Iran
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
It is a day of sad farewells, and I will add to them by saying a very sad farewell from all of us across the House to Margaret and Godfrey in the Tea Room, who are leaving soon. I did not expect to be so emotional, but here we are.
I want to say something very clear and simple about what the Iran war means for us. It shows us that our affordability and security crises are intertwined, and that they lean on each other. More than that, it shows us that while we deal with those crises through policy, we also need a political vision that can unite us as we face the most important and dangerous Parliament in almost a century.
Since the Iran war started, we have seen oil and gas prices rise significantly. Oil prices are up by around 30%, and gas prices are up by 70%. The longer the strait remains closed, the worse that will get. What does that mean for us at home? It means higher prices and less affordable lives, but more than all that, it means more anger and fury on our streets. As people become unable to afford decent lives, they get angry at the system and angrier at us in this place. If we do not make their lives affordable, we cannot expect them to have a stake in, or defend, our nation. Only by ensuring that every single person has a reason to believe in this country and this place, and only by making lives affordable, can we ensure that we defend ourselves at home. We cannot ask people to risk or give up their life for a country that does not guarantee a decent life to them or their children.
As for our security crisis, we see that the far more unstable and dangerous world that we face is one in which the economy and affordability get worse. We are dependent on fossil fuels sold by dictators, including those in the most dangerous parts of the world, and that lack of security in energy abroad hits us here at home. The world is changing before our eyes. America’s eyes are no longer focused on Europe as much as they used to be; they are turning to Asia and the middle east.
It is clear to us in European NATO, and it should be clear to us in this House, that we must take more steps to defend ourselves. We as individuals all have a responsibility to state very clearly that we must defend this nation. The only way we prevent war is by preparing for one. It is the only way that we keep this country and our constituents safe for this generation and generations to come.
Finally, we see a nation that is far more divided and angry than ever before, partly because people cannot afford a decent life, but also because when they turn on their screens, they see war in the middle east, wildfires across the globe and a world that is far less secure and stable. They do not believe in us because they do not see a way for us to provide a decent future for them. That is on us to fix.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I only intervene on the hon. Gentleman because he said “finally”, so I assume that he is coming to the end of his speech. [Interruption.] Apparently not. Perhaps he is about to come on to this, but I have not heard him yet condemn Iran for its actions, both against its own people and across the region. He talks about destabilisation and war. Iran is the catalyst and the instigator of the destabilisation not just in Iran, but in Israel, Yemen and further afield. Will he not condemn Iran for all that it is doing?
Dr Sandher
Short answer: yes. Longer answer: I think everyone across this House would give that condemnation as well. The latest conflagration, by our understanding, is that Iran struck a tanker, and that led to the end of the ceasefire. That is making us far poorer at home, but it is also making the region less secure and stable.
I say this to every Member in the House: although we disagree strongly and deeply, a lot unites us at this moment. Members from across the House were able to unite to face challenges a century ago, and I hope that we can do exactly the same, as we should, now and in the future.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He makes some powerful points. He talked about people noticing what is going on. Will he explore that in his speech? I know that he is excellent at responding while on his feet. People can and cannot see things; when there was a cyber-attack on M&S, its shelves emptied, so people would have been able to see the direct consequence of a cyber-attack on a supermarket. They did not see it, however, because they just went to the next supermarket. Will he expand on how we make the public see the threat?
Dr Sandher
I think we have to explain it to the public, although they also saw the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and they understand the attack on sea cables. They are seeing it on the news more and more often. They understand that Russia is a threat, and they see the prices at the pump.
What is far more dangerous for us is that this slow-building crisis is much harder to deal with than a rapid one. The idea that we have war in Europe is now something we accept. Since 1945, we have not really had to take on board the idea that we can redraw borders by force, that military action can once again be here and that NATO can be tested. This is a new thing for us, so we have to tell the public both that war is on our doorstep and that resilience is now far more important.
For us, there is clearly a path forward, with two sets of policies: first, make life affordable; secondly, defend our nation. In terms of making life affordable, there is an immediate challenge. We are seeing higher fossil fuel prices leading to higher energy costs at home, and food and fertiliser getting more expensive. There are ways we can get costs down, and some of them are a bit easier than others. We can invest in clean energy and we can do direct reductions in energy bills, but for other things, like food, it is more difficult for us. That is why we need the second policy. We must also create good jobs in every single part of this country, but especially in those post-industrial areas where there have not been enough good jobs for an incredibly long time. Those are the places that are turning away from us and, indeed, from most of the Opposition parties as well.
Dr Evans
The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that there is a dichotomy here. His Government have come forward with a defence investment plan that is £5 billion short. Given his esteemed career as an economist, will he tell us where that money is going to come from? What is he suggesting to his Defence Secretary and the future Prime Minister about how to stop that gap? As he rightly pointed out, the cost of living is going up for the individual taxpayer.
Dr Sandher
First, I would like to thank the hon. Member for calling me an esteemed economist while the Whips are sitting on the Front Bench. He will appreciate that I am not going to annoy any Chancellor by putting forward any kind of tax rises today, but there is a clear commitment on the Labour Benches to fund the defence investment plan. The hon. Member is right to say that, fundamentally, we need to fund defence in this country, because the only way we can prevent war, and live up to our promise to ourselves, is to ensure that we prepare for one. Part of that is about funding, which is important, but it is also about the defence economic strategy. It is not just about the munitions and drones we are producing today; it is about how we scale that up in the case of a conflict. How do we make a conflict unthinkable because people know that the British state would stand with our NATO allies to win it convincingly?
Dr Evans
The defence chief said that we needed £28 billion for defence, but the hon. Gentleman’s Government have brought forward £15 billion, of which there is a £4.7 billion shortfall. Therein lie the gap and the problem, because there is a difference between what we will need to achieve that ability to deter and actually providing it. What are his thoughts on that?
Dr Sandher
I have every confidence that we will prevent war by preparing for it, and that we are going to fund that, but beyond the funding, which is important, how do we ensure that we can achieve the scale-up that we need? How do we show that we can defend this country? The hon. Member and I may have a back and forth, but I think we agree that we need to help to defend this nation. There are Members of this House, however—they are obviously not in their seats today—who do not feel the same way. There are Members of this House who want to divide us, who are far too pally with Putin and who want to see us become weaker and more divided, because that is how they get what they want. They are part of an unholy alliance of ethnocrats and, as we are seeing now, cryptobillionaires. They want to see anger and division on one side and tax cuts for their billionaire mates on the other. Those are the people that all of us in the House today stand against, whether they are arguing with a bin or not. This is where we are.
A House divided against itself cannot stand, and nor can our nation. The only way we can ensure that we meet the moment presented to us by this war in Iran, and indeed by all conflicts around the world, is by first making life affordable for every single person so that they have a stake in this nation, and also by securing our nation and making it safer, in order to get costs down here at home. We on the Labour Benches know now what we have always known: that the only way we can meet this moment is together, that we are more than the sum of our parts and that can we achieve affordability and security through our common endeavour. Together we will, but divided we absolutely will not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Defence
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I am going to start by doing something unusual in these debates: I am going to agree with the Opposition. I agree that we need to spend more on defence, I agree that we are in a once-in-a-century moment where the safety and security of our nation are fundamentally at risk, and I agree that the only way to prevent war is to prepare for one. Now, before my Whip has a heart attack, I will set out where I disagree with the Opposition. To take their point seriously, their plan to pay for what they set out in the motion would make this nation weaker and more divided. On top of that, it is very narrow, as if the only thing we have to do to prepare for war is to spend more money, without considering how we spend it or scale up.
To put the two-child limit back in place and have children go hungry would make our nation weaker. How could we possibly say to the people whose sons and daughters would go out to fight that today we will let them go hungry and that we would take money from them? I say to Opposition Members who spoke about this that we should remember that 60% of the children affected are from working families. Beyond that and more than that—no ifs, no buts, no exceptions—no child should be going hungry in this country. How can we expect them to have a stake in our nation if we do not have a stake in them? When we live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent life, what does it lead to? It leads to fear, frustration and fury, but more than that, to division, and a divided nation cannot take and meet this moment.
On energy, the Conservatives want to make us more dependent on fossil fuels supplied by dictators such as Putin and more dependent on the middle east. That would make us weaker. In the 14 years they had, with all the licences they granted, how many days of gas were there? There were 36 days. The North sea is operating on a declining basis; it will not give us security.
Lincoln Jopp
With the points the hon. Member has just made, it seems he has forgotten that a year ago his own party suspended seven of its Back Benchers for voting with an SNP proposal to lift the two-child benefit cap. If he is going to be quite so forthright in his criticism of us, could he explain why his Government have done such a volte-face in the intervening 12 months?
Dr Sandher
I am proud of this Government for ending the two-child limit, and I am proud of the previous Labour Government who halved child poverty in this country. If Opposition Members truly believed that putting back the two-child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why did they not do it in 14 years? They had 14 years to prepare. In 2022, it was clear where we would get to, and there was nothing from the Opposition side.
Dr Murrison
I am following the hon. Member with a great deal of interest. Is he able to name a single major western economy that after 1989 did not take a peace dividend?
Dr Sandher
To be fair to the right hon. Member, it makes perfect sense to reduce expenditure after the cold war. I take that point, but let us be clear: the world also changed in 2022. The things we depended on for our safety—sacrosanct borders and our force in NATO—were not funded enough. If we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start, and I agree that we have to do more.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Will the hon. Member just explain where we were in the standings for NATO defence spending in 2022 and where we stand today?
Dr Sandher
My point is not where we stand in the defence standings; my point is about what we need to do to prepare for war to prevent it.
Moving on to the things that we do agree on—and I think it is worth saying what we agree on, because we should not disagree across this House on this fundamental thing—the first and fundamental duty of this Government, of any Government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time. I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot on the percentage of GDP, but a defence economic strategy means far more than that. It is the fundamental question of how we produce more fighting forces, munitions, drones and soldiers. Clearly, that is changing, and at this moment, in a pre-war situation, we have to decide what that means. It means having production lines available, and crucially a supply chain of drones, as the innovation cycle is moving so quickly. It means being able to secure crucial input such as steel and training welders and engineers should we need them. Most crucially, it means the ability to scale up, because if we are to prevent war, we have to show that we are prepared for it. It is not just about spending 3%, 4% or 5% of GDP, although I take the point; it is about showing Putin and any other adversary that we could get up to 10% to 20% and use that effectively.
A defence economic strategy is a fundamentally different economic problem. It is not just about maximising production, as we do now, but about ensuring that we produce the most fighting forces possible. It is a type of economics that we are not used to. It means, first, capital control to ensure that investment goes to the right place; secondly, rationing so that we have the investment that we need; and thirdly, ensuring that we can prepare to fight the war that we face. A defence economic strategy goes far beyond the amount we spend on defence. I would expect the Treasury, the Government and No. 10, who take the defence of this country seriously, to be preparing for that right now. Of course they take it seriously; it is the first and most fundamental duty of any Government.
We stand here today a century on from people who failed on these Benches. In fact, we stand in a Chamber that is a testament to that failure. They did not prepare for war, we ended up in war in Europe, and this Chamber was bombed and had to be rebuilt. That failure should live with us and shock us. We should remind ourselves of it when we look in the mirror every single morning.
Let me share a story. I have a friend who serves in the Army, and I saw him for dinner not too long ago. He said, “Jeevun, here is the thing. I have a 30-year-old Land Rover that was in the Gulf war, in Bosnia and in the Baltics. All I want is a Range Rover that can drive.” This Government will absolutely ensure that we overcome all past investment failures so that our forces have what they need to defend our country. That is what falls to us now.
I say to Conservative Members that we must have the courage to face this moment and look forward. I could criticise them all day—I have done it before and I will probably do it again—but we must have the courage to face this moment, and to look in the mirror and know where we stand, at a moment when we must prepare for war in order to prevent it. History will judge us for this moment, and we should always bear that in mind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
We will indeed. To reinforce the right hon. Gentleman’s point, the purpose of the proposed and planned multinational force is to deter Russia, and the rules of engagement will be entirely consistent with supporting that purpose.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
We are clearly facing the most dangerous times in almost a century in this country and across our continent. Since 1945, our safety and security have been guaranteed by being part of the most powerful military alliance in the history of humankind and sacrosanct borders in Europe. Times are clearly changing. Can the Defence Secretary assure me and this House that we will fulfil the aims of the strategic defence review in full, and fully fund it to protect both ourselves and our continent?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that times are changing. He is also right that NATO, which has been outstanding in protecting us and preserving the peace for more than seven decades, is critical to that. NATO is not just the most successful defensive military alliance in history; as an alliance, it is stronger now, larger now and more united now. We are proud to play a leading role within it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The House will note that this afternoon we are without the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is halfway up Everest with a group of soldiers, raising funds for armed forces charities and raising the profile of veterans, and I am sure that the whole House wishes him well. Most of us also think, “Rather him than me.”
This Government have confirmed the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, which will boost national security and make defence the engine for growth in every part of the United Kingdom. For too long, small businesses have felt left out of defence, but no more. We are setting new targets to ensure that smaller firms benefit from that increase in defence spending. We are setting up a new support centre to guide small businesses on access to defence and, for the first time, we are making British-based businesses a priority for British taxpayers’ defence investment.
Dr Sandher
I, too, wish the Veterans Minister the best of luck as he climbs Everest, and I am sure we all agree: rather him than us.
In today’s world warfare is changing dramatically. Drones costing $1,000 can destroy tanks worth $10 million, but the innovation cycle for those drones is rapid; they are designed to become obsolete within months. We need a dynamic SME sector to produce those drones, but defence SMEs are struggling to get the finance they need, with a lack of long-term contracts and a lack of guarantees. A multilateral defence bank could help to ensure that those firms get the finance they need. Will the Secretary of State please set out the discussions he is having to help to found that multilateral defence bank?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is quite right about the fact that capabilities are now changing in weeks, not months or even years. He is also right about finance. That is why I went to the London stock exchange last week and closed the markets—I think it was the first time a Defence Secretary has ever done that. I wanted to signal that this Government want a new partnership with not just industry and innovators, but investors, and that means changing the way in which defence does its work.
Ukraine Update
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
That was exactly the focus of the Ukraine defence contact group, and the purpose of pulling those 51 nations and partners together 10 days ago and securing the confirmation of a record €21 billion in extra military aid for Ukraine during the course of this year. That was supported by the US, with the presence of Defence Secretary Hegseth, who welcomed what he saw quite clearly as confirmation that European nations and others are stepping up to meet the challenge that he and President Trump have issued to us, quite rightly, and stepping up to meet the challenge that requires us to do more to keep Ukraine in the fight and strong for a potential peace that we all hope will be negotiated.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Keeping ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe means that we have to produce more fighting forces than Putin can, but traditionally this country has focused on producing exquisite and expensive platforms. Clearly that trade-off is changing, and we are seeing $1,000 drones in Ukraine destroying $9 million tanks. The production trade-off between expendable and exquisite platforms has to change across our allies and ourselves. Producing those drones takes months; it will take years even to upgrade our own Challenger tanks. Will the Secretary of State set out how that changing trade-off in production will be implemented and introduced in the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy to keep ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is spot on, and he provides the answer to his own question about how that necessary understanding from what we have seen in Ukraine, and in other conflict zones in the middle east recently, must involve a combination of the more traditional, sophisticated defence platforms that we have tended to procure, with much more rapidly updated, updatable and upgradable new technologies such as drones. That will be set out in the strategic defence review and captured in the defence industrial strategy, but I hope my hon. Friend will see the announcement that I referred to in the spring statement of a determination to earmark 10% of defence equipment spend from this year on for novel technologies such as the ones he cites.
War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Keeping our nation safe and preserving Ukraine for the future means showing Putin that we and our European allies have the resolve and the resources to defeat him. Showing him that we would win any war is the best way to prevent a wider conflict. Winning wars is a matter of resources being converted to fighting forces. We lost the first battles of world war two, but we won by converting our greater resources; Lincoln did the same during the American civil war. So it is now; we must reduce Russian resources and prepare ourselves.
Russia’s economy is straining at the seams. Putin’s demand for war matériel is outstripping the ability of his economy to supply it; the official inflation rate stands at 10%, and we may possibly be talking about double that; three quarters of Russian firms face staff shortages; Putin is losing tanks three times more quickly than he can replace them; and his national wealth fund has been halved. However, Russia is still out-producing us in shells and fighting forces, and its armed forces will reach 1.5 million personnel. Russia can rebuild, and Putin will rebuild and come back, so we can and must do more to reduce Russia’s resources.
First, we must seize central bank assets, rather than allowing Putin to use them to rebuild his fighting forces. Secondly, we must strengthen the oil price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of attestation documents. Thirdly, we need stronger export controls to stop western goods ending up in Russian tanks. That is what we can do right now.
Deterring Putin and defeating Putin are one and the same. Our economic power is greater: NATO’s GDP in Europe is 12 times greater than Putin’s in Russia. Converting that economic power into fighting forces is what we must do next. Prosperity means nothing if we do not have the forces to defend it, so, yes, this is about the percentage that we spend on defence, but for Europe as a whole it is also about so much more than that: long-term orders to build production capacity, securing strategic inputs such as steel, and the ability to scale rapidly if we must.
If we do face war, we must be prepared for it. Fighting a total war—converting an entire nation’s production to maximise fighting forces—is a problem that none of us has ever known, but that could be the economic problem before us: maximising the production of war, guns, tanks, drones. The rough outline of the answer is this: we must figure out national income, decide the maximum portion that can be allocated to war matériel production, and use taxes from those who can most afford them to transfer what is needed to the Government. If demand runs ahead of supply, it will lead to inflation. That means rationing consumption for more investment. Investment will have to go towards war matériel, so capital controls must be in place. We need import controls, and quotas to ensure that inputs such as steel are going towards war matériel. We must prepare for a financial world without lend-lease. Those are the preparations that the Treasury should be making.
We could not foresee the financial crisis or the pandemic, but we can foresee a greater war in Europe. These are the times in which we live. In the darkest days of our struggle against fascism, John Maynard Keynes wrote:
“A reluctance to face the full magnitude of our task and overcome it is a coward’s part. Yet the nation is not in this mood and only asks to be told what is necessary.”
That is where the British people are—a nation that remembers its finest hour—but where are we in this House? Are we preparing for the worst, so that we can prevent it? Are we showing that we will convert our far greater resources in order to protect Europe and ourselves? Are we ready to do what we must? Those are the questions before us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard
Let me say very clearly to the right hon. Gentleman that we inherited a position where it was not planned that Albion and Bulwark would go to sea for a single day before they were decommissioned—that was the plan we inherited from the Conservative Government. We are looking at new capabilities as part of the strategic defence review, and the Defence Secretary has also committed from this Dispatch Box to the multi-role supply ship project, to provide littoral and landing capabilities for our brilliant Royal Marines, who have a bright future in the strategic defence review.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I think both sides of the House can agree that our peace and security are founded on strong armed forces. Will the Minister therefore welcome the fact that we are spending £3 billion more on defence this year, as well as our firm commitment to get to 2.5% of GDP?
Luke Pollard
I agree that it is important that we spend more on defence. That is why the Chancellor laid out from this Dispatch Box that we will spend an additional £2.9 billion on defence in the next financial year. It is also why the Government have laid out our plan to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. This is about not just kit and equipment but people. Addressing falling morale and poor-quality defence housing matter to our armed forces, and that is why this Labour Government are addressing those issues.
Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response
Jeevun Sandher Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman has huge experience in this field, so he will recognise that I simply will not and cannot get into responding to hypotheticals. He urges me not to allow undue constraint of perhaps established practices or rules where there is a good case for flexibility. I hope he will take as a signal of the serious intent that I will bring, with the approach and return of the Yantar to UK waters, my readiness, as I have reported, to alter the permissions that the Royal Navy was using so that, should the captains of the warships that we deployed to watch and track the Yantar require it, they could go closer, see better and determine more carefully what exactly the Yantar was up to. Like the surfacing of the submarine in November, that was a move to deter and discourage the sort of activity that we simply do not want to see in our waters.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Keeping ourselves safer at home means ensuring that Putin loses abroad, because when Putin is finished in Ukraine—whenever that may be—he will come for more. Defeating him means showing him that we have the resolve and the resource to defeat him in the future. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the SDR, we will have a way to combat, prevent and protect ourselves from Russia?
John Healey
I hope the content of my statement—the assertion that the most immediate and concerning threat to the UK comes from Russia—and the action I have taken in response to the Russian spy ship, Yantar, being in our waters again, will reassure my hon. Friend that, exactly as he urges and as the shadow Defence Secretary the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has recognised, Russia is a serious menace. In Ukraine, it is fighting the first full-scale war in Europe since the second world war, but as the shadow Defence Secretary said, its aggression particularly in the grey zone—warned about by the heads of the CIA and M16—tells us that this is a regime intent on disruption and on disrupting our way of life. My hon. Friend is right to start by saying that the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he simply will not stop in Ukraine.