James Cartlidge

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and welcome him to his new post. He had a distinguished military career and, as Security Minister, will have had a foretaste of the operational demands of his new job. I will be turning to the circumstances that brought him to that position shortly, but we wish him well in his position. I also welcome the new Minister for Veterans, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), to his post and welcome his predecessor, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), to her new role as Armed Forces Minister. I also pay personal tribute to the previous Secretary of State. On the day he resigned, I said that he was an honourable man who had done an honourable thing, and I meant it. Whatever our political differences, I respect the dignity with which he left Government—on a point of principle, in the national interest. On the seizure of the Russian shadow fleet vessel, the Opposition welcome this action and the way it was conducted. Throughout his time in office, the previous Secretary of State and I maintained a rock-solid consensus in support of Ukraine, standing shoulder to shoulder against the Russian threat. Whenever he announced action against Russian naval activity in our territorial waters, such as against Yantar, I welcomed it, because we must stand strong against the serious threat posed by Putin. That is why it is important that this vessel was seized, but I do have one particular concern. Back in March, the Prime Minister announced that British armed forces are now able to board sanctioned vessels that are passing through our waters, but the BBC reports that since then in at least 94 instances shadow fleet vessels have crossed into UK territorial waters without a single one being interdicted by our armed forces. Until this weekend, almost three months after the policy was announced, no boarding of these vessels had taken place. What changed? On the specific action that took place, I pay tribute to all our brave armed forces and law enforcement personnel involved, who conducted their mission to the highest professional standards, because one thing is certain about those who serve in our military: give them the kit and they will do the job. But here is where the problem lies. This operation was necessary as part of our overall policy to deter Russia. However, that attempt at deterrence has been completely undermined by the total debacle of the defence investment plan. Last week we witnessed an unprecedented moment in UK defence, the likes of which has never been seen before, with the Secretary of State, his deputy and two Parliamentary Private Secretaries all resigning in total and unprecedented chaos. The Defence Secretary resigned from Government because the money the Prime Minister was offering for the defence investment plan was so meagre that it would “make the country less safe” and would “reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations”. That is a shattering verdict on this Government’s plans for defence, and it was one shared by the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). For some reason, he did not get a mention in the Secretary of State’s statement, or in the response from his junior Minister earlier. But as we are talking about the actions of our Royal Marines, let me put on the record my huge respect for the former Minister and the way in which he, too, resigned on a matter of principle. We share a passion for delivering the drone revolution, and given his distinguished military record, it was damning for him to say that the defence investment plan was “not built for the threat we face. It is neither transformative enough nor sufficiently funded.” In particular, in his resignation letter, the previous Armed Forces Minister stated that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is “unfit for purpose”. We agree 100%. Just as the professionalism of our personnel was at the heart of this weekend’s interdiction operation, standing by our veterans and serving personnel must be at the heart of defence policy. As a veteran of Operation Banner himself, does the Secretary of State agree that the last thing the Government should be doing is hounding former soldiers through the courts? If he agrees, will he therefore urge the Prime Minister to scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? On the core issue of funding, it will be deeply worrying for our NATO allies to see the chaos now surrounding the defence investment plan. It was meant to transform our armed forces, yet the very Secretary of State responsible for delivering the DIP until five days ago said that it will make us “less safe”. That is because the money on offer was nothing like enough. Is it true that the Prime Minister is refusing to give the Secretary of State any more cash for the defence investment plan? If so, in principle, does he welcome the offer from the Leader of the Opposition to work with the Government to find the welfare savings to fund defence? To conclude, as this is our first exchange at the Dispatch Box since his appointment, I assure the Secretary of State that we are willing to work with him in the national interest to find the money for defence. Will he work with us?