Ministry of Defence
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to respond to the debate. I would have loved to go through all the speeches, but given a shorter time limit than I had expected and the consequent cuts in my speech—let alone the defence budget!—I cannot do that. What I will say, genuinely, is that it is always inspiring to hear constituency Members, such as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), talk about the defence industry and defence assets in their constituencies.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
James Cartlidge
As the hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour, I will.
Peter Prinsley
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State, who is, as he says, my Suffolk neighbour. Suffolk is home to the United States air force base at Lakenheath. The American air force has been our enduring friend since at least the second world war. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must do all that we can to support these brave United States air force personnel at this dangerous time in the world?
James Cartlidge
When I was a Minister, I was privileged to meet General Campo, then the officer commanding two bases, and to go around them with him. I would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, we should have provided the use of American bases as part of the mission to attack Iran from the outset, not least because the nuclear programme in Iran is a threat to us. That is still the most important point in the debate about the current action.
Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—mentioned the need to learn lessons from Ukraine. I want to make one very important point about Ukraine. If we had not stepped up in providing weapons even before Russia’s invasion when we were in government, it is conceivable that Putin’s tanks could have reached Kyiv and Ukraine could have fallen. We were able to provide anti-tank weapons to prevent that column from reaching Kyiv because weeks before the invasion, Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the courage to ignore the advice of the Foreign Office and instead be bold to defend freedom. To put it another way, we did not wait for Putin to invade Ukraine before assisting so that we had a perfect case in international law. Thank God we acted pre-emptively. There is a lesson here.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), made an excellent and eloquent speech, giving all the reasons why we need to increase defence spending. To be fair, I think we all know what they are, so I will not go through the details of the threat, but I have to say that it was shocking, with war raging on multiple fronts, that the Chancellor did not provide a single extra penny for defence in her spring statement yesterday.
There are five huge consequences of not setting a path to 3% and instead adopting Labour’s decision to prioritise welfare over the defence budget. The first consequence is that the priorities of the Department are now wrong. The MOD has no choice, with its current financial settlement, but to prioritise penny-pinching and in-year savings over rearmament. The fact is that instead of increasing the budget for rearmament, it is initiating £2.6 billion of in-year savings this year, which leads us to the second consequence: the operational impact. We all know that, shamefully, not a single Royal Navy ship was in the middle east when war broke out. That is because the Department has had to prioritise in-year savings and retrench its activity.
Last December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), confirmed to me in a written answer that
“over the next four years, the Royal Navy will scale back its participation in overseas training outside the Europe, Atlantic, and Arctic theatres.”
That was a premeditated decision to pull our activity out of the middle east, and what have we seen this week? Drone attacks on the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus. As a direct consequence of the in-year savings, the Government are having to scramble to deploy HMS Dragon to Cyprus, when it should have been there weeks ago. As a Type 45 air defence destroyer, HMS Dragon will provide invaluable air cover around Cyprus against incoming missiles, but we know from BBC Verify that US Arleigh Burke air defence destroyers in the vicinity are providing cover for the time being. The shocking implication of this is that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn on Sunday, he was preventing the US from using our bases while relying on it to defend them. It is an incredible situation.
The third consequence of Labour’s lack of defence spending relates to procurement, which has effectively been on hold since the general election as a result of the Government’s clampdown on in-year spending at the MOD. At the election, we had a fully funded plan to provide £10 billion extra for munitions. [Interruption.] Labour Members always chunter about that. The plan was to be fully funded by cutting the size of the civil service, and they do not like doing that. They did not like the way that it was funded, but that funding would have delivered the munitions strategy, which I was working on as the Minister for Defence Procurement. I want to be clear: it was a comprehensive plan to replenish our arsenal and, in particular, would have seen additional significant investment in air defence missiles, including for ground-based air defence and maritime defence, which are so critical for our country right now.
The problem is that the incoming Government had a better idea: cancel the munitions strategy and put any orders on hold while conducting a strategic defence review that would give all the answers but which, as I warned, would in the meantime put procurement on hold. Having told us that the SDR would have all the answers, the Government did not make any specific capability choices, which were punted into the defence investment plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and many others have said, the strategic defence review was months late and the defence investment plan, promised for autumn 2025, is still nowhere to be seen. When the Prime Minister was asked at Prime Minister’s questions when it will be published, he did not even attempt to answer the question. To paraphrase the Leader of the Opposition, there is no money for defence because the Government have spent it on welfare. Because there is no money, there is no DIP. And because there is no DIP, there is no procurement.
The fourth consequence of Labour’s penny-pinching approach relates to the lethality of our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and his Ministers like to mock the defence drone strategy that I produced in government in February 2024—the first ever from a major military player, as far as I am aware—but I gently remind them that, they confirmed in a written answer last April that it is Government policy to implement the defence drone strategy. The aim of the strategy is to procure drones
“at scale for both the Ukrainian and UK armed forces”.
The problem is that, since the election, the Labour Government have rightly continued providing drones for Ukraine, which we support, but they have not implemented the other side of the bargain: building a comprehensive UK military drone industrial base and procuring at scale for our military. Because the Treasury has agreed funding for Ukraine but not for our armed forces, the MOD has been buying brilliant drone and counter-drone technology made by British SMEs and sending it to Ukraine, while buying almost none of it in parallel for our own troops. That is why last December we announced the Conservative policy of a sovereign defence fund, which would deliver drones at scale for the armed forces and, crucially, take stakes in British SMEs to establish a strong UK defence industrial base, instead of losing the intellectual property abroad.
The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked where we would find the money, and I will tell the House one way that we would find it. Some £17 billion of public money would be transferred to defence, including £6 billion for drones from other research and development, and £11 billion from the National Wealth Fund to create a new national defence and resilience bank—a UK bank that would support the supply chain. We would also lever in public finance, as the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Aldershot (Alex Baker) argued for. I agree with them that we need to increase traditional defence spending, but we massively need to lever in private money and fire up the private sector for defence. Most importantly, our policy would put the world-leading technology that we have given to Ukraine into the hands of our armed forces, immediately boosting their lethality.
The fifth big consequence of Labour’s prioritisation of penny-pinching is on the defence industry, risking jobs in every constituency. In January, it was reported that there is the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. For an industry already hit by a £600 million increase in employer national insurance, this is not good enough.
Of course, our constituents do not just want more money spent on defence; they want it spent well. That is why, in February 2024, I introduced the integrated procurement model in Parliament. Its main focus was to learn the lessons of our extraordinary effort to deliver capability to Ukraine at pace. In particular, a key element was the use of minimum deployable capability. That went live in April 2024, so it is fair to say we did not get a huge amount of time to put it into practice, but we did in one important case study.
A number of commentators have made the important point that, in the latest exchanges in Iran, our RAF is having to use expensive missiles to take down cheap drones, and I think that observation was made by the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas). In April 2024, another of our Type 45 destroyers, HMS Diamond, was deployed in the Red sea when the Houthis, like Hezbollah, were receiving ballistic missiles from Iran. These were also used against HMS Diamond, and while her brave and brilliant crew defeated the threat at the time, I decided that we had to have a way of defeating those drones. I therefore not only procured the DragonFire anti-drone laser, but used the new procurement system to ensure it could be in service in 2027 rather than 2032, which means it will be with our ships from next year.
Given that you are making those usual familiar signals, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say finally that when I visited Leonardo—the factory in Edinburgh that makes DragonFire—I was very chuffed to be told that the minimum deployable capability approach had removed hurdles and red tape, so this cutting-edge capability is going to be in service much faster and is genuinely making a difference.
To conclude, all of this points to the crucial need for the Government to follow the lead of our party, and accelerate their plans by going to 3% in this Parliament, not in the next.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades. As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In Bury St Edmunds, we have many US servicemen from Lakenheath who are living off-base. They are a huge asset and greatly welcome. Does the Minister agree that the US remains our most essential ally, and will he join me in expressing gratitude for the service of those brave US servicemen and women, who are so important for our security?
Luke Pollard
There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
If the right hon. Lady considers and reflects on the strategic defence review that we published in June, she will see that it set out a strong case not just for the rising threats but for action to step up defence of the homeland. That strategic defence review sets out the vision that we will pursue and the action that we will take over the next 10 years.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s statement this evening. I am proud that Suffolk is home to one of the largest air bases in the country. British military families have been in contact with me this afternoon as they are alarmed at the deterioration in the security situation. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to them?
John Healey
I say to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those who are serving in the military that that growing anxiety is quite widely shared. It underlines the recognition of the new threats that we face, and it argues for exactly the sort of commitments to defence funding, for the strategy that the Government have set out, and for the actions and decisions that we are now taking. I hope that his constituents will both support the Prime Minister’s declaration of intent in Paris yesterday—because of the importance of Ukraine to our long-term security—and support and recognise the professionalism of the US operation on the Bella 1 today.
Russian Ship Yantar
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Al Carns
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his point. As someone who used to be in that part of the organisation, I am sure there are lots of people who are champing at the bit to get involved. We must adhere to the international rules of the sea, but let me be really clear for anyone listening to this today that we know exactly what Russia is up to—without a shadow of a doubt, we know what it is up to—and should there be a connection between understanding our cables or undersea infrastructure and disruption, individuals, units, organisations or countries will be held accountable.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The sight of this sinister ship snooping around our shores strikes alarm. How can we be confident of the security of our vital undersea communication cables and what, without compromising our security, is plan B if they are severed?
Al Carns
As my hon. Friend will know, we work with our allies to build contingency across all our critical national infrastructure. There is lots of work to do, and we are working in collaboration with other Governments to do it. The point he raises, which is one of the most important, is that Russia wants to operate behind a veil of darkness, in the shadows, but let us be really clear: we know exactly what it is doing; we know everything that it is up to. A laser pen is not going to deter us. We will continue, we will double down and, if required, we will expose and attribute.
Remembrance Day: Armed Forces
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sergeant Archie Schlapobersky, of the 12th Field Squadron of the South African Corps attached to the British 8th Army, fought at Monte Cassino, the bloody battle for Italy. Nearly 12,000 of his fellow South African soldiers—all volunteers—did not survive world war two. Archie became a farmer in Swaziland after the war, and his daughter, who is my wife, remembers him jumping out of an old army truck and lying on the ground, with his arms and hands over his head, when the first aeroplanes flew over the small British African colony. He had what we would now call post-traumatic stress disorder, but that was not widely recognised in soldiers returning from the terrible war.
Squadron Leader Derek Prinsley, my father, was a young doctor who served in East Anglia and the middle east. His war experiences are vividly described in the early chapters of his book, “New Ideas for Old Concerns”. Many airmen were killed and many injured when planes crashed on runways, and he wrote of extracting stricken pilots from the burning planes as if this was normal for young medics. Many of my father’s medical student friends did not return and did not join the NHS as he did when it was founded. He did not speak of it, but he had not forgotten them, I am sure.
The Times today carries the obituary of Monty Felton DFC, who has died at the age of 101. He flew 30 operations as a navigator in a Halifax bomber. Of the 125,000 airmen who flew with Bomber Command, 55,573 were lost. That is 44%—the highest in any branch of our services.
We speak today of remembrance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who spoke in Prime Minister’s questions last week of the AJEX parade. Thousands of Jewish citizens of this country and of the Commonwealth fought in the great conflicts of the last century. The Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women marches each year on the weekend following national remembrance, and I too will march this week with members of my family to honour the 80th anniversary of the end of the war. Monty Felton DFC never missed the parade.
In a small synagogue in Norwich, there is a war memorial. There are 10 names—three sets of brothers. In Vienna, the great cosmopolitan capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire, there is another beautiful synagogue, which survived the war because it is concealed behind a façade of Viennese houses. In the lobby, I saw a memorial to the fallen Jewish soldiers who fought for Austria in the first war. It was unveiled in 1929. Adjacent is a memorial to the thousands of Jewish citizens of Vienna who perished in the Holocaust hardly half a generation later. The juxtaposition is quite chilling.
I am of the generation whose parents fought in the war. Many did not speak of it, and my own father spoke of it only in great old age. It is right that we who are here today speak of it, for this was an heroic generation who fought a war that began with Polish cavalry and ended with nuclear bombs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
It is not lost on anyone in the House that the first 100 pages of the strategic defence review are all about industry, about ensuring that SMEs can dock into the defence enterprise far more effectively, and about ensuring that we start procuring weapons and systems—and not only for our defence, but for our overseas partners. My hon. Friend will also be aware that we procured 10,000 drones in 2024. The figure has now gone up to 100,000, which are going to Ukraine to support our ally in its fight against Russia.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
We have all witnessed the devastating effect of mass drone attacks, and MPs could see for themselves the sinister looking Iranian Russian drone that was here in Parliament only last week. What measures is the Ministry taking to develop a strategy in this country to defend ourselves from such a mass drone attack?
Al Carns
I recall that a quadcopter landed on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth when she set sail several years ago, and since then investment in taking out uncrewed air systems has been relatively limited. However, in the strategic defence review we have pledged £1 billion to integrated air defence here in the UK, and my hon. Friend will see many procurements moving forward in the defence investment plan.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continuing championing of not just defence businesses in his constituency, but defence in total. The amount of parliamentary questions I have answered from him certainly shows his strong interest in this area. I want more of our defence budget focused on novel and innovative technologies. That is what we announced in the strategic defence review, with 10% going to those advanced technologies. There is a real opportunity to create more jobs that provide the world-leading innovation that will give us the edge on the battlefield, because the nation that innovates the most will be the nation that wins in any conflict. I would be very happy to discuss that further with him.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The east of England has a proud record of defence innovation. Indeed, on my holiday to Lincoln, I stayed at the White Hart hotel, where the battle tank was first conceived during the first world war. Does the Minister agree that investment in technical colleges of excellence, such as that at Bury St Edmonds, are absolutely key to defence innovation?
Luke Pollard
I have some recommendations for other defence holiday tourism, if my hon. Friend would like some. He is absolutely right to raise the importance of skills. There are huge opportunities across the nation in defence industries, but we need the workforce of the future to deliver them. That is why, in the defence industrial strategy being announced this afternoon, he will see more investment in skills, not just in defence technical colleges of excellence but in schools and university clusters, to maximise the opportunity to enhance our skills offer and make defence an engine for growth everywhere in the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
Last year 165,000 young people tried to join the British Army. We hired 9,500 of them, but 84% left because the process was too long. We have a superb “attract feature”, but we need to be better at converting, and we are making progress in that regard, although there is more to be done. I am happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he has any ideas that might support that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sadly, we have all seen the devastation caused by modern missiles. Germany is preparing to receive the Arrow 3 missile defence system, ordered just two years ago, which can intercept intercontinental missiles at 2,500 km. What plans have the Government to equip this country similarly?
John Healey
One of the recommendations in the strategic defence review was that we develop an integrated air and missile defence system in this country. We must take our homeland security more seriously than we have in the past, and that is exactly what we will do.