Combat Air Strategy

Julian Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We are looking at a range of different international partners. We see this as an opportunity to offer something that is different and alternative to the offerings that the United States has traditionally brought forward. We see this as an opportunity to collaborate with new nations that have not usually been involved in such collaborations before. The initial indications are exceptionally positive.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

This is a very heartening announcement, especially given the recent centenary of our fantastic Royal Air Force. My right hon. Friend mentioned the potential for lucrative defence sales downstream from this announcement. When we leave the EU, what partners does he envisage us having as, in trading terms, we spread our wings?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: we do need to spread our wings. Before the recent order placed by Australia for future frigates— the new Hunter class Type 26 frigates—Opposition Members said that we would not be able to sell ships to any other nation, and we have proved them wrong. Naysayers on the Opposition Front Bench constantly want to talk down Britain: we want to talk up Britain. Industry, and not just British industry, wants to invest in our technology and our capabilities.

Trident: Test Firing

Julian Knight Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) addressed the question to me, which is why I am here answering it.

I have made it very clear that both Prime Ministers, who separately had ultimate responsibility for the nuclear deterrent, were kept fully informed as to how that deterrent is maintained. Both were made aware of the successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with Steve Aiken, an experienced former submarine commander, who told a goading BBC this morning that this makes absolutely no difference to the case for renewal, and that the Government are correct in not commenting on matters that could prejudice our national defence, certainly on live television?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I completely agree with that.

Iraq Historic Allegations Team

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

I find it depressing that we are talking about this so long after my right hon. Friend made those remarks. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what advice she has received about the need for the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Perhaps the debate will be able to draw out some of the reasoning for it.

As we know, IHAT was set up in 2010 by the then Minister, Sir Nick Harvey, who in a written statement said that he expected it to complete its work within two years. In July 2014, the Secretary of State recognised that IHAT’s work was not going to be completed by the end of 2016. He approved additional funding of £24 million to cover the period from the end of 2016 to the end of 2019, which increased the level of funding of IHAT to £57.2 million. I want us to think of 2019 in relation to when some of the instances it is investigating actually took place.

IHAT employs 145 people and is still recruiting. The job specs actually say that contracts are initially short term, but are likely to be extended for significantly longer. The IHAT website gives 2019 as the likely date when it will complete its work. If it was exposing systematic and institutionalised war crimes, I would at least understand why such persistence was a good idea, and feel that the cost to the British taxpayer was justified. Estimates in the press say it costs £5 million a year, but other estimates vary. A look at IHAT’s website shows that 18 investigations have been completed, one of which has resulted in measures being taken against somebody, and a £3,000 fine being awarded. Of the others, 15 cases have been dropped and two cases have been passed to other authorities, but no action has been forthcoming.

By June last year, following a huge increase in IHAT’s caseload, the diagnosis was even worse. It is not necessary to be a mathematician to appreciate that, at this rate, the task of investigating allegations arising from the activities of British armed forces in Iraq will never be fully completed. The Ministry of Defence guide describes what has happened to the 59 allegations of unlawful killing that IHAT has reviewed up to this month: 34 cases have been closed, or are in the process of being closed, with no further disciplinary action; seven are currently subject to further limited, focused lines of inquiry; and 17 are under investigation. Only one of those cases was referred to the Director of Prosecutions, who directed that there should be no prosecution. So, on the face of it, that is not a great record.

At this stage, I want to make it clear that I do not blame the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. It no doubt has worthy detectives sifting the evidence, but after 10 years it is finding two things: evidential trails have run cold; and it is being inundated with claims, many spurious and many the result of the malign actions of lawyers, who see this is a Klondike-style fee-fest or, perhaps, as a way to get at the system that conducted what they believe to be an unjust war. If anyone doubts my last remark, I suggest looking at the interview on YouTube given by Mr Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers to that great beacon of impartiality, Russia Today.

IHAT’s caseload now involves just over 1,500 alleged victims, 1,235 of whom are victims of ill treatment and 280 of unlawful killing. Given that backlog, the burden will hang over the heads of many of our veterans for many more months and probably years. That is utterly intolerable.

All that falls into the concept of what “Clearing the Fog of Law” calls “legal imperialism”. The worst case of such a culture are the allegations that culminated in the al-Sweady inquiry. The allegations surround actions taken during what became known as the battle for Danny Boy, a brutal attack on a checkpoint of that name resulting in a fierce firefight. British troops showed exceptional courage and resolve, and a number were decorated for bravery. The inquiry that followed cost £31 million; the fees were about £5 million. Some mistreatment was discovered, but the allegations of torture, mutilation and murder were baseless and the product, according to the judge, of “deliberate and calculated lies”.

The Government and many others have accused the two firms promoting the cases, Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day, of attempting “to traduce” the reputations of the Army units concerned. We have heard that the alleged actions of one of the law firms, Leigh Day, have resulted in referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I hear that Public Interest Lawyers might also be referred to that body.

We could all take up lots of time venting our collective spleen at the behaviour of firms that trawl places such as Basra trying to convince people of the great riches in proving that they were victims of bad behaviour. We could take up much more time asking the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), why she and the Labour party thought it right to accept donations or donations in kind from those firms.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. Does it not speak legions that virtually no Labour Member is attending the debate today? What does that show about Labour’s position on the military?

[Richard Benyon]

I share my hon. Friend’s feelings. Rather than spend the time talking about our views of those lawyers, however, which would be self-indulgent, I want to get to the bottom of this concept of legal imperialism.

I am glad that since I requested the debate the Prime Minister has announced that he has asked the National Security Council to produce a comprehensive plan to stamp out the industry. He is looking at banning no win, no fee schemes; he is speeding up the planned legal aid residency test; and he is strengthening penalties against firms that abuse the system, possibly even including suing those who have been found deliberately to withhold facts that could prove the innocence of the servicemen or women concerned.

That is all good stuff, but I want to press the Minister for more information on the timescale for the reforms. I suggest that they can only be seen as work in progress. May I respectfully suggest that the Minister add to the Prime Minister’s wish list the suggestions made in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling?

In order to draw a line under the situation, for recent and future conflicts the Prime Minister should consider these powerful recommendations. The Government should derogate from the European convention on human rights in respect of future overseas armed conflicts, using the mechanism of article 15 of the convention. The Government should revive the armed forces’ Crown immunity from actions in tort during all future “warlike operations” overseas by ministerial Order under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. The Government should take the lead—this is important—in supporting efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross to strengthen the Geneva conventions on the conditions of modern warfare, which addresses the point made in an early intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). The Government should make an authoritative pronouncement of state policy, declaring the primacy of the Geneva conventions in governing the conduct of British forces on the battlefield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

It is very difficult for any civilian to sit in judgment of a soldier. I have no experience of the unique and extraordinary pressures under which they operate, nor the snap life and death decisions they are forced to make. Too many people in the legal profession lack the wisdom or the humility to take that view and hound our veterans with self-righteous enthusiasm.

Just this week, the BBC announced that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team has dropped nearly 60 cases of alleged unlawful killing—cases that have cast a shadow over the lives of innocent veterans. As we know, in 2014 the al-Sweady inquiry found that previous allegations against British troops in Iraq were “deliberate and calculated lies” intended to smear our military at a cost of £31 million, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said. As a result, Leigh Day, one of the law firms involved, faces a full disciplinary tribunal from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Prime Minister has threatened to sue that company to recover the millions of pounds it has claimed in costs, and I hope he will find support from across the House for that measure. He has also outlined a broader crackdown on so-called tank chasers, including reforms to legal aid, to no win, no fee arrangements and to the civil courts regime.

Clear-cut, conventional wars against uniformed enemies are increasingly a thing of the past. Today’s foes increasingly know no rules of war, yet just as the old conventions of conflict are breaking down, we are handing our opponents unprecedented opportunities to attack our troops in the courts. Even though it is right we hold our armed forces to high standards, such self-flagellation is completely ridiculous.

Such challenges are not confined to the middle east. Veterans of the campaign against IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland face their very own historical inquisition. Meanwhile, the terrorists they were fighting—men and women who deliberately targeted civilians and murdered several Members of this House—are shielded by an amnesty. I understand that it is important to hold our armed forces to account, but this country has one of the most disciplined, effective and professional armies in the world, and we should be proud of it.

Unless we trust our troops and give them the leeway they need to make hard decisions in extraordinary circumstances, we will find it increasingly difficult to wage war at all. Troops on the battlefield will hesitate to act, for fear of years of harassment and potential prosecution. Potential recruits will see the reward for serving and seek careers elsewhere.

War is, and will always be, a messy and brutal business. Rules designed for civilian life are inadequate for its challenges, and we shall only end up crippling the armed forces if we make perfection the enemy of good in upholding the conduct of conflict. Cases against our forces should be considered and advanced by an uninterested party, not by lawyers looking to maximise profit.

Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Yes, I will cover that some more. It is a big area where work is beginning to develop, but we need to do a lot more to join the dots.

Colleagues here, as well as others, have raised many issues with me. They want to discuss areas of the covenant that are of concern to their constituents. I want to mention a few areas where I believe that commendation for progress made already is due and some concerns about areas where I believe the Government and MPs could take a lead to improve the current state of play.

First, and not only because I am an accountant, but because the exceptional work to support the covenant undertaken by many charities could not happen without it, I—

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on their part in that. I want to touch on the point about charities. Obviously the armed forces covenant has progressed the outlook for people returning from deployment overseas. Two of my constituents, Pam and Al Sutton, were shocked a decade ago at the treatment of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, so they started a charity, Troop Aid, and have raised millions of pounds for returning personnel. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to Pam and Al Sutton and, indeed, all those in the charities that help our returning troops?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I will. I have enjoyed some of the outcomes of Troop Aid. A great supporter of mine is also a great supporter of that extraordinary charity, which has done amazing work and continues to do so. I pay enormous tribute to Pam and Al Sutton and to so many people who, having had some connection with the armed forces—be it through a direct family relation or simply, as my hon. Friend identifies, a relationship in their community—have taken up the mantle of the covenant, which is exactly what we want to happen across the nation. This is about all of us respecting and honouring both those who put their lives in harm’s way and those who support them as they do that. We should encourage and praise to the rooftops all those who are willing to give up their time and energy to ensure that that can happen in practice.

Perhaps people do not do this too often, but I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having the bright idea of channelling the LIBOR fines money directly into covenant projects. An initial fund of £35 million is backed up by an enduring £10 million a year, and in 2013 a further £100 million was added to it. This is a long-term and clear commitment by the Government, and I commend them for it. Charities small and large have been able to make great use of that funding stream to provide excellent local provision for housing, health support and business development opportunities for ex-service personnel. Those are real practical efforts, and the reality is that without some level of funding and Government commitment, all that energy out there—that human capital that wants to make the covenant reality—could not really make that happen.

The corporate covenant, which was launched in 2013, now has more than 700 companies signed up, which is a huge explosion in the last year—at the time of last year’s report there were two hundred-and-something. In the corporate world, a real energy is developing to understand what the covenant means in practice for our biggest businesses in terms of investing in our armed forces and how they can make best use of the energy and skills that all our personnel can bring. We are seeing real enthusiasm from many of those large organisations. They are supporting reservists and providing practical financial support for personnel when they are deployed. For instance, mobile phone contracts can now be put on hold—a practical, real-life improvement that makes things easier and does not leave personnel on deployment out of pocket. Those organisations are working with charities such as X-Forces to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of those who have recently left the forces, alongside spouses of personnel on active service, by helping them to set up their own businesses. In the last year, the charity has helped hundreds of new businesses to be started. Financial support from the likes of Barclays and PayPal, to help in the critical early months of building a new enterprise, is a really exciting part of the corporate covenant, and it is really working on the ground. I commend the Minister and his team on continuing to drive that forward.

As the nation becomes more tuned in to the military covenant principles—that is what we want to happen—many small and medium-sized businesses want to be involved, but the practical issues can be challenging for a business that has five or 10 employees. I know of several family businesses in Northumberland that seek to employ reservists and veterans, but we need to find practical ways to help them to achieve their aims, because doing so is not straightforward for them. It is a lot easier for a business that employs 1,000 people to have one or two reservists in the system and support them when they need to be deployed.

The community covenant, which has now taken off—I am told that every local authority has signed up and is working on action plans—is the next level of involvement. Families who are back in their communities and leading normal everyday lives might need to access the covenant principles.

Trident

Julian Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his intervention makes my point: there was no deterrent to stop Russia going into Ukraine because President Putin rightly recognised that President Obama would not intervene in international affairs. There were no checks and balances—no counterweight to what has become a new superpower. Putin just walked in, and was allowed to do so.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that Ukraine was persuaded to give up its nuclear weapons, and as a result Putin has been able to ride roughshod over international agreements?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Exactly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

This debate is not about war-mongering. It is not about a desire to launch nuclear weapons; it is the direct opposite. It is about the fact that a nuclear deterrent has prevented major world conflicts, but today we see that there are conflicts taking place. We talk about Daesh getting its hands on nuclear weapons, or about North Korea, which would be able to launch an attack on South Korea. Let us not forget that there was never a peace treaty between North Korea and South Korea. Technically they are still at war, but they have been able to face each other off with conventional weapons for several decades. If that game changed with nuclear weapons, there would have to be western intervention concerning South Korea to make sure that it could counteract that threat from North Korea; otherwise, hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be murdered by a regime with no other intention than wiping out its neighbour. That is what a deterrent prevents. That is why this debate is so important.

Nobody in this Chamber, nobody in NATO, nobody in the western world and probably not even President Putin would want to use nuclear weapons. That is not what this debate is about. It is about making sure that when something exists, those enemies who would use it do not have the opportunity to do so because they know it would be pointless. North Korea will not launch a nuclear weapon at South Korea if it knows that 10 seconds later it would disappear off the face of the map as well. However unpalatable that truth may be, that is the truth that has kept the peace.

If we consider the first world war, and then the second world war, which was fought with conventional weapons but had a much higher death toll and in which far more civilians were killed than in the first world war, we see that as technology advances and wars increase, more and more of the civilian population die. It was noticeable that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box earlier this week, he made it absolutely clear that military action that may be considered in Syria would be part of a wider programme with targeted intervention to try to prevent civilian deaths. Western leaders today spend most of their time trying to work out how we can intervene to reduce civilian deaths, and there is nothing better for that than having the Government who may be pushing their people into war know that they themselves would be wiped out. That is hugely important.

There has been a lot of talk about whether Trident is the right thing to spend money on. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, it amounts to 0.2% of GDP. What would a war, even one fought with conventional weapons to which we may not be able to respond, do to the GDP of Europe, of the western world?

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Knight Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The current contract is completely taken into account in the equipment plan, which, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, is due to increase by 1% a year in excess of inflation for each of the next five years, and we have planned for it to do so during the currency of the 10-year plan.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

My immediate priorities are: our operations against ISIL; the strategic defence and security review; and delivering our manifesto commitments to maintain the size of the armed forces, build four successor ballistic missile submarines and increase the equipment budget every year, ensuring the shape and power of our armed forces to keep Britain safe.

[Julian Knight]

Given the recent naming of the TS Royalist—the sea cadets’ flagship—what importance does the Secretary of State attach to our cadet forces in providing training and discipline to young people? Will he join me in visiting one of the cadet centres in my constituency?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to this place. I am delighted that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal recently named training ship Royalist. Cadet forces are hugely influential in the development of young people and in raising awareness of the armed forces. That is why I increased funding for 100 new cadet units in schools last year, and why we have committed to increasing the total number to 500 by 2020. I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend one day on a visit in his constituency.