Defence Implementation Road Map

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 General Committees

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

But if we are to have an internal market, does that not begin to bring in the single market rules? It may well be in the interests of this nation to support an uneconomic defence manufacturing industry because of the need for certainty of supply at a time of war which may be unpredictable. I seem to remember that during the first Gulf war, Belgium would not supply bullets—

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

Hand grenades.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is as helpful as ever. Belgium would not provide hand grenades to British forces. Can we really risk being in a situation where these decisions are in any way constrained?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I stand before the Committee as a pro-European and I will be arguing for this country to remain a member of the EU, but the document before us today demonstrates how the EU is extending itself into areas that mean that it tests the patience even of Europhiles such as myself.

The debate around European defence is a long one. It goes back to the end of the second world war, the foundation of the Western European Union and the treaty of Brussels. We had arguments then about standardisation of equipment and pooling of defence capabilities across Europe. I agree that a cornerstone of our defence should be NATO, but even though this document reflects that, there is a way—I suspect that some Conservative Members will see this as another wicked plot from across the sea—of influencing the sovereign capability and decision making of this country. It is clear that defence matters should be for individual nation states in Europe to decide, and I understand that that is what the Government are arguing in their response to the document, but I have a problem with some of the things that are coming forward.

The first item in the document is that the Commission’s aim is to have an internal market for the defence industry. Thanks to the actions of the previous Labour Government, of which you were a member, Mr Hanson, we have one of the most open and competitive defence markets anywhere in the world. We have only to look at the companies that have now based themselves here or worked with existing capacity here to see why we have that open and competitive market. Finmeccanica, Thalys, Boeing and General Dynamics are just a few of them, and that is because the Labour Government’s approach was that our market should be open not just to Europe, but to the world. I argue strongly that this country, in terms of defence capability, has benefited from that process. The danger with the approach taken in this document is that we look at defence or defence manufacturing as though a fence can be put around it in terms of just Europe. That is not the case. It is a global, international market these days.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend rightly identifies some of the benefits from engaging with the wider defence industry. However, there has to be some payback for that—some degree of equity. Does he therefore share my frustration at the failure of the United States in this regard? Despite the fact that Brimstone is far and away the most effective weapon—it is favoured, actually, by the United States air force—it is being blocked within the system because of narrow industrial interests. Does that not cast a slight shadow over the wider co-operation that my hon. Friend rightly identified and welcomed?

[Mr Jones]

It does. My right hon. Friend and I spent a week in Washington trying to persuade US Congressmen and Senators to make sure that there was nothing wrong in ensuring that technology transfers should be a two-way street. The problem is that although a lot of claims are made about the US defence market being open and transparent, anyone with experience of it knows that protection is clear.

Such protection, however, comes up in Europe. The document talks about overcapacity in the European defence industries, but there is a reason for that: the protectionist policies of certain members, including France, Germany and others. They have not opened up their markets, not only not to US and international competitors, but also not to UK companies. There have been some good examples, as the Minister rightly pointed out, of good defence co-operation and manufacture between European nations and our own, which have been of benefit to not only those nations, but ours.

The objective, according to the document, of

“an Internal Market for Defence where European companies can operate freely and without discrimination in all Member States”,

is frankly pie in the sky. The idea that the French defence market or shipbuilding industry, for example, will be open to competition throughout Europe is unrealistic. A few years ago in Paris, when I was a member of the Defence Committee, I asked the Member for Brest whether she envisaged a French aircraft carrier being built anywhere other than Brest. She looked at me quizzically and said, “I don’t understand the question.”

The Commission is pressing forward in that area, and that has real dangers for our defence industries. It is not, frankly, an area in which the Commission should be getting involved. I fully support, as the Minister does, existing co-operation in the EU for operations that lie outside NATO or involving other countries, but that is where it should stay. If the market comes into our defence industries, that will block off a lot of the opportunities that this country has for co-operation not only with the United States, which is an important market, but with other growing markets around the world. For example, in the south-east Asian market, the easy transfer between civilian technologies and defence ones brings capabilities that could benefit our defence industries. If they are somehow locked out, because our procurement is restricted to Europe, not only will our defence industries suffer, but so could what is on offer to the men and women of our armed forces.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in counterbalancing our defence relationship with the United States, we should continue to build relationships with European partners such as the Netherlands? I am sure he agrees that building those relationships can only benefit our security.

[Mr Jones]

I do, but it is naive to think that we are talking only about Europe. Increasingly as the lines between the development of civilian technologies and defence get blurred, defence industries and technologies are a global market. The idea that we can somehow restrict that to within Europe, or give Europe some preference, would be a great disadvantage to our defence industries. As I said, because of the open approach that we took in government, we have benefited from open markets, which have certainly added to investment from overseas into this country, but also to transfers of technologies and expertise, not only ensuring that the kit and capabilities of our armed forces are leading edge, but adding to jobs and prosperity in this country.

My other issue comes under the second point about security of supply. We have already talked about hand grenade shells in connection with security of supply within Europe. I am not quite sure how this would fit in with technology such as the joint strike fighter, which we are involved in developing and building, and which contains both UK and US technology. Perhaps that is a bad example, but there are other technologies. If we have to ensure that technologies are supplied within Europe, that would limit the ability of some of our partners to co-operate with us. I do not think—how can I put it gently?—that the trust we have in the US defence community, for example, is the same as the trust we have when we export technology to France or any of our other European allies. Does security of supply mean that the onus is on us to supply certain technologies if a European country demanded it? That would put real constraints on us.

[Mr Brazier]

I agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It will not surprise him that we share concerns, and I hope I made it clear that we are heading off many of them. However, on the issue he just raised, I am puzzled about his reasoning. I cannot see anything that would enable that. Can he explain what he means?

[Mr Jones]

It is not clear from the document. However, if we are saying that there has got to be security of supply for a certain piece of technology, we would have to ensure that widget A is available to all European nations. If widget A contains technology that is procured from a third country with which we have a partnership, will we, because we are part of this process, have to export it or send it to a third country in Europe that needs it? That is the danger. At the moment, we have a choice about whether we do that, based on the relationship we entered into in the first place. As the Minister knows, we have certain technologies that we would not export, even to some of our allies in Europe. That is my concern.

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. The short answer is no, we would not agree to that. Nothing that we are agreeing to could ever put us in that position.

[Mr Jones]

The other point I would like to touch on is the reference to third markets and the idea that the European Commission has a role in promoting defence exports. It is very strange that the document again misses the entire point when it says:

“With defence budgets shrinking in Europe in recent years, exports to third markets have become increasingly important for European industry to compensate for reduced demand on home markets.”

It completely ignores the fact that it is not that the defence industry cannot produce. It does not question the fact that many countries do not meet the NATO 2% and that budgets have continued to be cut across Europe. I am concerned about the idea that the Commission has a role in exporting to third markets. The Commission is living in a fantasy world if it is trying to suggest that this will put a brake on the bargaining between, for example, French and UK defence exporters, and that one would export something and the other would not.

Look at the current competition for fast jets in the middle east and elsewhere. It is not the case that the French are not acting in their national self-interest, as they always do. What is being said here, and why does the Commission want to get involved in something it does not need to? Is it trying to create a level playing field, and will the inducements and other things that are put forward not be allowable to ensure that two European nations competing for a defence contract in the middle east, for example, do so on the same basis? I do not think that is the Commission’s role, and, frankly, if that is what is being suggested, it would be very difficult to implement.

The other side to that, which is also completely missed, is that purchaser nations increasingly require and want some development of technologies within their country as part of defence and export contracts, which is only right. That takes me to my final point, which is that I do not accept that offsets are a bad thing. If a sovereign nation is to procure equipment from overseas or another competitor, it is quite right that it should be able to demand some offset for taxpayers’ money either being spent in their country or benefiting the home nation.

In conclusion, I worry about the document, because it has clearly taken the time of many a Brussels bureaucrat to draw it up, but to what end? It would be strange if we ever saw the French open up their defence markets to true competition. There is no evidence for that, and it just will not happen. The Opposition support such operations in terms of co-operation across Europe, but we need to be wary about the Commission getting into areas in which it should not be, and about our defence industry, which has been good at adapting and changing over the past few years, being put at a disadvantage. There would be nothing to gain in both jobs and technology. The important thing that we must always bear in mind is that the equipment and kit that we provide to our armed forces is not only fit for purpose, but the best available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

May I suggest that there is another way that the EU nation states combine very effectively, which is on a commercial basis—an example being Thales and Finmeccanica?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with that, although I think that the Government should have the right to be protectionist in relation to defence procurement. I am not sure it is always wise to be protectionist. I am a supporter of having bought ships from South Korea. That was a sensible thing to have done in the broader context. I am in favour of maintaining freedom of activity rather than saying that it is always wrong to buy from overseas.

The final point I am making is that intergovernmental co-operation is admirable. When we are dealing with issues that NATO does not want to deal with, it makes complete sense to co-operate with our nearest neighbours and to use that projection of force where it can be used. I absolutely agree with the Minister that on the issue of Ukraine, a variety of agencies needed to be involved, but what never needed to happen was for defence to come under the auspices of the EU, formally or informally. It is a great protection from the general ratchet effect of what happens in the EU if the Minister is robust. I am reassured that we have one of the most robust Ministers before the Committee today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

I was pleased to meet local conveners when I was in the yard in Govan earlier this month, and I would be happy to meet them again if the hon. Gentleman chose to bring them to Parliament any time soon.

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

The Government have brought us aircraft carriers without aircraft, but even for them, warships without sailors would be going a bit too far. Can the Minister outline how the personnel requirements for the new Type 26 will be met? Will there be a reliance, as we have recently seen in the press, on overseas recruits to fill those capability gaps?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Type 26 global combat ship programme is designed to replace the existing frigate fleet—the Type 23. We generally find when updating naval capability that ships with more power and capability can be manned with fewer men, so we do not see any particular challenge with this programme, apart from the natural challenge of recruiting to the armed forces during periods of economic growth.

Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this Bill. As was said by a number of Members, including the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, this is an important Bill in that it involves a key constitutional issue. This Bill might seem quite dry and boring, but it actually asserts Parliament’s control over the armed forces and the fact that we have a standing Army. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) did not understand the significance and importance of that. As he is new to the House, I may suggest to him very gently that if he does not understand something, it is perhaps better not to comment on it.

I am a veteran of Armed Forces Bills. I considered the Armed Forces Act 2006, which was a major Act in that it radically changed the disciplinary acts of the three services. Unfortunately, it then followed me into ministerial office in the Ministry of Defence. The constructive way in which that Bill Committee did some very detailed work over a number of months not only improved service discipline and brought the Acts into the modern day, but helped to address some of the public concerns.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) talked about Deepcut, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the service complaints commissioner. Getting those issues into place has involved a long journey. We are now in a good place with regard to the service complaints commissioner. I was on the Defence Committee when Nicholas Blake compiled his report on Deepcut. I met the families involved on numerous occasions. Were they let down by the system, by Governments and by the Army? Yes, they were. Could we turn the clock back and find out what happened in those cases? Tragically, the answer is no, but what came out of the Blake report was a step forward in terms of the armed forces commissioner. I welcome the Government’s current commitment to the armed forces ombudsman. The Act tried, where possible, to apply to armed services personnel the modern standards that we would expect in civilian life. That is difficult because we are asking people to do different things. Where possible, the two areas should be mirrored. Clearly, the transparency that people expect in their dealings with Government should also be afforded to members of our armed forces. The ombudsman is a move in that direction.

The Bill before us is a piece of cake compared with the 2006 Act. It tidies up quite a lot of minor issues. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, we will support that, and ensure that those issues are scrutinised so that any unintended consequences are addressed. It is important that we send a message to the members of the armed forces that we are taking these things seriously. When they raise matters that they are not happy with, we should consider whether we can amend and change things for them. Obviously, I am not talking about interfering with the rigid discipline that is required or breaking the chain of command. The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond)—I must welcome her to the House and say that she is a vast improvement on her predecessor—made a point in that regard.

One issue that came up in the 2006 Act—it is a continuing one that needs to be addressed—is whistleblowing. I am not talking about whistleblowing for minor complaints or things that are not relevant. If members of the armed forces have serious concerns, there needs to be a mechanism, or a safety valve, in the chain of command—I know that the ombudsman will address some of this—so that these things can be dealt with. That is very important.

The worst thing that happened in previous years was that some complaints were not taken seriously—that has improved greatly—and delay added to the problem. Quite minor things should have been dealt with lower down the chain of command. Not only would people have felt that they had been treated better, but the bureaucratic outcomes for both the armed forces and the individuals would have been better.

We had seven contributions in this debate. I am not sure that many were on the actual details of the Bill, but I will touch on some of the remarks. Let me turn first to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South. I congratulate her son on graduating from Sandhurst. The academy does a fantastic job. She made a really important point, which is that we need to be proactive, not reactive, on issues. Those issues could include mental health, service discipline or just the way that we treat people. I also pay tribute to the work of Castaway House. I visited it when I was a Minister and saw for myself what a fantastic job it does in supporting veterans and the wider armed forces community in Portsmouth and the surrounding area.

We also had a contribution from my friend, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who paid tribute to the work of HMS Raleigh. I agree that the Royal Navy does a fantastic job there with its new recruits. One of the many highlights of my ministerial career was attending a passing out parade on HMS Raleigh. It is humbling to meet both the parents and the recruits and to see the dedication and hard work that goes into ensuring that those people are not only transformed in the short period that they are there, but given life opportunities to work within our armed forces, which many would never ever get.

The hon. Lady was a little bit naughty, which is unusual for her, when she referred to the nuclear deterrent. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) also referred to the Labour leader’s position on the nuclear deterrent. May I reassure them that the Labour party policy on the nuclear deterrent has not changed? It was agreed at the Labour party conference this year that we are in favour of a minimal credible nuclear deterrent provided by four boats under the continuous at-sea deterrent. We are committed to ensuring that we are part of multilateral disarmament talks so that we get to that point that everyone in this House wants to get to, which is a reduction in the ownership of nuclear weapons.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard that I referred to the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

[Mr Jones]

I am not sure what point the hon. Lady is making. That is what I referred to. That is Labour party policy and it has not changed with what has happened in our great party in the past few months.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the shadow Minister explain how we could have a credible nuclear deterrent if we were to have a Prime Minister who had already said that he would never use it?

[Mr Jones]

It is up to the Prime Minister of the day to write whatever advice he or she wants in the letter to the commanders. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall said that our policy had changed, but it has not. It is very clear. End of story.

Labour Members past and present have contributed to the armed forces and I know that my constituency and those of many other Members make a tremendous contribution through their sons, daughters and others who work not only for the regular forces but for the reserve forces. I am proud to represent a constituency with a long history of connection with the forces, and long may it continue. I reassure everyone that I will ensure that I champion their interests and ensure that their welfare, which is important in terms of this Bill, is taken care of.

The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—I am not sure whether he is in his place—made an important point. The Bill refers to drug testing, but, as we all know, one of the biggest issues that needs addressing, which was an issue when I was a Minister, is alcohol. The question is how we address that, not in a nanny state way but by ensuring that people’s health is not affected by the drinking culture not only while they are in the armed forces but after they leave. Perhaps we could consider the question of alcohol and the armed services in Committee.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about the contribution made by his part of the world to the armed forces as well as the idea of ensuring that people’s voices and complaints are heard. I, too, welcome the Government’s commitment to the service complaints commissioner.

We then heard three contributions from the Scottish nationalist party. I do not want to reiterate the issues about some of their points, but the Scottish nationalists cannot have it all ways. They cannot argue that they are committed to and want more defence resources for Scotland and then argue that an independent Scotland could produce even a fraction of what Scotland gets now.

I get a little disturbed when I hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife use the phrase “the distribution of spoils in the UK” to refer to the armed forces, as though the defence of this country is somehow about moving resources around the country in such a crude way. It is actually about ensuring that the country is defended and has the capability to defend itself. He talked about warships never being based in Scotland, but conveniently forgot to tell the House that our submarine base and defence are in Scotland and that that would be put at risk if we followed the proposals to abandon the nuclear deterrent that he and his party want us to follow. The Scottish nationalist party should be honest in this debate and say that what is being proposed for an independent Scotland would not have anything near the footprint or the proud history that is there at the moment. He referred fleetingly to the idea of regiments, and the idea that the SNP would reinstate all those regiments in an independent Scotland is complete nonsense.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) mentioned the White Paper on independence. I read it in detail, and not only its costings but its military strategy were complete and abject nonsense.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my friend for allowing me to intervene. The Scottish nationalist party would have six battalions of infantry, which is twice the number pro rata that my constituents have in England. Pro rata, Scotland has twice the number of infantry battalions that English men and women have.

[Mr Jones]

I agree, which is why the White Paper was complete nonsense. Not only did the sums not add up, but there were no practical proposals to generate those forces from an independent Scotland. Scotland would have information, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance capabilities and other assets but would have no capacity, because of the numbers involved, to analyse what was collected or what its purpose was. For example, it would need fast jets and other things. It was just bizarre, to be honest.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair and equitable that Scotland has only 6.3% of the armed forces personnel, down from 7.1% in 2012?

[Mr Jones]

I know that the Scottish nationalist party wants to play up its victim mentality, which it has turned into an art form that I admire, but the idea to which the hon. Gentleman’s White Paper refers, which is that Scotland could provide the manpower needed for its proposals from the Scottish population, which is getting older, was absolute nonsense—[Interruption.] May I give him some evidence? He needs only to look at the recruitment to Scottish regiments when they were reorganised. Why was one regiment in Scotland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have moved way off the subject of the Bill. I understand that there is a desire to keep proceedings going, so I am not trying to pin it down to a tight debate, but I like to try to keep the debate on the subject of the Bill at least a little, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could mention it now and again. Given his experience, I know that that will never be a difficulty.

[Mr Jones]

I would refer, for example, to the recruitment of overseas nationals from the Commonwealth. The regiments that had to backfill with Fijians were the Scottish regiments because they could not get the numbers within Scotland. If the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has some magic pool of people in Scotland who will suddenly join the armed forces or if there is some huge boom that will happen in the next few years that means that 18-year-olds and fit individuals will join the armed forces, I would like to see them.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is not exactly doing the idea of the United Kingdom a great service. Indeed, he is pointing out everything that is wrong with the current system.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think we are now going to get back to the Bill. We have had enough playing around. Kevan Jones, have you finished?

[Mr Jones]

Certainly not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is all right then. What I will say is that you have finished on this point.

[Mr Jones]

Absolutely.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I shall try to resist the urge to go off the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is a very experienced Member of Parliament and when he started his political career the world was a different place from what it is today. Does he recognise the necessity of having a much more flexible military system to deal with the threats that are evolving and changing in the world today?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think I might be able to help here. The hon. Gentleman might have been referring to the civil war as regards Kevan Jones, as he has been around for a long time, but we are not going to open up a debate about when he first got here and how the armed forces have changed.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however. It is not just the equipment and how we deploy things that has changed. The armed forces do not sit in a vacuum away from the rest of society, and that is one of the main issues for consideration. Things that were acceptable 20, 30 or 40 years ago for young people who joined the armed forces no longer are. When I was a Minister talking to senior military personnel, I heard that young people were far more questioning, although not in a disrespectful way, and more knowledgeable about their rights. They wanted to engage rather than take instructions. That is a challenge for the armed forces. We need to ensure that there are mechanisms in place for when things go wrong and, as I said in an intervention during the speech from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, a safety valve to deal with complaints.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that as a Minister he visited HMS Raleigh. Does he agree that during the six weeks’ initial sea training, from the time they arrive until they pass out, a massive transformation occurs in those young people?

[Mr Jones]

Indeed. I have always said that. As the current ministerial team recognises, we should celebrate the life chances that membership of our armed forces gives young people. They get opportunities and skills that many of them would otherwise not have. That initial training is part of that ongoing process. It is not newsworthy to say that joining the armed forces is good for their career prospects, and what I am about to say might not be popular, but all the evidence suggests that it is good for their mental health as well. However, when things go wrong in service or after service, we need to make sure that mechanisms are in place to deal with that.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) spoke about the armed forces federation, which might be relevant in that situation, although I am not sure how it would fit into the Bill. Clearly, this is the SNP’s latest campaign issue, but may I disappoint the hon. Gentleman? I got there first: I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on that topic in about 2005. In other countries, as he said, such organisations work effectively, and provided it did not interfere with the chain of command, an armed forces federation could improve the system, as it does in other countries, by acting as a safety valve. Alas, having read the Bill, which I am not sure others have, I am not sure how we could get that into the Bill.

We will examine the Bill in detail in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has outlined our approach. We will not oppose the Bill. Much of what it contains is sensible and includes a number of tidying-up measures. In any scrutiny process, it is important that any changes made do not result in unforeseen consequences, so in Committee we need to make sure that we road-test our ideas to destruction. I accept the assurance from the Secretary of State on the fire regulations. Those seem sensible, but it may be helpful if chief fire officers are asked for their views before the Bill goes to Committee.

I look forward to serving on the Committee for my third Armed Forces Bill. I am thankful that it will not be the marathon of the 2006 Bill. Our approach will be constructive, with the aim of ensuring the best outcome. Across the House, we want the best for our armed forces personnel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

We will have to wait for tomorrow’s judgment before making a decision on that.

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

Two weeks ago the Secretary of State said that he was confident that the Government’s target for reserve recruitment would be met. He said that the programme was “now back on schedule”. However, last month the Major Projects Authority downgraded the Future Reserves 2020 project from “doubtful” to “unachievable”. Who is right, the Major Projects Authority or the Secretary of State?

[Mr Brazier]

The Major Projects Authority reviewed the Future Reserves 2020 programme almost a year ago, in September 2014. By convention the review is published six months behind, and because of purdah and the election it was published something like 10 months behind. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

[Mr Jones]

Indeed. Last week’s Budget Red Book committed the Government to maintaining a Regular Army of 82,000, but there was no mention of reserve forces. Can the Minister confirm whether the target of 30,000 reservists announced at the beginning of the process will be met?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

There is no single bullet. The armed forces have come through a difficult time, with a combination of downsizing of the numbers in the Army as a result of the £38 billion black hole, and the end of operations in Afghanistan, which for many young men and women was an attractor. But measures ranging from the purchase of new equipment to an almost unparalleled number of overseas exercises, together with a fresh look at the terms and conditions of service, are all designed to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman points to.

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

I welcome the Minister back to his position and congratulate the two new members of the Defence team. In the run-up to the election the Prime Minister pledged that regular personnel numbers would not be reduced, but we heard last week about the first down payment from the Defence budget as a result of the Chancellor’s cuts. Can the Minister give an assurance that the target set by the previous Government for reservists will be met and funded?

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and the same applies to him. It is always a pleasure to spar across the Dispatch Box. The Conservative manifesto was clear about expanding the number of reservists across the three services to 35,000. The funding is there through the £1.8 billion that was provided over a 10-year period, and the current strengths are running ahead of schedule in all three volunteer reserve services.