To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of protest movements targeting UK defence and aerospace facilities and exports, on the UK’s security and economy, and the supply chains and reputation of the defence industry abroad.
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence tracks risks to the defence sector as part of its routine monitoring of supply chain resilience. Some UK defence companies have faced costs and disruption due to criminal damage and staff intimidation by groups such as Palestine Action. We are working with the police to address those offences and mitigate future risks. Although individual businesses have been affected, the overall impact on defence has been limited, with no significant effects reported on the defence supply chain or the reputation of our world-leading defence industry.
My Lords, the defence industry is vital to our national security and our economy, not least when we must do more to increase support for Ukraine. It provides thousands of highly skilled and well-paid jobs. We have to stand up for it and support it and the people who work in the industry. It is not just buildings and equipment that have been attacked; workers have been intimidated and police officers have been injured as extremist groups have smashed their way into factories. This is not peaceful protest; it is a violent national campaign. Will the Government put in place a robust strategy to support the defence sector and get the people responsible for those attacks before the courts more quickly, as they were able to do with other examples of public disorder?
The noble Lord makes a really important point. Let us use this opportunity to state that it is totally unacceptable for people to act as they have. There is legitimate protest, which this country is proud to facilitate, but we will not allow our bases to be broken into, people to be intimidated and protests to stray into the realms of illegality and violence. None of us in this Chamber would accept that. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action and why we see people before the courts. We work strongly with the Home Office, the police and others to ensure that those who think that they can do that will face the full force of the law.
My Lords, the activity to which the noble Lord, Lord Austin, rightly refers is de facto sabotage of our critical defence capability. In Napoleonic times, setting fire to a naval dockyard was construed as such and punishable by death, which was abolished only by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Does the Minister agree that any sabotage activity of the type described is profoundly serious, and is he satisfied that the criminal law is adequate to deal with the appropriate charge and penalty in such grave circumstances?
I know that the British media are always concerned with accuracy, so let me start my remarks by saying that, whatever I say now, we have no intention of restoring the death penalty—let us get that out of the way first; whatever review may or may not take place, that is not on the table. The noble Baroness who speaks for the Opposition makes an important point. This is a very serious matter. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action. That is why we will take the action necessary to protect our defence industry and to stop intimidation and do all we can to support our world-leading industry. We will always continue to discuss with our Home Office colleagues and with others across government whether more needs to be done. Let us be clear: there is legitimate protest, which is perfectly acceptable, but some of the things that have gone on are totally unacceptable.
My Lords, there seems to be an issue with public opinion at present about a failure to understand the importance of defence. Recent polling has suggested that many people of service age would not be willing to fight for our country. What are the Government doing to engage in the national conversation that the strategic review said was necessary to help people understand the importance of defence to our country and that any attack on the defence sector is also an attack on our own resilience?
The noble Baroness makes a good point and, by asking the question, she starts to raise the conversation that we need to have as politicians about having more confidence to speak to the British public about why, as a country, we do the things that we do—and why it is extremely important that we do them. On a practical level, to make that rhetoric a reality, one thing that we are doing is to talk about the need for national resilience, the importance of protecting our critical national infrastructure and the importance of the reserves as well as the full-time personnel. The noble Baroness, who follows these matters closely, will also have seen the massive expansion that we are bringing to the cadet organisation in this country, which I think will help to make a very real difference.
My Lords, it is welcome to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the defence industry. Does he share my view that it is completely unacceptable for anyone who says that they support working people in industrial settings and, most of all, those who claim to represent working people to seek to excuse and underplay the level of intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories, who have been terrorised for many years? Those people who defend that should have no place in the Labour movement. Is that not right?
I know the point that the noble Lord is making, but the general point is that nobody should face intimidation for going to work. That is a completely unacceptable way of behaving. The noble Lord has done a lot of work in this area and has defended the right to protest and the right for people to make their views known, but to do so in a way that is acceptable and according to the law. It does not matter what hat people have on when they speak about this; we all need to encourage people to behave appropriately and properly when it comes to protest.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that smaller suppliers, essential to our defence, often lack the resources to withstand sustained intimidation and sabotage? Will the Government provide targeted support against extremists to ensure that those companies can continue to deliver critical components to our Armed Forces and maintain Britain’s reputation as a reliable defence partner?
Obviously, the deployment of police resources is a matter of operational independence for the police, but my noble friend makes the important point that, whether it is a large business, a small business, an international business or a business located in a small rural area, they all deserve protection, whether they are the workers or the business overall. The important point of principle is that we are proud of our defence industry and, whether they are small, medium or big businesses, we will support them.
My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of the impact on the UK’s reputation of not imposing sanctions on arms deals with Israel when the Palestinian people are facing genocide?
That is an example of what I have been saying: the noble Baroness, in terms of freedom of speech, has been able to get up and say something in this Parliament about Palestine—this is something that we should point out—and to challenge the Government on what they have done with respect to this in an appropriate and proper way, as she always does.
The noble Baroness knows that the Government have made comment about the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages and all the things that the Foreign Secretary made a Statement about just a few days ago and has continuously made Statements about. She has also heard what the Prime Minister has said with respect to the recognition of Palestine unless Israel meets certain conditions. She will also know that, last September, the Government changed the export rules so that we stopped exporting arms to Israel that were going to be used with respect to Gaza. I know that the noble Baroness does not think that goes far enough, but the Government have taken proportionate and reasonable action to say to Israel that this is what we think is acceptable and to stand up for that while we also pursue the two-state solution that we all want.
We have sought to explain that. We have said that the security in place at that time at Brize Norton was not good enough. The noble Earl will have seen that since that incident we have been looking at what we do to improve and enhance security in the short term in our military bases, and in the longer term. The point that needs to be reiterated is that the people at fault are those who thought an acceptable way to protest was to break in—whatever the rights and wrongs of how they were able to do that. We all agree that it was unacceptable that they could do that. Why on earth do some people think it is acceptable to break into an RAF base and put at risk this country’s national security? It is not, and I am glad that through the proper processes people have been charged and we will see what the outcome of that legal process is.