Defence Aerospace Industrial Strategy

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on her opening speech. The debate has been important because of the significance of the defence aerospace industry to this country and to our nation’s defence. I wish to make two points. The second is about the need for a well-thought-out industrial strategy for the sector. First, though, I wish to address the particular problem that is being experienced with BAE Systems.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) said, in October, BAE Systems announced that up to 1,400 jobs were to be lost in its military aerospace business over the next three years. It has said that the cuts will be implemented by 1 January and will affect managers as well as production line workers. At its aerospace bases at Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, where parts for the Eurofighter Typhoon are made and assembled, there will be 750 job losses. In BAE’s other aerospace base in Brough in east Yorkshire, there will be a near halving of its workforce to 500. That is all the more difficult to bear because 500 jobs were previously lost at that site four years ago.

Those job losses will have a devastating impact on the individuals affected and their families. It will also hit those communities that have a long tradition of providing workers for the aerospace industry. Moreover, many of these jobs are highly specialised and extremely skilled. Once those skills have been lost to the industry, it will be enormously difficult to replace them, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) quite accurately said.

A few days ago, my hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary and other Opposition Members wrote to the new Secretary of State for Defence. The letter made several important points and called on the Government to take action in a number of areas. It refers to the fact that the Hawk advanced jet trainer is currently in use by 18 countries across the world. It is therefore vital that the UK does its utmost to promote the Hawk aircraft as a good option for other nations as well. Can the Minister tell me what steps the Government are taking to promote the Hawk advanced jet trainer abroad?

As we all know, the Hawk is the aircraft of the iconic Red Arrows. In a few years’ time, the Red Arrows will need to renew their Hawks. It makes good sense for the Government to bring forward orders for the new Hawk T2s, so that there can be continuity of manufacture. The Minister for defence procurement will know that there is a precedent for that. The Government have brought forward orders for offshore patrol vessels to fill gaps and to support shipyards and workers. If the Government can do it once, they can do it twice.

There is also the statement of intent with Qatar for the purchase of 24 Typhoons and six Hawk aircraft, which was signed earlier in the year. We want to see that statement of intent firmed up as quickly as is humanly possible. The contract is tremendously important and I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on any progress that has been made.

The problems that BAE Systems faces at the moment serve to highlight the more general problem of a lack of a defence aerospace industrial strategy. We welcome the fact that—even though rather belatedly—the Government have produced a national shipbuilding strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned. We argue that a strategy should also be produced for the defence aerospace industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for the way in which he put his case.

Such a strategy should contain a number of elements. For example, there should be: full engagement with industry so that it can develop a more strategic approach to technological development and address the present and future needs of the armed forces; a long-term commitment by the Government to development by the aerospace sector with an emphasis on exports; a long-term perspective to give confidence and certainty, which in turn will encourage business investment; and a perpetual encouragement for industry to develop new, innovative approaches and technologies. That would require Government to allow industry the necessary “room” to develop more blue-sky thinking.

If we look at Britain’s national interest, we can see that it cannot be right for us to be buying so many of our capabilities off the shelf from our American allies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) so correctly argued. In place of short-termism and going for a quick fix, the Government should see things in the long term and value the economic contribution that the defence industry makes to the British economy and to the nation’s balance of payments.

Let us not forget that defence manufacturers in general, and the aerospace sector in particular, pay corporation tax and employee national insurance, and they have subcontractors and suppliers. In this context, it has been suggested—as the Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned—that there ought to be a Government commitment to at least an examination of the development of a next generation of combat aircraft. It has been suggested that such an aircraft will enter service in the 2030s and replace the Typhoon class aircraft. What is the Government’s position on that?

We have had a good debate on an important subject. There can be no doubt that it is vital that Britain has a vibrant defence aerospace sector. We have a workforce of which we can be proud and an industry that is full of enthusiasm and commitment. We now need a Government policy that is up to the challenges we face.

Armed Forces Pay

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Lady anticipates what I am about to say. I will come on to boilers in just a minute. Her point about acting to the spirit of the contract is well made, and I agree with her.

The FCAS report states:

“Satisfaction with most aspects of SFA fell markedly in 2016 due in part to underperformance by the National Housing prime contractor and changes to the SFA charging method in April 2016.”

Similarly, the Army Families Federation—sometimes affectionately referred to as the Army freedom fighters—reports that housing continues to be the biggest concern for Army families. There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence about the poor performance of CarillionAmey and, put simply, we are not honouring our people by providing them with this shoddy service. We send a serviceman halfway around the world to fight for their country and we call them a hero, as that is what they are, but back at home their wife spends weeks trying to get their boiler fixed because of the startling ineptitude of the people we have hired to keep their home warm. And then we wonder why people leave.

This has gone on for too long, and it is simply unacceptable. Either CarillionAmey should materially raise its game on behalf of our service personnel or it should be unceremoniously sacked and we should find someone competent to do the work instead. Housing associations and registered social landlords around the country have been carrying out basic maintenance and repairs as bread-and-butter work for years, so why cannot CarillionAmey do the same?

There are a variety of reasons why people are leaving the armed forces at present, and pay is one factor but—as has already been pointed out—not the predominant one. As the Minister rightly said, the armed forces continuous attitude survey published in May 2017 points out that the primary reason for people wanting to leave the services is the effect of separation or long hours on their family life. That is the greatest challenge that Ministers have to grapple with. The Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill, which we debated in this House on Monday, should help in this regard, as it will allow service personnel to vary their commitment, rather than face an acid test of only being able to leave the services in order to reduce the pressure on their family. In other words, it might persuade some personnel to stick rather than twist when their family are under pressure because of their commitment to their country.

The issue of pay itself has now become something of a challenge, particularly in relation to retention. The AFCAS notes that only 33% of personnel are satisfied with their basic rate of pay, and that only 27% are satisfied with their pension benefits, although it should be pointed out that the armed forces have one of the few remaining pension schemes anywhere in the public sector where employees do not have to pay a contribution of their own—something that I know MOD Ministers have fought valiantly to defend.

Recommendations on pay are made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and its recommendation in January 2017 was essentially for a 1% pay increase, although certain personnel would qualify for additional increments and also for specialist recruitment and retention pay, particularly if they serve in areas where the armed forces are struggling to retain specialists. Any further pay increase for the armed forces will be subject to the next recommendation of the AFPRB early next year, so we will have to wait and see what it recommends. It is likely that any increase above 1% would need to come out of the defence budget, which could have implications for some elements of the equipment programme, for instance. However, given that the police have now had an above 1% pay increase, if the AFPRB were to recommend something similar next year, I think that Ministers would have to take it seriously.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that it would be quite wrong if the MOD implemented more cuts to equipment to finance a pay increase?

[Mr Francois]

I cannot say what the AFPRB is going to recommend. In fairness, we will have to allow it to go through its deliberations and see what it concludes. However, given that the police have been given an increase above 1%, I am sure that there will be strong views in the armed forces about what should happen to them. But let us await the recommendation of the AFPRB.

In conclusion, our armed forces, on whom we rely so much, continue to be under pressure in the fields of recruitment and retention. Although the principal reason for people leaving the armed forces is pressure on family life, pay also appears to be entering into the equation, and I think that Ministers in the Department are cognisant of that. We must also do something about the poor quality of repairs and maintenance of service accommodation. I urge the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon to formally review the performance of CarillionAmey and to be prepared, if necessary, to re-let the contract unless the company succeeds in materially raising its game. We have to continue to attract the brightest and the best to serve us in uniform, and we must continue to provide the resources to make that prospect a reality. We also need to ensure that those people have homes that are fit to live in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate today. Members of the House have made excellent contributions, but I do not have time to refer to them—I apologise.

It is true to say that our armed forces face enormous problems. They have a huge problem with recruitment and retention and face the scandalous inadequacy of the levels of remuneration for the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line to defend this country. Those problems are linked. In a report commissioned by the Prime Minister and published in July this year, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about a perfect storm against which military recruiters have had to battle. As he said, the regular strength of the UK’s armed forces is some 5% below what was planned. There is also the problem of retention, with more personnel leaving the services than joining them.

Although there are several reasons why the armed forces are in such a predicament, a large part of the blame must rest with how the Army recruits its personnel, for which Capita bears a large measure of responsibility. The “hollowing out” in the ranks, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his report, is caused by several factors. Without doubt, the privatisation of Army recruitment and the outsourcing of aspects of recruitment for the other services has played a major role. The poor quality of living accommodation for servicemen and women and their families is another important factor.

[Mark Lancaster]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

I am sorry, but time is short. Another huge problem is the levels of pay in the armed forces. As the most recent pay review body report indicates, members of the armed forces

“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.”

[Mark Lancaster]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

Time is limited, as the Minister knows. I respectfully ask him to sit down.

The Government say that they are introducing flexibility in the future pay regime, but let us be clear. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body stated in its 2017 report that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury sent it a letter to say that the Government’s policy of pay restraint remained in place. The letter states:

“We will fund public sector workforces for pay awards of an average of 1 per cent a year, up to 2019/20.”

The pay review body report makes it clear that that is the context in which the body was obliged to work, and that point has been well made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Wayne David]

If there is to be greater flexibility, as the Secretary of State has hinted, where will the extra money come from? The MOD is already undertaking a mini defence review and significant cuts are already being considered, with 1,000 Marines, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion ready for the chop. It would be totally unacceptable for any pay increase to be funded by further cuts to the defence budget. Will the Minister indicate when he responds that the Department has the courage to stand up to the Treasury and demand that extra money be forthcoming for our brave men and women in the armed forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Wayne David]

Where will the money come from? We will call for extra contributions of up to 5% from large corporations and we will demand that the super-rich pay a little bit more, instead of enjoying the largesse that the Government have given them. I am not hopeful that that will happen, however, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State and his friends—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the shadow Minister to give way, or not. My understanding is that there was no giving way earlier, so if there is tit for tat, that is up to each individual; it is not for the Chair. What I do not want is this continuous barracking across the Chamber, with Members saying, “He is not giving way” and, “Will he give way?”. [Interruption.] Order. There are no more contributions, are there? Wayne David, please.

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the chuntering and the interruptions are indicative of the crass behaviour of the Ministry of Defence, which we are debating this afternoon.

I am not hopeful that Ministers will stand up for the armed forces, which they claim to support, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State for Defence is considering scrapping the special allowance given to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister, in his response—I will give him time to respond—make a commitment not to cut the special service allowance?

As we approach Remembrance Sunday—several Members mentioned it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)—it is surely imperative that the House unites in support of our armed forces. This afternoon, many contributions have strongly supported lifting the pay cap. I very much hope that all of us will support the motion, and call for a fair pay rise for our armed forces. Especially at this time of the year, our armed forces deserve nothing less. [Interruption.]

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that, overall, reserve numbers are up, but, again, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail.

To move on—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He tests the patience of the House in rising to his feet after denying my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces I do not know how many times the opportunity to intervene.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), talked about the importance of Remembrance Day, which was also highlighted by other hon. Members, and about the importance of pay itself. She also talked about the role of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whose recommendations will, I understand, come through in March.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) used the debate as an opportunity mostly to promote his views on Trident, which are not shared across the House. Indeed, this nation would become a lot weaker if we were to get rid of Trident. That would not be in anybody’s interest.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford produced a report highlighting some of the challenges we face, and I fully agree with him that we need to work on improving diversity. It is important that we attract the brightest and the best, and that includes recruitment moving up to 15% by 2020 for women, and up to 10% for BAME—black, Asian and minority ethnic. I am grateful to him for the work he did on that important report.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the black hole in defence finances. We came into government recognising that £38 billion was seemingly missing, because it had been stolen from future budgets, but let us take a step back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way. There is no steam on board the aircraft carriers. They are diesel; they are not powered by atomic energy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) denied being a Government lackey. I can confirm he is certainly not—

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Now you will have to sit down again, Minister, but don’t worry: I will bring you back up. Wayne David.

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is being economical with the truth. But what is absolutely outrageous is that the subject under consideration is pay rises for the armed forces, but Ministers have hardly referred to it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think people will deliver figures in different ways, and the interpretation of those will always be in dispute. Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We recruit, train and employ more than 55,000 engineers. We will work as a partner with the Department for Transport on its Year of Engineering 2018 initiative. Each of the single services will play a role in promoting that initiative through science, technology, engineering and maths outreach, helping to deliver a bright future for engineering in the United Kingdom.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the announcement of nearly 2,000 job losses at BAE Systems, will the Government bring forward their order for new Hawk aircraft for the Red Arrows to maintain industrial capacity?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

May I use this opportunity to put on record what a wonderful job the Red Arrows do for the UK around the world? I congratulate them on the successful 11-country tour from which they have just returned. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Hawk is an important training aircraft for the RAF. We have 75 of them and expect them to last until 2030. We are pursuing a range of export opportunities around the world.

Defence Capability

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

This is an important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) on securing it. It comes at a very appropriate time, as has been mentioned, because the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and other Government Departments are currently conducting a review of national security capabilities. My first question to the Minister, echoing what others have asked, is about whether he can indicate when that report will be published and what exactly its terms of reference will be. As I understand it, the strategic defence and security review will be, to use the Secretary of State for Defence’s phrase, “refreshed”. Will the Minister confirm that that will dovetail into the review of national security capabilities?

We know that a review is necessary because the Ministry of Defence is facing enormous problems. The SDSR 2015 is built on the premise that there will be sufficient efficiency savings, but as we all know those savings have not been identified. I know that the MOD was hoping for savings in the defence estate, but very little has come from that direction and, of course, there is the deprecation of the pound following the decision on Brexit. In fact, the Royal United Services Institute recently warned that there will be “substantial financial implications” for defence as a result of the weakening pound. In August, RUSI warned that the MOD faces extra costs of up to £700 million a year in the wake of the Brexit vote and the pound’s fall against the dollar. The National Audit Office recently pointed out that there is

“little room for unplanned cost growth”

and has expressed concern about the current defence equipment plan’s vulnerability to foreign exchange rates.

The problem is that approximately £18.6 billion is going to the United States in dollars. Rather than placing an emphasis on developing our own industrial defence capacity—our sovereign capacity—the Government are buying a whole raft of new equipment from the US for the Navy and the RAF: the F-35s, nine P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircrafts and 50 Apache attack helicopters, all from the United States of America.

[Bob Stewart]

We buy equipment and weapons from the United States because they are better than the equipment and weapons we can produce here, and those of us here all want our armed forces to have the best. That is the reason we do it: we do not have a choice if we want to help our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

That highlights the short-term thinking of the present Government. What we really need is an industrial defence strategy that invests in the skills and capabilities of our own indigenous industries, so that when choices have to be made we can choose, quite rightly, to have our own capability enacted and not bought off-the-shelf from abroad.

The Government regularly come out with their platitudes that defence expenditure increases every year, but let me be clear that the MOD faces a financial crisis. We are told by the MOD’s permanent secretary that over the next 10 years the MOD will have, in his words, to seek out and secure £20 billion of efficiency savings. He says that notwithstanding increased budgets,

“our ambitious equipment program will not be affordable without”

those efficiency savings. I do not believe it is realistic or, indeed, honest to talk about that level of efficiency savings. I note the comments by Sir George Zambellas, the admiral and former head of the Royal Navy, who recently said to the press:

“There is a suggestion that there’s lots more efficiencies to be made. There are not. I’ve been helping deliver efficiencies for my 37 years in the navy. We have reached the bottom of the efficiency barrel and we all know that, because the Navy is so hollowed out. It hasn’t got enough missiles and spares. It’s very short of the integrated support that is needed as a single service.”

Those are damning comments by someone who does not have a political axe to grind, but takes an objective view of the very real crisis that the Navy, in particular, faces.

Indeed, it is clear that the MOD is already involved in planning for a fresh round of deep and crude cuts. As we have all seen, there have been reports in the press that the Royal Marines may be cut by 1,000 from their present 6,500. Earlier this year there was confirmation that Plymouth’s 42 Commando, one of the last specialist Royal Marines fighting units, was withdrawn from frontline service. The amphibious fleet may face decommissioning, with HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark both potentially becoming part of history—I refer Members to the excellent early-day motion 391 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I ask the Minister to listen not only to what I am saying, but to what all Members have said this afternoon about how important it is to maintain that amphibious capability, and I urge him to give a commitment today that those two ships will not be considered ripe for cutting.

This is all occurring, as I said, at a time of crisis. The Navy personnel stands at 2% under establishment. There is a particular problem in the Navy with skilled personnel and engineers. The RAF is 5% under strength, and we had the very bad news last week that nearly 2,000 skilled, well-paid jobs will be lost with BAE Systems. One of the reasons it has given for those redundancies and the cutback in capacity that has taken place, is the slowdown in production of the Hawk aircraft. I would reiterate what was asked for this week and ask the Government to bring forward an order for nine new Hawk aircraft for the Red Arrows. As well as the crises in the Navy and the RAF, we are seeing a crisis in the Army, which is 5% understrength. I remind hon. Members—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, but I am afraid I cannot let him speak for longer than the Minister will be able to, so I hope he is about to finish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I am about to wind up. I remind Members that the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 election said that the Army would not fall below 82,000 people. It has: the latest figures show that the Army is down to 76,680, which speaks for itself. There is a very real crisis.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister for an honest statement about the real problems that our armed forces face today. Can we have a commitment that the short-term—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not having this—the hon. Gentleman must sit down.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Bone. It is a real pleasure to be able to draw some thoughts and conclusions together on this important, interesting and timely debate. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who has shown passion and a detailed understanding not only of what is going on his constituency, but of the wider picture of the defence capability. I congratulate him on bringing this debate to the fore. Looking around the Chamber, I recognise that there is an officers’ mess worth of experience, commitment and understanding of what the armed forces has done and is doing, and of where we want to go. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

I give hon. Members the apologies of the Procurement Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—who would otherwise be here. However, I take a personal interest in these matters, so I grabbed the opportunity to share some insight about what is going on. This has been a wide-ranging discussion and as I have said, if I am not able to answer some questions, I simply will not be, but I will write to hon. Members, as I have before.

All hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, began by paying tribute to our brave and professional armed forces. As a former Regular Army officer, and indeed, a reservist, I stand with all in paying tribute to those who, when there are so many opportunities in the world today, choose to wear a uniform, to step forward and be counted, to stand and defend our country and to do the things we see, whether that is in the Caribbean or in the floods, or by going into harm’s way. We think about what it means to be British, what Britain is and what our reputation is, and that is shown in the professionalism that our armed forces display.

As a nation, we have an aspiration and the ability to shape the world around us and to play a role on the international stage, and that comes about because of what our armed forces can do. We are recognised as the world’s leading soft power because our professional armed forces are respected and revered not just by our allies, but by our adversaries. We follow a transparent agenda and in a changing, challenging world, leadership is needed on the international stage. I think we can all agree that we want our armed forces to continue to play that role in shaping this very challenging world.

We need to face some big questions, many of which have been raised today. I join right hon. and hon. Members in recognising the important economic value of our industrial base—not just in defence and aerospace, but in a wider context—in the economics of this country. However, we face a fiscal reality and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made the situation clear, taking us back in time to the legacy fiscal issues that we have inherited, which are still very real today. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil touched on the important wider duty of care that we have to our armed forces. I include the whole family—the partners, the wives, the husbands, the children, the cadets and the reserves. It is important that we look after them not only when they are in uniform, but further afield, when they finally move back into civilian life as our respected veterans.

Before I come on to the national security capability review, which is the core of our discussion, I will respond to a couple of points. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about the importance of the Type 31e. It is a simple design that is intended to have bespoke changes put on to it. It is designed for export. That is why it seems simplistic compared with the Type 26, the frigates, the destroyers and so on.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who made the future of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark clear. We should not forget the amphibious capabilities in the Bay class, as was illustrated in our response to the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about our commitment to 2%, which I can confirm. I am pleased that other nations are catching up with us to meet that important commitment. We want that to continue and, as many hon. Members have said, we are increasing our budget by 0.5% above inflation. That is very important to recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke about the importance of our footprint across the world. There is not only HMS Juffair, which I am pleased that hon. Members were able to see; we have a footprint right across the Gulf and in other places, including in a transitional or temporary mode. We are operating in and have exercises in 20 locations from Nigeria to the Balkans, to further afield in Poland with a resurgent Russia, to the Caribbean and not least, to the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) asked important questions about helicopters. If I may, I will ask the Procurement Minister to write to him in more detail.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) spoke about the number of platforms, and I agree with him. We have more than a dozen different helicopter platforms, if we count them all up, which is too many given all the procurement lines, software upgrades and training packages. That needs to be simplified.

On the national security capability review, we need to step back and remind ourselves that the SDSR 2015 was the blueprint for our security—for meeting terrorism, the growth of terrorism and extremism, state-based aggression and cyber, and responding to those who undermine the rules of international order—but there have been changes. We have had five terrorist attacks in this country, a resurgent Russia, the activities of North Korea and cyber-attacks on our health service, on companies and on Parliament itself. That is why the capability review is required. As I said, there has been much speculation, but the details will come through in the new year. I am sure that Parliament will be involved in the usual manner, including through the Select Committee.

The review will be Cabinet-led and have 12 strands, of which the defence aspect is simply one part. It is important, however, to recognise that any armed forces must adapt to and evolve with the times. We need to understand what the right balance of scale, readiness and reach is, and what our enablers to provide that support are. Where do we place those assets, not only so they are ready to be used but as a deterrent?

I will leave a minute for my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to conclude, but I am sure that we can all join in saying that we are very proud of our—

[Wayne David]

Before the Minister sits down—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He took far too much time—

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions then.

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have made that clear—

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is not in my good books at the moment. Yelling from a sedentary position is not acceptable.

Armed Forces Pay

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to respond to this debate. I declare an interest, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am ex-Army and a lieutenant colonel in the reserves. I pay tribute to the other coastal towns that have been represented in the debate by the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I represent Bournemouth. I think the only Members present who do not represent coastal towns are the spokesmen for the SNP and the Labour party, the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Nevertheless, the debate has been helpful in understanding and sharing concerns about public sector pay specific to the armed forces.

A number of Members have made perhaps a little bit of a political point, asking where the Conservative Members are in this important debate. I could say to the SNP spokesman that there are no SNP Back Benchers here either; he is his party’s sole representative. Many Members who would have been here today are participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That is why they are absent.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South for calling this debate. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, he represents a historical city that has a connection with all services, but specifically the senior service. We need to place the debate in context and against the backdrop of the nation’s finances, which ultimately are the question mark hanging over the size of the coffers that the Treasury has to provide financial support not only to the Ministry of Defence, but to all armed forces. I will not go into the politics of the situation, but when we came into government in 2010 there was a significant deficit. That deficit has been reduced by three quarters and the economy is now growing. The low taxes we are seeing are creating growth in our economy. We have record lows in unemployment, which is a good thing.

However, let us be honest: the election result and the debates during the campaign showed a nation concerned about our public sector and the length of time that the pay freeze has affected them. That concern was shared not only by those individuals affected, but by those who support our teachers, nurses, doctors, fire service, police, ambulance service and armed forces. Our armed forces do not have the voice of the unions, as has been mentioned a number of times. Members will be aware that the Government have been continuing the difficult task of balancing the books, but we must recognise that that ultimately means a period of pay restraint that has affected all public sector workers, including the armed forces.

We are aware, as we bring fiscal discipline back to the public finances, that that restraint has had an impact on the salaries of our people, but looking forward, the Government’s recent announcement of greater flexibility where required in public sector pay means that the independent pay review bodies can now make their own judgments on future pay awards, which will mitigate the impact. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said on Tuesday, our public sector workers, including those in the armed forces, are among the most extraordinarily talented and hard-working people in our society. I would go further: our public services are one of the things that define Britain across the world, by which I mean not just our blue light services, but our armed forces in particular. I echo other contributors by saying that professionalism is what defines us and gives us our reputation across the globe. It is important that we look after the people using equipment in operations. They make their mark and step forward to make a contribution with allies as a force for good in this very difficult and challenging age. They, like everyone else, deserve to have fulfilling jobs that are fairly rewarded. We have to take a balanced approach to public spending, dealing with our debts to keep our economy strong while also ensuring that we invest in our public services.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think there might be enough time for me to do so.

[Wayne David]

The Minister is hinting at something important, but I would like clarification. He talks about greater flexibility for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Is he suggesting that were that greater flexibility to produce a recommendation for a significant increase for the armed forces, the Government would accept that immediately, without question?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not do what the Leader of the Opposition suggested when we came back to office after the general election, which was a knee-jerk removal of the 1% pay freeze. That was suggested in proposed amendments to the Queen’s Speech. I will work extremely hard to ensure that that ambition is fulfilled. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly recognises and reads what is happening this week, there is greater clarity to provide independence, to ensure that Departments are free to reflect what is required in this day and age.

The Government will continue to ensure that the overall package for public sector workers is fair to them and that we can deliver world-class public services that are affordable within the public finances and fair to taxpayers. The last spending review budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards, as has been mentioned a number of times, but that is in addition to progression pay for specific workforces, such as the armed forces, and that must not be forgotten. There will still be a need for pay discipline over the coming years to ensure the affordability of the public services and the sustainability of public sector employment. The Government recognise that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skill shortages—such as with engineers, as has been mentioned—more flexibility may be required to deliver those world-class public services, including in return for improvements to public sector productivity.

The detail of the 2018-19 remit for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body—I stress that they are both independent bodies that provide advice to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State on pay and remuneration for the armed forces—is still under consideration and will be agreed as part of the Budget process. Recommendations from the AFPRB and SSRB are expected in the new year.

The Government, as I have emphasised, fully recognise the invaluable work undertaken by our gallant members of the armed forces, often in dangerous and difficult circumstances. A good example is the response of our personnel to the recent events in the Caribbean and Hurricane Irma. That is a timely example of the professionalism of our armed forces in a crisis. More than 1,100 armed forces personnel have been deployed so far under Operation Ruman, to provide relief to the people of the devastated Caribbean islands. A further 600 are en route on board HMS Ocean, which was mentioned earlier. I am sure all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the valuable work of our armed forces personnel.

The armed forces pay and wider remuneration package is designed to reward their unique service to our country and to support the recruitment and retention of personnel. The Government are of the view that the armed forces receive an attractive package of terms and conditions of service, which have not been mentioned so far and include a competitive salary with incremental pay scales. I stress that there are pay bands for privates, lieutenants and other ranks, such as captain. Each year they move up the band and their salary does not stay still. In fact, across the armed forces, the average individual pay rise has been about 1.5%.

[Wayne David]

As someone with a distinguished service record, does the Minister personally think that remuneration in the armed forces is adequate? What is his personal view?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am going to do everything I can to make sure that we do our best to have the remuneration package that our armed forces deserve, but we have to bear in mind the context and the backdrop, which I have spelled out. There has to be fiscal recognition of the place we are in, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should all work as hard as possible to make the case and ensure that personnel get the salary they deserve and need.

There is also a non-contributory pension scheme, subsidised accommodation and food, and access to free medical and dental care. Service personnel also have access to an allowance package that provides financial assistance towards additional costs incurred as a result of their service. Throughout the pay restraint period, many personnel in the armed forces have received an annual increase in pay of well above 1%.

During the period of pay restraint, armed forces pay has not stood still. In 2016 we introduced a major revision to armed forces pay in the form of the Pay 16 pay model, which was designed to simplify an individual’s pay journey, enabling them more accurately to predict their future career earnings. That has also rebalanced pay to reward armed forces personnel more effectively in line with their skills, while addressing many of the concerns raised by the AFPRB regarding the previous Pay 2000 structure.

We also employ remunerative measures to address issues of recruitment and retention, which have been mentioned, to ensure that our armed forces are manned to the required levels and with the requisite skills. Where there are particular issues in recruiting or retaining personnel, for which career management action by the services has had limited impact, we have the option of introducing targeted payments. Those payments can range from time-limited financial incentives, to longer-term recruitment and retention payments that recognise the particular challenges we face in retaining certain defence specialisms, such as military pilots or submariners.

Armed forces pay is subject to annual review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body, which are independent bodies tasked with providing the Government with recommendations on armed forces pay and charges for all military personnel, including the reserves. Their terms of reference require them to give consideration to the need of the services to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people, taking account of the particular circumstances of service life.

As part of its review, the AFPRB undertakes a detailed and comprehensive programme of work each year, which consists of a package of both written and oral evidence from the Secretary of State for Defence, senior officials and service families federations, representatives of which I had the pleasure of meeting only yesterday. The AFPRB also undertakes a series of visits to military units to hear directly from service personnel about their views on pay. In 2017, the AFPRB met more than 2,300 service personnel and 154 spouses and partners during 186 discussion groups. It visited establishments both in the UK and overseas, including operational theatres and ships.

In addition to the evidence it receives from Government, the AFPRB also commissions its own independent analysis and research, including on the pay comparability of the armed forces within the wider UK economy. A programme of visits has just concluded and the Government look forward to receiving the AFPRB recommendations next year.

Turning to the 2017 report, which the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned, in January this year the AFPRB and SSRB recommended a 1% pay increase for service personnel, taking into account the evidence received and independent pay comparability data. Those recommendations took into account the need to recruit, retain and motivate high-calibre people; the Government’s policies on the public services; inflation targets and the public funds available for Defence. The AFPRB reported that it believed that a 1% increase in base pay would

“broadly maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector.”

We need to bear that in mind, because that is the competing area.

The Government accepted in full the recommendations of the AFPRB and SSRB. I take this opportunity to thank the members of both pay review bodies for their work; it is greatly respected.

Turning to future pay, on which we want to focus, as I stated previously the detail of the 2018-19 pay remit for the pay review bodies is still under consideration and will be agreed as part of the budget process. As the Secretary of State said this week at the Defence and Security Equipment International conference,

“we will have greater flexibility to respond to the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.”

I hope that answers directly the question posed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It is for the AFPRB to make its recommendations for 2018-19, and as I mentioned earlier its remit allows it to consider any specific recruitment and retention issues that may apply to the armed forces. I am sure it will consider some of the issues raised in this debate. Over the coming months, the Chief Secretary will write to all the pay review bodies setting out the Government’s pay policy. The Defence Secretary will submit formal evidence to the AFPRB, setting out any specific recruitment and retention issues.

The armed forces are among the most extraordinarily talented and hard-working people in our society. The Government are committed to ensuring that the overall package that they and other public sector workers receive reflects the value we place on their work. The last spending review budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards, but the Government recognise that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skills shortage, more flexibility may be required, as reflected in this week’s announcement. There does, however, need to be pay discipline over the coming years, to ensure the affordability of the public services and the sustainability of public sector employment.

I make a personal statement that I will do all I can, as Minister for Defence People and Veterans, to make sure that the remuneration package that our gallant armed forces personnel get is what they deserve.

Combat Compensation

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. To be honest, I was not best pleased when I realised that I had to come to this sitting of Westminster Hall, right at the end of a parliamentary term, but when I realised what issue was to be considered, my attitude soon changed. We owe a great deal of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for bringing this extremely important issue forward and securing the debate.

All of us here today would agree that we want the best and most appropriate compensation for all those who deserve compensation, whether they are soldiers or other members of the armed forces who have been hurt, or members of their families. We want justice for everyone, and we want it to be done as quickly and expeditiously as possible. I expect we are all concerned about the lengthy delays in some court cases, because we want justice to be achieved as quickly as possible.

I have two profound concerns about the proposals that the Government sent out for consultation. The consultation period has concluded and I shall be interested to hear what they intend to do in the light of the responses—whether they intend to legislate, and what form that legislation will take.

My first concern is quite fundamental, and it is about combat liability. Who exactly would be entitled to put forward a claim for compensation? The consultation paper suggested a new definition of liability:

“We believe that the test should be whether the harm—injury or death—occurred in the course of a UK military operation as a result of direct or indirect hostile enemy action, or as the direct result of misdirected targeting by friendly forces, or as the direct result of action taken to avoid hostile enemy action. If it did, it should be regarded as occurring in combat.”

That might on the face of it seem to be a straightforward, common-sense definition of combat, but its implications are truly profound, and it flies in the face of the practice and legal precedent established in this country since at least the end of the second world war. The suggested definition would mean that the Ministry of Defence could not be held accountable for decisions made far from combat, including those concerning training, procurement and the suitability of future combat equipment in the light of known operational issues. All those issues would be excluded under the proposal.

The practical implications of that are huge. An example that has already been quoted is the case brought with regard to Snatch Land Rovers. It was a long legal case, pursued against the Ministry of Defence by the families of soldiers who lost their lives in those inadequate vehicles in Iraq. In the end, it was successful in securing compensation and, more importantly, in gaining public recognition of the fact that the vehicles were inadequate. They were replaced with better, more sustainable vehicles that provided better protection for soldiers, but there were also lessons that had to be learned. The deficiencies of the Snatch vehicles were identified previously in Northern Ireland but, for reasons best known to civil servants and politicians at the time, action was not taken to replace them with appropriate vehicles. Those issues came to light clearly in the court case, which was long and protracted but extremely thorough. Of course, reference was made to all that in the Chilcot report, which I think should be considered alongside the Government proposal.

My second concern is that the proposal flies in the face of established legal practice based on common law, because it would take away people’s legal rights. It sets out, essentially, an in-house Ministry of Defence system, under which people would not have their legal rights or legal representation, but would accept what was decided by the Ministry. Admittedly, there would be an independent opinion about the entitlement.

I consider the proposal to be extremely worrying, and although I am a lay person, I am not the only one saying that. Lawyers with enormous experience are also concerned about it. The president of the Law Society said:

“This means cases would not be heard by an independent judge, facts would not be independently investigated, responsibility would not be established and a state institution, if liable, would not be held to account.

Soldiers and their families must not be shut out of our justice system.”

That, in a nutshell, is my second reservation.

In the light of those points, I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and listen to the Law Society and the many other people who have made representations. I also hope that the Government will uphold the consensus that was accepted by all parties on the armed forces covenant and take it forward, both in its detail and in its spirit, and that they will continue to have the principle of the duty of care for all armed forces personnel foremost in their mind whenever they consider bringing forward proposals. With those few words about my strong reservations, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for securing the debate and look forward to hearing the Government response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I will confirm that is the case. What I am saying is that we would not want any officer, commander or non-commissioned officer to be concerned about such a consideration. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

We have suggested that in future, whenever a member of the armed forces is killed or injured in combat, compensation will be paid at the rate a court would have been likely to award if it had found the MOD to have been negligent, regardless of whether it has indeed been negligent. The amount will be assessed independently —that was a concern the hon. Gentleman had—by an experienced, qualified lawyer. For the claimant, that will mean that there will be no need to spend years engaged in complex legal battles, with no certainty of success, seeking to prove that the MOD has been negligent in law.

[Wayne David]

Rather than excluding claimants in their best interests, would it not be better for there to be a choice on whether to pursue the case through the route suggested, with the MOD, or to take independent legal advice?

[Mr Ellwood]

One of the purposes of the consultation is to simplify the system. We need a robust system that everybody is able to follow and that is clearcut for both sides.

For the Government, the new system will mean increased expenditure on compensation for death or injury sustained in the most challenging conditions. They will be paying higher sums in cases in which the MOD has not been negligent, but that will be offset to a large extent by a reduction in the costs of litigation. The Government would prefer to spend taxpayers’ money directly on compensation for the armed forces rather than on legal fees. I think everyone would agree with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I think there has to be some faith given to the fact that, when we make those appointments, we choose based on independence. I will look at that process and confirm that. I think we are getting into the weeds a little bit by talking about the confirmation of the independence of those who will make the decisions.

Finally, some suggested that, by removing such combat cases from the courts, an opportunity to prevent any recurrence would be lost. The Government disagree with that argument, because the adversarial nature of litigation makes it an unsatisfactory way of learning lessons. I think we would all agree with that. When a member of the UK armed forces has been killed in combat, a full inquest will always be held. When there has been a non-fatal injury of any significance, there will be a service inquiry. I believe that those non-adversarial inquiries will get to the heart of what happened far more quickly than any civil litigation.

The consultation confirmed the Government’s view that our proposals are fair and just, both for the taxpayer and for those who are killed or injured in combat and their loved ones. However, I must make it clear that we were disappointed that the Labour party’s manifesto expressed itself against the proposal, which, in the current political circumstances, is a matter of some significance.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister take an intervention on that point?

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will be helpful and say that he might be reconsidering.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think that interventions necessarily have to be helpful.

[Wayne David]

I am so pleased you said that, Mr Gapes. I was not going to introduce party politics into the debate, but as the Minister has done so, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Opposition want fairness and transparency, but that we also recognise that we live in a parliamentary democracy in which the rule of law is a cornerstone. I understand the operational necessities of conflict, but it is important that we always bear that in mind.

[Mr Ellwood]

I think it is probably too late to amend the armed forces Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords as we speak, but maybe if the hon. Gentleman and I have a quiet coffee, we will find there is some compromise to be had. I hope he would agree that the thrust of the consultation and the Government’s proposals make sense, but I am happy to discuss them with him in more detail if he is minded to do so. We certainly believe that the arguments for making these changes are compelling, and we will announce how we intend to proceed as soon as possible. Of course, we can do that even earlier if Labour Members are inclined to support the proposals.

Armed Forces

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing this debate. No doubt, the fact that he was the Conservative candidate in Caerphilly in 2015 stood him in enormously good stead in terms of his future career.

We have had a good debate, with a variety of contributions. We have heard about the Navy and the Royal Air Force as well as the Army. We have heard about Scotland, accommodation and some of the problems and dilemmas that the armed forces face in the future. We all agree that the armed forces deserve our unreserved, full and unqualified support—we are all united on that.

It has to be said that when I saw the motion of the debate on the future of the armed forces, what sprung to mind was the problems we have seen at the Ministry of Defence in the past few months, and the continuing problems that have been widely reported. There have been reports in The Sunday Times and The Times only this week about: F-35 Lightning aircraft and their cost and suitability; Type 45, 26 and 31E surface ships; the lack of surface-to-air missiles in the Navy; the difficulties of the Astute submarine; problems with the Ajax armoured vehicle programme; the Warrior capability sustainability programme; and the difficulties with the new Queen Elizabeth carrier. The list could go on and on. I want to ask the Minister specifically: when will we see the new shipbuilding strategy? It has been promised and promised, and promised again. It is high time that we saw the strategy. When will it be published?

On top of all of those difficulties, there is the lack of personnel in our armed forces. The Army is, as we have heard, woefully under strength, and rumours are rife that there may well be further cuts in the future. The RAF could certainly do with more personnel, but the shortages are most acute—arguably in the short term—in the Royal Navy.

That is happening at a time when there is greater uncertainty and unpredictability across the world than ever before. Against that backdrop, the United Kingdom is in the process of withdrawing from the European Union and questions are being asked by our traditional allies about our future co-operation with them. It has to be said that even the Americans are questioning Britain’s international commitments and our resolve to make sure that our armed forces are properly equipped, with sufficient and appropriate personnel. Our answer to those concerns must be that we want to see military co-operation with our European partners continue, and more than anything else we must strongly back NATO.

In the Army, despite the Government’s promises—including their 2015 manifesto commitment to have an Army strength of 82,000—the full-time strength of the Army in May 2017 was only 78,150. That is nearly 4,000 short of the MOD’s 2020 target. According to information provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Minister of State for Defence, Earl Howe, has indicated that many of the infantry training courses that we have in this country have large vacancies. That applies to Catterick, Purbeck, Winchester and Harrogate, for infantry training courses for 2015, 2016 and 2017. This must be a cause of concern for us all.

In the Navy, there is a worry that personnel are being transferred from other ships to the new carrier because of a lack of qualified personnel. The problem is most acute regarding engineering skills, and so serious is the problem that the Royal Navy is now offering short-term contracts for ex-Navy personnel who are in their late 50s and even for 60-year-olds. Surely this highlights the need for a long-term strategic commitment to proper and well-financed training.

With regard to the Army, much of the recruitment is now in the hands of Capita, a private sector company. The contracts signed with Capita have been much criticised by the National Audit Office and there is growing disquiet in the Army itself about Capita’s performance. Capita would argue that it is now meeting the targets set for it, but I am told that many of the young recruits are being falsely attracted and when they realise what the Army is all about, they leave. There is a growing problem with retention and it appears that Capita is contributing to it.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Aldershot, lessons must be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan; indeed, I would argue that lessons must be learned from all the conflict situations that we have been involved in recently. We have to recognise that the threats that we will face in the future will not be tackled simply. There is the ongoing threat of terrorism, which may assume other forms, but, as has been mentioned, there is also the threat of a growingly assertive Russia. That threat will not go away in the near future.

What we need in the future in response to those new threats is flexibility, diversity and adequate levels of funding. Yes, 2% may not be enough, certainly as it is defined by the Government, but we need appropriate co-operation with our allies, which will help to ensure the most vital ingredient of all—the good morale of all our armed forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

It is truly an honour to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger, and it is a privilege to respond to this debate. It has been a very good and effective debate on a topic that we often do not have the opportunity to discuss, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing it. I also congratulate him and his gallant colleagues on participating in it. It has been truly fascinating to hear of his distinguished service and the contribution it makes to our deliberations in this place.

I would point out that it would normally be the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who would respond to this debate, but he is going out to visit some of our brave men and women on deployment at the moment, so he sends his regrets for not being with us today.

Several common themes emerged in the debate. I will attempt in the time available to me to touch on each of them. The first was the importance of the armed forces covenant in all our communities. I hope that everyone here today can share with me the aspiration that next year, when we have the 10th anniversary of Armed Forces Day, we will help our local areas to put on a really tremendous celebration. I am proud to have been part of the Government that enshrined the armed forces covenant in law in 2011.

We also heard about some of the issues around accommodation; in particular, from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke very forcefully. A new contract was announced today with Carillion. In the last financial year we put another £68 million into accommodation, but I will certainly pass back what the hon. Gentleman said about the issues he has seen in his constituency.

I certainly heard a lot of support from Government Members for spending at least 2% of GDP on defence. I hope that the Labour party shares that aspiration; it was in its manifesto.

[Wayne David]

We do.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Nevertheless, it is a shame that we have not had quite as good a turnout of Labour Members as we have had of Government Members.

A number of colleagues mentioned the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill. That has started its passage through the House in the Lords, and I was glad to hear a range of supportive voices from the Government Benches for that legislation.

We heard about the issue around the base closure at York, which is scheduled to happen in 2031. We hope that setting such a long-term time horizon will give people the chance to plan around it, and of course there will be significant investment in the Catterick garrison, which is about an hour away from York, in terms of basing decisions.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I think that everyone can see that my hon. Friend himself embodies that military unit. Beckenham is well served in terms of the voice of the armed forces.

A number of hon. Members talked about celebrating the year of the Navy. It is a very exciting year, with HMS Queen Elizabeth going off on her sea trials from Scotland recently. It was also very exciting to announce recently the first of the new frigates, the Type 26. I assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that not only will the way we are ordering the frigates ensure that we have those eight anti-submarine warfare frigates, but it will provide the best value for the public purse. That idea is behind the approach we are taking.

As far as the Type 31e is concerned, we are still in the pre-concept phase on that, and the approach that we take on procurement is that we will always make decisions at the last responsible moment.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give an assurance that she will encourage the use of as much British steel in the new frigates as is humanly possible?

Counter-Daesh Update

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

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

The liberation of Mosul marks the end of three years of Daesh control of the city, and we pay tribute to all the personnel who have taken part in the campaign, especially to our servicemen and women who have served in Operation Shader. Although the battle for Mosul has almost concluded, the fight against Daesh in Iraq and the wider region is far from over. Will the Secretary of State tell us about the nature of the support that the UK will continue to provide to Iraqi ground troops as they advance westward to clear the remaining towns and cities in Iraq that are under Daesh control?

Our armed forces have taken every precaution to prevent civilian casualties, and intelligence and targeting are vital to that, but the Secretary of State will be aware that Amnesty International has produced a report that is highly critical of the Iraqi Government and the coalition. It has been alleged that the actions of the coalition in Mosul have been “disproportionate” and even “unlawful”. Major General Rupert Jones, the deputy commander of the international anti-Daesh coalition, has condemned the report in the strongest possible terms, saying that it is “deeply irresponsible”. He has emphatically stated that we should not forget that it is Daesh that is “deliberately killing civilians”. What is the Secretary of State’s response to Amnesty’s report?

The Iraqi Government have concerns about the possibility of Daesh fighters crossing back into Iraq from Syria, so what role will our armed forces play in ensuring the security of the border between Iraq and Syria? As the operation against Daesh moves from one of counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism, the training that the UK provides to Iraqi forces will prove all the more essential. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the support and training that we will continue to give to the Iraqi ground forces?

The campaign against Daesh in Syria is undoubtedly more challenging and complex than in Iraq. Although I appreciate that there are limitations on what the Defence Secretary is able to tell the House, will he be a little more specific on the role our armed forces will have in the liberation of Raqqa from Daesh control?

Finally, as the Secretary of State will be aware, a number of Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary, have been calling for an operational service medal for personnel on Operation Shader. As the campaign in Mosul draws to a close, I would suggest that it is now the time to provide proper recognition to all those who have served on that operation and played a vital part in the fight against Daesh and its perverse ideology.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, particularly about the role of our servicemen. A large number of our servicemen and women have now served in this theatre for nearly three years, sometimes under the most intense conditions, and it is right that we should, on both sides of this House, pay tribute to them.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the next stage of this campaign. It is important to emphasise that Mosul itself has not finally fallen; there is still a small pocket of resistance. Indeed, a Tornado and a Typhoon were over the city yesterday, bombing a final Daesh position, so there is still work to be done there. There will be work to be done to assist Iraqi forces in the capture of Tal Afar and Nineveh, so the campaign goes on and may well become more complex as Daesh spreads out and moves to some of the less populated areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Amnesty report. I have not seen the Amnesty report as of yet, but I would certainly recommend that he does heed, as he has done, the words of Major General Rupert Jones, who is the deputy coalition commander. I can reassure the House that, so far as our own participation in the coalition is concerned, the airstrikes that we carry out are absolutely lawful and are conducted in accordance with the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law. We have rigorous rules of engagement, which I set at the beginning of the campaign. There are very robust targeting procedures. Where the RAF are involved, they gather intelligence about the target they are aiming to strike. They strike it with a choice of weapon that is designed to absolutely minimise the risk of civilian casualties. They go back afterwards and do an assessment of the blast area and whether there were any unforeseen consequences.

Where there are allegations that the wrong building was hit or that there have been civilian casualties, again, we on the coalition side absolutely investigate those allegations. We publish the findings. This is in distinction to what the Russians and the Syrian regime have been doing in Syria. We investigate, we publish the findings, and if mistakes were made and procedures need to be corrected, that is done. But I want to assure the House that I have seen no evidence as of yet that an RAF strike has involved civilian casualties. I wait to see that evidence being produced, and if anybody has any evidence, it needs to be forwarded to us, as, indeed, other organisations, like Airwars, have been doing throughout the conflict, and we are ready to investigate. Otherwise, I would urge extreme caution in the handling of the Amnesty report.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the border area between Iraq and Syria. It is that middle bit of the Euphrates river valley where we now anticipate Daesh will coalesce, having been driven out of Raqqa in Syria eventually, and from Mosul and Tal Afar in Iraq. Our training effort will now be, of course, in Iraq. The training we do at al-Asad airbase in Anbar province will be to improve the capability of the Iraqi forces to police their border, having secured it. We will be doing more of that in conjunction with our other allies.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the campaign in Syria. We will continue with airstrikes. Again yesterday, a pair of our aircraft were in action on the edge of Raqqa, assisting that campaign. There is a lot of work to be done before Raqqa is liberated, and other towns in the Euphrates river valley, such as Mayadin, remain under Daesh control. The air campaign—the reconnaissance and the intelligence-gathering—will probably become even more important as Daesh eventually moves from Raqqa and starts to disperse round some of these smaller towns.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about medallic recognition. I think the whole House would want to see this huge effort properly rewarded. I am awaiting final advice from the military on that, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

The Royal Navy is growing; I am pleased that for the first time in a generation the establishment of the Royal Navy will grow, by 400, as I said. I have mentioned the personnel recovery programme, an excellent programme that has sought to address the shortages of engineers through apprenticeships and through affiliation with university technical colleges. It is a long-term programme, but it is working.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The truth is that the Royal Navy has experienced catastrophic cuts in personnel over the past seven years and now the chickens are coming home to roost; the Navy is even asking 55 to 60-year-olds to rejoin on short-term contracts. Will the Government now recognise the error of their ways and recruit, on good wages, the personnel we need? The Prime Minister has asked for ideas from the Opposition, so will the Minister pass my suggestion on to the Prime Minister?

[Mark Lancaster]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, this seems to be a common theme when we come to the Dispatch Box: he is always terribly negative. I am determined to try to support our serving personnel and, as I have tried to explain, an awful lot of effort is going in at the moment. This really is the year of the Navy, with more than £3 billion invested in the Royal Navy. We are seeing two new carriers; the fourth Astute class was launched recently; and we are seeing the contract launch for three Type 26s. The future is bright for the Royal Navy and I wish he would stop talking it down.