(1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I absolutely agree. This industrial strategy is essential in making sure we have the focus to support our businesses right across the region, and in making sure that they are successful.
The upcoming defence industrial strategy must prioritise British businesses, including SMEs, ensuring that investment creates jobs and strengthens our national security. Currently, nearly 18,000 people work in defence SMEs in the west midlands, and the Ministry of Defence spends £1.6 billion annually in the region, making it the UK’s third largest defence hub. By backing UK industry, and fostering co-operation between Government, business and workers, we can build a defence sector fit for the future.
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward, and she is certainly making a reputation for herself as an assiduous MP on these issues. I welcome what she said in relation to the Government’s commitment to 2.5% increasing to 3%—there is nobody in the United Kingdom who does not welcome that. I know that we in Northern Ireland have very strong sectors in the work we do with the Royal Navy and Thales, but does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can get the advantages that she has referred to, in terms of not just security, but the economy, jobs and opportunities? If we can all be part of this process going forward, that could support the Minister and the Labour Government.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. In fact I will go on to talk about just how important it is that all our regions and nations are embedded in this process, and that they all contribute different skills that are of value. There are so many different aspects to defence, and our defence industries that contribute and go well past into other areas of manufacturing. I thank him for raising that point.
Last week, the Business and Trade Committee heard from Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Leonardo and MBDA on the global combat air programme, which is an alliance between the UK, Italy and Japan, who are designing Tempest fighter jets. That alliance integrates advanced air combat technology, ensuring that our defence capabilities match evolving threats. Defence alliances are a cornerstone of trade diplomacy, driving both national security and industrial growth. They have been cited as having the potential to drive our export growth, while cementing important alliances for our defence.
One issue raised with the Business and Trade Committee was the short-term nature of defence funding cycles; even major companies operate on a one-year funding cycle, making it difficult to sustain long-term projects such as Tempest. National security priorities do not fit neatly into parliamentary terms, and our defence sector needs stability. It was suggested that moving to a three or five-year funding model would provide certainty, drive innovation and ensure that the UK remains a global leader in defence. What conversations is the Minister having on the contractual arrangements currently in play for companies and the assessment that he has made of their ability to help the Government to reach their goals for the sector and national security?
Export-led growth will be essential to the defence industries that need a wider base than just their own sovereign purchasing power. By exporting technology and products, companies will be able to keep the continuity of build programmes going away from that boom-and-bust cycle. We could use industry to foster diplomatic relations of bilateral importance. The future of the defence industry relies on a workforce equipped with the right skills and adaptable to the evolving demands of our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence.
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for raising this issue. He and I have very different opinions, as he knows, but we are both committed to seeing a just peace for the people of Gaza and Israel, securing the hope of a different future for every child in that area, regardless of race or religion. That is the desire that I work towards, knowing it to be the aim of this House. I will always be a proud friend of Israel and will speak from that perspective.
I must indicate that there is a time for peace through strength, which is what is needed. Israel was mercilessly attacked; the hostage releases, along with the parading of infant bodies in coffins, highlight the mentality of those who carried out the 7 October atrocities. Some 1,200 were killed—men, women and children—and women were raped with indescribable violence by Hamas terrorists. With Hamas there is clearly no remorse, but there is a clear hatred.
When people know where they stand and that the scorpion can sting, they protect themselves, which is what Israel does. Hamas can do nothing other than hate Israel and seek her eradication, and I would never support calls for Israel not to have the means to defend herself, as she rightly does.
I have lived through terrorism and the troubles and beyond. I am thankful that my children have never checked below their cars, as their dad did, or been stopped at an army checkpoint. They do not remember the days of the bombs exploding and the pain of innocent victims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not advocate war; I have felt the pain of it. However, I know that nations must retain an ability to show that they can and will defend their people when peace is no longer an option.
Israel did not use its military prowess until atrocities were carried out on it. It is my hope that the time has come for a solution for Israel and the decent people of Gaza. I will support that, but I will never attempt to bring Israel to the negotiating peace table with a hand tied behind their back, while acknowledging that the hatred of Hamas has not abated, and therefore neither has the threat to Israel. I want peace, but I want a lasting peace, and that will not happen while Hamas retain any control or ability to carry out their desire. These are the same Hamas terrorists who hid behind women’s skirts in schools and hospitals—that is the sort of terrorists they are.
The rules cannot change and those who hate Israel are the main players in the game. Israel must have access to weapons and the support that they deserve. They must also have access to wise counsel to help to provide a plan and a way forward. I hope that this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue to be a friend to Israel in word, wisdom and deed, as I am every day of my life and indeed will be for the foreseeable future, and for every breath that I have in this world.
I call Luke Akehurst—please keep it brief, as you have had several interventions.
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberI cannot put a piece of paper between the two of us. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He now has the capability to push the Government over this issue through his Select Committee. Whatever he chooses to do, I assure him that Opposition Members will support him in that pursuit.
We need to get these decisions made now, because that will put pressure on Russia. If we make the decision to seize this money, Russia will then be under pressure to reach a reasonable agreement, because the Russians do not want to lose all this money in the meantime. There is a whole line of pressure that we should be bringing to bear on the Russians.
We have allowed certain things to take place, and I do not blame just this Government, because it also happened under the last Government. The Foreign Office is always slightly reluctant to pursue sanctions with quite the aggressive nature that I would want. We recognise that. Everything has always got to be, “Well, Minister, you know, we must take into consideration a huge number of factors here, such as, ‘Why, when and who?’ These need papers, Minister.” I would say to them, “Forget the papers, let’s get to the facts.”
The fact is that we have been allowing a shadow fleet carrying liquefied natural gas to come from Russia—even in the past few months—and deliver to the UK and other countries. How can it do that? The answer is simple, and I have raised this with the Government previously. The Americans have stepped in and said that any country that takes this gas will be sanctioned, and that stopped it overnight, but we could have stopped it, because we have the major marine insurers in this country. It was British companies that were insuring this shadow fleet to take Russian gas elsewhere. In what world do people sit there, watching that, and string out questions about what they should do?
All we had to do was to say that we would sanction any marine insurer that insured one of those vessels. That would have been the end of it, because the marine insurer market is here in the UK. It would have killed that practice stone dead. America has now moved on this, and we can see some of these ships anchored off such places as India and even China, because they dare not take the gas, because of the sanctions.
I urge the Government to drive their civil servants to be quicker, faster and more determined to follow the money and to stop it. As I say, that is not a criticism alone of the present Government; it is also a criticism of the Government of my party that was in power before.
There are many things we have to address in this debate, one of which is the atrocities that the Russian forces carried out against Ukrainians where they butchered, maimed, raped, abused and burned alive. Those things cannot be forgotten about, because the families still want justice. They want those who carried those atrocities out to be accountable. As this process of peace moves forward, that justice has to be part of the peace process, as it was in Northern Ireland.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That justice will take time, but part of the point that I made is that we cannot have a peace, if it is a peace without justice. Justice has to prevail, because if it does not, we encourage everyone else to think, “Whatever we do, we will get away with it next time, because they do not have the courage to pursue the justice angle of peace.” We know that, and we have known that over the past 60 or 70 years. It is what the Nuremberg trials were all about, where the idea was for the first time to pursue the aggressors. That stands in the hon. Gentleman’s case. I served in Northern Ireland, as he knows, and I lost good friends. I still wonder what happened to them, even to this day. Justice for Ukraine will take a long while, and I accept that.
The most interesting thing about the sanctions is that some of the LNG shipments were done by UK firms. I see that Shell was involved, which made it peculiar why we did not step in earlier.
I will bring my speech to a close, because I know that others wish to speak. The problem is that there is an incorrect view and assumption about the importance of defending Ukraine that has got lost in the back-and-forth row that took place over the past week and a half. The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory that he may or may not have at the moment will somehow appease him and satisfy his requirements is completely wrong. I note that in the telephone call between President Trump and Putin, that is what President Trump said was important. The truth is that Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB. He is not interested in territory; he is interested in sovereignty, which is a key difference.
I commend and thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for setting the scene so well, and for his passion for this subject. In all the years I have known him in the Chamber—he has been here much longer than me—he has always been a stalwart, and I thank him for that. I think we all owe him a debt.
I do not much like bullies, and Putin is clearly a bully. Now that there is a bigger boy in the playground, with President Trump of the United States entering the play, Putin seems prepared to make changes and the rules are changing. Of course that is to be welcomed, but I have a real and abiding concern that memories will be deliberately short. I have a real concern that as we strive for peace—as we should—we will minimise the atrocities that the people of Ukraine have suffered over these three years, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
My mind is immediately drawn to Bucha, and while I have no desire to stir up anger and anguish, we need to ensure that we remember who and what we are dealing with, and why it is essential that our support for Ukraine is as unwavering today, during any brokerage of peace, as it was during those first few days of war. Human Rights Watch researchers who worked in Bucha between 4 and 10 April, just days after Russian forces withdrew from the area, found extensive evidence of summary executions, other unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture, all of which would constitute war crimes and potential crimes against humanity. Those who sanctioned this behaviour are those with whom we deal now, and this must remain in our minds. We need accountability, so that those who carried out atrocities will be made responsible for their brutality. Girls as young as eight and women as old as 80 have been raped and abused. Russian crimes against humanity must be taken to the International Criminal Court, which must make those responsible accountable in whatever way it can. If only the death penalty were still in place, I would certainly seek that for them.
In Northern Ireland we dealt with the bare face of evil for too many years. We saw hatred overcome basic humanity as mothers and children were blown to pieces in a fish shop on a Saturday afternoon by Irish republican terrorists. No cause can justify that. We saw the face of evil when people were burned alive with a napalm-like substance in the La Mon restaurant in my constituency. We saw the face of evil when people were massacred in churches. All that reminds me very much of the atrocities suffered by the people of Ukraine as I look back on the last three years. I lived through those things in my lifetime, and they remain with me.
It grieves me that that face of evil is still at work, and that such atrocities and disregard for human life—for women and children—have been replicated in Ukraine. They were replicated in Bucha as women and children were murdered. In February, the body of a Ukrainian Orthodox priest was found in the streets of Kalanchak, in Russian-occupied Kherson. According to his bishop, Russian military forces had “tortured Fr Stepan to death”. That is the Russians, and they must be held accountable for their brutality. We hear of such evil deeds being repeated throughout Ukraine. Again, my intention is not to drag up these matters in order to cease the striving for peace; I believe that peace is needed, but I also believe that accountability is needed, and that while we work for peace we cannot allow the trauma of this war to fade into insignificance. These crimes matter and those families deserve not to be forgotten.
My thoughts now, on the third anniversary of this dreadful war, are as they ever were: that we stand with Ukraine; that we must fulfil our moral duty to them in war, or indeed in peace; and that there must be no doubt that the hand of friendship of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains firmly extended to those families in Ukraine at this time and in all the days ahead.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent 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
Thank you, Mr Speaker —I am surprised to be called so early.
No, no—I will grab the chance.
I thank the Minister for her answers. It is obvious to me and other Members of this House that she has a heart that wants to help those in Ukraine, and we appreciate that, especially since it comes from Government. I welcome the potential peace that might come, but of course it has to be a peace of justice; it has to be fair to the Ukrainians, and we hope a way can be found. Does she agree that any signs of negotiation are to be welcomed, but that there can be no doubt that Ukraine retains the support of this House? She has said that, and everyone has said it. What role will the UK have in ensuring that the people of Ukraine have security from further Russian aggression when Putin recalibrates his forces a year or two from now?
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these concerns. It is clear that any peace that is negotiated, which must have the consent of the Ukrainians themselves, has to be durable, and to the extent that that requires security guarantees, those have to be present for it to work.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberFurther to the points made by right hon. and hon. Members, if we are going to have recruitment, we need to have protection. If we are to have protection, we must ensure that the disgraceful scenes—the SAS killed four IRA men who were returning from a bombing and shooting attack on a police station, trying to kill. The SAS were confronted by those killers, murderers, terrorist scum that they are, who were armed to the teeth with a machine gun that could fire 500 rounds in a minute and an AK-47. Is it not right that our soldiers should be protected? They were confronted by the enemy. That enemy was never going to surrender, and they got their just deserts.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches share the same passion that all veterans should get the support they need. We will continue to discuss that aspect with our Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who take the lead on this matter. I encourage him to continue to raise questions, because it is important that we support all our veterans, no matter where they served across the United Kingdom. That is a matter that the Secretary of State and I, as well as the Minister for Veterans and People, will continue to discuss with colleagues across the Government.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
My hon. Friend speaks with great weight on this topic as the Chair of the Defence Committee. In that role, it is important that he recognises the huge contribution of not only our armed forces, but the cadets, so I welcome him taking part in this debate.
I will come on to the cadet expansion scheme later in my speech, but it is really important that we think about expanding all cadet forces, not just Combined Cadet Forces, although they are important. The cadet expansion scheme is very much targeted at CCF, so I would like to see it being well funded and looking across the five cadet forces.
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. Cadet forces have featured very much in my life and in Northern Ireland. I declare an interest as a former solider for the Ulster Defence Regiment and for the Royal Artillery for some 11 and a half years. Across Northern Ireland, some 200 cadets and 50 adult volunteers, representing both the 1st and 2nd battalion Army Cadet forces, marched proudly through the streets of Ballyclare when they were first established back in October last year.
In Northern Ireland, the cadets bring both communities —the Protestants and Roman Catholics; the nationalists and the Unionists—together to serve in uniform. That is really important. We in Northern Ireland are very aware of that far-reaching goal, which they achieve. Everyone should be able to serve in the British Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy without fear of attack from anyone. The cadet forces play their part in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, very much welcome their reorganisation?
I really welcome that intervention, which demonstrates the role that the cadets play in every corner of the United Kingdom and shows how important it is that opportunities for young people are shared across our regions and nations.
I return to the Remembrance Sunday service in Bracknell, which I was proud to attend. There I saw young people who had given up their Sunday mornings and woken up far earlier than any teenager wants to at the weekend to do something important: to remember. In October, I visited the Bracknell Army Cadets, alongside my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People and Councillor Georgia Pickering, Bracknell Forest council’s armed forces champion. I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that he offered deep inspiration to the young people he spoke to, sharing his own personal stories of service, bravery and sacrifice in the armed forces. I hope he will also not mind my saying that I believe that the cadets, in turn, inspired him with their stories, their drive and their thoughtful questions.
In November I was privileged to visit Brackenhale school and meet its combined cadet force contingent. It was a real pleasure to see how staff, students and volunteers are rightly passionate about the impact that CCF has in creating a sense of belonging and teamwork among students, as well as supporting their wellbeing. There is an assumption that only private schools have CCFs; Brackenhale, however, is a state school. To challenge another stereotype, almost half of cadets in Berkshire are female.
It is crucial that the benefits of participation in the cadet forces should be open to all. As of April last year, almost 150,000 young people were involved in the cadets across the country, with 90,000 in the Army, Air, Sea or volunteer Cadets and 50,000 in the CCF. In the south-east, our cadet forces are supported brilliantly by the South East Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association, or SERFCA. I pay tribute to its outstanding work in supporting the cadets and the community of Bracknell. Its commitment to defence is truly inspirational.
The cadets provide a range of unique opportunities for young people to gain qualifications for CV enhancement, skill acquisition and personal development. For many, membership of the cadets had been a lifeline, providing positive guidance in times of crisis. For others, it is simply a fun thing to do and an opportunity to try new experiences with friends.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this topic forward. He is absolutely right to recognise the importance of SMEs and what they can do. In Northern Ireland, Thales invented and produced the NLAW— the next-generation light anti-tank weapon—which slowed down the Russian advance; Thales is also at the forefront of cybersecurity, and all those things are very important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to supporting all SMEs across the United Kingdom—those 434,000 jobs—Northern Ireland must be an integral part of that? I know that is what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister think, and it really is the way forward.
Order. This debate is for an hour and is well-subscribed, so I ask hon. Members to be brief in their interventions.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent 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
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am the new Member for many places.
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I ask him very respectfully whether he agrees that the story in the press this week about the proposed sale of Navy ships to Brazil, when our fleet already appears depleted, is worrying? There is a need to increase our defence spending, not simply to fulfil international obligations but to be in a position to defend ourselves in the frontier of the cyber-security world, and in the physical world as well. Will the Minister reassure this House that the decisions that are made have been future-proofed with our security in mind—the security of all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and prioritised as such?
That is precisely the reason why the Prime Minister commissioned the strategic defence review within two weeks of coming to office, to assess the changing context that we are facing but also the changing capabilities that we need, as a nation, to keep us safe. That includes retiring old capabilities, especially capabilities that were never planned to go to sea again—a decision made under the last Government. We have already increased defence spending in the Budget—it is up by £2.9 billion—and we will set out a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberYes, I can confirm that. MOD spending already supports over 200,000 jobs directly, and many more besides, and my hon. Friend has set out an example from his constituency. The defence industrial strategy will aim to create jobs in every nation and region of this country.
I thank the Minister for a very positive statement—it is always good to have positive statements, and today is one of those occasions. It is great news to hear of the wonderful investment, which is needed to shore up not only defence but our manufacturing industry. Looking at the job allocation, I see that there are 800 jobs for Derby in England, and 200 for Glasgow in Scotland and Cardiff in Wales. I have no doubt whatsoever about the Minister’s commitment to job creation, but will she outline how the Government will ensure that businesses and factories in Northern Ireland can be involved in the supply or provision of parts? Particularly, will she outline whether the skills of Harland and Wolff can be utilised in fulfilment of the contract, and whether UK-wide involvement was a stipulation of the deal with Rolls-Royce?
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is fighting for his constituents. He makes some good points about Harland and Wolff and skills. We do have defence contracts based at Harland and Wolff, and I will be visiting Belfast in due course—I will not give him the exact date, but it is soon—in order to galvanise and understand what is available, particularly in the SME community, in Northern Ireland. I look forward perhaps to talking to him about that at the time.
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberI think the problem is less with the basic rules of the sea and more with observance by states that wilfully test the limits or contravene them. That is why the actions that I have reported to the House, in the instance of the Yantar in British waters, are exactly the sort of steps that nations such as the UK will continue to take, working with allies—particularly close NATO allies.
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Nobody can be in any doubt whatsoever about the strength of his words on what it means for us in the United Kingdom to stand firm. We thank him for that determination and his strong voice, which we in this Chamber all support. When the naval crew of HMS Somerset were called back to their ship on Christmas day, the message was clear: the Russians do not take a holiday, but neither do our Royal Navy crews. Russia’s perpetual activity in pressing towards our boundaries outlines the need for the complete preparedness of our Navy. Will the Secretary of State outline whether greater support is needed to ensure that our Navy is at full strength, given that our service fleet is now smaller than those of France and Italy?
We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.