Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I do not accept that. I have looked at this incredibly carefully. I have met the chief executive of Capita on several occasions and we continue to work very closely with Capita, which is investing large amounts of money. There have been challenges—there is no doubt about that—with the introduction of the new defence recruiting system. The manual workarounds have not worked, but I have seen at first hand now how most of those issues have been addressed and I am confident that, in future months, we will move forward with this contract.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that decisions such as moving the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers HQ from the proud military town of Wrexham to yet another base in the M4 corridor incentivises recruitment in places such as north Wales, or puts people off?

[Mark Lancaster]

It is important that, through the Army 2020 review, we begin to bring units together because that gives greater stability. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that it is not only the REME that they can join in the armed forces.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

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

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I have made it clear that the Army faces a recruitment challenge as the economy continues to grow. The Army is about 95% recruited and I am told that Sandhurst places are now filled for the coming courses, but we need to do more. We need to continue to ask ourselves why we are not attracting some of the people we want to attract.

Flexible working for the armed forces is principally about recruitment and better retention. I want to emphasise that this is not a method of saving money. So what does the Bill do? There are two main provisions. Clause 1 makes amendments to section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which makes provision regarding terms and conditions of enlistment and service. Service personnel will be able to temporarily reduce the time they are required for duty—for example, by setting aside one or two days a week on which they will not work or be liable for work—or to restrict the amount of time that they spend separated from their normal place of work. The amendments extend the existing regulation-making powers in section 329 to allow the Defence Council to enable forms of part-time service and protection from being separated from a home base for prolonged periods for people serving in the regular armed forces. Clause 1 also enables regulations to be made about the circumstances in which these new arrangements can be varied, suspended or terminated.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I represent a constituency with a long and proud military tradition. I recently tabled a parliamentary question to ask for the number of people from my constituency who had recently been recruited to join the armed forces, but I was surprised to be told that that information was not held centrally. That seems absolutely extraordinary. It is important that our communities should be linked in to the armed forces and that we should know what sort of connections our constituencies have with them. Will the Secretary of State please look into this and check again whether that information is held centrally? If so, please could he let me know how many of my constituents want to join the armed forces?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but there is nothing sinister about this. Different regiments recruit in different ways, and my understanding is that the data are not collated on a constituency basis. However, I would be very happy to have another look at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s words about the outstanding professionalism of our armed forces and our huge indebtedness to them. I want to make it clear at the outset that Labour supports the Bill in principle. Our scrutiny and questions will be in the spirit of seeking clarification and improving it, rather than opposing it. Furthermore, given that the Bill was introduced in the other place, some of our initial concerns have already been debated and clarified to some degree, which will help to expedite its passage in this House.

I am grateful to my good friend Lord Touhig, who speaks for the Opposition on defence matters in the other place, for his excellent work on this Bill. I am particularly grateful to him for pressing an amendment, which I am glad that the Government have accepted, as the Secretary of State confirmed, to ensure that the finer detail that is introduced in subsequent regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, we will get the opportunity to scrutinise any delegated legislation, which is an important safeguard because the devil is so often in the detail. Having set such a good example, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could prevail upon his colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union to accept amendments to provide the same sort of transparency on important matters such as workers’ rights and environmental protections in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Returning to the Bill in hand, the title is somewhat confusing at first sight, because the term “flexible working” already has connotations, usually referring to a situation where contractual hours remain the same but there is the opportunity to vary starting and finishing times or to work from home. This Bill is not about the right to request that sort of flexible working. That opportunity already exists for the armed forces, as do maternity and paternity leave and the opportunity to request a period of unpaid leave to undertake study, for example. The purpose of this Bill is to allow members of our armed forces to request to work for a defined period in a part-time capacity with the necessary contractual changes that that would entail and/or to request limits to separated service—deployment—for defined periods. As I have said, we welcome this Bill, because we support effective ways of improving conditions for those who serve in our armed forces, and we also want to enable the forces to draw from the widest possible pool of talent when recruiting personnel to serve.

We all recognise that the complexities of modern life mean juggling work and home responsibilities, and childcare arrangements are often complex when both parents work full time. In such circumstances, it does not take much to upset that delicately balanced situation, and the emotional turmoil of learning that a child, partner or parent is seriously ill is compounded by practical difficulties, which might mean frequent medical appointments or a stronger parental presence in the home. Many of us have faced such situations. For me, it was when I was very young, before I started my first job, when I stayed at home to look after my father and teenage sisters and nurse my mother through her terminal illness. Family issues are all the more complex for service personnel, with the expectations of constant readiness and deployment, and it is understandable that personnel sometimes feel forced to give up the service they love for civilian jobs that offer greater flexibility. However, it makes no sense to lose someone simply because they need a more flexible working arrangement for a specified time after all the investment that has gone into their training. That is where this Bill comes in, offering the possibility of consideration for part-time hours or limits to separated service. We agree and understand that there must always be regard for operational capability when assessing requests for such working.

There is a recruitment and retention crisis in our armed forces. The reasons why personnel leave are many and complex, but the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that the impact on family and personal life remains the top reason for leaving. A third of personnel have said that an option to work part time would strengthen their intention to stay, and a similar proportion say that an option for reduced separated service, including operational deployment, would make them more likely to remain in the forces. If the options available through the Bill can help to retain some of those personnel, that would clearly be beneficial.

I understand that assurances were given in the other place that the fact that someone had availed themselves of the opportunity to work part time would not count against them for promotion, and that assessment of applicants would be made on the basis of their skills, experience and future potential, regardless of any period of part-time or geographically limited working. That is vital to ensure that our services do not miss out on excellent candidates simply because they have taken a period of part-time work and that personnel are not disadvantaged. It is also important because we may find that women in particular will avail themselves of this part-time option, and we want to see more women not only recruited into the services, but retained and reaching senior ranks. Treating with parity those who have opted to take a period of part-time working will need more than a policy about its not affecting promotion prospects; it will need a cultural shift.

I also understand that assurances were given in the other place that personnel availing themselves of the options in this Bill would not lose their service accommodation. Clearly, a period of family difficulty is not a time to have any additional worries about accommodation. I would therefore be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), could provide additional assurances in both those areas when he gets to his feet at the end of today’s debate and explain how he proposes to engender the cultural shift that will be required.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the welcome initiatives in the Bill are being undercut by the increasingly strong movement of the armed forces to the M4 corridor and away from local communities? In my constituency, for example, the local Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers headquarters is being shifted from north Wales to Bristol. The armed forces are maintaining fewer and fewer connections with local communities.

[Nia Griffith]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. If we see the likes of REME in Wrexham and Prestatyn close, opportunities for the whole of north Wales will effectively be withdrawn. That will impact badly on recruitment to our reservist forces and lead to the loss of buy-in from those communities, both of which are serious issues that need addressing.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I was here in 2003 and I am one of the people who got it right. I sat on the Back Bench—I was not called to speak, but I heard the entire debate—and listened to the evidence presented to me by the then Prime Minister. I made my decision based on the evidence, and I believed then, as I believe now, that I made the right decision. I know that the report has taken an awful long time to arrive, but it is very good and valuable.

I want to talk about the context and where we found ourselves in 2003. It is very important that we remember what happened on 9/11 in 2001, because much of what we discussed in the period leading up to the war was seen through the prism of the attack on the World Trade Centre. As a new MP, I visited the United Nations in New York in November 2001. It was an extraordinary time and the visit was a moving experience, but we could also feel the entirely understandable strength of feeling in the United States about what had happened. That resulted in military intervention in Afghanistan, which was broadly supported, not just in this House, but right across the world.

One of the most extraordinary things that I saw at the UN in November 2001 was a committee chaired by UK Special Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock taking evidence on and auditing terrorist activity in countries across the middle east. For a very short period before the Iraq war, there was a feeling and a sentiment that we could make some progress in dealing with international terrorism. Unfortunately, however, a linkage was very quickly developed between what happened in New York in September 2001 and the issue of Iraq. There were people who developed an agenda trying to draw together what happened at the World Trade Centre and the problem of Iraq. That was in the air, and was referred to in the various discussions that we had. So although there was no direct evidence of any links at all between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, there was usage of a broad description of international terrorism to justify the steps that were being taken.

[John Nicolson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it was risible to try to associate the secular Saddam Hussein with fundamentalist Islamists, given that the two had a mutual loathing for one another?

[Ian C. Lucas]

That is absolutely right. It would have been very convenient for those who wanted to take military action in Iraq if they could have made a linkage, but clearly there was none. In all the discussions we had in the lead-up to the war, no linkage was established.

Immediately after the vote in 2003, there was, for me, a terrible sense of inevitability about the military action in Iraq. I am reminded of the fact that the historian A. J. P. Taylor talked about the importance of railway timetables at the beginning of the first world war. When approaching the vote in March 2003, I had that idea in my mind. It seemed to me that we were on a road that was leading to an inevitable conclusion. Very interestingly, paragraph 830 of Sir John Chilcot’s report states:

“A military timetable should not be allowed to dictate a diplomatic timetable”.

I believe that, at the time of the vote, that is exactly what happened.

I recall very well the work of Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors. I watched Hans Blix very closely in the build-up to March 2003, when I was deciding how to vote. It seemed to me that he was doing his best to establish the position on weapons of mass destruction. On 18 March 2003, he was asking for more time. On the basis of the information that I heard in the debate, I thought it was right to give him more time. That is why I voted in the way that I did and why I supported the amendment.

Interestingly, a couple of years after the vote, I attended a meeting in the House of Commons at which Hans Blix spoke. I recall that he said that, in March 2003, he believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I had not known that on the day that I cast my vote, and it is extraordinary that he said it. It seems that he had a similar view to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair: he had a genuine, honest belief. The difference was that he wanted more time to investigate it further, and the Prime Minister did not allow us more time so to do. In March 2003, the drum beat to war quickened, and that is why military action happened. That is not a good reason for military action.

The then US Government, acting in the long shadow of 9/11, included people with an agenda to intervene in the middle east. They used that context to justify the intervention. In the immediate post-9/11 period, they made some really bad judgment calls. In Iran, moderate forces had been holding sway before 2003. George Bush then made his dreadful “axis of evil” speech, which was part of the process that shattered any chance of a unified response to 9/11. The alienation of Iran also had a massive negative impact on the post-war period in Iraq and undermined progress towards reconstruction. It was a massive mistake for the UK Government and Tony Blair to support the Bush and US agenda at that time.

I am quite certain that Tony Blair acted in good faith. In March 2003, I think he believed, like Hans Blix, that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. I believe that it was through UK insistence that the US agreed to involve the UN as much as it did. However, when the UN weapons inspectors asked for more time in March 2003, the allies should have given it to them. As Sir John Chilcot concludes at paragraph 339 of the report:

“At the time of the parliamentary vote of 18 March, diplomatic options had not been exhausted. The point had not been reached where military action was the last resort”.

On the information available to me, a Back Bencher, at the time, I voted against the Labour Whip for the first time, along with many of my Labour colleagues. The Liberal Democrats—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is sitting next to me—the nationalist parties and some Conservatives did the same. The official Conservative Opposition, however, supported military action in a largely unquestioning way.

[Clive Efford]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend’s recollection is the same as mine. My recollection is that, prior to the debate and the statement by the Prime Minister, which was criticised by the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), the Conservatives had been calling for action earlier, before that evidence was presented. For them to turn up now and say that it was all because of what Tony Blair said on that day is a little disingenuous.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I would not go quite that far, because I am more kindly than my hon. Friend. My recollection is that the Leader of the Opposition got this completely and utterly wrong. The official Opposition failed in their constitutional duty to ask the difficult questions and hold the Government to account. It was left to other parties in the House and the Labour Back Benchers to hold the Government to account. The failure of the official Opposition to challenge the Prime Minister and the Government effectively made his wrong decision easier. This is a big lesson for the official Opposition today.

There were a number of things that the Government did right on the Iraq issue. For example, they did hold a vote. It should be remembered that that was, I think, the first time that that had happened.

[Sir David Amess]

I think the hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous in this. There were only 165 Conservative Members of Parliament. It is not as though we were a huge Opposition. I think he is slightly misrepresenting things.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members should not use the word “disingenuous”. The hon. Member for Southend West thinks that there has been a misrepresentation, which I am sure he thinks is inadvertent. We will leave it there.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I took no offence and understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is difficult to be a small Opposition. None the less, it is important to ask the difficult questions. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition got this completely wrong.

As I mentioned, the Government did do some things right. They made statements on a regular basis and we asked a lot of questions. That changed the nature of the relationship between Government and Parliament on questions of military action. We have seen the consequences of that in the more recent decision on Libya and Syria. [Interruption.] I am sorry to interrupt the conversation happening at the other end of the Chamber.

On the main issue of taking military action in Iraq in March 2003, Tony Blair and the Labour Government made a huge, honest error. That is supported by the Chilcot report and is a conclusion with which I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do. Defence intelligence and the gathering of information on the ground have improved and are more available to those taking the key decisions back in London.

[Ian C. Lucas]

This is an important area, but the right hon. Gentleman has focused almost exclusively on the Executive. One of the most important lessons of Chilcot is that the most effective opposition to the decision, which many now accept to be wrong, was from the Back Benches. When the Front Benches agree, group-think—to use his own phrase—applies. The lesson is that we need to listen to independent-minded Back Benchers who present their views to Government honestly and passionately regardless of the consequences for their careers and who make difficult decisions that Ministers need to listen to much more closely in future.

[Michael Fallon]

I accept that. I was here at the time and voted in that particular Division. It is important that the Government listen to their Back Benchers. We were not in government then, but it is important that Members are free to speak their minds independently. Indeed, they have done so in the debate that we have been having over two days—on both sides of the argument. There are those who still maintain that the action taken in Iraq, although it did not turn out as well as we wanted, was justified and right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I was hoping to avoid these words, but the hon. Lady will have to wait until 3.30 pm. I am confident that the remuneration package will remain an excellent package for our service personnel, but she will just have to wait a few more minutes to find out exactly whether or not to believe all the press reports she reads.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of UK withdrawal from the EU on defence and national security.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

This Government believe we can, and indeed will, succeed in reforming and renegotiating our relationship with the EU. The cornerstone of our security is NATO, but the EU plays an important role complementing NATO, for example recently in imposing sanctions on Russia. Defence remains a sovereign issue.

[Ian C. Lucas]

The UK, together with other EU partners, has worked hard in areas—such as in Mali on EU training missions—which have made a significant contribution to defence. Will the Government give close consideration to how such missions would continue if Britain were to withdraw from the EU?

[Mr Brazier]

I can only repeat my earlier answer. We are confident that the renegotiation will succeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the mission to which he refers, and others including the anti-piracy mission off the horn of Africa, have been a success.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady is quite right. The effort has to be spread across diplomatic activity, political activity and communications activity. We have to make efforts to deradicalise extremists in our societies, so we have to take measures across the board. ISIL cannot simply be defeated militarily, and I can assure her that this is an effort that is spread across the Whitehall Departments to which she referred.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify, with the additional deployment, how many UK troops will serve in Iraq? Will he confirm that they are working not just with the Kurdistan Regional Government and in Baghdad but with the very varied ethnic groups in Iraq whose support is essential to a successful coalition effort?

[Michael Fallon]

The number involved, as I told the House, is about 275, but it will vary as the training forces begin and end service. The significance of the announcement at the weekend is that we will—[Interruption.] Two hundred and seventy five is the number that I have given the House. The significance of the announcement at the weekend is that some of those trainers will train at the building partner capacity bases outside the Kurdish areas.

Veterans’ Pensions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who is a good friend, on introducing this debate on a complex aspect of pensions. She has done a lot of work over several years on behalf of individuals in the armed forces who have been disadvantaged by past errors, some of which she outlined in her speech. At the outset, it is right for us all, across the House, to restate our recognition of the huge debt of gratitude that we owe our servicemen and women, their families and our veterans. They have made, and continue to make, huge sacrifices in defence of our freedom and in the service of the nation.

Those who served before 1975, as we heard from my hon. Friend, spent a great deal of effort in service of the nation, in exactly the same way as did those who have served since. However, the difference in provision made for those two groups is striking. It is right to single out the 250,000 people who made such a commitment to the service of our country but who have not received the same level of provision and support from the state as others. They deserve no less recognition than those who have received benefits since 1975 for making the same commitment.

I am proud of the work done in recent years by Governments of all colours. I am particularly proud of the work done by the Labour party in government and, more recently, in opposition to advance the rights of, and protections for, our armed forces community. Hon. Members across the House are proud of the work that they do in their local communities with veterans’ organisations, which are respected and valued in those communities. Wrexham, which I have the honour of representing, is an Army town that has the great tradition of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. One of the most satisfying aspects of my job is meeting, through the armed forces and through veterans’ organisations, service personnel from different generations. I thank them for being so generous in sharing their experiences and knowledge with me, and helping me to do my job better.

The development of the veterans’ movement, if I can call it that, over the 14 years in which I have been in Parliament has been one of the most positive aspects of the relationship between communities and the armed forces. The active service of our service personnel in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has led to strong support for our armed forces and a greater understanding of the commitment that they show. We are considering the question of veterans’ pensions in that context.

The Labour Government before 2010 sought to modernise and develop services for veterans, and successive Labour Ministers with responsibility for veterans worked with the armed services, with veterans’ charities and support groups, and with local communities to offer practical help to veterans and their families. That work led in 2008 to the Command Paper entitled “The Nation’s commitment: cross-government support to our armed forces, their families and veterans”. That was the precursor to the armed forces covenant, for which we campaigned long and hard, and which we welcome. As a result of that covenant, we all recognise that we have a moral obligation to the members of our armed forces, to veterans and to veterans’ families. We recognise that no serving or former member of the forces, or their families, should be disadvantaged as a result of the service that they give our country. I am proud of the Labour party for holding the Government to account, when it comes to enshrining the rights of our armed forces and their families in law. A future Labour Government will build on that work, and I am certain that hon. Members will hold them to account for it.

There are estimated to be 4.5 million veterans in the United Kingdom, and some 250,000 of them are disadvantaged because they left the forces before 1975 and did not have the kind of pension provision that exists today. Several of those veterans, and organisations working on their behalf—such as EFVA, which my hon. Friend mentioned—have spoken out about the pension arrangements for those who served before the establishment of the armed forces pension scheme. As we have heard, those who left before 1975 and who served for fewer than 16 years as an officer, or 22 years for all other ranks, were not entitled to receive a service pension. That gives us some indication of the perception of pensions before 1975, because those figures represent a substantial period of service for which to make no pension provision. When the armed forces pension scheme was introduced in 1975, servicemen and women were required to have completed only two years’ reckonable service to be entitled for most pension options.

Pensions legislation for our armed forces has been updated several times since then. The armed forces pension scheme 2005 provides access to pension benefits for servicemen and women with two years’ service. Next month we will see the introduction of the armed forces pension scheme 2015, which will create one pension scheme for all, including reservists. I very much sympathise with anyone who retired from the armed forces prior to the qualifying period for the armed forces pension scheme of 6 April 1975, because since then, there has been such substantial development of pension provision for individuals within the armed forces.

Some 250,000 veterans have been disadvantaged by leaving the armed forces before 1975. Concerns have been raised not only because serving personnel were not allowed to invest in occupational pensions prior to 1975, but because when legislation was passed in 1973 to pave the way for the armed forces pension scheme 1975, serving personnel were given poor information. My hon. Friend referred to that information, and to the short period allocated for providing information to individuals who were making important decisions about their future and their future provision, and who have been disadvantaged for many years because they were not given sufficient information. I am sure that would not happen nowadays, but it happened then, and there has been a substantial impact over a substantial period.

It has been the policy of successive Governments that changes to public sector pension schemes cannot be made retrospectively. My hon. Friend recognises that it is highly unlikely at this stage, so many years later, that any retrospective change will be made by any Government. It would be difficult to devise a legally sustainable arrangement for retrospective pension entitlements purely for the armed forces. The Equality for Veterans Association has, in light of that argument, been making the case for lump-sum payments for those affected in lieu of retrospective pension payments. My hon. Friend’s request is for the injustice to be recognised, and for steps to be taken to enable those who are suffering hardship to deal with their financial pressures, which have been exacerbated by the poor arrangements that were in place because of the failure to introduce an adequate pension scheme.

In 2012, the Chancellor transferred £35 million from fines levied on the banks to the Ministry of Defence to support the armed forces community. That LIBOR fund is one example of funds from a particular source being used to support charities, good causes and organisations that work to improve life for our armed forces community. If there is injustice and particular need in individual cases, it is right and proper that we, as a community, recognise the spirit of the armed forces covenant by trying to introduce a scheme to support individuals who are under financial pressure, and who are disadvantaged by previous errors, or the failure to give notice of legislation that was being introduced.

I encourage the Minister to consider options for allowing veterans to apply to the LIBOR fund, or for introducing, in some other way, access to funds for individuals who are under financial pressure and who have been affected by the pensions issue. That could provide a suitable means of financial support for veterans who left the armed forces before 1975 and their families.

Our armed forces community have worked tirelessly for decades to keep the nation safe, and to enhance the rights of others across the world. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who served before 1975 and after. Those who served before 1975 and who did not get adequate pension arrangements deserve our respect and support, so I hope that the Government will look at this genuine case, consider it closely and take steps to try to support those individuals by addressing the issue that my hon. Friend has raised today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

This is an international coalition, with between 40 and 50 countries involved, and we are one of the 16 that are involved in the air strikes. Indeed, we have so far recorded the second highest number of air strikes—second only to the United States. However, countries in the region and internationally are all helping in different ways—for example, with logistics or by providing bases. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to continue to reassure other countries in the region that we are committed to their security. That is why we signed the recent naval base agreement in Bahrain and why, for example, I talked this morning with His Excellency the Qatari Defence Minister.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is of course aware that ISIL is operating not only in Iraq, but in Syria and, unfortunately, now in Libya. Will he clarify what role the UK and its armed forces are playing in those theatres?

[Michael Fallon]

The House has not given its authority for military operations to be conducted in Syria at the moment. However, we are preparing plans to help train moderate Syrian opposition forces outside Syria, and we are now drawing up plans to participate in that training at a number of sites outside Syria. The situation in Libya is equally disturbing. It now looks as though ISIL has several footholds along the Libyan seaboard, so we are also considering what further role we might play there.

Trident Renewal

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

We have had a very good, full and thoughtful debate. I thank everyone who has taken part, even those with whom I fundamentally disagree.

Speaking as I do for Plaid Cymru, I must begin by referring to the largely empty Labour Benches. I understand that Labour MPs are on a one-line Whip, and Welsh Labour MPs on the whole appear to have taken full advantage of that indulgence. Over the past few days, I have seen copies of many messages to Welsh Labour MPs, asking them to be here today. The empty Benches speak eloquently of their response. Some Welsh Labour MPs believe sincerely in the nuclear deterrent. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who is in her place, is one such MP. I respect her for her position and for explaining her views. I am afraid that, for others, it is a matter of calculation. There is a grim balance between mutually assured destruction and, sadly, what effect a vote either way today will have on Members’ majorities in May. There are, however, Labour MPs and one Tory MP who have spoken in favour of our motion, and they are a shining example to others.

Some Welsh Labour MPs have dismissed today’s debate as posturing, a gimmick and a stunt. Opposition to aerial bombardment has been central to Plaid Cymru’s policy since our very earliest days—opposition that was tragically proved correct by the Nazi bombardment of Guernica and the destruction in the blitz of so much of central London, Coventry, Liverpool, Swansea, Glasgow and some of the great European cities such as Dresden. Then we have Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the bombing in later years from Korea to Vietnam and Iraq to Afghanistan. We must mention also those women, some of whom were from Plaid Cymru, who marched all the way from Cardiff to Greenham to set up the first peace camp—some posturing, some gimmick, some stunt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) opened the debate with a long, detailed and very thoughtful speech. He made some hard-headed and practical points that would sit well in the mouths of military people. He looked at alternative ways to spend the money that goes into Trident and at the costs of Trident, and that has been a continual theme today. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State would not or could not answer that particular question on costs.

My hon. Friend posed a particular question about marine patrol aircraft, and again we got no answer. He finished by pointing out that there is determined and national opposition to the matter in Scotland. In reply, the Secretary of State talked about the fearsome nuclear arsenal in the world—17,000 nuclear weapons. He pointed out quite reasonably that the Russians are modernising, that North Korea is looking for capability, that Iran is dangerous and so on. He pointed out all those dangers. He also talked about the current threat from ISIL and again referred to Russia and Ukraine. He stressed that the nuclear threat is there for the long term.

The Secretary of State was questioned by my hon. Friend about the total cost of Trident. It is interesting because some Members put that cost at £25 billion to £30 billion. Others suggested £130 billion. Whatever way we look at it, that is an enormous amount of money. The point was made that that money could be spent in a much, much better way.

The Secretary of State mentioned the jobs that are dependent on the nuclear industry, such as those at Faslane. Other Members also made that point.

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) made an excellent speech about how the decision would lock us into nuclear deterrence for a very long time and about how the dangers have changed over the years. She also talked about the dangers of a nuclear winter.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) talked about Trident as the cornerstone of membership of NATO and noted that jobs in his constituency are reliant on its renewal.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) made a careful and thoughtful speech in which he pointed out that security is best achieved collectively with other countries and I welcome his support for our arguments today.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) outlined the Liberal Democrat position and also pointed out that the world has changed. He questioned the utility in 2015 of a system that was first devised in the ’70s and ’80s and also pointed out the other choices. Tellingly, he pointed out that there is now discussion about bringing the Army down to 60,000 members, rather than 80,000. He then explained the Liberal Democrat position on retaining capability as a contingency, but I must confess that I did not quite follow his argument. No doubt those arguments will be rehearsed again as we approach the election.

The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) rehearsed the mutually assured destruction argument for Trident. He said that he was proud of Labour’s record, and when he was asked by the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) when Trident would not be affordable, he seemed to say that it was a wonderful bargain. He is the MP for Barrow.

The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) talked about Armageddon, not economics, making a good general point, and then went on to the new bogey man, Russia, and a possible attack on the Baltics, a possibility that other Members discussed and roundly dismissed. He finished with an interesting point when he said that it is not just about kit but about a determination to defend ourselves. The character reference reminded me of Mr Tony Blair’s reference to the United Kingdom as a war-fighting nation. Wales is not a war-fighting nation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) argued that if nuclear weapons are so good, why should not everyone have them? He also pointed towards the interesting possibility of a Labour-Tory coalition after the election.

Many hon. Members spoke and I apologise to them for not being able to refer to their speeches. I should mention the hon. Member for Bridgend, about whom I spoke earlier, as a fellow Welsh Member. She welcomed the political debate and we will engage with her in the run-up to the election. I suspect that those are words that she might come to regret. She said that Labour is in favour and that there would be no coalition, so can I tell her from this Bench that we do not want one? She also explained her conversion from CND membership to supporting Trident and I found that very interesting. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), have moved from supporting the CND to supporting Trident.

There were eloquent and passionate speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Those will repay close heed. In fact, this entire debate should be read and examined by people well outside this House as the arguments have been rehearsed well and interestingly. I think we can say that a line has been drawn this afternoon. On this side, we have the Green party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP as well some of our friends in other parties, whereas on the other side we have the other parties.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hywel Williams]

I think not, as I have no time at all.

I will in fact finish my speech, saying that peace and peacemaking have been central to the culture of my country for a very long time. I finish with lines from the 19th-century poet, Gwilym Hiraethog, which might be a suitable epitaph for Trident. They are:

“Segurdod yw clod y cledd,

A rwd yw ei anrhydedd.”

Or:

“Idleness is the glory of the sword,

And rust is its distinction.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I went and verified. I visited the joint forces cyber-group at Imjin barracks in Innsworth in November, and I was able to meet a number of reservists, one of whom was from the Bank of England, who had recently signed up to help provide for the defence of our country. We do not give out publicly the number of people recruited for the cyber-reserves, and I hope the House will realise that there is a logical reason for that. The recruitment is, however, on track, and the quality of the individuals I met at Innsworth were, I have to say, extremely impressive.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

President Obama has openly stressed the importance of establishing rules for the road on cyber-security, but what capacity has the UK developed to respond to a cyber-attack?

[Mr Francois]

I remind the House that the strategic defence and security review announced a £650 million budget for the national cyber-security programme. Moreover, in June 2013, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went further by stating that investment in this area will continue to grow in 2015-16 and will include a further £210 million. An announcement by the Ministry of Defence last July showed that we are going even further than that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I know that the Home Secretary has been considering that very actively during the last few weeks, and will present further proposals to the House. It is very important for those who go to fight against the interests of this country by supporting ISIL to understand that they are fighting for an organisation that is proscribed, and that if they are detained when they return, they can be charged and prosecuted.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

One of the reasons for the initial failure of the Iraqi army against ISIL was its inability to present itself as being part of the Iraqi nation as a whole, given that groups such as the Assyrian Christians and Kurds were excluded. Did the Secretary of State have any discussions about making the army much more inclusive, so that there can be a force that is united against ISIL and fighting on behalf of the whole of Iraq?

[Michael Fallon]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. The point that he has made is perfectly fair. I continue to make clear to the Defence Minister and Prime Minister in Baghdad that they must have the support of all interests in Iraq. I think that the recent agreement between three of the tribes in Anbar province and the Iraqi army to fight ISIL together, and the growing rapprochement—the interim agreement—between the Kurdish Regional Government and the federal Government in Baghdad, are pointers to the growing inclusiveness of the Government, which must be demonstrated in action. The reforms that are being made to the army, including the dismissal of some corps commanders and the recruitment of a genuinely inclusive national guard, are hopeful signs for the future.