Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The infrastructure targets that the RAF has been attacking in recent months have included oil installations to reduce the revenue that Daesh has been getting from oil trading. Sealing the border, too, will help to stop the flow of illicit goods and, indeed, oil across the border. We continue to work with our international partners to reduce the access of Daesh to the financial system.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

May I ask the Secretary of State why it took a year for us to supply ammunition for the heavy weapons that we supply to the peshmerga in Iraq? Can he assure the House that such delays will never happen again, and that we are doing everything that we possibly can to help the peshmerga in their fight against Daesh?

[Michael Fallon]

We have supplied, as my hon. Friend knows, not only heavy machine guns to the peshmerga but ammunition for those heavy machine guns. I announced earlier in the summer a fresh gift from us of ammunition for those heavy machine guns, and I am very pleased to tell him that that ammunition has now arrived and is being used.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The P-8 contract has not yet been let. We announced at the time our intention to procure P-8, and some $4.5 million per aircraft is UK-sourced. The support contracts will be let in due course.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend assure us that, despite Airbus trying to bully its employees to vote remain in the referendum last week, the wings of the magnificent A400 aircraft will still be made in Filton?

Shipbuilding on the Clyde

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

What I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman is that, had the independence vote gone the way that he and his colleagues would have liked, no warships would have been built on the Clyde, because the United Kingdom Government would not have chosen to build them there; we made that very clear. As it is, as I have just confirmed to the House, we will be proceeding with the construction of eight complex Type 26 warships on the Clyde as and when the programme is ready.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the shadow Defence Secretary’s refusal to commit her party to the NATO target of spending a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence is a threat not only to our national security, but to key equipment programmes and investment for the Type 26?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that obfuscation on the part of the official Opposition. I draw to his attention the backlog of work ahead of shipbuilders in this country as a result of our equipment plan and our commitment to build the eight Type 26 vessels. No warship yard in Europe has the prospect of eight warships to look forward to. From that perspective, those working in those yards in Scotland can take considerable heart from the fact that they are working in our yards, rather than those elsewhere in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman, in characteristic style, is looking for smoke where there is no fire. We use the NATO definition to make the calculation of our proportion of GDP spent on defence, and it assesses the figure and then publishes it. We have done that in the past under previous Administrations and we will do it again under this one.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

18. The Government’s defence review set out a £178 billion programme of investment in equipment for our armed forces over the next decade. Will the Minister ignore calls from the other parties to cut defence spending, which would mean smaller, weaker armed forces and the loss of highly skilled jobs in the defence sector?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think it would be wise, and it certainly would not be proper, to discuss any conversations I have had with the intelligence and security communities.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Ministry of Defence has had to spend £100 million on legal claims? Will this Government make sure that we spend money on our troops, and on giving them the best support and equipment, rather than on filling the wallets of unscrupulous lawyers?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend raises a good point: the money we are having to spend on dealing with malicious allegations against our armed forces would be better spent on equipment and training for them. I can assure him that commercial legal spending in the Department is down a third on last year’s. I think he was making reference to the amount spent on Iraqi historic allegations, and we are doing what we can to ensure that this works more effectively and efficiently. I have had some good conversations with the Attorney General’s office about this and he will be visiting the team shortly.

Armed Forces Bill

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

It has been a real privilege for me, as somebody who has done a small amount of military service in the ranks before coming to this place, to have the honour of serving as Chair of the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee. I participated in, and contributed to, the previous Bill Committee. To chair the Committee this time has been a real privilege for me personally.

I would like to begin by reiterating what I said on Second Reading. I welcome the Bill in terms of its content and the fact that it comes from the great tradition of this place. It comes from 1688 and the Bill of Rights, under which

“no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament”.

That provision is one of this country’s enviable documents that form our uncodified constitution, balancing the power of the monarchy and the Government with both Houses of Parliament.

The Bill will renew the Armed Forces Act 2006, update elements of the armed forces’ disciplinary system and extend the powers of MOD firefighters. To put that in the context of what we ask our armed forces to do, the great General George Patton said:

“Perpetual peace is a futile dream”.

That quote is as relevant today as it was in his time. The world is as dangerous and unstable today as it has ever been. We never know where the next threat to our freedom and way of life will come from. We face threats from Putin in the east, are engaged in the global war on terror and ISIS in particular, and have to deal with threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. The number of our service personnel deployed in joint operations in 19 countries has doubled over the past five years to over 4,000. Our fantastic and brave men and women of our three armed forces are the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen in the world.

The Bill is part of the UK’s investment in the security of our people, which enables the Government to safeguard our prosperity and way of life. Not only are the Government one of the five of the 28 in NATO to meet the recommended commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence; but I am pleased to say they are also meeting the NATO guidelines to spend 20% of the defence budget on major equipment, research programmes and R and D. I am proud that the Government have plans to spend more than £160 billion on equipment and equipment support over the next 10 years.

I thank all Members of the Bill Committee, from across the House, for the constructive and informed way that the discussions and debates were conducted as the Committee scrutinised the Bill through this important stage in its passage into law. There has been a reassuring level of consensus, a word I am not normally very comfortable with and do not use very often. On this crucial matter of defence of the realm, however, and while we argue passionately for things we believe in, with our forces deployed in offensive operations, it is crucial that Parliament is united in support of them. In saying that, I sympathise with those Labour Members under pressure on account of their party leadership’s position on defence.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank members of the public, representatives of service charities and voluntary groups for their engagement and written submissions. I also thank all the witnesses who gave oral evidence. In particular, I thank General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the General Staff, and Andrew Cayley, Director of Service Prosecutions, for their excellent, extremely informative and very useful verbal evidence. Finally, I thank the House and departmental staff for their work on the Committee stage. In particular, I wish to mention Dr Dickson, whose procedural guidance was extremely helpful.

The Committee produced new clauses supported by the Government. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), whom I have come to know during my few years in the House and with whom I was proud to serve on the previous Armed Forces Bill Committee, when we enshrined the military covenant in law. It is a shame that his expertise, passion and care in relation to the armed forces will be lacking from Labour’s Front-Bench team, and of course I support and admire hugely his passionate defence of the provisions on homosexuality. Of course, homosexual acts should not in any circumstances be grounds for the discharge of members of the armed forces. It seems astonishing that it was ever thus.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister for the progress the Government have made and their ongoing work on compensation for mesothelioma. It is another great example of the Government doing the right thing by our service personnel, to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude and appreciation. I thank them all for their service.

Armed Forces Bill

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I was extremely interested in speaking, but I was being very courteous in waiting to be called, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Like the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), I wish to send my condolences to the families of our service people who have recently died on operations and during training, and I echo the comments she made. That is a further example, as if we needed one, of the sacrifice and sense of duty of our service people, and the debt of gratitude we owe all of them.

I particularly welcome the Bill’s overall objectives and its content. It is in a noble tradition, stemming, as the Secretary of State said, from the Bill of Rights, under which no standing Army—obviously, that is now extended to our armed forces—may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament. That provision under the Bill of Rights is one of this country’s enviable documents that form our uncodified constitution, which balances the power of the monarch, the Government and the Houses of Parliament.

This Bill, enabling our country to maintain standing armed forces, could not come at a more relevant time, given the challenges we face around the world. We live in an increasingly dangerous age, with Putin’s army on the march in Crimea and Syria, and the problems we face in the middle east with ISIS. I understand that for some, although not I would think those on the Opposition Front Bench today, there is confusion about the importance of the defence of the realm; the Leader of the Opposition has said that he questions why

“a country of 65 million people on the north-west coast of Europe”

needs “to have global reach”. I am sure that none of the Opposition Front Benchers would agree with his comments on abolishing the armed forces and leaving NATO.

We of course need armed forces, and I am extremely proud of them, as I am sure everybody else here is. Our armed forces are the best in the world. I have some modest experience in this area, having had one of the best years of my life—so far—when I served with the fantastic men and women of 3 Commando Brigade in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick. I am very proud that 4,000 brave and extremely capable men and women are deployed around the clock on 21 different joint operations in 19 countries, which is double the figure of five years ago.

Britain has the biggest defence budget in the whole of the European Union and the second largest in NATO. I was delighted when the Chancellor rightly announced in July that the UK had committed to meet the NATO pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence every year of this decade, with the MOD’s budget rising by 0.5% per year. Of course, an additional £1.5 billion a year by 2020-21 will be made available to the armed forces, and security and intelligence agencies in a new joint security fund. I do not think anybody here needs reminding of the significance of our armed forces; the defence of the realm is the first duty and responsibility of any Government. I have said it before, but one of my favourite quotes is from the late Lord Healey who served with the Royal Engineers during world war two and was military landing officer for the British assault brigade at Anzio. He said:

“Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]

But the UK is investing in British security, British prosperity and our place in the world, which transforms our ability to project power globally, whether independently or with allies.

I also had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee during the last Parliament, when the Government took the historic step of enshrining the armed forces covenant in law for the first time. We now have an increasing number of veterans who have seen active service in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and we have a duty and responsibility as a nation to make sure they are looked after and are not in any way disadvantaged by their previous military service. I worked with my local authorities to ensure that they signed the community covenant, too.

This Bill has some interesting aspects that we ought to explore further in some detail. We have talked about provisions whereby a commanding officer may require a member of the armed forces or a civilian subject to service discipline to be tested for alcohol and drugs, and about how we are looking to change things in that area. I share the concerns of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who said that he was worried that under the new provisions a commanding officer could be a little out of the loop when it comes to the welfare of, and duty of care towards, his or her men. I think we will look at that in more detail. As far as I am aware, the last two major deployments were largely “dry” operations, but when our military personnel are on duty they must not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Cutting red tape and potentially simplifying the way justice is carried out is sensible. The increase of the period that a sentence of service detention may be suspended from 12 to 24 months could enable a more flexible form of justice. As the chairman of the all-party group on Gibraltar, I will be interested to see how Gibraltar is incorporated in the extension of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to the whole of the UK, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories. I know that conversations are taking place and work is going on, but I will be interested to see how that will work out.

The House will obviously have to look in some detail at clauses 14 and 15, which propose extending the statutory powers to MOD firefighters in an emergency, providing the same powers to act as those of civilian fire and rescue authorities. I look forward to working with colleagues from all parts of the House on the progress of this very important Bill.

Britain and International Security

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

What a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) and his excellent maiden speech. I congratulate him and wish him well in his future career and his service in this place. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), I do not think back much to my maiden speech—it was not a happy moment and it is something I like to forget. Making speeches is something that we do, and people tell me it gets easier—ask me in about five minutes and I will say whether it does or not.

This important debate is on a vast and complex subject, so I shall endeavour to make just a few points, mainly on NATO, foreign aid and defence spending. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) who said we must decide what sort of country we are in our attitude to defence and security—that conversation came up at a defence event last night, and there was some consensus.

Are we just another northern European power with armed forces that are broadly defensive and engage in a limited fashion in UN peacekeeping missions or—dare I say it?—on EU missions? Or are we, as I and perhaps the majority of British people think, a global force for good with the sovereign capability to defend ourselves robustly and to project power globally in the national interest, keeping our people and streets safe wherever the next threat may come from? Even if we are the former, we must accept that such things come at a financial cost. History demonstrates time and again that our wars choose us; we do not choose them.

A myth promulgated by certain sections of the liberal media is that somehow our engagements and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were merely wars of choice. I would disagree strongly with that and say that they were undertaken with the highest, most decent and honourable motivations to protect our national security, keep our people safe, and improve world security. In my view, in order to maintain our contribution to international security, keep our people safe and maintain our place in the world, we must be prepared to invest more in our defence capability. As Denis Healey—not someone I quote often or agree with much—said in 1969:

“Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]

He was absolutely right.

The cornerstone of our defence and security policy, and our place in the world, is our membership of NATO. Let me refer to the most up-to-date figures that NATO published last week on estimated defence spending by member states in 2015. Happily, this year we will comply with our treaty obligations and spend 2.1% of GDP on defence. Astonishingly, however, the only other countries in Europe that it is estimated will spend the agreed 2% of GDP on defence to be members of NATO are Estonia, Greece and Poland.

Poland has made a big improvement on last year, stepping up to the plate having been spending only 1.8%. France spends 1.8% and Germany 1.2% of GDP, which is the same as last year. Turkey is getting close with 1.7% of GDP, but Luxembourg is expected to spend only 0.5% of GDP on defence, the lowest in NATO. The other NATO members that will spend less than 1% of GDP alongside Luxembourg are Belgium, Hungary and Spain.

We have led by example. I agree with points the Prime Minister made last September at the NATO summit in Newport when he called on NATO members that are not making their 2% of GDP contribution to spend more. The UK and the US account for almost four fifths of the total NATO defence spend. The US will pay practically 73% of NATO’s total estimated budget for 2015. The European nations cannot keep relying on the Americans to write the cheques to provide them with the personnel, kit and manpower to protect them. We are next on the list, paying 6.6%, followed by France with 4.7% and Germany with 4.2%. It is estimated that Germany is planning to spend nearly £14 billion less than us on defence. France will spend £10 billion less than us. The US is spending around £300 billion more than the UK, Germany and France put together.

The home country of the President of the European Commission, Mr Juncker, is Luxembourg. As well as spending the smallest percentage of GDP, as I have mentioned, Luxembourg provides 0.3% of the NATO budget in real terms, less than any other NATO member apart from Albania. No wonder he is constantly calling for a European army, so that other people can write the cheques and provide the manpower to protect his country.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that if countries want the cover, they have to be prepared to pay the premium, but does he agree that, rather than insist on 0.7% or 2% imposed by supranational organisations, we should instead focus on outputs? In other words, we should focus on effectiveness—be that international development or defence. In those respects, this country does pretty well.

[Jack Lopresti]

They are not mutually exclusive. We need a benchmark figure to show we are serious and that we are maintaining a commitment. That does not diminish the other things we do, looking for value for money and finding other avenues for defence and security, which I will come to. It is an important commitment for a nation state to say, “I belong to NATO. I get the benefits of the protection. I am prepared to make the right contribution.”

The relatively rich countries of Europe cannot expect the United States and the UK to continue to look at their defence needs. On kit, NATO already has an over- reliance on the US for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling, ballistic missile defence, airborne electronic warfare and carrier strike. That is completely unsustainable.

Obviously, the use of soft power, including the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the BBC World Service, is key to our national security, but they must be backed up by hard power. I was shocked and surprised when I looked at the Library figures for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, MOD and DFID. According to Treasury figures on expenditure for 2015-16, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spend is £1.3 billion; DFID spend is £11.2 billion; and MOD spend is £42.5 billion. It seems to me that, if we are looking at soft power, influence, defence, security and our place in the world, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is woefully underfunded. Obviously, the MOD spend needs to be increased. DFID does excellent work, but we ought to consider returning to the previous model, when a large degree of that excellent work was carried out under the FCO and MOD. That would help to focus what we are doing, save the taxpayer money, avoid potential duplication and waste, and be more concentrated. We should perhaps look at getting rid of DFID as a Department and going back to having ministerial representation in the FCO and MOD.

We are still a great nation and one of the biggest defence spenders. We are one of the largest economies in the world. Owing to our history, our contribution and our unique relationship with the United States, we are a global power. We are also a nation with moral authority, recognised around the world for our rule of law, parliamentary democracy, basic freedoms and common decency. However, to remain a global force in the world, we must accept that we cannot continue to do it on the cheap. Freedom is not free, and the Government’s refusal to commit to 2% of GDP for the duration of this Parliament is troubling to say the least. Two per cent. should be not an aspiration or the maximum but the absolute line that we will not fall behind. If we did so, it would send a terrible message to our allies and our enemies.

Finally, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defence Secretary: “Weakness is provocative. Time and again weakness has invited adventures which strength might well have deterred.”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

The Royal British Legion was recently awarded £10 million LIBOR funding over five years to address long-term hearing issues. Work has already started with key stakeholders, and the Legion aims to launch the fund in early autumn. From summer 2015, the MOD will introduce new hearing protection measures for UK armed forces personnel, which will reduce the number of veterans with service-attributable hearing issues.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

11. What progress has been made on the creation of a NATO very high readiness joint task force.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

Significant progress has been made on the very high readiness joint task force. The interim force is established and the operational force will be ready by the Warsaw summit next year. We will contribute a battle group to the Spanish-led task force next year, and we will lead a fully operational task force brigade from January 2017. Our contribution that year will increase from 2,500 to 3,000 personnel.

[Jack Lopresti]

Given reports in recent days of attacks against Ukrainian forces by Russian forces and separatists backed by Russia, what is NATO doing to deter such aggression, and could a rapid task force play an important role in that?

[Michael Fallon]

We are continuing to press for sanctions to be upheld against Russia. We are helping Ukrainian armed forces with trainers at six different sites in western Ukraine, training and improving the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces. We have troops exercising in eastern Europe—in Romania and the Baltic—and our Typhoons are flying every day this summer to help to protect Baltic airspace.

Defence Spending

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that defence spending should be set to a minimum of two per cent of GDP in accordance with the UK’s NATO commitment.

Thank you for those kind words, Mr Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and those MPs who supported the application. We live in times of heightened international tensions. We would do well to remember that the adage about defence being the first duty of Government has been forged by events, and we ignore the lessons of history at our peril. The world remains a dangerous and unstable place, and a growing number of countries that are not necessarily friendly to the west are not only rearming at an alarming rate, but becoming more assertive. We need to spend more on defence not only to better protect our interests and support key alliances, but to deter potential aggressors and ensure that we try to avoid conflict in future.

The motion calls on the Government to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence, in line with our NATO commitment. Defence spending as a share of GDP has been falling in recent years, and it is widely believed that Britain will shortly fall below the 2% figure. We all know that 2% is an arbitrary figure; spending should reflect desired capability. I believe that defence spending should be much more than 2%—I suggest 3% to 4%. But the 2% figure does have symbolic value. Having lectured other NATO members about its importance, we should lead by example.

In short, we need to rediscover the political will for strong defence, and that political will transcends the political divide here. Some demons may need to be vanquished first, most notably our recent misguided military interventions, which have probably distracted us from greater dangers, but banished those demons must be. That we have the political will to ring-fence the international aid budget at 0.7% of GDP suggests that such will can be found; it is simply a question of priorities.

We have in this country, I believe, a political disconnect that needs to be put right. None of the main parties seems to question that Britain has global interests and needs to remain a global power, both to protect them and to uphold our international obligations as a member of NATO and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Yet the political establishment, across the political divide, appears unwilling properly to resource these commitments.

So why the disconnect? I can only put it down, in large part, to our misguided military interventions of the past decade, which have led some to question the value of spending on defence. These interventions have been very costly in terms of blood and treasure, and have rarely achieved their original aims, with the extent of civilian casualties and the persecution of minorities being two such examples.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

While I disagree with my hon. Friend about misguided previous military engagements—I do not think that either was misguided—we did see what happens when we try to deploy troops abroad on the cheap without their being properly equipped. We lost a lot of good people because of that, and there were a lot of injuries. We should never put our people in that position again.

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend and I may disagree about whether our interventions were misguided, but he makes a very valid point, which is that we have been intervening with increasingly marginal effect. Helmand in Afghanistan was a classic case of that. It took the Americans putting in another 20,000 troops before we pulled that situation round.

Let me return to the point about disconnect. The military interventions over the past decade have distracted us from the greater danger. Too often in these military interventions, we have failed to take the long view in favour of short-term foreign policy fixes that give rise to as many problems as they solve. A key reason is a deficit of strategic analysis at the heart of our foreign policy making, in large part because of continual underfunding—but perhaps that is a debate for another day.

There is little doubt that we went to war in Iraq on a false premise, and that we foolishly allowed the mission in Afghanistan to morph into one of nation building after we had achieved our original objective of ridding the country of al-Qaeda. Our Libyan intervention has not ended well courtesy of a vicious civil war. Speaking as someone who opposed them all, we must dispel these demons when thinking about defence more generally, because, in addition to being mistakes in themselves, these interventions have distracted us from, and blinded us to, the greater danger of traditional state-on-state threats.

For example, recent events in Ukraine reveal a resurgent Russia that is once again making its presence felt around NATO’s borders. Russian bomber aircraft and submarines have resumed their aggressive patrols, some near UK waters and airspace. The Defence Secretary correctly observed last month that Russia posed a real and current danger to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—all NATO members covered by article 5. Only by dispelling these previous intervention demons and recognising the bigger danger can we mend the political disconnect between commitments, on the one hand, and funding, on the other. It is absolutely essential that we do that.