UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Owen Thompson

  • Owen Thompson – 2024 Speech on the Gaza Vote in the House of Commons

    Owen Thompson – 2024 Speech on the Gaza Vote in the House of Commons

    The speech made by Owen Thompson, the SNP MP for Midlothian, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2024.

    Yesterday was incredibly disappointing, from our point of view. It was meant to be an Opposition day, and it was one of only three times in a calendar year when our party gets an opportunity to put forward its business to the House. I do not think that what we came forward with was a surprise to anyone. We were allocated an Opposition day four or five weeks ago, but totally understandably, it had to be moved when the Northern Ireland Assembly was reconvening. At that stage, there were conversations, and I was asked when people would have sight of the Gaza motion that we would bring forward, so it is quite extraordinary for anyone to suggest that they did not know we might come forward with a motion on that topic. When it got to our Opposition day—one of the very few times when we can put forward our policies—our voice was silenced: our motion could not be voted on. That is incredibly disappointing for me and a significant number of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from across the Chamber who wanted to support the motion.

    Given that, in effect, we did not get an Opposition day yesterday, can we be allocated an alternative date? As others have said, we lost a significant amount of time at the start of the debate, and because of the Speaker’s decision, unfortunately we lost 40 minutes at the end of the debate. That meant that colleagues were cut short, and some withdrew from the debate. What consideration will the Leader of the House give to that suggestion—and, beyond that, to protection for the smaller parties, so that they are not simply railroaded for the political purposes of either of the bigger parties?

    I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, but it is critical that all Members of this place, whatever their position or status, be protected from bullying and intimidation. If reports from many media outlets are to be believed, it is entirely unacceptable that significant pressure was put on Mr Speaker to come to his decision yesterday. What steps will the Leader of the House take to investigate those very serious claims? If there is any substance to them, it is an affront to democracy that a party leader can direct decisions of the Chair of this place.

    As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am, as Chief Whip, involved in a number of conversations on how business comes forward. I had direct assurances that I would have a vote on the words of my motion yesterday. Everyone knew well in advance what the potential outcome would be at the end of yesterday’s debate, so to suggest that no one knew is utter nonsense. The reason we are in this position is that convention and the Standing Orders of this House were overruled, against the advice of the Clerks. That only happened because the Labour party wanted to be dug out of a hole. That is unacceptable.

  • Owen Thompson – 2023 Speech on the Defence Command Paper Refresh

    Owen Thompson – 2023 Speech on the Defence Command Paper Refresh

    The speech made by Owen Thompson, the SNP spokesperson on defence, on 18 July 2023.

    I too thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of a draft statement, albeit that there were one or two additions on delivery. I also, perhaps pre-emptively, join in wishing him well in whatever comes next. Although I have not directly shadowed him, I certainly pass on those thoughts from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who has worked closely with him over a period now.

    I will start on a positive note. I welcome a number of the points made. I very much welcome the fact that people are put front and centre. That is absolutely critical in anything we do in defence. People are what make it work, and if we are not supporting the men and women of the forces, what are we doing at all? There is probably that more we can do, even beyond this. While it will not surprise Ministers to hear me say that we need to support those serving, we also need to continue to look at what we are doing to support our veterans. I know that the Minister is working on that, but it is an area in which we need to try to do more.

    I also welcome the recognition of some of the accommodation conditions. I welcome the fact that steps are being taken and matters looked at, but that needs to be moved forward at a greater pace.

    I note that the Secretary of State says we are going to spend over £50 billion for the first time next year. I wonder whether he can tell us how much of that is simply down to inflation created by this Government. I am not trying to be awkward, but that is clearly quite a significant factor.

    We have also heard of the ongoing and long-lasting issues around procurement, with reports showing that roughly £2 billion is wasted each year in failed equipment programmes and cancelled procurement contracts. Is the Ministry of Defence making the necessary reforms to make its procedures better, and will they deliver value for money?

    Recruitment and retention issues have been flagged up; the Haythornthwaite review clearly highlighted those. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the steps being taken now on the skills agenda will be the necessary actions to address recruitment and retention issues?

    Finally, the Haythornthwaite review highlighted cyber capability as a major issue. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the steps being taken and outlined today will do enough to deliver that capability in the way that we all want to see?

    Mr Wallace

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and grateful for his party’s support on Ukraine.

    On the Haythornthwaite review and skills, right across Europe and the west we are seeing recruitment challenges in the military. I was with my New Zealand counterpart recently, and my Canadian counterpart, and they too have a challenge. The skills shortage across society is big, and it is no different in the armed forces, which is why we have to adapt rapidly and tackle some of the challenges.

    On procurement, as I said, the figures have started to improve. Yes, there are challenges, and we could spend a whole day debating the reasons for those challenges. Complex procurement is not as straightforward as many people think, and the hon. Gentleman will know from the Scottish Government’s procurement issues that it is not straightforward to deal with. I certainly believe that if we invest in the people and are prepared to invest in continuity—if instead of having the senior responsible owners who help manage our projects here today and gone tomorrow, we ensure that they are there for the long term and link their incentives to success, and help them manage our projects—we will have a better chance of delivering better value for money.

  • Owen Thompson – 2023 Speech on Ukraine

    Owen Thompson – 2023 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Owen Thompson, the SNP spokesperson on Defence, in the House of Commons on 26 January 2023.

    I, too, rise to welcome this statement and I thank the Minister for advance sight of it. I will largely echo the comments of others, because clearly all of us in this place stand united behind Ukraine and welcome the steps that have been taken. I do not think any of us can underestimate the steps taken yesterday with the decision by Germany and how difficult a decision that was for the Germans. That is most certainly worth noting. I also note that there are concerns about this next wave of mobilisation of Russian troops, the suggestion that the Russians have drafted 500,000 new recruits into their army and how quickly they may be able to mobilise.

    Although I welcome the moves we have made, there is, obviously, concern about the time it is going to take to get troops up and running and feet on the ground. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s authorisation of the shipment of the 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, although I note that Ukraine’s most senior military commander, General Valery Zaluzhny, said that it needs some 300 western tanks and about 600 western armoured fighting vehicles in order to make a difference. Will the Minister outline whether we will be sending any further Challenger 2 tanks, beyond this initial squadron? I note that in 2021 the Government announced that they were planning to retire about 80 tanks from the UK’s arsenal, so it is possible that some or all of those could be considered for repurposing for deployment to Ukraine, if they are fit enough for that? How is the Ministry of Defence assisting other NATO allies such as Spain that have not yet sent tanks but wish to do so?

    Ukrainian forces will need time to learn how to operate this highly technical equipment, so how will UK armed forces collaborate with NATO counterparts to supply the necessary auxiliary equipment and training to make sure that Ukrainian forces can maximise that capability? Finally, what discussions has the Department had with allies to consider sending fighter jets to Ukraine in the coming weeks and months, so that we do everything we can to aid Ukraine’s struggle?

    Alex Chalk

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He raises a number of very important issues. May I reiterate the point about unity across the House? He has demonstrated that, and I thank him for it.

    The hon. Gentleman raised an important point at the beginning about the time taken to mobilise. No apology is made for that, because, unless the time is taken to properly train the tank crews and also those who support the equipment, we will not achieve the impact that we all want to see. One thing that I am encouraged by, and I am pleased to be able to update the House about, is the extent to which we will be training those maintenance crews on a five-week course, entirely separate from the tank crews themselves, to provide the kind of deep maintenance that is needed, by which I mean if a gearbox or wheel needs to be replaced. We will be supplying not just the tanks, but the supplies and the training to ensure that those vehicles can remain on the road. The tank crews themselves will have a level of maintenance training, but there will be a deep maintenance training support package as well. In addition, there will be the ability to reach back to the UK. In other words, they will be able to communicate to the UK, “Look, this is an issue with this tank. Can you support us?” We will then provide that technical knowhow remotely.

    The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of tanks. The thing that is so important, and that the Secretary of State was so clear about in his remarks in the House, is that the UK has a leadership role to catalyse other nations. That is what we intended to do and—I hope it is fair to say—that is what we have delivered. The number of tanks overall is now over 70. Two weeks ago it was zero, so we are making steps in the right direction.

    The hon. Gentleman asked about other countries—Spain, for example. It is of course a matter for Spain, but I hope that it will take comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom and, indeed, Germany, as he rightly pointed out, have reached this decision, and it may be that other nations will see the way to make similar decisions. Ultimately, though, it is a matter for those other countries.

    Let me address the point about armoured fighting vehicles—a point that is sometimes lost. This nation alone has donated more than 200 armoured fighting vehicles—the so-called dogs of war that we are familiar with from Afghanistan. These are big, heavy fighting vehicles with weapons capabilities that provide assistance on the battlefield.

    On the issue of tanks overall, the Secretary of State has been clear that 40 tanks have been provided, which means that those existing hulls that were at low readiness will be brought forward to high readiness. That is about ensuring that our overall fleet—the fleet that remains—is more lethal and more ready for action.

    As for fighters, we will just have to wait and see. This is an important step at the moment. It is one that we think has a way to go, especially as other nations will perhaps see their way forward as well.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what advice his Department sought from where on the decision as to whether to cease displaying radioactive material hazard signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Defence Equipment and Support organisation decided to cease displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials in July 2011. Before implementing this decision we sought legal advice and notified the regulator. The change was implemented in 2012 in anticipation of the transition to a single type of vehicle for the transport of both nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials and was needed in order to maintain the policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. No changes were required to operating arrangements as a result of this decision. The Ministry of Defence’s arrangements for the safe transport of defence nuclear materials include the provision of information to the emergency services in the event of an incident; this does not rely on displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whose decision it was to cease displaying radioactive material hazard signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Defence Equipment and Support organisation decided to cease displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials in July 2011. Before implementing this decision we sought legal advice and notified the regulator. The change was implemented in 2012 in anticipation of the transition to a single type of vehicle for the transport of both nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials and was needed in order to maintain the policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. No changes were required to operating arrangements as a result of this decision. The Ministry of Defence’s arrangements for the safe transport of defence nuclear materials include the provision of information to the emergency services in the event of an incident; this does not rely on displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on what date the decision to cease displaying radioactive material hazard signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials was made.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Defence Equipment and Support organisation decided to cease displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials in July 2011. Before implementing this decision we sought legal advice and notified the regulator. The change was implemented in 2012 in anticipation of the transition to a single type of vehicle for the transport of both nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials and was needed in order to maintain the policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. No changes were required to operating arrangements as a result of this decision. The Ministry of Defence’s arrangements for the safe transport of defence nuclear materials include the provision of information to the emergency services in the event of an incident; this does not rely on displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what changes to operating arrangements were made as a result of the decision to cease displaying radioactive material hazard signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials to ensure that relevant information is available to emergency services in the event of an accident.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Defence Equipment and Support organisation decided to cease displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials in July 2011. Before implementing this decision we sought legal advice and notified the regulator. The change was implemented in 2012 in anticipation of the transition to a single type of vehicle for the transport of both nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials and was needed in order to maintain the policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. No changes were required to operating arrangements as a result of this decision. The Ministry of Defence’s arrangements for the safe transport of defence nuclear materials include the provision of information to the emergency services in the event of an incident; this does not rely on displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs.

  • Owen Thompson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Owen Thompson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in what circumstances a judge could refuse to approve an interception warrant under clause 19(2) of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.

    Mr John Hayes

    A Judicial Commissioner may refuse to approve any warrant that they believe does not meet the test set out by Judicial Review principles. Judicial Review principles are well established, tested and have been applied by the courts for a long time. The Judicial Commissioner will consider whether the Secretary of State’s decision was reasonable, lawful, made fairly, and whether it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Judicial Commissioner’s consideration will include a review of the Secretary of State’s conclusions on necessity and proportionality. The Judicial Commissioner will have final say on whether a warrant can be issued.

  • Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for what reasons the decision was taken to cease displaying radioactive material hazard signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Defence Equipment and Support organisation decided to cease displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs on vehicles carrying special nuclear materials in July 2011. Before implementing this decision we sought legal advice and notified the regulator. The change was implemented in 2012 in anticipation of the transition to a single type of vehicle for the transport of both nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials and was needed in order to maintain the policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. No changes were required to operating arrangements as a result of this decision. The Ministry of Defence’s arrangements for the safe transport of defence nuclear materials include the provision of information to the emergency services in the event of an incident; this does not rely on displaying radioactive material hazard warning signs.

  • Owen Thompson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Owen Thompson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Owen Thompson on 2015-11-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of the Trident programme over the last five years.

    Michael Fallon

    We regularly review all major programmes to ensure that they operate in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The 2010 Trident Value for Money study and the 2013 Trident Alternatives Review both confirmed the cost effectiveness of a Trident-based deterrent on continuous patrol.