Remembrance Day: Armed Forces
Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Francois(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Francois
I completely agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend—the history of the 14th Army is a proud one. It was a marvellous amalgam, under a brilliant leader, of people from countries and races from around the entire Commonwealth who fought with one common aim: freedom. They were sometimes called the forgotten army, but they are not forgotten tonight.
After the horrors of the trenches and an understandable aversion to war in the 1920s, with Britain exhausted—both financially and emotionally—by the horrors of the great war, the Government of the day introduced what came to be known as the 10-year rule. This was not just the policy of the War Office or the Admiralty, as they then were; it was a pan-Whitehall edict, the essence of which was that Britain would not have to fight another major war for at least 10 years. This key planning assumption became the centrepiece of British strategic theory and, with strong endorsement from the Treasury, the 10-year rule soon became a rolling one, extended on an annual basis. Given that no war was expected for at least a decade, this allowed for major economies in the financing of the armed forces and an associated running-down of all three services. As one example of how seriously the 10-year rule was taken and implemented, even Winston Churchill during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s exerted pressure to cut back on his beloved Royal Navy—the same service he had fought tenaciously to expand as First Lord of the Admiralty barely a decade before.
Indeed, as a mood of pacifism gripped the nation, in 1933—the same year in which Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany—the earnest students of the Oxford Union, who are having their own problems at the moment, passed a motion by a majority of over two to one that
“this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”.
The subsequent policy of appeasement from the 1930s British establishment—the blob of their day—was as erroneous then as it would be today. Authoritarian dictators tend to admire strength, particularly their own, and despise weakness—a lesson that any British Government, including this one, would do well to remember. History tells us again and again that the appeasement of dictators does not work, just as it failed to work in the 1930s
The 10-year rule, which by that stage had lasted well over a decade, was eventually rescinded in 1935-36 as Britain began to rearm in response to Hitler’s increasingly bellicose behaviour. Nevertheless, that rearmament, and comparable action by our allies, was ultimately insufficient to deter what then became the second world war—a brutal conflict in which over 50 million people died, far more even than had perished in the supposed war to end all wars some two decades before.
I mention all this not just because I studied history and then military history at university, but because if—as Members of this House believe, and as I have always believed—the ultimate goal of our armed forces is to save lives by deterring war and persuading any potential aggressor that they could not prevail, then even today we all need to ask ourselves, regardless of party, whether we are doing enough to secure the peace by maintaining sufficiently strong armed forces to provide such a vital deterrent effect. It is a historical fact that twice in the last century, this country paid an immense cost in both blood and treasure to defeat militarism.
Today, the threats are somewhat different, with a war on our doorstep in Europe following Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are in effect now fighting for our freedom too, and we must back them to the hilt as a result. We also see a major rearmament by China; North Korea continues to develop even longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, now with support from Russia; and Iran continues to exert malign influence across the middle east, even after the successful American strike on its emerging nuclear capabilities. The circumstances may have changed, but the principle remains exactly the same. We in the western democracies cannot drop our guard against the growing powers of the 21st-century autocracies—something that those who fought in the second world war would instinctively understand only too well.
Bearing in mind the Minister’s caution, I was genuinely concerned to read one passage of the Government’s recent strategic defence review—its seminal defence policy document. On page 43, under the heading “Transforming UK Warfighting”, it states:
“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”
I say to the Minister in all sincerity that that seems to contain an echo of the 10-year rule of the 1920s. While there was a great deal of good in the SDR, not least the intention to speed up our highly bureaucratic procurement system—about which I have always held firm views, as the Minister knows—I nevertheless worry, given increasing threats from Russia and now also from China, about whether the Ministry of Defence today displays the genuine sense of urgency that is required to meet the challenges we now all clearly face. Before I am accused of selective quoting, the same paragraph of the SDR goes on to say:
“This vision could be achieved more quickly should circumstances demand it and should more resources be made available.”
Notwithstanding those words, with much of the new money in the SDR unavailable for at least two years and a multibillion-pound programme of in-year efficiency savings now under way, I merely ask whether we have really learned the lessons of the past century as well as we might have.
In conclusion, we in these islands have always ultimately been prepared to make great sacrifices to uphold the freedom of Europe, and indeed of the wider world. That is why, given our history, we should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In response to the philosopher Edmund Burke’s famous challenge that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, twice in the past century our own good men and women across the nation stood up to and defeated such evil, with our armed forces in the lead. Rightfully, we solemnly remember that sacrifice each and every November, including in this House tonight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While we are celebrating and remembering the greatest generation, we also have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. Perhaps we should be focusing on that as well—looking back, but also looking forward, as I think the Minister said. We must try to raise a generation of young people who are proud to be British, to stand against repression, and to undertake to be inclusive. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is what we need to build for?
Mr Francois
As a young person myself, having recently turned 60—[Laughter.] In all seriousness, at the remembrances services that I attended this weekend—like, I am sure, many Members on both sides of the House—I was struck by the number of young people from, for instance, the Cubs, the Scouts and the Brownies who attended those services and, in many cases, participated, and laid tributes, wreaths and crosses of their own. I took great heart from that, and I believe that there is hope yet.
There would be no greater betrayal of the sacrifices that we have been debating this evening than would occur if we as a House, with all the other matters that we have to consider, somehow became so distracted or complacent that we failed to act with sufficient clarity of purpose and determination to deter a future major conflict, perhaps even a global one, from breaking out again in our lifetimes. To put it, perhaps, in another way, we must now conduct ourselves, in “our today”, in such a way as never to risk the security of “our tomorrow”. With that sincere warning, I pay tribute to our valiant armed forces, both past and present, and to everything that they do, day in and day out, to keep us and our country safe and free—lest we forget.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community
Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Francois(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Jim Shannon
As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to underline that issue and its importance. While recognising that everybody came together to do their best and to make it happen, I want to move on to speaking about Ukraine, if I may.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I would like to say that he has spoken powerfully about the work that was undertaken by British armed forces personnel during the troubles, and subsequently in addressing the unexploded ordnance threat in Northern Ireland. When I was the Armed Forces Minister, I had the privilege of visiting one of those units and seeing for myself the incredible work that it did. Would he join me—and, I am sure, all Members this morning—in paying tribute to those incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives day after day to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland?
Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate
Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Francois(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am honoured to open this debate in the memory of our great friend—my great friend—Sir David Amess, a fallen comrade whose plaque I am looking at right now. It is on the other side of the Chamber, just above where he used to sit; appropriately enough, it is directly opposite that of Jo Cox, another fallen comrade who graced this House while she was here.
As there are a number of new Members in the Chamber, maybe nervously waiting to make their maiden speech—I remember that feeling, too—perhaps I could explain why we call this debate the Sir David Amess debate. It is not just in honour of his service, but because he was a past master at making use of it. In essence, David would manage to cram a vast number of different topics, usually related to his constituency, into a very small amount of time. From memory, the all-time record was 20 different subjects in 12 minutes, each of which mysteriously led to a subsequent press release. He basically turned it into an art form, and as a result, the end-of-term Adjournment debate was always known in the Commons Tea Room as the Sir David Amess debate. As such, after his loss, Mr Speaker and the House authorities decided to turn that from de facto to de jure, and formalised it by giving the debate his name. I am delighted that we have done so, because it helps to keep his name alive. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Jim Shannon
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he is making. Every one of us who had the pleasure of knowing Sir David Amess can picture him over on the far side of the Chamber. He was able to rattle off about 30 things at some speed, every one of them pertinent to his constituency, but he did it with a grace and respect that we all loved, and we miss him dearly. Is it the right hon. Gentleman’s intention to do the same—30 items in about 12 minutes?
Mr Francois
No, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I only intend to raise three topics.