NATO and International Security

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Turkey is an incredibly important member of NATO, and indeed a strong contributor to it. We should always remember that NATO covers a very wide frontier, from the high north—the Arctic—in Norway all the way through to the Black sea and Turkey. Turkey is one of the oldest members of NATO, and it is very important that we understand, in this environment, what Turkey is concerned about and that we address that to make sure that the 30 nations come together to support and accept Finland and Sweden.

I will be speaking to my counterpart—I speak regularly to the Defence Minister anyhow—and I have listened to the worries of President Erdoğan about PKK terrorism groups and whether members are doing enough to deal with them. I think there is a way through and that we will get there in the end. It is very important that we listen to all members about their concerns in that process. We will certainly be listening to Turkey, and I was in touch with my counterpart over the weekend about exactly that.

The NATO strategic concept is updated every 10 years and, in the wake of Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine, it is critical that we make sure it is updated to reflect what is going on today. The 2010 strategic concept has served us well, but clearly needs modernising to reflect the new security reality we face. For example, in 2010, the concept stated that the Euro-Atlantic area was at peace. The next concept will reflect how NATO is accelerating its transformation for a more dangerous strategic reality, calibrating our collective defence to Russia’s unacceptable invasion of Ukraine and the new challenges posed by countries further afield, such as China.

While the new concept will reaffirm our commitment to freedom, openness and the rules-based order, it must also embed the UK-led work to ensure that the alliance is fit for future challenges in line with the NATO 2030 agenda. This includes modernising and adapting to advanced technologies, competing and integrating across domains using military and non-military tools, and improving national resilience. The UK has been at the forefront of the strategy’s development. We have full confidence that the 2022 strategic concept will reshape the alliance to ensure it is fit for purpose and for future challenges—in particular, by adapting its deterrence and defence posture on its eastern flank by expanding the alliance’s forward presence from a tripwire to a more credible and combat-effective model, which is grounded through effective, enabled and equipped in-place forces, and supported by persistent, rotational and rapidly scalable forces from elsewhere.

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

I again put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for his leadership during the present crisis. One of the challenges facing NATO, which may seem quite boring to many people, is the issue of logistics and the resilience of transport and other networks across the NATO alliance. Does he see this being addressed at Madrid? Certainly from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly point of view, we talk about it, and it is one of those issues that comes up time and again.

[Mr Wallace]

NATO and many of its member countries are no different from the United Kingdom in that many of the unglamorous but key enablers have been disinvested in. That may be the bridge strengthening in eastern Europe that would allow heavy armour to get to the frontlines—that used to be a total norm in every design in the 1980s and at the time of the cold war—or it may be logistical hubs or transport to get people rapidly to the front. All of that has in effect been the Cinderella of defence spending for too long across the alliance countries, including the United Kingdom. One of the ways through that is NATO common funding, and Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General, has an ambition for a significant increase in that funding. We will look sympathetically at that request, obviously balancing our own budget requirements, but also making sure that it is going to be used for those purposes.

It is here that places such as the EU can complement NATO. The EU has recently published what I think it calls its strategic compass, and I was very keen to make sure that the EU complemented NATO and did not compete with it. What can the EU do well? It can co-ordinate in sub-threshold areas such as cyber, transnational crime, transnational migration and disinformation, and also in infrastructure-readiness across its member states. I am incredibly supportive of the EU doing more in that space, which would complement the NATO response and make it even more effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

No one on our Front Bench or in the House would disagree with that analysis. Our response was too little, and it was regarded as too weak. It was certainly too little and too weak to deter Putin’s belief that he could take the sort of steps that we have seen in the past three months in Ukraine.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree. We took our eye off the ball. But I will not have lectures from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who was the one who withdrew our troops down in Germany in the rushed defence review. I remember he made a great statement at the time that we would never see tanks rolling across the east German plains again. We are actually back there, ruing the decision that was taken then.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. I really do not want to make these sorts of points this afternoon, but the Prime Minister declared in recent months, before the Ukraine invasion, that the period of tank battles in Europe was over and justified the Indo-Pacific tilt and the deployment of defence priorities to areas outside the NATO area.

The point that I want to make is in part to recognise the role that the Defence Secretary has played. We in Britain are a bigger force for good not when we act alone but when we act with allies. I take this example from the Ukraine experience. Britain’s supply of anti-tank and anti-air missiles to Ukraine is a fraction of the total weapons provided by the west, but we have helped a great deal more by calling donor conferences, co-ordinating the logistics of delivery and reinforcing the will of other countries to help. So Labour’s full backing for the Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine will continue as we shift from crisis management of the current conflict in Donbas to delivering the medium-term NATO standard military support that Ukraine will need for Putin’s next offensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right in many respects. Some of the most significant arms reduction and arms control treaties have been negotiated and signed by this country under Labour Governments. That was true under Wilson, whom he cites, and it was also true under Blair. He is also right to remind the House that part of our unshakeable commitment to NATO and to the deterrent has been a commitment to leading multinational arms control, reduction and disarmament talks. We may have lost sight of those in recent years—they have certainly commanded little attention over the last decade from the Conservatives—but they are part and parcel of pursuing the fundamental values of NATO, of this country and certainly of the party on this side of the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I concur with what my right hon. Friend has said, but is it not the case that we now need to be making the case for deterrence, so that when Putin is providing maps and threats of nuclear destruction for western Europe, we can say very clearly what the response would be? It is that deterrent stance that has kept the peace since the second world war, and we need to keep reminding him, when he makes those threats, of the reason that we retain a nuclear deterrent.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. Clear and consistent communication is part of having an effective deterrent in place. It is not simply about the weaponry at hand.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by thanking the members of our armed forces—the men and women who work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to keep us safe. I also put on the record my thanks to our NATO partners and the men and women of their armed forces. Today, however, our thoughts have to be with the people of Ukraine and the brave members of their armed forces, who are fighting Russian aggression in their homeland.

We are at a dangerous and pivotal point in Europe’s history since the second world war. The attack going on in Ukraine is not just about contesting territory; it is about—more dangerously—undermining the rules-based order that we live with and have come to accept. It came out of the dark days and destruction of the second world war, and Russia is making a fundamental attack on that rules-based order, on the values of democratic governance, the rule of law and freedom of speech—things that we all take for granted.

Occasionally, we should all take a step back to think about the privileges that we have in this country. I sometimes get concerned that some populist agendas these days attack alternative opinions because they do not agree with them. That is the beauty of democracy, that we can have that disagreement. It does not make those people wrong; it makes the point that we are allowed to have those different opinions in our democracy. Do not shout people down, but listen and argue. We do not want to reach the point where we have just one narrative, as there is in Russia, which is state controlled.

There has been a lot of talk about increases in defence expenditure, but one of the downsides of the invasion has been the lovely armies of armchair generals—including some on my own Defence Committee—coming up with instant solutions for what should be done. I accept the point about increased defence expenditure, although I would not argue for it yet; we need a sombre look at the lessons of Ukraine. The integrated review was right in its analysis, but the Government will have to admit that they need to update it at some point, and that will have to be done in a thoughtful and fact-based way.

I am sorry that the relevant Minister is not in his place, but I want to make the point that we must ensure that the Treasury pays for our support for the Ukrainian armed forces. It should not come out of the defence budget, which would limit what we can do. That message should be given loud and clear from across the House to the Treasury: the money has to come out of the special reserve and not out of the defence budget.

The Defence Secretary mentioned the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have the privilege of being the deputy leader of our delegation to NATO. Last week, along with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and the leader of the delegation, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), we visited Latvia and Estonia. If one clear message is coming from there, it is that they now consider themselves to be on the frontline. They are small former Soviet republics, which have been referred to as the “canary in the coalmine” given the hybrid attacks that have taken place over the past few years. Clear in their minds, however, is the threat of invasion from Russia.

That leads to some questions for NATO’s Madrid summit. The Latvians have always been supporters of the enhanced forward presence—since 2016—and we had the honour of visiting the EFP group in Latvia. I give credit to all those nine nations, as well as to our forces in Estonia, but I think that the tripwire idea and its reinforcement need to be revisited because of the events in Ukraine. Looking across at events in Bucha and other Ukrainian cities it is unthinkable for the Latvians and Estonians that they should be invaded. Clearly, as the Latvian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister said to us, there is no space in geopolitics but enemies will occupy it. We had a similar message from the secretary-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Estonia when he said:

“Estonians don’t want to be liberated.”

I think we need to take that on board.

What needs to happen in Madrid, certainly if we get Finland and Sweden applying to join NATO—and I welcome that—is that we come up with a new Baltic security pact. We are playing a very important role in Estonia, but we need to think about how that happens. We will need to have a permanent presence not just in the Baltic states, but across the eastern flank of NATO. I think the idea of rotating troops through is one that has served us well until now, but it certainly does not do so now, after the invasion of Ukraine.

One key thing that came out of our visit last week is that NATO needs to be united in our response to Putin’s aggression. That is not just through the help and support that we are providing for the people and armed forces in Ukraine; we must be united against destabilisation, cyber, the refugee crisis—the weaponisation of refugees—and the disinformation that takes place. That is not going to be done without investment and, I have to say, a certain amount of pain—this is certainly not going to be free. That will put pressure on all NATO nations, and not just on defence budgets and how we refocus them; it will put pressure on our populations. I give credit to both Latvia and Estonia, which have stepped up to the mark in supporting the efforts in Ukraine.

I will finish with a quote, which struck me, from Kristi Raik, the director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute, who said that “freedom is priceless”. Latvia and Estonia are countries on the border with Russia, and those words from Kristi Raik mean to me that those of us in countries that have the geographical advantage of being further away need to ensure that we fight for the core values we are defending against Russia in Ukraine—freedom, democracy, freedom of speech and the rules-based order that we all live by. They are worth fighting for; they are priceless, and we must defend them. That is what we have to continue to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey]

Yet the hon. Gentleman’s position and that of his party is that he would want to join an alliance whose deterrence is underpinned by that deterrent. It feels inconsistent. To NATO countries around the alliance, the idea that that pivotal geography on the southern end of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap should wish to break away from one of the world’s biggest, best-resourced and best-trained armed forces seems like absolute nonsense.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree. The argument is clear: NATO is a nuclear alliance. SNP Members always refer to other countries in NATO that do not have nuclear weapons, but those countries have a commitment not only to receive nuclear weapons but, in some cases, to have aircraft that deliver them. Would a future Scottish air force have to deliver the nuclear deterrent?

[James Heappey]

That is an interesting point. It seems to me that NATO is one of the most powerful arguments for the Union, because if one supports NATO, surely one continues to support the Union.

Many colleagues have discussed the Madrid conference and shown particular interest in the strategic concept. Fundamentally, the strategic concept has three key elements for which we should be looking out and in which the UK has particular interests.

The first key element of the strategic concept relates to the resilience of member states and the wider alliance, and to the interweaving of national security plans, reinforced by a wider NATO mass at appropriately high readiness, with robust enablers and industrial bases to get NATO into the fight and sustain it once it is there.

The second element is adapting and modernising around advanced technologies. Inescapably, the battle space is changing. Everyone harks back to the armour-on-armour conflict of the past, and, of course, as we have seen in Ukraine, there is still a place for it, but, inescapably, there are technological advances that cannot be avoided and that the alliance must embrace. Missile technology is in the ascendancy. Cyber and space remain pivotal, even if their role in Ukraine has not been as great as we expected, and the alliance must embrace them.

The third element is competing and integrating across domains using both military and non-military tools. Far too often in discussion, NATO is viewed through a military lens when the nature of competition is now more than just military mass on mass; it is the ability to bring to bear the full effects of the state, and all states within the alliance, to impose cost on the adversary.

It is a selective retelling of history if the UK’s own increase in defence spending is ignored. I would argue that the UK led the way in encouraging people to increase defence spending in anticipation of the way the world was developing. Many countries have now followed, which is enormously welcome. That has changed the Euro-Atlantic security situation beyond recognition. In particular, Germany’s spending as a large continental power in the middle of Europe has massively changed things. It gives the UK and others a lot to reflect on around the capabilities that we should seek, given the mass that Germany and Poland will have in the centre of Europe.

It is not just the cash spent on military mass that has changed; there has been a huge geo-strategic shift. As Members across the House have remarked, the fact that Finland and Sweden have abandoned decades of neutrality to join the alliance is a quite remarkable development—perhaps the most vivid example of just how badly Putin has miscalculated in his strategic aims for this conflict.

I do not accept the Opposition’s charge that the integrated review has been overtaken by events. The IR was fundamentally about a return to systemic competition. I have an awful lot of time for the shadow Secretary of State, as he knows, but when he said that there was a section on the Indo-Pacific but not on Russia, I had a quick flick through the IR and the defence Command Papers since the IR. I found that almost every paragraph mentions NATO, Russia or the Euro-Atlantic. The one part that does not is the section on the Indo-Pacific to which he refers.

In any case, the argument that the UK can focus only on the Euro-Atlantic is just not sound. The reality—this feels rather like watching my son’s football team play the Cheddar under-10s, where they all run around following the ball—is that there is lots to distract us in Europe right now, but there is a world beyond that is increasingly unstable and insecure. It is struggling with high food and fuel prices, which brings instability, as we saw in the Arab spring. The UK needs to keep an eye on that beyond Europe and remain engaged with it, because Iran, China, Russia and violent extremist organisations are all looking to use the west being distracted as an opportunity to stake their claim.

Ukraine Update

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We have all seen with concern the playing in of nuclear weapons by Putin, either in earlier statements or recent test fires. I remind colleagues that NATO is a nuclear alliance; Britain, America and France are in possession of nuclear weapons, and that is first and foremost a strong deterrent to him. He can invest in many other different missiles, but fundamentally some are out there right now under the sea; our brave men and women of the Royal Navy, silent and able to deliver a nuclear effect if they had to in defence of this kingdom or in defence of NATO. It is important that Putin does not forget that.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend his leadership and that of his team throughout this crisis. He has already outlined an impressive list of equipment that we, our NATO allies and our EU allies have provided for Ukraine. Some of what we provide is legacy equipment and some is from inventory. Can he assure me that the cost of that is coming from the Treasury’s central reserve and not the Defence budget?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Yes, to date we have gifted in aid £200 million to Ukraine, which we propose will grow to £500 million, and the Treasury has agreed to old for new in funding that replacement.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend and look forward to the conclusion of the Select Committee’s work. He is right about fuelling for the future, and I have no doubt that my colleagues in the Department for Transport will place a significant emphasis on exactly those issues. They certainly did in the first round, with the £23 million of the clean maritime demonstration competition, which had 55 awards and was oversubscribed. I know many of the R&D suggestions coming forward were in exactly that space, which offers a great opportunity for the future.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my non-pecuniary interests entry in the Register. I welcome the Minister’s statement. In his original report, Sir John Parker emphasised the drumbeat of work and regular orders that is important for yards—but that means orders. The Minister’s own Department, in the past few weeks, has awarded a £10 million contract to a Dutch yard, even though I warned him about that several months ago. He has given no commitments on the FSS, and the Border Force and the Home Office are looking at procuring boats from the Dutch, too. No other country does that. We need a full commitment from Government to ensuring that when those orders are procured, they are procured in UK yards. They used to hide behind the European Union, but they can no longer do that. I understand that Ministers are now hiding behind some international trade issues, but no other country has this problem.

[Jeremy Quin]

The right hon. Gentleman and I did have a discussion across this Dispatch Box regarding the order, and his intuition proved correct. There was a competition process, and he proved to be correct in his assumption, although I emphasise that that was not a new build of a new vessel, but a requirement for the Royal Navy to have an existing vessel that it could practise some new developments on. It went into the market as a competition and that is how it ended. They fine-tuned the competition to ensure that it was fully fair, and we got that result.

I know the right hon. Gentleman has been a regular advocate of an FSS build in this country. FSS is proceeding and it will be substantially built. I am trying to remember exactly when the two years starts—I believe it is two years from the start of the manufacturing phase but, if it is not, I will write to him and leave a note in the Library.

On the point about the WTO rules, we do not take them lightly and it is right that we work within them, but that does not mean that we do not do everything in our power to maximise the benefits to British shipbuilding. That is what the National Shipbuilding Office has been set up to do, and that is what this refresh is about: whether on shore, on the home shipbuilding guarantee or on skills, we must ensure that we win, that we succeed and that we can compete with and be just as productive as other northern European yards.

Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention—I think he should have declared an interest. He is absolutely right; the defence estimates and the Budget need to reflect the new reality.

I want to concentrate on the broader context: the ideological battle that is taking place, and the institutional shake-up that is consequently required. Most crucially, we have to recognise the full-spectrum approach of our opponents. Commentators in the west often gabble glibly about hybrid warfare, but in the framework of cyber war as an alternative to kinetic capability, and often in a mechanistic way, rather than understanding the political context and the need for whole-of-society resilience.

The Soviet mindset, of which we are now seeing a resurgence, is quite different. For these people, politics—politik—is everything. All agencies of the state are engaged. For too long we have ignored the multidimensional attack on our society, but that is a luxury we can no longer afford. This also means that the integrated defence review has, to an extent, disintegrated, and requires a major revamp which should start immediately. This necessary intellectual rethink must now focus primarily on state-on-state conflict.

Over many years, I have posed a question a number of times to military figures, defence officials and academics. During the cold war, we based our defence and security posture on our assessment of “the Threat”, with a capital T, and I have asked what the Threat is today. Invariably, I receive the answer that we face a variety of threats, but that is not the right answer, because the question is “What is the existential threat to our nation and society?” It is not terrorism, Islamist or otherwise, ugly and vile though that is. Today we—the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, and indeed the west more widely—know the answer. It is a revanchist Russia and its desire to re-establish the Soviet territory, although I accept that in the longer term, as the defence review states, a revisionist China may be a more significant challenge. That means that today’s estimates are fundamentally an historical document, as, indeed, is the review.

That is not just down to the violently aggressive attacks by Putin’s Russia, but is also, thankfully, a result of the vigorous response not only from NATO allies but from formally neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland, where for the first time there is a public majority favouring NATO membership. The most seismic public reaction has been in Germany, where the new Social Democratic party Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has rewritten decades of German policy of both parties in his historic speech to the Bundestag. Equally dramatic was the wide political support, including support from the German Greens.

Chancellor Scholz stated clearly that President Putin had created a new reality which required an unequivocal response and a dramatic shift to supply Ukraine with weapons. He also made it clear that making international solidarity possible required new, strong capabilities. Essentially, that means that Germany must invest more in the security of the country. He addressed the readiness crisis in the Bundeswehr, which has been widely publicised and has featured in discussions we have had with our German counterparts. He stressed the need for aeroplanes that can fly, ships that can set out to sea, and soldiers who are optimally equipped for their mission. He has designated a one-off sum of €100 billion to set up a special fund, and has pledged an annual 2% of GDP.

I suggest to the Minister—I should welcome his observations—that we may also need to revise the ideological decision made by his Government, although not by current Ministers, to abandon our bases in Germany. I do not think the indication that we might make some minor return meets the need presented by the current challenge.

This was an imaginative, bold and historic intervention. Scholz clearly, in Bismarck’s phrase, heard God’s footsteps marching through history, and managed to catch on to His coattails as He marched past. I hope that our Ministers see the significance of that intervention, and engage rapidly and deeply with our German colleagues to build on this new reality. I hope they will also engage with our own defence industry. The Financial Times reports that after Scholz’s speech on the Sunday, on the Monday the German Defence Ministry and defence firms were engaged in detailed discussions as to how to ramp up production. The MOD and ADS should take note, because that is the sort of national response that we need. I was talking with the industry yesterday, and this does not appear to have happened, particularly not in the supply chain, which is wondering where it fits into the changed environment.

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

But this has been happening for many years. These are political decisions that have been taken, and nearly 30% of our procurement is now bought off the shelf from the United States, with no commitment from companies such as Boeing to reinvest to ensure that not only jobs but technology stay in the UK.

[John Spellar]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital to have a well-established industry to be able to respond to a crisis. The Ministry of Defence and the Treasury need to break out of the ideological straitjacket that states that domestic industry does not matter and we can buy from anywhere in the world. That is a hugely important change.

[John Spellar]

I would welcome a bit more detail from the Minister as to the nature and engagement of those discussions. I was talking to a representative from the industry only yesterday, and they are seeing precious little coming through. It is not happening in any way on the same scale or intensity as in Germany. We could argue that Germany is doing some catch-up, but it is really engaging with its industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, we give away huge orders and get little or nothing in return. Even now, the Minister’s own Department refuses to commit to building the fleet solid support ships in the UK, and his colleagues in the Home Office are giving an order for new Border Force vessels to a shipyard in Holland.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is worse than that. The Department used to hide behind European regulations, but now we are out of the European Union, we should be free to procure in the UK. I challenged the Minister before Christmas as to whether his Department was going to give a £10 million contract to Damen in the Netherlands for a special naval vehicle, and he said we should wait for the competition. Lo and behold, this week it has been announced that Damen has won that contract for a vessel that could have been built in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are far too many examples for me to quote them all. I want to leave some for him. I have no doubt he will bring his much greater knowledge to bear on the example he quoted.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister said the plan is in balance, but that is not what the NAO report says. It is only in balance if the Department meets the so-called efficiencies, which, on previous form, it has never met.

[Peter Grant]

I wish I had not let the right hon. Gentleman intervene, because he has just stolen my thunder, but never mind—“It’s nae loss whit a freen gets”, I think is the phrase we would use in Fife.

The single living accommodation, at the time the NAO started looking at it on 31 October 2010, was being used by almost exactly 80,000 armed forces personnel, or more than half the entire number of people working in our armed forces. Some 36% of those 80,000 people were living in accommodation rated grade 4 or below. The accommodation was so poor that the MOD did not even have the cheek to charge rent on it—that is how bad it was. I do not know what accommodation standards legislation is like in England, but certainly in Scotland it would be illegal to rent out some of that accommodation as a private landlord, a social landlord or a local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for opening the debate. He is right that our thoughts today are with the people of Ukraine and the brave servicemen and women, and civilians, who are resisting the might and cruelty of Putin’s war machine. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, that focuses our minds in our debate on defence.

We need to ask how we have ended up with the smallest Army in our history. That has not happened by accident; it is a political choice. In 2010, a Conservative party came into power, in the coalition Government, that had argued before the election for more spending on everything in defence, but then, suddenly, they got into a programme of austerity, under the cloud of a mythical £38 billion black hole that the bad Labour Government had left them. That never existed and we know that because within two years, it seemed to have disappeared, given what the Government said.

That Government cut the budget by 16% because the Treasury wanted money out of that budget. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) asked why this was about people—well, it was about people because that is how to get money quickly out of a budget. The Government did things such as making people take compulsory redundancy and losing people with vast experience, and it was absolutely shameful. If a Labour Government had done that, frankly, there would have been an outcry.

[John Spellar]

Is my right hon. Friend not shocked that that Government did not learn lessons from the cuts in personnel under Options for Change after the end of the cold war, which led to the same collapse in morale and loss of experience?

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right, but these measures were not about that. They were about the Treasury making austerity cuts. We now have a situation where the present Government—who, again, talk in slogans—talk about the biggest cash injection ever. The budget will still be lower in real terms than it was in 2010. The fact is that, like the right hon. Member for New Forest East, I would agree with increasing the defence budget, but we have to recognise how we got to where we are today.

Interestingly, there is clearly some thinking going on in the MOD, because I asked a parliamentary written question last week, which I tend to do, as the Minister knows, on whether the cuts would be reversed. I would have expected to get a reply within days, but last night, I got a holding reply saying that the question of whether the MOD would reverse the decision on reducing the Army to 73,000 personnel could not be answered in the normal timescale, so I suspect that a lot of work is going on in the MOD on that. It has to look at that, because everyone who has spoken in this debate has said that, although we can have enough equipment and the concepts of war, at the end of the day, we need people. That is key.

As Members know, I have always been an advocate for defence and I would argue for more defence spending, but I think that argument will fall on deaf ears a lot if we look at the way that this matter is being managed internally in the MOD. The NAO report is a bit like groundhog day: every year it comes back with a catalogue of delays and overspends. Whatever the Minister says, I am sorry, but he should just read the report. The budget is not in surplus. It misses things out and looks at efficiencies. But it has been like this for the past 10 years, and efficiencies have never been achieved and never will be.

It is important that we use defence expenditure, if we actually get it, to generate capacity in the UK defence industry and ensure that we get the equipment we want. I welcome things like the national shipbuilding strategy, but I am appalled that, even this week, the MOD has given a £10 million contract to a Dutch yard for a vessel that could have been built here. The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done a very good report that says that we should take social value into account when awarding contracts. I have asked the Department and now the National Audit Office to tell me what the formula is for that.

We are buying off the shelf from the United States and others, without any commitment to supporting our native shipbuilding and defence sector. I am one of the people arguing for more on defence, but I want to ensure that there is a proper defence industrial strategy behind it, not only to deliver for our armed forces, but to ensure that we get jobs and prosperity here. I see no evidence of that at the moment.

The last thing I would like to talk about is the nuclear deterrent. As the House knows, I have always been an advocate for our continuous at-sea deterrence, and these times have brought its importance into sharp focus. It will be important for the Department to ensure that the programme not only has finance behind it, but is actually on target. People have talked about the guarantees that Ukraine was given; whatever Putin guarantees is completely worthless, but the one guarantee that we have behind us is the nuclear deterrent. It is important that we maintain it.

These are dark times. We will hear a lot of instant judgments about what is happening in Ukraine, but we cannot have armed forces without people, and we have to invest in those people. It is not just about numbers, but about making sure that we have the right skillsets and that they continue. Frankly, the IR is now redundant and has to be revisited. And can we get away from the slogan “global Britain”? It is a great slogan, but it suggests that we are going to rule the waves and send power around the world. We will not, on our defence budget, and we never will again.

We have to ensure that we invest in what we are good at. It might be unpalatable for some Government Members, but we have to work with our European colleagues in NATO to ensure that we deliver a deterrent effect—I was going to say “on the Soviet Union”, and actually there is not much difference between that and Putin’s ideology and the way he is doing things. We have to ensure that that happens and is done in a coherent way. We have to get away from the rhetoric. Let us have a proper defence budget that is not only in balance, but puts the investment where it counts.

I will break the habit of a lifetime and agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who has just come back into the Chamber: we have to invest in people. We can have all the best equipment in the world, but without the people, the skillsets and the right mix, we will not get a deterrent effect or treat our people right, as they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I will try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was struck by a letter in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago from Lieutenant General Sir James Bucknall. It is short, and it should be required reading for all Members. His final paragraph ends with the line:

“There needs to be an honest, unvarnished appraisal of our current capabilities.”

As has already been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), plans do not survive first contact, and in these instances we need to review them, and to do so at pace.

There are just four points that would like to make in this debate, because I suspect that all the other points I would have made have already been made far more articulately and far better than I could have made them. The first is on recruitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) mentioned. It is extraordinary that the stats for the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army are all higher. In the 12 months running up to 30 September 2021, the Royal Navy had an uplift in recruitment of 4.3%, the Army had an uplift of 25.2% and the RAF had an uplift of 8.2%. The staggering difference between the three services and the way in which the Army succeeds show that there are lessons to be learned by the RAF and the Navy on how they can encourage that level of recruitment.

As I said earlier in my intervention on my hon. Friend, the concern I have is about outflow and retention. Even the briefing document we were given for this debate talks about the fact that there is a problem with staffing and retention in the Defence Nuclear Organisation, and it is not just limited to that area. It also occurs in the Army and the Air Force, and in some of the places where we really want to have our staff because there is a national security need for it. This needs to be addressed immediately, and I hope that the Government will be able to give some clarity in their summing up.

On housing, a number of Members have touched on the idea that we must ensure that our armed forces personnel are given the best services and that they have the equipment they need. That point also stands for their families and for the housing and accommodation they are given. I am proud that I have the Britannia Royal Navy College in my constituency, as Private Stone said earlier, but we occasionally have a problem there when we find it difficult to staff people who are coming down to train future recruits, and to put them into suitable housing within the vicinity. We have been fortunate in that we have always managed to get through those difficult situations, but the problem is going to become greater, because house prices in coastal areas such as mine are shooting through the roof. I respectfully ask the Minister to refer to some points on housing for armed forces personnel, because this is going to come up time and again.

I think I have been very clear in my time in this place about my support for international development and the aid budget. One of the things that came up when we were having the debate around foreign aid was whether we should look at certain reforms, and if we return to 0.7%, I would really like us to look at ways in which some of that money could be spent through the Ministry of Defence to support our armed forces to undertake humanitarian missions. There is real value in those sorts of things—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Fine, but I think there is real value in having the ability to unilaterally send in humanitarian forces using our defence budget.

The last point I would like to make is that our military academies have extraordinary export value. We attract an enormous number of foreign students who come through them and pass out, and we should cultivate that further. I am particularly pleased that the current captain of the Britannia Royal Navy College, Captain Roger Readwin, has done a fantastic job in attracting cadets from all over the world to pass through this historic college. More of that would not only give us the ability to learn from other countries but ensure that we strengthened our defence relationships with countries around the world.

The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) says that he does not like slogans. Well, I like “global Britain”, but I think it needs to be fleshed out. If we are going to talk about global Britain, we have to prove it in the things that we do. I have said before that this is about the four pillars of trade, defence, diplomacy and development. If we can ensure that our defence is linked with other countries around the world and that we can help to train people in this country, that will send a strong, positive message and provide us with armed forces that are able to respond to some of the problems we are facing. The fragility of the world is more apparent than ever. If we are to play a part in global Britain and if that is to have real meaning, we must adapt as well as update.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

There is a lot of chest-beating about the nuclear deterrent, but much less discussion about the cost of it. We have heard from hon. and gallant Members how much they would like to see numbers in the Army go up, but they do not talk so much about the cost of the Defence Nuclear Organisation, which is 50% higher than that of the next department, the Army. They are not so focused on that cost. Incidentally, I note the Minister in his intervention did not point out which surface warships there are in Scotland, because there are none.

[Mr Jones]

They are all submarines!

[Dave Doogan]

That is not a surface ship. The UK’s breakneck pivot away from the European domain has been dramatically overtaken by recent events in Ukraine. The mercifully long period of relative stability in Europe is under threat in a way not seen since the war, so it is clearer than ever that the top defence priority on these islands is, and must always be, ensuring peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, as we on the SNP Benches have long argued. The MOD must re-profile its equipment plan, troop numbers and finances accordingly. In conclusion, this debate affords an excellent and very necessary opportunity for Ministers to reformulate the MOD’s finances, the force numbers and the equipment plan.

Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

The House stands united today in our support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. We showed that in the way we rose to support the Ukrainian ambassador before Prime Minister’s questions, and, for all the necessary challenge over policy that goes on in this place, we will show it again this afternoon, because fundamentally we in this House are agreed that President Putin’s ill-conceived enterprise in Ukraine must not and will not succeed.

But how we achieve that is not just through the sanctions we impose, the military aid we provide or the breadth of the cultural and diplomatic isolation we secure, as important as all those things are; it is through the beacon of hope we provide, and not only for the Ukrainian people but for the Russian people too. How they would love to have a day where the opposition choose the topics for debate, immediately after a session in which the legislature, without fear, can challenge the Head of Government. Indeed—perhaps no Government Minister has ever said this from the Dispatch Box before—how lucky we are to have an Opposition altogether.

We have grown complacent over that freedom. We do not value it as we should. It is no cliché to remind the House that freedom is not free and that no matter how much we complain about the imperfections of our own politics, people have fought and died so that we can argue in this place and in our national media over whatever we wish. Today in Ukraine, people are fearful that those days may soon be over for them. They know only too well that freedom is not free. In the lifetime of their most senior citizens, they have lost their freedom and recovered it twice already. It is no wonder that so many thousands of Ukrainian men and women are rallying to the flag to ensure they do not lose it again.

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

I put on record my thanks to the Defence Secretary and the Minister for their actions over the past few weeks. They have shown proper leadership on this. Will the Minister support comments from Gerry Connolly, who is the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly? He is arguing within NATO for a centre for democracy, to make exactly the arguments that the Minister is making, to reinforce among our populations why we have NATO and what it is defending.

[James Heappey]

I think I instinctively support the proposition. It is extraordinary—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I know you were keen on brevity, but this is a tangent too interesting to miss, frankly—but when we came together after the second world war to bring NATO into being, it went without saying that the freedom, liberty and democracy we all enjoy was something we should collectively stand for, but in the 70 years or so that have passed since, we have forgotten what a luxury that is. We have forgotten how to speak proudly about freedom without being criticised as somehow trying to shut down the other side. There absolutely is a market for the west to relearn that we can disagree with each other ferociously and we can have polarised societies in which one side simply cannot abide the very existence of the argument of the other, yet we can still see the good in that and communicate it strongly to those who do not have that luxury.

In this debate today, we must also be clear on who our quarrel is with. When we talk of aggression, deceit and contempt for the international system, we must not talk about “Russia”; we must talk of Putin and the kleptocrats that surround him. When we talk of who must pay the price for this grotesque violation of international law, we must blame Putin, the Russian elites and the hubris of the Kremlin’s military leaders, but again, not the Russian people.

We want the Russian people to enjoy the freedom, democracy and security that we have been taking for granted. We want them to know that NATO and the west mean them no harm. We are a defensive alliance, and we were recasting ourselves for an altogether different future until President Putin annexed Crimea and challenged the sovereignty of so many other countries in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. When President Putin fails—and he eventually will—we look forward to a Euro-Atlantic where Russia and the rest of Europe exist as friends and neighbours. In the meantime, we stand our ground not to intimidate the Russian people, but to deter their President, who is a bully and has caused too many in our alliance to think that they could be next.

I would like to provide the House with a brief update on the situation in Ukraine. Russian forces have met strong resistance and are behind schedule on their intended plans. We recognise, unfortunately, that the cities of Melitopol and Kherson in the south of the country have fallen, but that brave resistance remains in both. Colleagues, those were both day one objectives for the Russian armed forces, and both only fell in recent days after fierce opposition. Everywhere else in the country, no other city or major town has fallen to the advancing invaders. As much as that should be a cause for celebration and hope, it is important we remain realistic about what is still to come. The harder the Ukrainians fight back, the harder Putin will order his military to push. Already, we have seen a horrific artillery and missile barrage on Kharkiv among other places. I am fearful for what is to come in Kyiv. As the Prime Minister has said today, and as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) rightly noted, there is already clear evidence that in applying indiscriminate force in the way that he has, President Putin and his military leadership have already committed war crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for his fine speech and the Minister for his fine response to it. As I am sure others will do as the debate goes on, I thank the Government for the genuine openness that they have shown to Members of the House as the situation has developed. It has made a huge difference to all Members to have that level of access and detail from the Department.

We all look on in horror at what we see on our TV screens with the train stations of a major European capital city and cities across that country filling up with refugees. We thought, did we not, that we had left such scenes behind in our history, but they are back with us once again. Cluster bombs are being used on cities like Kharkiv, a city I visited and know well. It breaks my heart to see what is happening to people in Ukraine: war crimes—war crimes—being committed in 2022 on the continent of Europe. We even have a situation where towns and villages are being surrounded by Russian troops to starve the local population of food, water and other supplies they need to survive. That takes on a particular resonance in a country that in its past suffered, almost 100 years ago, a famine genocide organised by Stalin that killed many millions of Ukrainians and is still very much alive in the minds of Ukrainians to this day. One of the most horrifying things we saw yesterday was the bombing of a holocaust memorial in the capital city of Kyiv. So terrible is it that it puts to bed the utter lie of Putin’s claim to be denazifying Ukraine. Ukraine has denazified itself in the past and will continue to do so in its future.

Like others, I want to pay tribute to the heroism of President Zelensky, the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people themselves. I have been in daily contact with friends, MPs and others who I have gotten to know over my many trips there over the years and they still show the incredible resolve, generosity and kindness that we all know them for. They have their own family members and their own safety to worry about, but still they are helping Members of this House to get their constituents to safe places. Some of them are still keeping up their spirits with a sense of humour. Kira Rudyk, leader of the Opposition Holos party, was on UK news this afternoon. It was put to her that she, like every other Member of the Verkhovna Rada, is on Putin’s kill list. She responded by reminding everyone that she is also on the top 10 bachelorette list in Ukraine, so she hopes that that somewhat balances out. To maintain that level of generous spirit and maintain that level of dignity and resolve that we have seen in these circumstances? I suppose we could all hope that we would do the same, but I am not so sure that many of us would.

My party and I have supported the Government over their actions in Ukraine. We have ensured that they get the support from the SNP Benches for the defensive equipment, economic support, and political and diplomatic support they have given to Ukraine, and we will keep doing that. Indeed, like others and, I suspect, the Minister himself, we always want to see the Government go further. That is the job, I think, of the Opposition here. Yes, we are united, but we always want to push the Government to go further where they should.

There are two areas where the Government should. First, on sanctions, it is the case that we are behind other international actors and we want the screws to be turned and turned quickly. Like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), we agree that there are almost certainly legitimate reasons why we have not done that, but we need to do what we can to fix it. Secondly, on refugees, the Minister is right. Most people will want to stay in a country close to Ukraine, because they want to return to Ukraine. I well understand why people will want to get back there and rebuild their country—it is a proud country and a proud democracy—but we do stand alone in putting in front of people fleeing war crimes all the unnecessary bureaucracy that does not need to be there. I plead with the Government to change that stance and be more open and welcoming, and at least match the offer of EU member states.

It cannot be said enough that our conflict or disagreement is not with the citizens of Russia itself. It is a proud country and it has made incredible contributions over the years to science, innovation, arts, culture and much else. Indeed, Scotland and Russia have shared many connections, not least militarily, over the years. The Russian people, as we are starting to see, are victims of a sort in this conflict as well. As the sanctions start to bite, there will be consequences for them. Indeed, they are already starting to feel it. This war is over one man’s imperial hubris that started not last week, but in 2014. It has already seen the deaths of around 15,000 Ukrainians, and that is before we count the Russian dead. It has displaced about 2 million Ukrainians in their own land.

It is worth taking ourselves back to how this started. It was nothing to do with NATO or the west; it was all because Ukrainians decided that they wanted a European, Euro-Atlantic future, and they wanted Putin’s boot off their neck. Ukraine threatened no one, and remains a threat to no one.

In time—today is not the day for it—we will have to consider exactly what has happened and how the European security architecture has been thrown up in the air like a kaleidoscope. The Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary rightly mentioned the change in German policy. We all watched with our jaws open as the Chancellor reversed 30 years of energy policy and 70 years of defence policy on Sunday. The European Union is now a much stronger military alliance than we ever thought it would be. If someone had told me that that was where it was going two weeks ago, I would not have taken them seriously. That is something for us all to take the time to think about. The integrated review will need to be revisited; only a fool would think otherwise. I was always sceptical of the Indo-Pacific tilt. This is not a time for I-told-you-sos—most definitely not—but all of us in this country and in other countries around Europe will need to rethink defence and security postures going forward.

We are the custodians of the treaties and institutions that were set up to maintain peace and security across Europe, and we need to ask ourselves what we need to do to fix them, because they are more than creaking at the seams right now. How have we got ourselves into a situation where we are seriously contemplating a Government who are accused of committing a genocide against their people—China and the Uyghurs—presiding over peace talks about war crimes carried out by their ally in Moscow against people in Ukraine? I am not sure it could be argued that we have been very good custodians of those treaties and institutions, which have so far by and large held up, but are creaking in a massively unprecedented way.

There will be time to debate those things in the future. Today we must focus on Ukraine, Ukrainians and the war criminals who are carrying out this horror in that nation. For me—if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker—this is personal, having taken many trips back and forward, like many other Members of the House. We have friends in common, actually. I have phoned friends whose children I can hear in the background being loaded into cars to flee cities—cities in which I have enjoyed meals with their families. I was in Kyiv this time last month. Even then, it did not feel like a city that was on the brink of war. I have been on the phone to friends and heard shells going off in the background—the calls cut off as they have to run. Then there is always that hellish thought when I call someone or text them and for hours do not hear back, and do not know whether they are safe.

It is personal for me, and for many of us in this House. I enjoyed nothing more than welcoming friends from Ukraine to Glasgow for COP26. I had hoped that they would be in my constituency for the Scotland-Ukraine match, although I am not sure what it would have done for our reputation if we had beaten them.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

No chance of that.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, a boy can dream. That now will not happen, but Ukraine is a democracy and the Ukrainians are a free people. They need and deserve our support and focus, and the unity of this House—today, tomorrow and going forward. I am sorry to say that the Minister is almost certainly correct that this will get worse before it gets better, so let us focus on how we make it better. It will require some big, bold thinking—a Marshall plan to rebuild that country from the destruction caused and the destruction yet to come.

In that, we must maintain unity. Where we push the Government to go further and faster, it is not because we want to be oppositionist for opposition’s sake—that is in nobody’s interest. Let us keep to the unity that Ukrainians need, because it is not just us watching the war in their country; we should ask ourselves what we want them to see when they read our newspapers or scroll through our social media accounts. I want them to see common cause to end the war, support Ukrainians and ensure that Ukraine’s democratic future, which they took a stand on in 2013 and into 2014, is still there. Ukrainians today are the real leaders of the free world, and they deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We stand united in this House with the people of Ukraine. These are dark days, as we see daily on television; it is also a dark time for Europe. We are seeing the invasion of a sovereign independent state and scenes that have not been seen since the second world war. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said that a way of life and a world order are being challenged; they are.

The institutions put in place after the second world war were created by men and women who had lived through the horrors of the first and second world wars. They established rules to avoid what we are seeing now in Ukraine. My party was proudly involved in the establishment of NATO—not an aggressive pact, but one that meant collective security and keeping peace in Europe. When Clem Attlee visited Berlin in 1949 to see the airlift around the Soviet blockade, he said that the system that operated behind the iron curtain was a “ghastly travesty” with no true freedom of speech—a system in which scientists, poets and artists were arrested for deviating from the ruling orthodoxy. That is what modern Russia has today.

May I dispel the arguments from all the individuals who say that it had to be like that? It did not. Look back to 1994, when we had the NATO-Russian partnership for peace and the Euro-Atlantic partnership—a way of trying to build with Russia a secure future not only for Russia, but for the rest of Europe. The reason that that approach has not borne fruit is President Putin, who has systematically raped the economy of Russia and who has impoverished people, with a smaller and smaller clique of individuals making the terrible decisions that have led to the invasion of Ukraine.

Did it have to be like that? No, it did not. Have we taken our eye off the ball? Yes, we have. The report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and I serve, is now two years old. It spells out very clearly the opportunities missed. I have to say that the Government have turned a blind eye and are doing so even now. They laud themselves for the sanctions that they have brought in, which I support, but has it taken the invasion of a European sovereign nation for them to wake up?

Even now, more can and should be done. We have to ensure that whatever we do now, we are united across Europe. Forget Brexit, forget political slogans about whatever the Germans or others do—we have to stand united in Europe with all those who oppose what is happening in Ukraine.

We also have to ensure that what we do will endure. There will not be a quick fix—I fear that the tragedy unfolding on our television screens will get a lot worse, alas—but we owe this to the people of Ukraine. To defend the way of life that we take for granted, we have to stand up in this House and speak our opinions freely. We also owe it to ourselves to ensure that the sanctions remain in place and that we work to protect those freedoms.

Ukraine

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We all accept that the 2014 invasion of Donbas and Crimea was an invasion of sovereign territory. Nothing changes that. All our NATO allies agree on that entirely, and have recognised not one inch of those lands. China, by the way, has still not recognised Donbas; that is an important message to President Putin. For all our issues with China, I do not think that it wants an economic schism at the heart of Europe at this moment. Hopefully, that is something President Putin will rely on. All these plans—the annexation of part of Ukraine, the false flags of people having to be evacuated, Ukrainian “attacks”—are false. They are all designed to be excuses, or to cause friction. The worrying thing is that we can all see it. One does not have to be an expert in Europe to spot what is going on. The worry for us is that President Putin thinks that it does not matter, or thinks that he can get away with it.

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

First, I commend the Defence Secretary for his actions over the last few months. He mentioned the Russian playbook. Part of it is about portraying a false narrative around the sovereignty of Ukraine. Is he confident enough that we in the west have the ability to push back against the false narratives, particularly on social media, that seem to infect the debate?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

I would, and it is an opportunity to remark on the fact that, whether at home supporting the work of Border Force in the channel and with defence personnel still involved in the response to the pandemic, or overseas as we are seeing in the news every day at the moment, our nation’s armed forces are available at all times to do whatever is required to keep this country safe and secure.

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

On the radio last week, the Minister said that to undertake Operation Isotrope the Ministry of Defence will have to acquire new boats. Will he give an assurance to the House that they will be procured in the UK and not follow the example of the Home Office, which has, to date, purchased such equipment from Holland?

[James Heappey]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to an interview in which I mentioned that they may be leased, rather than procured. As I went on to explain in that interview, there are a number of different platform types that will have different degrees of relevance and utility in the channel, all of which are under consideration to ensure that the right balance of platforms is available for what will be a very tricky task.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

Well, there we have it. Yesterday, No. 10 was briefing that this is the new tough approach to migrants, and today the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that he has not got a clue what the plan is or what is proposed. He mentioned deployment of assets. We had nine offshore patrol vessels until 2019, when HMS Clyde was decommissioned; others are committed overseas, including in the Pacific, and in home waters for tasks such as fisher protection. So what assets are there? There are not any.

May I check two things? First, will the Navy abide by the UN conventions on people in distress at sea? Secondly, the Minister said that Rear Admiral Utley will answer to the Defence Secretary, so has the MOD taken over control of Border Force and its operation, with the Home Secretary having no role? If so, that is a huge kick in the teeth for the Home Secretary.

[James Heappey]

First, the OPV fleet is well deployed around the world. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Trent is in Gibraltar having just got back from autumn in the gulf of Guinea; Medway is in the Caribbean; Forth is in the Falklands; and Tamar and Spey are in the south Pacific and far east. Further, three batch 1 OPVs continue and are routinely deployed in home waters. That is not just for fishery protection, as he sought to characterise; they routinely take on the role of fleet-ready escort and are used for whatever is required to protect the United Kingdom’s interests in her home waters, and this task clearly comes within that bracket.

I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to ask whether the men and women of the Royal Navy would still feel bound by their compulsion under the safety of life at sea convention. Of course they would. The Chief of the Defence Staff is a sailor, and Rear Admiral Utley is obviously a sailor, and they have been clear throughout that military involvement is about delivering a robust plan, but they will not endanger life at sea.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about how this is all reflected in Government policy and ownership of policy. I reflect back to him that Rear Admiral Utley is a sailor working within the MOD for a part of our border protection that has been placed into the hands of the Royal Navy. He clearly reports through his chain of command to the Secretary of State for Defence, but that is not the totality of the Government’s migration policy nor the totality of the role of protecting our borders. Obviously, the Home Secretary owns the wider system and she is doing a good job in doing that.

Ukraine

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

What we are seeing, as the United States said, is the playbook narratives, cyber-attacks, disruption of minorities and division all used to prey on that country. There is also something else. What are the consequences for the rest of Europe of a successful military invasion of Ukraine? I visited Sweden and Finland last week. When such countries—strong European countries that are not members of NATO—are genuinely concerned and worried about their neighbours, all of us in Europe should sit up and listen. If there were a successful invasion of Ukraine, what would it mean for President Putin’s other ambitions?

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend him for his article in The Times this morning, which laid out clearly the false narrative that President Putin is using to justify his actions against Ukraine. What more can be done in the information war? Will he specifically back an initiative by Congressman Gerry Connolly, the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, who is calling for a centre for democracy within NATO to argue the case for why the freedoms of thought and action are so important?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have asked to look again at that and some of the rebasing options.

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

I thank the Minister for Defence Procurement for his letter on the Navy’s special purpose vehicle and the changes he has made to the procurement process, but that will not get us away from the fact that the money has to be spent by March, which means that the vessel will be built or procured from a Dutch company, Damen. Why is he not backing British industry? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, this is a £10 million contract that will go to a Dutch yard, rather than be spent in the UK.

[Jeremy Quin]

The right hon. Gentleman has already decided how our competition will end, which is unwise. We have multiple potential providers of a vessel that needs already to have been built, so we are going through a buying process and we will see how that procurement exercise ends.