UK Defence Spending
Chris Evans Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this important debate during Armed Forces Week, when we celebrate the service of the brave men and women, and all those who support them, who make our forces the very best in the world.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for leading the debate. His wealth of knowledge in this area is incredible, matched only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). I think everyone will agree that the House is well served by the members of the Defence Committee. We also heard strong contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who spoke about the importance of the defence industry to their constituencies.
There can be no doubt that, for the Ministry of Defence, the £16.5 billion extra in defence spending that the Prime Minister announced in November would have been welcome news, especially when it was staring into the abyss of a £17.5 billion black hole in its budget. That money should be an opportunity to balance the defence budget and effect the type of change that the Ministry of Defence so badly needs in its culture. Instead, the Prime Minister announced grandiose plans in the integrated review, which included new capabilities in space and cyber, international partnerships and more collaboration between the MOD and the defence industry. Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case with the Prime Minister, he was short on the detail of how it will all be paid for. However well it plays with the headline writers, jingoism does not account for a clear and concise strategy.
The defence and security industrial strategy lacks a clear rationale about how it will be delivered without proper oversight and project management. Even the most ambitious plans will be derailed by other spending decisions. One of the aims of the DSIS is a mutually supportive, collaborative approach between the MOD and the private sector. That is a cultural shift from the adversarial approach that has characterised defence procurement in the past. It cannot happen overnight. Skilled project management and clear strategies are required to enable that transformation to take place. It is not enough for the Government to state their desired intentions. They must tell us how the plan will work and what needs to be done now to ensure that people with the correct skills are in place and that measurable progress can be made.
Corporate confidence will take time to build. Industry will not be willing to offer increasing transparency without being certain that the MOD has a coherent and deliverable plan. The aspirations of the DSIS and the integrated review are long term, but the MOD has problems right now. As I have said, the MOD’s defence equipment plan faces a funding black hole of up to £17.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that the MOD faces additional cost pressures, estimated at more than £20 billion, to develop future defence capabilities, which are not yet included in the plan. Damningly, for the fourth year in a row, the National Audit Office deemed the defence equipment plan “unaffordable”. The Secretary of State claimed that he had personally improved affordability, but the NAO said that that assertion was based on the MOD revising its approach to assessing affordability
“rather than the result of actions to address the 10-year funding shortfall.”
Even this morning, the NAO published a report that highlights that the MOD is incapable of managing contracts to time, with delays for key defence projects of up to 254 months, and eight out of 19 major projects rated as at serious risk of failed delivery. Simply put, for the party of business, that would not be good enough in the private sector.
We cannot simply cross our fingers and hope for financial stability. These things take time and work from proper financial professionals. Yet the NAO report on the defence equipment plan says that only 41% of MOD finance staff hold a professional financial qualification. That work needs to start immediately. Ahead of the debate, I had a look at a live job advert for a commercial officer in the MOD. Strangely, even though the MOD has been told by the National Audit Office that it needs to improve the number of people with a professional financial qualification, there is still no requirement for the candidate to currently hold any financial qualifications.
On the ground, there are real concerns about delivering capability. I am sure that all Members of this House will have heard and worried about the problems with Ajax recently, which cannot be ignored. It is a long-standing issue. The Ajax vehicle has been repeatedly delayed and beset by problems. Nearly four years after the vehicle was first expected, only 14 have been delivered, at a cost of nearly £3.5 billion. Worryingly, personnel have needed medical attention after being inside them. As we heard yesterday in the Defence Committee, they cannot fire accurately on the move.
The delay on the vehicles’ delivery has left our armed forces inadequately equipped and unable to properly plan for the future. That is worsened by the cancellation of the Warrior project earlier in the year, which resulted in a larger reliance on the Ajax delivery to ensure that the Army was equipped with some modern vehicles. Our armed forces had to adapt in the light of the Warrior cancellation, and now they have been left without any new vehicles that work safely or are reliable. As it stands, the current armoured vehicle capability of the UK is perfectly summed up by the title of the Defence Committee report: “Obsolescent and outgunned”.
The cancellation of Warrior not only resulted in £430 million being spent on a vehicle that will never come to service, but has wider economic effects. We talk all the time about such figures as £430 million. They are not inconsequential sums; they will have an effect on the local economy. For example, in April this year, Lockheed Martin announced that because of that cancellation 158 jobs would be lost at the Ampthill site. The suppliers to the programme will also be hit, and the effects would have been felt in the local economy.
How can defence companies, their suppliers and small and medium-sized enterprises invest in research or apprenticeships when such uncertainty looms over them? If the MOD and the Government are going to change their mind suddenly on key equipment areas, that leaves our defence industry and our armed forces extremely vulnerable. I am not going to stand here and denigrate the DSIS. Many of the ideas are very good for an encouragement of British industry, for collaboration and for investment in research. However, judging by the MOD’s track record in the past 10 years, one cannot help thinking that those ideas are built on sand.
Some of the major components of the integrated review will take over a decade to realise, so we will require consistent and competent project management oversight. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of that now. Major capabilities are all overrunning on time and cost. Without a significant overhaul, there is no evidence that that will change. For this to work, thousands of civil servants and large numbers in industry will have to be retrained to adjust effectively to new career paths. If the integrated review is to succeed, the Government will need to demonstrate through actions, not just words, that they are able to co-ordinate inter-Department projects, support key programmes and encourage collaboration and transparency between the MOD and industry.
The easiest thing in the world for the Minister would be to dismiss all the points that have been raised today, but it is crucial that the Government get the implementation right. There is no time to wait for the plans to mystically fall in place; the work needs to start now. I say to the Minister that it is not a case of political point scoring; it is instead about the most important people in this, the men and women of our armed forces—the very people we gathered together this week to pay tribute to. Without the equipment they need and the ability to plan for what future warfare will look like, they will be unable to do what they do best: protect our great nation. We must not let them down. We must get this right; it is what we owe them for all they do for us. I welcome the more nuanced and collaborative and less adversarial approach to future contracting set out in the DSIS, but these documents include big promises and grand words and there is no detail on how they will be delivered. Publishing a plan is not the end of the story; without immediate and concrete action from the Government to lay out how progress will be made and measured, the intentions will simply remain on paper. We expect so much from our forces personnel; in return they should be able to expect only the best from us.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Evans Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Cuts to armed forces numbers will affect Britain’s influence around the globe. The former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), appeared before the Defence Committee on 11 May and said that “no one” could explain the rationale for the size of the defence cuts. Does the Minister agree with his former colleague?
James Heappey
No. As the carrier strike group sets sail and the littoral response group sets out for the Baltic, as our soldiers in Mali and Afghanistan show what great jobs they have been doing there, and as our Air Force continues to contribute to NATO air-policing missions, alongside the fantastic work it does to support the rest of our deployments around the world, I can see a rapidly transforming set of armed forces that are better equipped and better able to meet the needs of the United Kingdom by responding to threats when they emerge upstream, rather than sitting in the United Kingdom contingent for the fight when it eventually comes.
Jeremy Quin
What is going on is a massive enhancement —an investment—of our armed forces, particularly in the Army. I refer to Ajax, which is well known to many people in this House; to the Challenger 3 announcement, to which my right hon. Friend referred; and, in particular, to Boxer. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that David Brown in his constituency won a multi-year power pack contract for the Boxer programme. We are putting in a huge amount of investment, which will help us to develop a highly credible armed force. That is what we are developing and continuing to invest in and he can be proud of what they can deliver.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of the cancellation of Warrior and the delays and rising costs of Ajax, will the Minister now give a specific date on which our armed forces will finally receive the new generation of armoured vehicles?
Jeremy Quin
I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his place. He, like me, is a historian and will know that there have been debates about how quickly defence equipment will arrive since the days of Hywel Dda buying body armour and Alfred the Great putting the original order in for offshore patrol vessels. It is always an issue of contention when things will arrive—when they will get delivered. He can be very assured by the nature of the contracts that we have awarded and by their delivery. Ajax is still in its demonstration phase, but we have the original 14 vehicles with us, and work is ongoing. Challenger 3 is committed to be joining us in the Army’s line up. We are doing our best to advance Boxer and it is already well on track, with contracts awarded throughout the United Kingdom. That is a combination that will get us skilled jobs into the UK, while, at the same time, giving our armed forces the capabilities that they need to meet the threats of the future.
Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society
Chris Evans Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Today has seen the House at its very best. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the House has almost shone. Those who have served and continue to serve can rest assured that they have a powerful voice in this place. That voice was heard in the Minister’s poignant opening speech and in the moving speech by my friend, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), when he bravely talked about his personal experiences of the horrors of war. It was in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who reminded us of the innocent victims of war. It was there in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has made it his mission since he came to this place to speak up for our troops.
There was also hope in many of the contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) reminded us about clearing mines on the beaches of the Falkland Islands so that families can now play where once there were bullets and mines. Let us therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked, all come together tonight at 7 pm, look to the stars and remember our fallen.
On this day 100 years ago, the second anniversary of the armistice that ended world war one, the body of the unknown warrior was drawn in a procession to the Cenotaph. A new war memorial on Whitehall was then unveiled by King George V. At 11 o’clock, there was a two-minute silence, and the body was then taken to Westminster Abbey, where it was buried at the west end of the nave. The text inscribed on the tomb reads:
“They buried him among the kings because he had done good toward God and toward his house”.
Since that day, wreaths of poppies, the symbol of remembrance and hope for a peaceful future, have been laid at the foot of the Cenotaph. Even though we have lost the first world war generation and those who fought in the second world war are fewer in number with each passing year, still they come to pay tribute to their fallen comrades. The scene is repeated in countless ceremonies in villages, towns and cities, where people of all ages put their differences aside for two minutes to remember our war dead. Without them, we would not be the free and fair democracy we are. Indeed, we may not even be debating in this Chamber this afternoon. For that alone, they deserve our eternal gratitude.
Remembrance Day, along with the anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day that we have seen this year, is a time when people are more aware of the presence of the armed forces in this country. However, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said, fewer and fewer people have any idea what it is like to serve in the armed forces, because fewer people know someone who is serving or has had military experience. That makes people less aware of our forces—their needs, their challenges—but every family, in its past, will have a connection with the forces in some way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) set out.
I remember the picture of the Royal Scots on my grandparents’ wall as I grew up. It was the regiment that my grandfather, a Welshman, served in during world war two. I was also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the merchant navy and its contribution. My father-in-law, Roy Ockenden, left a note for his mother at the age of 15 to say he was going to sea to join the merchant navy. I know he is missed every day.
Remembrance is also an opportunity for people to show their appreciation for the work of our forces. However, to truly pay tribute to our forces men and women and the sacrifices they have made and continue to make, we must demonstrate, in our words and our deeds, that we value them and their families. That includes our reserves, our cadets, their families and employers, as well as our veterans, their widows and their families. We must make a commitment today to do everything in our power to demonstrate that.
I would like to mention briefly the petition to enshrine the military covenant in law, which has gathered more than 67,000 signatures. The petition asks for a statutory requirement for the provision of services such as housing and mental health support for veterans. That shows an engagement with our armed forces and is a testament to how much our society values our service personnel. In 2010, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised to enshrine the covenant in law. Unfortunately, that decision was reversed in 2011. I believe that was a real missed opportunity to protect the rights of our service personnel, and I hope it will be revisited, as I know the Minister cares deeply about our veterans.
Remembrance, like so many other things, has been different this year. As many Members have said, large remembrance services and the usual gatherings at war memorials up and down the country have either been cancelled or been subject to social distancing. Covid has not only affected the events that normally take place across the nation; there have been other visible and physical differences. The common sight of the Royal British Legion’s volunteers collecting donations for poppies at supermarkets and train stations and on high streets has been far less visible this year.
The poppy appeal is the largest fundraising campaign of the year for the Royal British Legion. Although it has adapted and raised more than a quarter of a million pounds through contactless donations, it has been difficult to fundraise during covid. This year, the Royal British Legion expects to see a fall in revenue. It will not be alone. It is estimated that one in 10 armed forces charities will be forced to close in the next 12 months. That comes at a time of increasing reliance on charitable aid. It is vital that we ensure that the forces charities are supported and that their loss of income is not felt by those who need their help.
We are remembering the past, but the armed forces can also be relied on to assist with modern issues. There is no better example than the covid test pilot in Liverpool. Some 2,000 troops have been sent to Liverpool to aid our civilian authorities there. Given the size of our armed forces, I echo calls for a promise from the Government that the covid deployment of our forces will not impact training, standing commitments or the forces’ capabilities to respond to threats. If our forces are strained more support must be given. I should be grateful if the Minister touched on what the Government are doing in his response. Covid has required the mobilisation of many of our reservists, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said. People have stepped in, in many different areas, proving how vital they are. They have helped, as we have heard, to transport PPE and to set up Nightingale hospitals. They have helped local authorities to set up and run Test and Trace centres. Three thousand reservists were called up in March, and the work that they do is vital. It is important that we remember them. We have many reasons to be proud of our reserve forces. I hope that the Minister can update the House on how many reservists have provided help during the pandemic and what is being done to help them move seamlessly from civilian life to service at such short notice.
Finally, I hope the Minister can touch on charity funding in his response. He recently called on the Treasury to find funding for visas for Commonwealth veterans, which we welcome. Would he put in a word with Treasury Ministers to increase funding for veterans and military charities? As we have heard today, there are concerns across the House about the drops in fundraising for these vital charities. We would all appreciate some information about how we will fill these gaps so that all those to whom we have paid tribute today can access the support that they need.
In debates of this nature there can be a tendency to focus on the problems that some veterans face, and it is right that we do so. However, we should never forget that, for most people, the forces experience is only positive. There are many veterans who make a huge contribution to their community in business and industry, and for that they should be celebrated by the entire House. This year, let us remember not only the armed forces personnel of the past but those of the present. Let us strive to support them so that they can continue to protect peace, our wellbeing and our society. Let us be there for them, as they have always been there for us.
UK Armed Forces: Wales’s Contribution
Chris Evans Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on securing the debate. The last time I saw her, we had completed a 10-mile walk. I am glad the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) is present, because we walked in aid of his close friend, Steffan Lewis, the Assembly Member who sadly lost his life to bowel cancer. We raised a lot of money that day. We often argue about politics, but there is more that unites us than divides us.
I want to begin by talking about the British nuclear test veterans. Why am I talking about them? In 1993, Councillor Stan Jenkins was elected as the mayor for Islwyn Borough Council; in that role, he met some British nuclear test veterans and he was moved by their plight. Many of them were exposed to nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s. They suffered a terrible ordeal; many had illnesses and problems throughout their entire life, but they were largely ignored by Governments throughout the years. In 1993, Stan decided to do something about it. It was one of my privileges when I was first elected to this place—as a very young boy—to walk through Risca town centre with British nuclear test veterans in order to lay a wreath in the memorial garden and to lower the standard, which was put in the local church until it fades away.
That was nine years ago, and the British test veterans still do not have justice. They have not been compensated and, more importantly, they have not been recognised. As we head towards Armed Forces Day on 27 June, what better way is there to celebrate their contribution than for the Government to finally recognise their service by striking medal to thank them for what they have done? It is small compensation, and as their numbers dwindle it would be very important to the families left behind. I hope the Minister will look favourably on that as we move towards June.
Time is of the essence and I want to be critical at this point. We have heard about garrison towns and service accommodation, but there is a scandal that goes back years and years: the state of our service accommodation. It has been an issue under Governments of all colours, but when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee I was shocked by a report we had from the National Audit Office on the conduct of CarillionAmey. Carillion has gone bust, but its legacy should not be forgotten. The company left many of our service families without heating or hot water in damp and mouldy homes with stained carpets and faulty equipment. They tried to do something about it, but they could not get through for weeks. That says a lot.
This debate is about the respect we have for our armed forces. That respect should extend beyond our servicemen and women, to their families. If we expect people to put their lives on the line—it is not like working for a bank or building society—they should be respected, and their families should be honoured. When we allow them to live in substandard accommodation, we should be rightfully ashamed. The problem is that when the Secretary of State called in CarillionAmey about its performance, it said there had been a miraculous recovery, and then the Government renewed the contract. Carillion went bust, and still the problem continues.
I have two asks for the Minister. The first is on the nuclear test veterans: please give them a medal. Secondly, please—finally—do something about the scandal of service accommodation. I wish I had more time, and I place on record my personal thanks for all the hard work that brave men and women do in our forces. If we love freedom, we should thank our servicemen and women.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Evans Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The armed forces aim to attract talent from the widest possible base across the United Kingdom, regardless of socioeconomic background, educational status or ethnicity. The skills, education and training provided enable recruits to progress and benefit from promotion based on merit.
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. For me, the military remains the single fastest accelerant of life chances in this country for those from slightly more challenging backgrounds. The figure she refers to regarding public school and reaching the top is a challenge that has been there for a while, but our figures for Sandhurst are now very different from what they were 10 years ago. Certainly, in my experience and the experience of many of my colleagues, socioeconomic background has absolutely nothing to do with someone’s ability to prevail in the military.
Chris Evans
With the cost of university going up, many would-be graduates will look at the armed forces as being an alternative career path. However, it is still extremely difficult for someone to gain a commission if they do not have a university degree, particularly an Oxbridge degree, with 18% of commissioned officers having an Oxbridge degree. How will the Minister change things to ensure that people who go into the forces without a degree can gain a commission in future?
Johnny Mercer
I and many of my colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Defence, did not have a degree. The military has been more accessible than ever before for people without a degree. This is something we consistently work on. However, I come back to my point: every applicant is judged on what they can bring and add to the organisation of the UK armed forces, irrespective of their background and conscious of the fact that we must always do more to make sure that it is equal.