AUKUS Defence Partnership

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for his heartfelt and powerful tribute to the people he represents, and he is absolutely right. This decision is a vote of confidence—not just a British Government vote of confidence, but an international vote of confidence—in the good and skilled people he represents. Let us be clear that this is a British design that will be enhanced principally by US but also by some Australian technology. It is an excellent example of where international scale allied with British know-how and British hard work can produce something genuinely world beating not just for this generation, but to ensure that future generations—our children and grandchildren—can enjoy the safety we have enjoyed.

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

I welcome this announcement. Last year, I visited Australia, and one thing that impressed me was that, for Australia, this is a national endeavour. With meetings at federal level and obviously with the state premier of South Australia, this is a joined-up national endeavour, including looking at skills not just for today, but for the future.

I noticed that, in the new refresh of the integrated review yesterday, it says:

“We have also: announced…Great British Nuclear, to progress a resilient pipeline of new nuclear projects”.

The fear I have is that we are not matching the endeavour of the Australians. Could the Minister explain how we will get that concentration on skills—not just today, but in future—especially with the Business Department shilly-shallying around the investment for Rolls-Royce in the small modular nuclear reactors?

[Alex Chalk]

May I welcome the right hon. Member’s approval, which is appreciated? He is right that it is a joined-up endeavour in Australia. It has to be, and the Australians well understand the enormous scale of what they are taking on. As he indicated, I look forward to welcoming the premier of South Australia in Barrow this Thursday. His point about skills is well made. We are clear, as are those at Raynesway in Derby, and in Barrow and Furness, that we need to grow the skills pipeline, but that has already begun. If we consider the £2 billion invested last year, yes, some of it went to new buildings and equipment, but it also went to ensuring that the capacity and college facilities to bring on those apprentices are in place. Someone who goes to Derby can be briefed now about precisely what is taking place. The excitement, enthusiasm and drive that is going into ensuring sufficient suitably qualified and expert personnel is reassuring and encouraging. The right hon. Gentleman is making the right point, and I am pleased to reassure him that that matter is not lost on those involved.

Ukraine Update

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Those are two very important points, for which I am grateful.

On the second point, yes, expenditure is being reimbursed by the Treasury. Indeed, when we look at the sums that have been allocated for ammunition, there is an additional £650 million to procure not just replacement ammunition, but deeper supplies. That is a very important point. It is a statement of fact that it takes time—of course it does—to replenish those stores, but the funding is in place to do so.

On the first point, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, tactical decisions about precisely how equipment is deployed—it could be against the Wagner organisation in and around Soledar and Bakhmut—is a matter for commanders on the ground. Our job, as we see it, is to ensure that those decision makers in the field have the equipment they need to push back against Russian forces, Wagner forces or whoever it is. If the Russians have their own difficulties over precisely who is in control and the politics within their ranks, that is a matter for them.

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

I thank the Minister for setting a new record for the shortest statement in history: four paragraphs and less than a page and a quarter.

I return to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), which is the effect of these donations on our Army’s capability. We have seen the press speculation about the Chief of the General Staff’s comments about the hollowing out of our capabilities in the Army. The Minister talked about 227 Challenger 2 tanks, but he knows that, operationally, it is far fewer than 100. What will he do to ensure that those alarm bells that have been sounded by the Chief of the General Staff are met with new capabilities so that we can meet our NATO commitments?

[Alex Chalk]

The Chief of the General Staff also went on to make the point that it could not be in a better cause. Indeed, it is important to make the point that weapons that we supply have the effect of degrading the very adversary who was noted in the integrated review. We are fighting this just war not only to stand up for the international rule of law, and to make a statement that might is not always right and that we cannot remake borders by force, but to degrade the forces of our principal adversary as identified in the IR.

The Secretary of State has said, in respect of our Challenger 2 tanks, that he will now, at his instruction, ensure that more hulls are brought to a greater state of readiness, so that, as part of our overall land fleet, we have Challenger 2 squadrons ready to deploy in the defence of this nation.

Service Family Accommodation

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

In the first instance, there are clauses in the contract that allow for the MOD to recoup—or, indeed, to refuse to pay out—certain sums that would otherwise accrue under the contract. In fact, from 23 January, we will be in a position to do that. We could not do it for the first six months because there is a contractual bedding-in process, but that point has now been passed, so there is, potentially, a financial remedy. As with any contract, however, if the breach has become so severe as to become a fundamental breach, other remedies may follow. My right hon. Friend will understand precisely what I mean by that. If he will forgive me, I will not go down the road of spelling out what all those remedies might be, but I can say that all options are being considered in the normal way, as he would expect.

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

HMS Raleigh; the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines, Lympstone; HMS Sultan; HMS Collingwood; RAF Cranwell; RAF Halton; Catterick garrison; RAF Cosford and Stonehouse barracks are just nine armed forces sites that have contacted me about problems with hot water and heating. Many of those sites deal with initial basic training. What message does it send to young people and potential recruits if we cannot provide the basics of heating and hot water?

[Alex Chalk]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: that is not good enough. When we get into the details on the specific numbers of properties that have been left without heating and hot water, if there is the thinnest of silver linings, it is that the majority—indeed, the large majority—have experienced that for less than 24 hours. In other words, the overwhelming majority are fixed during that period. But it should not happen at all. It is a fact of life that sometimes boilers break, and we accept that. It is no doubt the case that elsewhere—in civvy street, so to speak—some suppliers are having difficulties fixing them within a reasonable period because demand has spiked. But the central is point is that there was a contract, which had specific requirements, and grown-up, experienced contractors entered into it knowing fine well whether they had the resources to meet them. They should have taken account of the fact that, just perhaps, it might get a bit snowy in winter. It seems that that did not happen. That is why we are particularly indignant and frustrated about it, and we will take every proper and legal step to hold them to account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the close interest he has taken in the establishment of the National Cyber Force in Samlesbury, which has cemented the north-west’s position as a key UK cyber-cluster. He will be aware that last week we announced the trilateral international partnership between the UK, Japan and Italy to develop next-generation Tempest fighters, which will also benefit the north-west. He is absolutely right that, with regard to skills, we need to encourage the creation of local partnerships between Government, industry and universities. I am pleased to note that Lancaster University has announced a £19 million investment in data and cyber-security research, teaching and innovation. I would, of course, be delighted to meet him.

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

The Defence Committee recently had before us representatives from Boeing, which has been awarded some £6 billion-worth of contracts in recent years. A representative confirmed that Boeing directly employs only 1,600 people in the UK. Does the Minister not agree that that is a pretty poor return on the investment and that it certainly would not be the case in the United States?

[Alex Chalk]

I met Boeing recently, and we are always keen to see investment in the UK. We are absolutely delighted that, because of the pipeline of investment that the Government have commissioned—from ships to cyber to space—we are investing in jobs and capability, and we are ensuring that we take expertise from wherever it is in the world, securing jobs in this country.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, that is not right. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said at the time:

“I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice or of any legal advice in full that has happened during the entire negotiation? [Interruption.] With due respect, I am being asked for my vote regarding the motion on the Order Paper. Are you asking for what is on the Order Paper, which is,

“any legal advice in full”—

that is, during the whole negotiation?”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 196.]

At that point, Mr Speaker rightly intervened to ask who my hon. Friend was referring to, and so it went on. The matter was not clear. Given the importance of these proceedings, and the potential impact on one or more individuals, is it not right that the House should be crystal clear about what is on the indictment, so to speak?

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

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked? If the motion was so unclear, why did he not vote against it and why did the Government not oppose it?

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, that is no answer at all.

[Mr Jones]

It is!

[Alex Chalk]

It is no answer at all; absolutely not. To take an analogy, if the prosecution were to bring proceedings against the hon. Gentleman for an alleged crime and if the court were satisfied that the proceedings were bad through duplicity or lack of clarity, the court would stay those proceedings because they would be improper proceedings. That is what has happened here. There are real concerns about these matters. In these circumstances, if the high court of Parliament wishes to act in a way that is proportionate and fair, the proper outcome is to refer the matter in accordance with the terms set out in the amendment. Those are my representations, Mr Speaker.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

That is pretty much everywhere, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example. How about an allegation of assault? Let us suppose the defendant goes out in the high street in Kingston in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency with a baseball bat and starts swinging it around outside the pub, being reckless about whether someone might be struck by it. If he does recklessly strike someone’s jaw and they have a fractured jaw, the defendant can, and will in those circumstances, be convicted of a section 20 offence of grievous bodily harm. So the law does recognise that where there is recklessness, that can be sufficient mens rea for a large number—probably even the majority—of offences against the person. So to that extent all this measure would do is make sure the new legislation chimes with existing legislation.

The second provision I want to deal with has already properly been discussed: to

“update the offence of obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist to cover terrorist material that is just viewed or streamed over the internet, rather than downloaded to form a permanent record”.

First, we need to consider what material is being addressed here. It could be digital copies of “Inspire”, an online publication produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. One edition of that publication contains material giving instructions about how to make a bomb using household materials; these are step-by-step instructions on how to manufacture an improvised explosive device with materials that we could buy in a hardware store and a regular supermarket. That is extremely serious and dangerous material if it gets into the wrong hands. Another example of the kind of material published in these online magazines is instructions on how to wreak the maximum amount of destruction using a vehicle in a crowded area.

To be caught by current provisions, such material has to be downloaded, but that creates a loophole because an individual who chooses to view this pernicious content by simply restreaming it could be outside the net. That would be ridiculous, particularly as every time one of these items is streamed, it will create digital artefacts on the computer. So an individual who downloads it—who has the full digital content on their computer—is liable to be prosecuted, but an individual who keeps streaming it, notwithstanding that that leads to some digital artefacts on their computer, would be outside the net. That would be truly perverse.

So while it is right to say that we should be mindful of the risk of people coming within the ambit of this provision, so long as the defence of reasonable excuse exists, we can be confident that that proper balance is struck.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am not a liberal on any of these issues, but there is a problem with this. One difficulty the security services face is dealing with the amount of material that is out there and targeting the right people. If someone who has viewed such material three times can be pulled in by this provision, does that not throw the net rather wide, making it more difficult for law enforcement to target the right people?

[Alex Chalk]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that question, but I do not think that is the case. We accept that an individual deciding to view this material online and then download it on to their computer so that they can watch it at their leisure three times commits an offence—and we do so because terrorist offences often escalate quickly from the viewing of such materials. Given that we accept that, would it not be perverse to say that an individual who simply views this material three times—and while doing so takes account of the instructions in that material to build a bomb or wreak havoc with a vehicle—would be outside the law? That would be a bizarre anomaly, and it would say more about the digital habits of that individual than the pernicious nature of the content. So while we should always be mindful of the point the right hon. Gentleman makes, in my view the risks of doing nothing simply leave open huge loopholes that terrorists, who are increasingly digitally savvy, can exploit, so this is a proportionate and appropriate step to take.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Alex Chalk]

I am not going to give way again on that point.

If I may, I will move on to the issue of increasing the maximum penalty. At the moment, the maximum penalty under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is just 10 years’ imprisonment. The Bill proposes to increase that to 15 years. It is important to make the point that, certainly until the recent sentencing guidelines increase, someone pleading guilty to being in possession of material that might be of assistance to a person planning an act of terrorism could expect to be sentenced to just 14 or 15 months and to be released in seven months. We have to recognise, when we are dealing with these kinds of offences, that part of the necessity for the legislation is to ensure that dangerous people are kept out of circulation. In those particulars, this proposal is necessary and proportionate.

Elsewhere in the Bill, there are common-sense extensions including the proposal to add terrorism offences to the list of offences for which an individual can be subjected to a serious crime prevention order. That makes perfect sense, because SCPOs enable the authorities to continue to manage an individual convicted of a terrorism offence. In the interest of balance, it is important to note that the proposed legislation also contains protections for individuals. For example, it introduces a statutory bar on the admissibility as evidence in a criminal trial of oral admissions made in an examination at a port under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act, so it would be wrong to get the impression that this is one-way traffic. Overall—certainly so far as part 1 is concerned—these measures serve to clarify and to extend in a way that chimes with common sense. They update the law, and they will lead to a modest strengthening of penalties, which is a calibrated, proportionate and modernising approach that I am happy to support.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

That is exactly the kind of sophistication that should be brought to this debate. We should be looking at specific issues, that can improve the lives of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen and women.

The principles that we should apply are tolerably simple. First, we should listen to independent experts—the pay review bodies—and, secondly, we should build in flexibility where there is a skills shortage. I will return to that briefly in a moment. It is right, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in Prime Minister’s questions today, to look at the context of the public finances. She said that we are spending £50 billion a year on debt interest alone. That raises a really important moral argument. When we talk about the future of our armed forces, we do not just want armed forces for today, tomorrow or next week; we want our children to be able to enjoy the protection of the armed forces as well.

What is Labour’s suggested solution to this? Notwithstanding the fact that we have public borrowing of about £58 billion each year and a national debt of £1.7 trillion, its remedy is more borrowing, more debt and more tax. Where does that leave us as a country? If we were to borrow an additional £500 billion, as has been suggested, our national debt would go from £1.7 trillion to £2.2 trillion. What happens to that £50 billion that we are spending each year? It goes to about £65 billion. Basically, before we pay for a single soldier, a single police officer, or a single nurse, we will be spending £62 billion a year when the entire defence budget is £36 billion. There will be people born today in our country who in 30 years’ time, through no fault of their own, will either knock on the door of the welfare state because, as an entirely deserving case, they need assistance, or they will want the protection of our armed forces, but the cupboard risks being bare if the Opposition are able to achieve what they want to achieve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thought that the Tory party’s script had changed; obviously the hon. Gentleman does not have the new one. Will he explain, therefore—

[Alex Chalk]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

He needs to sit down.

[Alex Chalk]

I was chomping at the bit.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Government were able to find £1 billion out of fresh air to pass over in their agreement with the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland so that they could stay in power, so why can they not fund the pay of our armed forces?

[Alex Chalk]

With respect, that argument has been made with tedious regularity. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of the public finances. This country borrows £58 billion every single year. The nation spends £803 billion a year. Yet, Labour wants to borrow £500 billion, which in turn would increase our annual payment by something in the order of £12 billion. That would be monstrous and disastrous for the UK economy and future generations. There is an issue of generational justice, and that is a message that Labour has not learned.

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Alex Chalk

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very kind.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the police protect us, and the Government have indeed protected the police. I believe that the settlement strikes the right balance between ensuring that police forces are properly funded and can plan for the future, and maintaining the impetus and the tempo of reforms.

When I was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), it struck me that it would be helpful to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010, this country was truly staring into the abyss. Youth unemployment had doubled, and Britain was the basket case of Europe. [Interruption.] I hear the scoffing of Opposition Members, but the important point is this: the impact on public services would have been felt if the Government had not introduced some degree of order. Let us remember what the position was like back then. People were talking not just about trimming the police force, but about the wholesale meltdown of some of our key public services, and that is precisely what has not happened.

On 25 November the Chancellor announced that police spending would be protected in real terms over the spending review period, when the precept was taken into account. No police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding next year, and funding will have increased by up to £900 million in cash terms by 2019-20. As has already been pointed out, counter-terrorism funding will increase in real terms to £670 million in 2016-17. We have moved from a time when the country and policing faced disaster to a time when we have a strong funding settlement that will give proper funding to our most important services.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

Very briefly.

[Mr Jones]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has to sit down when I stand up.

[Alex Chalk]

Sorry.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the present Government find it difficult to distinguish between revenue and capital, among other concepts, but the hon. Gentleman has said that no one will lose cash. Durham, for instance, has an “outstanding” force—the only one in the country—but that force must take £3 million out of its budget this year because of wage increases and other pressures. “Flat cash” does not constitute an increase.

[Alex Chalk]

As I have said, it is important to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010—[Interruption.] May I deal with the point? In 2010, the country was bringing in about £600 million in tax revenue and spending £750 million. If that had not been addressed, the country and policing would be facing meltdown, but policing is now on a sound footing to protect the people of our country.

Speeches are sometimes as interesting for what is not said as for what is said. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington did not mention, even as one of his own apocalyptic scenarios, the kind of cut that he would himself have countenanced. At the Labour party conference in Brighton, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) declared that savings of up to 10% could be found. He said that that would be doable. That is not what is happening under this Government. Funding is now on a sustainable footing and capability is being enhanced.