Blog

The speech made by Alex Shelbrooke, the Conservative MP for Wetherby and Easingwold, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024.

It is a real pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). It is also a great pleasure to have another Yorkshire Hammer in the House, but let me give him some friendly advice: he might not want to have my neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), sitting behind him next time. If the hon. Gentleman does give him any trouble, he should just ask to compare their teams’ European cabinets.

As the current leader of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I want to say something about defence in an ever-changing world. I hope there is not too much of a pause in the defence reviews that have already taken place, and there has been some debate about that. I understand why a new defence review is taking place under a new Government, but I think it worth noting that we have moved to a 360° view of NATO and the threats that it faces.

We may well see a change of Administration in the United States, and with any change of Administration it takes time to work out the direction that the new Administration want to take. I do not feel as fearful as some about President Trump returning to the White House, because during his last tenure he invested heavily in NATO and did not undermine it. We know that while his habit is to create great upset and make big statements, the reality turns out to be somewhat different, and he works towards building on that. Nevertheless, this is something that will have to be considered. What Trump did succeed in doing was getting European allies to build their defence strategies and budgets, and we cannot escape the fact that the demands on the defence of Europe are growing and growing, not just on land but at sea.

We know that Russia has mapped the bed of the North sea. It has mapped the fuel pipelines and the data cables, and obviously the surface platforms are at risk. We know that the Royal Navy and our allies spend a great deal of time counteracting that, and I am proud that the Conservative Government established a huge shipbuilding programme the likes of which had not been seen for very many years. It provides long-term contracts that allow the shipyards and the companies to invest, and, crucially, allow the Royal Navy to be the capable force that it needs to be. That must be key not just to the maintaining of a maritime nation, but to where the maritime interests lie in the world.

Climate change has already been mentioned today. An undeniable fact in that connection is the opening up of the High North and the north-east passage. Another undeniable fact is that the Russians have been rebuilding and revamping bases along their northern shoreline, and yet another undeniable fact is that the Ukraine war that Vladimir Putin illegally started, thinking he would be able to walk in and dominate that country in a very short space of time, has decimated his economy in the long run. Going to war will always decimate an economy, but this war has decimated Russia’s military, costing it a huge number of military personnel, and has made Putin reliant on other countries, such as China. It is notable that before the Ukraine war Chinese vessels never really went into the High North, but they do now because Russia lets them in.

Tension will build in the High North, and we have to be ready for it. I think we are ready for it—we have taken part in vital exercises in the area—but that just goes to show how vital the Royal Navy is. It is, of course, also vital that we have a functioning air force, and that we continue with the procurement of F-35s. Russian jets try to violate our airspace—certainly NATO airspace—on, I think, a daily basis, and they need to be met with confrontation. NATO is a deterrent rather than an aggressive force, but deterrence can only happen if those concerned feel the consequences of the balance of power. I believe that NATO is strong enough at the moment. No other combined maritime force in the world constantly has at least 36 ships patrolling the sea; that is what NATO is able to bring together. However, it is vital that when we carry out the strategic defence review, we analyse not just what we need in maritime terms today, but what will come in the future; not just how we patrol the airspace today, but what will come in the future.

We must also address the position of the Army, which has been under discussion for decades. It is all very well to talk about hollowing out the armed forces and going for the lowest number of personnel. This was, in many ways, the post-cold war dividend, and that dividend has gone, as a number of us warned that it would before the conflict in Ukraine, and it will not come back. That leads to some tough choices. There has to be honesty in the conversation about how much of our GDP we should be spending, because it will add up to 100%, and that means that the budget must be cut somewhere else. I am proud that we have the track to get to 2.5%, but, as I was trying to ask in my intervention on the Secretary of State, if this review adds up to more than 2.5%—if it says, “This is what we need to be able to defend a changing arena”—will the Government spend that money? We cannot on one the hand say that we aim to get to 2.5%, rather than giving a specific date, and on the other hand say, “We are going to have a strategic defence review, but what if it costs 3%?” Will this actually be achieved? That is an important question.

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

The right hon. Member is making a most interesting speech. Does he agree that the present size of the British Army is militating against recruitment? A great many people who might be good in the Army and have considered it as a career option are saying, “Actually, if I could get another job I might do better,” and that is very, very dangerous.

Sir Alec Shelbrooke

Recruitment has become a big problem in the armed forces, especially now that unemployment is at historically low levels. One of my colleagues said to me recently that it was not officers but the ranks who were difficult to recruit. I do not have an immediate answer on how we can change that, but I can say this. In my short tenure as the procurement Minister at the MOD, it became blatantly obvious within 24 hours from looking at the letters and written questions on my desk that accommodation is one of the biggest issues facing the services. I make no criticism of any of my successors or predecessors in that role for trying to handle the issue of accommodation, because I quickly discovered just how difficult it is. I wanted to make front-loading the capital expenditure budget a priority in order to sort out accommodation, but there are so many legal hurdles in the deals that have been done in the past that it becomes difficult.

I want to put on the record that I see service accommodation as a defence capability, and it should be treated like all other defence capabilities. If we are asking our service personnel to go to war, do we want the last thing they hear before they go on to the battlefield to be that their family are moving out and going somewhere else because they cannot live in such conditions any more? Do we want the last thing our personnel on Trident hear before disappearing for four months to be, “I’m leaving; I’m going back to my family home with the kids. We can’t live like this”? That means it has become an issue of operational capability. We need our highly trained and highly professional personnel to know that they are being looked after, which starts with accommodation.

I wish the Government all success in trying to grasp this issue and take it forward, because it is exceptionally complex. I am looking at the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who was one of my successors. I know that he personally tried very hard to sort this issue out and carry it forward. I know there is a body of work taking place, but this is a priority and needs to be sorted. I hope that the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), makes good on the 50 written questions he submitted on 23 and 24 May this year about accommodation, and on the several questions tabled by the now Secretary of State. They obviously recognise that it is a huge concern, and we look forward to finding out how they will approach that as soon as possible.

I will move on to foreign affairs. Without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most contentious issues in the previous Parliament, as well as outside and during the general election, was the war between Israel and Gaza, which has inflamed passions on all sides. I fear that the general election campaign showed that some of the militant pro-Palestinian protesters are stepping over the mark. That does not apply to all pro-Palestinian protesters—there are very different sets of people—but I am talking about the militant pro-Palestinian protesters who seek to use fear and intimidation to try to achieve their objectives.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not given notice to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) about what I am about to say, but it is not a criticism, so I hope she will accept it. As she pointed out in her acceptance speech, it was one of the most horrific campaigns she had ever been through. Nobody putting themselves forward in a democracy, let alone for public service, should have to experience what not just she but several other people experienced. Do you know what most of them had in common, Mr Deputy Speaker? They were women. Female candidates in the election, especially Labour female candidates, had the most horrific, misogynistic abuse hurled at them over the issue of Gaza and Israel, and we have to call that out.

Everybody elected to this place is here as a parliamentarian to speak up for the things they passionately believe in, and no one should ever dismiss someone’s passionate views about a particular subject, even if we ferociously disagree with them. However, it is incumbent on all of us to call it out when we see, in what should be a fair democracy, people having their tyres slashed, being screamed at and being intimidated, which happens to women especially. If we want to have a strong democracy, we have to make sure that this House says with one voice that everybody who wants to stand for Parliament, whatever their views, has the right to campaign safely and put their views across. As a country, we have fallen a long way behind that. Whatever anybody’s view, we have to call that out.

I am a strong defender and supporter of Israel. I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself. I believe that a close eye must be kept on whether international humanitarian law is being broken. If it is, the people who are responsible must be brought before the courts and prosecuted.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) made a very powerful speech, and I listened intently to every word she said. Her personal experiences bring value to this House, as she is able to talk about what the Israel-Gaza conflict means to her, given that her family are on the ground. Who in this House does not want to see a ceasefire? We all want to see a ceasefire, but there are two sides to the coin. It is still Hamas’s objective to wipe out the state of Israel, which we have to address. We have to keep a balance. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), said, a pogrom was launched on 7 October, and we must make absolutely sure that what happened on that day cannot happen again.

This House has always pushed for a two-state solution, but it cannot be down to Israel alone to make the ceasefire happen. I will carry on defending Israel’s right to defend itself and maintain its security. I will also carry on defending international law and making sure it is abided by. If it is not, I will hold people to account. But the call for a ceasefire cannot just be on one side. Hamas have to release the hostages and give up their objective of wiping out Israel, and then we may be able to move things forward.