Nuclear Deterrent
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the nuclear deterrent.
The motion stands in my name, and that of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn).
Obtaining the debate involved a genuinely collaborative effort across the political divide. Part of the beauty of the Backbench Business Committee process is that it compels people who disagree profoundly about issues to work together to ensure that those issues are brought to the Floor of the House. No fewer than two dozen colleagues representing both sides of the argument supported our application for the debate at various stages. They are too numerous to list, but representations were made to the Backbench Business Committee by—as well as the hon. Member for Newport West and me—the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Crawley (Henry Smith), for Woking (Jonathan Lord), and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Others who were particularly supportive include the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
I know that several of those Members, as well as others—not least the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is participating in a broadcast on this very subject this afternoon—regret that Committee meetings and other inescapable commitments prevent them from attending today’s debate. I am grateful to them all, and I hope that the tone and content of our debate between now and 5 pm will justify the effort that they all put into encouraging the Backbench Business Committee to select this important topic.
Given that we must fit some 20 speeches into just two hours, I shall endeavour to make my own remarks as brief as possible. I wish to outline just five military arguments and four rather more political arguments in favour of our retaining the independent deterrent. The first of the military arguments is the most important argument of all: that future military threats and conflicts will be no more predictable than those that engulfed us throughout the 20th century. That is the overriding justification for preserving armed forces in peacetime as a national insurance policy. No one knows which enemies may confront us during the next 30 to 50 years—for that is the period that we are discussing, when the next generation of the nuclear deterrent will be in service—but it is highly probable that at least some of those enemies will be armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I greatly regret that, owing to a prime ministerial meeting with GPs from my constituency, I shall be unable to take part substantively in the debate.
Does my hon. Friend agree that our independent nuclear deterrent has helped to keep the peace in Europe for the past six decades, and that, because we effectively bankrupted the Soviet Union, it has led to the freeing of millions of people in eastern Europe?
Dr Lewis
I am sure that will be a central topic in our debate, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope some of the later points in my list of nine arguments will serve to endorse what he has said.
My second argument is that it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear, but the nature of the regimes that possess them. Whereas democracies are generally reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships—although they did so against Japan in 1945—the reverse is not true. Let us consider what might have happened if in 1982 a non-nuclear Britain had been facing an Argentina in possession of even just a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering them. Would we then have dared to use our conventional forces against its inferior conventional forces?
The third military argument is that the United Kingdom has traditionally played a more important and decisive role in preserving freedom than other medium-sized democracies have been able, or willing, to do. Democratic countries without nuclear weapons have little choice but either to declare themselves neutral and hope for the best or to rely on the nuclear umbrella of their powerful allies. The UK is a nuclear power already and is also much harder to defeat by conventional means than many other democracies because of our physical separation from the continent.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for every independent country in the world to possess nuclear weapons?
Dr Lewis
Absolutely not. I am saying that those countries that do not have nuclear weapons already often have other reasons that make it difficult to defend their borders, whereas, fortunately, we find it easier to do so because of our physical separation from the continent.
The fourth argument is that our prominence as the principal ally of the United States, our strategic geographical position—to which I have just referred—and the fact that we are obviously the junior partner might tempt an aggressor to risk attacking us separately. Given the difficulties in overrunning the UK with conventional forces in comparison with our more vulnerable allies, an aggressor could be tempted to use one or more mass destruction weapons against us on the assumption that the United States would not respond on our behalf. Even if that assumption were false, the attacker would find out his mistake only when it was too late for all concerned. An independently controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospect of such a fatal miscalculation.
The fifth of the military arguments is that no quantity of conventional forces can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a non-nuclear country in a war against a nuclear-armed enemy. The atomic bombing of Japan is especially instructive—not only because the Emperor was forced to surrender, but also because of what might have happened under the reverse scenario. If Japan had developed atomic bombs in the summer of 1945 and the allies had not, a conventional allied invasion to end the war would have been out of the question.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and press the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on the logic of his argument. How can it be right for us to claim that we should have nuclear weapons, yet lecture every other country against trying to acquire them? If we are saying that the UK depends on nuclear weapons to be safe, does it not logically follow that every other country has the right to make the same argument?
Dr Lewis
The answer to that is catered for by the point I made earlier: it is not the weapons we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that have them. I have no desire to lecture other democracies on whether or not they should have nuclear weapons, as that is a question for them and it is about whether they feel they can afford to do that. It does not bother me if democracies have nuclear weapons, but I do reserve the right to lecture dictatorships, and preferably to try to thwart, baulk and deter them from having such weapons, because they are the threat, not the weapons themselves.
Dr Lewis
I will give way, but it will be for the last time as otherwise I will be in danger of taking too much time. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in resuming his seat.
I wish briefly to make four political points. The first political argument is that when people are asked whether it is safer for this country to continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them, a large majority of the population consistently take the view that we should do so and that it would be unwise and dangerous to renounce them unilaterally. We can ask different poll questions that seem to point to a different answer, but when that question is asked, the answer is surprisingly consistent.
The second political argument is that in the 1980s, under cold war conditions, two general elections demonstrated the toxic effect of one-sided disarmament proposals on a party’s prospects of gaining power. The third argument is that it was and remains widely believed—this refers to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) a few moments ago—that the nuclear stalemate of the cold war enabled all-out conflict between the majors powers to be avoided for 50 years, despite their mutual hostility and in contrast to what happened in those many regional theatres where communists and their enemies could and did fight without fear of nuclear escalation. The final political argument is that the ending of the east-west confrontation has not altered the balance of public opinion on this question. First, that is because a danger could easily re-emerge of a reversion to a confrontation of that sort. Secondly, it is because even today there are unpleasant regimes, such as Iran’s, on the point of acquiring nuclear weapons and some, such as North Korea’s, that have already done so.
The role of our strategic nuclear force remains what it has always been: to deter any power armed with mass destruction weapons from using them against us, in the belief, true or false, that nobody would retaliate on our behalf. The use of our deterrent consists of its preventive effect on the behaviour of our enemies. The actual launching of a Trident missile would mark the failure of deterrence and would presuppose that a devastating attack had already been inflicted on our country.
Because strategic nuclear deterrence is largely irrelevant to the current counter-insurgency campaigns with which the British Army has been involved, some senior Army officers have been suggesting that we must choose between fighting “the war” of the present and insuring against the more conventional prospect of state-versus-state conflict in the future. I say that that choice is unacceptable, and that the underlying message that the era of high-intensity, state-on-state warfare is gone for good is a dangerous fallacy. Every sane individual hopes that such warfare will never return, but to rely on that in the face of past experience would be extremely foolhardy. The lesson of warfare in the 20th century, repeated time and again, was that when conflicts broke out they usually took their victims by surprise. Obvious examples are: the failure to anticipate the first world war; the follies of the “10-year rule” from 1919 to 1932; and the entirely unanticipated attacks on Israel in 1973, the Falklands in 1982, Kuwait in 1990 and the United States in 2001. Conversely, and on a brighter note, the speed with which the Soviet empire unravelled from 1989 left even its sternest critics largely nonplussed.
Dr Lewis
I will not, because I am about to finish. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Our current counter-insurgency campaigns are very important indeed, but they cannot be compared with battles for the very survival of the United Kingdom homeland. Such existential threats confronted us twice in the past 100 years and, if international relations deteriorate, they could easily confront us again.
My final remark concerns the alternatives. I can see only three possible alternatives to renewing Trident other than getting rid of the nuclear deterrent completely. The first is that suggested by the Liberal Democrats of putting cruise missiles on Astute class submarines. I have said in the past and say again that that would be more expensive and less effective, would put the submarine at risk because of the shorter range of the missiles, which would bring the submarine closer to shore, and could start world war three by accident because no one would be sure whether the launched missile had a conventional or nuclear warhead. Apart from that, it is a great idea.
The second alternative is to come off continuous at- sea deterrence, to put the nuclear deterrent on stand-by and to say that we will reactivate it if things get worse. That is an extremely dangerous suggestion as having a part-time deterrent is probably as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, having no deterrent at all.
The final suggestion is that we could perhaps combine our deterrent with that of the French and therefore have fewer submarines. All I can say about that is that our deterrent is strongly connected with the excellent working relationship we have with the United States, which would not admit of such a solution.
I hope that I have given people plenty of food for thought. We have an hour and three quarters left and I very much look forward to hearing both sides of the argument in the time that remains.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robathan
That is the second time today that I have been asked more than one question from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My hon. Friend is right to say that the withdrawal of our large amount of equipment in Afghanistan is a big issue. We are in negotiations with the Pakistanis and hope that we will be able to bring a great deal more back through the Pakistan land route than we are currently capable of doing. We expect to bring almost all our equipment out, although some may be gifted to the Afghans when we leave.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State recently revealed to the House that there was a possibility that the Americans might take over Camp Bastion? Can he update the House on this matter, given that without the maintenance of one or more regional strategic bases, our interests in the area may well unravel after 2014?
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend asks a good and searching question. Camp Bastion has had a great deal of investment. Notwithstanding the recent attack, it is a sensible place to have a base as it easily defensible, and we are in negotiations with the Americans and the Afghans on its future. I have no answer to give my hon. Friend at the moment, but I will keep him updated and, when there is a definite answer, I will write to him and let him know.
Afghanistan
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
Locally employed civilians include interpreters, but the question goes much wider than interpreters. We are currently looking very carefully at how we are going to make appropriate provision to support locally employed civilians as we draw down and eventually end our combat mission. We have a clear commitment to treat them fairly and appropriately, and to ensure their safety and security beyond the term of their employment with Her Majesty’s Government. I cannot comment on an individual’s specific case, but I am confident that as we get nearer to the end of our combat involvement in Afghanistan, further statements will be made about our detailed policy towards locally employed civilians; I believe we currently have about 3,500 of them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State gave a very important answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), when he confirmed, for, I think, the first time by a British Minister, that our American allies are thinking of retaining at least one strategic base in the region. Given that we face the threat of the return of al-Qaeda to Afghanistan and the destabilisation of Pakistan by the Pakistani Taliban—with their nuclear arsenal to be borne in mind—is it not extremely important that somebody has a fallback plan, based on the use of strategic bases, even if it is not us?
Mr Hammond
When any of my colleagues stands up and says that I have said something that no Minister has said before, my heart sinks, but I think on this occasion I am okay.
I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for the United States, but my current understanding is that US planning very likely envisages the retention of Camp Bastion. Of course, any remaining footprint in Afghanistan—strategic base or otherwise—depends on the agreement of the Afghan Government, and as my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are under way between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan about a long-term strategic partnership agreement.
Defence Personnel
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gray
The Minister was simply overcome by the passion of what he was saying that he forgot one or two conventions of the House. I am most grateful to him for his extremely kind remarks.
The all-party armed forces group does a useful job. Many of its officers are in the Chamber today, and I am grateful to them for all the things they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is chairman of the Army section of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is chairman of that part of the group that looks after the Royal Marines.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the all-party group, so will he say a few words about the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with which he and I have long been associated, as well as about the magnificent work of Sir Neil Thorne and the amazing effect the scheme has had of creating links between parliamentarians and members of the armed forces?
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend not only anticipates what I was about to say but rips the heart out of the central part of the comments that I was about to make. I shall come to that subject in a moment.
The way in which the people of Britain respect our armed forces has changed over the years. It was unanimous after the second world war, as we knew what our armed forces had done for us through those years. At certain times since, there has been a similar increase in respect for them. There have also been periods, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, when people’s knowledge of and respect for our armed forces has been significantly lower.
I pay respect to my own constituents in Royal Wootton Bassett for the way in which they welcomed home the fallen soldiers for five or six years before handing back the duty to Brize Norton in the Prime Minister’s constituency. They spoke for the nation in paying their respects to the armed forces and the way in which they had served. They did so quietly, modestly and sensibly without pomp or ceremony. They simply stood in the high street getting wet and bowing their heads at the appropriate moment. They spoke for the people of Britain and the way in which we respect our armed forces.
A similar transition in attitudes has occurred here in Parliament. Following the retirement of brigadiers and soldiers who had served in the second world war from this place some 20 or 30 years ago, I suspect that our knowledge of and respect for our armed forces declined significantly for a time. That would have been around the late ’60s and early ’70s, when not much was happening of a military nature and most Members of Parliament who had been soldiers, sailors or airmen had retired.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think that I speak for everyone present when I say that long after everything else that is said in this debate has been forgotten, everyone here today will remember the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is easy to see from the bravery with which he recounted his experiences in Northern Ireland those qualities of character and courage that led to him being decorated as he was in other combat theatres.
Today we are talking primarily about defence personnel issues, but I know that you will allow a small degree of latitude, Mr Deputy Speaker. Therefore, before referring to the two main areas on which I wish to concentrate, I will make a couple of slightly wider points of gentle disagreement. I have a gentle disagreement with the Government on the idea that it is adequate for a country with United Kingdom’s interests to spend 2% or 2.1% of GDP on defence. It is simply not enough as a proportion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said, if we can spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid, we should be spending more than 2% or 2.1% on defence.
I have a very gentle disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, who said that he now feels that it was right to name a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan because he can see the beneficial effects that it has had on the Afghan Government and Afghan forces in getting their act together. It is true that there has been a beneficial effect; there was always going to be. The effect we have to worry about is that which it will have on the enemy. They now know when we are going and that all they have to do is sit on their hands for long enough or, even worse, redouble their efforts to damage us in the run-up to our scheduled departure, in order to be able to claim that they drove us out of the country. Although I accept that there are some advantages in naming a departure date, I do not accept that it was the right thing to do.
I will now turn to what I should have started with, defence personnel, which is the subject of the debate. I wish to concentrate on two areas, one general and one specific. The general area relates to veterans and the conditions they face on leaving the armed forces. In order to do that, I will draw heavily on comments made to me by Dr Hugh Milroy, the charismatic chief executive officer of one of the oldest and most respected welfare organisations, Veterans Aid, which is based in Victoria. It is so long in the tooth that if one looks at its website, one will find that its parent organisation, which was set up following the first world war, has a film clip featuring the late Ralph Richardson showing in fictional form the sorts of employment problems faced by someone coming back from that terrible conflict and the way in which voluntary organisations were necessary to give them a chance of resuming normal life. Indeed, the number of injured veterans was so large following that terrible war that there was inevitably a feeling of disillusionment about the way they were treated by a grateful country after 1918.
We have published the military covenant, and it has quite a bit to say about housing. I will read a couple of brief extracts. The covenant says that serving personnel
“should have priority status in applying for Government-sponsored affordable housing schemes, and Service leaders should retain this status for a period after discharge.”
It also says:
“Members of the Armed Forces Community should have the same access to social housing and other housing schemes as any other citizen, and not be disadvantaged in that respect by the requirement for mobility whilst in Service.”
The problem that arises is what a local authority does if it has no housing available and all it has is a waiting list.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that situation is exacerbated many times over if the local authority happens to have a major garrison within its borders?
Dr Lewis
I not only agree with the hon. Gentleman but pay tribute to him. I have listened year in, year out while he has raised this subject consistently in debate after debate. He is a champion of service personnel in relation to housing matters.
I know something about this problem because I was recently approached in connection with the situation in the New Forest, a large part of which is protected, with very little available in the way of new housing. What happens if there is only a waiting list to offer to people? Should returning service personnel jump to the head of that waiting list over other people who have been on it for a considerable period? Dr Milroy says that his charity has seen many cases where individuals have taken a copy of the charter to the local authority,
“and the LA has laughed.”
He says that the real problem is that
“if there are no available houses it is a pointless exercise. Until the Government put resource behind this I can’t see things changing.”
Above all, he draws attention to the fact that we are heading for a “huge redundancy programme” that will result in a large increase in the numbers of ex- servicemen returning to civilian lives. Phrases such as “the emperor’s new clothes” feature in his remarks about the covenant, because, as he says, it is a fine idea but it will not change the situation unless backed by resources.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Given the challenges with service accommodation and some of the estates that we have, does my hon. Friend agree that there might be opportunities to introduce a right-to-buy scheme for armed forces families?
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that I started that scheme in the last four months of my time as veterans Minister, and the take-up showed that it was very popular.
Dr Lewis
I am delighted that there appears to be consensus across the House. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been in post a little earlier than he was, he would have started the scheme a little earlier in Labour’s long period in office.
On a more positive note, Dr Milroy and his organisation recently had a considerable success when the Government acknowledged and accepted their campaign saying that minor military disciplinary offences should no longer be allowed to count against Commonwealth soldiers who, after their period of service to this country, often in dangerous theatres, were applying for British residency and British citizenship. It was a massive injustice that issues that would normally be regarded in civilian life as minor infractions and not criminal in any way were being used by, I believe, the UK Border Agency, against the applications of individual Commonwealth servicemen or ex-servicemen to become British citizens. I am glad that Hugh Milroy and Veterans Aid mounted a successful, high-profile campaign and that the Government listened to them.
Finally, I hope that the Government will be in similar listening mode with regard to a very high-profile case—I think I was the first MP to raise it on the Floor of the House—namely that of Special Air Service Sergeant Danny Nightingale. I am aware that the case is going to appeal on the question of conviction, so I will not stray into the issue of whether that appeal should succeed. I note with great pleasure that the appeal against sentence was successful and I was privileged to be present in the court. I thought it was absolutely grotesque to see a man of Sergeant Nightingale’s character and record in the barred dock of the court, but it was a great result that his sentence was reduced and suspended. He should never have been in custody in the first place.
The only point I wish to make is that Ministers should bear in mind that if the appeal is successful—I say if—the question will arise of whether there should be a retrial. I hope that, if the appeal against conviction is successful, Ministers will have the good sense to say that enough is enough and to make that opinion clear.
My mind goes back to one of the first service personnel campaigns that I was involved in when I came to this House in the late 1990s, namely the case of the two RAF Chinook pilots who were killed when their helicopter crashed into the Mull of Kintyre. That case dragged on and on, and for no good purpose. Lord Chalfont and others in the House of Lords, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in this House, and, I would like to think, many of us—in my case on the Back Benches and later on the then Opposition Front Bench, where I held a role similar to that held today by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—pressed the case continuously. Our argument was that, given that the rules were changed after the crash so that no future pilots who were killed in a crash could ever be blamed in the way that they had been blamed, it was nonsensical and unfair that those whose case had led to the change in the rules should not benefit from it.
The same situation could well arise with Sergeant Nightingale. The Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that he is considering—I hope that he will continue to consider it and, indeed, go ahead with it—an amnesty for other service personnel who have brought back and are holding on to, as trophies, weapons that should not still be in their possession. It would be absurd for the person whose trial had led to the amnesty—we should also remember that an amnesty has already been held locally, which led to other members of the SAS handing in a lot of unauthorised weapons—not to be given the benefit of the fact that an amnesty was now available for everyone else.
I will close as I began by saying that anything that any of us has to say pales into minor significance compared with what we heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham. It was a privilege to be here during his speech.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robathan
This is an unusual outbreak of consensus throughout the Chamber, and I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that the Scottish Government have a Minister for Veteran Affairs, who shares the hon. Gentleman’s surname, but if I am honest I am not quite sure what he does. We have had no contact from the Scottish Government about a department of defence. We remain committed to the United Kingdom, and I am glad to say that there is agreement pretty much throughout the Chamber on the need to continue the UK.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his well deserved promotion. Will we continue with the UK’s Trident ballistic missile nuclear deterrent irrespective of the outcome of the Scottish vote?
Mr Robathan
I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. Current Government policy is to continue with the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent based on Trident. Should the Scots vote for independence—God forbid!—we would need to review the situation, but the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent remains our policy, and I see that proceeding into the future.
Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Mr Speaker
Order. There is notable interest in this urgent question, but I remind the House that there is a motion on a ten-minute rule Bill to follow, and after that there is the pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee; I can assure the House that that debate is heavily subscribed, which means that there is a premium on brevity.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The reason why, in opposition, the shadow Defence ministerial team opposed naming an advance date for withdrawal was the fear that the Taliban would redouble their efforts in the run-up to that date. Given that we are where we are with such a date, is it not obvious that a move towards a strategy of maintaining one or more long-term strategic bases in Afghanistan would show the Taliban the need to negotiate a solution and a settlement? Without that, it will not happen.
Afghanistan (Force Protection)
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows my concern that, after the end of the combat role, any mentoring teams left in Afghanistan will become top targets for the enemy. Is this vulnerability one of the reasons that the US is beginning to take seriously the idea of long-term containment using strategic bases? Will our Government begin to take that idea seriously too?
Mr Hammond
Clearly, the US is looking at long-term containment using strategic bases precisely because it recognises the importance of denying Afghan territory to international terrorists. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), we have made no decision yet on a post-2014 presence in Afghanistan. Clearly, one factor that will influence us is decisions taken by other ISAF member states.
Defence Equipment and Support
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Nick Harvey
It will have no impact on existing contracts. It is the means by which we will secure better value for money in forming future contracts.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister explain in a practical way how a complex and expensive equipment programme such as the future carriers would have been better carried out under the new arrangements? For example, somewhere along the line the idea that the carriers should be easily convertible to take catapults was left out of the design. Would that situation be improved by the new arrangements?
Nick Harvey
It is probably common ground throughout the House that defence procurement has not been an exemplar of success for a good many years. One reason for that is that despite the good work of good people working for DE&S, they do not have available to them the full range of skill sets that they need to negotiate on equal terms with some of the more complex providers. Granting DE&S the private sector freedoms I have described will enable it to take on board the necessary skill sets to ensure that in future negotiations and future project management there is a better match between those securing value for the taxpayer and good products for the armed forces and the private sector providers of complex programmes. That will be a marked improvement on how things have been in the past.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On that same theme, does the Minister agree that it would have been good if G4S had recruited more veterans to police the Olympics and ensure security? Will he confirm that what has happened will not result in a single serving soldier in Afghanistan having to stay on the front line for one day longer than would otherwise have been the case?
Mr Robathan
First, I can confirm that nobody will remain longer on operations in Afghanistan because of this debacle over the G4S contract. I will say to my hon. Friend, as he would expect me to, that I absolutely agree that former service personnel would do that job particularly well, but I have no responsibility for the recruitment practices of G4S. However, it appears that it was not recruiting that was the problem but the organisation of the Olympics in general in terms of security.
Army 2020
Julian Lewis Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
Nobody is going to be sacked as a result of today’s announcement. The brave men and women serving in the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh will continue serving in the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh, and when it is withdrawn, many of them—probably most of them—will be absorbed into what will then become a single-battalion Royal Welsh Regiment. We have well established arrangements in place for supporting those who leave the Army—70% of those who left in the last tranche of redundancies were volunteers, who had asked for redundancy—and we hope to make them even stronger in future.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has done the very best possible under the fiscal constraints in which he is operating, but will he take back to his Cabinet colleagues the message that in parts of this House, and in the country, there is a feeling that expenditure on defence does not rank as highly as it should in the scale of the nation’s priorities?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is very capable and has, indeed, effectively made that point and his view on it known to my Cabinet colleagues.