Westminster Diary

On Thursday we saw the anticipated cabinet reshuffle in the government with no changes to the Secretary of state for Defence Ben Wallace or the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab.

Earlier this week Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, asked the Foreign Secretary, Dominic what assessment he has made of the potential for opening negotiations with Iran on a revised nuclear deal.

Minister for the Middle East at the Foreign Office Andrew Murrison said, “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) is the best means available to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We remain committed to the deal and urge Iran to return to full compliance immediately. We, along with France and Germany, have made clear that we want to build on the JCPoA with a long-term successor that includes regional security issues and Iran’s ballistic missile programme. The UK remains determined to work with Iran on a diplomatic way forward and believes discussion on these issues should take place while the current nuclear deal remains in place.”

Later Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP also asked the Foreign Secretary what recent assessment his department has made for the potential for (a) an escalation of the conflict and (b) nuclear warfare in Kashmir.

Heather Wheeler MP, Under-secretary for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said, “We continue to monitor the situation in Kashmir and we urge all parties to refrain from actions that could jeopardise regional stability. We are in regular contact with the governments of India and Pakistan. The Prime Minister has underlined the importance of resolving issues through dialogue to his counterparts in both India and Pakistan. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in Kashmir with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and Lord Ahmad, Minister for South Asia, raised the issue with the Indian Minister of State for External and Parliamentary Affairs.”

 

This week Caroline Lucas asked the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effect of the delay in the delivery of HMS Audacious to the in-service dates of the (a) final three Astute submarines; (b) Dreadnought submarines; (c) the schedule for dismantling out of service nuclear submarines and (d) the requirements for nuclear licensed dock capacity at Devonport; and if he will make a statement.

The Government’s response: The delay to the delivery of Audacious will have some impact on the schedule for the next Astute Class, Anson. We remain committed to delivering all seven Astute boats by the end of 2026. The Dreadnought programme is unaffected and remains on track for the first of the Dreadnought class submarines to enter service in the early 2030s. The planned in-service dates for Royal Navy submarines are withheld as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces. The schedule for dismantling decommissioned nuclear submarines is unaffected. Work to determine the future infrastructure requirements at Devonport is continuing and is unaffected by the delay to the delivery of Audacious.

Caroline Lucas also asked what assessment he has made of the effect of the delay in the delivery of HMS Audacious on the cost of extending the service lives of Trafalgar-class submarines.

Answer from James Heappey MP: We do not routinely release planning assumptions for submarine availability as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces. There are no additional costs over those which are currently planned.

 

As part of a wider revamp of Whitehall, the prime minister’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings would like to shake up the MOD. This was after he singled out a £6.2bn decision to build two new aircraft carriers as continuing to “squander billions of pounds”.

The Prime Minister also said during the General Election “…the government will undertake a new integrated foreign policy, security and defence review which will extend from the armed forces to the intelligence services, counter-terrorism, serious organised crime, diplomacy and development.”

The Trident replacement programme swallows up a large chunk of the defence budget.

This week the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace was asked the question: What steps is his department taking to ensure that the capabilities of the armed forces are adequate to meet future needs?

Ben Wallace reiterated that the PM is committed to a foreign policy review and to the” deepest review of defence since the cold war.”
He went on to talk about strengthening the role of NATO, the UK’s commitment to the alliance and NATO continuing to expand into areas of hybrid threat.

Both Tobias Ellwood (the new Chair of the  Defence Select Committee) and Meg Hillier (Chair of the Public Accounts Committee) pushed for the timeframe for the Review to include parliamentary review. He just said “we [government] need to be realistic about what we are going to spend and honest to the public about what we’re going to do globally.”

The status of the Defence Review is unclear – although a wider Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) is due in 2020.

 

Last week the Shadow Home Secretary asked the Secretary of State for Home Affairs why CND and others had been included on the counter-terrorism police guidance.

Diane Abbott MP said, “We also understand that in the guidance document, there is mention of organisations such as Greenpeace, the “Stop the badger cull” campaign, the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and of vegan activists. Can the House be provided with a list of the organisations mentioned in the counter-terrorism police guidance? What is the basis for the inclusion of groups such as vegan activists? Will the Secretary of State accept that in a democracy there is a fundamental right to disagreement and non-violent campaigning, and that interfering with or denying that right—even through an error of judgment—is a fundamental breach of the democratic contract between the Government and the governed?”

Brandon Lewis responded saying “… The police have recalled the guidance and are reviewing it, and both we and the police have said that protest groups are not extremist groups, and that membership of a protest organisation is not—nor should it ever be—an indicator that an individual is vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. It is important that protest groups have that space. We believe in, defend and fight for freedom of speech, and will continue to do so.”

Since this statement in the House of Commons, it has been reported in The Guardian that Police Scotland have circulated the document.

Full transcript available here.