Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that resistance takes many forms and that one of its forms is that of independent journalism? I know that a number of journalists are now trapped in Ukraine. Many of them have chosen to stay in Ukraine, but some are trapped. They are worried about their families. They want to know that they can have safe passage to the UK or to Europe. Like Members on both sides of the House, I believe that all these restrictions should be lifted, but in the interim I urge the Government to pay particular attention to journalists who are doing an admirable job in reporting on what is happening. We know what Putin thinks of these journalists—he has already attacked the UN public service broadcasting tower. They know what is in store for them. They are potentially on lists. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make a comment on that.

[John Healey]

Indeed, one of our fundamental values as a British democracy is the right to free speech and information. Those freedoms come at a price, and that is often the price that journalists, under pressure, have to pay. Those brave Ukrainian journalists, especially those who are staying in the country to try to make sure that those of us beyond their boundaries know what is really going on, deserve our honour and our respect. If necessary, we need to be willing to act where we can to assist them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, we welcome the efforts that are being made, led by Saudi Arabia. I visited the centre it has established in Riyadh to lead this effort to make it very clear that Islam is a religion of peace and to co-ordinate the various programmes of de-radicalisation that are already in force across the Arab world.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

We all very much welcome the recent announcement of a ceasefire in Syria. As well as providing an opportunity for all sides to focus on defeating Daesh, it creates a space for further negotiations aimed at ending the conflict once and for all. The need for a negotiated settlement in Syria is as urgent as ever, particularly in light of horrifying reports of yet another chlorine attack in recent days. Will the Secretary of State tell the House a little more about the implications for the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians in Syria under the ceasefire details?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for what he has said and for his support. Getting humanitarian aid into Aleppo and some of the other towns and cities that have suffered is a key part of the ceasefire. I think one of the tests of the ceasefire will be whether the regime is really prepared to allow in these much-needed convoys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I would like to pay tribute to my hon. and gallant colleague for his service to Her Majesty when he was in uniform. If the armed forces are to work in the 21st century, they must represent the community from which they come. Whether we are talking about more BME people or more women in the armed forces—we have a 15% target for women, which is a very high level—we must be careful to make sure that we promote the armed forces to those people, whatever part of the community they come from, so that they feel comfortable working in the armed forces. That is something I am absolutely determined to do.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I add my voice to those who have welcomed the Minister to his post. He is, I think, in the hot seat on this particular issue. This Government might not be very good at meeting their own targets, particularly on Army recruitment, but Ministers at least deserve points for creativity. Their plan to grow the trained strength of the Army by changing the definition of “trained” might help with cooking the books, but it will not do a thing to address the actual problem. Will the Minister tell us whether he believes it is appropriate for personnel to be deployed on operations before completing their full training and, if so, how he can be confident that they will be adequately prepared?

[Mike Penning]

Let me say that I know from experience that some duties can be done once people have passed their phase 1 training. That certainly was done back in my time in 1974 when there was a Labour Government. If we are trying to recruit people, we need money, but Labour wants to cut money, and we need to be part of NATO, but the Labour party leadership wants to take us out of it. That is something that we would never do, but if they want to undermine our armed forces, they should do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The Ministry of Defence takes the health and wellbeing of its personnel seriously and acknowledges its duty of care to provide the best possible support to them. I am delighted to be able to confirm today that, as part of that care, we have introduced a single point of contact providing information on mefloquine and signposting a range of services to help those who have concerns having taken Lariam. Further details are available on the gov.uk website.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I am sure that Ministers are fast learners and will get to know my name soon enough. Last week the MOD was accused of a terrifying error after accidentally publishing the details of 20,000 people online. Following a number of recent high-profile security breaches including the attempted abduction of an RAF airman based at Marham, many service members will understandably be concerned about their personal safety. What reassurances can the Secretary of State provide to those men and women in regard to the security, particularly online, of any personal information about them?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)]

We have been doing everything we possibly can to protect people’s personal details online. I went to Marham myself two days after that incident took place—the police investigation there is ongoing—to give reassurance not only to the serving personnel but to their families that we will do everything we possibly can to protect them.

[Clive Lewis]

British military personnel in Saudi Arabia include a number of liaison officers stationed within the military headquarters of Saudi-led operations in Yemen. According to the Government, those officers are deployed to gain insight into those operations and to advise the Saudis on how to comply with international humanitarian law. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether any communications from those British officers—as opposed to reports from the Saudi authorities themselves—have revealed any concerns about the conduct of operations in Yemen, including the possibility that humanitarian law has been violated?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me make it clear that the United Kingdom is not a member of the Saudi-led coalition, and UK personnel are not involved in directing or conducting operations in Yemen or in the target selection process. We have not assessed that the Saudi-led coalition is targeting civilians or is in breach of international humanitarian law.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) took the words right out of my mouth with regard to your presence, Mr Speaker. One can tell how good a debate has been when Members find themselves nodding vigorously, no matter from which side of the House the points are being made. I think that that has happened quite a lot over the past two days.

I am honoured to be closing this debate on behalf of the Opposition. The Chilcot report is an extraordinary piece of work and I hope the whole House will join me in congratulating Sir John Chilcot on his efforts. He took a fair amount of flak during the lengthy writing of it, but it seems clear that it has been worth the wait. The report is in the very highest and noblest traditions of our country. It has unflinchingly shone a light both on crucial decisions made by our leaders and on how those decisions were made. It has not ducked from shining that light at the very highest levels of our Government—indeed, at the very top.

It would be naive to suppose that complete openness is always possible in government, especially over matters as grave as going to war. None the less, openness will always ensure that our policies have a firm moral foundation. As a great American jurist once said,

“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, if would purify them as the sun disinfects”.

The report has let sunlight in on much that some would prefer to remain hidden. It is the most comprehensive and devastating critique we have had of the individual, collective and systemic errors that added up to the failure in Iraq—a failure whose consequences we are still dealing with and will have to deal with for many years to come.

I wish to pay tribute to comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Over two days, we have heard contributions from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on the opportunities the report provides to learn lessons for the future, from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who emphasised the need for war to be seen always as a measure of last resort, and from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who ably chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee and spoke with particular insight about some of the legal questions involved in the decision to go to war and about the failures of intelligence, which were also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who has served as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and therefore speaks with considerable authority on these issues.

Many Members, including the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), talked about problems with military equipment, as did the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in what I thought was one of the finest speeches of the debate. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) were among the many contributors yesterday who spoke about the lack of adequate planning for the post-war reconstruction phase. As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) pointed out, the same mistake was repeated in Libya, where the Government spent 13 times more on the military campaign than on post-war reconstruction.

The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made the case for better leadership on such matters and urged that the House and the Government learn from the Iraq report to build public trust in politics, politicians and the big decisions we inevitably must make on the public’s behalf. The knowledgeable and right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who chairs the Defence Committee, reminded us that it did not require hindsight to predict the many tribal and religious hatreds unleashed by the war and its aftermath. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) reminded us that we are elected to act in good faith, yes, but also with good judgment.

The speech that I felt best captured my personal anxieties was that of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who made more insightful comments than I have time to list. He spoke of the need for a more holistic approach to defence in both soft and hard power, and warned us that the continual budget cuts to the FCO undermine our ability not just to respond to global security threats, but to pre-empt them.

I want to focus on two topics that stand out to me: civilian casualties and equipment failures. Sir John estimates that there were at least 150,000 Iraqi fatalities, but suggests that the number is probably much higher. He notes that a proper assessment of the likely number of civilian casualties was not made before the invasion and that there was no systematic recording of casualties after the war had started. In one of his most scathing remarks, his report concludes:

“More time was devoted to the question of which department should have responsibility for the issue of civilian casualties than it was to efforts to determine the actual number.”

Today, it seems that Whitehall has yet to learn from this mistake. In the air campaign against Daesh, the Government insist that not a single civilian has been lost in almost two years of UK airstrikes. This seems literally incredible. Ministers give cryptic answers to questions about how they assess the damage caused by airstrikes, how they distinguish between combatants and civilians, and what they mean when they say they will consider all credible reports of civilian loss of life. The Government’s continued lack of transparency on this issue is troubling. I urge the Secretary of State, in the light of the report, to look again at how his Department monitors and collates information on civilian casualties.

The exposure of equipment failures is one of the gravest findings in the report. Chilcot sheds new light on this by documenting the sheer scale of the problem. Shortages of helicopters and armoured vehicles had terrible consequences. Day after day we saw Snatch Land Rovers that were designed for riot duty in Northern Ireland blown to bits by huge roadside bombs. There were also shortages of uniforms, boots and even such basic necessities as toilet paper. Some units even had to borrow rations from the Americans; one unit became known as “the Borrowers”. Some of the soldiers who died in Iraq were still teenagers, and it is a disgrace that they were sent there so woefully prepared. Although we understand that it is literally impossible to plan for every equipment need and contingency, we can never again let such catastrophic failure occur.

I want to pay a personal tribute to the families of our troops who died for their dogged and persistent pursuit of the truth about these equipment failures. Their steadfastness to the cause was heroic. I and everyone who saw some active service in the years that followed owe them a deep debt of gratitude. We got the kit their sons and daughters did not get. I, for one, will never forget the commitment to this cause that they showed. It undoubtedly saved many lives, and I hope that that knowledge can bring them some small consolation.

I have spoken about some of the specific failings identified in the report, but I must also speak of the much wider failings that a report of this scale and quality makes clear, such as the failure of this House sufficiently to hold the Executive to account on matters as grave as taking this country to war. Chilcot tells us that we must never allow a rush to war to blind us to facts or their absence. We must never allow a debate to be closed down with snide imputations of a lack of patriotism, or by the kind of macho posturing that suggests that those who urge caution, who demand evidence and who want proof when allegations of the gravest seriousness are made are somehow cowardly or undeserving of a voice.

The guardianship of this country’s future and the future safety of the world are issues that require not the posturing bravado of adolescence, but mature wisdom and a readiness to accept that every voice in this Chamber is worthy of our fullest respect, because those voices have been sent here as representatives of the British people, in all their variety and complexity, and we all speak for Britain here. If we speak again of a rush to bomb the odious Government of President Assad, we should not be derided as supporters of the Assad regime. When, just two years later, we are told that we must now bomb President Assad’s enemies in Daesh and we ask the question, “How will this bombing achieve our aims?”, we must not be told that we are soft on terrorism. We are demanding evidence of a coherent long-term plan that is backed with credible evidence and sufficient resources to achieve a lasting peace, founded on justice.

I am not a pacifist. My grandfather, of whose armed service I am deeply proud, was a paratrooper in the Normandy landings, and I have already mentioned my own service. I will always demand, however, the highest standard of proof for taking our country to war, and I will never apologise for that. These are literally matters of life and death, and the British people deserve better than political posturing.

Ultimately, if we cannot face and accept the consequences of our actions, we cannot learn the lessons and we cannot make wiser choices in the future. I hope that when we discuss issues of the gravest possible importance next week—those relating to Britain’s nuclear capability—this House will do so in a spirit of due humility and awareness of our shortcomings. We are not infallible, and when we are making choices of such gravity, we must speak with the very best part of ourselves and not stoop to political point scoring.

Let me conclude by quoting the words of the former Foreign Secretary and now deceased Member for Livingston, Robin Cook. In his resignation speech, he said:

“The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 728.]

There it is in a nutshell: we went to war without the support of international alliances, institutions or our allies, without sufficient evidence and without the support of the British people. Some Members saw that, and they are to be congratulated on their honesty and moral integrity in saying so at the time. We were railroaded into war. That was shameful, and it must not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

As I have said, the heads of the armed forces are represented on the National Security Council by the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Chief of the Defence Staff who has been serving up to now is certainly not likely to be disregarded by the politicians who sit on the committee. Both he and his successor—I hope that the House will welcome the arrival of the new Chief of the Defence Staff today—are well able to hold their own against the politicians.

[Clive Lewis]

Would the Secretary of State acknowledge that Baroness Neville-Jones, one of the architects of the NSC, has said that the secretariat that co-ordinates the NSC is understaffed and under-resourced? Another criticism is that there is a lack of outside expertise being brought into the NSC, and that more use could be made of such experts.

NATO Warsaw Summit

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

First, I thank the Secretary of State and his team for the work that they did at the Warsaw summit this weekend. I would also like to remind him that rumours of my going absent without leave in the muddy fields of Glastonbury were greatly exaggerated.

The Opposition welcome the clear message from the Warsaw summit that NATO is determined to strengthen its commitment to our friends and allies in eastern Europe. Whatever the consequences of Brexit—and there will be some that are unforeseeable—we must not let one of them be that the UK is seen as retreating into isolationism. We therefore welcome the Government’s readiness to make the United Kingdom one of the four contributor nations to the new rotational force announced last year. That force will have an important symbolic value in providing a visible reminder of the article 5 commitment to collective defence.

Members may have noted that I deliberately emphasised the word “collective”, and that is because, in essence, the basic values that underpin NATO—collective endeavour, human rights, liberty and democracy—which were specifically re-emphasised in the communiqué this weekend, are the same values that underpinned two of NATO’s key founders: Clement Attlee’s Labour party and the United States’ new deal Democrats. As such, the Opposition are entitled to share some of the credit for helping to build those values into the alliance—values Opposition Members can genuinely get behind and reaffirm. But let me get back to the detail.

Many questions remain about how the deployments in Estonia and Poland will work in practice, particularly in terms of equipment, training and rules of engagement. As such, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would commit to providing regular updates to the House as these plans move forward.

In the light of ongoing tensions between NATO and Russia, I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention the need for dialogue. That commitment was echoed in the summit communiqué, which recognises the risk of misunderstanding and calls for a renewed commitment to improving dialogue, particularly through the NATO-Russia Council. However, what steps are the Government taking through bilateral channels to reduce the risk of misunderstanding between the UK and Russia, or of a possible miscalculation, on defence matters?

It is now well over a decade since NATO took command of multinational operations in Afghanistan, where more than 450 British servicemen and women have been killed since 2002. As many in the House will know, I spent some time in the Afghanistan theatre on operations. I have some personal experience having served a three-month tour there back in 2009 as part of the NATO deployment. I will draw on that in our future debates. Although the UK’s last remaining combat troops were withdrawn in 2014, hundreds have stayed behind to continue training local Afghan security forces as part of NATO’s support mission. The announcement in Warsaw that a further 50 British troops will be deployed to Afghanistan next year, and the planned withdrawal date pushed back for a second time, will therefore be of concern to many. While I note that UK troops will continue to be deployed in non-combat roles, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State set out the measures that are in place to safeguard against the possibility of mission creep, given the substantial difficulties in handing over responsibility for the security of the country to Afghan forces themselves.

For a number of years, the UK has been the only major NATO power to continue to exclude women from ground close-combat roles. Labour Members therefore welcome wholeheartedly Friday’s announcement to approve the integration of women across all front-line combat roles. This decision is a huge step forward, not just for equality but for the effectiveness of the armed forces. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and all over the world, women have served our armed forces with professionalism and distinction. I would be grateful for any information that the Secretary of State can provide today, or in the weeks ahead, as to what specific steps he will take to monitor and ensure the smooth transition of this process.

We must never lose sight of the vision of NATO’s founders. They understood that peace was always built on a foundation stone of justice—justice in the form of freedom, of democracy, and of economic fairness. The Secretary of State was right to affirm the UK’s commitment to NATO. I hope that the NATO he affirms is one that stays true to the vision of its founders, because that is a vision that Labour Members share and that I look forward to holding to account in the months ahead.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and welcome him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I think that he is the fourth shadow Defence Secretary in the past couple of years. I also welcome the broad welcome that he has given to this statement. I wholeheartedly welcome his reminder of the original establishment of NATO under a Labour Government who, of course, fully supported the nuclear deterrent at the time, and were ready, like every Labour Government, to commit that nuclear deterrent to the overall defence of the alliance, as well as the defence of this country. I am sure that he will explain all that in a little more detail when we come to the debate on Monday.

The hon. Gentleman asked four specific questions. First, on the battalion to be deployed in Estonia, yes, I will update the House on the precise arrangements for that deployment, which will begin, we hope, in spring next year. As he will understand, there is much detail to be finalised with regard to the command and control relationships and the precise activities that the battalion will be involved in, but, yes, we will keep him and the House up to date on that.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the dialogue with Russia. I want to be very clear with the House: because of the annexation of Crimea and the aggression in Ukraine, it cannot now be business as usual with Russia, but there are interests that we have in common, as we saw in the refinement of the nuclear deal with Iran and ongoing discussions about a political settlement in Syria. It is right that we continue to talk to Russia in the areas where we have shared interests. I can confirm that the next meeting of the NATO-Russia Council will be on 13 July, and that we do continue links of the sort he mentioned, at ambassadorial level, to ensure that any misunderstandings can be avoided.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked about Afghanistan. Let me put on the record my tribute to him for his service in Afghanistan. We are increasing the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan by about 50. There is no danger of mission creep, because those additional 50 troops will be doing what the existing 450 are doing, which is supporting the security institutions, providing advice and support to the fledgling Afghan air force, and continuing the important work of mentoring at the officer academy. A number of other allies have been able to increase their support to Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman will know, of course, that the alliance also welcomed the change of heart in the American position, which is not going to reduce down to the level originally forecast.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the decision to open combat roles in the Army to women. I am glad that he has welcomed that. Of course, we will do it on a phased basis, continuing the essential research to set the right physical standards as each role is opened up. I am very happy to keep him up to date on that.

Select Committee on Defence

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I agree with every word my hon. Friend has said. Our report drops a very broad hint that the Arctic—the high north—deserves special attention, and I strongly suspect that if and when the Committee takes a decision to give it that special attention, my hon. Friend, who has led the way, with his all-party group for polar regions, in alerting the country to the significance of this area, will be playing a very prominent part indeed.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Committee members for a comprehensive and thorough report on this important area of the UK’s and Europe’s defence and security. I note that this inquiry did not have time to consider the implications of Brexit in full. However, given that the Putin regime’s tactics are often geared towards destabilising Europe as a whole, does he agree that it is vital for the UK to ensure, particularly at the upcoming Warsaw summit, that Brexit does not undermine the political cohesion of NATO? I am going to assume that the answer to that is yes. As such, has the Committee given any preliminary thoughts as to how this might come about?

[Dr Lewis]

I welcome the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) to his new responsibilities. May I say a personal message of appreciation for his past service in the Territorial Army, which included a spell of active service in Afghanistan? I hold the members of the armed forces, particularly those who have seen active service in dangerous parts of the world, in the highest respect. I am sure that we will all listen with very great attention to his contributions.

In relation to the implications of Brexit, I do not think that I am giving up any trade secrets when I say that that has been discussed as one of the major strands of the forthcoming work of the Committee. It is certainly the case that there should be no need for anyone to feel that security arrangements have been undermined in any way if only because of the almost complete overlap between the membership of the EU and the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I am quite certain that the structures of NATO will be perfectly capable of carrying forward the security relationships without any form of distortion by any other organisation that might have been tempted to duplicate them. NATO will indeed be one of the principal forums for ensuring that the communications that are so important between the United Kingdom and our friends and allies on the continent will be able to proceed absolutely uninterruptedly as a result of the change that will take place.