Ukraine

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The vast majority of the seized Russian assets are held by Belgium—within its geography—which is why we are having discussions not only internationally but directly with our Belgian colleagues. I hope that progress can be made on that.

My hon. Friend is right that the threats we face from Russia are not just military threats. The sub-threshold or grey zone threats—the election interference that we see Russia perpetrating around the world, the cyber-threats and cyber-attacks against the UK and our allies, and the potential grey zone attacks on our undersea infrastructure—are all part of the increasing threat that Russia poses to our country, our values and our alliances. For that reason, it is absolutely right that the Government take steps in all those areas to look at what can be done to prevent Russian interference and to defend ourselves more strongly and better. That includes increasing defence spending, as well as other measures.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by paying tribute and offering thanks to all those on the frontlines in our uniform, guarding our seas, guarding our land and guarding our air? They will be on duty for the next fortnight, when many of us will be celebrating, and will not have the chance to be with their families.

May I raise a point that I do not really want to raise, but which I am afraid is fundamentally true? The promises of defence spending are actually on the never-never—they are for after the next election. The reality, as the Minister knows very well, is that the uplift he has spoken about is actually a reallocation of money that was allocated to Ukraine and is still allocated to Ukraine. It was coming out of one budget and it is now under the defence budget. That is Treasury chicanery, not a defence uplift.

The reality is that we are not considered serious. We complain, understandably, that we are not part of President Trump’s talks, but we are not willing to put in the money or put a stake in the ground to show that we are a capable and equal player. We see what Poland is doing and what the Baltic states are doing, and we are not doing it ourselves. Until we are willing to do it ourselves, I am afraid that the Minister, and all of us here, are not being serious. We are not truly standing with Ukraine, we are not truly defending the British people, and I am afraid that the promises will come to naught.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the passion with which he puts the argument. We are increasing defence spending; there is £5 billion extra in the defence budget this year. We will have more money in our budget every year for the next 10 years. There is not a single person who has served in uniform and seen a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. We need to spend that well, but we also need to recognise that, with increasing threats, it is not just Defence that needs to spend money well; it is the whole of Government and the whole of society that need to step up. It is not just an MOD pursuit, although we take the lead in many cases.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the service personnel deployed around the world. For Members who have not seen it yet, the Royal Navy Christmas advert, which shows the real-life events of HMS Diamond when she was in the Red sea and what happens for our people at home and those deployed abroad, is well worth a watch.

Russian Ship Yantar

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

That is a valid point. For years we have not taken homeland security seriously. The House will note that, in the strategic defence review, we have invested in integrated missile defence, which is important both for very sophisticated systems and for the low-grade systems we have seen flying in our airspace, which are sometimes more difficult to track and defeat. I can absolutely give the assurance that we are investing in integrated missile defence as we move forward with the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I welcome many of the Minister’s comments. I would add my enormous thanks to the intelligence personnel who assisted not only in zeroing in on the ship but in understanding its capabilities a long time before anybody else arrived on the scene.

As a fellow former military assistant in the MOD, may I raise one point with the Minister? We have both seen Governments of every colour making decisions and statements that sound good on the day before the reality of a lack of kit becomes clear. I saw that under Blair and Brown, and again, yes, under Governments of my own stripe. I am sure that the Minister, too, saw that under them all. I raise this because the reality is that the world has changed. We are much, much more vulnerable today than we have been, but we have fewer ships at sea, fewer men in uniform and fewer planes in the air than we have had at any time. Yet the aspiration for the 3% is still “by the end of the Parliament” or “over the next five years”, and always on the never-never. He must be very careful, as I am sure he is hugely aware, that he is there to change defence, not to apologise for failure.

[Al Carns]

The right hon. and gallant Member raises a valid point. When we came into government, we took the significant step of raising defence spending, but he knows as well as any that it is not just about buying or investing in the same capability; it is about rebuilding and reshaping our armed forces to fight not yesterday’s war but the war of the future. We are absorbing many of the lessons from Ukraine to ensure that we can transform our military to fight in the most effective manner. That is why I got into this game in the first place—to move that along faster, particularly when it comes to autonomous systems.

The right hon. and gallant Member will have seen in the strategic defence review a massive increase of £4 billion for autonomous systems, as well as an increase in the number of drone companies. Just today, the Defence Secretary opened another factory down in Plymouth. I am away after this statement to go and open another in Swindon. A huge industrial base to build drones is growing in the UK. It is a Seedcorn capability that can expand rapidly at times of conflict. I am happy to take any of these points offline to talk further about how we can work collaboratively to move forward.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

To return to the issue of Chagossians, on which I am trying to make progress, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and FCDO officials have met with the Chagossian communities. Under the treaty, Mauritius will now be free to carry out a programme of resettlement of the outer islands, and we have agreed a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians and the resumption of visits to the Chagos archipelago. Over the coming months and years, we will increase the UK Government’s support to and engagement with UK Chagossians, including through UK-funded projects designed through a new contact group, informed by the Chagossians’ own wishes, which met for the very first time last week and was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the payment from the 1960s, referred to by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), was also supposed to be spent on Chagossian welfare, but many Chagossian groups have raised the fact that that money did not go on Chagossian welfare. It went on many other things for the Mauritian Government, but not on Chagossians. What confidence does he have that this agreement is any more valid than the last one?

[Luke Pollard]

That is precisely why my FCDO colleagues are working very closely with Mauritius to ensure that the money that is included in the treaty, and the obligations that both the UK and Mauritius sign up to in the treaty, are fully delivered so that the Chagossians receive what this treaty says they should receive. That is a really important part of the treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me in giving a prediction. Two families have swapped leadership of Mauritius over the last 60 years. Does he see any reason to doubt that the same two families will swap leadership over the next 60?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed.

It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.

I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty.

Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council? Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more.

The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this. I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work.

The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill. China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with.

The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

So many Labour Members seem to have forgotten that the reshuffle was a couple of days ago. They will have to wait another few months, possibly years, for their obsequiousness to be rewarded.

May I suggest that we are in a somewhat through-the-looking-glass world? Over the last few hours, we have heard very clear questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is no longer in his place. He explained that we are hearing a circular argument about legal intervention to which there is absolutely no response. All we hear from Government Members is ChatGPT-generated press releases—“I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”. ChatGPT knows you are there. That is an Americanism that we do not use. Still, they should keep using it, because it makes it clear that this place has become absurd.

This building and this Chamber are a complete waste of time when our electors and fellow citizens hear that we have listened to the arguments of Mauritius, China, India and the United States, but are not willing to listen to the arguments of Britain. We are not willing to stand up for the interests of the British people, or to look at the strategic interests of UK defence. Instead, all we hear consistently is that the Americans are for the deal. Of course they are for it; this is a territorial deal, and they have no interest in the territory. All they are interested in is the lease of the base. They are leasing the base off us at the moment, and they will be leasing the base off Mauritius via us into the future, so there is no change for them.

Of course, India is in favour of the deal. By the way, I respect the position of the Indian Government greatly, but do you know what? I am not an Indian MP. I have a different perspective, because my job—and, I thought, the job of Labour Members, but clearly I was wrong—is to stand up for the British people. Instead, all I hear is that Labour Members are standing up for the interests of different foreign powers. That is absolutely fine. They worship international treaties and stand up for so-called international law, but they conveniently forget—[Interruption.] Members should hear the end of the sentence. They forget that international law is conflictual, challenged and regularly, if not almost always, in direct confrontation with itself, because it highlights different interests. At different points, Governments champion different aspects of international law in order to seek different outcomes. That is how it has grown up. It is the job of sovereign Governments to stand up for our interests. I thought that was the job of our Government, but it clearly is not the job of this Government. Instead, this Government do something quite different; the moment that they are challenged, they run away. Brave Sir Keir bravely turned his tail and fled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. This debate has to be fair on both sides. I will not have Members referring to the Prime Minister by name.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It could have been any Sir Keir —there are so many of them. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Government have decided that instead of fighting for Britain’s interests, all they will do is turn around and capitulate.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not. The problem is that this case is not just about these islands, or the issues we are debating today; it is about the way in which Governments approach these debates.

Just in case we are in any doubt about the changed nature of the use of law against us, it is worth looking at the timeline of these events—which is completely coincidental. We know, because colleagues have mentioned it, that in the 1960s a deal was done, a payment was made, Mauritius accepted it and we moved on. Just after the Falklands war, a legal action was begun, using Mauritius and extending a claim. Just after the Falklands war, the KGB started to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. By the way, it is not me saying this—it is in the Mitrokhin archive; it is all public. Just after the Falklands war, when the Soviets realised that they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare, and we have seen them do it again and again. If Members would like to read reports on this issue, Policy Exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013, and another one in 2015—“Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”, for those who have trouble sleeping.

Since then, we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again, and the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, these islands or this interest; it is about the question of whether or not this Government will stand up for the British people, and for our security and our interests. Let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is possible, although I hope it is not necessary, that British troops will be asked to do some peacekeeping in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they will have to leave at a moment’s notice with the equipment they have, without the ability to re-equip—simply to go with the best that they have. It is possible that countries like Russia will object.

We know, because we have seen it happen in the late 1990s and all the way through the 2010s and 2020s, that the Russian Government and others have encouraged legal action against our armed forces. To be honest, Governments have been poor on this issue since 1999—Labour Governments initially, and then Conservative Governments—so it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stopped this, recognising that a different position could be taken. Sadly, this Bill reverses that position. It reverses the presumption that our Government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. Instead, they will capitulate. The problem is that capitulation is what got us into this problem in the first place. We can look at the Bici case in Kosovo in the late 1990s, where we settled rather than fought, or at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we settled rather than debated—rather than going to court and seeking a judgment. Those cases created precedents, and I am afraid that this Government are creating another precedent.

I know that the Minister will say that the Governments of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and many other places have correctly said that this case has no connection to them. I am delighted that they have said so, and they are right, but they are sadly mistaken in thinking that that means nobody will test that point.

[Jacob Collier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, he would have been welcome to contribute, but given that he has such a passing interest, I am sure he will not mind if I carry on.

The reality is that it is not up to the person who is pursued by law as to whether they will be challenged; it is up to the aggressor, and we know who the aggressor is. We know who has been using lawfare against us. We have seen it time and again, and I am afraid that the effect of this Bill is to concede that point. I am fascinated that so many Government Members feel that they had no choice but to conclude the negotiation. Admittedly it was begun mistakenly by a Conservative Administration and, yes, I did write to the then Prime Ministers—both of them—complaining about it and pointing out the error of their ways. I was a Minister, and I wrote about it and complained about it, as did Lord Murray of Blidworth—I think that is right. I am going to get his name wrong, forgive me—that is one for Hansard. We both wrote, because we both thought it was wrong at the time.

What can I say? We left office. The civil servants re-presented the same offer and sadly, here we go again. The British people feel so disenchanted at the moment because we see changes of Government and no changes of policy. We simply see a continuation and the Whips’ briefings coming out again. We simply see the pointlessness of democracy in this place, because we might as well not bother being here. The Foreign Office stitched this one up. The Minister cannot even change the judgment, and he has sacrificed everything on the whims of an international process with no regard to the interests of the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have stretched that answer out well, haven’t we? Let us go on to Tom Tugendhat.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

5. If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of removing taxation from death-in-service payments.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

10. If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of removing taxation from death-in-service payments.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for his important question. He has my absolute assurance that if anyone dies in service, from training all the way through to combat and operations, they will absolutely be exempt from inheritance tax provisions. I will continue to discuss that issue, as well as many others to do with armed forces pay, with my opposite number in the Treasury. This Government are deeply proud of the armed forces, and I am deeply proud of them. They will have my full backing as we move forward.

[Tom Tugendhat]

First of all, I place on record my full congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for his recent award in the new year’s honours. That is a fantastic achievement for somebody for whom I have the greatest admiration, and with whom I have served in numerous fields. May I raise the problem with his answer, however? Retention in the armed forces is already suffering; numbers are already coming down and people are struggling to make the maths add up between serving today and having a future tomorrow. The problem with these arguments and the lack of clarity from the Government is that too many people are making decisions on which we all need them to think again. We need people to serve and stay, and it is his responsibility to keep them there.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his response. We need to take a holistic view of this. I remind him that we have missed every recruitment and retention target for the past 14 years. We are working really hard to get after that now: we have just put in place wraparound welfare, we have done the Annington Homes deal, we have put additional resources into veterans’ homes for after service, and we have given the biggest pay rise in 20 years. We are working really hard on that, in discussions with our Treasury counterparts, and we will move it forward.

Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

My right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. Of all the decisions that we make on defence, I will genuinely be stunned if the Government proceed with that reduction in personnel, given what is happening at the moment.

Let me finish by saying something about attitude and mindset. I am obviously going to bring it back to people, but let me talk about what happens if we consistently focus just on technology. I found the IR quite frustrating, because the focus was on not making bad press announcements about the removal of regiments, although we have obviously heard the example of 2 Mercian. If we have this attitude towards capital expenditure and think that we can win wars in essence just by fighting tech on tech and that people do not matter, that trickles down throughout the whole system and we end up in a place where we are prosecuting soldiers in Northern Ireland when they are 80 years old. It is all about attitude and mindset.

I have sat down so many times with Prime Ministers in this place and they have told me, “Johnny, there’re no votes in defence.” But that is not the point, because there are some things that we have to do to keep the nation safe—of course, they may then become prescient when Russia invades Ukraine and things like that—and they are the boring part. It is our job as legislators, MPs, Ministers and Prime Ministers to go ahead, bring people with us and get them to understand why defence matters. Even if they are not interested in the military, there is its long tail through communities such as mine in Plymouth and in defence industries; there is what veterans groups mean in communities like mine; and there is what it actually means for British people to see their 78-year-old grandfathers taken to court in Northern Ireland for fighting for the freedoms and privileges that we enjoy in this place, and how that feels for a whole generation of veterans. It really does trickle down and I urge Ministers to really think about that expenditure.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. He is absolutely right that people claim there are no votes in defence. I would argue that there are no votes in defeat. Sadly, in the past year we have seen a reversal of our interests and influence in places such as Afghanistan and now, sadly, in Ukraine, where deterrence has now turned into defence. Although it may be true that it is not popular to spend money on insurance premiums, the alternative—finding out we are uninsured—is a lot worse.

[Johnny Mercer]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Ukraine

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

On the latter question, I would definitely support NATO and NATO members going out and about and supporting not only the values we stand for, but my point about the right to choose, even if the choice is not NATO. I think we have forgotten about what we have often argued for. We have taken for granted our values and the cost of freedom around the world. We must never stop arguing for that and making the case. Too often over the decades, it has been too easy to stop making that case, or indeed to trade it off against an economic issue. That is why Nord Stream 2 is important. It is important that we recognise that, if it is a success, it will not be a success for Europe, but it will increase friction and division. We should press our German friends to do more, should Russia invade Ukraine.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the support across the House for the Ukrainian people. It is quite true that a free people choose freedom, and the Ukrainian people are trying to do just that. Would my right hon. Friend care to mention other failures of the Putin strategy, such as turning former friends and allies of Russia against it? Is this not an extraordinarily sad day for the Russian people, who have been so abused by this tyrannical dictatorship under Putin? Even countries that have had such strong relations with them, including the Ukrainian people, are now seeking assistance from us to ensure that their homes are not violated by Russian troops?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the aim of President Putin is to de-escalate, or push back NATO from his borders, he should reflect on why so many people have wanted to join NATO. It is predominantly a consequence of his actions, whether that is in Georgia or Crimea, or the sub-threshold actions that are putting real fear into countries such as Sweden and Finland. It is no coincidence that, in the Finnish and Swedish Parliaments, a sense of being closer to NATO than they have been in the past is growing. That is not because of NATO—there is no secret plot—but because of the actions of the President of Russia.

Data Breach: ARAP Applicants in Afghanistan

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his series of questions. First, the investigation will be carried out by Admiral Sir Ben Key, the commander of joint operations at PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters—who also led the planning and the evacuation from Kabul.

On data leaks, the hon. Member is right that these are a concern. The previous leak obviously involved a senior official who deliberately broke the regulation, in so far as he took something out the Department. If the regulation had been followed, that would not have been the case. However, although I cannot say too much, I have instigated changes to improve information security within the Department, and I am happy to brief the hon. Member on that.

The “Manual of Protective Security”, the modern rules that govern information security, is, I believe, fit for purpose; it is really the training and the adherence to it that must be improved. I am graduate of something called the classified documents handling course from the early ’90s—I think I am the only saddo who actually knows what type of lock should be on what type of cabinet that links to different types of security classifications. Nevertheless, information security is not something that western Governments are good at, which is why our adversaries seem to be. We have to improve it, and we have to stand by it.

The Taliban, or obviously any Government that control a country, have control of the telephone network. I cannot say too much about what they can and cannot do; suffice it to say that the method we used to communicate with those people is a way of minimising that risk. One of the reasons we involve emails rather than telephone calls is to try to do that, which is important.

On resource, right from the beginning of this process, way back in August, or in July, I was very clear with my senior military commanders and civil servants that they would have whatever resource they needed to process emails and carry people out, for example. We will fly these people back from third countries out of the MOD budget. It is my view that we should continue to stand by them, including using married quarters, for example, in military establishments to look after them if they cannot get places elsewhere. There has not been a resource problem; the challenge is whether people have been asking for the resource within the system to do this.

The individual concerned was a member of the Ministry of Defence, but I am very keen that it is not just the poor person who drafts the email who is held to account, but the chain upwards, to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend just now that Admiral Key has got a knighthood. There has not been one earned by anyone better for many years.

The challenge of this event is not the accident, the mistake, that we can see happened. I think we all sympathise with the Ministry of Defence and indeed the Secretary of State; accidents do happen. The challenge is that there are people still there and that the co-ordination for getting people out is still complicated. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working to get a single point of contact for all those in Afghanistan who are seeking to leave? The system whereby some have to apply to the MOD, and others to the Foreign Office or through the Home Office, is excessively complicated and is leading to obstacles, including on at least four different occasions that I can speak of. People are stuck in Lashkar Gah, Kabul or Mazar-e-Sharif, trying to get out, but they are still not getting the smooth transfer that we need.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point. I would ask colleagues to have some understanding of this. The MOD, which is of course charged with defending the nation, has in very short order had to turn part of itself over to processing visas and doing the job that traditionally we would have done in the Home Office. We have taken that on ourselves because of the pace, urgency and, in the earlier time, danger.

As I have said, 68,000 emails arrived, many of which are speculative, concerning refugee status, so not even for the Foreign Office. It is a very big enterprise to take on, which is why I was determined to give all that resource. However, I would ask colleagues to remember that, at the same time, we are doing that in an Afghanistan that we have no control over. We are doing it in what for many is a dangerous environment, with the Taliban clearly in some cases actively seeking out people that they wish to deal with—murder, or whatever they are up to. At the same time, we are dealing with an ever-moving situation on the ground, and not everyone who comes out communicates back.

When I look at the spread of where people have gone to third countries, we find people in Australia, people who got on the next flight, people in other parts of Europe and people in the United States. The United States brought some people back to Germany who immediately claimed asylum to the United Kingdom. We find, when we contact people, that some are saying, “Thank you very much, but I am quite happy to stay where I am in sunny California or Australia or somewhere like that.” Some have been here for a very long period of time and have not engaged.

The next stage, which I commissioned today, is, quite rightly, a full and detailed survey of the people we have brought back to know even more about them. Obviously, there are data protection issues we have to cross, but it is really important that we get to the bottom of that.

Carrier Strike Group Deployment

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. Strictly speaking we could, but we do not envisage such deployments unless we are in a time of war or significant stress. At the moment, yes, we could strictly speaking, but the way we are working up each aircraft carrier means that we will not be required to do that.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]]

May I pay huge tribute to Her Majesty’s Royal Navy for getting together and preparing this carrier for sea so effectively? Does the Secretary of State look forward as I do—indeed, as does a great friend of mine, Minister Kono Taro, the current Minister for Regulatory Reform in Japan but his former opposite number in Japan—to seeing Japanese F-35s flying off the deck of the Queen Elizabeth, shortly before he works with his opposite number today to see whether Japan could possibly even join the Five Eyes community?

Afghanistan

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]]

I pay tribute to the service of my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I served a lot in Afghanistan and a lot in the Ministry of Defence. May I just say that the work the NATO troops are currently doing in Afghanistan is hugely important—not because they are in combat operations, as the Minister rightly says, but because they are enabling the Afghan troops and supporting them with medical aid, logistics and so on? So while I recognise that this withdrawal cannot be avoided by the UK, because fundamentally it is a US decision, what assessment have he and his Department made of the implications for the responses of others? He will know that the perception that we may not endure on an operation, even when we are no longer in combat, will weaken the way we are seen by our enemies and may lead our allies to doubt us.

[James Heappey]

I think that our resolve has been tested and demonstrated by the longevity of the mission. We could arbitrarily say, “Well, if we were to stay for another 10 years or 20 years, that would even further show our resolve”. I think the alliance set itself a set of military objectives, which were broadly achieved. It is clear that the politics must now take over. My hon. Friend is entirely right to point, however, to the wider range of effort that goes on and the degree to which that underpins the operational effectiveness of the Afghan national security forces. Clearly the military presence within Afghanistan itself will come to an end, but our ability to remain connected to the Afghan military academy remotely is undiminished, and likewise our ability to host Afghan officers and NCOs on military courses in the UK. All of that will I think, first, help to strengthen the connections between the Afghan and UK armed forces, but secondly, help to continue to develop their capacity so that they sustain their own operations and ensure that there is a lasting peace within Afghanistan.

Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

There are shipyards throughout the United Kingdom that will look into this process to see how they can prosper, but I am acutely aware of the great skills that are exhibited on the Clyde and at Rosyth and of the fantastic job they are doing and have continued to do throughout covid. I am grateful for their continuous support throughout the process.

I am grateful also to the hon. Gentleman for talking us through the history of some of the decisions; he is right that a lot of them are protracted. I am proud to say, however, that with the plans we have unveiled, we will have seven classes of vessel produced in the UK for the first time since 1973, so that is another historic milestone. What we are setting out is a clear vision of how we will progress frigates, destroyers and other vessels such as the multi-role surveillance ship, and FSS. There is clearly a large pipeline of work for UK shipbuilders to focus on, to upskill for and to be sharpening their pencils for to ensure that they can engage with us properly.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am delighted to see the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) wearing a Royal Engineers tie.

It is fantastic to hear this commitment to shipbuilding. In my experience in the MOD, the Navy would ask for five ships, centre would say, “Four should be enough. Here’s three, we’re going buy two and we’ll only service one.” Very quickly, we would be reduced to less than had been promised in the initial strategy. With the pivot to Asia we have been promised and the commitment to base out of Singapore, can my hon. Friend assure me that not only will we have the purchasing capability, but we will have the servicing capability that makes such a difference to the actual deployment of ships? As we know, we have had too many tied up for too long, when we need them to be out doing exactly what we pay them for.

[Jeremy Quin]

Yes, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that point. I admire his maths, as well his attention to detail in respect of the hon. Gentleman’s sapper tie.

I assure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely on it. We need to maintain the availability of our fleet. We are not about saying, “We’ve got X number of ships. Isn’t that great?” when they are all tied up in Portsmouth. There is no point in that. We need our fleet to be present, to be persistent and to be forward looking, and that is exactly what we are going to be focusing on. This might be stretching his question too far, but let me say that the same also applies to our land industrial strategy, which I am proud to have announced today as part of this process.