European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Julian Lewis and Denis MacShane

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

In responding to how the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has introduced his amendment, one might as well say that the pound is the fault and the root cause of all our problems. In my Rotherham constituency, 25% of young people are without work. There is economic and social misery there, but do I attribute it to the fact that we have a certain currency? The notion that a currency causes bad Government policy is absurd.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Argument by analogy is never terribly wise, but when the analogy is between a single currency across different countries with different economies and a single currency such as the pound that applies within a single country with a single economy, that analogy is not only false, but completely risible.

[Mr MacShane]

I have respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he might as well have said that when the US and Canadian dollar was the same, one country’s economic difficulties were caused by having the same currency when their social, taxation and economic policies were completely different. The same applies to when Britain’s pound and the pound of Ireland were exactly the same currency.

When I went on holiday to Ireland as a small boy, we took our English sixpences, threepenny bits and half crowns, and the currency was exactly the same there. It is the decisions of individual countries that decide their economic future, not the currencies that they choose. There are many, many countries using the euro that we might be advised to copy in terms of economic output, exports, social investment and long-term strategic thinking, and many of those countries are governed by parties of the centre right—Conservative parties— although, of course, the Conservative party here has broken all political links with its sister parties in Europe.

National Defence Medal

Debate between Julian Lewis and Denis MacShane

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

In essence, this debate is simple. The time has come to honour all the servicemen and women who serve our nation with a medal called the national defence medal. It would be given to the thousands upon thousands of former soldiers, sailors and air force personnel who have served their nation but have nothing to show for it. I am glad to say that some of them are present to listen to this debate. They place all their hope and confidence in the Minister that, by 1 o’clock, their wish will be granted.

The relationship of the British people to their armed forces has been transformed in recent years. Television and modern warfare have brought home the service and sacrifice that veterans have always understood, but that the public perhaps has not. Long gone are the days when Kipling could mock a nation that did not honour its soldiers when he wrote:

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’

But it’s ‘Saviour of ’is country’ when the guns begin to shoot”.

That scorn is over. In each year since 1945—save, I think, one—British armed forces personnel have been in action. Remembrance day in Rotherham and nationally is as crowded as ever, but we still have no recognition for that service. Of course, gallantry and leadership are recognised, and I urge a visit to the Imperial War museum across the river Thames to see Lord Ashcroft’s Victoria Cross gallery.

There is no recognition, however, for the many soldiers who served, and saw comrades die or wounded, or who provided the long tail of logistics and support that is as vital to military endeavour and success as the teeth of those doing the shooting at the front. A national defence medal would put that right.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In a spirit of non-partisanship, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, they introduced the veterans badge, which is a form of recognition that can be worn all year round. Perhaps he ought to address that point.

[Mr MacShane]

My very next point was that a veterans badge—welcome as it is—is the most that can be aspired to. Only 10% of those eligible for the badge have taken it up. A medal that arrives at one’s home and that can be shown to one’s children, grandchildren and others is qualitatively different, and I believe that the House and the nation want something better.

To achieve that, we have to take on and defeat the enemy, by which I do not mean the actual foe out in the field, or even the traditional enemy of all our soldiers, the Treasury, but the most dangerous enemy that serving men and women can face—the gentlemen of the Ministry of Defence who always know best. I remember the wonderful song, “One staff officer jumped right over another staff officer’s back”, from “Oh! What a Lovely War”, and I fear that our major generals are making Ministers jump over each other’s backs as they find excuse after excuse not to award a national defence medal to those who have served our nation.

This is not about the present Administration. More than two years ago, nearly 200 MPs signed a Commons motion calling for the establishment of a national defence medal. It was initiated by our former colleague, the right hon. and gallant Colonel Michael Mates, and supported by all Members of the House. Frankly, I wish that members of my party had dealt with the issue when in power, rather than leaving it to my colleague, the Minister, who is an occasional skiing companion of mine in the parliamentary ski race and in whom I have every confidence. The motion, however, is opposed by a committee of anonymous major generals in Whitehall who do not want to award such a medal. They are of the view that the award of a medal in recognition purely of service would somehow devalue the medal system.

We already award medals for long service and good conduct in the regular and reserve forces. In addition, medals in recognition of service have been awarded at particular times during our monarch’s reign, such as the coronation and the silver and golden jubilees. Medals are therefore awarded to people just for the coincidence of having been in uniform when the Queen was crowned or when she had served a certain number of years on the throne.

European Union Bill

Debate between Julian Lewis and Denis MacShane

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

I am grateful, Mr Evans.

We have heard a wide range of speeches, including one from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). We had a wonderful seminar on constitutional law from the hon. Member for Stone, and we are discussing something of profound importance: whether or not our country and this Parliament want to stay in the European Union on the common terms dictated by the treaty.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

What has that got to do with clause 18?

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Debate between Julian Lewis and Denis MacShane

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who has shown great consistency over the years, both in participating in these debates and in successfully fulfilling his responsibilities as Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am sure that he will be leaving that post with a pang.

I must say that it was slightly unexpected to find myself speaking on defence from the Back Benches, after so many years speaking from the Front Bench on the subject. Nevertheless, all conflicts have casualties, and some of us must accept the fact that those in my position are what the military historians would describe as “collateral damage”. Collateral damage should always be minimised, but sometimes it cannot be avoided entirely.

When I used to sit on the Opposition Front Bench, people used to ask me how I managed to retain my air of imperturbability and cheerfulness, after so many years as a shadow Armed Forces Minister. I shall now share with the House a slight confession. The confession is that I discovered something that Opposition Members are only just about to discover, which is that if they sit on the Opposition Front Bench just by the Dispatch Box and look to their left, every time the door into the Chamber opens they will see pointing at them, perfectly framed in an aperture, the great statue of Margaret Thatcher. I found that desperately inspiring. Whether they will have the same reaction, as they sit thinking about what they are going to do against this great new coalition Government, may be open to doubt.

I wish to say a few words about nuclear weapons, but not many; I wish to say rather more words about Afghanistan. The few words that I wish to say about nuclear weapons relate to something that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) mentioned, when he raised the possibility of perhaps having a nuclear deterrent based on cruise missiles carried on Astute class submarines. I have to tell him—or I would tell him, were he still in his place—that that really is a non-runner. Cruise missiles have a single warhead and a limited range. Cruise missiles have not even been designed yet with a warhead that could be fired from Astute class submarines.

What would happen if we had cruise missiles on Astute class submarines as our nuclear deterrent? First, the submarine would have to become a much closer inshore weapon, because cruise missiles do not have the range, so the submarine would be more vulnerable. Secondly, we would have to have many more cruise missiles, because there is only a single warhead on a cruise missile. That would be much more expensive, not only because we would need more cruise missiles, but because we would need more submarines, in order to deploy enough cruise missile warheads. Thirdly, there is a slight problem when a cruise missile is fired, in that whoever it is being fired at cannot tell whether it has a nuclear warhead or a conventional warhead. So, to put an end to this facile nonsense, let me just say—

[Mr MacShane]

He’s on your side!

[Dr Lewis]

I am on the Back Benches; I am not bound by this stuff. Cruise missiles are more expensive and less effective, put the submarines at risk and could start world war three by accident—but apart from that, it is a really great idea.

I am about to break a rule that I have never broken before and which I hope never to have to break again. I am going to quote from one of my own speeches—not much; just a little bit—but there is a special reason why I have to do so. I am going to quote from the last speech that I made as a shadow Defence Minister from the Front Bench, in the debate on defence policy on 15 October last year. I was responding to an hon. Friend who had pointed out that the anti-opium campaign was failing in Afghanistan, that the promotion of women’s rights was failing, that democracy was failing and that corruption was rife. I said that that was to suggest that the objectives of our presence in Afghanistan were to get rid of the opium trade, assert the rights of women, create a democracy and root out corruption. I pointed out that those were worthy and desirable aims, but that they were not the reason why we were there. The reason why we were there was, of course, that an attack had been launched by al-Qaeda militants against American cities. Our response was to ensure, once and for all, that that could never happen again from Afghanistan.

I also pointed out something else. I said that we needed to wage a campaign in Afghanistan

“in which we do not take levels of casualties that the public are not prepared to bear,”

and that that, above all,

“is the single reason that people in this country are dissatisfied with the campaign in Afghanistan. It is not a question of a lack of patience, or of not spending enough money,”

but

“The country will not put up with a disproportionate cost in lives for a campaign that shows no sign of ending.”

I also ventured to suggest—I was a little worried when I made this remark—that

“if our enemies in Afghanistan focused on a strategic objective of ensuring that they killed two or three British service personnel every week, keeping that up for a sufficient length of time would be enough to harden opposition to the continuance of the campaign.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 534-35.]

Why have I broken my rule and quoted from my own speech? The reason is very simple: because I am going to develop that theme in the short time available, and I do not want anyone to say that I am saying what I am about to say only because I am speaking from the Back Benches and that I never said it when I spoke from the Front Bench. We have got a dilemma in Afghanistan, and nobody knows which of two courses to take. My argument is that there is a third course.

The first of the two courses being put forward says that we need to get out of there as soon as we reasonably can. The other one says that winning a counter-insurgency campaign means that we have to go on for the long haul. Those words were used on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), in his capacity as Liberal Democrat shadow defence spokesman. We also have to reform the society so that it will be self-sustaining.

We are not going to turn Afghanistan into a self-sustaining society that will be able to reach a deal with the reconcilable elements of the Taliban if we simultaneously say, as President Obama has, that we will start withdrawing our troops from the middle of next year. We cannot have it both ways.

The trouble is that that is to assume that the only way to be present in Afghanistan is to micromanage the country as though it were our job to rebuild that society and hold it in place. That is why we are engaged in the folly of sending our troops out from forward-operating bases. I have friends in those bases: they go out day after day and week after week, over highly predictable routes and wearing uniforms that say, “Here we are. We’re a target. Snipe us, blow us up.” That is insane. We are fighting on the one ground where our enemies are able to defeat us by inflicting on us a level of casualties that our society will no longer be willing to bear. The answer is not to follow the policy of micromanagement in Afghanistan, which has been followed up until now.