Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of reports of the use of white phosphorus by Turkey in northern Syria. What is he doing to assist NATO allies with the investigation into this?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady is right that white phosphorus is permitted only for use in signals and markers; it is not allowed, under the Geneva convention, to be used as a weapon. A number of people are collecting evidence about that and many other incidents. When that evidence is presented either to me, to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or to the UN, we will consider together what the next step should be.

Combat Air Strategy

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

As ever, Mr Stringer, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is an honour to have worked with the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on this issue for what is now a significant period of time. As an Opposition Back Bencher, there are very few opportunities to make a real difference or change Government policy. One of my most confusing moments as a Member of Parliament was when the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), gave me credit for the change in policy—so I will now be taking credit for everything that everybody is doing on the issue.

I alert the House to my registered interests; I have the great honour to be the GMB lead in manufacturing. I must also apologise for the fact that, since business is quite interesting in this place at the moment, I have managed to get into the bizarre position of co-sponsoring debates in this Chamber and the main Chamber at exactly the same time. You have kindly given me permission, Mr Stringer, to go between the two debates as the afternoon progresses, so I will be going from combat air strategy to child food poverty in an easy step from one room to the next.

I welcome those who are watching from the Gallery—not least the Unite reps from Brough, who have travelled quite far to hear about the future of their sector, about what we care about and about what we are doing to fight for them. It is a great thing for us all to meet skilled men and women who deliver day in, day out, contributing in different ways to our national security—it is something I love to do. I have had the pleasure of visiting the team at Brough and other BAE sites to see how it works.

We asked for a defence aerospace industrial strategy at the beginning because it has several different components for Members from all parties, ranging from our national security to our sovereign skills and the wider defence family. We can forget that the reason for our sovereign skills capability in the sector is our own national security. It is about the men and women who come together at times of national crisis to develop the capabilities that our armed service personnel need to protect us. It is never, ever just about the platforms; it must always be about the people who design them, make them and use them to keep British citizens safe. We need to look at our defence industrial strategy in the round, so we should be talking about our defence family, not just our military family or the defence manufacturers.

What have we achieved so far? What have I achieved so far? Some 1,000 people are currently working on Tempest. We must not underestimate the fact that none of them was doing this two years ago. We came to this House and said that a new fast jet takes 30 years from conception to build. This Government did a wonderful thing in appreciating that as soon as we have commissioned and bought one platform, we need to consider the next.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Lady when she is making such an eloquent speech, but the annunciator seems to think that she is somebody else—it may be confused by her being in two places at once. Perhaps whoever is operating it could amend that.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has ever spoken on defence industrial strategy—well, she has now—but it would be very helpful if I had a clone so that I could be in both Chambers at once today. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for highlighting that point.

Tempest has 1,000 people and £2 billion already invested and committed, both from the sector and from the Government. Moving forward, that will lead to potentially 22,000 jobs in the wider supply chain. When we talk about sovereign skills and investing in UK plc, that is exactly what we mean.

As the hon. Member for Witney highlighted, we asked for a strategy, not a platform. We asked how the Government would look at our combat air strategy in the round, and what the defence aerospace plan was for the next 30 years. I am delighted with what we have—but, as ever, Minister, it is not enough. We have seen recently how difficult it is to train new pilots and how long the waiting times are. In no small part, that is because of the delay in replacing the Hawk training platform.

The Hawk has done our country a huge service for many years and is still flown by the Red Arrows—although I think they could do with an upgrade, too. However, the Hawk is probably coming to the end of its natural life, and there are competitors that have positioned themselves, even to provide training for the F-35. We need to talk about what replacement aircraft we will need for the F-35 and what Tempest will finally look like. We need to talk about all this in the round, not just for a single platform.

The very talented men and women at Brough need some guarantees about their future. They need to know—as does the whole wider supply chain, not just BAE Systems—what we are talking about for the sector’s future, so I have specific questions for the Minister about plans for a training platform. What conversations is he having with the wider industry about what we will do to develop a new platform? If we are not going to do that, are we really talking about buying something off the shelf? That will be no good for sovereign skills as we seek to leave the European Union.

My other question to the Minister is about Brexit—sorry, I mean Tempest, although I have many questions about Brexit. There are currently four significant players involved in the design process. We have a huge opportunity with Tempest that we have not had before, because it is a blank piece of paper. Our weapons systems can be built into the platform, not added to it; the way the ejector seats operate can be included at the beginning, rather than the end; and the way we refuel can also be included at the development of the new platform. As we saw with the Rafale, not only does adding an in-air refuelling system make the product ugly, but—not that I am partisan—it adds challenges to stealth capability and the ability to be located on radar. We have an opportunity to do this all at the beginning, so we should be talking not just about the four companies, but about how we work with our small and medium-sized enterprises and the extraordinary companies driving change, and how they can access the programme with the four main partners.

With the Select Committee on Defence—our Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is in his place—I had the privilege of visiting the Paris air show last week, as did the Minister. We saw the opportunities available for UK plc, and we also saw where our international allies are looking to fill gaps in areas that we are not ready to participate in. Can the Minister share with us what conversations he is having with our international allies about working collaboratively?

We are leaving the European Union, I hope, at the end of the year, but that does not mean that we are leaving the continent of Europe. Continuing to work with our allies to develop a platform over which we can be in more control than we have been with the F-35 gives us the opportunity to build our security and financial relationships with allies by which we are currently challenged. Will the Minister inform us what we are doing?

It is a great thing to be able to talk about defence, work on a cross-party basis with so many colleagues, and continue to work with the hon. Member for Witney on the issue. We are grateful for what has happened so far—we just want more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who has had to leave us, on introducing the debate and being tireless campaigners on the issue for a number of years. It is appropriate that we are having the debate in Armed Forces Week, in which we are getting many opportunities to talk about the impact of our military.

The hon. Member for Witney highlighted in great detail the importance of the combat air strategy. As he stressed, the benefits of the aerospace sector to our economy cannot be overstated, and he gave us some important figures that are worth repeating. He said that the sector has accounted for 87% of defence exports over the past 10 years and that the UK combat air sector has an annual turnover of more than £6 billion. That supports 18,000 jobs directly, and there is of course a multiplier effect in the local economy and tax revenues. All recent combat air programmes in the UK have delivered significant returns on Government investment.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North highlighted the number of people already working on Tempest and the number that we expect to see working on that programme over the next few years. It was great news when, as part of the combat air strategy, the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), announced the launch of Tempest last year, along with £2 billion of funding to develop the technologies necessary for the UK to lead the development of a next-generation combat air system. I hope to see a positive outcome for those plans in the comprehensive spending review this year, and subsequently in the first major programme approval gate at the end of 2020.

There are issues surrounding funding. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) talked about the feast-or-famine approach to spending, and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about how, as soon as we start one programme, we should consider the next. That drumbeat of planning and procurement is so important. We should not be scrabbling about for money when funding our defence. We need to commit to a much longer funding stream, to ensure proper planning of the spending within the Department.

Frankly, we are seeing too much of a siloed approach to spending, not just in Defence but in many Government Departments. I will briefly highlight the fleet solid supply ships, which we are talking about building outwith the UK. Given the economic impact of building in our own shipyards, it is ludicrous to consider countries such as South Korea, with its state funding of bids. It will fund those bids because it understands the tax revenues and economic multipliers. We need a far less siloed approach.

It should also remain a priority that any exports take into account where the equipment will be used. I am looking for some clarity on that, especially in the light of the recent Court of Appeal ruling, which found that the Government

“made no concluded assessments of whether the Saudi-led coalition had committed violations of international humanitarian law in the past, during the Yemen conflict, and made no attempt to do so”.

There is no justification for exporting arms to countries that repeatedly and flagrantly violate international humanitarian law.

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

The partnerships and collaborations involved in the combat air strategy will play an essential part in determining the UK’s place on the international stage in the immediate future. It is therefore essential that our defence policy remains in step with our European allies and our closest neighbours. I was pleased that a number of hon. Members made reference to that this afternoon.

The combat air strategy recognises the UK’s

“unique network of capability collaborations”

and pledges to

“work quickly and openly with allies to build on or establish new partnerships to deliver future requirements.”

It is important that the Government make good on those intentions and follow through on the proposals for the combat air acquisition programme as an international collaborative programme with the UK as a prime partner.

Our interests must remain aligned with our European partners—our closest neighbours—even after Brexit. That is not just because of defence interests. It is also because, through building such collaborations and alliances, our research is far richer and far better. Being able to draw upon skills from across Europe means that we end up with a product that is far better than it would be if we were simply working on our own.

The hon. Member for Witney talked about the skills required for the Tempest programme and the importance of involving schools. As a former teacher, I agree 100%. We need to be in schools, and not just at secondary level. We need to be in primary schools. We need to be working with young people to make them aware of the sector and to help them to see the opportunities that the sector offers. In particular, we need to be trying to tap into a resource that we are not using enough: the females. We need to be targeting girls so that the aerospace sector has a far more balanced workforce. That is not important just because we want to see diversity and people getting on. It is important because different types of people bring different types of ideas and will look at things in different ways. We must do that.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned space. I had not actually considered the space implications, but she is quite right. As our understanding of space and our development of space vehicles increases, we need to consider how that is going to play out. I was very pleased when last year the Government committed £2 million to the development of a space port on the A’ Mhòine peninsula in Sutherland. There are real opportunities, not just in terms of our forays into space but also in terms of building up a skills hub around that.

The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) made me think of space when he talked about the mothercraft. It took me back to my “Star Trek” days. We were left in no doubt about his passion for the Hawk by the end of his remarks.

Of course, any strategy will succeed only if it receives the full backing of those expected to carry it out. The strength of our armed forces absolutely relies upon the strength of our personnel. Frankly, as I said yesterday—I think the Minister was there for that debate—we need to do more to improve the welfare and treatment of our personnel, not just in the RAF but across all the armed forces. The Minister will know that the SNP has been pushing for an armed forces representative body that would allow them a proper say in how personnel are treated and their welfare, and would feed into Government policy. It would not allow for strike action—we can have a federation that does not allow that—but would allow us to consult and bring on board the personnel.

Our defence capability and longevity must be strengthened by proper investment and proper ambition. It was great to see the combat air strategy launched, but it should not need the hon. Members for Witney and for Stoke-on-Trent North to be pushing in order to move it forward. It should already be part of the Government’s programmes. There is a strong overlap in defence when we look at our European Union allies and the UK. Whatever happens in the coming months, we must ensure that nothing is done that would put that collaboration in jeopardy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I offer my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for introducing this debate. I echo his opening comments about the recent crash of the German Eurofighter, and the sad loss of life. Our thoughts go out not only to the German air force and the German people, but to the pilot’s family, at what must be an incredibly difficult time. We will take close notice of the reports that come out of that incident; my hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that we should not speculate at this stage, but we will seek to understand the issues that caused the crash and learn from them for the safety of our pilots.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, because he has shown a tremendous amount of personal enthusiasm and dedication on this issue. I know that because he writes to me quite regularly and asks to meet, and he rightly challenges us about it. He does that not only from a personal interest, but because he clearly cares passionately about the benefits it will bring for his own constituency, which I know he works incredibly hard to support. I hope I can assure him that the Government share that ambition and the commitment to ensuring that we continue to have a world-leading combat air sector.

We want to build on the United Kingdom’s excellent reputation, and on its excellence and innovation. That reputation has been underpinned by more than a century of significant investment by both the Government and the industry, but by 2018 it was clear that some important decisions were needed if the UK was to retain its position as a world leader in combat air, while retaining sovereign choice in how we deliver the future capabilities that the Royal Air Force will need.

At the heart of the Government’s response is the combat air strategy, which, as many hon. and right hon. Members have already said, was officially launched at the Farnborough International Air Show last year. It sets out an ambitious vision for the sector, with plans for driving a comprehensive approach across Government and our industrial base, together with international partnering in the future.

The strategy provides a clear roadmap for the future, aligning national programmes and investment decisions to sustain a sector that is profoundly important to the UK’s economy—as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, it accounts for around 85% of our defence exports over the past decade and directly supports 180,000 British jobs. At the heart of the strategy is the launch of the next-generation combat air acquisition programme, which will define and deliver the capabilities required when the Typhoon fighter leaves service.

The strategy also reaffirms the Government’s commitment to the future combat air system technology initiative, under which £1.9 billion was invested in demonstrator projects using the latest technology. More generally, the strategy highlights the clear need for profound transformational change in the way the Government and the industry jointly approach the combat air enterprise.

I will move on to some of the points that hon. and right hon. Members raised during the debate. I note what my hon. Friend said in his speech about the Franco-German project; I absolutely accept that there is no room for complacency, and I can personally reassure him that I am not complacent about it. I always wish our friends and allies the very best of success, and we will see how the move from fourth generation to sixth generation goes. We will always continue to work with allies on a host of different projects.

My hon. Friend was right to make the point, which I accept, that we should look at a better model for understanding the contribution that the defence industry makes to the United Kingdom. He described how the UK economy benefits from our investment in defence, and he mentioned some big figures. I gently encourage all Members to continue to have conversations, as I am sure they do already, with my colleagues in the Treasury about the difficulties that we sometimes find in the Treasury Green Book. I will leave that there for now.

I will come on to skills a little later, because I want to address some interesting points made by my hon. Friend. I took no offence whatever when he said that the importance of our future combat air strategy cannot be promoted only at my level. It absolutely has to be a national endeavour, and it has to be at the highest level of Government. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the issue at meetings with her counterparts from other countries, and it is incumbent on the new Prime Minister to do exactly the same. The Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), rightly said that it presents us with an opportunity to really push the issue and see this as a national endeavour, with senior cross-Government figures pushing the project forward and encouraging more international partners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney talked about paragraph 38 in the strategy. I reassure him that the national value framework not only describes options, but assesses which ones reach the right balance between prosperity, capability, affordability and, of course, international influence. I assure him that I will continue to put forward the message that this is an opportunity for us to keep UK skills and industry at the heart of the initiative.

My hon. Friend talked about STEM issues. Several right hon. and hon. Members have said that we need to attract younger people into the subjects that they will need to take part in projects such as this. As I go round industry, I get a sense that industry has woken up to that. A lot of industries are now determinedly engaging with primary schools and running competitions to get it into the minds of young people that this is an exciting opportunity for their future. When I was at BAE Systems in Lancashire it was interesting to see the training centre right next door. It benefits not only BAE Systems, but other industries across the north-west, and I hope we will see more of that sort of thing.

[Carol Monaghan]

For many years, we have had engagement events in which industry goes to schools, does some sort of bells-and-whistles project activity and goes again, but the impact has not been great. The kids love taking part, but there has not really been any knock-on effect. The outcomes are far better when relationships are built up over time. It is important for engagement to be not just about going in and back out, but about getting to know the young people over an extended period of time.

[Stuart Andrew]

I take that point completely, but I think the hon. Lady has a pessimistic view of what is happening. In the industries that I have visited I have seen a lot of new apprentices, and it has been encouraging to see female apprentices taking up the opportunities. I accept that we have a long way to go, but I get a sense that there is more of a commitment to work with schools through the years to encourage young people to take up such posts. When I visit factories, the most enjoyable part is meeting the apprentices, because they are full of enthusiasm and they recognise that they are taking part in a national endeavour to secure our nation’s future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene once again. What he is talking about is indeed happening and we are starting to see things change. However, when I visit industries they often introduce me to the female engineer. If we are talking about “the female engineer”, we have problems. A female engineer should be so commonplace that there is no reason to introduce visiting dignitaries or MPs to such people.

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely take that point, but, as I say, I have seen a greater number of females in the industry. There are not enough, and I accept that there is more to be done, but I do get a sense that things are going in the right direction. However, we should never be complacent, and the hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is something I continue to press with industry.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) is not here, but I was quite amused by the fact that she was mistaken for the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). When I was first elected to this House, I was constantly mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson). In fact, he sent me a text message once to say, “Thank you for doing such a brilliant speech for me on HS2 yesterday”, because he got the credit for it. So I know that such mistakes can happen.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North pointed out that we have representatives from Brough here today, who have been brilliant advocates of the work that they do in the factories there. I am acutely aware of the issues that they face and the uncertainty for the people who work there. I hope that I have demonstrated my commitment to try to get the exports to Kuwait. I have been there on a couple of occasions and have met them here. I constantly meet BAE Systems to talk about the programme and will continue to do so because the matter is of great concern to them.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North also pointed out that the issue is not only about platforms and that we should also talk about the skills, designers and engineers that we need and can really help us. She talked about the four national players currently in the Tempest and what the SME involvement is. Again, I am absolutely passionate that the SME involvement needs to be extensive. I was pleased to open a conference where about 150 SMEs came along to learn about the opportunities and what we are looking for. Since then, the conversations with at least 100 of the SMEs have continued.

Just this week, I chaired a meeting with the four national players and MOD representatives; I pushed the point that we need to make sure that we get the very best out of those SMEs. From what I can see, that is where a lot of the exciting technology and development is happening, and they can sometimes be more responsive in delivering the technology that we need for the platform. I assure her that I will continue to make that point in any meeting that I have.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) talked about the national shipbuilding strategy and how we learn lessons from that. There has been some controversy about it and I have had some challenging debates and sessions in front of the Select Committee, but I also had a good meeting with the representatives of the all-party parliamentary group for shipbuilding and ship repair. There is a lot in its report that we can examine and transfer into the strategy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East rightly talked about the leadership election and the opportunities it presents. I welcome the debate on defence spending. Even before I was in this position, I believed that defence spending needed to increase and be appropriate to the risk that we face. At the end of the day, the first duty of any Government of this country is to protect the nation and our people. I will certainly encourage both candidates to increase the funding. I want to see that.

I was concerned to hear my right hon. Friend mention that some say that we should lower our expenditure and expectations; he will be glad to know that I have not heard that in the Department. If I did, I suppose I would coin the phrase, “No, no, no.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) secured a debate not long ago on a similar topic and I know how important it is to his constituents—that was one of the first visits I did in this position. He rightly talked about the Treasury models and I look forward to him lobbying Treasury Ministers. He also said, as did other hon. Members, that the strategy is not just about a new platform in Tempest, but about keeping Typhoon current and upgrading and modernising it throughout its life, so there is an easy transition into Tempest, or whatever that may be. That is at the heart of the strategy to ensure that we are maximising those opportunities.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was absolutely right that the comprehensive spending review will be significant. The Department is already preparing for that to make the point that we need the funding that we have been talking about. She also talked about European partners and concern about what leaving the European Union might mean. I gently point out that a lot of our collaboration with our European neighbours happens bilaterally or through NATO. I see no reason why our leaving the European Union would bring an end to that collaboration. We will continue to do it through NATO and bilaterally, and we will look to partner nations across the globe to ensure that we continue to maximise it.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is indeed my constituent and I am happy to represent him in this House—I am sure he is not so happy about that.

Armed Forces Day

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I will start by declaring an interest: as many Members here know, my husband served for 17 years in the Royal Navy, finally retiring as lieutenant commander in the Submarine Service. It is therefore appropriate that he joins us today in the Under-Gallery.

Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to thank members of our armed forces, both serving and retired, but of course this year there is added significance in that we are also celebrating 75 years since the D-day landings. Armed Forces Day is also an opportunity for us to do more than just speak and give more than just gratitude, and actually to take action to ensure that things are as good as we can make them for members of our armed forces, who are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice. The contribution that serving and former personnel make to society goes beyond their service, and we should ensure that their futures—inside and outside the military—are worth investing in. We need to allow them to develop as professionals, both for their life in the armed forces and for their life beyond, to ensure that they can contribute to and develop links with local communities, and to make sure that their family life and personal wellbeing are assured.

It is important that we do not spend this afternoon being complacent. There is good work going on but, as a school report card would say, we could do better. There are issues that mean that serving is not always as fulfilling as it should be. The January 2019 statistics show that the number of armed forces personnel has continued to drop at an unsustainable rate and there are skills shortages in over 100 critical trades. We need to have breadth and depth of skills in order to tackle emerging challenges and threats, and that can be achieved only with a clear recruitment process and a good offering to new recruits. This means clear information on salaries and pensions, and an openness towards the talents of individuals. We must be flexible enough to ensure that those who may wish to take time out to progress in their civilian careers are able to do so. Career breaks have been introduced in many militaries outside the UK, and we should be looking at those examples where it is appropriate to do so.

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

May I make a suggestion? As and when somebody from a given school in Scotland goes into the armed forces and makes a success of it, would it not be a good idea if they were encouraged in every way possible to go back to their old school and tell the fourth, fifth or sixth-year pupils how they did it—“I was in this very same classroom. You can do the same. It’s a great career”?

[Carol Monaghan]

Of course, and people in many professions go back to their old schools and tell the students about their careers. We have seen the mess that has been made of recruitment—the amount of money that has been spent and the poor results—so maybe we should go back to using members of the armed forces as primary recruiters.

At all stages of the recruitment process, recruits should have confidence in its inclusivity of all identities of gender, sexual orientation, race and religion. When considering recruitment, it is important that we are also looking at the labour markets. Who are the military trying to recruit, where are their challenges, and who are they up against when trying to get the very best? If we need to consider the increased use of reservists to ensure that people have skills developed outside the military that can be used inside the military, then that should be done.

Armed forces pay scales reflect an outdated approach. Recruits will start with significantly lower salaries and more distorted pay scales than those in the police or fire services. In July 2018, the MOD announced that personnel will receive a 2% salary increase with an additional one-off payment of 0.9%. However, as the current inflation rate is about 2.2%, the armed forces’ annual rise of just 2% is still below that.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is even worse for those in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, who were not entitled to a pay rise at all, which is why they are currently consulting on an industrial dispute?

[Carol Monaghan]

It is incredible that we treat those personnel as separate when they are actually fundamental to the operations that we engage in.

Giving pay rises that are below the rate of inflation has a negative effect on the forces’ reputation as an employer that nurtures and respects its employees. The Scottish Government have taken a progressive approach towards public sector pay, delivering a guaranteed 3% increase to all those earning below £36,500. We believe that, as a minimum, a similar offer should be made to all armed forces personnel.

Much has been made of the tax bands in Scotland with regard to military personnel. Will the Minister say what are the plans for mitigation for personnel in England who are earning less than £33,000 and are currently being taxed at a higher rate than their counterparts in Scotland? My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) mentioned an independent representative body similar to a trade union that would help to ensure that the interests of personnel were addressed properly. It would be able to negotiate on pay and conditions, and to look at other structural issues, but unlike normal trade unions it would have no right to organise a strike. Clearly that would undermine the integrity of our armed forces, and we could not allow that to happen. In many cases, a representative body works extremely well—for example, the Danish Reserve Forces Association, which describes itself as a negotiating organisation. It looks at contracts and pay but also provides legal assistance to personnel who need support in cases related to their service in the armed forces. This is something that we need to consider seriously.

Quality accommodation is fundamental to the welfare of personnel and their families. There are major issues with the MOD estate in terms of work space, living accommodation and training facilities, and a lot of it is in old, unsuitable buildings. The current management of the housing estate has provided extremely poor value for money for taxpayers. The performance of CarillionAmey in managing service accommodation has been shockingly poor. We do our personnel a gross disservice in continuing in this manner.

The education of forces children has been mentioned. There are big issues with continuity of education. It is right that we start considering military personnel children as having adverse childhood experiences, because their experiences potentially have an impact on their educational success. In Glasgow, when people fill in their annual update of contact details and other information, there is a tick-box that says, “Are the parents military personnel or veterans?” If the box is ticked, that is highlighted in the young person’s records and allows intervention if required. That is a very simple thing that could be done.

Veterans who have incurred physical injuries during their service should be assured that they will receive a commitment to lifelong specialist medical care. At the moment, these services are primarily led by charities, and we know of many such charities operating in our constituencies and throughout the UK. Stanford Hall was recently opened as a new facility for personnel who have suffered extensive injuries, such as limb loss. It takes over from Headley Court, which was the previous centre, but there is an issue with Stanford Hall: it is mainly for serving personnel, not veterans. It seems ludicrous that we cut people off at that point.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I spoke of the division between the two. I visited Stanford Hall. The NHS is building its own facility there, so it can share what is going on. The focus of Stanford Hall is on not only extreme injuries but all rehabilitation, no matter how small or large, and it is paid for by the MOD. The NHS is responsible for dealing with civilians, including our veterans, and it is important that we do not lose sight of that.

[Carol Monaghan]

I would like to make two points. First, a lot of the equipment in Stanford Hall has been funded by the charitable sector, and people gave money thinking that they were giving to charities for veterans.

[Mr Ellwood]

It will be shared.

[Carol Monaghan]

I hope it will. Secondly, it is important that veterans get rehabilitation along with other veterans and are not in separate or disparate places. It is important that they are all in one place—in a centre of excellence.

We have to consider the mental wellbeing of our armed forces. The UK Government have established a new 24/7 mental health helpline for service personnel and their families. A framework for combined working has been developed between Combat Stress, which fulfils this programme, the MOD and the NHS regarding an out-of-hours mental health helpline, and we very much welcome that. While it is imperative to focus on primary care and support for physical and mental health, further effort must be put into the awareness and understanding of such conditions, so that both serving and former military personnel feel confident enough to reach out and ask for help when it is required.

There are 2.5 million veterans in the UK, and around 240,000 of them are living in Scotland, the majority of whom have re-established themselves in society.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

On that point, Scotland’s Bravest Manufacturing Company was officially opened last week by the First Minister. It is based at the Erskine Hospital site, which I am sure you are familiar with, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have visited it a number of times. It is a Royal British Legion Industries social enterprise that gives veterans employment and development opportunities they might not otherwise have. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming what it does for ex-service personnel and congratulating Michelle and the team on the excellent progress they have already made?

[Carol Monaghan]

For those who do not know about the excellent work that the Erskine Hospital does, it is known throughout the west of Scotland—in fact, probably throughout Scotland—as a real centre of excellence for veterans. I am a supporter of Erskine, as are many of my hon. Friends.

We know that a minority of veterans are affected by health issues related to their service. These are often early service leavers, who have only completed their training or had only a short period of service, and it is not right that, just because of that, we leave them to it. The support we offer them must be extended to ensure that they properly reintegrate into society.

War widows and widowers must also be incorporated into the veterans community, and must have services that are specific to their needs. We need to address concerns about the fact that a war widow’s pension is incorrectly perceived as a benefit, rather than compensation, because this has a negative impact when a widow is assessed for an income-based benefit.

I conclude by saying, on behalf of the SNP, that I extend the thanks of Members on these Benches to all those who are currently serving or have served, and to those who are supporting serving personnel. Often the families and the support networks are forgotten in our comments, so it is important that we remember them too on Armed Forces Day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I do apologise. I did mean to address that point, which is on my sheet. I was not trying to side-step the issue. There are a number of avenues that members of the armed forces are able to use to register any concerns and complaints they may have with the armed forces, and they will be looked at very closely. The personnel we have are the greatest asset we have in the Ministry of Defence and we want to ensure that their issues are addressed—and they are, if I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

I need to finish now, but I will happily speak to hon. Members after the debate.

We have had a really good debate. The hon. Member for Caerphilly was right to say that the tone has been absolutely right. I am glad to have been able to respond to the debate. I thank all Members for their contributions. It is clear that all of us, as a society, are very supportive of our brave armed forces community, whether they serve at home or overseas, whether they are veterans, or whether they are families, who do so much to sustain them. This week’s Armed Forces Day gives the whole nation the opportunity to show their appreciation and gratitude to those who have given so much.

I endorse strongly the call to the whole House from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, to get involved in the rich programme of Armed Forces Day events that will happen this week. I know that many have already committed to doing so, which is fantastic. Whether they are happening in their constituencies, their regional areas or at a national level, this is a great opportunity for us as a country to say, very sincerely, thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.

Christmas Island Nuclear Testing: Compensation

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

William Caldwell was a 19-year-old merchant seaman when he was sent from Glasgow to Newcastle to join the crew of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave Sovereign. He thought he would be refuelling warships for the Pakistani and Indian navies, and in August 1957 he boarded, carrying his worldly possessions in a hold-all. He knew nothing of the Indian ocean, and far less of Christmas Island. However, William was about to find himself at the epicentre of Britain’s nuclear testing programme.

Operation Grapple was four series of British tests of atomic and hydrogen bombs carried out in 1957 and 1958 at Malden Island and Kiritimati—Christmas Island—in the Pacific ocean as part of the British hydrogen bomb programme. Nine nuclear explosions took place, culminating in the United Kingdom becoming the third recognised possessor of thermonuclear weapons and the restoration of the special relationship with the United States, with the 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement.

I first heard William’s story when his son Robert visited my office in Glasgow. He told us of his father’s memories of the Grapple Y test on 28 April 1958. William was down below when they were ordered on to deck. He hurried up wearing only sandals and shorts. The crew were told that they were going to witness something special that nobody else had seen and that it was important to cover their eyes with their hands until after the flash. At that point, the Wave Sovereign was about 12 miles from the detonation site. William vividly remembered being both astounded and horrified when he saw the bones of his hands lit up in utter clarity, as though he was looking at an X-ray.

William remembered the cloud. The crew remained on deck to watch with dark fascination as the cloud formed and remained suspended in the sky above them. A particularly upsetting thing for William’s son Robert is how much the vision of this cloud haunted his father. Having and raising a family provided William with a distraction, but as his children grew up and he got older, this memory began to trouble him greatly, and he had many nightmares about the cloud.

Those on board the Wave Sovereign were exposed to gamma and beta radiation from the initial blast and then nuclear fallout, which included alpha particles. Alpha particles are the most ionising, and therefore most dangerous, of nuclear radiations, but they cannot penetrate far and can easily be stopped by a single sheet of paper, or indeed protective clothing. However, if they are ingested in water, food or air, they can wreak havoc on the body’s DNA. After the cloud went up, a black rain fell, followed by dead fish floating to the surface of the water. The crew netted those fish and ate them, delighted by the convenience of their bounty and unaware of the risks.

But Britain was aware of the risks before the tests began. Historical documents released from state archives show that in 1951, William Penney, the chief scientist at Aldermaston, demanded insurance for scientific staff in case any developed radiogenic diseases. Admiral Arthur Torlesse said that he would only order his men into danger

“in the knowledge that the Admiralty accept liability for those killed or injured on duty”.

On 20 May 1953, the Defence Research Policy Committee discussed how troops would be affected by the blasts. It said:

“The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection.”

In 1955, Prime Minister Anthony Eden was warned that if scientists were to build an H-bomb, it could damage troops’ DNA. A letter headed “10 Downing Street” and dated 14 November says:

“The Prime Minister saw the report from Sir Harold Himsworth about the report of the Committee considering the genetic effects of Nuclear Radiation. His comment was: ‘A pity, but we cannot help it’.”

In a draft report ahead of Grapple Y, Air Commodore Denis Wilson, the senior medical officer on the taskforce, said that he expected servicemen to die. He wrote:

“It is emphasised that in the event of the expected yield being obtained or increased there will almost certainly be in addition to considerable material damage, casualties to individuals, and this should be taken into consideration.”

William’s health problems began shortly after. Following an unrelated accident on board the Wave Sovereign, he was taken to a military hospital, and from there had to pay to be transported home on board an RAF bomber. After four years of stomach problems, in 1962 he underwent an operation to remove an ulcer, but it was discovered that his stomach was so badly damaged that half of it would have to be removed. Coincidently—or, indeed, not—another test veteran, Ken McGinley, who went on to establish the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, required the same operation in 1962. This is a pattern we do see repeated.

In response to the health concerns of some nuclear test veterans in the 1980s, the Ministry of Defence commissioned three studies of mortality and cancer among nuclear test personnel. These were conducted by the independent National Radiological Protection Board. Three analyses were carried out. The latest report, published in 2003, concluded that overall levels of mortality and cancer incidence in nuclear test veterans have continued to be like those in a matched service control group and lower than in the general population.

These findings form the basis of the war pension scheme policy on nuclear test veteran claims. However, there are three glaring problems: this takes no account of non-cancerous health problems, and in fact William’s stomach problem was not considered under that scheme; it does not consider the health conditions of the offspring of test veterans; and it does not include RFA personnel who were present in a support capacity. Currently, there is no specific compensation fund for this group of veterans, whose numbers are dwindling.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. When I was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in 2009, a settlement proposal was made to the test veterans’ lawyers. Having reviewed the file recently, I can confirm that the barrister did pass that over, but for some reason the very generous settlement offer was refused.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am happy to look into that and ask questions about it.

Veterans’ numbers are dwindling, but there are thought to be about 130,000 descendants, who report 10 times the normal level of birth defects, organ malformations and leukaemia. William’s children all suffer from bone or spinal problems, and his granddaughter’s hips were back to front when she was born. However, the MOD continues to deny liability. In 2007, research from New Zealand proved that genetic damage in veterans was three times worse than in survivors of the Chernobyl disaster. Despite Britain agreeing to pay Australia £20 million to settle claims arising from nuclear contamination, the Government fight such compensation claims at home.

In response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) last year, the Minister set out the eligibility for claims. He said:

“Any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to Service is eligible to claim no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme. War Pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury due to Service in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces before 6 April 2005, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and follow consideration of Service and medical evidence and carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal. Where the evidence supports a causal link to Service, entitlement will be given.”

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Australia and the compensation that was paid to veterans and indigenous Australians as a result of tests there. Is she aware that the amount offered—£20 million—is considered pathetically inadequate?

[Carol Monaghan]

That is of course the point I was making, and I do not for a moment suggest that that comes anywhere near what would be required properly to compensate people there. The point I am making is that there is an admission of guilt within that.

It is difficult enough to prove the causal link between service and illness for nuclear test veterans, but for a merchant seaman on board a Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service vessel, supporting the military operation, there is not even the ability to access a war pension. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish addressed that issue during his time as Minister for war pensions. He wrote to Mr McGinley of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, stating that anyone who was present at the tests, even in a support capacity, would be considered, for the purpose of war pensions, a veteran. However, that classification has never been recognised.

William was told by the Navy that he was not in hostile waters and therefore could not be considered a veteran. The civil service has said that because he was not on board for more than two years— which, due to his unrelated injury, could not happen—he could not be considered for a civil service pension. My predecessor, John Robertson, was also involved in William’s case, and through his intervention William did receive his veteran’s pin; but that is no compensation for the decades where the state has simply ignored his contribution.

Canadian servicemen were ordered to lie in trenches while the tests were carried out; they have secured compensation. American servicemen who witnessed explosions over land were compensated in Reagan’s famous scheme, but it appears that Britain is the last nuclear power on earth to deny that its own nuclear weapons are capable of causing its service personnel any harm.

Following a long campaign by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, £25 million was allocated from LIBOR funds to finance an aged veterans fund to alleviate suffering and increase wellbeing. The aged veterans fund went live in April 2016 and the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, through its nuclear community charity fund, received approval to launch an initial portfolio of five projects benefiting the nuclear community. That has been welcomed by the community, but it is a million miles from the compensation that those veterans and their families deserve. Men were deliberately used as guinea pigs in a macabre scientific experiment, and their health was sacrificed simply to prove our worth to America.

I would ask the Minister, first, if William was a civilian, how was it that he ended up in Christmas Island without any say in his deployment? Secondly, what plans do the Government have to admit their responsibility in this episode and compensate all those affected—military and support crew? Finally, when can we expect the Government to honour Lord Mackay’s classification of RFA personnel as veterans?

Sadly, William Caldwell died last year, but his son Robert continues to fight for what his family are owed—an admission of guilt, an apology from the Government and financial recompense for the years of suffering this family have experienced, and continue to experience. But Robert takes some small comfort in knowing that his father is now at peace from the nightmares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing the debate. She raises a very sensitive matter, which has been brought to this House on many occasions.

Before I go into the detail of the subject matter, it is important for us to understand that this is not a question of the thermonuclear testing and Britain’s decision to use and develop a nuclear deterrent, although our parties may have different opinions on that; this is to do with the actual positioning—the geographical location—and the manner in which the tests were conducted in the south Pacific in the 1950s.

The hon. Lady spoke about Operation Grapple—the decision to pursue a nuclear deterrent. That did involve the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, who, I make it very clear, are civilians; they are not part of our armed forces in that sense. It is important that we express and put on record on behalf of the House our gratitude for what they do, not just then but today. Without them, it would not be possible for our Navy—our naval ships—to maintain the food, fuel, stores and ammunition that they require to keep our seas safe and protect our shores. We are very grateful to all those who serve in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service. In present times, the RFA provides logistical support in the areas I have just mentioned and are involved in humanitarian operations, disaster relief and help with counter-piracy.

This debate focuses on a very sensitive issue and I know there are strong feelings on both sides of the House. It is a highly complicated issue, so it is worth breaking the subject matter down into three separate stages. The first stage relates to the facts of the matter. The UK’s atmospheric nuclear test programme experimented on weapons, not personnel. The weapons were the focus of the operations in the south Pacific. Many thousands of service personnel deployed to the south Pacific, including Christmas Island, from 1956 to 1961, were in support of testing the UK’s first thermo- nuclear weapon system. The hon. Lady alluded to 17 RFA ships being deployed in support of operations. None was exposed to direct radiation beyond the background radiation that was expected. Only the Royal Navy’s HMS Diana came into direct contact with radiation, as she was expressly required to sail through the nuclear plume after the explosion had taken place.

[Carol Monaghan]

That simply is not the case, as I explained in my speech. The Wave Sovereign was there. It was present. The crew were on board and the crew witnessed the blast.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not denying that they were in the vicinity. It is the distance and proximity to the explosion that we are talking about. It is worth putting it in context. Other nations went through these experiments. It is difficult to compare apples with pears regarding the proximity of any of the individuals who witnessed the tests. I simply make it clear that the locality of the ships, in comparison with HMS Diana, was very different indeed. That is all I can say about that.

Other Royal Navy and RFA vessels were located in safe zones many, many miles away from the bomb’s ground zero—or surface zero, as it is called at sea—from which it was detonated. The role of the RFA vessels was to restock and refuel Royal Navy support ships that were closer to it. They were withdrawn from those locations before detonation. Otherwise, radiation risk to Royal Navy and RFA crews, and all other participants, was low, with prevention measures that reflected best practice in the contemporary understanding of the day.

The second point relates to the subsequent reports and investigations. As I mentioned, this issue has been looked at in the past. Protection, health and welfare of all those involved in the tests were in place, and that is confirmed by well documented safety measures and monitoring during the tests. To date, there is no expert evidence of excess illness or mortality among nuclear test veterans in general that could be linked to their participation in the tests.

In response to health concerns raised in the 1980s, the Government commissioned an independent study from the National Radiological Protection Board. This looked at mortality for all causes, as well as cancer incidence and mortality. Three reports followed in 1988, 1993 and 2003, which compared over 20,000 participants in nuclear tests with a similar-sized control group of non-deployed service personnel. They found no detectable effect on participants’ life expectancy or risk of developing most cancers, but did find a small increase in the risk of leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia, with clinical onset in the first 25 years after presence at the tests. A fourth report is now expected next spring. Should those findings produce new evidence, with new ways of measuring such things, that will be reflected in policy.

[Carol Monaghan]

One issue that I raised was the offspring of test veterans. It seems that they are not being included in the medical tests, but we know that the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in their offspring is 10 times that of the general population.

[Mr Ellwood]

Because it is an independent study, I do not have the details of the fourth report, but I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm whether the offspring are included. I hope that they are. It would make sense, because often these things can get passed down, as we saw with the tests after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not a lawyer and it is not for me to make those judgments; it is for me to clarify—[Interruption.] I will not be pressed to give a judgment—that would be wrong. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman feels the need to press me on it. There needs to be a process that anybody who feels they require justice can pursue, and it is my job to make that clear. I hope he will agree.

This is an important issue and one that concerns me. We must provide clarity in the upcoming fourth report. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for addressing these matters this evening. The Government continue to recognise the work of all those who participated in the British nuclear testing programme, both civilian and RFA personnel and those in the armed forces. They contributed a great deal to keeping our nation secure during the cold war and since by ensuring the UK was equipped with the appropriate nuclear capability. I assure the entire House that the Government will continue to monitor closely the health risks to participants, and we look forward to the fourth report, which is expected to be published next year.

[Carol Monaghan]

I raised the recognition by Lord MacKay that RFA personnel would be considered as veterans for the purpose of war pensions. The Minister has not addressed that. I wonder whether he will before he finishes.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady in more detail. It was my plan to do that anyway after this debate. She has raised several points. I do not have all the details now, but I would be happy to share them with her in closer context, and I will certainly look at this issue. I would again make the distinction between the different models of support that apply to people in civilian and military roles, which I alluded to earlier, but I would happy to write to her with more details.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not get drawn into the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will clarify the first part. [Interruption.] If he can hold on to his seat for a second, I will answer the first part. It is a retrospective payment, and because the taxes have gone up even more, we have now increased the amount from £1,500 to £2,200. Taxes in Scotland are going up.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

But of course about a third of armed forces personnel based in England, notably the lowest paid members of the armed forces, are paying more income tax than their counterparts in Scotland. Will the Minister give some information to the House on what plans there are to mitigate the lowest paid armed forces personnel in England?

[Mr Ellwood]

There is a question later on armed forces pay, and I will touch on that matter then. Let me make it clear: we see our armed forces as a national asset. If they are to be based in Scotland, they should not have to feel that they need to question whether they should go there because of the increased taxes that they will face.

Commonwealth Personnel in the Armed Forces

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on securing this extremely important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on his campaign and on raising the issue with many of us in this place. It is an extremely important campaign, which we support.

Commonwealth citizens who risk their lives in our service are valued members of our society. The Army Families Federation observes:

“Commonwealth members of our Armed Forces make up a significant and vital part of the UK’s Defence capability and, as a nation, we ask them to make significant sacrifices to do so.”

Their families pay a high price, too, and many find themselves living across the world from their partner or loved one. Those of us who have experience of military life know that the family is a support for serving members of the armed forces. It is a no-brainer that we should do everything in our power to ensure that the families are able to be there as the support that serving personnel need. We should be celebrating the contribution of our Commonwealth service personnel who have come to this country to serve in our armed forces. Instead, we find the Government separating members of our armed forces from their families and, on top of that, hitting them with exorbitant visa fees.

We know there are serious issues in recruitment, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. The Defence Committee noted that the Government’s 10-year partnership with Capita

“has been abysmal since it started”

and that Capita has

“failed to meet the Army's recruitment targets every single year of the contract”.

The Army has embarked on further recruitment campaigns across the Commonwealth to meet the minimum troop numbers required to defend our nations. Commonwealth citizens who have stepped forward to fill the gaps and to serve in the country’s armed forces deserve to be rewarded, but it seems as though we punish them instead.

The Government must reconsider the income requirements for Commonwealth serving personnel. The minimum income requirement has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who talked about the requirement for an income of £18,600 for a spouse and the additional costs of £3,800 for the first child and £2,400 for additional children. If we look at the military pay scales and assume that Commonwealth members enter at the lowest rate, it could take up to six years before they earn the £24,800 required for a typical family to join them. The Government’s current advice to Commonwealth personnel earning below the thresholds is simply: “If you cannot meet the requirement, you are advised not to bring your family over.” We can surely do better than that.

The application fee for veterans to settle with their families has more than doubled in the past four years to £2,389 per person, so we are talking about nearly £10,000 for a typical family of four. Those figures are simply not attainable for people earning £24,800 per annum.

In addition to the Commonwealth personnel here, the families living in the Commonwealth are greatly affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) recently campaigned for his constituent, Denis Omondi, a British citizen and a serving solider in the British Army, who was denied a visa for his daughter in Kenya, for whom he had uncontested custody, to come and live with him. Thankfully, after my hon. Friend’s campaign, the Home Office made a U-turn on its decision to keep them apart, but such cases are not unique. We need to deal with such issues and look at them in a more serious manner.

[Richard Graham]

One of the things that has surprised me most about the letter campaign—the hon. Lady kindly signed the letter—is the number of Fijian servicemen who have logged on to my Facebook page and expressed strong support for the campaign. Pockets of servicemen and women from different countries are much more focused on this issue than many of us in the House realise, so I support what she says.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We could also mention the Hong Kong service personnel caught up in this. They are not able to apply even for British citizenship, despite the service they have given to our nations’ armed forces. There are many examples.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about his personal experience of Commonwealth personnel. I want to add to his story and say that the person who taught me to cook curry properly was a Commonwealth submariner from India, who spent an afternoon showing me how to mix and crush and all sorts. Unfortunately, I do not have much time these days to make a proper curry, but I remember it well.

The Minister for Immigration said last month:

“it would be unfair if certain applicants or routes benefited from free applications or reduced fees”

at the expense of others. Such inflexibility does not reflect well on the Government. Veterans from the Commonwealth should not be prevented from settling in the UK, or forced into debt by ridiculous fees, which the Government should commit to abolishing. It is not up to them to get veterans into debt and not up to veterans’ charities to help veterans pay the fees, which simply should not exist.

We know that the Home Office is in need of drastic reform. The Minister has mentioned that he does not like talk of the hostile environment, so I will not refer to it directly, but I will say that we have had immigration scandals that have highlighted the deficiencies in our system. Scrapping the income requirements for Commonwealth armed forces personnel is an essential place to start. As I said at the start, it is a no-brainer.

We have a debt of gratitude to the people who have chosen to serve. That, coupled with the positive contribution that Commonwealth veterans will make in our society, means we should ensure that indefinite leave to remain is granted without charge, for both personnel and their families. All of us here this afternoon are keen to hear how the Minister is collaborating with the Home Office to ensure that that takes place. I look forward to hearing his contribution and what positive steps are being taken to sort out this—I will not call it an injustice—serious issue for our Commonwealth personnel.

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I accept the fact that Labour has a problem with certain key figures who have always been opposed in principle to the possession of a nuclear deterrent. However, today is not the day to have that debate. I know that the shadow Defence Secretary and every one of the Labour Back Benchers whom I see opposite are wholly committed to keeping this country safe and strong. If anyone can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor are not allowed to undermine the sensible policy outlined from the Opposition Front Bench today, it is that cohort of people. I wish them the best of luck in that endeavour.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman described a situation in which we would be able to retaliate if we were attacked. I do not know about him, but if I had been obliterated by a nuclear weapon, I would not care a jot whether we obliterated somebody back.

[Dr Lewis]

I am sorry to have to explain to the hon. Lady that the whole point of our ability to retaliate is to ensure that we are not attacked in the first place. One really does not have to have had more than half a century of experience to realise that that is bound to be the case. I was not going to quote Professor Sir Henry Tizard, whom I have quoted in debates many times before, but it looks like it is necessary for me to do so.

Professor Tizard was the leading defence scientist in the second world war at the time when atomic weapons were being created. In 1945, with a committee of leading scientists, including Nobel prize winners, he was supposed to look forward to see what the future nature of warfare might be. His committee was not allowed to explore the atomic bomb project in detail, but he insisted on putting in this primary rationale for nuclear deterrence, which holds as firmly today as it did in June 1945. He explained that the only answer that those senior defence scientists, with all their experience of the second world war, could see to the advent of the atomic bomb was the preparedness to use it in retaliation, thus preventing an attack in the first place. I am sorry to inflict this on the House again, but he said:

“A knowledge that we were prepared, in the last resort, to do this”—

to retaliate—

“might well deter an aggressive nation. Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood twenty paces apart and fired at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other’s hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour.”

In other words, if someone knows that they are going to die, for a certainty, if they launch an attack against somebody else, they are not going to launch that attack in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar]

I could wax lyrical about the deficiencies of George Osborne’s stewardship of the Treasury, but probably not within the time allowed. I move on to the broader issue. My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the view that the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the cold war rendered deterrence—and much of conventional defence—redundant. We had “Options for Change”, with huge dislocations. Frankly, when I came into the Defence Ministry in 1997, we were still dealing with the aftermath. If, however, we leave on one side any points about the issues then, it is now absolutely clear that a complacent attitude is no longer tenable. State and non-state threats have increased, are increasing, and need to be confronted and contained. Threats are a combination—are they not?—of capability, intention and doctrine. What we are seeing from Russia is a worrying and alarming increase in activity in all those areas. We are seeing the clear development of a nuclear doctrine in Russia, including in short-range, non-strategic nuclear weapons in the form of the Gerasimov doctrine.

The Defence Committee report, “Missile Misdemeanours: Russia and the INF Treaty”, goes into some detail about the several and continuing breaches of the INF treaty by Russia. Such breaches were agreed by all NATO states at the recent meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers, who made it very clear that, frankly, Russia is tearing up that agreement. Indeed, in response to the United States calling it out on this, Russia has also moved away from that treaty. I must say that that may have worrying implications for the strategic arms reduction treaty negotiations on strategic weapons, and we should be arguing—in NATO, but also in other forums—for maintaining those discussions. If Ronald Reagan could come to many such agreements, quite frankly, the United States should now be able to do so. Let us be clear, however, who is the prime instigator in breaching these agreements—it is Russia.

One of the things that worries me sometimes about these debates, including on the INF, is that for me they are very reminiscent of the time of the cruise missiles issue. People campaigned in this country against cruise missiles, and I always found it slightly perverse that they were more concerned with campaigning against the missiles pointing in the other direction than with campaigning against the SS-20s pointing in our direction. Those missiles were changing the strategic balance in Europe, which was why leading social democrat figures, such as Helmut Schmidt, were arguing for cruise missiles to maintain the balance and therefore to maintain peace in Europe, and were showing resolution in doing so.

We are also seeing such activities away from the nuclear field. We are seeing a preparedness to use force in Ukraine and Georgia, as well as cyber-attacks on the Baltic countries and massive exercises within the Baltic region. We have to be clear that, while nuclear is awful and almost unimaginable, conventional warfare is also awful. That was summed up by General Sherman in the 19th century when he said that “War is hell”. Yes, we all remember the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that conflict also saw the firebombing of Tokyo, in which hundreds of thousands died, and the bombings of Hamburg and of Dresden, let alone the bombings on our own soil.

[Carol Monaghan]

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that indiscriminate bombing is actually okay and an acceptable part of warfare?

[John Spellar]

Quite the opposite: I am saying that warfare results in devastation and a huge loss of life, as indeed we are seeing in Syria today. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) drew attention to the seminal work of Sir Michael Quinlan on nuclear strategy, and one of the points he made very strongly in all his works was that conventional warfare, particularly with modern technology, has awful consequences. We must therefore try to contain, if not abolish, warfare, and rather than just focus on one aspect of warfare, that is the important issue we have to address.

Some believe that maintaining the peace is achieved by disarmament or by pacifism. I argue that history demonstrates that peace is better maintained by preparedness and vigilance. That is why continuous at-sea deterrence has been so critical in keeping the peace for the past 50 years and why we owe so much to those who operate it around the clock and those who build it and maintain it around the country. It may be a silent service, but this anniversary gives us the opportunity to both acknowledge and praise it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I note his very positive and passionate input into the debate.

The United Kingdom has a very proud naval tradition spanning several centuries. Various classes of ships and, more recently, modern submarines, together with their highly trained crews and enhanced weaponry systems, have served to protect our island nation and its people effectively, either offensively or defensively as the intelligence gathering and assessments of risks and dynamics determine. I trust that the Royal Navy’s stated aim to be guardians and diplomats remains to the fore. I hope it will be a stabilising influence, preventing rather than engaging in conflict, unless needs must. Then and only then will it be used as a last resort.

The former battleship, HMS Dreadnought, was in 1915 the only one of its class to ram and sink an enemy submarine, proving itself to be a powerful deterrent. That is perhaps why a later UK submarine bore the name Dreadnought as a continuing stark reminder of powerful deterrence. The Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines have kept the United Kingdom and its people safe for the past half century. The Dreadnought programme maintains the UK’s posture of continuous at-sea deterrent. It will replace the Vanguard class in or around the 2030s, initially with the existing Trident missiles. It is worthy of note—this has been said before—that since 2010, the Government have reduced the number of operational warheads available to our submarines. I believe that is a step in the right direction.

We are proud that the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent is located in Scotland at Her Majesty’s naval base on the Clyde. For some, that may be controversial; others may experience a form of military nimbyism. However, the facility provides significant employment opportunities. I understand that by 2020, Scotland is set to host the entire Royal Navy submarine fleet. That will potentially increase the number of military and civilian employees from approximately 6,800 to a staggering 8,500 in Argyll and Bute.

[Carol Monaghan]

Even if the hon. Gentleman’s figures about the number of people directly involved in the Trident programme are correct, the renewal programme will cost £200 billion. For 6,000 jobs, or whatever figure he cited, that works out at more than £29 million per employee. That is quite an expensive job creation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I start by declaring an interest. My husband served on Trident submarines for most of his 17-year service in the Royal Navy. His final post before retiring was as the weapon engineer officer on HMS Victorious. He brought her through refit in Devonport and sea trials from Faslane, and he carried out the firing during the 2009 demonstration and shakedown operation off the coast of Florida. There are rumours that jelly babies are consumed during nuclear firing chain message authentications, but that is not something he would confirm before this debate.

Following the DASO firing, Victorious re-entered full service and, following an extremely busy year, the crew carried out a deterrence patrol over Christmas 2009. It gives me great pleasure to say that my granny’s Christmas tree went on that patrol. When my husband finally left Victorious, he forgot to take my granny’s Christmas tree. I wonder if any crew members would be able to confirm whether that Christmas tree—a little white optical fibre fellow—is still on board. For the role he played, my husband received the Commander-in-Chief, Fleet commendation, an award that still hangs proudly in our home in Whiteinch in Glasgow.

Despite my pride in my husband’s service, my opposition to Trident has been constant. As a teenager my views were formed over the cold war and fears of mutually assured destruction, and my earliest political campaigns, long before I ever thought to consider Scottish independence, were against Trident. Over time the indiscriminate nature of these weapons, which are designed to cause such widespread devastation, has meant that I will never support Trident or its successor. That is regardless of whether we can afford these platforms, which, to be frank, as conventional forces are being cut to the bone, we cannot. In fact, our maritime capabilities are so depleted that we no longer have any major warships based in Scotland. This is at a time when threats from Russia are at their greatest for a generation. We have repeatedly had to rely on our allies when incursions occur. On at least two occasions in 2016, Russian submarines were suspected of operating off Faslane, and the UK had to seek assistance from its allies to help track those intruders. Those incursions fit a pattern of Russia testing defences and seeking crucial information about the Vanguard boats, namely the acoustic signature that allows them to be tracked. If Russia were able to obtain a recording of the signature, it would have serious implications for the UK’s deterrent.

Are we increasing conventional capabilities to help deal with that? No: we decided to scrap the entire fleet of Nimrods. Although the Nimrods will eventually be replaced by the P-8, the first of which is expected in Lossiemouth in 2020, we have been playing Russian roulette for the past 10 years and will continue to do so unless we increase conventional capabilities, particularly around the north of Scotland. If we were to find ourselves under attack, as has happened in Crimea, our defences are being whittled down to two options: we can either nuke them or chase them away with pitchforks. How on earth does that make us safer?

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said that the SNP does not speak for Scotland. Okay, we may not speak for some of Scotland, but our position on Trident is supported by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Greens, the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church in Scotland and Scottish civil society. I would suggest that it is the Tories who are out of kilter with the Scottish people.

This is a debate to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the continuous at-sea deterrent. I take no pleasure in the money and resources that have been funnelled into this vanity project, which allows Britain to have a seat at the big boys’ table at the UN, to the detriment of other parts of our armed forces. I take no pleasure in the money that is thrown into the maintenance and into the successor project, while at the same time child poverty is at the highest level that many of us have seen in our lifetime.

I pay tribute to the men, and now women, who have made the commitment to serve. People often talk about the difficulties of separation and the three-month patrols, but those who have a partner on one of the boats will know that in many ways the patrol is the most settled time. The work-up period and testing, false starts and defects mean that families cope with massive upheaval in the lead up to the actual patrol, repeatedly saying big bye-byes only to have partners return the next day and children not really knowing whether this is the time that daddy will disappear. That puts enormous strain on families and relationships—a strain that is not always recognised.

It is time that the MOD considered the realities of modern-day families. In the past, partners and families would live close to the base with a ready-made support network. Recognising that spouses have their own careers is important to a modern-day armed forces.

Submariners do an incredible job and are the most highly skilled personnel in the armed forces. They have many career options on leaving, so retention issues leave serious skill shortages in the submarine service. The MOD has said that no submarine goes to sea without the minimum complement of suitably qualified and experienced personnel required to operate the boat safely and that vacancies are managed to ensure that safety and operational capability are never compromised, but that is done off the back of submariners. Severe shortages of suitably skilled personnel meant that, in my husband’s last year in the Navy, he had six days’ leave. That included weekends. That is simply not sustainable. There comes a point when pride in serving cannot make up for poor conditions of service. Ultimately, many choose between service and seeing their children grow up. I argue that despite the money being thrown at Trident, its ultimate demise will be caused by a failure to support the personnel and by gaps in critical skills.

As we mark 50 years of the continuous at-sea deterrent and recognise the dedication of those serving in the silent service, I say that the time has come to invest properly in cyber, in conventional defence and in our personnel. Despite campaigning actively against the platform, I and my hon. Friends pay tribute to those who have served and to those who continue to serve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not know the circumstances of that particular case and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to see what more can be done. As I touched on before, we are now far more engaged with the individuals—all service personnel—who served in Afghanistan and Iraq to track their progress and to make sure that we are in touch to give them the support that they need. If there is a case for an individual to be looked at again, I would be more than happy to do that.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

While we know that the charity sector is doing a great deal of work, and we are extremely grateful for that, there is an absence of veterans-focused policies in areas such as welfare and employability. The transition to civilian life can be difficult, so does the Minister agree that the Government must be doing more in this area?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned that the Government must be doing more. That is absolutely correct. The veterans board was established for exactly this mission—to make sure that it is not just the MOD that does its bit, but that all Government Departments recognise their duty to honour the covenant to ensure that they provide the support that we need to give our brave veterans.

Defence

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and not to be last, which is my usual position in the batting order. I will keep my remarks reasonably brief—I say particularly to those who have had the joy of sitting through my speeches on Fridays—to ensure that the two Members who are waiting get an opportunity to speak in this debate as well.

This order is welcome. It is a practical part of ensuring our armed forces continue and that their structure, law and governance, particularly the court martial system, continue. It is also symbolic, as it is a reminder that the armed forces serve our country—our nation and our democracy. This is not a country where the military can exert power over the institution of the state; it is one where they defend the nation and the democracy that lies at the heart of this nation. Indeed, many people over the past couple of hundred years have sacrificed their lives in doing so, showing the truth of the expression that freedom is not free. Too many times in our history, our military and armed forces have had to be called upon to make those sacrifices.

We must address how we can ensure those in the military today feel that they wish to be doing their job and to give that service. The Minister rightly said people do not just join the military for the salary package or because they think there might be an opportunity for some foreign travel; they join because they fundamentally have a calling to want to serve this nation. That is the core of why people volunteer to serve in our military. Indeed, it is a fact that many volunteer; there has not been conscription in this country for decades. At least two generations of men have not been conscripted into our forces, yet so many do still want to join, but it is important that we do not just rely on their spirit of service always coming first.

That is particularly relevant to the issue of accommodation. The escalating cost of housing over recent years means we have to be practical about the financial and other packages we offer and also about the lifestyle generally that is offered. Those in Torbay who have served in the military often talk about what life was like when they were commissioned; they would go on tours and their wives—as they would have been at that time—were pretty much expected to follow them. At that time, it was highly unlikely that their wives would have careers of their own, but that is clearly no longer the case, and indeed many spouses will be serving officers themselves with an equal commitment to our nation, given the welcome move to open up all roles in our military to both sexes. It is therefore important that those packages are considered.

The Minister touched on looking at the estate. I grew up in Plymouth, seeing the Royal Citadel there. Ironically, it had more guns facing over the town than the sound. That was because of history: it was built by Charles II and he wanted to remind Plymothians what might happen if they rebelled against him as they had rebelled against his father, holding out for Parliament and thereby denying a crucial port to the royalist forces. It is right that 300 years later we move on to having a more modern military estate. Some of my family grew up in Stonehouse and have memories of the Stonehouse barracks. They might be worthy of history, but 300-year-old barracks with dormitory accommodation are not the sort of place where the most elite soldiers we train should be housed in the 21st century.

We must not, however, turn the military into just another form of employment. While I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), I do not think going down the path of this becoming like any other job is what the vast majority of the military would like to see; nor would it be a sensible decision for our nation. Being in the military is a unique role: it brings with it obligations of service but also a huge amount of respect in exchange for taking on board those obligations. It clearly would never be possible to have some form of strike arrangement, and I suspect the hon. Gentleman made that clear in his contribution, but going down the path suggested would be neither useful nor appropriate. Our system has served us well.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

How would the hon. Gentleman suggest serving members of the armed forces should raise concerns if they do not have a voice like a representative body?

[Kevin Foster]

I think it safe to say that one thing that has been consistent since the armed forces were formed is that there have always been gripes and comments put up by those who serve, and rightly so, but we would expect them to be dealt with by chains of command and in appropriate areas. Having a separate representative body of the military would not be the best way forward, and I do not see that as the solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Minister made the point that this renewal—this continuation statutory instrument—is not normally discussed on the Floor of the House, but being able to do so is a great opportunity. The SI goes to the heart of the existence of our armed forces, because the British armed forces quite simply cease to exist without it. The Bill of Rights 1689 contains an assertion that the Army, and by extension the RAF and Navy, cannot exist without the explicit consent of Parliament. Provisions within this SI also enable the chain of command to deliver good governance within the armed forces themselves.

I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that may come about during the proceedings on the Armed Forces Representative Body Bill. It is an interesting idea that has been taken up by other armed forces around the world, but I think that the responsibility and the nature of the relationship between the chain of command in the British armed forces and the soldiers, sailors and airmen and women that they command is dependent on a fundamentally different relationship, which I think a representative body would be in danger of undermining.

[Carol Monaghan]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at how representative bodies work in other NATO countries.

[James Cleverly]

I have, and I do not like it.

Also inherent in this SI are provisions for enlistment, pay and the redress of complaints, and all those things at heart are J1 considerations, so I intend to restrict my short speech to the people carrying out the J1 function—the men and women who serve in our armed forces—and our responsibility and, as the Minister mentioned during his opening speech, our offer to them.

The armed forces currently face a challenge with regard to recruitment and retention. Ironically, it is a challenge that has been brought about through good news. The British economy currently has record low levels of unemployment, including record low levels of youth unemployment. It is the sad truth that it is a lot easier to recruit into the armed forces when there are few jobs available in the civilian world. Therefore, because actually unemployment is at a record low, the talented young men and women that we seek to recruit into our armed forces have other credible options.

The shadow Minister mentioned that the delay in the processing of recruitment applications through Capita has had a detrimental effect on our ability to recruit the brightest and best young people whom we need and want in our armed forces. People who are credible—people who have other employment options—are exactly the people we want to recruit and exactly the people who will be snapped up by civilian employers, who are currently competing with our armed forces to recruit them. We have a duty to improve and speed up the recruitment process—not just a duty, but a self-interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I refer my hon. Friend to the Royal Air Force advert that aired this week, which almost exclusively featured women, as a clear demonstration that not a single role in the RAF, or, now, in the other services, is not open to them

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

We have heard this afternoon about Capita’s abject failure in recruitment. While we are haemorrhaging personnel, there are clearly issues in the armed forces that have to be addressed, so will the Secretary of State support the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), which will be heard on 8 March, to give personnel a voice, through an armed forces representative body with a statutory footing?

[Mark Lancaster]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago.