Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Debate between Alex Ballinger and Liz Saville Roberts(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Ballinger
Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment.
I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue.
I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is important that the hon. Member winds up, because I said seven minutes, and he has now taken 10 minutes.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Member realise that to people outside, this argument—these fine details of process—morphs into a defence of ignorance and then into a defence of incompetency? That is actually doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty.
Alex Ballinger
We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.
NATO and the High Arctic
Debate between Alex Ballinger and Liz Saville Roberts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Ballinger
I absolutely agree that the JEF is a vital alliance for our operations in the High North. I met the Estonian ambassador only a couple of weeks ago, and we were pleased to discuss opportunities for co-operation, in addition to the UK forces that are based in Estonia, as part of deterring the Russian threat to that part of the world.
Importantly, the High Arctic is a top priority for Moscow strategically, militarily and economically. Russia has been building up its military presence, and it is not subtle about it. The northern fleet is modernising: it has a more capable navy and increasingly active submarine operations, and it focuses on controlling access to the European High North. We should be clear about what that means for the UK. Russia’s sea-based nuclear forces are concentrated around the Kola peninsula, and the High North is central to its nuclear deterrent strategy. That raises the stakes for NATO.
The Royal Navy has also seen a 30% increase in Russian vessels threatening UK waters over the past two years. Russia’s navy is increasingly capable and willing to test our defences from the High North. Russia wants to exploit the Arctic for more than military leverage; it wants to dominate access to sea routes and mineral resources. For Russia, this is about economics and security, which is why we cannot treat Arctic competition as “just defence”.
Recently, the big change we have seen in this region is what is happening in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion has transformed European security, and the Arctic is a part of that. Two Arctic countries, Finland and Sweden, joined NATO because they concluded that, in the context of Ukraine, neutrality no longer protected them. As a result, every Arctic country except Russia is now a NATO ally. That strengthens NATO’s hand, but it means that NATO’s northern responsibilities have expanded.
The second development is Greenland. We all saw Trump’s threats and rhetoric, which have thankfully receded. I am pleased that European countries were united in saying that Greenland’s sovereignty should not be a bargaining chip.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I was fortunate to visit Nuuk in Greenland with the APPG for Greenland—of course, we discussed NATO and Trump. It is important for us to remember that the 1951 agreement between the USA and the Kingdom of Denmark gave the US rights of access to military defence. When it comes to what the United Kingdom could be doing for Greenland to develop what will none the less be geo-significant in the future, surely it is time that we should call for a consulate for the United Kingdom in Greenland.
Alex Ballinger
The Foreign Affairs Committee is going to Greenland in a couple of weeks. We hope to meet the Foreign Minister of Denmark, among other leaders of the Greenlanders, and that sounds like the kind of sensible suggestion that we should be talking about.
Certainly, there are lots of opportunities for NATO to base troops in Greenland already; we did not need a change in sovereignty to do that. I am pleased that that has fallen off the radar. It is concerning that Trump’s interest in Greenland is not a one-off. The US security strategy is explicit that the Arctic is becoming more important to America and to American national security, whether it is because of Russia, China, geography or critical minerals. We should not pretend that this was just a single passing storm.
In the Arctic, NATO is responding, but we need to be honest about the scale of the task. With the Arctic sentry, the alliance is trying to pull together a more coherent posture in the High North, with better visibility, better co-ordination and a clearer framework for operating in the sea, air, space and undersea environments.
We should also underline the importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. That strategic choke point is vital to NATO. It affects how Russia can move submarines into the wider Arctic, it affects the security of reinforcement routes in a crisis and it sits alongside the undersea infrastructure that we rely on every day.
I will raise the joint expeditionary force, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) raised earlier. The UK-led JEF has real value in this part of the world; it is practical, northern-focused and moves faster than the full NATO machine in the early stages of a crisis. That is exactly the sort of framework we should use to build readiness, interoperability and credibility.