Ukraine

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement, and for the briefings he has provided to me and all parliamentary colleagues. I associate myself and my party with the condolences he expressed regarding the tragic death of Lieutenant Leyshon.

As we have confirmed previously, I reiterate without reservation that, as Labour did when in opposition, we will continue to do everything possible to support the Government over Ukraine. We remain steadfast in our total condemnation of both Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and his conduct of the war, during which he has shown no regard for human life, even, it would appear, that of his own service personnel, with losses now at terrible levels on all sides. Indeed—this was one of the Secretary of State’s most striking points on the operational situation—it is an extraordinary testament to the brutal disposition of the Putin regime that their strategy continues to rely on the mass sacrifice of infantry personnel.

That said, the Secretary of State is surely right to remind us that, despite the extraordinary naval success Ukraine has enjoyed in the Black sea and the surprise incursion into Kursk that has thrown Putin’s regime into confusion, Russia remains a formidable foe and nothing at all can be taken for granted. On the contrary, it is clear that the UK must continue to do all it can to support Ukraine’s Government, people and armed forces.

On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the role our Government played in showing real leadership in respect of Ukraine. If Ukraine had fallen early, the world would have been in a precipice situation akin to the late 1930s, but we made a huge difference to avoiding that outcome by being the first nation to train Ukrainian troops, the first to provide main battle tanks and, in particular, the first to provide long-range weapons. In August, President Zelensky commented that Britain’s support for Ukraine has slowed down recently. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those comments?

On these Benches, we recognise that a key part of our leadership has been bringing other allies on board, which must continue in key operational and logistical decision making. Nevertheless, we have also shown leadership as a sovereign nation that believes wholeheartedly in Ukraine’s fight for freedom. As such, I confirm that we would have no hesitation in supporting the Government in continuing that leadership were they to confirm that the Ukrainian Government have maximum freedom of operation with regard to all the munitions we have supplied, including long-range missiles.

On the provision of additional munitions and the latest news shared by the Secretary of State, I welcome the announcement of £160 million for air defence missiles to be produced, of course, in Belfast. That underlines the intention we had in government, when the latest round of support commenced, to ensure a maximum degree of benefit for the UK defence sector in our support for Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that remains a top priority and that, as we supply Ukraine with more and more drones across defence, he will ensure that we rapidly learn the lessons of their deployment so that we can build the ecosystem for our own sovereign uncrewed sector?

We agree that supplying Ukraine with arms has been the right thing to do but—and the public feel this very strongly—that must be accompanied by the replenishment of our own stockpiles and platform inventory. A top priority of our funded, timetabled commitment to 2.5% was an additional £10 billion to replenish our munitions. Is the Secretary of State still committed to that extra £10 billion for munitions? Can he confirm that the delay in setting out a clear timetable to 2.5% will not lead to the deferment of any major munitions orders, either this financial year or next?

The Secretary of State spoke of Russian artillery outfiring Ukraine by 3:1, and he knows the crucial importance of industrial output. That being so, does he recognise that we must urgently fire up production across our own defence sector by committing to 2.5% as soon as possible?

Finally, one lesson from Ukraine is the vital importance of maintaining air superiority in battle. In relation to our future combat air capability, I asked the Secretary of State a set of written questions on 29 July on the sixth-generation global combat air programme spending, and he has to date answered only the questions on historical spend, not those on the current financial year. Will he therefore confirm whether his Department will be deferring any spending on GCAP planned for the current financial year?

[John Healey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, his tone and his commitment to continuing to back further military aid to Ukraine, including the £160 million contract for lightweight multi-role missiles that I announced last week. He talked about the “mass sacrifice” of Russian personnel, and he is right. President Putin is a leader who shows contempt for the lives of his own soldiers.

On UK leadership, I have set out to the House my determination to maintain that leadership in the support for Ukraine, and demonstrated how we stepped that up in the first week, in the weeks that followed and last week at Ramstein. In terms of the lessons for drones, their deployment and our work with Ukraine, we are learning those lessons. We need to speed that up. Given the hon. Gentleman’s previous job, he will be well aware of the implications for the way in which we procure and contract for capabilities, both for export and for our stockpiles. On stockpiles, we have—as he will also know—so far spent £1 billion in the UK on replenishment. We have plans to build that, because we need to boost not just production, but the productive capacity of UK industry, so that we are capable of demonstrating that it can be scaled up in the face of future threats in a way that is not apparent at present.

The hon. Gentleman asks about long-range missiles. I have to say that only Putin benefits from an open debate about those sensitive issues, and I will not comment on operational discussions. There has been no change in the UK’s position. We continue to provide military aid to Ukraine, as I have set out, to support its clear right to self-defence and in line with the operation of international humanitarian law.

On the question of 2.5%, we will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The last time the UK spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, when I last stood at this Dispatch Box as part of the previous Labour Government. In 2010, the Conservatives cut defence spending: they never matched 2.5% in any of their 14 years in office. My priority will always be to ensure that this country is well defended. In the face of growing threats, we will do more to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—although I must say that I have never confused him with Jeremy Thorpe—and to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I respond to the Gracious Speech debate.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made speeches today, but I pay particular tribute to all those who made maiden speeches. The time limit means that I cannot go through those contributions in as much detail as I would like, but I will briefly congratulate all those hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) spoke passionately about diversity, and adds to it with her strong Irish heritage. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) is surely the first ever MP to have worked as a sewer baiter. My twins had their 10th birthday during the election campaign, so I know how the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) feels. It is painful, but it gets better—don’t worry. I wish him and his family well.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point of order earlier about energy infrastructure. Pylons have also been proposed in Suffolk, and I agree with her that there are other options; we are saying to the Government that we want to see them. I am grateful for her very passionate maiden speech. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) will, I am sure it is fair to say, be a doughty champion for his constituents.

It is brilliant to have, in the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), a former member of the Royal Air Force in Parliament, especially in the current context. I was passionate about the global combat air programme when I was Minister for Defence Procurement—it shows the importance of our maintaining combat air competitiveness. I hope that he will contribute to the debate next Wednesday.

I was grateful to hear the cut and thrust of Scottish colleagues, including the hon. Members for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) and for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who certainly punched above his weight in his maiden speech.

Arguably, we did not hear enough about rural matters in the King’s Speech, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) certainly made up for that. She will clearly be a passionate advocate for farming and the environment in her constituency. I am grateful for all those maiden speeches, and I hope that we will hear much more from those colleagues in future.

Turning to defence matters, may I welcome the new foreign affairs and defence ministerial teams to their positions? As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), said, we will work with them where it is in the national interest—especially on supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes—as they did when they were in opposition. We welcome the cross-party spirit in which the Secretary of State for Defence set out his plans for a strategic defence review. We look forward to working with Lord Robertson, for whom I have the greatest respect, in a constructive and collaborative manner.

May I thank the Secretary of State for paying tribute to the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, both of whom I had the privilege to work with as Minister for Defence Procurement? They can both be rightly proud of the enormous contribution that they made in supporting Ukraine, but they had something else in common: they were not afraid to make the unambiguous case for higher defence spending, and most importantly, they were successful. It helped that they had a Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, oversaw the largest spending review increase for defence since the cold war, and ensured that we went into the general election with a credible and fully funded plan to increase our defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.

Although I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have said that they are committed to 2.5%, we have nothing but uncertainty over their timetable. Indeed, this morning I was interviewed by Kay Burley of Sky News. She put it to me that the Government’s timetable is to reach 2.5% by the end of the Parliament—so 2028 or 2029. I said that that was not what I understood the public position to be, but she told me that she had been informed privately by the Government that that was the timetable, so I would be grateful if they confirmed now, in Parliament, what exactly the position is on this matter of great sensitivity.

Let me explain why the timetable for 2.5% really matters. When the previous Prime Minister announced that we would commit to 2.5%, he stated that his top priority was to replenish our munitions. That 2.5% figure enabled us to commit £10 billion of extra funding over 10 years to fund munitions, and it is a fact—I know this—that without a clear pathway to 2.5%, the Ministry of Defence would have had to make substantial cuts or deferments to programmes in order to afford that necessary replenishment of our munitions. That is why it is so significant, and why we need to know exactly what the position is. Is Kay Burley correct that the Government have told Sky News that they have a timetable for reaching 2.5% by 2028 or 2029? If not—if there is no timetable for 2.5%—how is the MOD going to fund its munitions strategy? Will those orders for shells and missiles for the Army, Navy and Air Force actually be placed this year? If not, what will be the impact on our world-leading defence sector, and above all, what will be the impact on our warfighting capability as a nation?

Without a clear pathway to 2.5%, what will be the immediate impact on the Department’s finances? Will the MOD continue to invest in cutting-edge capability such as directed energy weapons and hypersonics? That 2.5% would also have stabilised our two biggest defence programmes in light of the inflationary funding pressures that followed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This is all open and in the public domain—the Public Accounts Committee was talking about it in the lead-up to the general election. I am talking about the nuclear deterrent and the global combat air programme, our absolutely essential sixth-generation fighter programme. I am delighted that we now have consensus between the Government and ourselves on both the nuclear deterrent and GCAP, but can the Government confirm that delaying 2.5% will have no impact on the funding elements of either of those two major programmes? Can the Secretary of State or the Minister responding also confirm that the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review will conclude entirely before the next spending review commences, so that that review is threat-based, rather than forced on to the financial back foot by Treasury considerations?

Of course, if the Government’s public position is that there is no timetable to 2.5%, they will inevitably point to the old chestnut of the public finances being worse than feared, justifying the inevitable cuts or deferments of programmes that follow. I have the greatest respect for the Secretary of State, but we did hear some of that in his opening remarks. I am afraid that that excuse will not wash, though. Inflation is at 2% and on target; the economy is growing at a healthy rate and ahead of our competitors; wages are rising; unemployment is almost half what it was in 2010, when we took power; and the deficit is forecast to fall to just over 1% of GDP by the end of the current forecast period. [Interruption.] Labour Members chunter. They talk about missions; when we came to power, our mission was to save this country from bankruptcy, because once again, the socialists had run out of other people’s money.

The forecast deficit in 2010 was heading well north of 10%, so we did the right thing: we had to take difficult decisions, and we restored our public finances. Because of that, when the pandemic struck and the energy support had to be put in place, we could afford that enormous support. We are proud of that—proud of furlough, of saving those jobs and those businesses in every constituency. We did it because of those difficult decisions after the mess Labour left us in 2010. [Interruption.] Labour Members talk about the previous Prime Minister but one, but our strong economic legacy cannot be used to pray in aid a cover for cuts and deferments. [Interruption.] They quibble when we talk about a strong economic legacy. How else can we describe low unemployment, inflation at 2%, a low and falling deficit—half what it was when we took over from them—or the highest growth in the G7? That is a fantastic inheritance. Far from being an excuse for the cuts that the Government will have to come to, those are the features of the very improvement in economic conditions that made our pre-election commitment to 2.5% financially credible and deliverable.

We strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s staunch support for NATO, as evidenced in Washington, and we want him to succeed on his pledges to strengthen Britain’s defence. That is in our national interest, but it is actions that matter and by which the Government will be judged, and deferring and delaying 2.5% offers nothing but uncertainty to our armed forces at the worst possible time. If the Government have a private timetable to reach 2.5%, they need to share it; if there is not one, I urge the Secretary of State to persuade the Prime Minister and his Treasury colleagues to think again, because in this more dangerous world, higher defence spending is a matter of the utmost urgency for Britain.