Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That is an important example of how important it is to work together on a cross-party basis in this House. We are all working in unity to stand up on the issue.

The debate is important because we know that President Putin is banking on cynicism and apathy to win the day. He has doubted the west’s outpouring of solidarity. He thinks that it will not last and that it will wane, and that in the longer term, we will not want to bear the economic costs of what it will take to continue to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainians. We need to show the world that we are better than that and that we will not wane. I say in all support that our Government need to ensure that any economic pain that we have to shoulder as a country is borne by those who can bear it. That is the responsibility of our Government.

Our country has done what is necessary to defend democracy on this continent before and we will do it again. I stand today to declare my support and that of the thousands of constituents who have contacted all hon. Members, and to ensure that it is known that we have that support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To ensure that we get everybody in, the time limit will now be four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

As I noted earlier, in terms of humanitarian assistance there was an announcement today on the campaign that the Disasters Emergency Committee is running. I must make progress, because we are going to run out of time.

A number of colleagues mentioned sanctions. We have been at the forefront of the international response, and I reassure colleagues that we have been acting in concert with our allies. Our measures will deliver a devastating blow, as we have already seen, to Russia’s economy and military for years to come. Our sanctions combine our partners’ strongest measures and have already had an impact on the Russian state.

Over the past week, we have announced punishing new sanctions that will strike at the heart of Putin’s inner circle and the financial institutions and military-industrial machine that prop up his regime. I could go into detail on the number of designations and how many businesses and individuals will be affected, and the statutory instruments that were announced and have entered into force through an affirmative motion. The two motions approved on Tuesday 1 March brought into force new financial measures covering sovereign debt, sterling clearing and securities, as well as new trade measures.

I could list a number of other measures in this space, but they are only the beginning. We have a rolling programme that will continue to ratchet up the pressure on Russia. We will designate additional companies and members of the elite over the coming weeks and months. The sanctions will strike at the members of Putin’s inner circle, wherever in the world they are based.

In conclusion, the Russian Government have lied to the world and to their own people. It is vital for the safety of every nation that Putin’s venture should ultimately fail and be seen to fail.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; stands in solidarity with Ukrainians in their resistance to Russia’s invasion of their sovereign state; supports the UK providing further defensive military, humanitarian and other assistance to Ukraine; recognises the importance of international unity against Russian state aggression; and calls on the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom’s NATO defence and security obligations are fulfilled to counter the threats from Russia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

This excellent debate and, at the start of our proceedings, the outpouring of love and solidarity for the Ukrainian ambassador, who was present, with that long standing ovation that the Minister mentioned—unprecedented in my 30 years as an MP—clearly demonstrate in a graphic way the 100% support that this House of Commons has for the brave people of Ukraine. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Ukraine

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

It is the policy of the Government not to talk about future sanctions, I suspect for fear that that becomes part of the calculation in the Kremlin about what to do or not to do next in a way that may not be entirely helpful. I accept that there is a counter-argument—it could be a deterrent—but I think that, on balance, it is probably right to keep people guessing about what else may be up our sleeve if things do not stop soon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank Mr Bone for his urgent question and the Minister for responding to questions for just under an hour. I would also like to thank all Members for coming, at short notice, to ask the Minister the questions that they have asked today. As has been said, the thoughts and prayers of the British Parliament, and indeed of the British people, are with the people of Ukraine today.

Army Restructuring: Future Soldier

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The Minister for the Armed Forces will be delighted to hear the prophecy offered. What I can say is that we should and we will do more not only to encourage, but to keep women in the armed forces. It has not been good enough, from the day of the announcement, to encourage it. We have not changed our culture enough, and we have not made sure we value them enough. On 29 November, we shall submit to the Defence Committee our response to the women in the armed forces report, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), and I hope we will really start to motor and make the difference.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Can I come to that meeting? It sounds as if it is going to be fascinating.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle Procurement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I am not. I am writing to the Defence Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a very important member, on exactly that issue, as well as other issues that the Committee raised after my appearance before it. I have seen lots of rumours about the costs of rounds, many of which are way out, but I am constrained. As the House will appreciate, there is nothing more commercially sensitive for a supplier than the exact price of a particular product that it sells to one of its major customers.

If I may, I will explain the difference between 30 mm and 40 mm. An analysis was conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. As the Committee and the House are well aware, there is extra weight on armoured fighting vehicles to enhance the survivability of the crew within them. Given those trends, DSTL’s view was that we needed a heavier weight of ammunition to have effect and to have lethality. That was why we went for the 40 mm rather than the 30 mm option for Ajax, in combination with the entire system, including the stabilisation. The extra punch from the 40 mm, with the system that supports it, means that we would expect to get lethality from one shot. That is incredibly important to our service personnel. It means that they are not dwelling to get an accurate shot and they are not, unlike with the 30 mm, required to send a burst with a shotgun effect. They have a single precision strike. When we look for value for money, the ability to protect our crews and to provide lethality and to ensure that we get that one strike are what is important.

As a result, when we compare the costs of a round of 40 mm with a round of 30 mm, we are comparing a 30 mm burst of three rounds with, in normal circumstances, one shot from the 40 mm. That is the context of value for money, which I hope will persuade my hon. Friend that it is not just a straightforward round-for-round shell comparison. It does not give the full answer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Can I just remind the Minister to face forward so that he is facing the microphone? I understand the temptation to look at the person who has asked the question, but it is so that things can be properly recorded. Can we have short questions and shorter answers, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

This £4 billion debacle is an example of exactly why the MOD’s procurement process is completely broken. The IPA analysis has already been referred to. Each year, it goes through the top 36 MOD procurement programmes and grades them with a traffic light. Ajax is red, unlikely ever to be achieved. How many of the 36 were green and successfully on track? None. Zero, zilch, nothing. Not one major MOD procurement programme is successfully on track. This is over £100 billion of British taxpayers’ money. The procurement system at Abbey Wood is a shambles, and presiding over this steaming heap of institutional incompetence is the Minister. You are losing 36-0 on behalf of the British taxpayer. [Interruption.] It might be nice if you were not laughing about it. This is massive amounts of taxpayers’ money. You are 36-0 down, you have got a broken system and you are in total denial. What are you doing about it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Minister, please remember to not use the term “you”. I ask for shorter questions, please.

[Jeremy Quin]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was smiling merely at the sporting analogy, which I do not think is appropriate. I have already mentioned the MPA’s valuable role, and I am grateful for the work that the IPA is doing in assisting us by looking at the project and how its management can be improved. It has a series of traffic light systems, and my right hon. Friend is right that two of our projects are rated red. There is a whole series of colours; from memory, three projects are green-amber. None is green, which would signal that there are no problems. However, in fairness, if we look at every major country acquiring major defence assets, we see that these are complex and difficult programmes. The importance of the MPA is that it draws attention to problems and to the issues that need to be undertaken and achieved to hit programme targets. A red rating does not mean that it is wholly unachievable; it does mean that there are very serious issues to be addressed, as is patently the case with Ajax, and as I would be the very first to admit that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

That is a good question from my hon. Friend. I can absolutely reassure her that the safety panel has been convened and has been working through the summer to find a way to allow limited use—and it is only limited use—to undertake the trials at Millbrook. Having done a lot of work on it, with independent advisers as well as the duty holders from the MOD and others, it believes it has found a way forward that is safe and allows the trials to take place. In due course, when we learn the lessons from those trials, they will enable us to have a safe manner of working in the future.

However, the nub of this, and it is a good point on which to end, is that we need a fundamental resolution of these issues. We want Ajax to come into service, and we want it to work. We want to work with General Dynamics to achieve resolution. We need this kit—it is useful, valuable equipment that the British Army is looking forward to having—but we will only have IOC when we have a path to long-term resolution on noise and vibration, and we are committed to working towards that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for the last 50 minutes.

UK Defence Spending

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

That could be the subject of an entire Backbench Business debate and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you are keen to move the business on. I will say two things in response to my right hon. Friend’s point. First, he gives me an opportunity to mark the enormous sacrifice of all British service personnel who have served in Afghanistan since 2003. They have done amazing things in an extraordinarily challenging country, and I know from my own experience soldiering there just how grim the grimmest days of that campaign were. He also rightly makes the point that Afghanistan has reached a crossroads. I stand by the argument that I made during the statement on our withdrawal from Afghanistan three or four weeks ago. I believe that it has forced a moment of political decision making in Afghanistan that would not otherwise have come, and I think it is right that the international community has done that, but we all, of course, share his concerns about what the future of the country might hold.

Yesterday, I had a number of opportunities to meet reservists who have been serving in the civil service throughout the last year. People have been involved in certifying vaccines and as part of distributing it around our country. To think that people have been doing that as their day job and then still finding time to serve in our armed forces at the weekend is the most amazing demonstration of just what wonderful people our reservists are. This morning, in the dead of night, in the land beneath Corsham in Wiltshire, I saw— in this case, men of Ulster, but they were representative of all our armed forces who are hugely professional—do the most incredible and amazing things in pitch black.

Being the Minister for the Armed Forces, is, in my view, the best job in Government. It is an honour to associate myself with these extraordinary people, especially as a veteran. I wish them all a happy Armed Forces Day and thank them for their service.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Had the Minister not told us that he had started the day at 3 am, I do not think any of us would have known. I call Kevan Jones for a two-minute wind-up.

Carrier Strike Group Deployment

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I regret to inform the right hon. Member that I have not read the US report, but it is absolutely right that we keep an eye on all these issues. The supply chain for all our aircraft is really important. There is nothing more powerless than when we discover that somebody has switched off the supply chain and we are dependent on that model. We all often find that in our own homes—for example, when Microsoft stops updating something and suddenly we are stuck. That is why we are a tier 1 partner in the F-35 programme. A significant part of every single plane, including the US F-35s, is made in Samlesbury in Lancashire, in the constituency of Mr Deputy Speaker himself. I am proud that part of the US planes sitting on that deck is made in Lancashire as well—probably the best part of the plane, to be honest. The right hon. Member is right and I will definitely keep an eye on the matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are all proud of that in Lancashire.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]]

May I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in welcoming this very proud moment for the Royal Navy, for the crew and air crew who will be embarked on HMS Queen Elizabeth, and for the 10,000 people in the UK who were involved in construction of the vessels, as he has already referenced?

The construction contracts went through significant challenge in the early years as a result of changes in design, but from 2012 the design was stabilised and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance interests were aligned with those of the Government. Will my right hon. Friend take lessons from that final stage of the procurement process in his procurement of the fleet solid support vessels that will be designed to accompany the carrier strike group in future? Will he give some confirmation to the House of when he expects the first of those vessels to be able to take its place within the carrier strike group?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

As I have said in previous answers, we are on the cusp of issuing the full competition, and we have to be very careful; I do not want another competition to collapse or to be jeopardised by legal action. I have been pretty clear, and I have reclassified it as a warship. I have put some conditions in the contract, which will be seen by people hopefully to increase skills and the British shipbuilding industry. The details will be revealed when the tender is put out.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. May I, on behalf of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker team, pass on our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those submariners who were tragically lost at sea? We grieve your loss. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We will now suspend for two minutes.

Afghanistan

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

As my right hon. Friend will know from his extensive experience of peace processes around the world, it is very likely—indeed, almost certain—that a lasting peace settlement in Afghanistan will involve the Taliban as part of the Afghan Government. It is in all our interests to support the political process as it plays out, but if there is a return to an ungoverned space that gives succour to international terrorism that is a threat to the UK homeland or the interests of our allies, we of course reserve the right to protect our interests, both unilaterally and multilaterally through NATO.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and answering 31 questions.

We are now going to suspend for a short while.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

Our withdrawal from the EU, the rise of China and the threat posed by Russia has meant that the strategic context in which our armed forces operate has shifted hugely in the decade since I left. The professionalism, resilience and adaptability of those who still serve has not. The Defence Command Paper rightly describes our servicemen and women as “our finest asset”. It is therefore incongruous for the Government to be stripping back the British Army to a level not seen for 300 years.

While the number of service personnel is set to reduce, it appears that what they are expected to achieve will not. The integrated review does not suggest that we will draw down on any of our commitments. The UK will remain the leading European partner in NATO and maintain our responsibilities in the middle east and Africa, while at the same time expanding our role in the Indo-Pacific. In my experience, trying to do more with less rarely works. When the Prime Minister pledged to maintain the size of our armed forces, he was right to do so. We are now being told that size no longer matters because the threat has changed, but as I put to the Secretary of State last month, if the threat has changed so much, so quickly, what is to say that it will not change again? In response, I was told that any future proposals to increase manning would be supported, but of course, it is not that simple.

Retaining talent is far easier and more inexpensive than recruiting it—a principle that is especially true when applied to our service personnel. We would do well to remember that technology evolves; the one thing that remains constant is people. We should also remember that our people are among the very best in the world. They are our ultimate insurance policy. Recent history is littered with examples, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, when technological superiority did not bring about success. Kit and equipment will never be an adequate substitute for strategy and leadership.

To conclude, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, leaders and experts predicted a new period of global peace and prosperity that never materialised. Thirty years on, the world is now more complex, more dangerous and more unpredictable. No one can say with any confidence what it will look like in another 30 years. We live in uncertain times. There are no easy answers, only difficult questions, but now more than ever, Britain must aspire to show leadership. Cutting the one thing that, above all else, gives us our edge—our people—will be to the detriment of our national security and our standing in the world. This decision is short-sighted—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have to leave it there; I am sorry, Dan. We will now return to Marie Rimmer.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]]

The British military are currently engaged in their biggest ever homeland military operation in peacetime: the battle against covid-19. For the past 12 months, they have set up testing sites and vaccine centres and even administered the jabs themselves. Our armed forces have proven once again that they are our ultimate emergency service. I do not wish to pre-empt the inquiry into the covid-19 crisis, but I imagine that there will be a lot of praise for our armed forces. They are logistics and crisis experts—the best we have as a nation. The Government should always draw on this expertise, yet under the defence review, numbers are being cut. Not only are the Government reducing numbers; they are giving our troops a real-terms pay cut.

Since 2010, our armed forces have been reduced by 45,000. The recent defence review cuts come on top of this decade of decline. The size of the Army will be at its smallest since 1714, despite our population being 10 times bigger than it was then. The Prime Minister and Defence Secretary have laid out their reasoning for these cuts. I support modernising our forces, particularly the investment in cyber, and I am glad that the new centre will be based in the north-west, but we do not need to do these modernisations at the expense of armed forces personnel. The Government can invest in future technologies while maintaining the size of our Army. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and all Government Members stood on a manifesto that committed to not cutting the armed forces in any form, but, quite frankly, what was the point? Promises and commitments are broken on a regular basis.

The world is a dangerous place: Russia has amassed close to 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine; Myanmar is under military rule and innocent citizens are being butchered by the state; China is becoming increasingly bullish towards its neighbours; and the covid-19 crisis and economic woes that go with it have the potential to topple democracies. Maintaining armed forces numbers is essential to our security at home and abroad.

Retired British generals have said that further Army cuts mean that the UK is no longer taken seriously as a military power, and that it would damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO. Worse still, Lord Richards—former Chief of the Defence Staff—has warned that we almost certainly would not be able to retake the Falklands or prevent genocide like we did in Kosovo.

The next pandemic or crisis that our nation faces could be much worse. The Government should not abandon expertise when we do not know what is around the corner. Now is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry Marie; we have to leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]]

The strength of our armed forces does not just rest in the capability of our military hardware. It relies on the skills, dedication and years of experience gained through the training and deployment of the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. We do not just need to recruit enough of them to serve in our battleships, armoured personnel carriers and aircraft; we need to retain them for long enough to benefit from the experience and training, which in the case of highly skilled personnel, will have cost millions.

Those brave men and women love their country and the jobs they do to protect us and keep us all free, but they have families who are often massively impacted by the work they do. While service families take enormous pride in the work of their serving family members, it also the case that military personnel put their families through more separation, relocation and danger than any other public servant.

On top of that, when we add into the mix accommodation that is not always of the standard it should be, disruption to children’s education, health services that do not keep up with their frequent moves and the inability of their spouse or partner to keep their job as the result of frequent relocation, many service personnel, although wanting to stay in the armed forces, are not prepared to continue to put their families through those difficulties, so they leave, taking all their experience with them and often leaving major capability gaps as a result.

That is why I was so delighted to be asked by a previous Secretary of State for Defence to write a report on what could be done to improve life for armed forces families. Professor Walker, Dr Misca and I published the report, “Living in our Shoes”, last summer, with 110 recommendations. I am delighted that, at the end of last month, the Government accepted 86 of them in full and 20 of them in part, while only rejecting three, with one being for the armed forces charitable sector to respond to. The report and the Government response are both on gov.uk.

Overall, we called for the whole nation to take its responsibilities to the armed forces families more seriously, and we called for the Prime Minister to make the care and wellbeing of armed forces families a national priority. I am delighted that the Government have accepted that challenge—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but time is up.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I want to make two simple points. The work done by the armed forces during the pandemic was welcomed by all of us. In my constituency, the same as in everyone else’s, they did a great job on testing and vaccination, and I am deeply grateful. Talking to armed forces personnel, they told me how much they had enjoyed the work, and they felt they were fighting a real good battle against the virus. I also know, from my own limited service in the TA, that in armed forces life there is a lot of training and an awful lot of waiting, and doing something different can really make life a lot better. Indeed, the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), talked about the satisfaction of that. I also know that those armed forces personnel who helped rescue refugees found it very satisfying.

So my first point is this. In doing these jobs, the armed forces are actually indirectly saving other arms of Government spending money. I suspect—no, I am certain —that what is being suggested to us by the Government today is of course money-led. It is about the revenue budget. However, I would ask the Government to take a wider look at what is going on here, because I think what the armed forces are doing when they are not actually defending the country is saving other budgets.

In the time available, my second point is this. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), spoke of four Rs. There is a fifth R, which has been touched on, and it is recruitment, but I would like to look at it from a different angle. In my working life, and indeed more recently, I have had a close connection with the oil and gas industry, and one of the biggest problems the oil and gas industry faces is recruitment. Why? Because, unfairly or not, it is seen to be a sunset industry, and young people are not particularly interested in joining as they think there are better careers elsewhere. If we reduce the armed forces by the numbers being suggested, we will take their number below a critical mass. That means people—the brightest and the best, the most capable, the fittest—who might otherwise think about joining our armed forces will think twice and go elsewhere. That would be a tragedy, and it would be the start of a downward spiral leading us on the high road to a very dark place indeed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I ask Members who are participating remotely to keep an eye on the clock and have an independent timer as well just to make sure, as it is a bit messy when I have to cut them off, but I will cut them off to get more Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion on the Order Paper, not least because I believe that Conservative promises made to protect our armed forces have sadly been lacking and ring hollow now that they are in government, as is the case with so many of their other promises. At the same time that Ministers want to cut the size of our conventional armed forces, they propose to increase by 40% the UK’s nuclear stockpile. I ask the Minister, what is the strategic reason for that decision? How much will it cost? How will the UK be safer with 260 nuclear weapons compared with 180?

Breaking international law and treaty obligations sacrifices our moral authority when we are dealing with regimes such as Iran’s that threaten our allies in the middle east. Indeed, in 2015 Ministers promised that the strength of the Army would not fall below 82,000. In truth, we will never meet that target, with the Army’s strength standing at 76,350 soldiers. Since 2010, the Conservatives have overseen a reduction in the strength of our armed forces of a quarter, with 40,000 fewer full-time troops now compared with 10 years ago. The Government will weaken the Army further, reducing numbers to 72,500 by 2025.

In 2012, the MOD partnered with private outsourcing contractor Capita to deliver a £1.3 billion recruitment project. I am glad that the contract was not for a new sight for the Army’s rifle, because the number recruited since Capita’s involvement has not hit the target in any year since the contract was awarded. We should be angry about that wastefulness. Every pound lost in profit squeezed out of a failing contract means fewer soldiers, poorer equipment and fewer opportunities for people to make a career in the services.

Technology is important, but having spent time with veterans as a trustee of the newly formed East Durham Veterans Trust, I must agree with the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Nicholas Houghton, who said:

“I would argue most strongly that it is our people that give the United Kingdom’s armed forces our qualitative edge”.

We have seen our military in action over the last year during covid, from reinforcing frontline services to building hospitals, delivering vital equipment and running test centres in my constituency. I know that there are Government Members who care passionately about the armed forces, and I ask that they work cross-party to ensure that our armed forces—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

It is a privilege to be called in this debate, particularly because Burnley and Padiham have a very long and proud history of service in the armed forces.

Our starting point with any defence review should always be the threats that we face. I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who just spoke, but threats have evolved quite significantly in recent years. The grey zone is real, and it does require a very real assessment of what those threats are and how we need to address them. We need to move towards a much more agile, smaller type deployment. That is why it is positive to see in the defence Command Paper and the integrated review such things as the Army ranger regiment: small groups of better trained people who can detect, deploy and deter aggression. That is what we are seeing our adversaries do. That is what we are seeing the Russians do with increasing frequency, be it in Ukraine, Syria or other such locations.

There are two big capabilities advancements in the defence Command Paper that deserve a particular welcome and credit to the Government. The first is the National Cyber Force, because cyber-warfare is only going to increase. I am sure you will join me, Mr Deputy Speaker, in agreeing that placing it in the north-west is a very welcome development. The second thing that the Government deserve specific credit for is Team Tempest and investing in the next generation of combat aircraft. If we know one thing, it is that if we do not invest in aerospace manufacturing skills—I say this as a Member of Parliament who represents a proud aerospace manufacturing area—we will lose those skills forever. Tempest gives us the ability to work with allies across the world, currently Sweden and Italy, to develop an aircraft that will put us at the cutting edge of warfare and allow us to deploy manned aircraft surrounded by unmanned assets, building on those small deployments of Army rangers or special forces.

We have heard quite a lot in this debate about what is being cut, but I actually do not think the defence Command Paper and the integrated review are reductions in capabilities. They are actually new capabilities. The National Cyber Force is a totally new capability. Tempest is a totally new capability. The multi-role ocean surveillance ship is a new capability. Type 83 is a new capability. Artificial intelligence is a new capability. So if we are going to have a debate about what force structure we need in the armed forces in the next 20 or 30 years, we should do so.

I will end with the US—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry about that, but time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his point because it leads me on to what I was about to say. The nature of our armed forces has very much become part of our soft power in international realms, in that it is a peacekeeping force. We go out to offer support across the world when there are natural disasters and when it comes to peacekeeping in areas that need extra support, and we are proud to carry on doing so.

When we look at the support that we offer across the globe, I hope that we can consider maintaining that 0.7% in international aid. That is a very powerful tool in preventing some of these issues from arising in the first place. With peacekeeping, yes, I agree that we do not necessarily need drones, but we do need to find a way to attack some of these powers that are coming forward and that are increasing in their own nature of warfare. Whether we consider the cyber-attacks from Russia or Iran or the biological weapons from elsewhere, it is clear, unfortunately, that some of these places are not safe to send our soldiers. We must consider the safety of our armed forces. For many years, Governments of whatever party have not got that right. I am thinking specifically here of the war in Iraq.

It is right that we are considering this matter. Warfare is evolving and we need to change to keep up with that. We are increasing our expenditure on the armed forces, more than we have done since the cold war, and it is right to do so. It is right that we consider the safety of our nation, but we need to do so in a technological, biological and evolving way, which is why I will not be supporting the motion as it is today. I say that as a proud Member representing a regimental town. The armed forces have a long history there; long may that continue. It is very unfortunate that, again, we are debating not a motion of opposition, but a motion of opportunism. With elections coming up, I wonder why. We are proud of our armed forces on this side of the House, and that will continue for many years to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have to go to the wind-ups now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take your advice, but is it in order to call a Member disingenuous?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If I had heard anything that was out of order, I would certainly have called it into order. It is part of the debate.

[Johnny Mercer]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am getting used to it now.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made some really important points. I know that he spent a long time on such operations, as I did, and he actually made a really critical point, which is that there are no easy answers to these debates. None of them is binary: they are calibrated decisions about where the threat is, how we are going to meet it, and what equipment or people we are going to meet it with. I appreciated his contribution.

When it comes to armed forces families, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for the important work that he consistently does in the family space and the people space. On that one issue, I can tell the House unequivocally that this review process has put people at the heart of defence. For the first time, we have produced a document that outlines what the offer is to attract and retain this country’s most talented individuals to a career in defence. I would encourage all Members of this House to go and read that, understand the opportunities that are now available, and then go and speak to the people who are serving.

While we will all have a view on defence—based on what we have been briefed on and what intelligence and secret information we have privileged access to—we will all have a different view, including those who have retired. I respect all those who have retired of senior rank and so on, but the crucial things is to go and speak to the people who serve and ask them what they think about the opportunities that are going to be afforded to them with careers in cyber, space, technical training and operations of the sort that were conducted by a very small specialist cohort in the military only 10 or 15 years ago. It is important to speak to them about the opportunities afforded by the future accommodation model or about mental health care now, where they can access a single front door and be totally confident that they will have a secure and coherent care pathway through NHS mental health services.

These lines—these campaign lines—are trotted out, and I understand that. I understand how this place works, but I am afraid I will draw the line when it comes to saying things that are simply not correct about our military, because we already have enough challenges. Everybody knows that I have come to this place to try to reset the relationship between the military and the nation, so I will be honest with colleagues when that line is broken, but this review puts people at the heart of defence. It is a good piece of work, and I am proud of it. I think we can honestly look young people in the eye today in all of our constituencies and maintain that defence remains the No. 1, premier choice of career for our young and talented people in this country.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate today. As I say, it has been very interesting and very passionate, and there were a lot of fair points. There is not one school of thought on this, but we do have to operate within the envelope we have been asked to operate within. In that respect, it is a good review. We should get behind it, and be proud of the UK’s armed forces, which remain the finest armed forces in the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am now going to put the Question, and you will be expected to vote the way you are shouting. Clearly, if I hear one audible and persistent voice, you will have a vote, and a vote is expected.

Question put.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) as he pays tribute to all those who we must remember today in this debate, which is an important opportunity to reflect and to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. It is also an opportunity to highlight ongoing need and pay tribute to those who provide support. I echo the calls for funding for veterans’ charities, as raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).

As a nation, when we came together in the shock and distress following the first world war and looked at the scale of loss, not a single family was left untouched by conflict. My own great-grandfather and his son, my great-uncle, served in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders infantry. I cannot imagine what they went through, but I remember and feel for those they left behind whose lives were so impacted by their loss. The truth is that when men—men then, but men and women today—step up and make that commitment to serve, they take their families with them, wherever they go, in their hearts, but they also bind, in part, their families to their fate.

I was made incredibly aware of that when, in a past life before I came to this place, I worked as a teacher in a boarding school and was in loco parentis for teenage girls, the daughters of military families. I think everybody here will remember where they were when they heard the shock news on 9/11. I remember where I was. I was with them, and they felt it, in a way not experienced by other students. Calls home were made and anxious days followed. They were on alert as they connected with their homes and with their families across the world, wherever they might have been serving. I echo the petition made today by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in his endorsement of the “Living in our Shoes” report regarding the important contribution that our military families make. It is so important that we support them.

Back in the day, there was little expectation of support and little understanding. In the late years of his life, a very well loved and remembered Eastbourne resident, Henry Allingham, who was the last surviving veteran of the great war and, for a short time, the world’s oldest man, shared his experiences. Without testimonies such as his, we could not begin to understand and comprehend the experience of that generation, but just talking—a simple thing, really—makes a world of difference.

I wear my poppy with pride. It is the symbol of our remembrance, but it is also a very important way in which we can help to provide for our veterans through the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal. Eastbourne and Willingdon, my home constituency, is traditionally very generous. I hope that through that demonstration, our veterans see the great value that we place on their service and our serving personnel see the great value that we place on their contribution. I hope, too, that it inspires those who would apply for a military life. I say that with some feeling as a patron of the Military Preparation College in Eastbourne. It is mission critical for me to know that in inspiring a new generation to serve our country, and potentially to put their lives on the line, we stand behind them, and the poppy says that to me.

One organisation in Eastbourne that stands behind our veterans is Blue Van, a charity that provides support—physical, mental and financial—for veterans in my constituency. It has been able to support over 50 local veterans, some of whom have gone so far as to say that without that organisation they would not be here today. I am, unusually, here today—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry but we have to leave it there—you have overrun the five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume his seat no later than 4.33 pm, and with apologies to the almost 30 Members who did not get in to make their contributions, I call Elliot Colburn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), in what I believe is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, for a heartfelt summing-up of an interesting debate. For someone who came to the House to try to reset the relationship between this country, her military and her veterans, it has been an incredibly encouraging couple of hours. It is a privilege to close this debate on remembrance, to mark Armistice Day. Listening to some of the remarkable stories of service from colleagues reminds me, however, that war, however great, huge in scale, distant and complex, is fundamentally personal.

We are very good in this country at remembering. There are few places on earth more moving than a war memorial on Remembrance Sunday, but this year has been very different. Many veterans who would normally attend were self-isolating. I pay tribute to their efforts. I pay particular tribute to the Royal British Legion. A narrative has developed among some in my cohort of veterans against the larger charities in recent years. I must say that we would be in an incredibly dark place without the supreme commitment of charities such as the Royal British Legion over many, many years to those who have served this country. I pay tribute to their efforts, particularly at this time of year.

I want to respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Islwyn and by hon. Members who made speeches today. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific numbers of reservists, as I do not have that number to hand. Reserves are far more integrated into regular forces than ever before, but it is something that we can always do better. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will write to him about that. Charity funding is something that we have discussed a number of times. Charities clearly face a challenging time—there are no two ways about that—and the increase for services in charities is almost at the same rate. I am very clear that this nation has a duty to its service personnel and veterans. It is not a problem that should be farmed out to charities. This nation is doing more than it ever has done before on a statutory footing for those who serve, but I think the answer in the end is a blend between statutory and charity provision. That is more for another day.

If I may briefly talk about legislation that was raised by the hon. Member for Islwyn and a number of colleagues. I can confirm—there was a manifesto promise and I have campaigned for this for some years now—that unless the armed forces covenant means something to the people who need it and unless it is a tool in the hands of those who need it in this country, it is not really worth what we would like it to be. The truth is that some great work has been done, but it is clear that we need to legislate in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman speaks to. I can confirm that the Government will be bringing forward an armed forces Bill next year to legislate and further enshrine into law the armed forces covenant.

I want to get through a few of the contributions today that I thought were particularly telling. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made really valid points about mental health support. He is right about mental health support and how much more money has gone into it now, but until every single serviceman and servicewomen leaves the military and knows where they can turn for mental support, knows that care pathway and that point of access, we still have some work to do and we will not stop until we get there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) talked about the huge part played by military families. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) talked again about covenant legislation and the issue around foreign and Commonwealth visa fees. My views on that are well known, however unpopular they may be within Government. I have had a personal view for some time, which has not changed since I became a Minister. I am confident that the Government will do their duty towards our foreign and Commonwealth brothers and sisters who served with us abroad over many years.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about how life is never the same. It really is

“At the going down of the sun and in the morning”

every day for our veterans’ families. That is why remembrance is so important.

I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her contribution on the female experience of the military. I reiterate that it is not where I want it to be, either in the military or in veteran circles. We have more work to do on that. I say to her that things are changing, but she has a very powerful and relevant voice and I urge her to keep going in her campaigning on that issue.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and his family history, and to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who talked about his grandmother.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for her comments on Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly made it clear that my views and my commitment to this issue are completely unchanged from before I was a Minister. We heard today, and I will come on to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in a moment, about how that conflict was painted very viscerally for individuals. There will be no resiling from the commitments that have been made. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. I am acutely aware that there comes a moment where that has to granulate into a reality for those who serve. We are fast approaching that moment. The Bill I brought forward last week had important commitments to that generation for the first time from a Government from this Dispatch Box, but there is more to do. The Prime Minister is crystal clear in his commitment on this issue and I am confident he will follow through.

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I have been friends for far too long. [Interruption.] He has finally woken up. As conflict has changed, with cameras and so on, it is easy for people to come home and think, “My generation did x, y and z in Afghanistan” or wherever it may be, but I would just say to him that all we ever did was try to stand on the shoulders of our predecessors who fought in incredibly difficult environments and incredibly difficult and complex situations.

There was the story about the little girl. There is something about little girls and conflicts. I was out with a friend last weekend and we talked about what remembrance means. I said, “Does anything stick with you from those days?” and he remembered a little girl who similarly lost both arms and both legs and was dying. Her father would not give the little girl to us because he wanted her to be a martyr and would not let us save her life. There is something about little girls in conflict that gets very difficult.

What is remembrance to me? I will be honest: some parts of remembrance I do find pretty difficult. When I first came back from some of the roughest tours in Afghanistan, I simply could not watch, because the discrepancy between what people said in this place and how it actually felt to serve, or to be a veteran or family of a veteran in this country was too great. However, we are getting better.

The creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is a significant moment, but I say very gently to colleagues both inside and outside Government: do not underestimate what this means to people who are watching this debate. Do not underestimate the commitments we have made not only to the generation I was talking about from Northern Ireland, but to all those who have served. There is a community out there who are the best of us. They care so much about this country that they actually signed up to serve. Some of their experiences have been wholly unacceptable. We are changing that, but we must redouble our efforts because, if we get it wrong now, having given them hope, that feeling that I used to have will only become worse.

Ultimately, all these things are political. Enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is a political choice. Reconciliation in Northern Ireland is a political choice. So you can remember properly, not through Remembrance Day itself and photographs and all the rest of it, but by supporting those efforts, by parking selfish ambition or any personal agenda with one special interest and by taking difficult decisions for the greater good. That greater good was what those patriots fought for and died to protect. That is how you remember and truly honour their sacrifice—for it is actions, not words, that matter. We will remember them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will remember them and we will continue to remember them and be grateful for their service and sacrifice. This has been an absolutely superb debate. Without their service and sacrifice, this debate and our democracy could easily have been extinguished.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered remembrance, UK armed forces and society.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will now suspend for full three minutes. Please leave with care.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

I must declare an interest, as I am a member of the Royal British Legion. I will be brief as I know that time is short. I pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Defence People and Veterans for their unwavering support for the veteran community both nationally and in my home constituency of Blyth Valley.

Blyth has a long history of supporting our armed forces. Members of my own family have served in both the regular and the youth branches of the Army. My father served in the RAF in the post-war years. The Blyth shipyards built many ships for the Royal Navy, including the first aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal. During both world wars, the port of Blyth served as a submarine base and today it plays host to the 203 Elswick Battery Royal Artillery and Army reservists and many of their families.

I am a proud member of the Royal British Legion, which ensures that ex-service communities have a voice here and their concerns can be heard by the Government. With this Bill, the Government have shown that they have listened to our veterans and serving personnel and have taken their concerns seriously. Our armed forces perform exceptional feats in incredibly difficult circumstances to protect this country and I am proud of the fact that they uphold the highest standards when doing their job overseas.

We have some of the most committed and professional service personnel in the world, who not only adhere to the rule of law, but promote it through their conduct while on operations and we should not second-guess their actions from this House. There seems to be confusion in much of the reporting about the difference between investigations and prosecutions. This Bill does not give free rein to our forces to behave in a way that would bring our services into disrepute and it will not prevent the prosecution of any service personnel found to have committed illegal acts on operations overseas. Despite suggestions by Opposition Members, it does not provide immunity from torture, but it does make provision for the prosecution of any service personnel found to have been involved in such acts.

The Bill does not act as a pardon, amnesty or statute of limitations. Prosecutors will have the ability to prosecute for criminal offences, including torture, taking into account factors such as sufficiency of evidence and public interest. Furthermore, service personnel are subject to criminal law in England and Wales and to the disciplinary framework of service law, and have a duty to uphold both wherever in the world they are serving. Indeed, the people we have failed in recent years, whom we now deny the protection of law, have—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, Ian; we have to leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister who will be replying—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, Mr Shannon, but you cannot make an intervention from there.

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just realised that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Take 2! Mr Shannon, you must come here more often and you will find out how this place works. [Laughter.]

[Jim Shannon]

It is always a learning curve, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am still learning.

On the issue our veterans in Northern Ireland—I declare an interest as one of those veterans, having served in the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland—the Minister gave a commitment previously that, by the end of this year, a Bill would be coming through on Northern Ireland veterans’ issues. Does my hon. Friend, like me, want to see the Minister committing himself at the end of this debate to giving veterans in Northern Ireland the same protection as those here on the mainland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I have not said that it is an absolute lock. It does envisage some possibilities. But the bottom line is that you do not create a triple lock against something if you are expecting to encourage it or to allow it in. It simply cannot be right not to prosecute criminal acts of a crime as serious as that of torture if there is strong evidence that it took place. Torture victims have a right to see their tormentors brought to account, and there should be no time limit on justice.

This is not just a matter of domestic law. As we have heard from other hon. Members, our international legal obligations under the UN convention against torture and the Rome statute consist of recognising prohibitions against torture, which are absolute. That was the point of my intervention on the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). The prohibition against torture in international law is absolute, and it ill behoves us to pass a statute creating one class of defendants in the United Kingdom wherein there is a presumption against them being prosecuted for that crime.

I have no time for vexatious litigation. I can say, as somebody who practised at the Bar for many years, and also someone who prosecuted, that vexatious litigation is a pain in the neck. What I am concerned about is the international reputation of the United Kingdom, for so long as Scotland remains part of it. Indeed, I will be concerned about the international reputation of England even when Scotland is no longer in a union with it. International law may not mean much to this Government, but they forget at their peril that it keeps all of us safe. If this is what the Government meant by their manifesto promise to update human rights laws, then we should all be very concerned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind Members that if they intend to press the Second Reading to a Division, it would be very useful if the Chair got the names of the Tellers in advance, please

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is why I used the example of blindness: the point of knowledge would be the first time that sight is lost, but total sight loss could take much longer. [Interruption.] The Minister for Defence People and Veterans can come back come in his usual style.

On the criminal part, I think the Bill threatens our service people with being more likely to be investigated by the ICC. I am not convinced that prosecutions would be sought in the ICC, but the very risk of investigation by the ICC defeats the whole point of this Bill, which in my view—I have said this a few times in the Chamber tonight—was to tackle a series of vexatious investigations. We need a system where cases, once they are fully investigated, can be closed and not reopened unless a significant bar is met. This Bill does nothing at all about that and fails in its very purpose. That is why it is a great shame that this wording—not the concept; I think we all agree this issue must be tackled—is what the Government have brought forward.

I also want to touch on the time limits. France has a 30-year time limit for serious crimes, while crimes under international humanitarian law are never given a time limit. In the USA, time limits are exempted for the law of war and also for serious crimes or murder. This Bill would put us at odds with how the French and American systems protect their veterans. It would seem extremely odd to take that approach. We should be learning from our allies, not trying to diverge from their approach.

I am extremely disappointed with the wording of this Bill. If it passes tonight, I will work extremely hard to try to amend it. I do not think it will ever be an amazing Bill, because it started from the wrong point and is answering the wrong questions, but I will work with others to try to get the best out of it. Given its drafting, however, I am not convinced that it deserves to go forward in its initial form. The Government should come forward with an alternative plan that hits the nail on the head, because this certainly does not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am terribly sorry to the 23 Members who were unable to get in, but I am afraid there was a lot of interest in this debate. I call Stephen Morgan to start the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is not giving way, but he is making allegations about these firms that are simply incorrect. Thompsons Solicitors works exclusively for trade unions. Leigh Day has taken class actions against trade unions. Frankly, the Minister does not know what he is talking about.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point for debate. Let us have no more points of order on that subject.

[Johnny Mercer]

It is not a point of order. It is yet another effort to waste time in a very important debate. [Interruption.] I hear the complaints about my attitude towards Opposition Members. Let me be absolutely clear. I have said in private a number of times that I will engage with the individuals who are so loud this afternoon. Not once have they chosen to do so, and not once have they come up with a proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

Question agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I now have to announce the results of the deferred Divisions.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 337 and the Noes were 6, so the Question was agreed to.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 340 and the Noes were 1, so the Question was agreed to.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 335 and the Noes were 6, so the Question was agreed to.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 335 and the Noes were 1, so the Question was agreed to.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 334 and the Noes were 6, so the Question was agreed to.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 332 and the Noes were 5, so the Question was agreed to.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 332 and the Noes were 1, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]