Ukraine Update

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

If the hon. Lady gives the details to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), I will be happy to make that representation to the Home Office.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House again to keep us informed. He was right when he said that the whole House was moved by the President of Ukraine’s address yesterday. The President of Ukraine has spoken again today and is desperate for aircraft to protect women and children from being bombed and killed by Russians. Poland has acted, but there is a hold-up because of the response from the United States. The Secretary of State touched on this earlier, but will he be clear that he supports what Poland is doing? Will he pressure America to support that action?

[Mr Wallace]

I shall say two things in response to my hon. Friend. First, I support the steps to allow Ukraine to continue to fly in its own airspace—its sovereign airspace—to deliver military effect against the massive amounts of Russian artillery that are indiscriminately killing and bombing places around the country. That is one reason why a no-fly zone is a problem, because it would mean that both sides do not fly. The first thing is that we need to protect Ukraine’s anti-air capability.

Secondly, what are the most appropriate tools? Obviously, the Ukrainians know and have said what they wish for. We have acted when they have asked us, which is why the new missiles we are talking about today are coming forward. It is a matter for Poland—I have said I will support whatever its choice is—and in the meantime we will continue to try to meet the outcomes that Ukraine wants with whatever methods we can.

Ukraine

Peter Bone Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Ukraine.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

Yesterday morning saw the launching of the largest combined arms offensive operations seen in the European theatre since 1945. From land, sea and air, a massive Russian offensive commenced from forward positions in Belarus, all around Ukraine’s northern and eastern borders, from the Crimea and from ships in the Black sea. As leaders around the free world have said, this is an outrage against international law that violates Ukrainian sovereignty and brings a profound change to the security landscape of the Euro-Atlantic.

The Ukrainian armed forces have stood their ground heroically, forcing fierce fighting around several Ukrainian cities. The Antonov-2 airfield north of Kyiv was taken by Russian airborne forces as part of the initial assault yesterday morning but was reportedly retaken by the Ukrainian forces overnight.

As the world has now seen, the intelligence available to the British and American Governments over recent weeks has proven to be entirely accurate. That allows us to assess that the Russians have failed to achieve any of their planned objectives for the first day of combat operations. The Ukrainian armed forces claim to have shot down six fixed-wing aircraft and seven helicopters. They report that 137 Ukrainian service personnel have been killed in action as well as 57 civilians; hundreds more have been injured. The Ukrainian Government report that 450 Russian service personnel have been killed in action. As a former soldier with the vivid experience of death on the battlefield seared forever in my mind, I take no satisfaction in reporting those numbers to the House, and nor do I propose that we keep a score every day. These are the lives of innocent civilians and the lives of the bravest and best Russians and Ukrainians.

As we gorge on the live footage of a peer-on-peer war broadcast from a European capital just two-and-a-half hours’ flying time from London, we should remember that behind those pictures is incredible fear and misery. That is why I pay tribute to those in Moscow, St Petersburg and other Russian cities who protested last night against this pointless loss of Russian life. President Putin and the kleptocrats who surround him have miscalculated badly. Young Russian men and women are needlessly losing their lives. The responsibility sits entirely with the Kremlin.

Yesterday, British Royal Air Force Typhoon jets took part in NATO air policing from their base in RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, from which they patrol over the Black sea and south-eastern Europe. HMS Trent is already part of a NATO standing maritime group and further Royal Navy ships are being deployed to other NATO standing groups in both the Baltic and the eastern Mediterranean. In addition to the Royal Tank Regiment battlegroup that has been in place in Estonia for the last six months, the Royal Welsh battlegroup will be arriving in Estonia earlier than planned to double up our force levels. Those doubled-up force levels will remain indefinitely and will be augmented by the headquarters of 12 Mechanised Brigade, meaning that the United Kingdom will have an armoured brigade in Estonia, reassuring one of our closest NATO allies.

Mr Speaker, as you have heard from the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others in recent days, we will explore all that we can do to support the Ukrainians in the next few days. All hon. Members in this House must be clear that British and NATO troops should not—must not—play an active role in Ukraine. We must all be clear what the risks of miscalculation could be and how existential the situation could quickly become if people do miscalculate and things escalate unnecessarily.

The Government do not feel that they can share with the House the detail of the support that the UK will provide to the Ukrainians at this sensitive point in operations. We apologise for that. We will do our best to give the House as much as we can, but hon. Members will appreciate that the detail is operationally sensitive. I hope that is acceptable to you, Mr Speaker.

Finally, Mr Speaker, you and Front-Bench spokespeople from across the House have had briefings from Defence Intelligence. We will make sure that continues to happen, so that, on Privy Council terms, briefings can be received by those who need to have them. Colleagues were also given a briefing last night by Defence Intelligence, which I know colleagues from across the House have found useful. We intend to keep up those briefings for as long as we feel there are kinetic combat operations that warrant a daily update. Beyond that, a number of cross-party briefings have been given by the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, the next of which will take place this afternoon, when I will be joining the Foreign Secretary and a representative of the intelligence community to brief colleagues further.

[Mr Speaker]

I have allowed this to run over, as it is such an important matter and, as is right, I wanted to hear the Minister in full; of course, the same will be extended to the Opposition and Scottish National party spokespeople.

[Mr Bone]

I start by thanking the Minister for the Armed Forces for his detailed update. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his leadership during this appalling crisis. Yesterday, President Putin, the Russian dictator, ordered a full-scale invasion of an independent, democratic state in the heart of Europe. At this very time, the people of Ukraine are fighting for hope for their homeland against a monstrous aggressor. We are seeing history repeat itself, as a powerful country headed by a madman is extending its territorial boundaries, first by annexing regions of sovereign countries and then by invading those countries. That is, of course, what happened in the 1930s and led to world war.

I have four questions for the Minister, which are in support of our Ukrainian friends and of our western democratic values. First, Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK has asked for us and our allies to institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine. As the ambassador said,

“people are dying as we speak”.

This action would be a significant and real help for the people of Ukraine. Yesterday, when I asked the Prime Minister about this request, he indicated that it was not ruled out. Will the Minister update the House on that request for help?

Secondly, will the Minister say, as far as he is able, what additional military hardware we are providing as a practical support to the people of Ukraine? Thirdly, what steps are being taken by NATO to reinforce its eastern flank? Fourthly, given that we are now in a situation worse than the cold war, will we be increasing our spending on defence to reflect that reality? Mr Speaker, may the prayers and thoughts of this House be with the people of Ukraine.

[James Heappey]

First, I join my hon. Friend in sending prayers to the people of Ukraine. Last night, I was watching some of the footage that was emerging, particularly from Kharkiv, of the artillery barrage. It just looked like hell on earth and it was pretty hard not to say a prayer before going to sleep. Thank God for the safety in which we were all sleeping last night compared with those in that city.

As Members will appreciate, a no-fly zone is somewhat difficult to implement in a hostile airspace against a peer adversary. We need to have our eyes wide open to the reality that in such an event NATO jets would, not just possibly but most certainly probably, come into a combat situation with Russian jets, and the risk of miscalculation, escalation and the triggering of article 5 could not be understated in those circumstances. As Members will appreciate, in the air domain the risk of miscalculation is greater, because things are happening at Mach 2 and there is no time for political calibration; it is in the hands of pilots who are flying at well over the speed of sound. No-fly zones come with all sorts of problems. I understand exactly why the Ukrainian ambassador is asking for this, but we need to be clear that it could well trigger an article 5 moment and we need to be clear-eyed about that reality in considering it.

I said in my answer to the original question that I do not propose to provide a commentary on the additional hardware that we will supply to the Ukrainian armed forces, nor the routes by which we would do so, if indeed we will. The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are clear about this in terms of the requirement. We know that other European countries are keen to do likewise, but obviously this has to be provided at a pace and through routes that the Ukrainian armed forces are able to absorb, in order to minimise the risk of the cache simply being destroyed or overwhelmed by advancing Russian forces.

NATO is taking huge measures to reinforce its eastern flank. I have outlined in my initial response what the UK has done. That effort has been more than matched by our best friends in the world in the United States, and other NATO countries are also rallying to the flag. For the past 10 years or so, NATO has had a network of enhanced forward presence battlegroups—the UK’s is in Estonia. Those are all being reinforced, and new forward presence battlegroups are being put in place. If the aim of what is going on right now is not just territorial gain in Ukraine, but to push NATO away from Russia, President Putin is achieving precisely the opposite, because NATO is drawing the line around NATO countries ever thicker and ever stronger.

It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough one bit to know that in the MOD we are quickly considering whether the threat has changed and whether more money is required—no Defence Minister would ever say that it is not, but that is a conversation that needs to happen within Government. I think my hon. Friend would agree that this is not a retail moment of politics, where an issue arises and a solution is offered within the news cycle, and then everybody moves on to the next thing. This is something that will define our role in the world for the next 20 years, and we have got time to make the right decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Would that not all be unnecessary if the French just controlled their own border? Our forces could then be redeployed, not protecting things in the channel. Are the French not at fault?

[James Heappey]

In the interests of bonhomie I will refrain from using such forthright language, but my hon. Friend certainly has a point.

Ukraine

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

In the event of an invasion, it does not matter whether you are a minority or a majority. The Russian Government’s attitude to those people who disagree with them either at home or in another country is woeful and dangerous.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Given the Russian military action in Transnistria, does the Secretary of State agree that Moldova is also at risk from the Russians? Have there been discussions with the Moldovan Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We will go straight to topical questions, then.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that we have the best possible process for timely and effective investigations into serious allegations arising from future military operations overseas. That is why, building on the review of the service justice system done by His Honour Shaun Lyons and former chief constable Sir Jon Murphy, I announced on 13 October that I have commissioned a review to be led by Sir Richard Henriques. Sir Richard Henriques was appointed to the High Court bench in 2000, has tried several high-profile terrorist cases, and has conducted several reviews for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police. His review will consider options for strengthening internal investigation processes and skills, thus helping to ensure that in our future complex and demanding operations around the world, our armed forces are continuing to uphold the highest standards of conduct. It will not revisit past investigations or prosecutable decisions.

[Mr Bone [V]]

Does the Secretary of State believe that not having a multi-year defence settlement would be catastrophic?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend will know that last year we did not have one either, but we got a generous settlement from the Treasury for that one year. It is of course the case that any Department that has a heavy reliance on capital spending prefers a long-term spending commitment from the Treasury. That was true a decade ago and it is true today. That is our preference. However, we are also living in a time of covid-19—a less than a once-in-a-generation challenge to both the coffers and indeed the conduct of this country. As a result, we will have to review each issue as it comes. As I have said, we are in the middle of a form of negotiation trying to see what the impacts of the announcement will be.

Defence Capability

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Fysh]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes an excellent point. I will come on to industrial strategy in a moment.

I will be working as hard as I can with industry partners to raise the tempo of productivity and innovation to match the commitment from the Ministry of Defence. Defence should be a fundamental part of our industrial strategy for both military and economic reasons, and I stand ready to work with Ministers and their Departments to ensure that we get this right and that proper account is taken of these matters during the defence and security review.

So what are the arguments against spending more? There are those who say we do not have the money. I wish a strong signal to go to the Treasury and Cabinet Office from this debate that it is a false economy not to give defence what it needs to regenerate a full 360-degree capability at this time. We could certainly use a few billion pounds a year currently given in international development, with overwhelming popular support and much greater domestic economic impact.

I have made other multibillion pound suggestions for savings to the Chancellor for his upcoming Budget, which I look forward to discussing with him again. To those who say we have other priorities, I say that this Government more than any other have focused spending on defence and on regeneration of our capabilities, and that this success needs to be reinforced. Economic value added to our communities and inspiration to our people and our allies should be top priorities for us at this time.

To those who say we do not have the will, I have never underestimated the ingenuity, good humour and grit of the British people. We should not hide our light under a bushel. I believe most of our fellows citizens would be proud to see it shine as a beacon for all to rally around.

I will conclude now because I want to allow time for others to speak. We all have a duty to do what we can to keep ambitions for our civilisation open to the next generations. There are some things worth fighting for, and we need excellence in the fight for them in all aspects of what we do every day. We have a duty to honour those who have gone before us. Giving our defence what it needs now is part of defending what they held dear.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The House might like to know that the winding-up speeches will start at 4 o’clock. Only four Members have written to say they wish to speak. I shall take those Members first and then get in as many others as I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

No decisions have been made.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Luke Pollard]

I think it is entirely possible for Ministers to set a strategy and direction in which the country will preserve its amphibious assault capabilities. The forthcoming defence capability review should be able to match that, to be honest.

My concern about what is happening to amphibious assault ships is matched by the concern of many people in Plymouth after the experiences of the past couple of years: not only the closure of Stonehouse barracks, but the cut to 42 Commando Royal Marines, and the loss of the Royal Citadel and HMS Ocean. No decisions have yet been made about the future basing arrangements for the Royal Marines, and I invite the Minister to talk about when a decision will be made. The possibility that without an amphibious assault capability in Devonport the Royal Marines could be moved out of the city is a matter of deep concern to me and to those who have served, especially those who were based near the spiritual home of the Royal Marines at Stonehouse barracks.

HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are incredibly capable, world-class ships. They are due to be out of service in 2033 and 2034 so there is still a lot of life left in them. It is important to consider the context of the defence review. I am concerned that, without the normal detail that comes with a strategic defence and security review, the mini-review will look simply at cuts, rather than at the upcoming threats that the country faces. I am concerned particularly about the rise of Russia and its influence in the Arctic. For quite some time our amphibious assault ships and the Royal Navy have been good at deterring Russian aggression, or Russian possession of Arctic waters. That issue needs to be looked at.

I am also concerned about the figure of 2% of GDP for defence spending. It is a line that I hear from Ministers a lot. The Minister will know that the gaming of the 2% figure by the inclusion of war pensions produces a situation in which we are not spending 2% on defence. I should welcome it if the Minister would adopt Labour’s position of removing those gamed elements and spending an actual 2% on defence. I am sure that that sentiment would be echoed by hon. Members throughout the House. Would the Minister rule out cuts to our amphibious force, explain briefly how the capability review will mean a greater number of frigates and, importantly, more capable frigates—with a decent offensive and defensive armament package on the Type 31s, in particular—and address what the review means in the context of post-Brexit Britain? A strong and robust full-spectrum UK capability is vital to enable us to project our power, so that we can have a distinctive beacon status as a nation after Brexit, and so that we can fulfil our obligation to our NATO allies, particularly with Russia flexing its muscles, both in cyberspace and in military space, in relation to its near neighbours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

Absolutely; I am very grateful for that intervention. What is impressive, when travelling to the Gulf—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman faces more toward the Chair, the Minister will hear better and the microphone will work better for the recording.

[Leo Docherty]

I will gladly afford the Minister the opportunity to listen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). When travelling in the Gulf, as the Minister and others will know, it is reassuring that they recognise the tangible commitment to our collective security. There is a return on the investment that is more than the value of the vessel itself. I hope that that attitude, and our requirement to invest in that attitude, will be recognised in the review, because it could apply elsewhere, such as Libya or Iraq. If that recognition is to be meaningful, however, it must be joined up with our foreign policy. For example, there is no point in our having military engagement with Iraq while simultaneously closing our consulate in Basra. We should be energetic and ambitious, but that must be part of the whole package, alongside our foreign policy.

My second point is that I hope the review will recognise the strategic importance of our defence industries in enhancing our global position. I have talked about the naval base, but I want also to mention the export of Typhoon to our allies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That has not been without controversy, but having travelled to Riyadh to visit the targeting centre, where targets in Yemen are assessed and allocated, I was most impressed to see NATO doctrine in use and a large number of British-trained members of the Saudi royal air force and army. Because we are involved, and not another supplier such as China or Russia, they have the benefit of our doctrine of responsible use. We do not only sell them aircraft, but we export a doctrine of responsible use. I know that the Saudis are grateful for that, and it is a tremendous strategic benefit to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We should have the confidence to double down on those relationships. BAE Systems successfully supplied the Typhoon to our allies in Saudi Arabia, and it has been very effective operationally. We heard recently that BAE Systems has signed a memorandum of understanding with the state of Qatar for 24 Typhoon aircraft. I hope that more exports can be achieved throughout the region. It is the right thing to do not only commercially, but strategically and morally.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

We have now heard from all those hon. Members who notified me of their wish to speak. It may help new and less experienced hon. Members—I know that some are less experienced—to know that the same rules apply in Westminster Hall as in the Chamber: you should notify the Chair if you wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. A number of Back Benchers are still trying to catch my eye. While I cannot extend the debate, I will shorten the time for the Front Benchers. The winding-up speeches will now start at 4.6 pm, to give more Back Benchers a chance.

[Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) for securing the debate.

I will constrain my remarks to a specific element of defence policy, which is the recently published national shipbuilding strategy, in the context of previous policy with regard to the shipbuilding strategy in the United Kingdom and, in particular, the terms of business agreement signed between the Ministry of Defence and what was then known as BVT in 2009 and subsequently known as BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd. I would appreciate it if the Minister made specific reference to how that terms of business agreement has been formulated into the current national shipbuilding strategy.

I was alarmed to read that document and learn of key omissions that have not been carried over from the TOBA to the national shipbuilding strategy—most notably, the definition of any key industrial capability with regard to the shipbuilding industry. The key industrial capability for shipbuilding is defined as being to

“design, build and integrate…a complex warship of up to 5,000 tonnes deep displacement at an interval of 1 shipbuild every 12 months and a design interval of every 6 years”

and to

“contribute to the sustainment of sovereign capability”

through the provision and maintenance of facilities and key post workers in the shipbuilding sector.

I was alarmed to learn that the Type 31 frigates should be competitively tendered, which essentially breaks clause 39 of the TOBA between the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems because it jeopardises that long-term drumbeat of work. It also makes no reference to the achievement of upper quartile performance in the national shipbuilding industry. That upper quartile performance was defined as a benchmarking exercise that would determine the optimal design, build, combat systems integration and through-life support infrastructure in the UK that would be in the upper quartile of all firms engaged in the industry worldwide. I would like to know why those terms and definitions have not been sustained in the current national shipbuilding strategy.

I had the privilege of working in the shipbuilding industry, following in the footsteps of my grandfather and father, and was heavily involved in the development of the benchmarking exercise during my time at BAE Systems. That included development of the design of a shipyard on the Clyde that would deliver exactly what I have referred to: the key industrial capability at an upper quartile performance level. I was rather alarmed to learn that that will no longer be invested in. That means that we will no longer be able to achieve a build interval of one shipbuild every 12 months or a design interval of every six years. That capability has now in effect been surrendered by the Ministry of Defence, as is clear in the current shipbuilding strategy. I would like to know why that has happened and why the business case demonstrating that delivery of that capability was perfectly financially viable has not been upheld. What long-term financing options have been considered beyond current in-year spend to deliver that long-term build capability? I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on those issues.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

We have six minutes and three people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

That highlights the short-term thinking of the present Government. What we really need is an industrial defence strategy that invests in the skills and capabilities of our own indigenous industries, so that when choices have to be made we can choose, quite rightly, to have our own capability enacted and not bought off-the-shelf from abroad.

The Government regularly come out with their platitudes that defence expenditure increases every year, but let me be clear that the MOD faces a financial crisis. We are told by the MOD’s permanent secretary that over the next 10 years the MOD will have, in his words, to seek out and secure £20 billion of efficiency savings. He says that notwithstanding increased budgets,

“our ambitious equipment program will not be affordable without”

those efficiency savings. I do not believe it is realistic or, indeed, honest to talk about that level of efficiency savings. I note the comments by Sir George Zambellas, the admiral and former head of the Royal Navy, who recently said to the press:

“There is a suggestion that there’s lots more efficiencies to be made. There are not. I’ve been helping deliver efficiencies for my 37 years in the navy. We have reached the bottom of the efficiency barrel and we all know that, because the Navy is so hollowed out. It hasn’t got enough missiles and spares. It’s very short of the integrated support that is needed as a single service.”

Those are damning comments by someone who does not have a political axe to grind, but takes an objective view of the very real crisis that the Navy, in particular, faces.

Indeed, it is clear that the MOD is already involved in planning for a fresh round of deep and crude cuts. As we have all seen, there have been reports in the press that the Royal Marines may be cut by 1,000 from their present 6,500. Earlier this year there was confirmation that Plymouth’s 42 Commando, one of the last specialist Royal Marines fighting units, was withdrawn from frontline service. The amphibious fleet may face decommissioning, with HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark both potentially becoming part of history—I refer Members to the excellent early-day motion 391 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I ask the Minister to listen not only to what I am saying, but to what all Members have said this afternoon about how important it is to maintain that amphibious capability, and I urge him to give a commitment today that those two ships will not be considered ripe for cutting.

This is all occurring, as I said, at a time of crisis. The Navy personnel stands at 2% under establishment. There is a particular problem in the Navy with skilled personnel and engineers. The RAF is 5% under strength, and we had the very bad news last week that nearly 2,000 skilled, well-paid jobs will be lost with BAE Systems. One of the reasons it has given for those redundancies and the cutback in capacity that has taken place, is the slowdown in production of the Hawk aircraft. I would reiterate what was asked for this week and ask the Government to bring forward an order for nine new Hawk aircraft for the Red Arrows. As well as the crises in the Navy and the RAF, we are seeing a crisis in the Army, which is 5% understrength. I remind hon. Members—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, but I am afraid I cannot let him speak for longer than the Minister will be able to, so I hope he is about to finish.

[Wayne David]

I am about to wind up. I remind Members that the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 election said that the Army would not fall below 82,000 people. It has: the latest figures show that the Army is down to 76,680, which speaks for itself. There is a very real crisis.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister for an honest statement about the real problems that our armed forces face today. Can we have a commitment that the short-term—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not having this—the hon. Gentleman must sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is not in my good books at the moment. Yelling from a sedentary position is not acceptable.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has successfully eaten into more of my time, so I think he had best remain seated.

To get back to the point, we are all committed—I hope even the hon. Member for Caerphilly—to working hard for our armed forces and ensuring that they have the equipment they need and that we provide support for personnel. Yes, in politically difficult times, that is tough, but we will work hard to ensure that we meet the armed forces’ requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

With the greatest respect, we think it is incredibly important that all NATO members, who share joint responsibility for the defence of the alliance, committed at the NATO conference in Wales in 2014 to spend 2% of GDP. We welcome the fact that eight further countries are now on a clear trajectory to meet that target, and Ministers from across all Departments continue to have discussions to encourage them to reach it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

25. I dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon); that was an extraordinary statement about Germany.Since you have been here, Mr Speaker, how many Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box to say exactly the same thing—that we are encouraging other NATO members to meet the target? Some of our European partners take the whole thing for granted in the knowledge that we and the Americans pick up the bill. What are we actually going to do about it to get them to pay what they should pay?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I reassure my hon. Friend that there has been progress. Five countries now meet the 2% target, up from three in 2014; 10 countries now meet the 20% pledge on major equipment and research; and the cuts to defence spending overall have been halted. I am sure, though, that everyone would agree with the sentiment he expressed: we cannot reiterate too often that we hope everyone will reach the 2% pledge soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We are now seeing a rather disturbing pattern of allegations of direct Russian interference in areas as far apart as Bulgaria, the referendum in the Netherlands, and continuing pressure on the Baltic states. We agreed at Warsaw that the European Union and NATO would come together to co-operate on hybrid warfare, in particular, and to look at the various techniques that were necessary to help us all resist that kind of pressure.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

For many years in this Chamber, people have been asking why European countries that are members of NATO are not spending 2%, and we are always told that it will happen, but it just does not seem to happen. What pressure can we put on other members of NATO to fulfil their commitment?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We agreed this commitment at the Wales summit back in the autumn of 2014. That, at least, has halted the decline in defence spending across the alliance. As I said, a number of member states—roughly half the alliance—are now committed to increasing their spending, and eight of the 28 are firmly planning to get up to 2%. The transparency involved in publishing the table every year in itself stiffens the arm of Defence Ministers when they are tackling their Finance Ministers. It is certainly encouraging to see the increase in defence spending by the countries that feel most vulnerable: the Baltic states, for example, with increases also in Bulgaria and Romania.

Defence Expenditure

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2015-16, Shifting the goalposts? Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge, HC 494, and the Government response, HC 465.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

If Members wish to remove their jackets, that is totally in order. I apologise for the fact that one of the green clocks is not working, but the other two are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It may help Members to know that I hope to finish this debate at around 3 o’clock. It is not my intention to put a time limit on speeches, so perhaps Members will bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gray]

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—[Interruption.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

[Mr Gray]

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaps in to enter into a party political discussion of the matter, the purpose of the debate is not to have a party political pop across the Chamber—and of course I would not wish to tread unreasonably on the Opposition’s personal grief on this subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. As we are having a debate on defence, it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman, who is normally much better behaved in the Defence Committee, to make partisan points. What I think is improper and verging on being out of order is then not giving way for a response, because I for one do not believe in unilateral disarmament either in the Chamber or in our defence policy.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced and knows full well that that was in no way a point of order.

[Mr Gray]

I am most grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I know this is a very important debate and I have six Back-Bench Members who want to catch my eye as well as the Front Benchers, so could Members keep their remarks as brief as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his input this afternoon and for his chairmanship of the Defence Committee. I associate the Scottish National party with his comments about the excellence of the Committee staff.

In preparing for today’s debate, I not only read the report and the Government response, but looked back over my notes from last year of the evidence that the Committee took. It speaks well of the quality of the witnesses to the inquiry that much of what they said is now coming to pass. I will touch on some of that evidence today.

This is obviously a vast subject that really deserves a day’s debate in the House. However, time pressures will restrict me to only dipping into some of the issues raised in the report. Those are the decidedly squidgy nature of what 2% means; the pressure that that will inevitably put on future procurement projects; and the overwhelming feeling that the Government are confusing “preserving the shop window”, which is typified by the pledge, with actual hard-headed strategic thinking that links in to capability. The focus on inputs has simply provided a useful smokescreen for a distinct lack of usable outputs in our defence capability.

The report is unequivocal that although 2% may act as a useful benchmark and a statement of intent, we should not kid ourselves that it means anything more than the MOD wants it to mean, because, quite simply, using previous measures of defence spending will bring us below the desired figure. Shifting the goalposts means bringing into that figure a whole range of spending priorities, from pensions right through to Trident, that would not have been included before. That has conspired with a whole range of other restraints and ring fences in a way that will see the MOD increasingly tie itself in knots.

Let us take pay restraint, for example. Central to future budgets of the Department is a commitment to ensuring that any rise in the pay of personnel does not exceed 1%. Any upwards movement on salaries would, given the nature of such a target, mean less money for other projects. As inflation rises in post-Brexit Britain, so our dedicated and selfless armed forces personnel will face a pay “crunch”, as Dr Robin Niblett of Chatham House foresaw in his evidence to the Committee last October.

In that regard, although giving hard-pressed personnel a pay rise will be out of the question, the one part of the 2% that there will be no problem with is funding the weapons of mass destruction. I and my colleagues have been relentless in asking the Government to address that anomaly. In fact, if the SNP Defence team could be renamed, I am sure that we would be called HMS Relentless, because we know that every penny spent on Trident is a penny less spent on conventional defence, and that also mean fewer pennies for the salaries of serving personnel.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East suggested that we should move to “three to be free”. I think that a great campaign would be to go for “nil to save on the bill”. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

As the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, I am sad to say that every penny spent on Trident also means less money to support the stunning Queen Elizabeth-class carriers being built in my constituency. Those amazing vessels deserve and require a host of capabilities around them, but in the Government response to the report, we do not get much idea of how they will be paid for. Other hon. Members have alluded to the Type 26s, for example. Whether we are talking about the F-35B joint strike fighters that will fly from the carriers or the Type 26s that will protect them, it seems that in putting forward their pledge, the Government may have caught themselves in a trap of their own making. Of course, as the Great British pound continues to fall in value against the dollar, each of the planned 138 F-35s becomes that bit more expensive, even allowing for what the Minister alluded to earlier. Every day that passes without a timetable being given for the Type 26 programme means that the hard work of my constituents in ensuring that the carriers are delivered on time and on budget is being undermined. I hope that, along with addressing the other substantial points from the report today, the Minister will take the time to let us see what his Department plans to do to ensure that those projects are not adversely affected by the plummeting pound.

Ultimately, the problem is that the 2% pledge should not be confused with a strategy—a charge made by many witnesses in their evidence to the Committee and most forcefully by Professor Julian Lindley-French. The problem is well illuminated in the recent document leaked to the Financial Times, in which General Sir Richard Barrons critiqued the Ministry of Defence for its focus on “preserving the shop window” over its most basic national security duties. The 2% pledge obviously sits very nicely in that shop window.

Also in the shop window sit projects such as Trident, which the Government hope will boost our international prestige and look good in a press release, but which bear no relation to the threats that this country faces and are taking a terrible toll on real, usable procurement projects and, indeed, our armed forces personnel. As we float off into the uncertain waters of Brexit Britain, I would hope that at the very least we could have some form of real stability in our national defence, but as the report shows, as it is with Brexit, so it is with defence—there are more questions than answers.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for their participation. Because we have run over a little bit—I thought it was right to do so—we will try to wind this debate up at 3.15 pm.

Armed Forces Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald]

It is appropriate to enable commanding officers to require testing for drugs and/or alcohol after incidents associated with personnel carrying out safety critical duties. We support the ability of the commanding officer to deal with these matters. It is for them to consider and to proceed with the most appropriate action in relation to the requirement for testing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Duty of service policeman following investigation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 4 and 5.

[Mark Lancaster]

Clauses 3 to 5 relate to investigations and charging. They make a number of changes to provisions in part 5 of the 2006 Act, which deal with the process of deciding whether a person is to be charged with a service offence under that Act. The changes simplify the process. For example, currently some cases that cannot be dealt with by the commanding officer must none the less be referred by the investigating service police to the commanding officer and then from the CO to the Director of Service Prosecutions for a decision on the charge and prosecution.

Clause 3 provides that where the service police consider there is sufficient evidence to charge an offence that the commanding officer cannot try summarily, the case must be sent to the Service Prosecuting Authority for a decision on charging. The Director of Service Prosecutions is responsible for decisions on the charge and prosecution in all cases that cannot be dealt with by the commanding officer. However, currently some of those cases have to be referred by the investigating service police to the commanding officer, and then, as I have said, from the commanding officer to the Director of Service Prosecutions. This adds unnecessary delay and bureaucracy to the process, which the clause seeks to remove.

The other main change made by clause 3 intends to deal with the problem that the 2006 Act currently requires some cases to be sent to a commanding officer to deal with, although they are closely connected with a case that must be sent to the director—for example, where separate offences occurred during the same incident. This can result in separate decisions on whether to prosecute, and separate trials. Clause 3 amends the 2006 Act so that the service police will also be able to refer a case to the Director of Service Prosecutions if, after consultation with the director, they consider it appropriate to do so because of a connection with another case that has been referred to the director.

Clause 4 makes a minor technical clarification to the procedure for the referral of linked cases from the commanding officer to the Director of Service Prosecutions. Currently, if the commanding officer is required to transfer a linked case to the director, the transfer is deemed to take place. Under clause 4, the commanding officer will actually have to make the transfer.

Clause 5 provides for the Director of Service Prosecutions to bring charges himself. Currently, where the director decides that a charge should be brought in a case, he cannot bring the charge directly but must direct the suspect’s commanding officer to bring the charge, and the commanding officer must then bring the charge.

The changes have the support of the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate General. No change is proposed to the circumstances in which the commanding officer is under duty to ensure that the service police are aware of an allegation.

[The Temporary Chair]

We are debating clauses 3, 4 and 5 together if any Member wants to speak on them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Bone, for clarifying the process. I have put this all together, if the Minister could just bear with me.

The Minister referred to investigation and charging in relation to clauses 3 to 5 and I want to ask a question about that. We see a simplification of the process relating to service personnel charged with offences. I assume the Minister is saying that that will be achieved by reducing the number of stages required for the decision to bring charges. Not only will the provision make it easier to bring charges where appropriate, and ensure discipline and order are maintained in our armed forces, it will streamline the process and reduce bureaucracy so that commanding officers are free to go about other duties essential to the smooth running of all aspects of our armed services. Will the Minister clarify the role of the commanding officer in an investigation?

If the Minister will bear with me, clause 2 related to alcohol and drugs. As we are talking about investigation, I want to comment on that. The new rules on drug and alcohol testing are similar, but not identical, to the provisions under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The 2003 Act provides for an alcohol and drug testing regime that is applicable to both the maritime and aviation environments, but the armed forces have Crown exemption. Will the Minister clarify this matter in relation to the new rules on drug and alcohol testing and investigations?

The Bill will remedy that and strengthen the approach to alcohol or drug misuse within the armed forces, as well as being more specific about what grounds justify a drug or alcohol test. It will make it easier for those in charge of an investigation to order a drug or alcohol test when needed, which can only make our armed forces safer and more secure, while simplifying the process to make it easier for commanding officers to secure a drug or alcohol test.

The new statutory framework for immunity from prosecution will give the Director of Service Prosecutions and service courts powers that may assist investigators and prosecutors in cases where it may otherwise be difficult to persuade service personnel to co-operate with the service police and to give evidence. The Minister will be aware of a specific case in Northern Ireland where investigations are ongoing. I believe the provisions are a positive development that will improve transparency across our armed forces and improve the security of individuals. Of course, this could be particularly important to Northern Ireland where there have been continuous attempts, through spurious allegations, to drag the names of former soldiers through the mud. We must never let the legitimate forces of law and order be equated with cold-blooded murderous terrorists. I hope that this aspect of the Bill can ensure that the brave service personnel who fought terrorism in Northern Ireland will never be dragged through the courts by those who terrorised our state, or by their sympathisers and supporters.

On investigation and prosecution in relation to this particular issue, what role will the Minister play? I am sure we are keen to put in place a transparent method of investigation and prosecution. There has to be protection for our brave service personnel. Where we can, we should give them immunity, but we must always give them our full and unreserved legal support and aid, should they need it.

I hope that was clear for the Minister. I have raised several issues about investigation that have to be addressed.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

As it is coming towards Christmas, we let the hon. Gentleman go back slightly to clause 2. [Hon. Members: “And forward!”]. And forward, yes. But we have been moving rapidly, and he was seeking advice as he went.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I will aim not to go backwards or forwards.

We support these common sense and proportionate clauses. As the 2006 Act beds in, they will improve the investigation and charging system by making it as efficient as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

Let me deal first with the question of Gibraltar. I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Spanish. In 2005 Gibraltar received a new constitution, which gives it wider legislative responsibilities. As I have said, we are discussing with its Government whether it would be best to provide for that through the 2006 Act or through its own legislation.

As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, there has been a delay. That is simply because, as the House knows, Gibraltar was holding elections, which have now ended. I am keen to conclude the matter with Gibraltar as quickly as possible, and, if it wished to be included in the provisions of the Bill, the intention would be to introduce amendments in the other place at that point.

On the wider impact, the fact that the 2006 Act has not been in force in the British overseas territories—including the Isle of Man—since 2011 has not, to our knowledge, created any difficulties. The rationale for extending the Act to those jurisdictions includes ensuring that actions that might be taken by members of our armed forces would be lawful there, not only as a matter of United Kingdom law but as a matter of their own law. For example, service police would have powers of arrest, entry and search in those jurisdictions as well. Equally, the civilian authorities in those jurisdictions can do things that they might not otherwise have powers to do under the law there. Including them in the Act gives them extra powers as well.

All in all, we feel, having consulted, that this is a positive step.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Powers of Ministry of Defence fire-fighters in an emergency

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 15 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

Simply to answer the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we will of course ensure that all our firefighters have appropriate protection.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Meaning of “AFA 2006”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 17 stand part.

Clause 18 stand part.

Government amendment 1.

Clause 19 stand part.

Clause 20 stand part.

Government new clause 1—War pensions committees and armed and reserve forces compensation schemes.

Government amendment 2.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am delighted to be able to speak to these amendments today. New clause 1 acknowledges the importance that the Government place on the work of the veterans advisory and pensions committees in supporting our armed forces community. The new clause would amend section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the VAPCs to provide advice and deal with complaints in relation to the armed forces compensation scheme 2005 and future compensation schemes enacted under the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004.

The VAPCs already have certain functions and procedures, as described in section 25 of the 1989 Act and the war pensions committees regulations. This amendment would expand that remit, providing a legislative basis to underpin their broader role and functions. I should, however, say a bit more about the committees.

The committees were first established as the war pensions committees in 1921. Generally, we now refer to them as the veterans advisory and pensions committees. There are 13 such committees whose members I, as Minister responsible for defence personnel and veterans, appoint. There are about 223 members, all unpaid volunteers working within their regional committees to help ex-service personnel and their families, in particular those who are vulnerable. In exercising their statutory functions, the committees carry out a range of activities principally in relation to the war pensions scheme which until 2005 was the main scheme for payment of compensation to members of the armed forces and their spouses and dependants for injuries or death caused by service. These functions include providing local consultation with the MOD on issues concerning war pensioners and war widows or widowers; raising awareness of the war pensions scheme and the veterans welfare service; supporting and monitoring the work of the veterans welfare scheme to ensure the best possible service to war pensioners and war widows and widowers; and helping individuals in representing their difficulties or in making a complaint in relation to the war pensions or war widowers application or review process.

However, there are new armed forces compensation schemes that were not in existence when section 25 was enacted. These include the armed forces compensation scheme and further compensation schemes that have been enacted under the 2004 Act. The new clause, with its proposed amendment to section 25 of the 1989 Act, will enable the committees to be given comparable functions relating to those new schemes too. We want the good work of these committees to continue, helping to enhance the local services delivered by ex-service personnel and their families, giving local support in promoting the armed forces covenant and the development of local community covenants, providing independent opinion on policy changes that may affect veterans, and championing individual cases. New clause 1 proposed by the Government today is for the benefit of our veterans and their families, who deserve the best.

While discussing this new clause, I should also mention amendments 1 and 2, because they make small changes that are consequential to the new clause. Amendment 1 provides that the new clause does not extend to the Isle of Man or the British overseas territories. Section 25 of the 1989 Act, which would be amended by the new clause, extends only to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and this will remain the case. Amendment 2 simply changes the long title of this Bill to include reference to the new provisions for the war pensions committees. These amendments would give the VAPCs, as the war pensions committees are known now, a statutory basis to continue their good work. With the consent of Parliament, our intention would be to make regulations to set out their new statutory functions at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Gwynfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Enlistment of minors—

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 328(2) (c) (Enlistment) the words “without the consent of prescribed persons” are omitted.”

This amendment ensures that only those above 18 years of age are able to enlist in the Armed Forces.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak to new clauses 2 and 3, which stand in my name and those of several hon. Members from various parties across the House. First, I wish to say that these are probing provisions and I do not intend to press them to a Division. Although the Bill does not contain provisions on the recruitment age, it is entirely appropriate that we consider this important issue within the context of this Bill. I should state at the outset that I am a great supporter of the work that the women and men who serve in the armed forces do daily, and that their honour and sacrifice knows no bounds; they are a credit to the communities they serve. Before turning to the new clauses, I would like to put on record my respect for the sterling work they do.