Defence Readiness
Debate between Andrew Murrison and Mike Martin(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not normally introduce me like that, so thank you very much. It is an honour to share a constituency border with you and to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who made a heartfelt and powerful speech.
Wars are raging in Europe and in the middle east, and there are extreme tensions in the far east. Moreover, these regional conflicts are starting to knit together: Russia and China supported Iran in the middle east, and North Korea supported Russia in Ukraine. This knitting together of regional conflicts is what we saw in the 1930s in the foothills of the second world war, so there is an argument that we are now in the foothills of another global war.
It is undoubtedly true that the threats we face are increasing, yet at the same time, day by day, UK military capability is decreasing. We must rapidly rearm to narrow this gap; it is the only way that we can deter conflict. Despite that, the King’s Speech contains no programme of rearmament. The Government speak the language of urgency yet refuse even to introduce the necessary policy and legislation. As has been mentioned by Members from all parts of the House, we have been waiting for the defence investment plan since last autumn, and we were promised a defence readiness Bill in this King’s Speech, but where is it?
As an island nation, our Navy is of the utmost importance, but it is also on its knees. While HMS Dragon took a week to deploy to the Mediterranean, the French sent an entire carrier group—an aircraft carrier, eight frigates and a submarine. How did they do that? On paper, France and the United Kingdom have comparable fleets, but in practice France achieves about 80% availability for its escort vessels, while we achieve only 50%. Through better maintenance, France achieves a better outcome. Capability on paper is worthless if it cannot deploy.
It gets worse. We started this year with seven frigates. HMS Richmond will be decommissioned this year, and HMS Iron Duke was withdrawn from service this month. That leaves us with five frigates. Furthermore, three build slots in Glasgow intended for new frigates have been ceded to Norway, because of the lack of guaranteed investment due to delays in the defence investment plan. That is a real-world example of Government inertia affecting our defence.
Putin exploits weakness, and he shies away from strength. It pains me to say it, but our Navy does not project strength, and Putin will continue to mount increasingly flagrant violations of our territorial waters until our Navy is strong enough to make him think twice. Will it take the severing of a data cable to cause us to act?
Moving from the sea to the land, the Ministry of Defence was unable to confirm to the Defence Committee whether it is able to deploy a battlegroup—1,000 soldiers—to the continent of Europe. That comes back to my point about projecting strength. Putin knows that if he were to test article 5, the 900 British soldiers in Estonia would be at extreme risk. We have no ability to deploy reinforcements, and the King’s Speech does not do anything to change that. There is a gaping hole in our deterrence, and every day it goes unaddressed, the risks to our forces already deployed and our nation at home grow.
Our artillery systems have halved in number since 1997. Our precision deep-fire capability has been cut by a third. We have just 14 155 mm artillery systems, although I note that the Government have recently announced a new order. Poland donated 100 systems to Ukraine and rebuilt its own inventory at the same time. It donated and replaced; we just donated, which is why we have 14 artillery systems left.
Meanwhile, warfare has changed, and the UK has not adapted. During a recent NATO training exercise, a British brigade was effectively wiped out by four Ukrainian drone operators. That is not an indictment of our soldiers, but a reflection of modern warfare. We cannot allow that situation to become a reality.
The picture I have painted is one of systematic underfunding across all domains, and unless we rapidly rearm, we will be unable to deter. If we want to deter and to lead in the security of the Euro-Atlantic area, we probably need an Army of about 100,000, with reserves of 50,000, a fleet of 50 ships and about 250 combat aircraft, with crewed systems surrounded by autonomous systems and one-way effectors. That is the capability we must be talking about if we want to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic.
Dr Murrison
I am following the hon. Member’s remarks with a great deal of interest. He mentioned the reserves, and I am a reservist. Would you give the Government credit where it is due for carrying over the Armed Forces Bill, which will advance the age of retirement for reserves to 65, and agree with me that we can probably go further in looking at people, especially the reserves, who are skilled in particular areas and may be able to help us address the challenges of the future, rather than those of the past?
Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine
Debate between Andrew Murrison and Mike Martin(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Martin
My hon. Friend is right: it is about not just actions that lead to practical outcomes but the signals that we send to our geopolitical opponents.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I agree with much of it, including that Russia must pay for what it has done, in terms of supporting Ukraine in its war and the reconstruction to come, whatever that looks like. However, does he share my concern that were we to act unilaterally, or indeed with others, we may encourage the attractiveness of other reserve currencies and systems, in particular China’s, and that capital among the $12 trillion or so globally invested may find its way to Beijing rather than currently safer destinations in the western world?
Mike Martin
I can answer the right hon. Gentleman directly. I am not advocating that we move unilaterally. I do not think that would be a good idea. If one country were to move, that allows capital flight to other G7 countries. The problem with the Chinese currency is that it is not fully convertible. It is not an international currency in which people like to keep lots of their reserves. That is why I am advocating for the G7 as a whole to move. Look at the currencies of the G7: the dollar, sterling, the euro—$200 billion of these assets are denominated in euros—and the yen. These are the major reserve currencies of the world. If the G7 countries move together, I think we will be safe. The right hon. Gentleman’s broader point is about the financial stability of international markets. That is an important point, but any potential small amount of financial instability created by the G7 countries moving together would be minuscule compared with the financial instability of Ukraine losing the war.
If we want to shift the dial on Ukraine, especially in the face of a potential drawdown in US support, we need to go further and faster and seize the $300 billion of frozen assets and send them to Ukraine. There is a clear legal pathway for doing so. The international law doctrine of state countermeasures says that states can take countermeasures against other states if there have been grievous violations of international law, such as the genocidal abduction of children.