United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

That date, 23 March, is not quite the deadline that it might appear. My initial discussions with the US Department of Commerce and the Office of the United States Trade Representative have made it clear that the period of exemption will continue some way beyond the initial introduction. Clearly, if there are going to be exemptions for the EU or the UK, we would want to see them introduced as early as possible. We will continue to push for exemption on the basis that I have set out today.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend travels to Washington later this week, will he be accompanied by representatives from Brussels? Obviously, we are still an EU member and cannot act unilaterally—yet.

[Dr Fox]

I do not require a babysitter from the EU on my visit to Washington. We are in continuous contact with Commissioner Malmström and her team, because this is an issue that affects us all. It would affect us whether we were in the European Union or not, however, because these actions are being taken not just against the EU but against all steel producers globally, all of whom will be equally affected.

Defence Responsibilities

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I was first aware of them in June, when I saw them for the first time. I commented that it was inappropriate for a portcullis to be used on a private business card and that it was not appropriate for anyone to say that they were an adviser to the Secretary of State. At that point, I made it very clear that they should be withdrawn and not used again. They were funded privately, and have nothing to do with public or, indeed, my money.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend on not changing his programme, and on going to visit our armed forces abroad, when it must have been tempting for him to come home immediately, given what was happening here? I have listened carefully to what he said today, and I personally am very satisfied. May I advise him to go back to his job, which is looking after our armed forces, who are in combat in two operational theatres? That is what he must concentrate on now.

[Dr Fox]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend to concentrate very much on those issues, which remain at the top of my in-tray. As I said, we in the House understand that those outside have legitimate concerns and that they have a right for them to be addressed, and I think that the correct way to do so is for the Cabinet Secretary to continue the investigation begun by the permanent secretary. I can only reiterate my willingness to co-operate in every way that I possibly can with that investigation.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The mechanisms and approaches are set out in the appropriate training manuals and are emphasised during the training process. It is a matter of great regret that there was, as the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) has said, a loss of institutional memory in the Ministry of Defence. I personally find it difficult to understand how a statement given by a Prime Minister on the Floor of this House outlawing five interrogation techniques could be “forgotten” by the body corporate. There was a lack of codification, which has, I think, been put right in recent years. I share the disbelief that such a corporate memory failure could be allowed to occur.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

To follow up what my hon. and good Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has said, I would like to take it to a lower level: when people are frightened, scared out of their wits, very tired and have lost friends, they sometimes lose their moral compass. Is my right hon. Friend instructing battalion commanders and brigade commanders to ensure that when such situations are likely, officers brief their men on exactly how they should act? In circumstances that we have heard about, as they apply to the Baha Mousa case, will my right hon. Friend ensure that supervision by officers and non-commissioned officers is as close as it possibly can be in order to stop weak people, who might also be thugs, from acting appallingly?

[Dr Fox]

In many professions, the whole point of professional training is to get individuals to behave under stressful circumstances in the same way as they would at any other time. That applies in the medical profession, and it applies to the Army. My hon. Friend is right to point to the duty of officers both to supervise and to guide those they lead. One of the most appalling failures set out in the Baha Mousa inquiry was the failure of those in command generally to supervise and guide those for whom they were responsible. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

Defence Transformation

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State do his very best to restrict the cuts in the Army to those who do not fight and make sure that the people who do the fighting are maintained as much as possible?

[Dr Fox]

Yes, where possible the Army will look to see where non-front-line personnel can be part of the reduction that has been set out.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Three of the colonels on board the Chinook that day were friends of mine. One of them, Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Gregory-Smith, a commander of intelligence in Northern Ireland, was the godfather of my first son. Does the Secretary of State agree that the families have shown huge dignity and great courage in the years since 1994?

[Dr Fox]

I think that the families have shown calmness, dignity, great strength and great courage. I hope they feel today that all of that has been vindicated.

Defence Reform

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The VCDS leads the reserves review and was a key member of the steering group, so there is no lack of continuity. The hon. Gentleman asked why these things were not done at the time. We had to complete the SDSR because the comprehensive spending review was running at the same time, and because we had to deal with the huge deficit left by the previous Government. I know that the Labour Benches remain populated by deficit-deniers, but that does not reduce the responsibility on the Government to deal with the problem.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I understand it—perhaps I am wrong—service chiefs lost the right some time ago to go directly to the Prime Minister. What right does a service chief have when he or she feels strongly about something outside the normal chain of command?

[Dr Fox]

There is no change in the constitutional position under which chiefs of staff—or, indeed, the CDS or VCDS —have a direct right of access to the Prime Minister of the day.

Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

What I am making clear today is that for the rest of this Parliament we will be going ahead with the replacement programme. We are setting out the budget, the areas of policy and the industrial implications for doing so. As I have said, it is part of the coalition agreement that the Liberal Democrats are able to look at these alternatives. Having looked, as Secretary of State since we came to office, at all the alternatives in great detail, including the costs and the implications for defence, I remain absolutely confident that the study is very likely to come to exactly the same conclusion as the 2006 White Paper, but we have given a commitment and we are carrying that out, through Cabinet Office officials, for our Liberal Democrat partners in the coalition. We made an agreement and we are going to honour it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent nuclear deterrent is being used all the time because it is, by definition, a deterrent to potential enemies? The firing of the weapon would be a disaster of course, but the point of its possession is to prevent that.

[Dr Fox]

I cannot fault my hon. Friend’s logic. He understands the whole basis of the concept of deterrence. Of course, the deterrent is designed to protect the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail, but we still have to work hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world as a complementary, not an alternative, policy.

Armed Forces Covenant

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Again, I note the ingenuity of Members. The hon. Gentleman has raised two very good points.

There are clearly instances of best practice from which we can learn in relation to access to public housing. When it comes to access to the private housing sector, one of the problems is an inability to acquire a mortgage. That applies particularly to those who have served overseas and have been out of the country for some time. We are examining ways of dealing with the problem, and the Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking into it at the moment.

The issue of post-traumatic stress disorder is crucial. One reason why we have introduced routine mental health screening into the medical examinations of those about to leave the armed forces is to try to identify best those who may require additional follow-up. As scientific and medical evidence develops to help us with profiling, we may well be able to have programmes that allow follow-up for a longer time. We are working closely with the United States on building up a profiling picture. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that this may take some years to develop, at least in terms of the symptomatology, so we will need to look at ways of better predicting the effects, and identifying and following up individuals. We might have to identify them, because self-identification in mental illness is notoriously difficult.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I very much welcome the establishment of the military covenant in law. On 6 December, it will be 29 years since 33 soldiers in my company were wounded. We often tend to forget soldiers and servicemen and women who were wounded a long time ago. I hope that the military covenant in law will increase Government responsibility to care for those who were wounded, regardless of which war or conflict they served in.

[Dr Fox]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who, of course, has considerable experience in this area. First, I would echo the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) about mental health care being one aspect of long-term care. The Government have given a high priority to that, because the invisible wounds of war are just as damaging as those that we can see. I do not put the blame on any one particular Government, but as a society we have been too slow to recognise that. We are increasingly recognising it now, however. Secondly, medical care will improve in certain areas. Prosthetics, for instance, have come a long way. Individuals are having to be reassessed in the NHS, given the new capabilities that prosthetics may bring and the new lease of life that they may give to individuals, including those with long-term injuries relating to service in the armed forces.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to talk about what the military covenant really means. Obviously, it is a contract between the state and individuals who put on uniform in its service, but what does the state require of our servicemen and women? Let us be quite clear. When required, the state directs those who are in the armed forces to obey orders and advance against the enemy, even when there is a high chance of their being killed. They are not allowed to debate the matter, and they are under compulsion. If they refuse, they may be court-martialled—in the past, they may even have been shot or ended up on a gibbet.

May I remind hon. Members of my hero, Wing Commander Guy Gibson? On the night of 16 May 1943, 19 specially modified Lancasters from 617 Squadron, led by Guy Gibson, attacked the three dams in the Ruhr on Operation Chastise. They did so from 60 feet, at 220 mph, in darkness and against considerable Nazi opposition. Of those 19 Lancasters, eight were lost, and 56 RAF personnel were killed. Along with Gibson, who won the Victoria cross, 32 airmen received decorations.

Not one of those 56 men wanted to die, and I suspect that very few—if any—wanted to get into the aircraft that night in May 1943. Any man or woman who has been in combat would be the very last person to say that they were not frightened sick when it happened, but the state required Guy Gibson and his gallant men to overcome their natural instincts, move their feet, which must have felt like lead, and get into those aircraft and fly. They knew that their chances of survival were not great—42% of them lost their lives—but they did what was required by the state.

My old battalion, 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, which is now called 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, returned from Afghanistan last autumn. Its casualty rate was pretty horrific: 12 dead and nearly 100 wounded, and seven triple amputees now have two legs between them. In the front sections of an infantry battalion in Afghanistan, the chances of being killed or wounded are 25% to 30%—I am talking about the people who do the business of our military in Afghanistan at the front.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) might not be allowed technically to be my friend in this Chamber, but he is certainly my friend when we are outside. He reminded the House of the Ballykelly bomb on 6 December 1982, when I was a company commander, but may I remind the House that 35 soldiers under my command were wounded, as well as civilians? They too remain our responsibility—I feel that acutely.

[Dr Fox]

Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I am extremely impressed and moved by what my hon. Friend is saying. However, it is not the state alone—meaning the governors of the state—that required sacrifices either in the second world war or in Afghanistan; it is the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why the military covenant exists not only between the state and the armed forces, but between the whole nation and the armed forces.

[Bob Stewart]

I certainly accept my right hon. Friend’s endorsement. Our nation requires our armed forces to do things that they would not normally do as civilians.

Sometimes, our front-line soldiers in Afghanistan chuck up as they load their weapons. I understand that, having been semi-paralysed with fear myself on occasions, and most certainly on front lines in Bosnia. I suspect that that feeling of paralysis and hopelessness was also felt by the dambuster squadron as they climbed into their Lancasters. However, that is the nation’s requirement of our servicemen and servicewomen. To me, it is pretty stark—it is the ultimate uncompromising requirement—but what should our service personnel get back? The state has always had a clear duty to look after service personnel or personnel who are killed or wounded in its service. That duty may not have been fulfilled in the past, and sometimes, even if it was, it was not done very well, but the requirement has always existed.

Early formal recognition of that duty was the establishment by Charles II of the Royal hospital in Chelsea in 1681. Today, we think of Chelsea pensioners as magnificent old soldiers in red coats—the boys of the old brigade—but that hospital was established specifically to look after wounded soldiers regardless of their age. By March 1692, the 476 so-called in-pensioners were mainly the wounded, not necessarily the old. The state—or the nation, if the Secretary of State will forgive me—has recognised its side of the bargain for a long time, which obviously continues to this day.

The military covenant is now widely recognised as a term that refers to the mutual obligation between the people—I am being careful now—and its armed forces. It was possibly first officially coined in an MOD pamphlet entitled, “Soldiering: the Military Covenant”, which I first saw in April 2000.

The covenant covers a lot of ground, some of which we have debated today, but in essence it fundamentally means that service personnel should be treated fairly and properly. I want to concentrate on what happens if a serviceman or servicewoman is killed or hurt, rather than on the softer aspects of the covenant. I know I speak for the House when I say that we want nothing but the best for those personnel, but let me emphasise what I consider to be our nation’s duty to those who are killed or wounded in its service.

First, on those who make the ultimate sacrifice, the mortal remains of our service personnel who are killed must be treated with the greatest dignity and respect, which I think they are. Our system is now fully supportive of grieving relatives, which includes helping, if required, with funerals as sensitively as possible.

We are also getting better at looking after families when the funeral is over. Service widows and families must have proper financial provision and guidance for as long as they need it thereafter. That also extends to the children. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has emphasised the setting up of an educational scheme and the attempt to look carefully at how families are looked after, but we have to keep on top of this, because as time goes by we tend to forget.

Secondly, I want to talk about the wounded. The ratio of killed to wounded on service in Afghanistan—this is based on my old battalion—was about one dead to nearly 10 wounded. I am told that the Americans’ figure is higher. That is an incredible improvement since the days when I first put on the uniform in 1967. When I was at the Royal Military Academy, I was taught that when planning a military operation, we should expect about one person to be killed for every three wounded—survival rates were not great. That was the case right the way through the early years in Northern Ireland, but now we have a much better survival rate. The ratio of dead to wounded now is—let us not be exact—one in 10 or 11. The precise figure does not matter; what matters is that we are recovering people from near-death experiences and getting them off the battlefield properly.

Tremendous advances have been made in keeping our wounded alive. That was a great achievement of the previous Government, some of whose members who helped to engineer it are here. We can blame the previous Government for many things, but on the medical front I take my hat off to them. The way in which we deal with our casualties is terribly important. It is also important when they take their uniforms off. That is something else we have to keep an eye on—they have to be looked after for the rest of their lives.

I am especially interested in the long-term care of the disabled. I accept that the NHS has responsibility and does its best, but that system still requires attention and help. I understand and accept now—with some emotional reluctance, I have to say—that the days of exclusive service hospitals are over. Our war disabled require the very best care until the end of their days, and I, for one, will spend all my time in the House doing my best to improve the long-term care of our wounded.

I will stop there. I am very grateful to the House authorities and the Democratic Unionist party for continuing to bring the matter of the military covenant before the House. It is a matter very dear to my heart. However, looking around the Chamber, I can see that I am certainly not alone; I know that there is tremendous support for it on both sides. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I know that this issue was examined by the previous Government, as it has been by this Government. The view that has been taken is that because there are differences between the three services this approach is culturally the best way to go about things. If my hon. Friend has very strong views on this, I am sure that he will be willing to bring them to the House, perhaps in the form of an amendment, during the passage of the Bill. That would give us a chance to debate the merits and demerits of this approach further. There are undoubtedly arguments on both sides and the Government have just decided that, out of due respect for the differences between the services, this was the best way for us to continue to proceed.

Other provisions in the Bill introduce a new regime under which service personnel commit an offence if they exceed an alcohol limit while carrying out certain duties. The limits and duties will be prescribed in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill also contains provisions allowing commanding officers the flexibility to test on a case-by-case basis in two circumstances. One is where they have reasonable cause to believe that a service person’s ability to carry out a prescribed duty is impaired due to drugs or alcohol. The other is where they have reasonable cause to believe that such a person is in breach of a limit on alcohol specified in regulations in relation to particular duties.

The main reason behind those changes is to increase safety and to act as a deterrent, and I wish to explain to the House why that is. When Parliament approved the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and regulations were made under it, the provisions were not extended to the services because they were considered to be too restrictive, given that so many service personnel are engaged in potentially dangerous activities in the course of their employment. That exemption had wide cross-party support at the time. Against that background, the then Government gave an undertaking that a bespoke scheme would be created for the armed forces. Policy development was too immature for proposals to be included in the last Armed Forces Bill and progress had since stalled due to a lack of a legislative vehicle, so I am pleased that such a scheme is included in this Bill. The provisions in this group are important, because they are aimed at creating a safer environment when service personnel are carrying out safety-critical tasks in the course of their employment, both generally and when on operations. Rather than limiting commanding officers to acting after an incident has taken place, as happens at present, the changes in the Bill will allow commanding officers also to act earlier in the future. One of the concerns that I expressed during the passage of the previous Bill was that it might reduce the freedom and discretion of commanding officers. A number of changes in this Bill go to redress that in some way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a past commanding officer, I think that it is an extremely good thing that more power be given back to commanding officers, including discretionary power. I think particularly of warrant officers who offend. It has been mandatory to reduce such officers to the ranks, but if they have done 20 years in the armed forces, that will have a deep effect on their pensions, for example. Therefore, this is a good change to the Armed Forces Act 2006 and I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing it.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The change that he refers to will not only give discretion but provide a sense of proportion and justice in dealing with such issues. The idea of a draconian, one-size-fits-all punishment is not in line with the traditions of this country or the armed forces. This is a sensible change that will command support on both sides of the House.

At present, the Director of Service Prosecutions is allowed under the Armed Forces Act to delegate his functions only to legally qualified service officers. As a result, the prosecuting staff at the Service Prosecuting Authority are all service lawyers. Given the small number of service lawyers and the competing pressure on them, the Director of Service Prosecutions has asked for a provision to be added to the Bill to allow civilian lawyers to be appointed to posts in the Service Prosecuting Authority.

The burden of the cases referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions and the complexity of those cases may continue to increase. The service police continue to investigate allegations of serious criminal offences, including sexual offences, fraud and computer-based crime; and allegations arising out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decisions taken to prosecute or not to prosecute, especially those cases where there is an operational context, are often finely balanced and involve difficult prosecution decisions.

The change is being made as a reasonable precaution to allow the Director of Service Prosecutions the flexibility to appoint civilian prosecutors. That will be done only if it becomes necessary in order to ensure that the Service Prosecuting Authority continues to have access to an adequate number of prosecutors with the necessary professional skills. All those involved greatly value the benefits of Service Prosecuting Authority lawyers being current serving officers. There is no intention to move to a completely civilian authority.

The Director of Service Prosecutions acts independently of my Department and comes under the general superintendence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It would be for him to decide if such a change were needed. There has been an exchange between my Department and the Attorney-General setting out the circumstances in which the provision would be brought into force. As part of that, it is clear that there would be consultation between our two Departments before any action were taken.

I believe that our Armed Forces are among the best, if not the best, in the world. One of the reasons that they are so good is that they conduct themselves with great discipline. It is something for which our armed forces have a deserved reputation throughout the world. The Bill helps to underpin that discipline. It will ensure that our armed forces continue to have a fair and modern system of service justice that underpins the operational effectiveness of which we are all in the House rightly proud. I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Stewart and Liam Fox

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in 2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2015—the time scale for the Trident replacement programme—and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain’s defences.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

3. What recent progress has been made on the reform of NATO.