Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right, but let us be clear. What they must not do is perpetrate acts of aggression against independent sovereign states such as Ukraine. Because we have special commitments, through our obligations under the Washington treaty, the red line around NATO is even clearer, and we must emphasise it at every opportunity to avoid any danger of miscalculation in the Kremlin or elsewhere.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Ongoing events in Ukraine show the continuing tensions in the region and the potential for further actions by Russia that could be destabilising for the wider region. Can the Secretary of State confirm what steps NATO has already taken, what the British involvement in those has been, and what additional steps are being considered?

[Mr Hammond]

Several measures have already been taken, including increasing the scale of exercises in the Baltic states and stepping up the level of Baltic air policing. A discussion is going on about proposals from Supreme Allied Commander Europe—SACEUR—on a menu of further measures of reassurance, and the United Kingdom expects to play a full part in helping to implement them.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Russia’s effective annexation of Ukraine’s sovereign territory and its threat to others in the European sphere is the sort of activity that we thought had been consigned to a bygone age. Given that the core of UK defence policy is based on stability in Europe, what impact does the Secretary of State think that the ongoing situation will have on our defence policy and that of NATO, and to what extent is it informing discussions in advance of the forthcoming NATO summit in the UK?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Some might suggest that our eyes had wandered away from the potential challenge from Russia—a militarily very powerful nation, with which we do not always enjoy an alignment of interests. The consequences of the crisis will be to focus NATO member states clearly back on the potential challenge from Russia, among other challenges that NATO has to be prepared to deal with in the future.

Nuclear Submarines

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the soldier from the 32 Engineer Regiment. His death is a reminder of the service and sacrifice given to our country by the armed forces, and our thoughts are with his family and loved ones at this time. I thank the Secretary of State for briefing me on this statement last night, and for sight of it. These are complicated and sensitive matters, and it is in all our interests that they are debated in a calm and reasonable manner that befits the seriousness of the issue.

I will come to the specific issues raised about the reactor in Dounreay and the nuclear submarines, but I start by asking the Secretary of State why he is making this statement now, and why the House is being told about this matter only today. He says that this issue was discovered in January 2012, which is more than two years ago. Does he not think it would have been right to brief the official Opposition spokesperson on defence then? Why did that not happen, and why has it not happened at any time since then until now? Should Parliament have known earlier?

There must be public confidence in the Government to be open and transparent about such matters. A fault, however small, that develops in a nuclear reactor is something that the British people, and this Parliament, should have been told about. This is an issue of national security and national importance, and it will cause particular concern in Scotland. When did the Scottish Secretary know? Did the Defence Secretary or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland discuss the issue with the First Minister of Scotland and the Scottish Government? It seems to me that it was incumbent on the UK Government to inform and work with the Scottish Government on this matter. I accept that the Secretary of State briefed me and other colleagues last night and this morning, and I appreciate his candour, but does he agree that it has come rather late?

Let me turn to the specific issues with the PWR2 nuclear reactor at Dounreay and the implications for the Royal Navy’s fleet submarines and ballistic missile submarines. There will inevitably be concern when the words “nuclear”, “reactor” and “fault” are used in the same sentence. Can the Secretary of State provide further assurance that there has been, and there is now, absolutely no risk to workers on site, personnel in service, or the wider public? Having discovered that there was a problem at the Vulcan naval reactor test establishment, on what basis was the decision made to continue running the reactor? We know it is now in maintenance. Will he tell the House when a decision will be made about whether to continue running the reactor? I understand that if a decision is made to stop running it, it takes three years from the point at which it shuts down to the point at which it has cooled enough to be examined. That is a long time. Has he examined the potential to look at the PWR2 currently being constructed for the later Astute-class boats, and does that provide an opportunity effectively to X-ray every aspect of the cladding to see if we can detect any faults? There will be concerns about the impact that might have on the Astute-class submarines. Will the Secretary of State outline what those are?

The decision to maintain a test reactor so that faults could be identified has proven a good one. A fault has been found, however small, in PWR2—the test reactor in Dounreay. What plans are there to ensure that we have the same security with PWR3, which will be used on the Successor-class submarines? Have there been discussions with our US counterparts to see what lessons or expertise can be borrowed? In the current international defence and security climate, many people will be asking an important question: will this affect the UK’s ability to maintain continuous at-sea deterrence? Will it be necessary to adjust the operations timetable of the continuous at-sea deterrent? Finally, can the Defence Secretary confirm the total cost envisaged and that it will have no impact on the rest of the defence programme? If the cost is met by the submarine contingency fund, will that have any impact on the existing submarine programme?

Given that there will be concern about the length of time it has taken to inform the House and the public about this issue, will the Secretary of State tell the House what plans he has to keep Parliament and the country involved and updated throughout this process? Does he agree that public confidence and trust on these issues is crucial, and that people should have been told earlier? There will rightly be anxiety about these matters. The British public must be assured that everything is being done to resolve them, and they must be confident that Britain’s defence and security is paramount and will be maintained. That is best done through openness and transparency.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and by and large we agree on the importance of these matters, but I am afraid I must start by saying that I am not particularly minded to take lectures on transparency from someone who was a member of the previous Government. The decisions we have made throughout this process from January 2012 have been carefully balanced. I have, of course, considered throughout whether it would be appropriate, sensible or helpful to make a public statement, and I remind him that the advice we have received throughout from the regulators and experts is that no safety issues are arising, and that this incident scores as a level zero event on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale—an event that requires no action and presents no risk.

We have kept the independent military nuclear safety regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency informed of matters, as is proper, and I have no doubt that there will be people who say that the Scottish Government should have been informed. We will see when we hear from the representative of the Scottish National party in a moment whether it will approach this matter from a responsible and sensible point of view. Key Ministers within the Government were, of course, aware of these issues throughout.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) asked why we decided to restart the reactor. Once it was clear that there was no safety risk and that a safety case for restarting it had been built and approved by the regulators, we continued with the operation of the test reactor to fulfil its intended purpose: to have delivered the same amount of core burn, and some more, as the most aged operational reactor will have achieved by the end of its service life.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the reactors being built for the Astute submarines, which are also core H reactors. I confirm that after this issue arose, all reactors in-build were re-examined with the best equipment available, to look for signs of anything that might give any further clue as to what has happened with the core H reactor at Dounreay.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the decision not to have a test reactor for the successor series—the PWR3 reactor. There are several technical reasons for this. The reactor is being built to an entirely different design specification. Because of the way in which technology has evolved, the engineering tolerances will be much less challenging in the PWR3 reactor and we have access to far more advanced computer modelling techniques, which can provide an adequate substitute for prototyping. However, in view of the concerns that have been expressed about this decision, I have asked the chief scientific adviser to review again the evidence on which the decision not to operate a test reactor was based, and to report back to me on the appropriateness of that decision. I will inform the House in due course of the result of that review.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether CASD is affected. It will not be, and that is the point of taking this decision today. Refuelling Vanguard during an existing planned deep-maintenance period means that the operational rotation of the Vanguard-class submarines will not be affected. That is the reason we have taken that decision. It is not a safety-related decision; it is a submarine availability-related decision.

On the question of cost and as I have said already, we expect the total cost of the measures I have announced today to be about £270 million, all of which will come from contingency provision within the submarine programme that is currently unused. We do not expect it to have any impact on the wider defence programme. The contingency within the submarine programme is more than adequate—this amount is substantially less than 10% of the total contingency in the programme.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I intended to make further statements. Clearly, I will of course notify the House if anything of significance happens; if we make a decision to decommission the reactor at Dounreay early; or if there are any further significant developments in respect of the reactor while it is running. I stress that we have reacted properly throughout, in consultation with the regulatory authorities, and we have dealt with this matter in the same way that any minor incident in a reactor, whether military or civil, would routinely be dealt with.

Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.

Nothing unites this House more than the admiration we have for our armed forces and their service and sacrifice. Nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan. As the Defence Secretary said, 447 members of our armed forces have died in operations there since 2001, with many more injured. Their commitment to the United Kingdom and Afghanistan, and to our respective peoples, should never, and will never, be forgotten.

Many British civilians are also working to build peace and progress in Afghanistan, and that will become ever more important as the combat missions wind down. Does the Secretary of State share the shock and sadness at the attack in Kabul just a few weeks ago that cost the lives of 21 people, including two British citizens? Many colleagues from across the political spectrum knew Del Singh, who died in that explosion. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said:

“He dedicated his life to working with people across the world who needed his support.”

Ultimately, he gave his life, too, and we in the Labour party remember him and his work with pride and a sense of determination to continue it.

Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure the protection of British forces and civilians and give reassurance to them and their families as to what is being done to provide it, both now and after the military draw-down? Does he share the concern that civilian deaths in Afghanistan rose by 14% in 2013, and to what does he attribute that significant rise?

There has been undoubted, but not irreversible, progress in Afghanistan. In terms of finding a political settlement, it is clear that elections scheduled for April are an indication of both the advances and the challenges that remain. Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps are being taken by international forces to ensure that insurgents do not succeed in disrupting the elections and, by extension, the democratic right of the Afghan people? What is his assessment of the risk of increased insurgent activity in the run-up to the Afghanistan national elections this year, particularly in urban areas?

The role of external actors will, as the Defence Secretary knows, also be key. What is the Government’s assessment of the most recent peace talks between the Pakistani Government and the Taliban? How is this impacting on the Taliban’s behaviour in Afghanistan? Has he read reports that they are patrolling jointly with the Afghan national security forces, and what is his assessment of the implications of that?

May I also ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about security and the role of the ANSF and ISAF as the international combat mission ends? Will he provide specific details of what he expects the UK military footprint to be in Afghanistan beyond 2014? As the number of deployed troops falls, the level of danger for ISAF units increases, so will the Defence Secretary tell the House what is being done to maintain vigilance on force protection as UK forces wind down through the course of this year?

Will the Defence Secretary update the House on the progress of the Afghan national army officer academy and the work being done there, particularly on core anti-insurgency capabilities such as air cover, air support, medical evacuation, intelligence gathering and indirect fire support? What percentage of that training is now provided by ANSF forces themselves?

The Defence Secretary will have seen media reports today about the RAF utilising United States air force assets—namely, unmanned aircraft—when UK aircraft are unavailable. Will he confirm that those aircraft always operate on UK tasks, with RAF aircrew in control, using our rules of engagement?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that no soldier currently serving in Afghanistan will face compulsory redundancy, and will he clarify whether serving personnel who apply for redundancy will have their application accepted? What will the total cost of equipment repatriation be to the Ministry of Defence?

It is clear that, as we approach the withdrawal of British and international combat forces, the more necessary it will be for us to adopt a comprehensive approach to engagement with and in Afghanistan. The shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Secretary of State for International Development—my right hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) respectively—and I work together closely on that and I know the Defence Secretary does, too. What action is he taking to ensure proper treatment and, if necessary, safe haven for those who have supported our forces as interpreters over the past years?

Today the US Government announced three new development initiatives worth almost $300 million. What assessment have the Government made of how UK aid will work alongside those plans?

One area of shared concern is that of the rights of women and girls after the international forces depart. Will the Secretary of State update us on what discussions the Government are having with counterparts in Afghanistan on the issues? Does he share our deep concern—I am sure he does—about the new law that will, in effect, silence female victims of domestic violence and forced or child marriage?

There can be no room for complacency about such complicated and continuing issues. There is still much work to be done before the end of our combat mission, with British troops remaining in danger, and there will be a great deal of work, albeit of a different kind, to do afterwards. Our commitment is to build peace, progress and the lasting stability that our armed services have fought so bravely to secure.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter, on which—to the great credit of this Parliament—there has been and remains a bipartisan approach.

I of course share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments on the Kabul attack, the purpose of which is to undermine the international support on which Afghanistan will depend for many years to come if it is to continue to make progress. I am sure that all Government Members will wish to be associated with his expression of sympathy to the families and friends of the British victims of the attack.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the future security of British civilians in Kabul. Obviously, we are monitoring the situation closely, and we will make appropriate arrangements to support British civilians in Kabul, particularly those on Crown service. He would not expect me to go into the detail of those arrangements at the Dispatch Box, but there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that Kabul will remain a dangerous place for foreigners for the foreseeable future. We will rely primarily on the ANSF to maintain security in that city.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the recent rise in the civilian death rate. That is of course deeply regrettable, but I am sure that he would want to focus attention on the fact that more than 74% of all civilian deaths are directly attributable to the insurgency. In fact, the number of civilian deaths attributable to ISAF action has gone down over time, and the number of those attributable to ISAF air strikes—they were once the cause of considerable concern—has gone down by 80%. That is something that we will continue to pursue.

The hon. Gentleman asked about election security and what action ISAF will take. Clearly, ISAF will support the ANSF in every way it can, particularly in the provision of intelligence and surveillance capabilities, but the ANSF must take the lead. The message around this election is that the Afghans have taken lead responsibility for their security. The ANSF is capable, and it is very determined to be seen to lead this operation and to deliver the security that Afghanistan’s fledgling democracy requires.

There will be threats to the elections. We have already seen a concerted campaign of targeted assassinations. I am afraid that the realists among us expect that to continue and probably to accelerate as we move towards the election date. It is greatly to the credit of the leaders of Afghanistan’s democracy that it has not yet in any way undermined their enthusiasm for the democratic process.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the talks going on between the Pakistan Government and the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan in relation to the situation in North Waziristan. We of course hope that there is the possibility of a solution between the two sides, but it remains the case that the Pakistan Government have to be willing to take firm action against the TTP in North Waziristan if a settlement is not possible.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the reports of joint patrolling in Sangin. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of these reports, but I have personally been able to establish at the very highest levels that there is no mandate from the higher levels of the Afghan system for any such activity. Indeed, action has been taken to ensure that nothing that could be interpreted as joint patrolling or any kind of compromise with the insurgency can happen again.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK footprint. As he knows, our position is that we expect to have a continuing footprint at the Afghan national army officer academy at Qargha, just outside Kabul. That footprint will be within a much larger complex, which will have a US and ANSF-controlled perimeter. I cannot give him the precise number of UK personnel at the moment, but it will probably be between 150 and 250, depending on our precise assessment of the force protection needs at the time. He asked what percentage of training at the ANAOA is being done by Afghans. I cannot give a precise figure. If I can get a useful figure, I will write to him. It uses a “train the trainer” model, so we expect the Afghans increasingly to take responsibility for direct training.

The hon. Gentleman asked about media reports on remotely piloted air systems and about US aircraft backfilling for the unavailability of UK remotely piloted aircraft. We operate a combined fleet with the US and there is ISAF tasking. UK and US aircraft therefore fly ISAF mission tasks and they may be piloted by UK or US pilots. However, UK pilots always operate to UK rules of engagement. The rules of engagement for remotely piloted aircraft are exactly the same as those for our Tornado aircraft and those that will apply to our Apache rotary-wing aircraft when they are in action.

The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance—with tongue in cheek, I hope—that any volunteers for redundancy who are currently serving in Afghanistan will be accepted. I cannot give him that assurance. They will certainly be considered. The criteria for voluntary redundancy relate to the future shape of the force and whether the skills that individuals hold are needed for its sustainment.

The repatriation of equipment is slightly ahead of plan. We have repatriated about half the equipment that we have to repatriate. Originally, we estimated that the cost would be up to £300 million. We are confident that the repatriation will be completed within that cost envelope.

The hon. Gentleman asked about locally employed civilians. He will know that we have two offers for locally employed civilians. The first is a redundancy scheme for eligible individuals who have served on the front line as interpreters, which allows them to accept a financial and resettlement package in Afghanistan or to come to the UK. So far, most of those who are eligible have opted to come to the UK. The second is an intimidation package for those who are not eligible for resettlement in the UK under the redundancy scheme, but who have experienced intimidation in Afghanistan.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about our future aid budget. We are committed to providing £170 million per annum of ongoing Department for International Development support to Afghanistan until at least 2017. Some of that aid is targeted at projects that seek to protect the legacy of our achievement in the crucial area of the rights of women and girls. The Afghans made specific commitments on that area in Tokyo, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development addressed President Karzai on the subject personally during her most recent visit to Kabul.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have taken a number of steps to increase home ownership among members of the armed forces. Most recently, we announced that those who are made redundant in tranche 4 of the Army redundancies will be able to draw up to 90% of their redundancy packages before redundancy so that they can, if they wish, complete a home purchase before leaving the forces and forces accommodation.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I had to look twice at today’s date. Reading The Guardian this morning, I thought that it must be April the 1st. Apparently the Defence Secretary is the champion of the shipyards and the workers, the insider on shadow Cabinet discussions, and the man in the know on Labour party policy.

Labour’s position is in favour of the minimum credible independent continuous-at-sea deterrent, and I have told the Defence Secretary that directly and recently. Will he now tell the House why he is playing party politics with an issue of such national importance?

[Mr Hammond]

I do regard this as an issue of national importance and I hugely welcome the position of the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues, but we should not be naive about this: he knows and I know that there are those who do not support this position and that there are those who are seeking to undermine the consensus that we have formed in the national interest. I hope he will agree with me that it is important that all of us who believe this consensus is in the national interest do what we can when we can to ensure that those who are seeking to destabilise it do not succeed.

[Vernon Coaker]

Having been to Barrow after a few days in post to see the successor programme and having met Keep our Future Afloat and the trade unions regularly since then, my and our position is clear. Perhaps the Secretary of State is a little confused. Are these whispers he says he has heard about the Opposition in fact about those he serves alongside in government, namely the Liberal Democrats? Is it not his coalition partners, not Labour, where the opposition comes from when it comes to retaining a nuclear deterrent?

[Mr Hammond]

In terms of official party policy the hon. Gentleman is of course right and I do not know why he is trying to make a spat out of this: we agree on this issue. He knows very well, however, who within his party is seeking to reopen this issue. He knows what is going on behind the scenes and I absolutely support his determination to hold the line in the Labour party. I wish him every success in doing so.

Armed Forces Restructuring

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement and for early sight of it, which I appreciate.

Have we not come a long way since the Conservative party said before the last election that they would have a bigger Army for a safer Britain? What happened to, “Put simply, we need to have a larger Army and we need more infantry”? When did that change? It changed when the party entered government; it was a broken promise. There were more broken promises from them even in government. After his Government’s defence review, the Prime Minister said in 2010:

“we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]

Why did that change? Will the Secretary of State accept that this Government have let down the armed forces and their families?

No one underestimates the challenges of reconfiguring our armed forces and at the same time maintaining the British military’s reputation as the best in the world. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the presence in Germany means that there is, of course, a need for an appropriate reduction in personnel across all three armed forces. That is sensible and fair, and we support it. Is it not the case, however, that the Secretary of State is failing to approach this with the strategy required for the good of the country and the sensitivity required for the good of the individuals involved and their families? Let us not forget: this is about people.

The Secretary of State has simply not made a convincing case for further redundancies in the armed forces or for reducing capability at an even quicker rate. Does he accept that there are real concerns that by pressing ahead with these redundancies, the Government are taking risks with Britain’s safety and security? It was clear last year that the required uplift in the number of reserves—the 10,000 new recruits to replace the 30,000 regulars—was not happening at anywhere near the speed required. The Government hardly met a third of their own targets. We said then, as did Members from across the House, that the Government should pause their reductions in Army numbers until it was clear that their reserve recruitment was on track. That is still the case today.

On this specific round of redundancies, will the Defence Secretary tell us how many of them will be compulsory and from which regiments and squadrons the redundancies will be drawn? Does he not agree with me that this is a shocking way to repay the dedicated service that these people have given their country? Is he concerned about a loss of skills, particularly on pinch points, and what is he doing to address the problem? Will he confirm at least that no one will be made redundant in a way that affects their pension entitlement? Is it true that a small number of military personnel have been made redundant just days before they meet a service requirement for a pension to which they are entitled? If that is the case, it is not fair. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support he will give those who are leaving the service and making the transition to civilian life?

The Gurkhas are one of the finest fighting forces in the British Army. Does the Secretary of State accept that they have been affected disproportionately by cuts in the Army? In 2011, more than half the redundancies fell on the Gurkhas, and in the second tranche of redundancies in January 2012, when the rest of the infantry lost only 500 men, they lost 400. Does the Secretary of State think that that is fair? What does he think about the public perception that those redundancies are a result of the increased cost of the Gurkhas following their rightly successful campaign for better pay and conditions?

The sense that I have today is one of amazement. How does the Secretary of State do it? A recruitment campaign started last week amid great fanfare, but was followed a day later by the revelation of an IT crisis that had prevented people from signing up, and now by a parliamentary statement announcing redundancies. If the Secretary of State were a football referee, the crowd—and it would have to be a charitable crowd—would be chanting, “You don’t know what you’re doing”—and they would be right.

The Government are letting down our armed forces and their families, and taking risks with our country’s safety and security. The Secretary of State’s story is one of failure, on procurement, recruitment and redundancies. He is getting it wrong and he knows it, and today’s statement only reinforces that.

[Mr Hammond]

Dear oh dear! Let us start from the beginning. The hon. Gentleman trotted out some well-known lines that he has used before, and I shall respond to them as I have done before.

The hon. Gentleman began by asking when the Government had changed their aspiration to have larger armed forces. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends can help me with that, but I would guess that it was at about the time when Labour was wrecking our economy, and we were recognising that we would have to recalibrate our ambitions in all sorts of areas in order to govern the country responsibly. We understand, above all else, that a strong defence of this country can be built only on a strong economy. We must first repair the damage that Labour has done to our economy and then repair the damage that it has done to our society, after which, hopefully, we shall in due course be able to afford to put more money into our armed forces as our economy and our public finances recover.

The hon. Gentleman said that we had let the armed forces down. I say that it is Labour, through its wrecking of our economy, that has let our armed forces down, as it has let the rest of the country down. As for the hon. Gentleman’s comments on this particular tranche of redundancies, what I hear from him is total confusion. He accepts the need for downsizing and restructuring of the Army, but says that we have not made the case for using the redundancy process to do that. He is talking nonsense. We have set out a structure for our armed forces in “Future Force 2020”. They will be smaller than they have been previously, but, crucially, they will have a different structure, relying on reserves, on civilian support and on contractors in some specialist areas. As a consequence, the redundancy process needs to address the structural imbalance in the Army, taking out areas of capability that we no longer need in our regular forces.

As the hon. Gentleman will understand if he listened to my statement, I cannot tell him in advance what percentage of the redundancies will be compulsory; that will depend on how many people volunteer. However, I have been very upfront with the House. As there will be a significant number of Gurkha redundancies and Gurkhas traditionally do not volunteer for redundancy, and as the fact that 100% of the numbers in some fields of redundancy will be made redundant, giving little incentive to volunteer, we expect the overall percentage of volunteers to be lower in this final round of redundancies than it has been in the past.

The hon. Gentleman made two points about fairness. First, he asked whether I thought it was fair that people approaching their immediate pension point—the point at which they can leave the Army and draw an immediate annual cash pension—should be eligible for redundancy. We have thought very carefully about this over the period of the redundancy programme. The truth is that wherever we draw the line there will be somebody just on the other side of it who feels hard done by, and understandably so, but we concluded that it would be unfair to take into account length of service—proximity to immediate pension point—as a criterion for redundancy and we have stuck to that position throughout all four tranches of redundancy. Given the nature of the fields we are looking at in this tranche, we expect the number of people potentially at risk of redundancy who are within a year of their immediate pension point to be very small compared with previous tranches.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Gurkhas and raised again the question of fairness. He asked explicitly whether the increased cost of Gurkha service was driving these redundancies. The answer is no, but it is the change in their terms and conditions. Previously Gurkhas served under different terms and conditions. The size and level of recruitment to the Brigade of Gurkhas was designed around 15 years of service. We now have to deal with the bulge caused by a change in the terms and conditions so that Gurkhas serve for 22 years. That is a structural challenge in the Brigade of Gurkhas. We have also seen a change to the terms and conditions of service, which no longer provide for Gurkhas to take long periods of leave to return home to Nepal. That was previously covered through an over-manning by about 370 individuals in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which allowed for those periods of extended leave at home that are no longer available now that the terms and conditions of service are standardised across the Army. So what we are seeing here is not an unfairness; we are seeing the consequences of a decision to apply fairly the terms and conditions of service to the Brigade of Gurkhas as they are applied to the rest of the Army.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, and he is right: a big part of getting the reserve recruitment agenda right, and for that matter the reserve retention agenda right, is engagement with employers. Engagement with large employers, including public sector employers, is well advanced, but he is absolutely right to put his finger on the fact that engagement with smaller employers is, first, more difficult and, secondly, crucial to the success of this project. The Defence Reform Bill, which is in the other place, which I am not supposed to call the other place any more—currently, in the House of Lords—

[Vernon Coaker]

Where did that happen?

[Mr Hammond]

In the Procedure Committee, I believe. The Bill contains provisions that will allow us for the first time to pay bounties to small and medium employers when their reservist employees are mobilised. That is not perhaps a differentiator in itself, but it sends an important signal to small and medium employers that we recognise the cost burden that they take on when they allow a member of their staff to become a reservist.

IT Systems (Army Recruitment)

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of Ministry of Defence IT systems and the effect on Army recruitment.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The Army entered into a partnering contract with Capita in March 2012 to manage the recruitment of regular and reserve soldiers. That is an Army-led initiative designed to free up military personnel from recruitment-related administrative tasks and to improve both the quantity and quality of Army recruits. It will play a key role as we transition the Army to the new Army 2020 structures.

I should make it clear to the House that the Army has not outsourced its recruitment; it remains in overall charge of recruitment and will continue to play a major role in attracting and mentoring recruits. Capita’s role is to manage the supporting processes by which a would-be recruit becomes an enlisted regular or a fully trained reservist.

As I have explained to the House previously, there have been initial difficulties with that recruiting process as we transition to the new recruiting arrangements with Capita. In particular, we have encountered difficulties with the IT systems supporting the application and enlistment process. The decision to use the legacy Atlas IT platform was deemed at the time to be the quickest and most cost-effective way of delivering the new recruitment programme. An option to revert to a Capita hosting solution was included in the contracts as a back-up solution.

I was made aware in the summer of last year that the Army was encountering problems with the integration of the Capita system into the Atlas platform. Since then we have put in place a number of workarounds and mitigation measures for the old IT platform to simplify the application process, and we have reintroduced military personnel to provide manual intervention to support the process.

Having visited the Army’s recruitment centre in Upavon on 30 October, it became clear to me that, despite the Army putting in place measures to mitigate those problems in the near term, further long-term action was needed to fix the situation. It was agreed in principle at that point that the Atlas system was not capable of timely delivery of the Capita-run programme and that we would need to take up the option of reverting to Capita building a new IT platform specifically to run its system, which will be ready early next year.

In the short term, we have already taken action to bring in a range of initiatives that will make it progressively easier and quicker for applicants, both regular and reserve, to enlist. As I informed the House in December, we have taken a number of actions, including: the introduction this month of a new front-end web application for Army recruitment; a simplified online application form; more streamlined medical clearance processes; greater mentoring of recruits by local reserve units through the application, enlistment and training process; and the reintroduction of reserve unit recruitment targets and the provision of recruitment resource to reserve unit commanding officers. With an improved Army recruitment website, streamlined medicals and an increase in the number of recruiting staff, recruits should see a much-improved experience by the end of this month.

As we move forward, we are looking at further ways of improving the management of the recruiting process in the intervening period before the introduction of the advanced IT system now being developed in partnership with Capita, which is expected to be deployed in February 2015. We have just launched a new recruitment drive for the Army, both regular and reserve, which will remind the House and the public that the Army is always recruiting and continues to offer exciting and rewarding careers in both the regular and reserve forces.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that statement.

In these first few weeks of 2014 there is no danger of auld acquaintance being forgot with this Secretary of State and Government. It may be a new year, but is it not the same old story of complacency, inefficiency and a lack of transparency at the Ministry of Defence? Here we go again. The Secretary of State has been forced to come to the House of Commons to try to explain catastrophic failures costing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. This time it is an IT fiasco. It did not have to be like this.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that many in this House, myself included, warned that the Government were taking risks with Britain’s security by not fixing the reserve recruitment crisis before reducing numbers in the regular Army, and now we have the IT debacle? Does he accept that, just like the mess the Government made of privatising procurement, his entire armed forces reform programme is in danger of collapsing, too?

I asked the Defence Secretary specifically about the IT problems and Capita on the Floor of the House on 20 November 2013. Did he not say that everything was in hand? It is clear that the computer said no, but the Defence Secretary said, no problem.

Does the Defence Secretary remember telling the House on 4 November 2013 that there had merely been “teething problems” with the IT support for Army recruitment? If today’s reports are accurate, I would advise the Defence Secretary to seek dental advice elsewhere, because today we have learned that the problems are even worse than anyone thought and still have not been fixed.

Will the Defence Secretary tell the House which Minister signed off the deal and who has been responsible for monitoring it? Will he confirm that the project, costing £1.3 billion, is almost two years behind schedule and will not be fully operational until April 2015 at the earliest?

The Future Reserves 2020 report, placed in the Library on 18 December—I am sure it was only a coincidence that that was the day on which the House rose for the Christmas break—confirms that an improved IT system will be developed in partnership with Capita. Will the Secretary of State confirm how much that will cost? Is it the figure of nearly £50 million that has been reported in the papers today?

Will the Secretary of State also confirm that £15.5 million has been spent building the existing flawed computer system behind the project? Finally, is it correct that this continuing disaster is costing taxpayers £1 million every month?

On 10 April 2013, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said that

“the Recruiting Partnering Project with Capita…will lead to a significant increase in recruiting performance.”—[Official Report, 10 April 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1134W.]

Is there any Member of this House, any member of our armed forces or, indeed, any member of the British public who still believes that?

The blame for the mess we are now in lies squarely with the Government. We cannot take risks with our armed forces and we cannot gamble with our nation’s safety and security. Does the Defence Secretary not need to get a grip and sort out this shambles?

[Mr Hammond]

That is precisely what I am doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remind himself that the initial gate business case for this project to outsource recruiting was approved in July 2008, so I hope we are not in dispute over the principle.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned an IT debacle. Yes, there are big problems with the IT and I have told the House on repeated occasions that we have IT challenges. There are problems with IT in Government. The hon. Gentleman speaks as if he was not a member of the Government who spent £13 billion on a health computer system that we had to write off and £400 million on a work and pensions computer system that had to be written off.

What we are doing now is gripping this problem and addressing it. That means, in the short term, workarounds and putting additional manpower into the system to provide additional support. Short-term solutions include the new front-end web application, which will go live over the next two weeks, to improve the experience of applicants accessing the platform.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs and I can give him some figures. The Capita solution will cost about £47.7 million to produce a full new IT platform. The alternative Atlas IT platform proposal would have cost about £43 million, so the additional cost of the Capita solution is about £4.5 million. He asked about the £15.5 million of sunk cost. Our initial estimate is that about £6.7 million of that represents costs that will have to be written off, but that will be subject to a proper audit process.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional cost—the running cost, as it were—of the interim solution that we have put in place. It comprises additional payments that have to be made and the cost of the additional manpower that has been delivered into the system. That is currently running at about £1 million per month. The solution that we have adopted and that we have now approved—going ahead with Capita platform and placing the integration risk back on Capita—is judged to be the quickest way of eliminating that ongoing expenditure and the best way of delivering a permanent solution for the benefit of the Army and the taxpayer.

Defence Procurement

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance and early sight of his statement.

For the second time in a few weeks the Secretary of State has been forced to come to the House to explain and clarify, and reassure Members about, key components of his Defence Reform Bill, which will be read for a Second time later today in the other place. This is the statement that the Defence Secretary did not want to make and did not think he would have to make. His flagship policy on defence procurement has come crashing down around him—not so much GoCo or DE&S plus, but a no-go and D-minus for the Defence Secretary. It is another embarrassing U-turn from the Government.

Will the Defence Secretary tell us when he decided that he could no longer proceed with plans for a Government-owned, contractor-operated model for Britain’s defence procurement? It is three weeks since the Portfield consortium withdrew from the GoCo process. Why has it taken so long for the Government to bow to the inevitable and admit the difficulty of proceeding with only one bidder?

The Secretary of State is in danger of making a bad situation worse by what he has announced today. The Government cannot run Britain’s defence and national security on an ad hoc basis. They cannot make it up as they go along. But is it not clear today that that is exactly what the Government and the Defence Secretary are doing? Why is this the first time that we have heard of this new proposal? What consultation has he had on his new proposed model? When and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise these proposals? What resources did he allocate, and when did he allocate them, to ensure the expertise and time to test the model for robustness and make sure it was properly costed and tested for viability and sustainability? When he talks about new freedoms and flexibilities, what exactly does he mean? What was the process for appointing the chief executive of the new trading entity? Can he update us on what discussions he has had with the Treasury about his new proposal and when they began? This is a mess, and it poses more questions than it gives answers.

Does the Secretary of State really expect the House and the country to think that this is anything other than a last-ditch attempt to rescue what is left of the Government’s credibility, and to try and hide the shambles and chaos that are engulfing the Ministry of Defence? The House need not take my word for that. Last Thursday, Lord Levene published his second annual review on the implementation of his defence reform report. The Secretary of State heralded it as a triumph for his political leadership. But can he explain why he failed to mention one significant part of what the report said about the issue of procurement? Lord Levene said:

“In my opinion, the quickest and most straightforward solution would seem to be via ‘DE&S plus’, and this needs to be developed to the very highest standards as a realistic option.”

Does the Secretary of State now agree with Lord Levene? He says that GoCo is a potential future solution. Is it on the table or off the table? Which is it? What will be the repercussions for part 1 of the Defence Reform Bill?

The Opposition support a DE&S plus model and have expressed similar sentiments on the record to Lord Levene. We were, and are, conscious of the need to reform Britain’s defence procurement. We want the best of the private sector to work alongside the best of the public sector, but we need to see more detail on the proposed DE&S plus model. To date, it has been the poor relation in the whole process. When will the Secretary of State provide that detail? Will he accept that throughout the Committee stage of the Bill we consistently raised poor management of the process and serious concerns about viability? Will he accept that it was wrong for Ministers to continue to insist that everything was fine when it clearly was not? That complacency and unwillingness to listen has cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. We have been here before with the debacle over the aircraft carriers. Despite his waste and complacency, he repeats the £38 billion figure, which has never stood up to scrutiny.

Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much this has all cost and what further costs are envisaged? What discussions has he had with the remaining consortium, led by Bechtel, before making today’s statement, and what is its position? Is it eligible for compensation? What discussions has he had with his senior civil servants and the staff at Abbey Wood, who today must be feeling undervalued and demoralised, having seen colleagues made redundant because they were not needed, only for them to be re-employed as agency workers?

The Government could have pulled back from the brink. They could have taken the advice of distinguished military figures, senior figures from the defence industry, former Ministers from across the political spectrum and, yes, the Opposition. How and why did the Government get it so wrong? Given that, how can we have any confidence in the credibility, rigour and independent analysis that the Defence Secretary claims for his updated proposals? Is it not the case that the Government have wasted three years and millions of pounds in time and money? The Secretary of State must come forward with plans that stand up to scrutiny and are made clearly, concisely and rationally. Only then can we ensure the best way forward for much-needed reforms to defence procurement.

[Mr Hammond]

That was predictable stuff. The hon. Gentleman claims that we have wasted three years. When it comes to reforming defence procurement, his lot are responsible for wasting 13 years. If I can give him a bit of friendly advice, I would be very careful about using the words “debacle” and “aircraft carrier” in the same sentence if I was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Let us remember that it was his Government who, by delaying the programme for two years to manage an in-year cash-flow crisis, drove £1.6 billion of cost into it.

The hon. Gentleman tells us that the Opposition support the DE&S plus model, but until now they have supported the competition, which is exactly what we propose to do. The former Labour Defence Secretary, John Hutton, said:

“It is time for a radical rethink that can align the necessary project-management skills with the right performance incentives...This is precisely what the GOCO concept…can offer and why the British government would be well advised to pursue it.”

The former shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) said:

“There needs to be rigorous examination of all the possible options and a robust comparison between the two options of a GoCo model and DE&S+…we will support what we hope is a genuine competition.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 53-54.]

That is what we have conducted and the hon. Gentleman is standing at the Dispatch Box complaining about it.

The hon. Gentleman tells me that this is the statement I did not want to make. Well, he gets the prize—of course it is the statement I did not want to make. I hoped that we would find a wide field of GoCo competitors able to engage with the process of delivering a value for money proposition to the taxpayer, but let me tell him how it works. The Opposition can stand on the sidelines slinging mud and insults, but the Government have to deal with the situation as it exists in the real world. We have to take the situation as we find it and manage the risks. [Interruption.]

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I hesitate to follow the peroration of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Defence Committee, but as always, we were informed by his remarks. I know that whatever his view on the amendments before us, his suggestion of a national debate and conversation about how to change the culture with respect to the reserves and to drive it forward in a national effort is one well made, and I think the whole House agrees with him.

I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the former Secretary of State for Defence, for his contribution. He had all of us listening. Bringing his knowledge to the debate was worth while. He managed to lay to rest some of the Aunt Sallies that are being held up with respect to new clause 3.

I have heard people talk about the involvement of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) with the reserves. He has achieved something that very few of us have managed to do, even with our own Governments—he has brought forward and had accepted an amendment to a Government Bill, and I congratulate him on that. He will disagree with my remarks on new clause 3, but we all recognise that new clause 1 will be an improvement. [Interruption.] He has heard what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said about his previous voting record, but his conversion on this matter is welcome. The fact that the Government have accepted his new clause is a good thing and will improve the Bill.

Let me explain to the House why we will support new clause 3 and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), why we have tabled some similar amendments, such as new clause 4, and why we have supported similar motions before. As the Secretary of State will realise from the tone of the debate, this House, including Her Majesty’s Opposition, will always put Britain’s security and national interest first. One of the first things I said when I was appointed shadow Defence Secretary was that when I thought the Government were doing the right thing on defence, I would work with them in a constructive and reasonable manner, and that is what the shadow Front-Bench team and I have done throughout the passage of this Bill. To be fair, the tone of the debate, notwithstanding the disagreements that exist between Members on both sides of the House, is one of reasonableness and constructiveness. We have been debating the best way forward with respect to these reforms and the proper defence of our country.

I am sorry to have to say to the Secretary of State that he should not try to turn the debate into a party political row. It is disappointing and unnecessary. Contrary to what he said, we have raised this issue in parliamentary questions, in Committee and, as recently as last month, on the Floor of the House, when we passed a vote to approve a motion almost identical to the new clause. Importantly, the Secretary of State knows that we are not calling for the reforms to be reversed. He knows that we are not saying the reforms should be shelved. Like Members on both sides of the House, we want to see an enlarged reserve force with an enhanced and more heavily integrated role alongside regular forces.

Let me once again praise and pledge my support, and that of the House, for our armed forces and the work they do. What we need is evidence that the reforms are progressing as planned and promised, and we are trying to get the Defence Secretary to take more responsibility for that. There is clearly an issue about viability. All signs coming from the MOD suggest that the plan has, to some extent, fallen off course. Members of the armed forces and of this House have justifiably and sincerely held concerns, and the Secretary of State has exacerbated those by his response to some of the concerns.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I recognise some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but does he not see that this is a long-term project? By accepting the substance of new clause 1, what we have put in place is a mechanism by which an annual independent report will be laid before Parliament and, we fully expect, give rise to a debate. That will allow the progress of this programme to be tracked over many years. New clause 3 would create a one-off hurdle, that sends a negative signal now. That is not an equivalent provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State should have the confidence to put his reforms before Parliament. Is it not reasonable, when the Secretary of State and the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that they will publish recruitment figures for the reserves, that they should do so?

On 16 July, the Secretary of State told the House:

“I will be transparent about recruitment and trained-strength targets.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 958.]

Last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), told the Committee:

“We intend to publish the figure for the quarter to 1 October next month.”––[Official Report, Defence Reform Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2013; c. 434.]

That was due last week. As we have since found out, that has not happened and will not happen until next year. Why? The UK Statistics Authority states that the Government’s figures are not robust enough so there must be some delay in their production.

We do know that the overall trained strength of the armed forces reserve has fallen by 160 since last year and that time is slipping away, with the Secretary of State’s own 2018 target less than five years away. The last figures that were published showed that the Government were failing even to reach a quarter of the number of reservists they said they needed to recruit to meet their own targets.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Let me clarify. The statistics that were published last week were on trained strength and on recruitment into the reserves. Those are the statistics for which the national statistician is responsible. She has indicated on her website that she intends to publish further data series once she is confident of their robustness. Separately, I have undertaken to publish for the House the targets to which we are working and I will do so before the end of the year.

[Vernon Coaker]

The whole House will be pleased to hear what the Defence Secretary has said. He said in his answer—I think I am quoting him, and Hansard will show whether I am correct or not—that the Statistics Authority had some doubt about the robustness of the Ministry of Defence’s figures and that once that robustness is sorted out, those figures will be published. That is my point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the figure for applications, not for enlistments or trained strength.

[Vernon Coaker]

It all needs clarification, which is my point. It is interesting that when we have a debate such as this, when the Secretary of State is feeling under pressure, we see amendments being accepted and more information being brought before the House. It is good that he is saying how he will publish this and how he will respond to that, but we now know that some robustness is lacking from the Government’s figures. That situation will no doubt be corrected much more quickly than it would have been before.

[Vernon Coaker]

We think that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, although it is welcome, does not go far enough. That is why we support new clause 3.

When the Defence Secretary responds to the debate, I think the House would like to know a little more about what negotiations are going on with Capita, which is running the recruitment programme for the Defence Secretary. What are the problems? Will the IT issues be resolved soon? Are there any other issues? He will know that various rumours are circulating about the problems with regard to Capita and I think it would help the whole House to know where we are with those negotiations, what the Secretary of State intends to do about them and whether there are any penalty clauses for Capita should it continue not to perform as the Secretary of State and the House would expect.

New clause 3 does not call for a reversal of the cuts to the regular forces, despite some of the accusations from those on the Government Front Bench. We support it precisely because we want the Government to prove that their plans are both cost-effective and viable. For that reason, we deem it reasonable that both Houses of Parliament should scrutinise and approve a report that assesses the viability and cost-effectiveness of the reforms.

It used to be the policy of this Government that regular forces would only be reduced contingent on the required increase in reserve recruitment—

[Mr Philip Hammond]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

I will give way in a moment. We are clear that reductions to the Regular Army must take place only at a pace that allows adequate uplift in the reserves to meet the shortfall.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has half answered what I was about to ask him. Is he making a commitment to retain Regular Army strength at a higher level than the 82,000 funded into the future? If so, how will he meet the £1 billion a year cost of doing that?

[Vernon Coaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is flying another kite. I am not making that commitment at all. We support the thrust of the reforms to the Regular Army and the uplift in reserves, but new clause 3 seeks to obtain a proper understanding of whether the reform is working, whether it is saving money, whether it is offering value for money and what is happening with the recruitment targets. We need much more clarity and openness about all those things. The Defence Secretary can say that these are spending pledges or things we do not know. He can attack the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay for not properly understanding the reform. However, he needs to address what is being said rather than what he thinks we are saying, and that is the whole point.

We talk about allowing adequate uplift in the reserves to meet the shortfall, and we heard from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). He remarked only last month:

“When I was secretary of state, I said we would only decrease the numbers of regulars when we had guarantees that we would be able to get the numbers—training and equipping up of the reserves—to match.”

Members of the armed forces and of this House deserve to know from the Defence Secretary when that policy changed and why.

We support new clause 3 because we want the Defence Secretary to take more responsibility for these reforms. We consider it better to pause until the MOD has managed to get recruitment back on track as a plan accepted by Parliament than to be forced to ditch the entire reform a few years down the line when it is clear that it is not working. A pause before progressing the reforms would give him time to fix the problems, to provide us with the figures, to prove his plan is cost-effective and to show that he can meet the time frame he has set.

Aircraft Carriers and UK Shipbuilding

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in providing me with early sight of his statement. It is with a heavy heart that I, and I think all Members, listened to what he had to say. However, it was important that he came to the House today, and I am glad that he did so. Let me say at the outset that when the Government do the right thing on defence, especially when difficult decisions need to be taken, they will have our support. We will always say and do what we believe to be in the interests of Britain and its people. These are complicated and detailed matters, and it will take some time to examine the consequences of today’s announcements by BAE Systems and the Government.

The Secretary of State focused today on the aircraft carrier programme. May I remind him that his party supported that programme? From what he was saying, that might have been difficult to believe. He also talked about the start of the Type 26 programme and the interim work. I will return to those subjects in a moment.

My first thoughts, and those of all hon. Members, are with the employees who are facing job losses today, and with their families and the communities in which they live. Britain’s shipbuilders are the best in the world. They have proved that over decades and even centuries, and this is a difficult day for all those people who take pride in our maritime prowess and the history of our nation. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising those who give such great and dedicated service to our country?

What discussions has the Defence Secretary’s Department had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about providing support to ensure that the unique abilities of our skilled work force, particularly in Portsmouth, are not lost? I do not mean over the last week or a number of days; I mean over the last three and a half years of this Government. It seems to me that it is only since news of the potential job losses were leaked out that the Government have given any thought to this matter. In fact, in February 2012, the White Paper, “National Security Through Technology”, said that the MOD

“does not consider wider employment, industrial, or economic factors in its value-for-money assessments.”

Does the right hon. Gentleman still agree with that statement?

Will the Defence Secretary join me in praising the role of the trade unions which have worked closely with the company and have approached these very serious issues with maturity and shown leadership in representing their members across the whole of this United Kingdom? Will he confirm that the Government need to use this opportunity to set out a clearer path to help the UK-based defence industry play its part in modernising both our industrial base and our equipment programme? Does he agree that a strong UK defence industry can be both responsive to the changing threats we face, as well as part of a vibrant, advanced and high-skilled private sector, stimulating jobs and growth?

The Secretary of State made much of his repeated claim that the Government inherited a £38 billion black hole. That figure does not stand up to scrutiny. He has never explained how he got to that figure and it has never been accepted by any credible organisation, including the National Audit Office, which said it was impossible to arrive at such a figure. Can he tell us how he arrived at that figure and what assumptions he used to produce it?

On the aircraft carriers, the Secretary of State has trumpeted the new agreement to split 50:50 with the industry any overrun on the target cost. Will he confirm that any new changes by the MOD, such as the debacle over the “cats and traps” for fighter jets, which were changed and changed back again—the right hon. Gentleman now says it wasted only £62 million—will be fully met by the MOD? The fact that future costs will be split 50:50 is welcome. Most of the risk has already passed, as evidenced by the fact that the anticipated cost of the programme has almost doubled. And, of course, the 50% that the Government will meet still runs to hundreds of millions of pounds. It does not take an accountant to work out that 50% of £800 million—the reported rise in costs this week—is a lot of money for the taxpayer. Will he confirm that he expects no further rises in the cost of the aircraft carriers?

The cost of the restructuring that has been outlined will be borne by the Ministry of Defence. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much that will be and how it will be paid for?

We welcome the fact that skills will be maintained by the development and construction of the three offshore patrol vessels announced by the Defence Secretary today. Will he give a little more detail about how much these will cost, and will he outline what plans he now has for the second aircraft carrier and whether it is his intention to mothball it?

There has been a lot of conjecture about the role that the politics of the Scottish referendum played in the decision to keep shipbuilding in Govan. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as I and everyone else believe, that today’s decisions were taken on the basis of what is in Britain’s best interests and what will sustain the skills of the work force, thus maintaining the future of our shipbuilding industry and our country’s defence? Will he outline what safeguards are in place if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom? None of us wants to see that, but we need to know what plans he has for all eventualities. We must retain a sovereign shipbuilding capability for this country.

Finally, will the Defence Secretary join me in saying that whatever the difficulties we experience, this country is a proud maritime nation? We have a proud, dedicated Navy, serviced by a proud, dedicated shipbuilding work force. We must maintain that across the United Kingdom, and retain the ability to build the warships we will need to defend our island, protect our interests across the world and keep us secure. That is both a task and a duty for us all.

[Mr Hammond]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s measured tone and I join him in congratulating once again the work forces on the Clyde and in Portsmouth on the excellent naval vessels that have been built for the Royal Navy over the last few years, including the carrier that remains in build.

I know the hon. Gentleman is new to his post, but he is really going to have to check some of the history before he starts making sweeping statements. He tells me that when the carrier programme was announced, the cost was £3.6 billion. Almost as soon as it had been announced, the then Secretary of State announced a two-year delay, which the National Audit Office says drove a further £1.6 billion into the cost of the carrier. The largest single element of cost increase in this programme was a deliberate act by the then Labour Government to delay the project by two years.

The hon. Gentleman asks me when we first engaged with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the challenges of maintaining a skilled work force. He suggests that that has happened only in the last few days. I can tell him that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is in his place on the Front Bench, sat down a year ago to discuss this subject and has been in discussions with the local authorities in the area for at least a year over how to deal with the challenges that these inevitable changes present.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the union response. I look forward to seeing the union response in full. I understand that, so far, the unions at national level have been constructively engaged with what they understand is an effort to save the shipbuilding industry in the UK. They recognise that the level of employment in naval shipbuilding represented a surge around the carrier project that was never going to be sustainable in the long term. The challenge now is to protect the skills base as we downsize the industry.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the £38 billion black hole. We could have a very long conversation about that, but put simply, it is the difference between the projected budget available and the commitments that the previous Government had announced. I have set that out in detail. Because the hon. Gentleman is new to his post, I would be happy to write to him and set it out again for his benefit. I would be happy to discuss it with him at any time in the future.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the consequences of the STOVL—short take-off and vertical landing—reversion. If we were to change the specification in the future, the MOD as the customer would, of course, have to accept the consequences, but we are confident that the design of the aircraft carriers is now mature. The mistake made in 2008—it was a small one—was that the contract was placed before the ship had been designed. Unfortunately—I kid my hon. Friends not—anybody who has ever tried to place a contract to build a house before the house has been designed will know that that is a licence to print money for the contractor.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether I can guarantee that there will be no further rises on the £6.2 billion price. Of course I cannot give him an absolute guarantee, but I can tell him that with every pound of additional cost being shared as 50p for the Government and 50p for the contractors, we will at least have the contractor’s serious attention to try to maintain control over the project—something that we did not have under the contract construct that the last Labour Government left us.

The hon. Gentleman asks how we have paid for the additional costs. If he had been paying attention to the statement, he would know that I told him that the full costs announced today were provided in the balanced budget equipment programme that I announced in May 2012.

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are acting as the Government of the United Kingdom in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, looking at where best to deliver Britain’s warship building capability in the United Kingdom in order to make it sustainable and cost-effective in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Unfortunately, I am not his “learned Friend”: I am used to being called an accountant, but not a lawyer. I can reassure him that a variety of measures are in place to incentivise recruitment to the reserves; in particular, a bonus to attract those leaving the regular Army into volunteer reserve service has proved very successful, with significant upturn in the translation rate over the past few months. There will be a range of further incentive measures that we can introduce as and when it is necessary in order to deliver the targets which I shall publish shortly.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks, which I greatly appreciate. We will, of course, work with him where appropriate. I welcome to her post my Nottinghamshire colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who I understand is the first woman Defence Minister in the House of Commons, which is a great credit to her.

The Government need to explain to the House and the country today what is happening with their programme of reform to the armed forces. I declare an interest, as my soon-to-be son-in-law serves in the Territorial Army. A recent high-level memo from the Ministry of Defence states clearly that there are clear problems and worries over Army reform and that recruitment targets are likely to be missed. That has caused senior military figures, Members of the House and the armed forces community to raise serious concerns. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the nation’s security will not be compromised and that a reduction in the regular Army will take place only if adequate uplift in the reserves is achieved?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. The memo from which he quoted did not say what he claimed it said. It said that in the absence of any action to stimulate recruitment we would face a very difficult challenge. We are now taking precisely that action. The hon. Gentleman may have seen an article that came from an interview with the Chief of the Defence Staff, in which he made it clear that he was very confident that we will deliver these numbers. I share that confidence.

[Vernon Coaker]

We look forward to the Defence Secretary publishing that memo so that we can all see what it actually said. Is not the problem one of credibility? The Government cannot get their figures right. Just today, we learned that the cost of new aircraft carriers has increased by £800 million to £6.2 billion. That is after the £100 million wasted last year on reversing the decision on fighter jets. A few months ago, the Defence Secretary told us he had balanced the books at the MOD, and then just a few weeks ago we were told that there was an £1.8 billion underspend. How can the British public have confidence that the Government will meet their target for recruitment to the reserves when they have got so much else wrong? When will the Defence Secretary take some responsibility and stop blaming everyone else but himself?

[Mr Hammond]

With that last remark, the hon. Gentleman has probably pre-empted my response. If I were him, I would tread a little more carefully around the issue of the cost of the aircraft carriers—until he hears, in due course, what precisely we have done. A huge amount of work is going on across the Army around the reserves recruitment initiative. There are many different strands to this work. I have made a commitment in the past, which I will repeat today, to be as transparent as possible with Parliament as this campaign gets under way. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that we are just five weeks into a five-year campaign to halt and reverse the attrition in our reserves that the previous Government oversaw.

Winter Weather

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do believe there is such a thing as an irresponsible strike.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to Mr Quarmby, will he make sure that his review looks not only at strategic routes but at the gritting of local and side roads? Last winter, many of my constituents were trapped in their homes. They were told that that was because the emphasis was on main routes. If they live on hills, for instance, they cannot get out of their homes. Local roads and side roads—and pavements as well—are just as important as some of the big strategic routes.

[Mr Hammond]

I wonder about the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to localism. David Quarmby will be looking at the performance of local authorities, but it is for local authorities to decide on their gritting plan, and most local authorities will not choose to grit every residential side road and every footway. That is a decision for them, and it is for local communities to hold local authorities to account for those decisions. Our job is to make sure that local authorities are doing what they are committed to do on the strategic road network.