Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I endorse the words of my Defence Committee colleague, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). The Secretary of State himself has used the words

“the hollowing out of our Armed Forces”.

Today, the Head of the Army said at the Royal United Services Institute’s land warfare conference that our world is heading back into the 1930s with growing threats. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Treasury’s argument for increasing Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP when the economics improve is not only naive but illogical, because our economy and our national security are one and the same thing? We need to invest in our Army, Air Force and Navy now, not when Britain’s economy improves.

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about levels of Defence spending. First, spend on the Army is 20% higher since I started as Defence Secretary, and I have made sure that a greater proportion of that spend is on catching up and modernising the armed forces, which had been neglected all the way back to Afghanistan and Iraq, where we were spending money on urgent operational requirements rather than the core budget to modernise that equipment.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about the Treasury, it has accepted—the Chancellor did so at the Dispatch Box—that Defence will require a greater share of public spending. Part of the big challenge is recognition across Government and in Whitehall that the culture has changed, with Defence requiring a greater proportion of spend if it is to defend these shores and indeed our people. That is how it used to be. I am confident that the Prime Minister’s support for 2.5% and the Chancellor’s position puts us on the right path, and of course that could not be needed quicker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome President Zelensky’s visit to the UK. Clearly, a warm relationship is developing between the President and our Prime Minister. We have a proud track record of being the first to provide those NLAWs, and of providing training on Salisbury plain, those main battle tanks and the long-range weapons systems. What next? Perhaps fast jets.

There is much talk of a counter-offensive, but I want to ask the Secretary of State about the comments of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Group. He openly criticised President Putin for the absence of ammunition and battlefield tactics. Is the Secretary of State concerned that if the counter-offensive is successful and terrain is gained, Putin will turn ugly and resort to non-conventional chemical and biological weapons, as he did in Syria?

[Mr Wallace]

We always have to be on our guard about the behaviours of the Russian military and President Putin. As my right hon. Friend rightly comments, the use of chemical weapons in Syria was another turning point, as was the use of chemical weapons here on the streets of the United Kingdom in the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury. We are on our guard. The international community regularly communicates. We stand ready with NATO. We have increased our readiness and we have started to increase investment in our capabilities. That is all important, but my right hon. Friend is right that we must be on our guard about what happens next.

Ukraine

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s support. He knows as well as anyone that we are all determined to see this through. I think that this has been an exemplary example of Parliament at its best over the 440 or 450 days of the Russian invasion. I will get straight to the point and try to answer as many of his questions as I can.

On limitations, obviously we will not talk in public about whether there are limitations. The key here is to give Ukraine that capability to defend itself. What I can say is that, throughout this process, we always make sure that we gift having first examined, minimising escalation and unnecessary provocation of the Russian state—that is not the business we are in; we are in the business of helping Ukraine to defend itself within its sovereign territory. Of course, it is easy to forget that none of this would be needed—no deep-strike capability would be needed—if Russia withdrew its forces to the other side of the border and back into Russia. Every Russian force would be safe after that. Of course, that is why we are seeking deep fire within Ukraine, for example: because Russia has invaded so far into another country.

On integration with the plane, Storm Shadow is an air-fired missile. The right hon. Gentleman is correct, of course, that it is not easy to take a British-French missile and incorporate it with a former Soviet or Russian aircraft. That is one of the reasons for the time taken: working out whether it was technically feasible. I pay tribute to our scientists and technicians, who have done an amazing job—and not just with this type of capability —as well as to other scientists across Europe who have managed to produce integration of western weapons into Russian equipment, and innovative capabilities, at speed. I often question why I cannot have that speed when I try to commission some of those capabilities domestically, so there are lessons there. That is one of the areas.

I am not sure that there are many other powers with similar weapons systems providing similar support. There is, however, a drive by many allies to deliver further deep capability. HIMARS is obviously 80 to 90 km, but another American system that was gifted a few months ago—forgive me; I cannot remember its name—has a longer range.

One of our requirements in the second round of the international fund is the ability to do deep fire—deep strike. This took a long time partly because of technical feasibility, since putting a fifth or fourth-generation weapons system on what is sometimes a second or third-generation aircraft is not easy. We will see. I am not going to comment on when we expect these to be used. They have yet to be tested, and we will find out in the next few weeks or months the extent to which that has worked, but it takes time.

As I have always reassured the House, I wanted to calibrate our response. We need to make sure that we do these things in a way that helps Ukraine further its capabilities. Gifting these earlier when we were unsure whether they would necessarily work, without any form of offensive on the horizon, may have made them vulnerable and may not have made the difference that we are all trying to achieve. All I can say is that, having technically cleared the hurdles, and as everyone talks about an expected counter-offence, now is the right time to gift these to Ukraine, and they are now going into or are in the country.

No one should doubt any of our momentum here. Yes, the media come and go and cover different aspects of the world, and Sudan comes along, but if we look at the Government’s track record—Operation Interflex, which trained 9,000 last year and will train 20,000 this year around the United Kingdom, or the gifting of tanks at the beginning of the year—we see that our momentum continues.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about what has gone into the country, I know that all our tanks have gone into the country, as well as many of our Spartans and armoured vehicles. I do not know whether every single one has, and I am happy to write to him, but the big ones such as the tanks are all in country. They have trained and exercised both here and in Ukraine, and I know that the Ukrainian forces using them so far have enjoyed them very much and talk very highly of the Challengers. That also goes for the AS 90s, which have not only been put in but used. They seem to get excellent availability on the AS 90, so there are lessons to be learned for our capability.

On the Wagner Group designation, proscribing an organisation is a matter for the Home Office, done via collective write-round. I cannot comment on when or how those things happen. We have heard the calls from both sides of the House to proscribe it. The Wagner Group is a thoroughly nasty organisation, from not only what we see in Ukraine but what we have seen in west Africa and Syria, and does pose a threat to the United Kingdom and her allies, either directly or indirectly. It is a group that needs dealing with, although Mr Prigozhin seems to be making himself deeply unpopular with the leadership in the Kremlin at the moment—if I was him, I would not stand near any open windows if I was dealing with Mr Putin. Nevertheless, Wagner is here and we have to deal with it.

On the regional plans, I am trying—they are over 3,000 pages long and are written in NATO-speak, which probably makes them the equivalent of 12,000 pages long when we try to decipher them. It is important that we try to make commitments that meet those plans and also support others if they do not have that capability, because the strength of NATO will be whether it can carry its political determination into a military plan that makes a difference and deters—that is what we are really about—Russia or any other aggressor. There are a few more weeks and months to go, but I am wading my way through the 3,000 pages, and after this statement I am heading off to the Army on Salisbury plain to discuss exactly that.

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

I very much welcome this statement. I recently returned from Ukraine, and there is massive appreciation for what Britain has been doing and continues to do—not just the lethal aid provided by the Government but the humanitarian support gifted from the British people. There is huge anticipation about the counter-attack that is likely to take place, but there is also a message, as I hope the Secretary of State will agree, that it may require a second, third, or fourth counter-offensive to take place. This is not going to end simply when the Ukrainians decide to push forward. We should expect Russia to go ugly and to use unconventional systems in response.

I welcome the announcement on Storm Shadow. Britain is yet again stepping forward. Are the Americans going to match with ATACMS—the army tactical missile system? There is still a request for jets to be gifted as well. Finally, Trump last night refused to say that he wanted Ukraine to win. This is a material factor, because he could win the United States election next year, and that might be what Putin is banking on.

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend’s characterisation of the counter-offensives is correct. I do not think it is a case of “One last thrust and everything will be over by Christmas.” I think this is a matter of Ukraine quite rightly finding and exploiting, as any good general would, weaknesses and opportunities. We should always manage our expectations that it will all be over by Christmas. When we have a Russian army that does not mind sacrificing hundreds of thousands of its own people, we are not up against rational leadership that recognises, as anyone else would do, that the game is up already. Having lost 10,000 armoured vehicles, and with over 250,000 of its own soldiers dead or wounded, most people would have recognised that the game is up. That is one of the big challenges.

There are other weapons systems that Ukraine has asked for, and the ATACMS is a well-documented capability. We are pretty confident that Storm Shadow will plug some of that gap and definitely deliver the deeper range that HIMARS used to achieve when it was at 80 km. The Russians, after suffering significant losses to HIMARS, obviously worked out and moved beyond range ring, so we think Storm Shadow will absolutely help the Ukrainians make that difference.

The US President today is President Biden. I have a good relationship with him, as do the Government. They have stood firm, with $87 billion of donations. They have put their money where their mouth is. A huge amount of effort has gone into their support. I lived in America for a few years, or my parents did, and I know that the decent and good people of America would recognise that their rights are just as important as those of the people of Ukraine. Their constitution upholds rights. I think that is what will unite them, and I am confident that whoever comes next as President will continue to support the battle to uphold human rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I am conscious that there is a statement to follow, but may I just pause and say thank you to the Defence Secretary and his team for the tireless work they have done in trying to secure additional funding of £11 billion and an increase in defence spending of 2.5%? It was not to be, and our military will be affected by that, not least our land forces. However, I do welcome the AUKUS agreement, which will secure hundreds of highly skilled jobs up and down the country. Is any part of the £3 billion of additional funding for the nuclear enterprise part of the £10 billion reserve for Dreadnought, or is it ringfenced for the AUKUS procurement programme, and is any of the £5 billion coming through subject to VAT, which would of course mean that one fifth of it will go back to the Treasury?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the details of the announcement. Obviously, the details will come forward in the Budget. What I can say is that the £2 billion-plus is new money. It is not part of the reserve or anything else, and it is separate from the £2.3 billion for Ukraine. It also comes on top of the £560 million of extra money for weapons and restocking announced in the autumn statement. On the nuclear chapter, the £3 billion is a recognition of the need for increased defence capability in that space, but also of the need to invest now in infrastructure, which, if we do not start now, will not be fit for purpose when AUKUS starts towards the end of the decade.

Ukraine: Update

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

This conflict will not end any time soon. Putin is moving his country to a war footing as he prepares for a spring offensive. Tactically speaking, it is very welcome that we are finally seeing some serious, NATO-standard tracked hardware gifted to Ukraine. It is another example of the UK leading and ever pushing the envelope of international support for Ukraine.

As other nations follow our lead, maintaining so many NATO variants of vehicles and equipment—tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces—will not be practical in the long term. Will the UK consider leading again by establishing a western-funded, Ukrainian-operated weapons factory and assembly line in eastern Poland so that Ukraine can become self-sufficient in procuring and replenishing the military kit and munitions it needs for its long-term security, without fear of the facility being targeted by Russia?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend’s suggestion is correct. He is right to say that, unless there is a supply chain or, indeed, a sustainability package behind all this gifting, these vehicles and artillery pieces will become junk on the battlefield when they run out or wear out, so it is important that we think in that way. That is why we will be putting in some recovery vehicles with the Challenger 2 donations. There is a lot of thought going on right now about the sustainability of supply chains, which ties into the international fund, as I am looking for intelligent application of the fund to stimulate just that.

Ukraine has shown itself to be incredibly successful either at reverse-engineering what it captures from Russia or at designing and developing its own equipment. It recently opened a production line for 155 mm or 152 mm shells, and it is now manufacturing within the country. We will get to where my right hon. Friend wants to be by using the international fund or Kindred to fund supply chains over the border. If Ukraine approaches us with ideas for transferring intellectual property so that we can make equipment for Ukraine, or so that Ukraine can make the equipment here or anywhere else, I would be very open to doing that.

Ukraine

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is fair to say that there has been a bit of domestic turbulence in British politics over the past six months or so, but, as we saw in our Defence Committee visit to Ukraine, the support that Britain provides is so appreciated. That is largely down to the leadership, commitment and consistency from the Defence Secretary. It is important to put that on the record.

Bearing in mind the huge contribution that Britain has provided in allowing a series of counter-offensives to take place, does my right hon. Friend agree that the threat from Russia remains? Putin is mobilising more of his forces and retooling many of his industries, potentially for a spring offensive. He is increasingly framing this conflict as, to use his own words, “a wider struggle against a hostile west”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is therefore not just a Ukraine war, but a European one? The longer it lasts, the more it will damage not just Ukraine but our own security and economy—all the more reason why it is important that we put this fire out.

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend and I totally agree that it is important that Putin fails in Ukraine, because if he were successful the consequences would be felt right here in the United Kingdom and right across Europe. Yes, it is a battle of European geography, given that Ukraine was invaded illegally, but it is also a battle of European values. From Putin’s point of view, the people of Ukraine seem to have had the cheek of looking towards Europe and wishing to share its values, and he felt that that was one of the reasons to invade.

Of course, the west is not buying the almost monthly recasting of Putin’s reasons for invading, which have varied over time. At one stage, it was to denazify and get rid of gays, apparently; if that was the case, the gay people of Ukraine are doing a fantastic job of beating that view—more power to their elbows. Then the reason was that NATO was threatening Russia, although of course when Sweden and Finland chose to join NATO that no longer seemed to be the core issue. The latest narrative is that it is the US versus Russia, with all the rest of us between those great powers—I suspect that that is how Putin sees it. That moving narrative is a sign of Russian desperation.

At heart, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: Russia as a threat is not going away. It has exposed itself as having no regard for international human rights, for the rule of law, for minorities or for the respect of sovereignty—whether that of a neighbour or further afield. It seems to have no regard for the consequences on its own soldiers, who are being lost in their thousands because of incompetent generalship.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

If all NATO countries had provided the same scale of support to Ukraine as Britain has there is every possibility that Russian forces would now have been pushed out of mainland Ukraine. Instead, Russia is consolidating in the Donbas and there is every chance it may now be turning its sights to Odesa. If that port falls, Ukraine will be landlocked, further impacting on the cost of living crisis here and across Europe because critical grain exports cannot get out.

Is it time for the UK to lead a coalition of willing NATO allies to secure a United Nations General Assembly-approved humanitarian zone around the port and territorial waters, with neighbouring international waters policed by an international maritime force? That would ensure that the breadbasket of Europe and beyond is able to function and remain part of Ukraine.

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes the valid and important suggestion that we must do what we can to get the grain out of Ukraine. It is not just an energy crisis that people face; it will be a food crisis if the Russians are continually to both steal and blockade that grain.

However, I am afraid, with due respect to my right hon. Friend, that securing the Black sea and the UN mandate to do that are definitely easier said than done. I continue to speak to a number of Black sea partners and other members to see what else we can do to explore getting that grain out both overland and at sea. While Russia has talked the talk, it has done the complete opposite when it comes to providing assurances on any humanitarian corridor, especially on the land, as we saw at Mariupol, and now obviously at sea.

Ukraine Update

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

You heard it here first, Mr Speaker: there was a request for more urgent questions that I am happy to oblige.

I very much welcome the statement, which focused on the operational. However, the reality is now dawning not only that this conflict could last for months—indeed, years—but, more widely, that Europe has entered a new and dangerous era of insecurity. I therefore pose two fundamental questions to the Secretary of State. First, what does success in Ukraine look like? Are we doing enough to prevent Ukraine from losing but not enough to make sure that it wins? What is our strategy? Is it to push Russia back to the pre-February lines or, indeed, to liberate the entire Donbas region? If it is in Europe’s wider security interest to see Putin humiliated in Ukraine, the entire mainland must be liberated. That must be our strategic aim.

The second fundamental issue, on which the Secretary of State touched, is our defence posture. Threats are increasing, but pressures on our armed forces and equipment are growing. Is it not now time to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for spending 3% and I consider him my long-range artillery when it comes to the lobbying in the long term, whatever we see as a result of the situation in Ukraine. Our strategic aim is twofold: first, Putin must fail in Ukraine—he must fail in his invasion—and I think he is on course to do that; and he must fail in his occupation of Ukraine, and I think he has definitely failed to achieve that. The fine tuning of that is as much a matter of Ukraine’s choice as it is anybody else’s. Ukraine gets to choose where it wishes to settle for peace. We will do everything we can to support it.

For my part, I want Putin not only beyond the pre-February boundaries; he invaded Crimea illegally and Donetsk illegally, and he should comply with international law and, in the long run, leave Ukraine. Overall, Putin needs to wear the cost and the consequence of what he has done on his shoulders.

Ukraine

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this statement. The penny was dropping at the Munich security conference that this is about not just Ukraine, but a wider realignment of global power with the formation of a new Russia-China alliance that is fuelling Putin’s adventurism and, indeed, perhaps taking us towards another cold war. The money laundering issues aside, which absolutely must be addressed, I ask the Secretary of State to consider the sanctions. There is a concern that we are actually helping Putin with his intention of turning Russia away from the west and towards a new alliance with China in the long term.

[Mr Wallace]

If Russia wants to be dependent on China, I think it will recognise that that will be the wrong decision. China and Russia are in direct competition over the high north and the route through the Arctic, and Russia will surely not want to depend entirely on China, in the same way that many European states are regretting being entirely dependent on Russian gas. It is important, however, that we impose a range of sanctions that are directed not only at the Russian Government, but at some of Russia’s bankers and those who help the regime carry on as normal.

Ukraine

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Front Bench for their support and for the detailed engagement that they have undertaken with the Ukrainians. I know that it has meant a huge amount to them to see cross-party support for their rights. I thank him personally for the effort that he and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), have gone to.

These are difficult and dangerous times, as the right hon. Gentleman said. It is important to navigate the very thin path between provocation and defence of people who are clearly under threat and intimidation, so that whatever we do cannot be exploited by the Kremlin for its own narratives. I have continued to brief the Opposition and other Members of this House to make sure that they are fully informed.

I will try to answer some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, the Budapest memorandum is indeed one of the three main treaties that Russia is in breach of or is not upholding. It was a fair deal done between the Ukrainians and Russia, and it is important that we remind Russia—through diplomatic channels first of all—of those obligations. The situation is a stark reminder that we cannot pick and choose from treaties that have been signed up to.

We believe that the subsequent Minsk protocol is something that we would wish to support and for Russia to engage in. It respects some of the concerns around the Donbass, and I hope that that is one of the best paths towards securing a peaceful resolution. It does not seem at the moment that Russia is engaging enough on that. I think that is definitely the treaty to look at. Of course, it is underwritten by France, Germany and the United States through the Normandy format, and we would support the use of that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Ukraine soon, which is also important. I have spoken to her about it, and I think her office is just working out dates for her visit.

On cyber, I will write in detail to the right hon. Gentleman about the NATO initiative. We have supported Ukraine for a number of years with cyber-defence to ensure that its resilience is improved, taking the lessons that we have here and sharing and working with them. That is why it is so useful that the National Cyber Security Centre is not only domestically but internationally recognised. When its experts come to give advice, it certainly helps with resilience.

On what more we can do, one concern that we have to address is Russia’s sense of encirclement, as I said at the beginning, and a fear that is untrue and based either on a misconception or, indeed, a falsehood. One way to address that is through better transparency. We have had schemes such as the Open Skies scheme, and we have had a number of treaties, some of which have been broken by Russia, which is unfortunate, but I certainly think that more transparency is needed. We often have Vienna inspections in this country; we had some only the other month by Russian military personnel who visited an RAF base. That is one of the best ways to demonstrate the realities on the ground, and that NATO is not an aggressor and we are not planning some offensive.

More work can definitely be done to deal with that situation, and to give Russia its voice. I was delighted that we had the Russia-NATO Council, the first in two years, only last week, because it is incredibly important that we get to hear and meet Russia face to face. I have not met my counterpart, and obviously since the Salisbury poisonings relationships have been at a low ebb. For many years, the Russian Defence Secretary and the British Defence Secretary have not had periodic or routine meetings, and I think it is important we offer that. Whether Russia will accept it is a different issue, but it is important that we reach out, at the very least, and have a discussion, and give each other the respect that I think sovereign nations deserve.

On weapons systems, I concur with the right hon. Gentleman. Absolutely—these weapons are short-range. They are not strategic; they are tactical. They are the sort of systems you use if someone is attacking you. This is an infantry-level type weapons system, but nevertheless it would make people pause and think about what they are doing. If tanks were to roll into Ukraine and invade, it would be part of the defensive mechanism.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for not only keeping the House informed, but for working tirelessly behind the scenes to push NATO to do as much as it can, given the limits of that alliance. Talks in Brussels, and indeed Geneva, have reached their conclusion, or inconclusion. Cyber-attacks have now commenced, and we now see that Putin clearly intends to invade as part of his wider strategy to expand Moscow’s sphere of influence, and indeed help to label and retain NATO as the adversary that Russia must stand up to.

Russia has now amassed the land forces, weapon systems, and even the field hospitals to allow an invasion to take place. Will the Secretary of State say when the anti-armour weapon systems that he is providing will be operational in Ukraine? If Putin gives the green light to invade, what additional military support does the Secretary of State believe NATO could provide or offer to Ukraine to help to thwart Russian aggression east of the Dnipro river?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. There is still a way to go. We still have NATO, we still have our alliances, and we still have the international community and its efforts to try to find a diplomatic solution. We will carry on doing that until the very last moment. I think that President Putin has still not made a final decision, but I hope that that is enough to ward the Kremlin off. A united front on sanctions, which is what we are developing, is prepared and ready if something were to happen, and the strong resilience in Ukraine should, at the very least, give people pause for thought. On the wider issues about the systems, the first systems were delivered today in country, and the training will take place. As I have said, these are not major strategic weapons systems, so therefore they are fairly simple and the training package will not be drawn out. As I have said, the trainers will then return.

If Russia attacks militarily, the first and foremost response will be, as we have said, in the areas of sanctions and diplomacy, and in the consequences that President Putin would face as a world leader in what could potentially be a very bloody war, triggered by an invasion that is neither within international law nor what anyone wants in this world. First, reputationally, economically, and militarily we would of course explore whatever we could in those areas, but as I have previously made clear, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and British troops will not be deploying to fight Russians.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The United Kingdom has uniquely at its disposal a strong partnership with the United States, and a partnership also with the EU and indeed in NATO. We are working all those avenues to make sure that we present a united and strong front. This week, I will visit a number of countries in eastern Europe and Scandinavia, many of which are very, very worried about what has been happening. We have continued with the diplomatic track. In 2019, I extended Operation Orbital to continue to help build Ukraine’s capability to defend itself, which is incredibly important. All of us should call out those false narratives to make sure that, should anything happen, we have a package of sanctions ready to deliver to make sure that Russia’s bad mistake is punished.

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

Putin’s ultimatum in December, placing unrealistic demands on NATO’s forced presence in eastern Europe and giving Russia licence to invade Ukraine, was clearly designed to be rejected. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we will not concede to Russia’s threats; that NATO’s defence posture in eastern Europe, and in the Baltic states in particular, will not change; and that we will commit to a long-term strategy of supporting Ukraine through joint training exercises, arms sales and the eventual inviting of Ukraine to join NATO?

Army Restructuring: Future Soldier

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

There is much to unpick in this big announcement, but may I commend the Defence Secretary on this major evolution in our expeditionary posture and defence structure, given the financial constraints that he faces? There are multiple fires around the world where such forces could lead or join alliances as we do in Mali, such as in Yemen, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Lebanon as well as, indeed, closer to home in Poland and Ukraine. However, if there were a more proactive UK foreign policy and we were more ambitious in the spirit of global Britain and engaged in any serious enduring commitment, our shrinking armed forces would be severely tested, highly trained though they may be.

Does the Defence Secretary agree that our world is becoming more dangerous and complex and that the scale of migrants fleeing failed states, with some attempting to cross the channel, is testament to that and will only increase? Therefore, as we wisely fine-tune our ability to fight, this is not the time to cut the defence budget or to reduce our tanks, our armoured fighting vehicles and our troop numbers as we are doing.

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend, like me, served in regiments that were hollowed out or did not quite do what it said on the tin because of either chronic underfunding or overambition without the funds to match. I totally understand his point and agree that the world is a more anxious, insecure place. Next year in particular will test many parts of the world and our resolve to stand up for what we believe in. However, how far we want to be ambitious and to commit to doing things, and how much determination and resolve there is to stick at the problem, is a matter for each Government of the day.

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point that we should be prepared to do more and to be more ambitious. I think he has called for 3% of GDP to be spent on defence. The reforms that we are putting forward and the Army of the future as designed matches the current ambition of the Government. If the decision is made to be more ambitious—that is of course for me and for other members of the Government—I will not be shy in asking for more funding and investment. Indeed, I have received an extra £2 billion to the budget since the comprehensive spending review to take on different pressures and in recognition that the threat defines what we can deliver. That is why we see an extra 500 soldiers. I have always said that it is not an arbitrary, “Here is the number,” and I have always resisted any attempt of the system to deliver that. It is ultimately about making sure that we match our ambition and appetite to our funding.

I have aimed for the reforms to be as honest as possible and to do what it says on the tin. It might not be enough for many Members of this House—it might be too much for others—but what I do not want is, as we have all seen, men and women in the armed forces to be overstretched and asked to do things with inadequate kit, because that is the worst way to treat them.

Data Breach: ARAP Applicants in Afghanistan

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Member makes some points that I would say are deservedly landed, and I hear what he says. First, yes, we mass email individuals, but we also email individually. This was a weekly catch-up email that was sent to over 250 people to make sure that they were kept in touch, because, quite rightly, as many Members have pointed out on a number of occasions, they need to be engaged and know that there is someone out there keeping it going and trying to get them through the country.

This was a mass email. It did not contain individuals’ home addresses or anything. The photo profiles that the right hon. Member mentioned were ones that were in profiles of the email addresses as opposed to the individuals’ names. Indeed, having looked at all the email addresses, I can say that the vast majority were not specific names, necessarily; they were email addresses rather than particular names. However, that does not change the fundamental impact that the email could have had and could still have.

I have asked Defence Intelligence to go through all the cases and assess the risk to the individuals. That will be ongoing. I can of course get an update, and I will be happy to share with the right hon. Member where we are with those updates on intelligence. I can certainly also give a Privy Council briefing to both him and, indeed, the Scottish National party if it wishes, on the greater security situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

This group was not the wider cohort that the right hon. Member referred to—the people who have applied since ARAP. To put it in perspective, some 68,000 have applied for ARAP. Obviously, when that number is scrubbed and worked through, it reduces significantly, but that is the number of emails that have been sitting in email boxes and have been worked through—and are being worked through—to try to make sure that we find the right people with the right criteria and then, obviously, communicate with them.

This matter relates only to the number of people who had been called forward under Op Pitting, had been security checked and were ready to go but either never made it to the Baron hotel or never made it on to a flight. That number started at 311, as hon. Members will remember. Of the 311, there are 260 principals left in Afghanistan—that is 1,232 people if we include their families—43 principals, or 163 pax in total, in third countries, and eight with whom we have still not been able to establish communications despite trying numerous times. That is the cohort that this relates to. We will do everything we can.

As far as getting those people out of the country, as I said, the Minister for the Armed Forces is now in one of the neighbouring countries and will continue to do that. I have spoken to my defence sections and offered to increase resource and to give reassurances to those third countries. The MOD funds the flying of those people back to the United Kingdom. We have already done so, and I will be happy to update the House as we go about how many people come out of the country.

Some of the other challenges, obviously, relate to security, and we have to have that balance in bringing people back who sometimes turn out, eventually, to have the wrong record; we want to protect the British public from that. But fundamentally, that is the cohort of people that these emails relate to.

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

I welcome the statement. I hope that the necessary oversight protocols are now in place to make sure that this does not happen again. The Taliban have not changed. They seek to exact revenge on anyone who worked for NATO. We must get these interpreters out or they will be hunted and killed. If the usual methods, via the ARAP scheme, are not available, may I invite the Secretary of State to take advantage of the chaos in the country to find clandestine means of leading these people to safety?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend will know that I cannot talk about the broader means, but all means will be explored.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by wishing the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier battle group all the very best on her maiden voyage.

Operation Telic, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, cost the taxpayer £8 billion and the lives of 179 UK military personnel, and there was a full independent inquiry. Operation Herrick, the invasion of Afghanistan, cost the taxpayer £28 billion and resulted in some 450 UK military deaths, but to date the Government have not announced an inquiry. We now withdraw from Afghanistan just as the Taliban are on the ascent and another civil war looms. That cannot be the exit strategy that we ever envisaged, and we must understand what went wrong. For example, why did Donald Rumsfeld exclude the Taliban from the first peace talks in December 2001? If we do not understand and learn from the strategic errors of the past, this House will be hesitant to vote in favour of deploying our hard power in the future. Please, let us have that inquiry.

[Mr Wallace]

I hear my right hon. Friend’s requests—I know he has recently written a letter to the Prime Minister making that request. First, there is a stark difference between Iraq and Afghanistan; the article 5 triggering of that deployment and the causes behind it were not in doubt. Secondly, as our former Speaker would have said, part of my right hon. Friend’s salvation is in his own hands: as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, he obviously has significant capabilities and powers to bring forward an inquiry, if that is what he wishes. At present, the Government are reflecting on his letter and do not think there is a need for the same type of inquiry that we saw into what happened in Iraq. Of course, we do learn lessons; there have been a considerable amount of internal looks by military professionals at what is going on.

On Donald Rumsfeld and the United States Administration, that is a matter for the US Administration and not for me. I am not able to ask what lay behind their motives as to decisions they have made over the past 20 years and I cannot therefore venture into that space.

Carrier Strike Group Deployment

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about this being a proud moment for this nation: a British made carrier deploying overseas, protecting Britain’s interests and supporting our allies.

The right hon. Gentleman put a series of questions to me. On the steel, I am happy to write to him with details of each individual class of ship. As he knows, we are committed to building the Type 26 in the United Kingdom; it is under construction on the Clyde. In Rosyth, work is ongoing to build the facility needed to build the Type 31s and the subsequent Type 32s. He also knows that I recently recategorised the future Fleet Solid Support ship as a warship. I intend to make sure that, if not entirely, there is a considerable degree of UK build in that process, subject to tender. I have to be cautious about the contract, because the competition is to begin soon—very soon.[Official Report, 29 April 2021, Vol. 693, c. 4MC.]

It is important to recognise that throughout all our ships, we try to do our best by our sailors by providing the best equipment we can, and that is often a balance between what is on the shelf in the here and now and what we need to invest in for the future. That is why we have a record research and development budget in the recent defence settlement. It will allow us to invest for the future, so that when we place the orders for subsequent ships and the next generation of submarines, we have British skills and British technology ready to go. It is incredibly important that we give them the best.

I turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about sovereign capability. It is perfectly possible; we have 18 F-35s and we could put all 18 now on the aircraft carrier—we could have just had a UK sort of 2 squadron—and deploy without other ships alongside if we wished to, but as I said at the beginning of this exercise, this is about the fact that our strength, compared with that of our adversaries, is that we have friends and alliances. To attack us is to attack NATO. To attack us is to attack our allies. That is our real strength globally—it is what the Australians would say, what the United States would say, and what all our European friends would say. When countries were ringing up saying, “We’d like to join you,” it would have been wrong to miss the opportunity. More countries offered than we took that wanted to sail with us and stand up for our common values.

I am pleased to say that Crowsnest is now being rolled out onboard Queen Elizabeth, and I look forward to reports of its use and deployment. It is important that we recognise that this has to be delivered. I have been clear with the manufacturers that it needs to be delivered to spec and operate well, because it is obviously important to the protection of our carrier group.

There are plenty of covid safeguards in place. We are all very mindful of the need to protect our sailors. All our sailors will be vaccinated and protected on the deployment. By the time they go into the Mediterranean, they will all be properly doubly vaccinated to make sure that we can give our friends and allies the assurance that the crew are protected. The Navy is almost one of the best organisations in terms of covid safeguards, because living with quarantine for onboard diseases is something naval personnel have had to do for hundreds of years.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of ships and the increase and decrease in the numbers. As I said at the time of the Command Paper, numbers are important, but availability is even more important. I have taken the decision that we will invest in some new classes of ship, so we have more ships. Yes, there will be a drop in hulls for a short period, but at the same time, because of the investment we are doing on availability, we will have more time at sea. That is equally important.

I went to Portsmouth today and stood on a brand-new carrier deck, looking at a number of Type 45s ready to accompany the group, but some of those other ships tied alongside were a sorry sight. People have lots of money to buy ships, but not a lot to maintain them. They were hollowed out year on year. The right hon. Gentleman will make his points about previous Conservative Governments, but the fact is that such hollowing out was common practice across the board under both the Labour and Conservative Governments I served under as a soldier. That is something that I hope this defence settlement will put to rest.

Finally, on NATO, absolutely it is our cornerstone. Our home beat, as I often call it, is the Atlantic. That is where our most aggressive adversary is active. Only recently, we saw it active at Christmas, December time, when nine or maybe more Russian ships in effect surrounded Britain. The Russians have been quite assertive, and that is why it is important that we are active and hold the flank of NATO, also using that convening ability to bring in the French, Germans and others who wish to patrol the seas alongside us.

This is an incredibly exciting opportunity. Where I can, I am happy to facilitate Members of this House visiting the carriers, whether the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales. They are something to behold. I was incredibly proud to stand on the deck of a ship that is made in Britain and is NATO’s first and only fifth generation aircraft carrier capability. To those people who say, “No one wants aircraft carriers anymore”, we should ask the question why the Chinese plan to build five.

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

I join the Defence Secretary in sending condolences to the Indonesians on the loss of their submarine crew. That shows what a dangerous environment all our navies operate in.

I welcome the carrier’s maiden deployment to help Britain re-establish a sense of purpose on the international stage. Tasking the carrier group to the South China sea but avoiding the Taiwan strait, however, is to set a precedent and to cede effective ownership of those international waters to China. If we are to uphold the rules-based order that my right hon. Friend has just spoken about, there should be no exceptions.

More widely, I pose this question directly to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary: does he think that the world will be safer or more dangerous over the next five to 10 years? It is clearly the latter, and the Royal Navy is now tasked to tilt towards the Indo-Pacific, to conduct naval patrols in the Black sea and to do maritime duties in the Gulf and off east Africa, as well as to protect UK waters and overseas territories. Politely, I put it to him that our Royal Navy will soon be too small to meet our growing operational commitments and the increasingly diverse threat picture that we now face.

Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I knew that was what the hon. Member from the Scottish nationalist party was going to say; it was predictable. I remember the former leader of the Labour party suggesting to the good people of Barrow that they would be allowed to continue to make submarines, and could maybe use them for tourism purposes. Maybe that is the true version of the Labour party’s manifesto on defence.

I would take on board many of the criticisms and charges by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne if he came to this House with a mea culpa about his own Government’s role in producing defence reviews over time that were both over-ambitious and underfunded; if he accepted that when we over-sentimentalise our armed forces or avoid taking the tough decisions, the people who suffer in the end are the men and women of the armed forces; and, if he came here and acknowledged that the men and women of the armed forces who I served with who perished, some of them in Snatch Land Rovers, did so because in the end we overstretched, underfunded and failed to recognise that the best thing is to be honest, with a well-funded armed forces that we do not overstretch and with which we are not over-ambitious.

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

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I just pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who was killed on this day four years ago? There is much to welcome in this Command Paper today, and the Defence Secretary is to be congratulated on advancing our force structure and investments in cyber, special forces and autonomous platforms, but they come at a huge price to our conventional defence posture, with dramatic cuts to our troop numbers, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and more than 100 RAF aircraft, including fast jets and heavy lift—cuts that, if tested by a parliamentary vote, I do not believe would pass. Why? Because the Government’s own integrated review paper spells out in very clear language how dangerous this next decade will be—more so than in the cold war, when defence spending was 4%-plus of GDP.

Today, we face multiple complex threats to our security and our prosperity, yet our defence spend remains at a peacetime level of just 2.2%. With international rivalry increasing and western influence on the retreat, we must wake up to how dangerous the next decade will be. Is it not the time to increase the defence budget to 3%, so that these dangerous cuts to our conventional hard power can be avoided?

[Mr Wallace]

Asking any Defence Secretary in history if he would like to support an increase in his budget is usually going to get only one response. The reality is that I am dealing with a budget that is incredibly generous compared with my colleagues in other Departments in the middle of this pandemic. Indeed, many people object to the increase in the defence budget. It is a defence budget big enough to allow me to fix the issues of the past and to invest in modernisation.

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns, and my answer to him would be about ambition. How ambitious and how global do we wish to be? I do not believe that our security is at threat from this document. I think it provides a very good foundation for our homeland security. What comes next is how much we help our friends around the world and what ambition we have for them. I can give him and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) the assurance that our defence priority No. 1 is our commitment to membership of NATO, because that coalition and that part of the world—western Europe and the Atlantic—is key to our own security. That comes first, as does, for those on the Government Benches, our nuclear deterrent as our guarantor for security from aggressive states. That is maybe where my right hon. Friend and I will disagree, and we will no doubt explore that, and the extent to which our ambitions are matched, during the Defence Committee meetings.

Where we are today, we can match our ambitions with this defence paper but, as I have always said in this House, if the threat changes, we should always be prepared to change with it. I cannot say what will happen in 2035. I cannot say what will happen even further out from there, and that is why I think that at the heart of this paper is something on which my hon. Friend and I do strongly agree, which is that our approach should, for once, be threat-driven. That should drive what we buy. That should drive how we equip our people. That should drive what we do. We are determined to do it, and as Defence Secretary, it is my job to provide the rest of Government—the Prime Minister and the National Security Council—with the range of options and range of tools to allow them to follow those ambitions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I can write to the hon. Lady with the exact proportions. All I can say is that there has been a significant increase recently, with the deployment to Mali of our forces to assist in the United Nations mission there. We also have a number of forces deployed in Somalia, assisting that fragile state in trying to come to terms with the consequences of the civil war. The Government are determined to continue to contribute to UN missions wherever we can, lending military support—not necessarily operational support, but in the logistics, the enabling and humanitarian aid.

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

Russia is rearming, Daesh is regrouping and China is nudging us out of military and trade partnerships across Africa, yet we are about to witness a shocking reduction in our conventional hard power and full-spectrum capabilities. That is overshadowed by the fanfare of announcements promoting a tilt towards niche capabilities, including electronic warfare and autonomous platforms. Yes, we must adapt to new threats, but that does not mean that the old threats have disappeared. Severe cuts to our infantry regiments, main battle tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and Hercules C-130s will worry our closest allies and delight our competitors. Regarding the F-35 jets, does the Secretary of State agree that cutting back our order from 138 to 48 will mean that, if required, we could never unilaterally operate both carriers in strike mode simultaneously?

[Mr Wallace]

I have listened to my right hon. Friend’s consistent messaging over the last few months. I think the thing that we can all agree with is that, as he said at the weekend,

“we must modernise—but first let’s agree the threat—& then design the right defence posture.”

That is exactly what we have been doing. Obviously, in the Ministry of Defence, we have made sure that we have been doing that in conjunction with our serving personnel, our allies and the threats. I think playing by the Ladybird book of defence design is not the way to progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Since taking my post as Defence Secretary I have been absolutely determined to ensure that the figures that both we and the Treasury use are absolutely of the highest quality and transparency.

If the right hon. Gentleman reflects on the NAO’s 1998 report, he will see the same systematic problems in the management of the defence budget: phantom efficiency savings that turned out to have already been spent by other people have been a significant problem in defence for 20 to 30 years. It is not just a governing party problem. All of that has meant that when we publicise the integrated review, we will start from a baseline where we can all be transparent about our figures and trust the figures we are putting before it. I will not indulge in fantasy savings or phantom programmes. I will not allow the services to procure equipment that has a balloon payment at the end, in 10 or 20 years’ time, when it becomes somebody else’s problem.

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

I join the Secretary of State and others in wishing Captain Sir Tom Moore a speedy recovery. He has become a living symbol of the very British spirit that we need to get us through this pandemic, and we all wish him well.

May I press the Government on when the integrated review will be published and warn against suggestions that our infantry might be cut by up to 10,000 personnel? If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the value of spare capacity and the built-in resilience to deal with the unexpected. With that in mind, I invite the Defence Secretary to look at deploying RFA Argus, our hospital ship currently alongside in Plymouth, and other military assets to assist with the international roll-out of vaccines to developing countries. The UK set an example by stepping forward during the Ebola outbreak, and we should do so once again with covid-19.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. HMS Argus has literally just returned from giving assistance in the Caribbean; she has been helping the populations there deal with the initial outbreak and all the problems. She was involved in dealing not only with the covid outbreak, but with security and making sure that the borders and so on were kept from immigration pressures as well.

On the broader issue of the integrated review, I know I have come to this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions to say it was going to be on a certain date. It will be in the spring. Obviously covid has taken its effect. The No. 1 priority of the Government is dealing with covid and delivering a covid response. That does not prevent defence, with a multi-year settlement, setting out and driving forward, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, a plan to ensure that when the review is launched, everyone will be able to see it. I am determined that it will be done this spring, because it is important not just domestically, but for our international allies to understand the direction of travel on our defence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The leader in the field of standardisation has always been NATO, with the setting of NATO standards, which have let us interoperate with our allies the United States and all the other nations of Europe. It would be wrong to abandon that to adopt another approach. We all know in Europe, whatever part of the EU debate one is in, that the United States is the cornerstone of European security, and that is why NATO is so important.

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

My right hon. Friend knows, however, that NATO and Europe are not quite the same. As Brexit talks reach their conclusion, does he agree that to depart without a trade deal would be less than helpful in re-establishing western resolve to take on the growing, complex threats that we face? The Government’s integrated review emphasises a commitment to reinvigorating a proactive role for the United Kingdom on the international stage, giving real purpose to global Britain. Would it not be an abject failure of statecraft, and diminish our collective security co-operation, to leave the EU without a deal?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend obviously urges us to make a deal. I think that right now, as we speak, members of the Government are trying to make a deal with the European Union to enforce the decision by the British people to leave the European Union. What would be a mistake is if both sides forgot that security is not a competition—it is a partnership. That is what I always said as Security Minister, and as Defence Secretary I mean it now. There has been no sign among many of our European allies that that situation has changed. We are still partners in going after whatever threatens all of us, our way of life and our values.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I do not agree at all, and I think the hon. Gentleman may be slightly confused because, whether it is one year or multi-year, it does not mean to say that the defence budget goes to zero. We will still have a £41 billion budget—one of the biggest budgets in Europe—which will allow us to continue with not only running the armed forces but investing in them. Of course, the challenge that we have always been open about is the black hole in the overall finances, which we will have to take steps to meet. I am sorry to disappoint some of his anti-nuclear colleagues, but that does not mean the end of the nuclear deterrent or the submarines. The budget will not resort to zero after the one year. We should first work through what one year will mean, versus multi-year. It is not the first one-year funding settlement, and it is not the first defence review that is trying to fix underfunding and over-ambition. I distinctly remember serving in the armed forces when Labour’s ones did exactly the same.

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

I can tell the Secretary of State what a one-year funding settlement will do: it will make the integrated review next to meaningless. The Prime Minister gave me a direct assurance that the integrated review would not be delayed. If “global Britain” is an instruction and not a strap line, this review is the road map to how we advance our defence posture to support our foreign policy ambitions. Any delay to its publication with its full spending commitments will send a poor signal to the world that we are absolutely serious about re-establishing our global credentials and could prompt questions about our justification to retain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. May I urge the Defence Secretary to complete this review as promised, with a multi-year funding settlement, taken in isolation if necessary, if the spending review is to be delayed?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend raises some interesting observations. First, I ask him, as I have asked others, to wait until we see the implications of the Treasury’s announcement of the one-year review. Until that time, speculation is just speculation, but of course he might like to take his message to the next Treasury questions, where Treasury Ministers, too, can hear his views of the impact.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We are going to have a multi-year integrated review that sets the course for the next few years so that we can settle down and face tomorrow’s threat, not yesterday’s threat. Scottish National party Members always resort to “Let’s save one regiment or the other” rather than discussing what the threat could be to Scotland and how they are going to deal with it. Fundamentally, all these reviews are supposed to happen not annually but over a number of years. The hon. Member will know that the Treasury has already talked about a four-year spending settlement in the next comprehensive spending review for capital and a three-year settlement for revenue, so it is based on multiple years. Instead of arguing about the difference between a frigate factory and a systems integrator, supplier, subcontractor or supply chain supporter, it would be nice if he would recognise that in Scotstoun and Govan, and in Glenrothes and Fife alone, there are thousands of jobs linked to defence, many of which would not exist if Scotland took a separatist path and abandoned the defence industry and the security of these isles.

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

Could the Secretary of State say when this integrated review will actually be published? Following the briefings this morning in No. 10, arguably the biggest threat facing this nation is covid-19, with cases once again rising. We must learn lessons from the first spike. It is clear that the bandwidth—the capacity—of all Governments, including the UK’s, is being tested by this enduring emergency. I have said this before and I say it again: please will he encourage greater use of our senior armed forces to help to advance Whitehall’s strategic thinking, operational planning and delivery, as well as the clarity of the message? They are, after all, trained for crisis management and emergency planning; let us make full use of them.

[Mr Wallace]

On the timing of the review, it will hopefully report in the autumn—in October/November time. To ensure that our pockets match our ambitions, it is timed to coincide with the comprehensive spending review. Therefore, between the two, we have to make sure that we get the timing right.

On the issue of covid and Defence, we did a fantastic job in the first phase, in my view, through our men and women of the armed forces. We helped to thicken the response across government by command and control, with senior officers and middle-ranking officers going in and helping people. We strengthened the logistics supply chain in the NHS. We provided mobile testing to make sure that testing went to where people were rather than expecting them to get in cars and go up and down motorways. Our response was excellently positioned. Because we were able to make that response, we have already, backed up by people like those in Defence Intelligence, started planning for any second eventuality, either a second wave or not a wave but an alternative challenge, whether that is winter pressures, floods or Brexit. All that is ongoing. I am confident that our men and women will be able to deliver, whatever demands are put on government. I offer them to government on a regular basis. I know that the Prime Minister is incredibly supportive of taking up that offer when the needs fit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I can confirm that there is no plan to slash the size of the armed forces. The reports in The Sunday Times were completely erroneous, as was made clear to the journalist at the time. Our armed forces should always be defined by the threat we face as a nation, the capabilities we have, and Britain’s global ambition. That is why, in the integrated review, we will deal with those processes rather than start the debate about numbers.

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

Will the Secretary of State bring forward the integrated review? He is aware of the importance of this in confirming our capabilities, but also in terms of existing emerging threats, not least, Britain’s ambitions and place in the world. We are witnessing a seismic shift in power from the east to the west. Is it not time for us to recalibrate our foreign policy in order to recognise this changing threat, and the fact that China is rewriting the international global rules?

[Mr Wallace]

I feel my right hon. Friend’s sense of urgency about getting this review done. He will also know that SDSR after SDSR, under Governments of both colours, often failed because they were never in step with the spending plans of the Government, and we ended up with SDSRs that were over-ambitious and underfunded. It is really important that the integrated review reports at the same time as the comprehensive spending review, which is due in the autumn. We must also learn the lessons from the recent covid outbreak, which shows how important resilience is, and feed that into the review to make sure that it is as up to date as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

An impact assessment will have been published with the Bill when it was brought to the House. We are hoping to get the Bill to Second Reading sooner rather than later, so the hon. Lady can see all those details and impact assessments. As my hon. Friend the Veterans Minister said, it is not the case that people will be prevented from seeking damages, through either tort—for damages against the MOD, rather than other people—or other processes. Obviously, from diagnosis is one of the key dates.

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

I have huge respect for my hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister, who is a fellow rifleman. He mentioned that the Russia report cannot be produced because there is no Intelligence and Security Committee. Let us have that Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope you agree, Mr Speaker, that scrutiny by Parliament is very important indeed.The Defence Secretary is aware that lots of stories about 5G are kicking about. There has clearly been a change in approach because of sanctions by the United States. There are many security reasons why high-risk vendors should be removed from the UK’s telecom infrastructure, but there are also political ones. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to stand up to China’s competing geopolitical agenda?

[Mr Wallace]

First, on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is the Committee that would publish the report, I gave evidence for that report as Security Minister, and, in fact I have read the report. My right hon. Friend should not hold his breath for the great sensation he thinks it will be. However, as he has said and everyone else has noted, when the ISC is formed, it will be the body that will release the report. I think we are getting to a place where the Committee will come together, and then everyone can read it at leisure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy collaborate across the globe on a near daily basis. Only this morning, I had an hour-long conversation with my counterpart in Australia. The Type 26 Hunter-class frigate partnership has flourished through the Global Combat Ship user group. Operationally, we have worked closely on the management and challenges of covid-19 in the maritime sector, as well as in the Strait of Hormuz, providing security to global shipping.

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

I echo the comments of the Defence Secretary and say thank you to our armed forces for what they are doing to tackle the coronavirus. The British people may have come together as one nation, but the same cannot be said on an international level, which is a very different picture. Our world order was already in a fragile state, but now, under the fog of covid-19, countries such as China and Russia are exploiting this global distraction to further their own geopolitical agendas. May I ask him to call for an urgent meeting of the National Security Council to review our competitors’ activities, which, left unchecked, could lead to serious conflict in the future?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point that there are adversaries and competitors around the world seeking to use this horrendous outbreak not only to exploit our differences, but to further their ambitions. I urge them to focus on the matter at hand, which is tackling covid collectively around the world, rather than taking advantage of that. On the point about the NSC, the decision to call an NSC meeting is a matter for the Government Security Directorate in the Cabinet Office, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. It is not the case that, by not having such a meeting, we have no agenda on security. We meet the threat every single day and, indeed, many of the decisions made at NSC are enduring and do not need to be refreshed unless there is a major turn of events. We will keep the situation under review, as will, I know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The coronavirus will test the nation in ways that we have not seen since the war. I think that it is about when, not if, the armed forces will be mobilised. We know that they will rise to the occasion to help other Departments, but the threats that are there today will continue to exist. Will the Minister ensure that we do not drop our guard so that those who mean us harm do not take advantage while we are distracted by the coronavirus?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the main task of Defence, which is defending the nation. Only this morning I held meetings with senior officials and military personnel to ensure that both our routine and our units were in place to deliver, first and foremost, the priority of defending the nation. When we see changes, they will be in areas such as exercising and non-essential travel, so that we can ensure that the personnel concerned are there to support the rest of the country when it comes to the coronavirus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Member will have heard that we stopped the competition for the future solid support vessels. We will look at why that competition could not proceed but, like shipbuilders, I have a lot of faith in the British shipbuilding industry, which is why we have the Type 31 and the Type 26—excellent aircraft carriers that were delivered on time and on budget—and we will continue to invest in the yards. It is also important to make sure that this SDSR and everything else are budgeted for. No SDSR that I can remember, going back to the early ’90s, has been properly funded to back up the ambitions.

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

Can I welcome the defence, security and foreign policy review—or the integrated review, as I understand it is to be called? It is a fantastic opportunity to upgrade our defence posture, given the threats that we face. Previous reviews have been hampered by limitations imposed by spending reviews, which, coincidentally, happened at the very same time. So could the Secretary of State spell out the context, the timeframe and the parliamentary engagement for the forthcoming review?

Middle East: Security

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I have not had any significant meetings, but I support and facilitate any such access for people who wish to come out of the area. That has been the case when we have tried to evacuate people, including children, from any part of the middle east—certainly from places such as Syria. I am very happy to take up this matter with the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that Idlib should not be forgotten. What is going on there right now is a horror show and we should do all we can to help the people of Idlib, but, very importantly, we must not forget that the regime that is doing these things is supported and aided by the Iranian revolutionary guard.

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

I welcome both the Defence Secretary’s statement and the tone he has adopted. For too long, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been allowed to operate a shadow war across the middle east, but it is clear from the frequent demonstrations across Iran that the Iranian people do not support their regime and its proxy interference. He focused on the media, on managing the heightened threat, on containing expected reprisals and on calling for de-escalation, but with the architect of so much instability removed is there not a rare opportunity to reset our middle east strategy? First, we could be more assertive in tackling proxy interference and weapons proliferation, and, secondly, we could be more proactive in offering conditional but genuine economic rehabilitation for Iran.

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend is right. What has been brought into sharp focus is the fact that time has run out. We must sort this out in the middle east on a collective basis and try to put in place a long-lasting solution. He is also right to make the point that, in one sense, Soleimani’s passing provides an opportunity for people to realise that his policy has done nothing but make Iran a pariah state. We should also not forget that the population of Iran, just like the population of Iraq, do not want America, do not want Britain and do not want the current regime; they want their own nation. Iraqis are nationalistic and Iranians are nationalistic. When dealing with those countries, we should never forget that, if we can give those people their country back, we can support their human rights. That is the best way for us in the west to proceed, rather than imposing a solution on them.