of the Soviet era of control, and he is right. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) reminded us that ordinary Russians are not responsible for this conflict. It is President Putin’s war and it must become President Putin’s failure.
The fourth hallmark of the debate was the strong solidarity that the House expressed with Ukrainians, led by the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who said that Ukrainians look to the west, not to the east. That is what they are fighting for: the right to determine their own future as a democratic sovereign nation. He had the whole House behind him when he said that. I pass over the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is not here.
The sense of solidarity with Ukrainians was particularly strong in several contributions about the Government’s response to refugees, which, honestly, has been shameful and shambolic. They used the Home Office’s existing systems as a starting point, but they are simply not suitable in a period of war with almost 3 million refugees in three weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly made the point that the system is not suited to the emergency. She said that the Government must be more like the British people with refugees.
I hope the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), gets her answers from the Minister about the support to local authorities that will accompany the DIY refugee scheme announced yesterday. Her hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) described the Government’s response on refugees as “pitiful”, although I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was more balanced and made a better case. She quite rightly said that in having a DIY asylum scheme, as announced yesterday, there is a risk that the Government are absolving themselves of the proper responsibility of the state for refugees.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) took the Government to task for failing to provide what is needed most—a simple sanctuary route. He said we can and must do better for Ukrainians, as did the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who was asking for answers and for a better system for her constituents.
It is clear that Putin has miscalculated not just on the strength of the Ukrainian resistance and the weakness of his own forces, but on the international resolve to isolate Russia and on the strength of western unity and NATO unity. Our Labour commitment to NATO is unshakeable. The Government therefore have our full support for reinforcing NATO nations on the alliance’s eastern border with Russia. The Labour leader and I were able last week to fly to Tallinn and Tapa in Estonia to reassure Estonia of the united UK determination to defend their security and to thank our British troops deployed there from the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Welsh battle group.
Let President Putin be in no doubt that our commitment to article 5 is absolute. Let him not mistake NATO’s restraint for any lack of resolve. When Defence Ministers go to NATO tomorrow for the NATO meeting, we want the UK Government to demonstrate a leadership role in NATO again; to further reinforce the eastern flank of NATO; to encourage the nations to take a decision on an initiating directive to SACEUR, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe; and to argue for new priorities in the NATO strategic concepts to be agreed in June, for closer co-ordination with the European Union, and for greater collaboration with the countries of the joint expeditionary force.
As we strengthen our defences abroad, we must also strengthen our defences at home. We need the Government to publish the national resilience strategy they promised a year ago, and to halt further cuts to the Army. We need the Government to reboot defence spending to respond to new threats that the UK and Europe face. Labour in government did exactly that, with a big boost to defence after the 9/11 terror attack on the twin towers. We introduced the largest sustained real-terms increase in spending for two decades. If the Government act to boost defence as Labour did after 9/11, the Government will again have our full support.
When he opened this debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that three weeks ago the world changed. Putin’s invasion was a grave violation of international law and UN conventions. It was also the start of an assault on the fundamental aims of post-war Europe: peace, freedom, democracy and national sovereignty. We have taken peace and security for granted in Europe since the end of the cold war. We have failed to confront Russian aggression. We must now be ready to deal with the consequences of this Russian invasion for years to come.
Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John Healey(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right, of course. There has been an £8 billion real-terms cut to the defence budget since 2010. That is part of the reason that we have seen 45,000 full-time forces cut over the last decade. I will return to some of those points.
For now, I want to make this point: we can destroy enemy forces with technology, but we cannot seize and hold ground without troops. Drones and robots do not win hearts and minds; they do not mend broken societies; they do not give covid jabs. These deeper cuts now planned could limit our forces’ capacity simultaneously to deploy overseas, support allies, maintain our own strong national defences and reinforce our domestic resilience, as we have seen our troops do to help our country through the covid crisis. Other countries have expanded troop numbers even as they develop technology. They do not see this as a “manpower or machines” question, but as personnel and technology together. Although high-tech weapons systems are essential, highly-trained personnel are simply indispensable, and size matters.
These planned cuts are damaging for four reasons. Let us call them “the four Rs”. The first is resilience. Cutting Army numbers reduces the UK’s national resilience by reducing our capacity to react to unforeseen circumstances at home and abroad—not just major wars, but insurgencies such as Afghanistan, international interventions such as Sierra Leone or Kosovo, and emergency support operations such as post terrorist attacks or during covid.
The second “R” is readiness. The rapid response required to the unexpected also requires highly-trained, adaptable, cohesive combat troops, which even the best reserves, called up as last-minute reinforcements, cannot provide.
The third “R” is renewal. The fewer troops and full-strength battalions we have, the less able the Army is to sustain long campaigns. Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq all required the long-term rotation of troops. We are a leading member of NATO. We are one of the P5 countries at the UN Security Council. We may again be called on to deploy and sustain forces away from the UK. We may not seek a major crisis, but we may well face a major crisis that comes to us.
The final “R” is reputation. The current Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to field a single war-fighting division was
“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”,
yet the fully capable division mandated then, including a new strike brigade, will not be battle-ready for another 10 years according to evidence that the MOD gave to the Defence Committee in the autumn. A former CDS, General Sir David Richards, has said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK was
“no longer taken seriously as a military power”
and that this would
“damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO”.
My second argument is that this is not just about numbers. In the face of growing threats and the increasing ambition for the global role that our armed forces will play, there is a strong case against, not for, some of the Government’s short-term capability cuts. Taking two Type 23 frigates out of service in the next two years will reduce the Navy’s anti-submarine strength. Ending the RAF’s E-3 planes will leave a two-year gap in airborne early warning before the E-7 Wedgetails come into service in 2023. The Army is losing nine Chinook helicopters, 14 Hercules transporter planes and 20 Puma support helicopters.
The third argument is one that I am sad to have to make, and it is this: we are faced now with more of the same. After a decade of decline since 2010, which the Prime Minister called an “era of retreat”, the Defence Secretary promised that this defence review would be different from the last two Conservative defence reviews, which weakened the foundations of our armed forces. They were driven by finances, not by threats, cutting full-time forces by 45,000 and cutting critical defence capabilities and upgrades, alongside plans for full capability forces in the future that have not been fulfilled. I fear that this defence review simply makes the same mistakes of the past.
Fourth and finally, in November, when the Prime Minister announced the extra funding as part of a four-year funding settlement, we welcomed it as promising a long overdue upgrade of Britain’s defences, so we are dismayed now by more defence cuts, despite this £16.5 billion boost. But I guess it is not hard to see why. The defence budget was balanced in 2012, and the equipment programme was fully funded, but Ministers since then have lost control. The National Audit Office has now judged the defence equipment plan unaffordable for the last four years in a row and reports a black hole of more than £17 billion over the next 10 years. This black hole in the defence budget has grown by £4 billion in the last year, on this Defence Secretary’s watch. The MOD’s annual report and accounts suggest that the annual marginal cost for 10,000 Army personnel is around half a billion pounds. This deficit alone each year could cover the cost of maintaining Army numbers three times over.
The new defence budget is not all it seems. Ministers talk about the rise in capital funding but not the real cut in revenue funding over the next four years, which means less money for forces’ recruitment, training, pay and families. It means a possible cut of 40% to the budget of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Worse still, over half this year’s £16.4 billion defence equipment budget is revenue-based for equipment support and maintenance. This revenue cut is the Achilles heel of defence plans. No other Whitehall Department is projected to have a cut in day-to-day spending between now and 2024-25. The Defence Secretary should never have agreed it.
This defence review and the defence and security industrial strategy announce nothing new that Ministers are doing to get a grip of the MOD’s budget failings and to make the most of this big, one-off opportunity from the extra funding. So I say to the Minister: get to grips with the budget, consider the concerns raised, rethink the plans and report back to Parliament before the end of June. Britain was promised better, Britain deserves better and Britain needs better from its Defence Department.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister, I should tell the House that there will be an initial time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes, but that will reduce quite soon to three minutes.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John HealeyWednesday 23rd September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. When you speak, you speak standing up not sitting down. Now, we will just have a drop in temperature while we consider the facts of the Bill and let the emotions settle down somewhat.
John Healey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The facts of the Bill are that it places torture and other war crimes on a different level to crimes of sexual violence. That is not embarrassing; that is unconscionable for a country with a proud record of upholding unequivocally the international conventions that we helped to draw up.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John Healey(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The First Deputy Chairman
I do not call John Healey. I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I call Pete Wishart.
John Healey
Standing Orders can always be altered, particularly by Governments, but by doing it unilaterally the Government have, on this occasion, created an extremely unsatisfactory procedure, as this afternoon’s debates have amply demonstrated.
Let me say something to the Scottish nationalists. I have not seen, none of my colleagues have seen, and the House has not seen them present in such numbers in debates on the Housing and Planning Bill, and at no stage—not on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report—have we seen them vote on the Bill. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said this afternoon, “We have little interest in this Bill”, and he was right, because so little of the Bill concerns Scotland. He and his party would do much better to concentrate on his own poor record in government, and on improving what the SNP Government are doing about housing in Scotland. There are 150,000 people on the council house waiting list in Scotland and there is the lowest level of house building in Scotland since 1947. This debate—these proceedings—is simply preventing us from getting on with the proper job of holding this Government to task on the Housing and Planning Bill in this Chamber, and I hope we can move on to Third Reading without any further delay.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I remind hon. Members—although I do not think hon. Members really need to be reminded—that if there is a Division on the consent motion for England and Wales, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote. This extends to expressing an opinion by calling out Aye or No when the Question is put or acting as a Teller—I know the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) knows that I recognise a Scottish voice when I hear one.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Housing and Planning Bill and certified amendments made by the House to the Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 97, 98 and 120 to 150 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) including any amendments made on Report;
Schedules 7 and 10 to 15 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) including any amendments made on Report;
Amendments certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England and Wales
Amendments 180 and 181 made in Committee to Clause 71 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 75), which is Clause 76 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108);
Amendments 127 and 128 made in Committee to Clause 85 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 75), which is Clause 92 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108).
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England)
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and John Healey(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I applaud the way in which my right hon. Friend is contesting the regulations, because Labour Members simply cannot accept them when they fail to protect the public and needlessly put firefighters at risk. The Minister told the House earlier today that she will guarantee an unreduced pension to those firefighters who, through no fault of their own, face dismissal because they cannot meet the fitness standards, but the regulations do not provide that guarantee. Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that the firefighters themselves were told by the Minister during the negotiations that that would be the case, so they have been let down directly by the regulations?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is a limited time for this debate and a lot of people wish to speak. We must have very brief interventions.