Armed Forces Pay

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing the motion before the House.

In the short time that I have been the Defence spokesperson for my party, it has become abundantly clear that the Secretary of State—who, unfortunately, is leaving us at this moment—is not so much running a Department as presiding over a shambles with, I believe, the fourth-biggest spend in Whitehall. You have to hand it to Ministers, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it takes some brass neck to come to this House time and time again and seek to portray this team as in command of its ship, when the reality is that when you lift that thin veil, the chaos and the haemorrhaging of money is there for all to see, and it is like nothing I have seen in the two and a half years that I have been a Member of this House.

On the issue of pay and the broader issue of terms and conditions, I wish to bring the House’s attention to a piece of work that will be led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—a commission set up by my party to review what offer we think should be made to members of the armed forces. That will look in detail at the issues of pay, pensions, a trade union or representative body—which was mentioned today and in a previous debate this week—and, of course, housing and homes for veterans and their families.

On the pay cap, it should be noted that the Scottish Government were the first Government anywhere in the UK to commit to lifting the 1% pay cap right across the public sector. We believe that it is the very least that workers in uniform—be they nurses, police officers or those who protect us in the armed services—truly deserve. The pay freeze—which, as has been mentioned, is in reality a cut to their wages—is one of the many, many components making up the crisis in recruitment and retention. Inflation has pushed the cost of living up for everyone, meaning that their take-home salary is being stretched like never before. For too many, there is too much month at the end of their money.

Let me just adumbrate for Ministers, with inflation sitting at 3%, what that means. If your base pay is £21,000 you receive £21,210 after your 1% rise. When you account for inflation, Madam Deputy Speaker, it leads to a real wage loss of £420. So how Ministers and Government Back Benchers can come to this House and participate in the inevitable crescendo of backslapping and chest thumping, claiming to be the party that backs the armed forces—no doubt we have a couple of hours of that to go—is beyond me. I would be embarrassed to defend this Government’s record on armed forces pay.

Having outlined—[Interruption.] I shall come to the nuclear deterrent; I am glad that the Whip, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), mentions it from a sedentary position. Having outlined, as many speakers no doubt will, the bravery and sacrifice that those in our armed forces display, and what they are asked to live with, it would take some nerve to do anything other than support the Opposition motion and offer my party’s support for it. But there is a deeper, more fundamental issue that we cannot ignore, and that is how this Government and previous Governments have chosen to spend money defending the nation, which brings me to the Government Whip’s point.

There are certainly many arguments against Trident, and I have had very honest disagreement with those who support Trident. The cost is certainly one argument against it. The drain that the cost puts on our ability to defend ourselves is, I believe, unsustainable, and more and more people in the defence community are realising that.

Let us put that cost in context. The Government’s own figure for Trident is £31 billion, so if we take a starter Army officer’s salary of £26,000, it equates to over 1.1 million new staff officers. Clearly we do not need that many, but when the picture is laid out in those terms, against a backdrop of a recruitment crisis, broken manifesto pledges on the size of the army, and forces numbers at their lowest since King George III was on the throne—since Arthur Onslow was the Speaker of the House of Commons—it puts the draining cost of Trident on our conventional capabilities into some perspective. And that is before we even get to the £100 million of efficiency savings that commanders have been asked to make in addition to cuts to already threadbare budgets for training, for maintenance, for accommodation and for travel.

I want to return to those numbers: 82,000 was the commitment made by the Conservatives in their manifesto. It was their pledge, not mine, and it was not one number—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman completely leaves Trident behind, is he aware that the Defence Committee recently took evidence from a group of senior academics who told us that it would be wrong to assume now that North Korea is incapable of reaching the United Kingdom with a thermonuclear warhead? In other words, they think that the North Koreans are already there, or extremely close to it. Given the unstable nature of the North Korean regime, is not that a very strong argument for retaining our own independent nuclear deterrent to deter whatever those in Pyongyang might think?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

No, because it is obviously not deterring anyone, given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Perhaps I can offer some information about deterrence. Some of the real, tangible threats that we face, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been faced by people such as my brother, who is a reservist, so not even a regular member of the armed forces—some Members of the House know him. Investing in the people at the frontline is more important than Trident, which is sitting in Faslane and doing nothing but gathering dust.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am trying to resist having a debate on Trident and to stick to the issue at hand. Of course the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) can quote academics who are in favour of Trident, just as Members on my side of the debate can quote academics who are against it. We would be more than happy to debate another motion on that.

The Conservative party’s manifesto set out a commitment to 82,000 for the size of the Army, and not one number below that. We know that the Government have failed to meet that commitment, as the number has fallen to 78,010, which is a shortfall of 3,990 fully trained troops. As if that was not bad enough, just five months ago, when pressed on the numbers at the Royal United Services Institute’s land warfare conference, the Secretary of State had nothing to offer in response but obfuscation, which is deeply concerning when we consider how that prejudices our ability to field a short-notice, war-fighting division of 40,000 troops, which is seen as absolutely critical by our allies.

On recruitment, the Government clearly do not see the issue with their reputation as an employer. They have increased spending on advertising by 50%, yet the numbers keep sinking.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, and I praise the work that his hon. Friend’s brother does in the Army Reserve. We are one Army and all the same, whether reservists or full-time regulars. That is how it was when I served and how it always should be. One area where we are desperately short and struggling to recruit is the Scottish infantry regiments, which is unusual. Has he any idea why people in Scotland do not want to join the infantry? Might it be that they are frightened they would be dragged out of the British Army and into an independent Scottish Army?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am up for a debate on Trident or independence. I do have some respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him for his service. I recall him appearing before the Transport Committee when he was a Minister, so I know that he is a thoughtful Member of the House. To answer his question bluntly, no, the threat of independence is not what is putting off potential recruits. If he stays for the rest of the debate and listens to what other Members have to say, he will realise that there are serious things that are putting people off. I say that not because I want to have a bun fight across the Chamber, but because we want to see that sorted. Even if Scotland became independent tomorrow, it would still be in our interests for England to have a strong Army. I am not interested in having a constitutional bun fight, but I will allow him to intervene again.

[Sir Mike Penning]

That is not my intention either. I was the Armed Forces Minister before my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) took over the role—he is doing a fantastic job, because he has much more experience in the Army than I ever had. The point I was trying to make is that the English regiments have always been augmented by Scottish troops, particularly in the infantry—the corps are full of Scots and Welsh, but particularly Scots—but now the Scottish infantry regiments will be augmented by English recruits. I have no problem with that, but it is interesting, and it is not just about pay; it is very often about the package. I will stay for the debate and I will speak, probably for about seven minutes.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I look forward, as always, to hearing his contribution. To be fair to Members on the Opposition Benches, I do not think that anyone has said that this is just about pay. In fact, we had a very thorough debate earlier this week on flexible working, when many other issues were also addressed. I see that his colleague, the hon. Member for Burton, is nodding in agreement. [Interruption.] I understand what the motion is about. He is shouting from a sedentary position, but if he allows me to make a little more progress, perhaps he will hear what else I have to say on what might be stopping Scottish people joining the armed forces.

Colonel Kemp, who took command of UK forces in Afghanistan in 2003, has criticised the Government’s reliance on outsourcing with Capita, which in 2012 took over regular and reservist Army recruitment in a contract valued at around £44 million over 10 years. That seemed to cause a bit of a bun fight across the two Front Benches. I ask Government Members, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Burton, who seems determined to shout me down at every turn, why will they not heed the advice of a report part-authored by one of their own colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, which recommended in July this year that the Government should accelerate work on an alternative to the Capita contract? That thoughtful recommendation, which we support, was set out in a report part-authored by a Government Member.

I want briefly to mention pensions, because that is another area. I note that the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has now left the Chamber, having asked me to talk about other areas, which is a shame. It is well known that the Ministry of Defence is working on a new joiners offer, which I would like to hear more about. On pensions, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the Ministry is working on new joiners’ offer arrangements. If so, how does that square with the promise, given a few years ago, that pension arrangements were safe for 25 years? Will any new scheme apply only to those joining after a particular date, or will the cut be retrospectively applied to those currently serving?

[Mark Lancaster]

The clue is in the title. It is called a new joiners’ offer.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am glad that the Minister has cleared that up for me.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

There is clearly a lack of consensus across the House, at least between the Government Benches and these Benches. Would the armed forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not be better served by consensus, as we see in countries such as Denmark, where there is trade union representation for members of the armed forces, and where pay, housing and health are part of a consensual approach, and not just by Government but by those serving, through their trade union membership?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a thoughtful point, and I noted Government Members shaking their heads in disagreement. In the Netherlands they have not just one trade union, but four. I do not see what the Government would have to fear from a trade union, or certainly from a body similar to the Police Federation, which could stand up for members of the armed forces when discussing these matters.

In conclusion, when all these issues are considered in the round, added to the huge number of issues faced by armed forces and veterans families, I hope that the chest thumping and backslapping that we normally see in such debates will give way to something of a lento and a decrescendo, so that a sober reflection is what drives Members in their contributions and voting this afternoon. The Ministry of Defence must urgently bring back some decency and honour to the way it treats our armed forces and veterans communities.

Defence—proper defence—cannot be bought on the cheap. That is as true of equipment and platforms as it is of the people we ask to defend us every single day. A career in the forces should be something not only that people are proud to pursue, but that the Government can offer with pride, but they cannot do so seriously if they continue to preside over wage cuts for those who protect us every day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

I reflect on the values and standards that I was taught in the service. A fundamental one was the notion that credible leadership is derived from serving others and serving the interests particularly of those we lead. This House could demonstrate its leadership and its credibility in the leadership of our armed forces by ensuring that our service personnel have the adequate remuneration that reflects the nature of their service and dedication to our country. Only 33% of service personnel are satisfied with the basic rate of pay, so it is clear that there is dissatisfaction. It is a rather ill-observed point that, just because pay is not the primary driver of someone’s behaviour and career development, it is not important and not worthy of discussion in this House. It is, in fact, very worthy of discussion in this House, and I repudiate those sentiments utterly.

It has been mentioned that the X factor of incremental pay reflects the antisocial nature of the career of regular forces and that it makes up for the fall-off and restraint on pay. But it does not; only a quarter of the personnel surveyed think that it is sufficient compensation for the disruption it causes in their lives. A key thing to bear in mind is that the X factor is not much of an X factor at all.

An interesting observation about service pay that has been made across the House is that service in the armed forces provides a great opportunity for career development, particularly for young people. One of the great advantages of joining the armed forces is that the lower increment for minimum wage does not apply. It would be great if the Scottish National party could reflect that sentiment in ensuring that we continue to extend the opportunity to serve in our armed forces to 16 and 17-year-olds.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a recent debate on policy change at my party’s conference. I am sure he will note when he gets to his feet that I argued against that change in policy.

[Mr Sweeney]

It is reassuring indeed that the SNP spokesperson on defence matters continues to uphold the principle that young people should be allowed to join the armed forces and develop their careers in the service. That is most welcome.

Consider a serviceperson on the lowest basic rate of pay. When on 24-hour deployments—on exercise or operations—their basic pay could actually go down to a notional value of £2 an hour. Is that really the value of our armed forces when they are dedicated to that extent? Any plans to remove the increments associated with overseas service are totally unacceptable. We should bear that in mind when we consider appropriate rates of pay for our armed forces. We talk about the great opportunity that a career in the service provides, particularly for skills development, apprenticeships and trade opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Specifically on pensions, the MOD’s continuous attitude survey shows that dissatisfaction with the package was at 38% in 2013, but is now at 52%. Why?

[Mr Ellwood]

I take from the continuous attitude survey that, yes, we have to recognise the concerns about pay and indeed about pensions—such concerns are felt on both sides of the House—but the biggest concerns are the long periods of separation and the pressures on family life. That is exactly why we are introducing the armed forces people programme, which will alleviate the pressure on families caused by separation. We are providing a new joiners’ offer and a new accommodation offer, and we are also looking at a new enterprise approach, which will allow highly capable people in the private sector to slide across into the armed forces. There is also the flexible engagement model that we debated in the Chamber on Monday.

As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, and this has been reiterated by Members on both sides of the House, we must recognise how different it is to wear the uniform in today’s context. It is becoming tougher to recruit because we have full employment, and it is becoming difficult to retain because of the challenges and competition we have in public life. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—who perhaps teased my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in denying him the ability to intervene—we recognise those different circumstances, and we are trying to get people to step forward.

The conduct of war itself has changed. What we expect to ask of our brave service personnel is also different. That is the context of the debate, and that is reflected perhaps in the recruitment and retention challenges that have been echoed across the House.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who, as usual, spoke eloquently on a subject that is clearly very close to his heart.

I am very glad to be speaking on this Bill, because it is important to remember not just what goes into forming the armed forces but what exactly they are for and why flexibility matters. I intend to speak briefly, if I may, about a few of the operational commitments that we are currently engaged in. If we look at NATO’s work in Estonia, where a British battlegroup is currently in Tapa on the border with Russia, or the work we are doing in supporting the Ukrainian Government just a little further south, we can see that we are hiring not just soldiers but diplomats—people who can engage not just in a traditional battle of military might but a battle of ideas and messages. We are not merely taking young men and giving them a weapon—we are giving them ideas with which to combat the enemy.

That requires very special people. It requires people who can train themselves not only to a state of physical fitness so that they are able to carry the body armour, the Bergens, the weapons, or whatever it happens to be, but to a level of mental fitness such that even in exhausted situations after weeks of arduous training—or indeed, should the worst happen, operations—they are able to think hard and out-think the enemy. In areas like Ukraine, they can think through the complexities that are required when talking to a young man in a language that they do not speak and two weeks later have him ready for the frontline and Russian-backed militias.

We are asking an awful lot of these people, not only in that respect but in terms of endurance. With continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, we are asking people to stay at sea in a state of preparedness for six months at a time, day in, day out, as we have done for the best part of 40 years. It is not just hard to be on operations—it is really hard to maintain a level of readiness when you think you probably will not need it, but you just might. That requires a level of command and discipline that is very difficult to imagine in other walks of life. Yet we expect it daily—in fact, we are expecting it right now—of the sailors who are at sea. We also expect it of the sailors who are conducting other operations in submarines, whether they are approaching enemy coasts or preparing our intelligence services to be informed of the next terrorist action—listening, perhaps, off the coast of a foreign shore.

Those may not sound like traditional military skills, because so many of us grew up with things like—I am going to date myself now—“The Guns of Navarone” and other such fabulous movies from the 1960s and ’70s—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Fake news!

[Tom Tugendhat]

Thank you. We are still going to watch “Star Wars” at some point.

We are looking to train people in skills that are very much of the 21st century. Indeed, we have seen those skills being put to use around the world when we look at places like Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the level of engagement that is required not only with foreign armies in places like the Sahel, where several European armies are working together in a multilingual, multinational brigade, but with local forces, some of whom, frankly, barely qualify for the term “militia”, let alone “army”.

As we ask those people to do such extraordinary things, we are also trying to prepare them for the threats of which we are increasingly becoming aware in the cyber- domain. Attacks in the cyber-domain are not limited to election time in the United States, nor to espionage against us in the UK or attacks on our NATO allies, as was the case in Estonia. They happen all the time and everywhere. The cost of cyber-attack has reduced to such an extent that a relatively well-resourced sub-Saharan state could fairly easily hire a Russian hacker to damage our soldiers and our infrastructure in a peacekeeping mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It seems almost cruel to inflict myself on the House following the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I digress briefly from the content of the Bill to say that if any Member has yet to read the recent interview that he gave, a copy of which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) is showing us just now, it is a must-read. He gave a thoughtful speech, as he always does, augmented by the support of his Conservative friends around him.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) I welcome the general principles of the Bill. It is about time that as an employer, the Ministry of Defence hauled itself into the 21st century. Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, we believe that the Bill should represent the beginning, rather than the end, of the many reforms and changes that the Ministry of Defence needs to make to keep up with the pace of change. That is what society expects it to do, as an employer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West has done, I impress on the Minister—he has just shuffled off along the Bench, but I see that we have been joined by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—and, indeed, on all Ministers the need to look at examples of how such reforms have been made elsewhere, in places such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.

As several Members have mentioned, pay and conditions also need to be considered. In the Scottish National party’s manifesto for the election earlier this year, we committed to pushing for a representative body on a statutory footing for members of the armed forces. I see no reason why that cannot happen, and there seems to be some support across the House for the idea. I do not know whether the body should be something similar to the Police Federation or an actual trade union—if the Netherlands can manage four, surely we can manage at least one—but we should at least debate that.

On pay, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling outlined what we expect of members of our armed forces, and he put it better than I could ever hope to do. For goodness’ sake, let us pay them properly. Let us end the public sector pay cap—it is, in reality, a cut to their pay—for members of the armed forces and pay them properly. I am hopeful that the Government will introduce some plans on that in the upcoming Budget.

As has been mentioned, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West, we need to consider support for families. My hon. Friend knows well the challenges that many face with deployment and education, which she and other Members illustrated. Improving those things, as well as providing better support for veterans, all helps to improve the reputation of the Ministry of Defence as an employer.

One hon. Member, the name of whose constituency has escaped me, mentioned that we would not trust some private housing contractors to run certain refreshment events in breweries. We would not want to house even a dangerous dog in some of the housing that we expect our armed forces personnel to live in. Although the Bill is concerned solely with flexible working, housing is an area that would merit more of the House’s attention.

I welcome some of the work that is being done not just by the Government, but by councils and devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I am very pleased that in the Scottish Government, we have a Minister with responsibility for veterans’ affairs, Keith Brown. This is no criticism of previous Administrations, but that is something that came 10 years into the devolution settlement. It provided a real local focus in Scotland, delivering good and positive results in conjunction with the third sector, local authorities and other partner agencies. In reality, however, we need the Ministry of Defence to step up to the plate in supporting veterans.

Although we do not oppose the Bill—we welcome it and look forward to its progression through the House—we look forward to trying to make amendments in Committee. I echo the shadow Defence Secretary by saying that we will do so with an open mind, to try to make the Bill as good and robust as possible, not to be oppositionist. This sort of stuff is far too important. With that in mind, I hope that the Government will hear our suggestions with an open mind and an open heart, so that we can really get a Bill that is fit for purpose and fit for our fine armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who spoke passionately about the need to retain and recruit personnel to our armed forces.

This is a welcome Bill. I remember growing up in Plymouth as a young man. Back then, the armed forces were not always an open and welcoming place for many people in our community. The progress made over many years for the lesbian, gender, bisexual and transgender community, the BAME community and women is to be welcomed and supported. We have made an awful lot of progress in terms of both legislative equality and—perhaps more importantly—cultural change and how those laws are put into practice. I pay tribute to those in the armed forces who have sought to break down walls and challenge convention in order to welcome people from diverse backgrounds who wish to serve our country.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the steps forward that the armed forces have taken. Does he also welcome the news, which broke about three hours ago, that President Trump’s attempt to exclude transgender people from the military has been defeated by the courts?

[Luke Pollard]

We should send a clear message from this House that those from the LGBT community are welcome in the UK armed forces. That sends a strong signal to our allies and opponents about our clear vision for an armed forces that represents all parts of our community.

At the heart of the Bill, though, there is a need for greater recognition of the personnel crisis in the UK armed forces. It is right that we reflect the different reasons people join the armed forces and their different rationales for continuing to serve their country in the way we structure both the recruitment regulations and the terms and conditions. Hon. Members have spoken already about pay, but it is worth my looking again at that and at terms and conditions.

People do not join the armed forces for the pay, but it is definitely a contributing factor, especially at key life moments—for instance, when people are expanding their family, looking to invest in property or going on the housing ladder. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about armed forces housing. In Plymouth, this remains a national scandal on which we need to do much more. CarillionAmey is not doing its job properly. It is important that the Government send a strong signal to CarillionAmey that the service it is offering is simply not good enough and that our armed forces families deserve the very best.

One of the keys to the personnel crisis are the pinch points, particularly in the Royal Navy, which is of great interest to the patch I serve, as I represent Devonport dockyard and naval base. I am talking about engineers and nuclear skills in particular. As we look to invest more in our armed forces and buy ever more expensive bits of kit, it is vital that we recruit and retain the talent to make sure that those bits of kit can be used in the way they are supposed to be used. I am concerned, however, about our continuing skills shortage in engineering grades.

It is important that we recognise our friends and NATO allies, especially those from America, who have transferred personnel to serve in our UK armed forces in engineering grades. In particular, I welcome the transferring of people from the US Coast Guard to serve in the Royal Navy. There remains much more to do, however, and I would welcome a greater effort from Ministers in terms of how we invest more in engineering. That is especially a concern in nuclear engineering skills, particularly as the new generation of nuclear new build power stations comes online and there is a temptation to poach people by offering them better pay, terms and conditions and lifestyle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Yes. Our 2015 strategic defence and security review made it clear that our defence posture will be international by design—we will increasingly be working more closely with our friends and allies around the world. We saw evidence of that co-operation when dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, for example.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Crucial to our relationship with EU and non-EU allies is the work of the Royal Marines in northern Europe. The fears that we have heard elsewhere about the future of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which are key components of the UK-Netherlands amphibious force, are not being felt only on these shores, and the same is true of the decision earlier this summer to cancel the vital winter training in Norway. What assurances does the Secretary of State have today for our allies in northern Europe that those programmes are not in danger?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We work very closely with our northern European allies, not least through the Northern Group and the joint expeditionary force, of which many of the other northern countries are members. The Royal Marines are a key part of that co-operation.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I think that was a response rather than an answer. I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) about the base at Arbroath, but will he tell us a bit more about his plans for the airfield so that those crucial partners in Europe know more about it, as well as my hon. Friend’s constituents?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We are looking again at a large number of the airfields that we are not making full use of at the moment to determine whether they can be released for other use in a number of parts of this country, which would give us an opportunity for the new housing that we need. The Royal Marine base at Condor is part of that review, and I have said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, who is responsible for basing, is very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) about the future development of that airfield.

Defence Capability

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am not a religious man, but it is proof that God is smiling on us when you are in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) on securing the debate and giving a very thoughtful speech at the start.

Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to members of the armed forces, the first responders to the events that happened here and across Europe earlier this year, and of course to the Minister. He knows that although we have disagreements, I have great respect for him. I am a fan of his. I think he is a thoughtful Minister and I look forward to his summing up the debate.

The review is welcome. It is of course necessary. However, as has been mentioned, we hope that it leads to a new SDSR, because the previous SDSR, which other hon. Members have mentioned, does not take account of the currency fluctuations and does not take account of Brexit. We need a proper review of our strategic assets.

The Government need to be a bit more transparent on this. I was concerned to hear what the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), adumbrated earlier on the lack of engagement from those involved in the review. It would be good if the Minister secured that for the Defence Committee when he leaves the debate today.

The big thing that we need to look at is our own back yard. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) mentioned, we are AWOL in the High North. It is an area where we are not just letting ourselves down, but letting our allies down as well. It has to be a high strategic priority, and this review and the subsequent SDSR that we think should happen must address that. The total absence of major surface vessels anywhere in Scottish waters, and the continued reliance on our allies, should alarm every single Member of this House. They are our waters and we have a duty to protect them.

I also want to address the 2% spend on GDP. It is, frankly, the most creative accountancy that I have witnessed in some time, including efficiency savings and pension contributions, as has been mentioned. Let us be clear: the 2% that the Government claim is an example of the books being well and truly cooked.

There are too many glaring and serious problems for one mini review to handle: a black hole in the equipment plan; inadequacy of the defence estate; dilution of the national shipbuilding strategy, as mentioned by my fellow Glaswegian, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney); threats to the Royal Marines; uncertainty over amphibious assets; and the impact of Brexit—the list is alarmingly long. If the review is to be honest, and if it is to be worth the paper it is written on, it will lead to a new SDSR and it should be published before the end of the year. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his summing-up speech.

Armed Forces Pay

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you preside over proceedings this afternoon, Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) on securing this debate and doing so just 24 hours after he gave his maiden speech, also on the issue of public sector pay restraint. It is obvious, given his first two outings in Parliament, that he will be a thorn in the side as far as public sector pay is concerned. He is absolutely right, so I wish him well.

Earlier this week I saw a tweet from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It said that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South often get mixed up because people think they represent the same cities. If they carry on in this vein, following each other, that will likely continue for the life of the Parliament. If you will allow me, Mr Chairman, I also wish to put on record my thanks—I hope other Members will join me, particularly the Minister—to a former Member of this House who sadly did not hold on to her seat at the general election: Kirsten Oswald, the former SNP armed forces spokesperson, who did a tremendous amount of work on the issue we are debating this afternoon.

I am surprised to see that there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher here to defend the Government’s position. Given their defence of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on Monday, the power grab on Tuesday and the pay cap on Wednesday, I thought they would at least make it along to defend their own Government, but clearly armed forces pay restraint was just a step too far. It seems there are indeed brass necks on the Tory Benches. Is it any wonder? The Conservatives have continuously painted themselves as the sole party in this Parliament that defends and stands up for the armed forces, while continuously painting my party and lambasting the Labour party as being what they see as weak on defence. But we have heard the figures this afternoon: targets for the size of the Army have been missed; morale is low; recruitment is in crisis; and pay has been cut and cut, by over £1,000 a year, with pay restraint for the past seven years.

There are other issues surrounding the pay and conditions of members of the armed forces. One of those was highlighted by a colleague of mine in the Scottish Parliament, Gordon MacDonald, the MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands. It concerned Ministry of Defence housing where the rents go up all across the country. In Scotland the new charging system introduced by the MOD has seen 81% of service families having to pay more rent than under the old regime. Complaints about MOD housing in Scotland, outsourced to Carillion, have gone up by a massive 43%.

I do not wish to speak for long because I am keen to hear from the Minister, who is very diligent. Although we crossed swords a couple of times in the previous Parliament, and no doubt will do so again in this Parliament, I and many in my party have a great deal of respect for him. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but I will end with this. As was adumbrated in the House yesterday by members of my party, the Scottish Government have now committed to lifting the pay cap for all public sector workers in devolved Government agencies. It is about time this Government followed suit. The utterly bizarre stunt that was pulled yesterday, when they did not even have the gumption to march through the Lobby and vote for what we all know they believe, says it all. It made this place look like a banana Parliament. I have spent my political life arguing that it is a banana Parliament, but yesterday was perhaps the best—or should I say the worst—example of that.

I commend the Scottish Government for what they do to support service personnel, service families and veterans in Scotland as far as they can. The “Renewing our Commitments” document that they published last year came with £5 million of funding to try to support service families, who are having to deal with the burdens of the pay cuts imposed on them by Whitehall.

Defending the country is of course the first duty of Government. It is increasingly difficult to know how that is to be done with hollowed-out armed forces, a recruitment crisis and forces whose morale is at an all-time low. It is not just a matter of our commitments to them—and those commitments are supreme. We must ask what effect there will be on national security, and whether the current situation allows us properly to live up to the commitments that we make to our allies, to be a strong and ready fighting force to protect the people of this country.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South on securing the debate. I look forward to seeing him take on the Government, on this issue and many others, as the Parliament progresses.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) on making his second maiden speech. His eloquent words show strongly that he is a stout supporter of the interests of his constituents—particularly the armed forces and the Navy. It is particularly appropriate that we are holding this Westminster Hall debate today, because tomorrow is Battle of Britain Day and today is Support Our Soldiers Day. I have seen people taking to the streets of London to raise awareness of and funds for ABF The Soldiers Charity.

There can be no doubt that today, sadly, our armed forces as a whole face a crisis of recruitment and retention. In figures from the Ministry of Defence published only this morning, we are told that there are a total of 142,100 full-time trained personnel in all the services combined. That figure represents a stark reduction: on 1 April there were 143,090. The reduction is throughout the services—the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the Royal Air Force and the Army. Let us not forget that the Conservative manifesto of 2015 said that the Army should not fall below 82,000. Yet the figures today show it is down to 81,920, and the situation is getting worse, not better.

A few months ago there was a good report, commissioned by No. 10 Downing Street, from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), a former Armed Forces Minister. He reported that there was a crisis. That is my word, not his, but nevertheless he noted a severe reduction in the number of personnel in the armed forces. His figures were slightly different from what the MOD said this morning, but nevertheless the trend is quite clear. He said:

“The Regular strength of the UK Armed Forces is currently 138,350, 4.8% below the required number…In the year to April 2017, 12,950 people joined the UK Regular Armed Forces but in the same period 14,970 left.”

I share the regret that has been expressed that no Conservative Back Benchers are here for this important debate.

We must ask the reason for this unfortunate trend, and, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, there are several clear reasons. He comments that

“while more personnel continue to leave each year than to join, the recruiting organisations across the Services are increasingly ‘running to stand still’ to try to fill the widening gaps in the ranks. Whilst the most serious problems remain in the Army, this is also likely to prove an increasing challenge for the Royal Navy and the RAF as their liability will increase by several hundred over the next few years”.

He hints that the problem can be put down, in part, to concerns about the future prospects that the armed forces offer, and declining standards of accommodation, with quite minimal improvements, in many areas. There is also real concern about the levels of remuneration available—or not.

The findings and recommendations in this year’s report by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body are governed by Government diktat, but it is nevertheless obliged to paint the picture that it sees, objectively. It states:

“On levels of pay generally, our visit programme made clear that Service personnel are becoming increasingly frustrated with public sector pay policy. They feel their pay is being unfairly constrained in a period when costs are rising, private sector earnings are starting to recover, and the high tempo demands on the Armed Forces have not diminished.”

I think that that is objectively correct, and it underlines the unfairness of the Government’s policy and attitude. It is essential to provide an objective facility so that honest recommendations can be made. Unless the Government have real reasons to reject those recommendations, they should be obliged to accept them. New figures from the House of Commons Library show that, for example, the starting salary of an Army private is down 5.3% in real terms since 2010. That is a cut of more than £1,000 a year.

We all want young men and women to join the armed forces in greater numbers, but—hand on heart—how on earth can anyone be persuaded to go into something with limited career prospects, where the living conditions for them and their family would be far from good, and where they would be likely to see a continuing fall in their standard of living? It is clearly unacceptable, and we strongly urge the Government to take a comprehensive approach to lifting the 1% public sector pay cap and to allow the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to make recommendations on pay rises for the armed forces. The Government should allow it to do so without restriction.

That seems to be a perfectly reasonable request, and it is one that many in the House support, including, I suspect, many Conservative Members—that is why they are not here to support the Government this afternoon. It will be warmly welcomed by the armed forces and those proud men and women who defend our country, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances. A point was made earlier about how the armed forces do not have a trade union to speak for them and are constrained in their access to the media to get their message across.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The issue of an armed forces trade union for non-commissioned personnel featured in the Scottish National party’s manifesto. I am unsure about the hon. Gentleman’s party’s manifesto, but it sounds as though he supports the principle. Will he note that, just this month, a captain has been named as the general secretary of the trade union for non-commissioned armed forces in Denmark? Is it not about time that we followed countries such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and established that here in this country?

[Wayne David]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and there is a strong argument for it, but it would be unfortunate if we allowed that issue, important as it may be, to distract us from the central issue before us this afternoon, which is our request—it is a cross-party request, I hope—for the Government to comprehensively lift their 1% pay restraint on the public sector, including the armed forces.

In conclusion, as things stand at the moment, there are few external voices to support the armed forces. The armed forces themselves are constrained in what they can say, so it is all the more up to us to put forward their case with strength, determination and, I hope, unity. Through that, the Government can clearly hear the voice of the House of the Commons. They should adopt common sense and fairness and change their policy forthwith.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

The light, general-purpose frigate is specifically designed to avoid that fault, which, as my right hon. Friend said, has plagued previous programmes.

My right hon. Friend took us back to the 1970s. Perhaps only he and I now remember them and what happened then. I note his comments about the number of ships. I gently say that today’s ships are of course much more powerful than those that were involved in, for example, the liberation of the Falklands, and that although they can be in only one place at once, they can fight conflicts at different ranges at the same time.

It is my ambition to grow the fleet. We are expanding the Royal Navy. If industry can rise to the challenge and deliver the frigates to time and in the price cap that we specify, it will enable us to expand the Royal Navy beyond the numbers set out in 2015.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for advance sight of it. I welcome—finally—the publication of the national shipbuilding strategy. I had started to think that we would never get there.

However, the Secretary of State did not get off to the best start this morning. What is it with his interviews with Scottish journalists? He came out with a howler on “Good Morning Scotland”, claiming that there was already a frigate factory on the Clyde. That is quite something, because only three weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and I met workers on the Clyde, who were asking for that very thing. Has not the Secretary of State reneged on his promise and should he not put that right at the Dispatch Box today?

Since 2005, we have had the defence industry strategy, the 15-year terms of business agreement with BAE, and a consolidated shipbuilding plan for the Clyde that led to many job losses. Workers there are asking whether the Ministry of Defence will see any of its promises through.

The Govan and Scotstoun yards were promised 12 Type 45 destroyers; we got six. They were promised 13 Type 26 frigates; so far, we have three. As for the world-class frigate factory which the Secretary of State seems to think exists, I can tell him right now that there are journalists in Scotstoun trying to find it. How can the workers in those yards believe the Secretary of State’s promise that there will be work for them until 2035?

More broadly, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), behind the historically low level of the escort fleet lies a low-manning crisis. Will the Secretary of State say more about what he is going to do to resolve that issue?

Counter-Daesh Update

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Let me repeat your congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker, to my right hon. Friend on resuming his chairmanship of the Select Committee. I look forward to working with him on that.

I know that my right hon. Friend and I have always differed on the nature of the Syrian campaign and that he has had reservations about it. He is right to recognise the difference in that we are not working with the Syrian regime. However, we do want to see Daesh driven out of Syria. It remains a threat—in Syria, to this country—and it needs to be defeated in Syria. But of course, as he says, we then need those parts of Syria returned to civilian control—a control that properly involves the Arab population as well as, in the north, the Kurdish elements. That is all part of the process that we are encouraging in Geneva. He is right that the solution lies in Arab-led governance.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and advance notice of it. Let me put on record the tribute of Scottish National party Members to the forces who have been involved, particularly in liberating Mosul to the extent that it has been. I also extend our congratulations to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on his re-election as Chair of the Defence Committee.

Scottish National party Members, and indeed the whole House, will welcome the diminished status that Daesh now has. While there is a difference of opinion as to how to move that from a diminished status to being defeated, there is of course unanimity that defeated it must be.

There are two particular areas of concern that I would like the Defence Secretary to address. The first is the dramatic rise in civilian casualties in the past few weeks. In June alone, there was a 52% increase on May’s estimated figure of 529 to 744, according to Airwars, which he mentioned in response to the shadow Minister. Airwars claims that of the 1,350 UK personnel fighting Daesh, not one is permanently tasked with monitoring civilian casualties. Will he make a commitment to greater scrutiny and transparency on that, and will he ensure that there are dedicated monitoring and investigation mechanisms within Operation Shader for UK forces?

The second point—the Defence Secretary knows of my particular concern about this because I have written to him specifically about it—is about the operation in Syria itself. The 2015 mandate of this House was very clearly about targeting Daesh, and nobody else in Syria. I tried to get some clarity from him on this on Monday. I do not know whether he misunderstood my question, but I did not get the clarity I was seeking. Will he confirm that the 2015 mandate to target Daesh stands, and that the Government have no plans to expand that target to any other actor; and that if they do, as the US President seems to wish the United Kingdom to do, it will happen only on the back of a debate and vote of Members of this House?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he has paid to our armed forces. It is worth reminding the House that the Scottish nationalists voted against military action in both Iraq and Syria. It is all very well to say that they now welcome the fact that Daesh has been defeated in Iraq, but how much longer would Daesh have continued to behead people, to shoot people and to throw gays off buildings without air power, including British air power, and without the involvement of 68 countries around the world, but not the support of the Scottish nationalists? He should reflect on that.

We work with Airwars when it has allegations and suspects that there might have been British aircraft in the air at the time in question. We look at that information and investigate it. So far we have not found any evidence of civilian casualties being caused by a British strike, but we continue to work with Airwars, and if it has fresh evidence it should put it to us and we will investigate it. As I indicated, we also carry out what is called a battle damage assessment after any strike to see exactly what effect it has had and whether there is any risk that there may have been casualties.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the increase in civilian casualties in the final weeks of the battle in west Mosul. It is a highly compact and densely populated city, and Daesh pushed civilians into buildings, held them hostage and shot them if they tried to escape. This was intense urban warfare of a type that we have not been involved in since probably the second world war—a very complex military operation. However, it would not have been easier if it had been extended and we had let it drift on for months. The job had to be done, and I pay tribute to those involved in it, including our pilots for their skill and precision alongside the rest of the coalition.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Syria, as he did on Monday. He has also written to me about it—I have in fact replied to him; I signed the letter yesterday, but he may not have had it yet. It certainly gives clarity on the point that he raised with me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

NATO is, as my right hon. Friend knows, a defensive alliance and these deployments are defensive in nature. It is important in respect of Russia that we explain these deployments and the purpose of them, and we are transparent about the number of personnel and the units involved. To that end, we already have machinery in place whereby our vice-chief of the defence staff has regular discussions with his opposite number to explain the deployments and ensure that there is no misunderstanding about them.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

As this is the first Defence questions of the new Parliament, may I begin by putting on record the Scottish National party’s welcome for the announcement on Type 26s, and also welcome the fact that Scotland is, of course, the only part of the UK that can build these complex ships?

On the issue of cyber, what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of what the President of America tweeted at the weekend on the idea of an impenetrable cyber security unit? What would that mean for a country such as Estonia, for NATO, and for the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right that the military campaign up the Tigris and along the Euphrates is just part of the strategy. We need to continue disrupting Daesh’s online propaganda. We need to target its senior leadership and undermine its finances. The military campaign has to be combined, and seen as part of a broader coalition campaign to undermine this evil organisation and make sure that it never comes back.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Both the Defence and Foreign Secretaries seem to have suggested that UK forces may target others in Syria beyond the mandate that was given in this House in December 2015—namely, the Assad regime. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he is to deviate from that mandate, it will only happen after a full debate and vote in this House?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I can confirm that our target in Syria is Daesh. Our strikes are in and around Raqqa and other Daesh areas, including Deir ez-Zor, that Daesh continues to hold. It is not our aim to collaborate with either the regime or indeed its principal sponsor, Russia.