Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Julian Lewis Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important and timely debate, which coincides with the NATO summit. I will make what is perhaps a point of consensus: yet again, when we debate the defence of the realm—the first duty of Government—the Reform Bench is empty; yet again, the plastic patriots have gone AWOL when we discuss the defence of this country. Count Binface clearly has them worried in Clacton.
As I am a historian by training, perhaps I can offer some historical context. Arguments about military readiness are not new. The Roman military theorist, Vegetius, some two millennia ago, coined the now-famous phrase, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—he who desires peace should prepare for war, in order to deter it. There have been times in British history where we have disregarded Vegetius’s sage advice. For instance, in 1919, following the first world war, when Britain had fought at great cost—both human and financial—a Liberal-led Government introduced the concept of a 10-year rule: a pan-Whitehall edict that no major war was likely for at least a decade. That continued on a rolling basis into the 1930s. On 9 February 1933, just 10 days after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, in the now famous Oxford Union debate, referred to several times already, the students resolved by more than two to one that:
“This House would, under no circumstances, fight for King and country.”
And yet, a few years later, we know that many of them did.
The 10-year rule was only finally rescinded in the mid-1930s. Nevertheless, as General Lord Dannatt pointed out in his excellent recent book “Victory to Defeat”, our armed forces still did not recover sufficiently in time to deter Hitler from launching what eventually became world war two, in which some 60 million people perished worldwide.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having spoken on this very subject the week before last, I thought that I would, for once, sit and listen to what others have to say. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the failure of deterrence at the beginning of both the second world war and the first world war was that the United States was detached from the future of security in Europe? The success of NATO has hinged on the knowledge that an attack on any NATO country would mean war with the United States from the outset. Does he share my concern that the United States is at present led by someone with insufficient regard for that history?
Mr Francois
NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, and article 5 is its absolute fulcrum. We must maintain our commitment to article 5 to keep all NATO nations safe.
In 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said that an iron curtain had descended, leading us into the cold war. In the mid-1980s, under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, defence spending was gusting about 5% of gross domestic product. When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, countries across the west took a peace dividend. Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous book “The End of History” in 1992, and many in the west believed that the threat of world war had finally receded. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we were spending around 3% of GDP on defence, and that downward trend continued under Tony Blair’s Government—although, in fairness, he was only doing what many other western democracies were also doing.
Today, we face a revanchist Russia led by Putin—
Mr Bailey
The removal of funding specifically in 2010 resulted in the removal of Nimrod and the reduction of our shipyards and boatyards, which has led to the risks that are manifesting today. The Opposition cannot deny that is the reason that we are in the position we are in now.
Mr Bailey
In time.
Two years ago, this Government inherited a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to countering the very real threats we now face. Since then, we have published a strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and, most recently, the defence investment plan. We are building a far more modern and lethal military, through massive increases in defence spending, radical reform of the armed forces and close collaboration with our NATO partners to protect Europe’s and Britain’s borders, showing Putin that the alliance remains as strong as ever.
As technology reshapes warfare at the fastest pace in history, and as the world becomes increasingly dangerous, our overwhelming focus at the Ministry of Defence is to get warfighting ready as fast as possible, and that was the critical tilt in the change between the two Defence Secretary’s DIPs. This DIP is a defining moment in that journey, committing, as I said, £298 billion for our armed forces over the next four years, ensuring that they have the kit and weapons they need. That is £15 billion more—more than significant—and £1.5 billion more than was announced just a few weeks ago.
The DIP means that UK defence spending will rise in real terms by 27% between 2023-24 and 2029-30—the largest sustained increase since the cold war. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence budget will grow faster over this Parliament than the budget of any other major Department. The £74 billion allocated next year—2027-28—is £20 billion more for our armed forces than the last year of the previous Government, and the budget will continue to grow in real terms for the rest of this Parliament.
Sir Julian Lewis
I congratulate the Minister on acceding to office, but he needs to appreciate that the cost of all Departments goes up in absolute financial numerical terms year on year, but the way in which we measure the investment in defence is by looking at it as a proportion of GDP. During the cold war, when the risk was almost as high as it is now, we were spending 4.5% to 5% of GDP. Vladimir Putin does not have nine years for us to spend 3.5% of GDP. Those are the measurements the Minister has to look at; we are nowhere near spending enough.
Mr Bailey
Twenty four years of serving this great nation means that I am acutely aware of the risks that the Opposition presented me and manifested during my time in service. That is why I am resolute in addressing these challenges and why I am backing the defence investment plan.
Let me make one point crystal clear: Britain has always met its NATO spending obligations in the past, and under this Government we always will. That begins with the early delivery of our first commitment to raise defence investment to 2.7% of GDP next year, compared with just 2.3%, which was missing from the Opposition’s analysis of the decline in our defence spending.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
We inherited a situation where the north-east was the region with the lowest Ministry of Defence spend in the country and we have made it a mission to increase defence spending in the north-east. We have an incredible talent pool in the north-east, with brilliant defence companies both large and small doing brilliant work. We are determined, now that we have an uplift in defence spending, that more of it will be spent with British firms, and I want to see more of that spend in the north-east as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My salary is “up to” £1 billion a year, but sadly that does not make me a billionaire. [Laughter.] Does the Secretary of State accept that when checking how much money a country is spending on defence, the accepted way of doing it is by percentage of GDP?
Defence Investment Plan
Julian Lewis Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for the scrutiny that I know he will apply to this important piece of work. He reeled off a number of different capabilities, and I am very happy to discuss those with him in more detail.
The essence of my hon. Friend’s question was to seek an assurance that I will commit to fight for the funding that defence needs, and I will, of course, give him that commitment. It is my job now to ensure that we have the resources we need to field the kind of capabilities required to keep our country safe at a point of great challenge. That does involve working very closely with our NATO allies and providing them with the certainty of our long-term commitment towards defence funding, and it will require us to show a trajectory to our commitment to 3.5%.
He is also right to raise the point about backing Britain. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues have been absolutely clear that, while we require additional resource to provide the capabilities we need, we must do that in a way that ensures we are best able to grow our economy, and create and sustain good, well-paid defence jobs right around the United Kingdom. That is an absolute priority for me, and I give him an assurance that we will work closely with him on it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
At last, we have agreement on a defence expenditure statistic. When the Secretary of State says that what the settlement means is that the proportion of GDP spent on defence by the end of this decade will now be higher than at any time in the past 30 years, he is quite right. The trouble is that if we go back 30 years to 1995, what we were spending then under the new accounting rules was 3% of GDP, and that was six years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Given that we are now in a more dangerous situation today than at any time since at least the height of the cold war in the 1980s, should we not be looking at the sort of percentages we spent then? Under the new accounting rules, that was between 4.1% and 5.5%. Haven’t we still got a long way to go?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I always listen very carefully to what he has to say, not least because he talks a lot of good sense on these matters. Over the many years of him being sat on the Government Benches and me sat on the Opposition Benches, I remember listening to the case he made for investment in defence, including investment in nuclear. I know, therefore, that he will welcome the £63 billion over the next four years to strengthen the UK’s nuclear deterrent. He has spoken with great consistency on these matters over many, many years.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is still work to do to point the trajectory to 3.5%. I think today is a very significant step forward in terms of providing additional resource and additional capability. The £298 billion is a very significant commitment by this Government. When we came into office two years ago, the percentage of GDP was at 2.3%. We have increased that. We are on a trajectory to increase it over the next few years, and we must ensure that, through the next spending review process, we have the resource that I think most right hon. and hon. Members agree we now need to chart that course to 3.5%. That is an absolute commitment that we will honour, and we will work closely with our NATO allies in order to do so.
Defence Spending and Readiness
Julian Lewis Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. [Laughter.]
In those conversations, we decided that there was clearly no future for us in the Army. Now, I did stay on a bit longer, but many left who I knew were very competent and very good people, and it is difficult to fill those posts. That is the bit in the armed forces that is critical to everything else that happens. If we do not have a cadre of middle-ranking and senior non-commissioned officers, we do not have an Army. We just have a lot of orders from the top down but are unable to do them.
What we speak about today is critical, because we have to send a message to our armed forces that we believe in them fully and strongly and will support them in every way. That is why it is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) sitting in his place after his resignation. He has the respect of many of my colleagues on these Benches, without question, not only for his past but for his present. I know what it is like to resign when you disagree with the Government—I have done it a few times myself—but the reality is that he will never regret it. The thing that matters most of all when we come to this place is not us or the debates that we have here and away; it is the people out there who put us here. If we do not plan to speak up, even when our own side does not want us to, we are not worthy of being in this place. I therefore congratulate him, not because I am in a party political game but because I respect him for having called out a problem that the Government face. All the Ministers on the Front Bench know that, as does he. The question is: what will we do about it?
I want to start by talking about Northern Ireland, and I shall be here on 4 September, cheering my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne on with his private Member’s Bill. We cannot for one moment forget that we have reduced the morale of British soldiers who have served—veterans who are now often in their late 70s and 80s—and who find themselves persecuted. I say to the Defence Ministers that this really started in the Northern Ireland Office, which was overly persuaded by Sinn Féin that they could somehow change what had happened and come out as victors. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak said in his resignation speech, they lost; they lost because of the efforts of the armed forces, and of all those who did not see another day and who died in the service of their country.
More importantly, we forget that walking down the streets in your own country armed and trying to protect civilians against aggression is quite different from anything else that the armed forces were trained to do. In doing it, they had to figure out all sorts of complications. The trouble with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is that it does not deal with the sense of what we asked our soldiers to do in risking their lives to protect the British public on the streets of the United Kingdom. We therefore have to understand that the legislation that the Government have brought forward is wrong. That does not mean to say that what the Conservative Government brought through was fantastic. It was not. There were many flaws and failings in it, but many of us felt that we would support it because it did one major thing: it stopped the constant attacks on those poor veterans whose lives are now coming to an end and who see themselves being dragged through the courts all over again.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is exactly the point. I hope that we will be able to drag this point out again on 4 September and make it very clear that if we in this House do not stand by those whom we order to go to war or to bear arms for the sake of the country, who is going to do that? We have the power to sweep things away or to make them. I have disagreed with my own Government many times, but I say gently to this Government: think again. Do not allow the Northern Ireland Office to drive this thing through when Ministers know full well that it is wrong; they need to defend those soldiers, despite the rows that might take place in Cabinet or among Ministers.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do; it was difficult and we stuck to the task. We were not very popular at the time, but that has been a constant in my life. [Laughter.] I think you only know you are successful when you are not popular, and we were not popular on that. What we were trying to get was not perfect, but it was better than what we now have, and that is the key. At the heart of it was the aim of protecting those who have been sent, bearing arms, to defend the British people. We need to defend them and respect the sacrifice they made.
Sir Julian Lewis
Another spurious argument, which I am afraid we heard earlier in the debate, is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth is that everybody is on the same level before the law. In any case, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sold the pass on that anyway, because under it nobody—even if they were convicted of first-degree murder, as the Americans might say—goes to jail for more than two years. That put everybody on the same level before the law, as any such legislation has to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Yes, that is quite correct, and my right hon. Friend is exactly right to make the point now.
We really must understand that, if the first priority of Government is defence of the realm, then the second priority is defence of those they send to fight to protect the realm. If we cannot defend them, we are not worthy of being here. I say gently to Ministers that the House would support them if they went back to the Government and said about the Northern Ireland position, “This is quite wrong. It is unbalanced and deeply unfair.” I hope that they will do just that.
The real reason that I decided to speak today is because I am really, really worried. As I have been saying for some considerable time, we are now in a more dangerous situation than we have been in not since the cold war—at least we arrived at the cold war knowing what we had to do; Governments co-operated, NATO was fairly newly formed, we were full of the attitude that we would defend one another no matter what, and we were armed and ready—but since the 1930s. I am not in the business of saying that this Government are responsible; all Governments bear responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said. We are seeing the rise of a threat very similar to what we saw in the 1930s, and our behaviour towards that threat is exactly the same as it was in the 1930s.
My father wrote a book many years ago about his time. He was a highly decorated fighter pilot, with five gallantry medals; he commanded in the war and fought all the way through. He said that he could never forgive politicians for having placed the country in the parlous situation of being close to losing the war because they did not see the danger and did not want to be involved in spending more on defence. That was the point he made, and it has resonated with me forever.
I happen to believe that we are seeing in front of us the growth of totalitarian states. China is at the centre, but North Korea, Iran and Russia are there, and others, like Myanmar, are developing. More totalitarian states are coming to fruition around the world, and they now outnumber democratic states in the United Nations. The axis has shifted. Over the last 15 or 20 years, not only have we not made ourselves ready—even today we are not—but we have simply failed to recognise that they have made themselves ready. One naval shipyard in China now builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. I am told that China now has 130 times the capacity of America to build naval vessels. It is no good looking at Europe, because we hardly build naval vessels any more either. The difference between now and what happened in 1937, 1938 and 1939 is that we then had major industry here—an industry that could build tanks and aircraft, had brilliant aircraft designers, and could build ships. We had probably the most powerful fleet in the world ready to go to war if we had to. We are not in that situation today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This debate has been characterised by so many powerful speeches that I think it would be invidious to pick out any of them. I congratulate everyone who has contributed, particularly the Government Back Benchers who have evidently come to the debate espousing the principle that the best defence is attack. Some of their speeches have been so combative that it is hard to believe that only recently they lost their Secretary of State for Defence, their Minister for the Armed Forces, and even their Prime Minister. If morale is indeed the measure of a successful fighting force, those Government Back Benchers are doing extremely well.
By happy coincidence, I had a letter published in today's edition of The Times, which I had submitted before I knew that this debate was going to take place. I say that it is a happy coincidence because I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are worried about the ticking clock, and one requirement for a letter to be published in that esteemed newspaper is for practically all the argument to be compressed into no more than 150 words. These are the slightly fewer than 150 words that I chose:
“An erratic, isolationist White House, a ruthlessly imperialist Kremlin and a disturbing relationship between the two have put peace in Europe at greater risk than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The prime minister’s valedictory boast of securing ‘the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War’ should therefore cut little ice. We are nowhere near investing even the 3 per cent of GDP—under current MoD calculation criteria—still being spent when the Conservatives were defeated in 1997, years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Under Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s—again applying today’s criteria—defence received between 4.1 per cent and 5.5 per cent of GDP. This shows the scale of effort required once again to boost deterrence and prevent the appalling costs, in blood as well as in treasure, of full-scale war between Russia and the West.”
That was the letter, and I will now briefly pick a couple of aspects of it on which to expand. The first is the use of the word “deterrence”. I am perturbed about the sense of inevitability that there is going to be a conflict with Russia, perhaps as soon as 2030. However, the question of whether or not there is such a conflict is not just down to Russia; it is also down to what we do—the preparations that we make, the investment that we think we can bear in the military in order to ensure that if Russia looks at the prospect of war with the NATO powers, it will see that the outcome is uncertain and the cost is likely to be unbearable. So we have to do our bit.
The other aspect of that letter on which I would briefly like to comment is the opening point—the point about the isolationist White House. No one knows how far the isolationist virus that is embodied by President Donald J. Trump has spread throughout the rest of the American political system, but if when he is eventually replaced that virus reappears in his successor, the future for peace in Europe will indeed be imperilled, because the key achievement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to ensure that any potential aggressor against any of the member countries would know that if they attacked, from day one they would be at war with the United States of America.
What Donald Trump has done is cause that guarantee to be undermined. I do not know why he does it. I do not know what the nature is of what I described in that letter as his “disturbing relationship” with the killer in the Kremlin. All I know is that Europe will not be safe until again we can rely on the United States to guarantee our freedom. In the meanwhile, we must send a signal across the Atlantic, for our part, that we will do everything necessary to invest in our armed forces and to make the necessary preparations. If we do that, we will maximise the chance of restoring stability to the power balance between east and west, which saw us through the most deadly threats of the cold war—the times when it was thought that civilisation could perish—and we will get back to a situation in which people can then think about what it is nice to pay for in order to have a modern, civilised, compassionate society.
Let me end with a famous quote from another Healey who was a Defence Secretary, Denis Healey. He said, memorably, that if we do not have adequate defence, we do not have all the aspects of a society that we wish to cherish; we do not have schools, we do not have hospitals, we do not have houses—what we have is “a heap of cinders”. So let us invest what we can while we can, let us get our priorities right, and let us restore the guarantee of the transatlantic relationship, which kept the peace and prevented a third world war.
Defence Investment Plan
Julian Lewis Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the new colours awarded to the Royal Marines. My colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces was there with the King for that ceremony, which reflects the continuing relevance and importance of the Royal Marines, which will be shown clearly in the defence investment plan.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific capability proposed by the previous Government that may be included in the defence investment plan. I hope he will understand that I will not be able to go into that line item description today. However, on the broader point about ensuring the air defence of our naval assets, we have seen from Ukraine that there are new capabilities that can provide elements of that. We have also seen from the UK response to the Iranian drone threat to our sovereign base areas and our friends in the Republic of Cyprus how we can create a truly layered air defence, which is an important lesson we have learned from Ukraine. We have applied that not just to our sovereign base areas, but to our naval assets and our friends in the middle east.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have spent many hours discussing defence spending. I am certainly very aware of the danger we now face—it is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to declassify a number of the threats facing the United Kingdom. When the Defence Secretary declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar over our undersea cables, for example, it was both to explain the threats that we are now facing as a nation and to send a clear signal to Putin that we see what he is doing. Deterrence takes a number of forms; there are certainly our capabilities, but the ability to call out and, in doing so, to restrict the ability of Russia to threaten the UK and our allies is also important. I understand what he says, however, and take it seriously.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Sandher-Jones
The new Valour programme will make it easier for veterans to access the care and support they deserve. Crucially, it will also improve how their voices are heard. We opened the first 14 Valour centres in March this year, and round 2 is open for applications for further centres. In addition to Valour, we also have wider services support, such as Op Courage for mental health, Op Restore for physical health, Op Fortitude for those at risk of homelessness and Op Ascend for employment support. Veterans can access all those programmes, and I welcome any feedback.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I fear I know the answer to this question in advance, but I shall ask it anyway. Would one way of reconnecting society with the armed forces at Armed Forces Day not be to revisit the testimony given to the then Defence Committee in March 2017 by four eminent professors of law? It showed how it is possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. Will the Government re-examine it and reinstate the immunity and the investigative processes that enable that protection to be done?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of how strongly I believe it is important that those who have been victims have a right to have investigations, including into the murders of British service personnel. I take his point, and I am sure that people are well aware of the point that he makes.
Defence Readiness
Julian Lewis Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge
I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, the then Defence Committee did two reports into this question, and in the course of those inquiries, we interviewed four eminent professors of law, including one particularly famous left-wing one. We did not ask them what they wanted to happen; we asked them what could legally be done about a statute of limitation. They all agreed, however reluctantly, that it would be legal to have a statute of limitation provided that it was coupled with a truth recovery process that met the requirement for an investigation to occur. Their other key condition was it should be applied to all people involved in the conflict. The Government could pursue the line that those four professors of law took, but they do not want to do so. They are happy to shelter behind court judgments that they could appeal against but will not.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Our legacy Act was based on what happened in South Africa. We may not like it, but if we want peace and reconciliation, any changes in the law that favour those who may have been guilty have to apply to both sides. It is simply a statement of fact. As I think I just showed with Loughgall, our Act of Parliament—the legacy Act—did indeed stop an inquest that would have been damaging to the armed forces but which I do not believe would have led to any prosecutions.
Turning to what was not in the King’s Speech, the strategic defence review promised that:
“A new Defence Readiness Bill should provide the Government with powers in reserve to mobilise Reserves and industry should crisis escalate into conflict.”
With war on two fronts, surely such legislation should be the absolute top priority of this Government, but alas, there is no defence readiness Bill in the King’s Speech. Why not? The defence readiness Bill is not ready. What else is not ready? The defence investment plan is not ready, of course. We know that the Government are working flat out—[Hon. Members: “At pace!”]—and at pace, but the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box almost a year ago that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. It is now 10 months late, so when the Minister responds, can he tell us exactly when we are going to get the defence investment plan?
Most importantly, we are bound to ask why we still have no defence investment plan. The DIP is meant to set out the detailed procurement decisions intended to implement Labour’s strategic defence review, so what do the authors of Labour’s SDR, appointed by the Prime Minister, think about the failure to publish the DIP and the impact of that on delivering the SDR? Each of the three key authors—Dr Fiona Hill, General Sir Richard Barrons and Lord Robertson—has absolutely slammed the Government for their failure to deliver. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO, stated:
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
We agree 100%. The fact is, the current Prime Minister bottled it on welfare reform, U-turning repeatedly despite a majority of more than 160, and failing to make even modest changes to working-age benefits while removing the two-child benefit cap.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has such a sunny personality that I always feel cheered up after listening to her contributions, even when she is the bearer of somewhat disappointing news about the economy. I was also impressed by the speech of the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is just about to escape from the Chamber. However, it did leave me wondering what my headline would be if I were a parliamentary sketch writer. I think it would be, “Why on earth did he resign?” It sounded much more like a manifesto in a leadership campaign than a trigger for calling one, but there we are—we all have our own motives.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point that is of great relevance to this debate, which I promise I had already written down before I heard him make it: the comparison between the terrible experience of the pandemic and the terrible experience of a country involved in a full-scale war. There were, of course, casualties during the pandemic, and there was the determination to learn from it. The outcome is that we are a lot better prepared for the future, should another deadly virus attack us. As a result of the lessons learned during the pandemic, we will be in a much better position to develop effective vaccines far more quickly.
However, I am afraid the real parallel is not a very happy one. It is a fact that if someone had said before we knew we were going to have the pandemic, “You need to invest a considerable sum of money in developing a system that enables you to develop vaccines quickly in response to the emergence of a new deadly virus,” we probably would not have done it. That is where the parallel lies with wartime situations, because for many years, defence-minded Members on both sides of the House have been urging successive Governments to spend a lot more on defence.
If those warnings go unheeded and this country ends up in a full-scale armed conflict with a peer adversary, we will not be talking about spending 3% or 4% of GDP on defence; we will have to spend 30% or 40% of GDP on defence. We do not wish to get to that situation, because it would lead to not only economic loss—think of the human cost. If, by investing in defence in peacetime, we can deter a potential enemy from starting a war, we not only save the treasure; we save the blood that is otherwise shed so copiously.
As we know, Russia is spending something of the order of between a third and a half of its gross domestic product on military power. In the past, the Defence Committee has looked at the question of what this country has spent historically. In a report entitled “Shifting the goalposts?”, and a second report entitled “Shifting the goalposts: an update”, the figures show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was completely correct. He said that in the mid-1980s, when he was serving, we were spending something of the order of 5% of GDP on defence. In fact, the figure given in 1983-84 was 4.4%, and in 1984-85 the figure was 4.5%. In reality, however, that was because we had higher criteria than the other NATO powers for what counted as defence expenditure, and we adopted their lower standards later. Looking back, we can see that the figures were actually 5.3% in 1983-84 and 5.5% in 1984-85. Those are very big figures.
People talk about the way in which the peace dividend was taken, but as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), pointed out, 1996-97—the year in which Tony Blair took over from the Conservative Government—was already at least half a dozen years after the end of the cold war, if we understand that to have taken place in 1991 rather than in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. At that time, we were still spending 3%.
That was the figure then, so as the current Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), rightly said in an admirably objective speech, given that Russia is preparing for conflict now, we are responding too slowly and “time is short”, given the urgency of the situation. When we talk about achieving figures of 3% in a few years’ time and 5% in a few more years’ time, I would ask the House: does the killer in the Kremlin intend to give us that time? If we want to deter him from taking a step that would be to the detriment of the world, we need to invest now and, as in the case of the pandemic, find the money now. If a war broke out tomorrow, we would find the money at once, so let us find it today and diminish the chance of that terrible conflict happening the day after.
Defence
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
James Cartlidge
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).
James Cartlidge
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who ran rings around the Prime Minister yesterday so expertly. He is absolutely right. The Red Book details to the penny how much this Government will spend on their U-turn to abolish the two-child benefit cap by 2031. There is no line on what will be spent on defence in those years, so how on earth is the MOD meant to change? The key is that the Government are not going to go to 3% in this Parliament. I am going to conclude by setting out five steps, but before I do that, I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Sir Julian Lewis
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way on the point of making his peroration. He mentioned the tension between the MOD and its Ministers, and the Treasury. We could sympathise with the MOD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line that is self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the cold war, and each time, I boringly point out to them—and I am going to do it again today—that they should not be comparing what we are spending now, in a much deteriorated situation, with the peace dividend years that followed the cold war; they should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war, which was regularly between 4.5% and 5%. If that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a full-scale war, we are talking not about 4% but about 40%.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is never boring in his interventions; on the contrary, he is one of the most knowledgeable people on defence in this House.
I will conclude with five steps that could be taken right now to galvanise our war readiness—positive suggestions from the Conservative Benches. First, we should rearm immediately. As I wrote in my letter to the Defence Secretary last week, instead of waiting on the defence investment plan, he should use the reserve funding agreed for the middle east operations to place orders for urgent operational requirements, in particular advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for our fighter planes, and Aster air defence missiles for our Type 45s. Secondly, we should deliver drone tech at scale and pace across the armed forces, as we set out in our sovereign defence fund last December. Thirdly, to fund that we would set a path to 3% this Parliament, not the next, including turning the National Wealth Fund into a defence and resilience bank, ringfencing £11 billion for defence, repurposing £6 billion of research and development funding for drone tech, and restoring the two-child benefit cap to fund a bigger Army.
Fourthly, to save more money for defence, and following Iran’s missile strike on Diego Garcia, we would stand up for that critical sovereign territory by scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos plan. Finally, to boost immediately the morale of our veterans and all who serve our country, we would defend those who defended us by scrapping Labour’s plans to put our former soldiers back in the dock, simply for the crime of serving their country. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, month after month, that they are working “flat out” to deliver the defence investment plan. In the national interest this country needs to rearm rapidly. That means the Prime Minister ditching the dither and delay, summoning the courage to reverse the spiralling welfare bill, and finally committing to 3% on defence this Parliament.
Al Carns
I am going to make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
Morale is built on leadership, clarity and trust, and the facts matter. Recruitment is up by 13%, and outflow is down by 8%. For the first time in over a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving—that is the reality. Let us be clear about our responsibility to our veterans: there is no equivalence between those who served to protect life and those who sought to destroy it. This Government are putting in place proper protections for veterans following the legal uncertainty that was left behind, and we are backing that with action.
Actions talks. Op Valour is putting £50 million into our veterans programme—more than ever before. Op Ascend is helping veterans into meaningful employment, with funding to tackle veterans’ homelessness and to deliver real improvements in housing and pay. We have delivered the largest pay rise in two decades, including a 35% increase for new recruits. We have bought back 36,000 military homes and are investing £9 billion to improve them. We have funded 30 hours of free childcare for under-threes across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, saving forces families up to £6,000 a year. That is the difference that practical support makes, and it is why we are seeing a change in morale. If the Conservatives want a debate about who is delivering for our service personnel, I am more than happy to stand on our record and to compare theirs with ours.
James MacCleary
I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contribution, and I support the point he makes. All the cuts he mentions were damaging. Probably the most damaging thing of all was how the Conservatives failed our serving troops, in particular with their accommodation and the deal they gave our veterans over some time.
Sir Julian Lewis
Can I share a little secret with the House? For slightly longer than the duration of the second world war, I was a shadow Defence Minister, but in 2010, I found myself back on the Back Benches because the Liberal Defence spokesman was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces. I was told that the reason for this was that the powers that be knew that I would never have gone along with the cuts that were made in October 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. I think the hon. Gentlemen’s amnesia is therefore somewhat selective.
James MacCleary
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention; that was very informative.
We saw our surface fleet reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war while the Conservatives were at the helm, and a crisis of recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces ushered in by their incompetence. We should not be surprised by the disastrous impact that years of Conservative mismanagement have had on our military. What is the Conservatives’ answer now? After hollowing out our armed forces in government, their motion shows that they have learned nothing. They want struggling families to foot the bill. It is the same old Tory formula: break the country first, then ask the most vulnerable to pay for the repairs. What is needed now is a serious plan to reverse their damage
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I listened to the Minister’s remarks with great care. Many of the things that he says, he says with great sincerity, but some of the things he says, I do not believe that he quite so fervently believes. I ask him, being the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is, to consider whether criticising those who criticise Government policy on the basis of the question “How dare you criticise the Government at such a serious time?” reflects the same kind of attack made by supporters of Neville Chamberlain against Winston Churchill and his supporters even as late as 1940. As they went through the Division Lobbies in May that year, they taunted those coming through voting against the Adjournment of the House: “Quislings”, they said.
To implicitly brand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as some kind of warmonger who is out of control—that is what the Government are basically saying—reflects exactly the gibe thrown at Winston Churchill: that he loved war so much, he was not objective. Yet he was the one who appreciated the dire emergency of the situation being faced, even as the British Expeditionary Force was losing in France and the Norway campaign was proving such a disaster.
I appreciate that it is perhaps obligatory for the Minister to say these things about the two-child benefit cap for the satisfaction of many of his Back Benchers, but we are now spending so much on welfare and so little on defence. Maybe the two problems have something to do with each other. If we could just spend the same on in-work or out-of-work benefits for people of working age as we were spending before covid, we could save £50 billion a year, but that does not seem to matter to the Government at all.
The Minister talked, I am sure with great sincerity, about how important it is to have a system that works “for them”—I think I am quoting his very words; he said that we need a social system in this country that works for the poorest people in our society. Well, the system over which the Government are presiding is failing. We now have a rising and terrifying number of young people who are not in education, employment, or training—the so-called NEETs. Even those operating on the frontline of food banks—I visited a food bank recently—understand that if we keep indexing benefits with inflation, but do not index tax allowances, that means that people pay more tax at lower rates of pay, and if we increase benefits, such as by removing the two-child benefit cap, and do not uprate the tapers to protect the better-off who are receiving universal credit, we create a disincentive to work.
When I first visited food banks, which I think was under Tony Blair’s Government—they were not originated under the Conservatives—there used to be a tiny number of people who were permanent beneficiaries of food banks; the vast majority were in a state of transition, and that persisted until quite recently. At the food bank I visited at the weekend, 80% of beneficiaries are now permanent clients, because they say there is no point in them trying to take work, as it does not pay. The system is not working for them, because we are spending too much on welfare and we have not cut taxes enough.
The next question is: are we at peace or at war? Much of the discussion in the Liaison Committee was about that. I cannot find a Minister who denies that we are at war, and I am afraid that makes the question of whether we choose to get involved rather redundant. We are involved, and we cannot help being involved. Our sovereign territory is involved, because it is being attacked. Indeed, we have been involved in a war in defence of the west, NATO and Ukraine probably since as far back as the original invasion of Georgia and Abkhazia, because the nature of Putin’s regime had become apparent by then. They are quite explicit: Lavrov has said that Russia is at war with NATO, so that war is already here.
What kind of war is it? Well, it reflects all kinds of conflicts, including hybrid conflict, which has often been discussed and is of such a varied nature, and what one might call cognitive conflict, which is the capacity and determination of Russia and China, and probably Iran, not just to interfere in our democratic processes, but to corrupt the truth. This is aimed at reshaping the societal, economic and informational environment, at undermining people’s faith in democracy and democratic values, and at destroying the faith of our voters in our democratic system.
The question now is: what are we doing to fight back? Well, what are we doing? I know that in bits of Government, many small parts of the Government are at war. There are some wonderful people in the Ministry of Defence who are sweating the night hours to do things that are of crucial importance.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We have now got to a stage where the Government have given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at targets that might include our own bases. I am not clear what would happen—and I hope it never has to come to this—if our bases were successfully attacked and damaged. Are the Government still saying that only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or should the RAF have a role as well? I am not anxious to escalate, but I do not see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate, when our own armed forces cannot, following an attack that has successfully damaged one of our own bases.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The fact is that the whole of the deterrent stance of all the NATO nations is very substantially—I will not say hopelessly—dependent on the good will that the United States shows towards us. That was the basis on which the SDR was written. George Robertson—the noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—has said in public that one of the constraints of writing the defence review was to assume that the United States was our closest ally and could be relied upon. Whether that will be true in the future, we do not know. Some things that have happened have very much shaken our faith in that, but the idea that the Government should choose this moment—this very moment, when we are begging for American support in Ukraine to hold back the tide of possible Russian aggression across the whole European front—to further alienate President Trump from NATO seems to me like a bit of a tactical error.
Going back to the second world war, when Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, complained to Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom did not seem to have an independent foreign policy, Churchill said, “No, we don’t. We’ve got to do what the Americans want us to do in order to get them to come into the war.” I am afraid that we are not in a great position of strength to dictate to the Americans, and pontificating about their moral judgments or their interpretation of international law seems to me totally counterproductive for the security of the United Kingdom and our European allies. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, we need a deterrent stance.
But what is the Government’s response? Well, we are waiting for a plan, but that plan is a long time coming. Drones have transformed the last few months, but the Government have not kept up with the change. We are still waiting for a plan, and it is not enough.
Middle East
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
Having been a Defence Minister and having served for some time on the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend is more knowledgeable than perhaps anyone else in the House about defence matters. I appreciate his recognition of the way that, since the election, we have stepped up the scale of investment in autonomous systems, counter-drone systems and integrated missile and air defence systems, all of which were badly lacking under the previous Government. He will have followed an important speech that the Prime Minister gave three or four weeks ago at Munich, in which he recognised, as this House does, that demands on defence are rising; that this is an era of hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy; and that we need to spend more, faster, on defence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?
John Healey
I respect the right hon. Gentleman, and the straight answer to his question is yes, I can. The deal that we have in place, which is awaiting ratification, would give us operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia for at least 99 years. This base is central and essential to our and the US’ security and military around the world. The deal now on the table, which we have negotiated with the Mauritians, gives us greater protections in the waters around the island and a greater veto over developments on the other islands. It is so much better than the deal the previous Government left when they left office, reached after 11 rounds of negotiation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
We continue to lead, both in the coalition of the willing and in the Ukraine defence contact group, which the Secretary of State attended recently, raising billions of pounds-worth of equipment support in weapons, air defence systems and everything through to female body armour. Ukraine absolutely remains a focus. This is not just about UK security; it is about European security, and that will not change.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I build on the excellent supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) about Ukraine and counter-drone warfare? Thanks to the support given by this Government and the previous Government to Ukraine, it has become a world leader in inventing and deploying cheap responses to cheap drones. As a result, there is now an opportunity for it to assist our allies that are under threat from drone attacks in the middle east and in particular in the Persian gulf. Will the Government do everything they can to facilitate that, and thus show that Ukraine does indeed have some cards to play?
Al Carns
The Secretary of State has been in discussions with the National Security Agency and with key individuals in Ukraine. I am a firm believer that the Ukrainians need the west now and that in the future we will need them, given some of the technological advances they have made. It is also worth doubling down on some of the capabilities and initiatives moving forward, ranging from the hybrid Navy to the Army 20-40-40 programme, the Defence uncrewed centre of excellence, the NMITE drone degree to enhance and increase education, industry and the military forces’ move towards uncrewed systems and, finally, the £4 billion on uncrewed systems within the SDR.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for shipbuilding. That is precisely why this Government have brought together all Departments with a shipbuilding interest in a cross-Government effort to refresh our shipbuilding process, and why Defence is leading that work by delivering more orders for our shipyards, which includes not only the frigates being built in Rosyth and on the Clyde, but the fleet solid support ship. Work on that has started in Appledore in north Devon as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Government have reset the relationship with our nuclear test veterans and the organisations that support them, and we appreciate the vital contribution that they made to keeping this country safe. We remain absolutely committed to listening to their concerns and working collaboratively to address them.