Afghanistan: Inquiry

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee, on securing the debate, and commend him for the leadership he has shown in the weeks and months since the withdrawal was undertaken.

It would perhaps seem strange if we did not acknowledge the acres of empty Benches around us. Less than three months ago, this House was recalled from its summer recess to discuss the very issue we are discussing now, and today we have started the wind-up speeches only minutes after the Chair of the Select Committee got to his feet. That worries me and speaks to the reason why we need the inquiry that he has come here to ask the Government to instigate—a case he prosecuted forensically.

The SNP supports the right hon. Gentleman’s call for an inquiry. I think he is right that it is important to those who served. It is important to their families. In particular, it is important for those who went to Afghanistan and paid with their lives, whether they were UK armed forces or those who served alongside them. It was fashionable at the time of the initial withdrawal not to acknowledge the international coalition, but I think we should. Above all, we owe it to the people of Afghanistan, not just those who have lost their lives or been maimed or injured over the course of the west’s time there, but those who now face the long dark night of Taliban rule that stretches out before them. Yes, that includes in particular women and girls, minority groups, journalists and academics, but also all who tasted freedom over the past few years and have now had it rather abruptly snatched away.

It is notable that although there have been some other inquiries in different coalition countries, it is only the Norwegians who have set up a fully independent inquiry. That is something we need to do here. Yes, inquiries are expensive, necessarily so. Inquiries are slow, necessarily so. We have not had that many of them, necessarily so. But if the Government will not bring forward an inquiry on Afghanistan, then goodness knows what they will ever bring forward an inquiry on in future. They need to look at the long stretch of the mission, the motivation for why we went there in the first place, and the chaotic withdrawal, which we were recalled for less than three months ago.

I would like to put on record—the Minister and I exchanged on this last night—that I had actually thought this was a Ministry of Defence debate. As my party’s defence spokesperson, I wanted to put on record my thanks to the Defence Secretary for his conduct in the aftermath of the withdrawal. I do not think he and the Government got everything right, and the Foreign Secretary certainly did not, but I do not want to rehearse that this afternoon. It is important to acknowledge that the Defence Secretary seemed to be the only Minister who grasped the issue’s importance at the time—I will rephrase that: the only Cabinet Minister, because I do not want to be unfair on the Minister before us.

The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East touched on a broader point about political will and assessing exactly where we are with the implementation of our values. The Minister and I will disagree on much about defence and foreign policy, but fundamentally, our agreements are underwritten with the same kinds of values—on openness, tolerance and solving big issues in alliances with other countries.

I am a committed internationalist. Multilateral fora such as NATO and the European Union are, by a country mile, the best parts of the international architecture for advancing values of tolerance, liberal democracy and openness. If they did not exist, we would want to create them, and I would want Scotland to be in them and all the countries around us to be part of them. They are by the far the greatest vehicles for the kinds of values that we in this House all share. However, we must all reflect, and NATO at large must reflect, on this defeat—there is no other word for it. If there is a failure to do so and to have the kind of inquiry that the Chairman of the Defence Committee is asking the Government to initiate, those who want to overturn our values, as he mentioned, will take heart from that. Within hours, China was talking about the weakening of the west. Russia was in Kabul barely days after it had fallen, while we, in concert with others, were desperately scrambling—and failing in too many cases—to get people out quickly and alive.

Alongside an inquiry, the challenge is this: we must have a political discussion with other capitals that we are allied with about how we renew and reinvigorate the international architecture that underpins and drives the order that we have all benefited from and want to see us continue to benefit from. If we do not do that, who will benefit? It will be those who stand in opposition to our values. So the question is: what does Afghanistan and that withdrawal become? Does it become a low point for the liberal international order that we all believe in, or does it mark the point of no return? The Minister will have to answer that when he gets to his feet. If we do not have a full, independent inquiry, properly funded and properly prosecuted by a judge, with full powers of subpoena and all the rest of it, I fear that this will be a point of return, and I am sure that nobody in this House wants that.

The right hon. Gentleman has the full backing of my party for his proposal for an inquiry. Let us not shrug this off this afternoon. The debate will now, necessarily, be depressingly short; perhaps the acres of empty green Benches scream out that we need the inquiry that he asks for.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. Is it worth his clarifying this point, which I did not? We have in our mind, as a yardstick, that an inquiry looks like Chilcot. Nobody is asking for Chilcot, but we are asking for something that I believe should be the norm: after every long-term military engagement, there is an assessment of what happened so that we can learn for the better. However, it does not need to take the legal approach that Chilcot was all about. That had a very different, complicated requirement.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the Defence Committee has started its investigation, and we on the Foreign Affairs Committee have started ours. Parliament has a role to play in doing its job and scrutinising what Government have and have not done, and making recommendations for the future. That is right and proper, but he rightly asks for something above that that can do the necessary job. I get entirely why Chilcot provides a rather unhelpful shadow over this discussion, but it cannot be used as an excuse to shrug off what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do. This is up to the Government and up to us all. What we have shown through the lack of hon. Members’ presence in this debate is that Parliament cannot be left as the only institution to scrutinise the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made today on this important issue. I am also grateful to the Minister, who has worn the uniform and who I know takes these matters very seriously indeed. However, we have raised more questions than we have had answers to, which is exactly why we need an inquiry. I believe that there should be a default position that whenever this country goes to war or is involved in a long-term conflict, there should be some form of formal wash-up provided by the Government. If I had a private Member’s Bill opportunity, I would put one forward, but I would be worried that the Government would whip against it and that it would not get through. That is another matter, however.

The Minister talked about terrorist attacks from Afghanistan, and he was absolutely right, but we are no longer there so that threat is now very much back on the cards. The humanitarian assistance was significant, but it has been diminished because we have decided to depart. On NATO, he was right to say that there was an all in, all out approach, but that did not anticipate Donald Trump coming very close to taking the United States out of NATO. That was not the way forward that anybody imagined.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure. With the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker, I would be happy to give way. I seek her guidance.

UK Defence Spending

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my colleague on the Defence Committee. I am pleased to see not one, but two Defence Ministers on the Front Bench who have come to listen to our thoughts today.

The debate is particularly relevant because this is Armed Forces Week. I hope that both Ministers will join me in using it as an opportunity to recognise and celebrate what our services do for the nation. It is a chance to give thanks to all our forces for what they do in keeping our nation safe and working with allies to protect our interests and defend our values.

When we speak of the armed forces, we mean not just our regular and reserve forces, but the cadets, our veterans and, importantly, the families and loved ones who support those who wear the uniform. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

This week is important because the bond between the armed forces and society is critical. Our volunteer forces are drawn from society. If the general public are less aware of what our forces do and the role they play in keeping us safe, fewer people will step forward and consider joining the services. As we have discussed today, we are more likely to get an increase in defence spending if the nation understands the threats. People will support our call for increased spending if we take the nation with us.

It has been said many times in this Chamber that we have arguably the most professional armed forces in the world—highly trained, well equipped, extremely professional and, consequently, revered by our allies and feared by our adversaries. As a former regular soldier and now a reservist, I have no hesitation in recommending to any school leaver a career in the armed forces. To them, I say: “You will learn things about yourself you never knew, go places you never expected, and develop skills and build confidence that will help you for the rest of your life. The first time you march off the parade square, having completed your training, you will make your mum and dad so proud.” We thank all those in the armed forces who serve and continue to serve.

Today’s debate is about defence spending. I think the Government’s integrated review paints the changing threat picture very fairly. By anybody’s calculation, the world is becoming more insecure. Authoritarianism is on the rise; extremism is active not just in the middle east, but increasingly in Africa; both Russia and China are presenting fresh security challenges that we have yet to fully address; and our international organisations are less able to uphold international standards. I would argue that our threat picture, collectively, is greater than during the cold war when defence spending was at 4%, yet today it remains at just above 2%.

Quite rightly, the integrated review calls for new capabilities to counter emerging threats, particularly from cyber and space, but it is clear that without extra funding, that has come at the expense of our conventional forces. The emergence of new threats does not mean that the old ones have disappeared, yet here we are, cutting back the Army by 10,000 troops and reducing the number of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, as well as our Typhoon and F-35 fleets and our Hercules heavy-lift aircraft.

We will also lose two Type 23 frigates. We have frigates and destroyers in the surface fleet that are global leaders in their class, but we simply do not have enough of them. Our Royal Navy is now overstretched and we need to increase its size. I certainly praise the efforts of HMS Defender in ignoring the intimidation of the Russians in the Black sea yesterday, but if we are to step forward with our allies as we should to defend and protect international waters and show a presence in the Caribbean, the Gulf, east Africa, the Mediterranean, the North sea and now the Arctic, as well as a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, as commanded in the integrated review, we will need a bigger Navy.

The Government put forward the counter-argument that we can lean on autonomous and unmanned assets. New technologies can certainly help, but they should be seen as enablers rather than as replacing manpower. We cannot replace boots on the ground.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about leaning further into autonomous weapons. As that happens more and more, does he share my concern that we are not as far advanced on the rules surrounding their use? Do we not need greater collaboration with allied countries to set the standards and rules globally?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we are advancing into new terrain: even when it comes to a cyber-attack, it is unclear whether or not it is an article 5 breach. We are building resilience and capabilities, but the rules-based order, international institutions and legislation have yet to keep up. That should not prevent us from making sure—as the MOD is rightly doing—that our mission is protected as we become increasingly vulnerable and ever more reliant on the movement of data.

To go back to the point about reducing our armed forces and the footprint of our manpower, the ability to seize and hold ground, separate warring factions, deliver humanitarian aid, assist civil authorities with tasks such as tackling covid-19, win over hearts and minds, restore law and order, respond to natural disasters and carry out countless other diverse tasks—that requires people. It requires professionals—it requires our soldiers, sailors and air personnel. It is wrong to reduce those numbers.

Global Britain

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 90% of our trade still goes by ship. However, not all shipping lanes are as free as they should be.

Talking about global Britain leads to a desire to speak about trade and the economy. That is important, but I am going to focus on security, because, as the first line of the original 2010 strategic defence and security review reminds us, economic security and national security are interdependent of each other. If we do not have national security, we cannot build the economy in order to prosper. If we invest in defence, it is not just for the defence budget—we are also increasing our prosperity, from which all other budgets then benefit from as well.

There is perhaps some optimism on the Conservative Benches following the general election, and a sense of determination. We have a mandate and we have the energy to, we hope, be in office for a number of years, and to craft where Britain should go over the next decade. However, that decade is going to get more dangerous and more complex than at any time since the cold war. The character of conflict is changing. It is moving from arguments and battles over terrain to the digital domain as we become ever more reliant on the digital economy. We have seen the rise of Russia. We have seen what Iran is up to. Extremism has not disappeared. We pat ourselves on the back that somehow we have got rid of the caliphate in the middle east, but extremism continues. We saw during the interruption in the general election that terrorism remains rife. Those challenges are dispersing and getting more complex, and they are challenges to our economy and our prosperity.

There are two issues very much at the forefront that we need to focus on, perhaps in the longer term, one of which is climate change and its consequences. One in four of the world’s population will come from Africa. They are not producing the jobs there that they need, and that will lead to huge migrational challenges. Some 80% of the world’s population lives within 50 miles of the coastline. If sea levels rise, where will those people go? How will those economies be affected? How will Bournemouth be affected—my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister as well?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

On Bournemouth? I would be delighted.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, there is a man who has read the global strategic trends document of the Ministry of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is important for his constituency, but it is also important for Scotland, particularly the north of Scotland, because if we do not deal with it properly, the rules that currently govern the South China sea will, all of a sudden, govern the high north and the north Atlantic—and that, as I am sure he would agree, would be a disaster.

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—who is now my hon. Friend, as we will hopefully work more closely on national defence issues for the United Kingdom. He makes an important point about these being issues that we need to tackle. When it comes to defence, there is an immediate knee-jerk reaction to speak about platforms—have we got enough of them and so forth? That is important, and we do no doubt face some challenges, but it is also about capabilities.

I go back to the fact that the character of war is changing. We are in constant conflict and competition. Why bother invading or, indeed, attacking a country when it is possible to digitally impose problems for any town, city or community from afar, through a laptop? Elections are being interfered with, and there is not even an international organisation that countries can go to and say, “My election has been interfered with by another state. Please can you take action?”

The second issue is to do with the rise of China. It has a President who has got the job for life, and in our lifetime China will become more dominant economically, technologically and militarily than the United States. It is setting its own rules on how it does business, which poses some huge challenges for us. We need to have an adult conversation with China to better understand it and ask, “What are the rules that we should be following?” We talk about the erosion of the rules-based order, but who is willing to step forward and say, “I’m going to challenge that—I’m going to defend the rules-based order or upgrade those rules, because they are out of date”? Let us not forget that many of them were created in the Bretton Woods conversations after the second world war. China was excluded, and it reminds us of that all the time. It needs to be included in a conversation with international organisations, whether it be the UN or the OECD, so that the rules and standards that we follow are observed, because they have not been.

China is doing its own thing, and we see that in the big debate we have just had over Huawei. Whether it is Huawei, Tencent or China Telecom, all those companies are obliged to provide sensitive information to the state. We do not know the relationship between Huawei and the Chinese army. We have no idea what the intelligence services do with that information. That is why concern has been expressed vividly in this House about the relationship that we have chosen for our 5G roll-out.

We were not in the room when that decision was made in the National Security Council. Experts are there to give the Prime Minister advice. My message to the Government is: we have taken that decision, but can we put a time limit on our use of Huawei or, indeed, any Chinese companies? Can we develop our own western capability, so that we can wean ourselves off the use of Chinese operations? We cannot predict the security that we will require in the future, or even today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is not just the big companies—aerospace and defence companies—we must look to support, but the SMEs, which are in every one of our constituencies. I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the Minister with responsibility for procurement, that that is exactly what is happening.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It was good to see members of the armed forces and the Secretary of State herself at the Pride event in London at the weekend.

Last year, a departmental assessment of the privatisation of the fire and rescue service at the Ministry of Defence gave Capita the highest possible risk rate. Two months ago, following a court challenge and an £80,000 payment to Serco, the lead competitor, Capita was finally given a contract worth millions to deliver services all over the world, despite the huge financial risk. Why was £80,000 paid to Serco to allow that to go ahead? Does that not show up the whole problem with privatisation at the Ministry of Defence?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment; it is important that we provide value for money. The defence budget is under pressure, as are all other Departments. He is absolutely right to say that Capita was going to be given the contract. It is subject to a legal challenge and we have to wait to see that mature, but let us not forget that even on Labour’s watch we had the outsourcing of fire contracts to other organisations, not least in Cyprus as well as at other bases including Aldermaston. This is not new; it is something that we have to advance.

Armed Forces: Angus

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

While serving as a regular officer, I had the pleasure to be based in Gibraltar, and I became very familiar with the treaty of Utrecht and the role that the Royal Marines played in securing the Rock. May it forever remain British. Gibraltarians are very proud people, and we have a strong relationship with the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

Looking to the future, the 2015 strategic defence and security review mapped out our commitment to the Royal Marines. I am pleased to say that following the modernising defence programme, the future of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion as amphibious workhorses has been confirmed. The Royal Marines winter deployment programme in Norway will continue, as will their training with US counterparts. We will shortly see women join the ranks of the Royal Marines in ground close-combat roles for the first time.

Turning to the base, my hon. Friend the Member for Angus will be aware that the Royal Navy first forged a valuable relationship with Angus during the last war. The Fleet Air Arm occupied the base in 1940 as a training field to train aircrew in aircraft carrier deck landing operations. In 1954, the base became the home of the Royal Navy aircraft engineering training school. In 1971, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the base became the home of 45 Commando and was renamed RM Condor. Today it also houses 7 (Sphinx) Battery, which is part of 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, 2 Signal Regiment, 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group, and the Royal Military Police detachment. It is also home to a number of cadet operations, so it is vital for us to encourage recognition and understanding of what our armed forces do, and perhaps to introduce the idea that a career in the armed forces—specifically the marines—is worth pursuing.

Turning to the future, colleagues will be aware of the wider need to rationalise our defence real estate. The Ministry of Defence owns 3% of land across the United Kingdom, much of which is surplus to our requirements. We have conducted a wide-ranging study into what can be utilised, what needs to be continued, what is vital for training, what is needed for the future and what we can dispense with. We are transforming the estate into one that better supports the future needs of our armed forces. We will be investing £4 billion over the next 10 years to create a smaller, more modern and more capability-focused estate.

On our military presence in Angus, I can confirm that there are no plans to dispose of RM Condor as an operational base. As part of our review, we have been investigating how best to ensure that 45 Commando continues to have access to the facilities it requires to live, work and train. We are considering whether there are opportunities to undertake more defence tasks. What more can we add to our military capability in that neck of the woods to ensure we make the most of that important facility?

The MOD is investing not just in Angus but in Scotland as a whole, as other hon. Members have said. Wider afield, we have the Clyde naval base—another location I was pleased to visit not long ago—which will soon be home to all the UK submarines in the submarine centre of specialisation. The first of nine P-8 maritime patrol aircraft will be arriving in Scotland very soon. Boeing and the UK Government are working together to build a new £100 million operational support and training base in RAF Lossiemouth. In essence, Scotland is important to the defence of the United Kingdom—not just our military capability but our procurement. The Type 26 and our offshore patrol vessels are being built in Scotland, too.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Minister will know that during the independence referendum campaign, the Ministry of Defence made two promises about Scotland. It promised 12,500 regular personnel based in Scotland—the Government are way off that target at the minute—and a frigate factory based on the Clyde, which still has not appeared. When does he expect those promises to be fulfilled?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the pressures on us in recruitment and retention. It is a competitive environment. Per head, our footprint in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and Scotland does very well indeed from the investment we make, despite the extra taxation that the Scottish National party has sadly decided to inflict on our armed forces personnel—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is signalling, “Carry on, carry on,” but he knows exactly what I am talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus raised that important issue. We have had to step in and fill the gap to prevent the impact it would have had on individual soldiers, sailors and air personnel if it had been allowed to go ahead without our reacting to it.

Veterans Strategy

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

With the leave of the House, I have the pleasure of concluding this cross-party debate on supporting our armed forces, which has been frank and fair. It is pleasing to see the energy of Members on both sides of the House who want to continue our commitment to supporting our armed forces—those in uniform, their families and those who transit into civilian life and are again able to offer something back to society. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions today.

I would first like to pick up on some of the points raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). We are absolutely working to try to identify more funds. He will be aware of the pressures, but there are pockets of funding to be found. It is important that we have greater collaboration and co-ordination on the support that is required for veterans across all levels. We have a further opportunity to debate that next Thursday when we scrutinise the covenant, and I very much look forward to that.

I would like to touch on other contributions. The shadow Defence Secretary spoke about implementation and outcomes. I absolutely agree that it is important to look at them when considering the strategy, and I hope that will be a part of the consultation process. She also touched on an interesting aspect of this issue, which is apprenticeships. We have, I think, more apprenticeships than many other Government Department. We are very proud of that, and apprenticeships are a key contributor to what our armed forces can do.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) passed on a number of messages from Members who understandably could not be here today, including the Chair of the Defence Committee. It is also right that the whole House pays tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who did an incredible job as the Prime Minister’s envoy promoting and organising the world war one commemorations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and others also touched on lawfare issues with regard to what is happening to our veterans in Northern Ireland. He hinted at my personal view, which is on the record. This is a matter for the Armed Forces Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I have spoken to her about it recently, and we do need to advance the issue. I am aware that it has taken some time, but I know that she is aware of how serious it is and the awkwardness of those who have served and retired completely having to think back to what they did 40 to 50 years ago. We face a very strange situation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) spoke about Danish models and US models. I touched earlier on the fact that we are sharing best practice on supporting veterans with other nations. He talked about the role of the veterans champions in Scotland, and I am pleased to see that they are in place. I hope that the consultation will address the issue of co-ordination.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) for all the support she has given me personally during her time at the Ministry of Defence. It is clear that she is passionate about defence. I know she will continue, wherever she sits in the Chamber, to be an advocate for our armed forces. [Interruption.] I meant on the Front Bench or the Back Benches, rather than anywhere else across the Chamber. The work she did to support me, with her background and her understanding of the detail, was absolutely phenomenal. She raised a number of points about accountability. Perhaps we can have a discussion—we have raised this privately as well—about how we can advance some of the ideas that exist, which are well worth it.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) was very proud, quite rightly, to speak about the home of the Royal Navy. He made light of the fact that the veterans strategy makes for lighter reading—I hope—than the Brexit document. It is certainly shorter, and possibly might last longer as well—who knows? [Interruption.] The Whips Office did not write that one down.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the ID card, which is very important. Recognition of who our veterans are is critical. Veterans are allowed to keep their ID card—the MOD 90, as it is called—when they depart. We cut the corner off, and that gives them the identification. Veterans are now allowed to apply, and we are just getting the process in place. Drivers’ licences will also have a label on them to say whether someone is a veteran. The whole purpose is to allow businesses and organisations to celebrate the fact that they can offer discounts and support to those who are genuinely veterans. Those schemes exist already; we have the Defence Discount Service. I very much encourage all hon. Members to go on to the website and see a virtual map of the fantastic support and discounts that are available for our armed forces and veterans in their towns and constituencies. That is well worth understanding.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke about Care after Combat and the Career Transition Partnership, which I did not get to touch on. The partnership is absolutely critical. Its work is advancing, and it is doing an incredible job of making sure that we look after individuals and tailor programmes that take people through the necessary steps of crafting their CV and seeing where their strengths are. I underline the incredible and often unique skillsets that people pick up in the armed forces, but it is also fair to say that many businesses are not so familiar with how those skillsets can be used in new contexts. The Career Transition Partnership programme deals with exactly that.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said that collaboration between veterans services needs greater co-ordination. I hope that we can continue to provide that, and it is part of what the veterans strategy is intended to achieve through consultation. That must be a critical objective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) gave a passionate speech about the importance of supporting our veterans. He also rightly articulated how our veterans become part of every aspect and every walk of society. In some cases people would not necessarily know that, because a veteran may have retired some time ago, but veterans do incredible jobs. It might simply be about going up to a veteran and saying, “Thank you for your service.” That gives me licence to promote the veterans breakfast clubs, which are a brilliant initiative. One a week is now opening up. They are simple operations. A café might just put a sign up, saying, “Veterans meet here at 8 o’clock on a Wednesday morning”, and then like-minded people turn up, with different experiences, but feeling valued—that is what it is all about—and being thanked for their service.

Finally, there was the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As I said, I want to do some more work with Northern Ireland specifically. He mentioned Operation Banner, and he knows that I served there. He raised many of the issues that we continue to need to work on. I am pleased to be able to go back there and see how, in the very specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, we can advance the covenant and our responsibility and duties to our brave veterans and service personnel there.

I end simply by saying that all this is about our armed forces. It is about our ability to remain in a position to say that we have the most professional armed forces in the world. We can only recruit the next generation of potential service personnel if they know that they will be looked after once they depart the armed forces. It is so important that we continue to have a strong military, given the dangers that we face. It is what we do and what other nations expect us to do—to have a credible, formidable and capable hard power. Ever fewer nations are stepping forward with the ability and desire to help to shape the world about us.

Ultimately, it is also in our economic interest to maintain a strong defence. Indeed, the first line of the strategic defence and security review states that our economic security is aligned with our defence and security. If we want a good, strong economy and prosperity, it is important for us to be able to defend our shipping lanes and support prosperity in other parts of the world, where it might be threatened.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Ellwood]

Very quickly.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It is a very quick question. I am guessing that work on the next SDSR will probably start next year. When will we finally see the modernising defence programme?

[Mr Ellwood]

What is pertinent is that we are now moving towards the spending review, which will provide for the five-year cycle and show where our armed forces funding will go. However, that veers away from matters concerning veterans.

Let me reiterate my thanks for the contributions that have been made today, and for the cross-party support for our armed forces. I end by saying thank you to all who have served in our gallant and brave armed forces.

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Oh, I am going to come to that. The hon. Gentleman leapt up, but sometimes hon. Members’ interventions are best made from their seats; that might have been one of them.

On whether this is a civilian ship or a warship, my party is in agreement with the shadow Secretary of State. We think that the Government have the wrong definition and we do not believe that they are actually fulfilling their responsibilities as far as the Parker report is concerned. These ships are armed and, as has been mentioned, take part in counter-piracy and counter-narcotics missions.

I want to read a quote from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is responsible for procurement. He said in a written answer on 27 April this year:

“The programme to deliver the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Fleet Solid Support ships is in the Assessment Phase. We expect that the ships will be provided with a limited range of weapons and sensors for self-protection, most likely to include small arms, and close range guns such as Phalanx. The exact equipment provision has not yet been finalised but will remain consistent with the defensive measures provided to RFA vessels.”

On that definition, the Minister who has just spoken is getting it wrong.

[Mr Ellwood]

May I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship to see the self-defence assets that are on board? That is allowed by law, given that civilians are working there. They are allowed to have a certain accommodation of capability, as he has just rolled out. That does not make such a vessel a royal naval warship or one that is doing any kinetic operations.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The Minister is free to invite me. Indeed, I look forward to getting a suggested date and time.

I am not the only one who is picking a fight with the Government over this; I am joined by all the Opposition parties in the Chamber today, the shipbuilders who will be producing these ships when the order finally comes through and the trade union movement that supports them.

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

An unfortunate aspect of the modernising defence programme debate is that we focus so much on kit and platforms and not enough on our real deterrent: the men and women of the armed forces. When the document eventually sees the light of day, will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box that it will allow the Ministry of Defence to lift the 1% pay cap?

[Mr Ellwood]

The lifting of the 1% pay cap has already advanced because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury liberated that ceiling last year when she made her statement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is pushing forward with the MDP. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is not just about equipment and training; it is about the people. It is the people who make our armed forces the most professional in the world.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Thinking of the defence community in the round, which is of course the Minister’s brief, perhaps he can tell us why the Government are pressing ahead with the privatisation of the defence fire and rescue service. It is another windfall for the cowboys at Capita, despite the fact that the Ministry of Defence’s internal documents have given it the highest possible risk assessment. Why on earth is he going ahead with it?

[Mr Ellwood]

I made a full statement to the House on this issue. Capita won the contract fairly and squarely. This is not the first time that the private sector has been used. A number of airfields already have a set up in place. We need to make sure that we provide the best safety for airfields, and I think that Capita will be able to provide that.

Ministry of Defence

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman should refer back to Hansard to understand what I have actually said. I shall make some progress.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

Let me finish this part of my speech, then I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised by the way interventions are being made, because I am going through a series of acknowledgements of where things have gone wrong, another example of which is the challenge of flexing—the spending of future defence budgets today—which should be the exception, not the norm. CASD is a £31 billion programme and it has been necessary to bring forward some of that spending, which is why the budget has been increased by £300 million this year.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

On the equipment plan, the Minister is right to say that the £20 billion black hole is the upper end of the estimate. He talked about taking that seriously, so what will it be this time next year?

[Mr Ellwood]

We have only just completed the budget for 2017-18, and I should be clear that we have yet to embark on the annual spending round for next year. Perhaps this differs from other Departments because we have an opportunity to make a case for additional spending. We have the opportunity to make the case for a defence posture and to say what is appropriate for Britain. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s point at the moment, but the purpose of this entire process is for us, hopefully with the House’s support, to make the case to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister. That is what the modernisation programme is all about.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Chamber.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I remember the Minister bringing the Second Reading debate to a conclusion 40 minutes early. I just want to touch on what he said about looking at evidence. The 2015 peer review body highlighted in its evidence that people sometimes join the forces to get skills before moving on to better-paid jobs elsewhere. One of the ways around that would be to give them a decent pay rise. Will he commit to that?

[Mr Ellwood]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of the debate, he would have heard me say that a pay rise is being considered by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The 1% pay freeze has been lifted, which is good news, and we look forward to the recommendations that will be made in March.

The MOD already gathers evidence on the impact that new forms of flexible working will have on our people. We think that that will provide more value than any evaluation from an independent contractor. We do not need to introduce more evaluation, further levels of statistics or additional reporting. It remains our view that imposing new statutory obligations would be unnecessarily costly, delay the introduction of the new measures and benefits for our people, and add little value to what we are trying to achieve. As I have said, we recognise the importance of keeping the effects of these changes under continuous review, in terms of the benefits to personnel and the impact on recruitment and retention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman. To suggest that Ministers are not making the case, along with Back Benchers on both sides, for funding for the armed forces in the defence budget is to misunderstand and indeed to be asleep in the debate that has been taking place over the past couple of months. He is also completely ignoring the banding and the progressive pay scales that are in place. It is absolutely right to have a debate about pay, but he must recognise that the banding does not mean that there is a pay freeze. He is missing out a chunk of understanding about armed forces pay.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I almost do not know where to begin with that. As I have mentioned, there was a debate in this House specifically on armed forces pay, and I am well aware of the banding that is in place, but the Minister has the power to offer a pay rise. He does not need to wait for a recommendation or to take the recommendation from the pay review body. It is after all only a recommendation. I know that he fights his hardest for cash for his Department and for the armed forces—I read about it in The Times newspaper on a daily basis—but let us be honest: the defence review has been kicked into the later part of the year, the Government have apparently removed its fiscally neutral element, and from what I can see, three of the four announcements made by the Secretary of State on Thursday are going to amount to more cuts in capability elsewhere. I do not doubt that he and other Ministers do their best to take on what the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) described as

“the pinstripe warriors at the Treasury”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 128WH.]

However, it is about time that we started to see some of the fruits of their labours and of those who sit behind them on the Back Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), to his place. In response to an earlier question on CarillionAmey, it was stated that military families should not see a difference in the service they receive. Is it not the case, however, that they should see a difference? The 1,500 calls per day that the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned earlier should tell us that something is deeply wrong with this private contract.

[Mr Ellwood]

First, I extend my welcome to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, the new procurement Minister. He is very welcome indeed. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s question, we need to understand what those calls are. If someone is phoning up to get a lightbulb replaced, does that mean that they are dissatisfied with the service, or do they simply need a new lightbulb? Let us be honest about what those calls actually are. A process also exists so that when someone is prevented from, say, getting a new lightbulb, they are compensated for the inconvenience caused.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Let us be serious here. We know that this is not about lightbulbs. It is about people’s hot water going off and their having to wait weeks to get it fixed. Is it any wonder that fewer than half our service families are happy with the current accommodation model? When does the Minister plan to get a grip of this and end the dreadful service that companies such as CarillionAmey are giving to military families?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; it should not be flippant about something that is so important. I should explain, however, that an awful lot of calls come through that relate to the everyday management of these locations. Yes, there are occasions when someone’s boiler has gone and we need to ensure that the individual family is compensated. Under a former Defence Secretary a couple of years ago, we called the company in to say that standards were slipping and needed to be improved. The satisfaction surveys that have come back since then show that there has been a dramatic increase, but yes, we still need to keep working at this.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Specifically on pensions, the MOD’s continuous attitude survey shows that dissatisfaction with the package was at 38% in 2013, but is now at 52%. Why?

[Mr Ellwood]

I take from the continuous attitude survey that, yes, we have to recognise the concerns about pay and indeed about pensions—such concerns are felt on both sides of the House—but the biggest concerns are the long periods of separation and the pressures on family life. That is exactly why we are introducing the armed forces people programme, which will alleviate the pressure on families caused by separation. We are providing a new joiners’ offer and a new accommodation offer, and we are also looking at a new enterprise approach, which will allow highly capable people in the private sector to slide across into the armed forces. There is also the flexible engagement model that we debated in the Chamber on Monday.

As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, and this has been reiterated by Members on both sides of the House, we must recognise how different it is to wear the uniform in today’s context. It is becoming tougher to recruit because we have full employment, and it is becoming difficult to retain because of the challenges and competition we have in public life. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—who perhaps teased my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in denying him the ability to intervene—we recognise those different circumstances, and we are trying to get people to step forward.

The conduct of war itself has changed. What we expect to ask of our brave service personnel is also different. That is the context of the debate, and that is reflected perhaps in the recruitment and retention challenges that have been echoed across the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I very much join in the spirit of the hon. Lady’s remarks, but we have to work within the mechanics of such a referral. We took the initiative to bring the situation to the awareness of the International Criminal Court in 2014. Our efforts were vetoed by two permanent members of the Security Council. That will happen again unless we are able to provide the necessary evidence, which is exactly what we are doing. We will hold those people to account, but there is an order and a process that we must honour. I entirely agree with the spirit of what the hon. Lady wants to do.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

4. What recent representations he has made to his counterparts in the middle east on press freedom in that region.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

We encourage all countries to respect freedom of the media. On concerns about freedom of expression in the middle east, we clearly set out these concerns in our annual human rights report, which was most recently published in April.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It is now four years since the Saudi writer Raif Badawi was arrested. Earlier this month his wife was sentenced to 1,000 lashes for promoting her husband’s cause around the world. Given that it was British engineers who have extracted Saudi oil and built their roads, and given our massive co-operation on matters of defence and foreign policy, are not people around the world and in this country right to have expected a bit more progress than the Government have obtained so far?

Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I do ask, with huge respect, that this narrative that somehow British soldiers are involved in the targeting cell is stopped. The Prime Minister made that absolutely clear yesterday—indeed, I think in response to the Scottish nationalists—saying that we are not part of the coalition. We are not in the targeting cell, and therefore we are not privy to that information. What we are calling for is absolutely the robust process that must be followed if an incident is reported.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The United Kingdom has practically built the modern Saudi state. It was UK workers who extracted the oil and built the roads and UK doctors and nurses who provided modern medicine—plenty evidence of the British carrot. However, I think the Minister is in a stronger position than he perhaps appreciates, so when will we see a bit of the British stick, beyond the usual platitudes that we hear from the Dispatch Box?

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman offline. He is aware of what we try to do overtly, but also quietly, to advance change in Saudi Arabia. It is difficult: it is a very new state. We should also reflect on the fact that the royal family—the leadership there—is on the liberal wing of a very conservative country. There is a pace of change that works, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to see it move any faster, he should bear in mind that a possible consequence could be to see Daesh spreading—it has made it clear that it wants to take over custodianship of the two holy cities, and that is exactly what we could get. Therefore, I absolutely stand with him on wanting to effect change, but it needs to happen at a pace that is workable.

Saudi Arabia

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise that Daesh benefits when there are disagreements between the regional players, which is why it is important that we de-escalate tensions.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Islamic scholar and cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was described by our US allies as someone who promoted democracy, justice and peace. I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment to those values, but we really do need more than a statement of disappointment—a rather perverse manifestation of the British understatement. Given that promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia now appears to be a capital offence, can he outline exactly what the Saudi Government would need to do to draw an official censure from the Dispatch Box?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to link two different conversations. Two and two does not equal five. The fact that those who promote democracy are now facing the death penalty is incorrect. We will continue to build our relationships with Saudi Arabia to encourage the reforms that we would like to see, as I articulated in my statement.

Human Rights (Saudi Arabia)

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, I need to make some progress, and then I will answer those questions. It is important, if we have these debates, that we can see progress being made. We must be able to see movement forward. I will give some illustrations of that and of instances in which Britain is trying to assist in that progress.

Turning to some of the specific questions that have been asked, the hon. Member for Glasgow South asked about the lowering of the flag on the death of King Abdullah. I should make it clear that it is a long-standing convention to half-mast the Union flag on Government buildings following the death of any foreign monarch. That is the convention; it was not specifically to do with that particular case.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South, spoke at length about the Raif Badawi case. I give the hon. Gentleman the same answer I gave in the main Chamber: the case is in the supreme court and is under review. We therefore cannot interfere with that process, in the same way that the Saudi authorities would not interfere with our process.

[Stewart McDonald]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman raised two specific issues, so I shall just make a couple of points, which might answer the questions that he might be about to ask me yet again.

Raif Badawi has been found guilty of various charges. We strongly condemn the sentence passed, but we must honour the judicial process. Once that process has been completed, we can then take stock and comment on the process itself, but we must be careful not to interfere with it.

[Stewart McDonald]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is keen to interject, so I will give way.

[Stewart McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. May I press upon him again, as I tried to do earlier, that it is not a normal justice system? He is asking me, and people across the world, to have confidence in the system that put Mr Badawi where he is now. Is the Minister seriously going to stand up with a straight face and ask us to do that? It is nothing short of a joke. It is the same justice system that bestowed upon Mr Badawi a prison sentence, a fine and 1,000 lashes. Minister, we can do better than this.

[Mr Ellwood]

The case has returned to the supreme court, which reflects the fact that the leadership has taken stock of international opinion and what people have said. The punishment has stopped and is under review. Until that process moves forward, it would be incorrect to comment on another country’s judicial process. That would be interfering, in the same way that the Saudi authorities would be interfering in our processes if they commented on them.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the ambassador should request to visit Raif Badawi. We will not advocate that; again, it would inappropriate. Raif Badawi is not a British citizen as such. Once the sentence is upheld, we can obviously look at making contact, but it is not appropriate for our ambassador. That would, again, be seen as interfering with the process. A non-governmental organisation would be in a better position to make that judgment, rather than another country’s ambassador going in to see a citizen to whom the ambassador has no direct connection.

[Stewart McDonald]

Given what the Minister has said, will he ask the Saudi Government if it would be possible for Amnesty International to visit Mr Badawi in prison?

[Mr Ellwood]

Absolutely; we can certainly put that forward. I would be delighted to make that request.

Religious tolerance and the situation of Christian and other minority religions have been raised in the debate. The British Government strongly support the right to freedom of religion or belief, which is restricted in Saudi Arabia. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is aware, our views on the subject are well known. We must recognise that the restrictions on freedom of religion or belief in Saudi Arabia reflect widely held conservative social values in Saudi society. The key to increasing freedom is to focus on tolerance. We must work with Saudi Arabia to identify areas in which different faiths can work together, foster trust and build slowly in more challenging areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Malcolm McDonald and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

11. What progress is being made on diplomatic efforts to free the Saudi blogger Raif Badawi.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

As the House is aware, Raif Badawi is a Saudi human rights activist and blogger who, in May 2014, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes. The British Government have raised the case a number of times at senior levels. I now understand that the case is under consideration in the Saudi supreme court.

[Stewart McDonald]

We often hear that answer from the Government. One of two things is happening. Either the Government are trying and failing, or they are not really bothering at all. May I ask the Minister two questions? First, will he instruct the United Kingdom ambassador in Saudi Arabia to request a prison visit to check on Raif Badawi’s health? Secondly, will he say without equivocation that Mr Badawi should be set free?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my first response, so let me repeat it. I understand that the case is under consideration in the Saudi supreme court. This country, along with many others across the world, made representations at senior levels to ensure that it was understood where we stand as a supporter of freedom of expression around the world. It is now for the supreme court of make a judgment, and we should not pre-empt what the court will say.