Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. To help Members, I will be aiming for 10 minutes each from Back Benchers.

[Dr Lewis]

I will endeavour to finish quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was right to think in those terms when he wore that uniform. What is more, hon. Members on both sides of the House, in very large numbers, think in similar terms.

To bring my remarks speedily to a conclusion, I will draw out five lessons that have impressed themselves on me in such debates over the past 35 years, since we replaced the first-generation Polaris submarine fleet with the second-generation Vanguard submarine fleet.

The first lesson is that the concepts of unilateralism and multilateralism are mutually incompatible. One requires the unconditional abandonment of our nuclear weapons and nuclear alliances, whereas the other would consider nuclear renunciation only if our potential enemies carry it out at the same time.

The second lesson is that a nuclear-free world is not necessarily a more peaceful world. Abolition of the nuclear balance of terror would be a curse and not a blessing if it made the world once again safe for all-out conventional conflict between the superpowers. In military terms, Russia remains a superpower, regardless of complacent western analyses of the weakness of her economy.

The third lesson is the fundamental divide—which we see in today’s debate—between those people in western societies who believe that wars result mainly from groundless mutual fear and suspicion, and those who believe that only the prospect of retaliation in kind prevents adventurist states from acting aggressively.

The fourth lesson is the validity of the hackneyed but nevertheless accurate concept of the silent majority. Although individual polling questions can be devised to produce apparent majorities against deploying particular nuclear systems, whenever the fundamental issue of deterrence has been posed the result is always decisive. Two thirds of the British people want us to continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them, and only one quarter want us to give them up unconditionally.

The final lesson is that since fewer than 10% of our people have been undecided in poll after poll on this fundamental issue, it does not make political sense to try to appease either that small group or the much larger number of highly committed unilateralists such as my friends in the Scottish National party. The strategic task for the Government, and for the Opposition, is to reinforce the views of the two thirds who believe in what may be termed peace through strength and deterrence, rather than peace through disarmament, so the issue will be in the forefront of people’s minds, as it was in the general elections of 1983 and 1987, when this was a very prominent topic in the election debate.

None of this would be possible but for the dedication and, indeed, heroism of those people who, month after month, patrol the seas and are not seen and not heard—they are meant to be not seen and not heard—in order silently to spread over us an umbrella of nuclear protection. Long may they continue to do so.

Armed Forces Covenant

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Lewis

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

And so say all of us. I hope the Whips are listening and act accordingly—[Interruption.] Even at this moment, I see messages being passed urgently. Could this be some good news? I would happily give way if it is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Another resignation?

[Dr Lewis]

Heaven forbid.

Other matters deserved equal attention today. We have heard about the legal hounding of Northern Ireland veterans and other veterans of different campaigns; that is an ongoing matter. Also, at some point it would be right for the House to consider the Home Office’s failure to allocate sufficient British passports to veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Royal Navy. That injustice needs to be rectified. However, as I said, in the time available to me today I will concentrate on war widows, and I will do so slightly unusually—in their own words.

First, I remind the House of the terms of the covenant itself, which the Minister read out. The words relevant to my remarks are the following:

“the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families… Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.”

Back in May, I had the pleasure of meeting Judith Thompson, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. We discussed the plight of 200 to 300 war widows who lost their war widow’s pension and did not have it reinstated when others were more fortunate.

I see the hon. Member for Bridgend has just taken her place. Sadly, she missed the tribute paid to her achievement in becoming president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, but she is here to hear me reiterate it. I hope she will contribute to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Of all 650 Members of this House, he knows better than anyone, in personal terms, the devastation these killings left behind. That is why I intend to read out several more extracts before concluding. Mr Deputy Speaker, please indicate if you feel I am going on too long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Whip is there.

[Dr Lewis]

Okay, I will do my best. I do not intend to elaborate over and above the words, which speak for themselves.

Muriel, the widow of Jimmy, writes:

“My husband was 40 years old when he was murdered and I was left a widow at 37 with 5 children. Jimmy gave his life in defence of this country and I believe I should have the recognition that I am a war widow. It should make no difference that he died in 1977 and not on another date that the government has decided qualifies widows for pensions.

My husband was murdered because he put on a uniform and tried to uphold law and order. He died in his own home when gunmen shot him at our front door. I have had to live with the horror of this and our family has suffered terribly but instead of feeling that the government recognises our sacrifice we feel betrayed and that we are a nuisance asking for money the government says it can’t afford. I felt I had done something wrong when I remarried and tried to rebuild my life, as if everything that I went through meant nothing.

I don’t even get a full state pension because I paid married woman’s national insurance and I often think I should have been better advised by the MoD who should have given more priority to my welfare. I am a war widow and should be acknowledged as such and the government must do the decent thing and reinstate the pension for those of us whose lives were destroyed so that democracy could flourish.”

Now I come to a daughter, Elizabeth, who says:

“I am disappointed and saddened that I am even writing this… My Father”—

John—

“was a member of the UDR and he was shot dead when aged 40 years in 1981 doing his civilian job.”

I will not go through the events that happened, but Elizabeth continues:

“Each Remembrance Day and on my Dad’s anniversary, we remember him with pride. The impact of my Dad’s murder was severe, my Mum was left to bring up 3 children, I was aged 11 years. This was very difficult for my Mum both financially and emotionally. We all as a family still struggle today.

When she remarried her war pension was taken away from her. This is an absolute disgrace. We as children were still orphaned. It is a struggle for my Mum. She has no financial security in her later years and she can’t help her family the way she would like to. My Dad would be extremely saddened at the way the MoD have treated us.”

That is the very point made a few moments ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Elizabeth continues:

“I would also like to add that the aftercare is a disgrace as there actually isn’t any aftercare. When I enquired at the MoD about the pension being reinstated I was told no but if my Mum divorced her husband and then remarried him again she would get it back. How morally wrong is this? It is ridiculous that she is being penalised because of when my Father was murdered and for when she remarried. The pension should be reinstated and a full apology given for the way my Mum and other widows have been treated.”

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Lewis

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, may I say what a delight it is to see you back in the Chair? Have either you or Mr Speaker been given notice by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in view of the important call by the former Secretary of State for Defence that we spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, he will be coming to the Chamber to announce an increase in the defence budget, so that the present Secretary of State can put it to good use?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no such indication, and Mr Speaker has not passed one on to me either. The good thing, however, is that his comments are on the record, and I am sure that someone will be letting him know the outcome shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What I can say is that it is not for the Chair to decide when the statement will come; it is up to the Secretary of State when they decide to do it. I recognise that there has been a lot of frustration. I am sure that will have been taken on board. I am sure that the usual channels can begin to have a conversation to try and ensure that all parties do not feel aggrieved. I am sure this is something that has been taken on board, but I can assure you that it is not for the Chair to decide when the statement will come. Recognising that the House is frustrated, and that this is an important matter, I am sure that this was not done deliberately.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to come back again, but I happen to know that there was a strong wish on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence and his team to make the statement yesterday. The only reason it was not made was so as not to cut into Opposition day time. I do think that should be borne in mind.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What I would say is that I do not want to pursue the debate. I know there were various discussions yesterday. In the end, the statement came today. I do not want to get into how it was arrived at. I think that is something that was done, quite rightly, with Mr Speaker. It is where we are at now, and I am not going to pursue this in any other way, other than to say that the statement has been heard. Let us move on from that.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Lewis

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Secretary of State went at such speed that he did not even say goodnight or anything, so I am not sure why; he may well be coming back. He may have been taken short, given the speed he went at. It is convention that Members normally hear at least two speeches, and it is normal for Ministers to stay around to hear a bit more. Of course, when we have such a learned Member as the Chair of the Select Committee, we all wish to hear him. I had better bring him back on.

[Dr Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say in defence of the Defence Secretary that he spent no fewer than two hours and 25 minutes before our Committee last Wednesday afternoon, and I felt that was—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is no reason for him not to be here—let us put that on the record now.

[Dr Lewis]

But I did feel it was somewhat beyond the call of duty, and I believe that the whole Committee appreciated it.

My fourth question is: will this new system send a positive or a negative signal—first, to recruits and, secondly, to potential adversaries? That is where the controversy arose in the upper House, as grave concern was expressed about the Bill’s repeated use of the terminology of “part-time service”. To give a brief example of the dangers of the use of such terminology, I take a moment to refer to the lyrics of a “Glee Club” song composed by Liberal Democrat activists at their 2014 conference, sending up their party’s policy of sending nuclear submarines to sea either without warheads—we appear to be without Liberal Democrats, too—or only for part of the time. I will not sing it, the House will be glad to hear. [Hon. Members: “Do!”] It is done to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” and, talking of the boats, one of my favourite verses goes, “We can send them back to base if we’re really up the creek and request the war’s postponed until the middle of next week.” The chorus then is, “We believe in a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine,” and so on. Members can, thus, see the potential for the use of “part-time” in relation to armed forces to allow our adversaries and our critics in the media to suggest there is something less professional and less committed about the way in which we are conducting ourselves. Lord Craig of Radley, former Chief of the Air Staff, did suggest an alternative wording, which I hope might still be considered in Committee.

My final question is: will it be possible to apply to go on so-called part-time service just in time to avoid an operational deployment? The answer to the first question about emergency service clearly covers the issue of whether someone about to be deployed to a war zone could use this scheme to get out of it—clearly, they could not—but I would like a little more clarification from Ministers on whether there is any risk that some people might see a less popular deployment looming up on the near horizon and decide that the time was appropriate to start thinking about applying not for so-called part-time service but for a change, a reduction or an alternative to full-deployment just at that point.

Subject to those caveats, I wish the Bill well. I look forward to hearing further elaboration on the points I have raised, perhaps in the closing speech from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who I believe will be summing up. I endorse the commendation of both Front Benchers for this measure.

Retail Energy

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Lewis

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Battle of the New Forests! I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

Counter-Daesh Update

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Lewis

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

On his re-election, I call Dr Julian Lewis.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The reason why, surely, these cities have not been liberated sooner is precisely the care that is being taken in the targeting of the aerial bombardment. Does the Secretary of State accept that whereas the intervention with airstrikes in Iraq was non-controversial because we were prepared to see the army of the Iraqi Government win, the same does not apply in Syria? Apart from the Kurdish elements in Syria, who else does he expect to run the country when Daesh’s land is taken from it, if not the Syrian Government, with or without Assad?