Defence and Security Review (NATO)

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Crispin Blunt]

I—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend is well aware, we are anticipating that a strategic defence and security review will take place following the general election later this summer, so all the planning assumptions that were introduced in the 2010 review will be reconsidered in 2015. As I mentioned earlier, as far as the frigate contract is concerned, the current planning assumption is for a like-for-like replacement of the Type 23 class.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

That was a very interesting comment from the Minister given that the Prime Minister recently announced that both carriers would be operational. Clearly, it also has implications for the equipment programme. Is the Minister saying that he intends to build 13 frigates for carrier support?

[Mr Dunne]

I just explained in my answer to the previous question what the planning assumption is for replacing frigates. I can reconfirm to the hon. Lady that within the equipment plan is the capital cost of constructing both aircraft carriers, and they are coming in on time and on budget, in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there was a recognised capability gap when maritime aircraft were taken out of service in SDSR 2010. The Government, as with previous Governments, operate in conjunction with our allies around the world. We provide aircraft to Baltic patrol and transport lift aircraft to the French. On occasion, our allies provide us with maritime patrol aircraft.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I was glad to hear the Minister’s answer to the question regarding Russian submarines infiltrating our waters.

Why, after the major equipment programme has been let, are his Department and UK Trade & Investment still scurrying around trying to hold the manufacturer to a pre-contract offer of safeguarding or creating 10,000 jobs in the UK? We now know that the Scout programme he mentioned will be built in Spain, Germany and the Netherlands, and that the core jobs in the UK are fewer than 400. That has happened on his watch. Why was the economic case for bringing the work to the UK not done before the contract was finalised? The Secretary of State spent all that time trumpeting what seemed to be a huge success when, in fact, it is not.

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Lady may recall, the original proposed contract, which was considered under her Administration, was for more than double the number of vehicles for which we have contracted. Consequently, the number of people potentially employed is significantly lower. However, the contract for the Scout vehicle, at £3.5 billion, is the largest contract that the British Army has received, and involves some 160 companies, predominantly in the UK. It will sustain 1,400 jobs in the UK, and we are currently actively exploring the opportunity for the onshore assembly of vehicles, from 101 to 589.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

The Ministry of Defence takes the cyber-threat very seriously. Indeed, I visited one of our joint cyber-units only last week. The priority is to keep our networks and systems defended and operational. Since 2010, we have invested several hundred million pounds to help maintain the UK’s cyber-security and cyber-defences. In July, the Prime Minister announced a package of investment for our armed forces, which included a further £75 million over four years to help maintain a leading edge capability in this vital field.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Opposition Members were pleased that the Secretary of State took the opportunity, following articles that suggested the opposite, to confirm that the Type 26 will be built in Scotland and not overseas. However, he did not take the opportunity to allay fears about the slippage in the programme, with the approval date going beyond mid-2015. Will he do so today?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me take the opportunity absolutely to reinforce the point the hon. Lady makes. UK warships are built only in UK yards. I do not think I can make the position on the Clyde any clearer, and I hope she will take some reassurance from that. I am aware of what she says about the timetable and we are addressing that. I hope that we can make some early decisions, at least on some of the longer lead items that feed into the Type 26 programme, in the very near future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. As the Prime Minister made clear, so long as there is a Conservative Government, the Red Arrows will continue flying.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The reported bonus package allowable under new Treasury rules for the new chief executive officer of Defence Equipment and Support would certainly embarrass a banker. In the interests of openness and accuracy, will the Minister confirm exactly how many freedoms and flexibilities there will be? Importantly, have the proposed managed service providers been told about them, and if so, please will he make them available to Members of the House and the shadow defence team?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

The hon. Lady is referring to the recent advertisement for the new chief executive of DE&S. I think that she and the whole House will agree that for one of the largest procurement programmes in Government—£14.5 billion a year out of a £164 billion programme—we need to get the best person for the job, who needs to be adequately rewarded. I will leave it at that, because the recruitment process is in progress. As far as the MSPs are concerned, the freedom allows us to recruit 25 people within DE&S at in excess of the Prime Minister’s salary.

Gurkha Pensions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I would like to record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for its excellent work in facilitating debates such as this one today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing the debate on Gurkha pensions and terms of employment. The topic has been discussed at length here before but, as I would have expected, she gave an extremely thoughtful and well balanced speech. We have heard knowledgeable and passionate speeches from other Members, highlighting very specific concerns, including the issue of dismissals and Hawaii. I shall not get involved in those; I am sure the Minister will consider all those detailed and specific points.

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for the hard work that she and her colleagues do in the all-party group. Many people and organisations have given up their time—we have heard about the huge number of attendees—in connection with it. Having walked down the Committee corridor on a number of occasions when events were taking place, I know that the hon. Lady has had an interesting and, I suspect, at times quite difficult-to-manage task. She deserves the plaudits she was given, particularly from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth); they were entirely justified.

Members will understand why so many colleagues have been absent from today’s debate, but the defence of the United Kingdom and the Union is a paramount concern. Scotland plays an important role in the overall defence of our realm. A yes vote, which would leave the Scots unable to respond to incidents, without intelligence cover and losing jobs is not, I think, something that any Member in the Chamber would want to see, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot for his comments. As he said, many Members whose constituencies contain significant Gurkha and Nepalese communities have gone to fight for the Union today.

The hon. Member for Thurrock set out some of the initial findings, and highlighted some of the key issues that had been raised with the all-party group. I am pleased that she sought to obtain this debate in order to listen to the views of Members, and—here I return to the fact that so many Members have not been able to participate in it because of their commitments elsewhere—I hope that she will pursue the issue. I hope that she will give all Members a copy of the report of the debate, and seek their views further to ensure that she has all bases covered. I am sure that others will want to read what has been said here today.

Members in all parts of the House recognise the enormous contribution made by the Gurkha soldiers to Britain. The Gurkhas are held in much public affection and esteem by the British public, and rightly so. They have represented and protected our nation gallantly for well over 100 years—indeed, as we heard from the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), for approaching 200 years. They fought alongside British troops before and during the first and second world wars, and continue that tradition in present-day operations. I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) about the Mandalay company’s involvement in training in his constituency. That, I think, illustrates just how important the Gurkhas are currently to the British armed services.

The last Government, appreciating the contribution and service of the Gurkhas, made a commitment to honour the Gurkha regiments, first by eliminating differences between their terms and conditions of service and those of their British counterparts, and later by delivering the first ever rights of settlement for Gurkhas, their spouses and their dependent children. We are proud of the work that we did in government in enhancing the lives of Gurkha soldiers and their families. I understand, however, that although there have been significant developments in recent years in relation to the pay and conditions of Gurkha soldiers and the extension of their right to settle in the UK, some outstanding grievances remain. We heard about a number of them during the debate, and of course we have also heard from Gurkhas and organisations that represent them, such as the Gurkha Welfare Trust.

Chief among those grievances is the issue relating to Gurkha pension arrangements for those who served prior to 1997. The last Government introduced a policy under which all who served after 1997 were able to transfer into the armed forces pension scheme and enjoy the same terms and conditions as their British equivalents. Of course, before 1997, Gurkha regiments were focused in the far east. Recruits came from Nepal, pay and other conditions reflected the terms available in the Indian army and it was assumed that Gurkhas would retire not in the UK, but in their home country of Nepal.

Following the transfer of the Brigade of Gurkhas to the United Kingdom in 1997, it seemed only right for the Gurkhas’ terms and conditions to be brought in line with those of British soldiers. As increasing numbers of Gurkhas were based here and began to put down roots in the UK, it became necessary to give them the right to settle with their families, a right that the last Government delivered. As for those who had served before 1997, and who were not part of the cohort of soldiers who moved with the base to the UK, it was still the expectation that they would settle in Nepal. They remained under the Gurkha pension scheme, which allows them to collect a pension after 15 years of service—far less than for a British soldier—and which provides them with an amount that can secure a good standard of living in Nepal.

I heard what the hon. Member for Thurrock said about the way in which that income is now spent, and what other Members said about the pressures on those living in Nepal. I shall be interested to read the evidence from the all-party review, particularly that relating to medical services. I am sure that the Minister will also be interested to read it when it is made public.

During a debate on this topic in 2009, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out that the early payment of pensions for Gurkhas, after 15 years of service, actually means that most Gurkhas receive a significant pension before equivalent soldiers receive anything at all. A Gurkha soldier enrolled in the Gurkha pension scheme who enlisted at the age of 18 would have been able to retire at 33 and begin to collect his pension then. That has raised a number of issues; as I have said, I shall be interested to see the report. Members have posed further questions to the Minister today, including questions about the use of LIBOR funding and various other pots of money, and I am sure that she will give that some thought. I listened with interest, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister’s response, although I suspect that she, like Opposition Members, will want to see the detail and consider it, because the devil is always in the detail when looking at such complex issues.

In contrast, those under the armed forces pension scheme 1975 cannot collect a pension until they are 60. By the time they reach 60 it is correct to say that the Gurkhas will receive lower monthly payments than their British counterparts, but they will have already benefited from 27 years of annual payments by that time, whereas the British soldier will have received none.

We should also remember, of course, that the Gurkha pension scheme cannot be separated from other pension schemes, including the current and previous schemes for our armed forces. It has been the policy of Governments across time that the terms and conditions of pension arrangements cannot be changed retrospectively after people leave public service. I know that a number of organisations are still seeking to make changes to the pension arrangements for those who served prior to 1997, and as Members have pointed out, there has been a series of legal challenges, to the High Court and Court of Appeal. The latter found, in relation to the pre-1997 pension arrangement, that the previous Government had acted fairly, especially given that the soldiers’ entire service was completed before the base was moved from Hong Kong, and at a time when the assumption and, importantly, the reality was retirement to a life in Nepal. We maintain that the policy introduced by the last Labour Government was reasonable, rational and lawful.

I should like to touch briefly on the emotional and complex issue of the changes sought to rules in relation to adult children. With regard to changes in the rules to allow adult children to settle in the UK, we must be clear that the UK Government’s policy has to be consistent and fair. What has been sought would not be in line with policy offered to other former servicemen from abroad and with wider UK immigration policy. This is a highly emotive area, but the Home Office has very clear rules about this, and those rules need to be acknowledged.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we must ensure that our application of our immigration laws is consistent. A number of Gurkhas are applying to get their families over on the basis of a right to family life, but ultimately anyone can apply under other visas—student visas or work visas—and does the hon. Lady agree that their adult families might use those routes, rather than the right to family life or any right that might arise from their veterans’ service?

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, although it would probably be better answered by a Home Office expert than me. This is complex, however. I have in my constituency a large number of Fijians who are based in Plymouth and in the Navy, and have a long-standing commitment. They could possibly equally argue that things need to be altered because of their degree and level of service. The rules must be clear, consistent and fair. If the hon. Lady’s report can give an indication that that would be the case, I am sure the Home Secretary would be interested to read it—and I, too, would be interested to read it—but at the moment, as the rules stand, there can be no specific exceptions.

This is not a day for tub-thumping party politics, but I make one small observation: the Gurkhas are being disproportionately affected by the Government’s handling of their proposed reform to the armed forces and the rationale behind the removal of 350 Gurkhas from service still needs some explanation—but I will go no further on that point in terms of the cuts to the regiments and the timing.

The welfare and well-being of our serving personnel and our veterans is a priority for this party, as I am sure it is for the Government parties. That is one reason why we pushed so hard to enshrine the principles of the armed forces covenant in law. It is also why we undertook to introduce equal pay and pension rights for Gurkhas and to provide them with the option to settle in the United Kingdom if they wished to.

We have heard from many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) highlighted his constituency links to the Nepalese community in a very positive way. The hon. Member for Aldershot spoke of the pressures of resettlement on local councils and health services. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke of her constituent’s commitment to his community in being elected as a local councillor. None of us would want to suggest that the Gurkhas and other members of the Nepalese community are anything other than a positive benefit to the communities in which they settle, as long as the right support is in place for them. The Gurkhas play a vital role in our armed forces, and I hope that we can look forward to many more years of their dedicated, brave, committed and highly skilled service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the great success of the air show at RAF Waddington, which I believe he attended the other day. He is also right to point out that the runway is in need of routine maintenance—essentially, a new runway needs to be laid, which will take 59 weeks starting in September—and therefore it will not be available next year. The RAF is undertaking a review of all air show commitments for next year, so we will be in a better position to respond on 2016 when that review has been completed.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The Government made a clear decision in the 2010 SDSR to withdraw the important Sentinel capability from service. There is now speculation that it is to be retained, although it is not named in the news release that has gone out—it sort of slipped under the media radar. Does the Secretary of State accept that, like the F-35 U-turn costing millions, this is another example of poor strategic decision making and more back peddling?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

No, and I think the hon. Lady will find that the capability was mentioned in the announcement that has been issued. The decision was made to take Sentinel out of service at the end of the campaign in Afghanistan, for reasons of affordability. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, because of careful husbandry of the defence budget, we have now been able to take the decision to extend Sentinel once the Afghan campaign has ended, at least until 2018. That will allow us to look at the capabilities that Sentinel delivers—wide-area surveillance of fast-moving ground targets—in the context of our broader need for wide-area surveillance capability, both maritime and over land.

First World War (Commemoration)

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), particularly given his comments about the four proposed woods. Many of us will be able to picture photographs and Paul Nash’s paintings of the destroyed trees and their stumps. The proposal is an appropriate part of the commemoration process.

It is always a privilege to listen to a good maiden speech: we certainly heard one today, and I welcome the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to his place.

I am sure that most of us have listened to many excellent BBC programmes and heard many moving accounts from the men who served. I want to add to those accounts. No account is more poignant to me than the diary entry I am going to read now. It is dated 17 August 1914 and is from the diary of my great-uncle Lieutenant George Ward of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry, who was killed in action on 24 August 1916. His cousin, Gordon Clarke, wrote to his brother—my grandfather—who was recovering from serious wounds received earlier in the battle of the Somme, that he had seen George a couple of days earlier and he was in good spirits. The date of that letter was 24 August, the day he was actually killed. There are so many stories like that, and Gordon was killed four days later.

My great-uncle wrote:

“Europe is plunged into an awful war, what the issue will be no one can say. What waste of human life.”

He also expressed concerns about the problems of the slums in Britain and the need for money to be spent there, and questioned whether the war would be just and sensible. For a very young man, he was prescient in his concern about the size and scale of what was about to happen. Nevertheless, even with his misgivings and concern for the poor in Britain, he felt that it was his duty to serve. He had been a member of the Congregational Church and the Boys Brigade and had been involved in adult school evening classes.

My great-uncle also wrote to his parents to tell them of the great conflict in his soul about joining up. He felt that he should be away with his fellow countrymen fighting a noble cause, which was difficult because his parents were staunch pacifists. In fact, my great-uncle George’s name is not on the local war memorial because his father would not allow it to appear. That is a cause of enormous sadness to me, but it was very strongly felt and that is why his name does not appear.

In my great-uncle’s letter to his parents, he said:

“Could we have reasonably remained neutral without prejudice to our national honour? I think not!”

That was the view of an ordinary man at the start of the conflict. Clearly he had his fears and he queried the jingoistic comments in some newspapers. He wrote about not wanting

“to crush that beautiful Germany of Beethoven, Schubert, Martin Luther and Schiller but we do have to smash the military caste.”

That was his view at the time and it is an interesting observation.

My great-uncle is buried near Albert, in the Peronne road cemetery, which I will visit this summer to pay my respects. I add my thanks to all those involved in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the work they do. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) will stand the test of time: people should read and take note of it, because it was fascinating on many levels.

My grandfather was blown up on the Somme on 12 July. He came back very badly injured and could never get life insurance as a result. These were the days when post-traumatic stress disorder was not recognised. How did he cope with what he had done and what he had seen? It is very interesting and it is only as I grew older and when I was an adult that I understood some of his behaviour. He used to take himself off to his allotment to be by himself. When family were present and people were chatting, he would not involve himself in the conversation. He would go off and play the piano in a very solitary way. He never, ever talked about his experience. I think that was the only way in which he could manage and deal with the horrors he had seen. Everyone present probably has a similar family story. We also need to remember those on the home front, including the women who worked in the munitions factories, and the terrible risks they faced at the time.

Today we talk of urgent operational requirements, but the speed with which the Government moved following the outbreak of war and the way in which cities such as Plymouth responded was astonishing. We should remember that in those days, they sent telegrams rather than text messages. Local historian Derek Tait notes that by 9 August the Government had already taken over control of the railways and all regular schedules were suspended.

Five of the 14 Plymouth-based ships were sunk during the battle of Jutland, including HMS Indefatigable. She had seen action in the Dardanelles, but was sunk after her magazine exploded following two or three direct hits. Only two of her 1,019 crew members survived. When we think about the losses experienced in the trenches, let us also not forget the huge loss of life at sea or, indeed, the short life expectancy of pilots flying for the Royal Flying Corps in those early planes that seemed to be held together with nothing more than string. Flying boats also took off from Mount Batten. Plymouth is a very rare thing indeed—a place where all three forces have been based simultaneously. The city of Plymouth will, of course, be holding many commemorations. The city museum is running a series of exhibitions that I hope people will go along to.

HMS Warspite was launched in 1913 from Devonport, where she began her distinguished career as the most decorated ship in the Royal Navy. Plymouth was one of the most important ports and that remains the case today. Of course, our merchant navy also went in and out of Plymouth, Portsmouth and elsewhere. We should take time to consider the losses that it incurred and the bravery of those men who sailed and kept this country supplied.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the excellent speech she is making. Has she visited, as I have, the fantastic memorial to the merchant navy by the Tower of London? It is very moving—it lists the ships sunk and the loss of life on each of them—and does she agree that it is a very special memorial for a nation that has always depended on the sea?

[Alison Seabeck]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I urge people who come to London and visit the tower to go to see the memorial, particularly this year or during the coming four years.

Interestingly, the war coincided with the amalgamation of three towns—Plymouth, Devonport and Stonehouse—into what we now know as the city of Plymouth. It was as Plymouth that citizens rallied around to support the troops and to care for the injured. Some 120,000 soldiers mobilised out of Plymouth in just four days between 5 and 9 August. Like many other cities, we had Pals regiments.

I again thank the Plymouth Herald and local historians for drawing my attention to the Plymouth Argyle players who enlisted. Jack Cock earned the military medal for bravery in the field. At one stage, he was pronounced missing presumed dead, but, fortunately for his family and for the club, that was not the case. He went on to score 72 league goals, as well as to play for England. I am sure that the current Green Army are very proud of their club’s players, and of their bravery and sacrifice.

Many schools in the city were converted for a range of uses, including as hospitals, and the city saw the return of injured Australians from the dreadful battle of Gallipoli, as well as the opening of a hospital specifically for US servicemen. Troops from across the empire—from Canada, India and New Zealand—set off from Plymouth, and we should remember the sacrifices of those men alongside those of other allies.

Such a wealth of information on which to draw gives us a very varied picture of what happened and of how individuals responded to the dreadful challenges they faced and the sights they witnessed. I was therefore a little surprised to read an article sent by my great-uncle, Lieutenant Ward that was printed in the Romford Recorder, because he gave it very much warts and all; there was no censorship. He described feeling happy to be alive but went on in graphic detail to describe the shelling of his trench and wrote about a private

“wild-eyed, white and haggard looking, plastered with mud asking for urgent help for the ‘Durhams’ who have got it.”

He also talked about the bravery and calmness of the stretcher bearers, and particularly about a Corporal Swain, a man from Cornwall. It is therefore interesting that when I was on a walk along the cliffs at Pentire point in Cornwall, I came across a plaque which reads:

“For the Fallen

Composed on these cliffs, 1914”.

The words by Laurence Binyon have already been mentioned, but they are worth repeating:

“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old.

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I think that my hon. Friend was trying to plug a visit, and he has done a good job, because I would be more than happy to go and see that organisation. Often it is those small, local charities that can deliver the best—I certainly have one in my constituency. We have made available millions upon millions of pounds in LIBOR funding for exactly those sorts of organisations to deliver those much-needed services.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Today’s report from Combat Stress flags up the increasing awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder and the increasing willingness of people to seek help earlier, which is a thoroughly good thing. The Combat Stress community outreach team provides those vital services and benefits from the existing funding, as the Minister has highlighted. Will she confirm that it is her intention that that level of funding will continue beyond the end of this financial year?

[Anna Soubry]

What I can say is that we have given £10 million of LIBOR funding, effectively in perpetuity, to support our excellent charities. Combat Stress, for example, has received £2.7 million from that, and the outreach team, which the hon. Lady mentioned, received £2 million. May I also make a correction? I think that earlier I said that about £7 million of LIBOR funding had gone into mental health, but it was actually £13 million. We also have many other measures to combat this very concerning condition.

Defence Reform Bill

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

What I am guaranteeing is that a report will be presented to the House before the commencement of part 1 comes before the House in an affirmative resolution. It will be up to the Government of the day to decide at what point to publish that report and therefore what interval to leave between publication and moving an affirmative resolution in this House. What I am not guaranteeing is the duration of that interval.

These Lords amendments will make a good Bill better. They show that the Government have listened to the concerns raised during the Bill’s passage through both Houses. The changes to the Bill covered by the Lords amendments will ensure that Parliament has the information it needs on these important aspects of our defence. I therefore ask hon. Members to agree to Lords amendments 1 to 7 and to reject the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment 7.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Labour Members associate themselves with the condolences offered to the family and friends of the five servicemen lost so very tragically while serving their country. Their loss is deeply felt, particularly by their colleagues and close friends here in this place, and we acknowledge that loss.

Let me start by discussing the proposals to part 2 of the Bill. The Minister has talked about Lords amendments 1 to 5 to clauses 33, 39 and 42, which deal with the single-source procurement contracts. Labour Members welcome the amendments in principle, because they take forward the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and because they make sensible changes to simplify this legislation. It does indeed make sense to use one statutory instrument for all the regulations under part 2, as Lords amendment 1 achieves, along with the accompanying amendments—the technical changes that follow. Baroness Jolly in the other place explained the logic behind these amendments, which allow all the regulations under part 2 to be made in one statutory instrument; there is also provision for the maximum penalties to be made under the single- source contract regulations, rather than in separate regulations.

My colleague Lord Tunnicliffe, who did sterling work in the other place speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said he needed to see the proposal in writing before deciding whether there might be a problem. Having seen it in writing, Labour takes the view that these are largely technical amendments to which we have no objections. However, there are some concerns about the way in which impact assessments are being carried out by Departments on new regulations. The recent Regulatory Policy Committee report, published last month, on the improvement of the evidence base for regulation suggested some serious weaknesses in the way in which Departments were estimating the impact of new regulations. Indeed, only 75% of the first-time impact assessment submissions were fit for purpose, down from 81% in 2012. Will the Minister confirm that the proposed change has been given the green light and whether there are likely to be any problems for that Committee? Lords amendment 5 addresses two more recommendations of the DPRRC. As the Minister stated, it is purely technical and we have no problems with it at all. The Opposition support the work done by the DPRRC and on both sides of the House of Lords and we welcome that group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

I am intrigued by the selective amnesia from which the hon. Lady appears to be suffering. Does she recall the passage of the Companies Bill under the previous Government, as no fewer than 250 amendments were proposed for consideration by the House in the final two minutes of debate?

[Alison Seabeck]

The Minister is quite right to make that point. It is deeply frustrating for Back Benchers and for the public to see legislation being rushed through Parliament. There are lessons that Members on both sides of the House can learn—

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

You are as bad as each other.

[Alison Seabeck]

We can learn the lessons without hectoring from colleagues from Scotland. Full and public debate, and full and open scrutiny, are a sign of strong government, and it is something that we should all try to achieve in the House.

My noble Friend Lord Rosser said:

“If a future Government adopt the same approach”

and seek to run Defence Procurement via a GoCo

“the report on the effectiveness of the new DE&S-plus-plus organisation will be crucial, as will be the objectivity of that future Government’s assessment of DE&S-plus-plus”—

as it was referred to in the House of Lords—

“and their case for believing that the GOCO option would be more successful.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 966.]

The report for which this amendment provides will ensure that we can have real oversight as to the effectiveness of the new-look DE&S. However, as I have said, it still falls a bit short of what we would like. We are being asked to allow a measure to proceed that has been fraught with difficulty, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. According to the Minister, in a written answer to me on 18 December 2013, in running the tendering process the Government had

“spent £7.4 million supporting the work on the GoCo option”—[Official Report, 18 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 636W.]

However, according to a parliamentary answer on 11 February 2014 to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the total for the concept and assessment phase was almost £29 million. What is the final total, and has the Minister assessed the costs of running a similar exercise if a future Government opted to go down the GoCo route?

The Opposition very much hope that the changes that have been made—sadly, many of them are still not in the public domain—will make a difference, bolstering those areas within DE& S that need additional expertise or which have been hollowed out by changes to the overall size of the civil service. As we are discussing this part of the Bill, will the Minister kindly explain why, as of yesterday evening, the corporate plan and framework document for DE&S were not in the Library or on the Ministry of Defence website? In a written answer to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), a former Defence Minister, and to me on 7 April, an assurance was given that that would happen. Certainly, in discussing the need for openness and for the full and proper scrutiny of the proposed measures, as well as consideration of the Lords amendments, having sight of this document would be helpful.

It was noted in the other place that a future Government, having made up their mind that they wanted to go down the GoCo route, might be tempted to try to rush through the affirmative order. That was acknowledged by the Minister as a potential problem. Lord Rosser pointed out:

“I cannot help but recall that this Government, in declining to withdraw Part 1, argued that there might in future be a need to bring in the GOCO option with a minimum of delay—an odd argument, bearing in mind that the Government themselves had just had to delay their intentions on the GOCO option by at least two or three years, but nevertheless an indication of a Government’s thinking that they might seek to make the change as quickly as possible at the possible expense of proper scrutiny.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 966-67.]

That was enough to cause Opposition Members concern. Any decision that could have such a major impact on the safety and performance of our heroic servicemen and women must be subject to the necessary scrutiny, and Parliament should be allowed time to undertake that scrutiny. We also have at the back of our mind debates about conflicts of interest, intellectual property protection and so on, which will need, should a new proposal be introduced, to be addressed properly and transparently. A rushed scrutiny period would be unsatisfactory and it would not inspire public confidence.

In conclusion, I am concerned that simply expecting the DE&S-plus proposition to become match-fit as a public sector comparator for future market testing of the GoCo is hardly a vote of confidence in the hard-working staff of that organisation or, indeed, of those businesses that have been encouraged to tender to become strategic partners, which is why stronger scrutiny would help. The Minister mentioned significant concessions, but he also referred to an uncertain future. The measure, as it stands, could do with a little more certainty and scrutiny. Sadly, he has failed to persuade us that our amendment is unnecessary, so we will be pressing it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the concessions from the Treasury, but without the detail of the corporate plan, which is yet to be laid in the Library, we do not know exactly what those flexibilities are.

[Mr Brazier]

We do not have the detail, but we do know that there is now more flexibility on people and in other crucial areas, such as the annuality of budgets, which are extremely important for running an operation such as procurement.

I want to leave one thought on procurement. Some 25, 26 or 27 years ago, when working as a management consultant, I was privileged to take part in a study comparing the procurement methods of seven different countries. Our procurers in the then procurement executive—it has changed its name several times since—were at least as good as the average and arguably better. The majority of the problems in the system fell into one of two categories. Either the customer within MOD changed its mind or was unclear about its needs, or things were laid down from outside, some of which appear to be being addressed. As a result of the unsuccessful attempt to create a GoCo, we have ended up with a better outcome than we would otherwise have had.

I support all the Government’s amendments and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View is with them, too, although she has indicated one area in which she would like to go further.

I of course knew when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his pledge on the reserves that it would be honoured. However, not only has it been honoured exactly, but the Government’s wording of the clause is better than I originally proposed and has been well thought through. They particularly thought through the complicated federal nature of the reserve forces and cadets associations. The clause deals neatly with a problem, which I hope will never occur again but happened some 15 or 16 years ago, when the centre got out of touch with its regional branches. Leaving the real power with the regional branches, which are elected, covers that issue nicely. Parliament will get a good report whatever happens. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to the proposal and to the Members on both sides of the House who supported the original measure.

I end by saying—I hope that you will indulge in me in this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, strictly, it is beyond the amendment—that when we originally debated the matter in the House, there was great concern about recruiting for the reserves. I expressed the view that it had been seriously mishandled under the new assimilated structure controlled by the Regular Army. I also expressed confidence in Major General Chris Tickell, who had taken over.

Since then, things have moved a long way. My local TA infantry battalion got as many soldiers in January and February as it did in the previous 10 months. That is still only two thirds of what it needs if it is to grow, rather than just tread water, but it is a huge step forward. Today it has eight young officers under the age of 30, whereas a couple of years ago it had only two or three.

I firmly believe that things will move in the right direction, but I think that the steady hand on the tiller of this annual report from the RFCAs, which really do get it, will play a profound role, and I am grateful to the Government for giving way on that. I support all the Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

It is not for me to determine what may happen in future in an area of the Department for which I am not responsible. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that the cost of training and bringing a new entrant into the Army Reserve is considerably higher than the cost of an already-trained regular transferring, where the cost is, in essence, negligible. The rationale for providing an additional bounty for the regular is that the cost is equivalent to what we are paying to train up a raw recruit into the reserves.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View asked where the corporate plan and the framework documents stand in relation to DE&S-plus. I am pleased to be able to inform her and the House that we will be placing those in the Library and publishing them shortly.

The hon. Lady asked about the costs of the exercise. I think she was trying to get me to predict the future cost of a subsequent GoCo exercise. I like to think of myself as a clairvoyant in some areas, but I cannot possibly determine what the rates of consultant advice might be at some indeterminate point in the future, so that was a question incapable of an answer. She asked specifically about the costs that we incurred on the previous exercise. I gently point out to her that the answer I gave on the cost of the GoCo element was a subset of the cost of the matériel strategy as a whole. That is why there is a difference between the £7.4 million figure and the £28.9 million figure that we gave to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in response to a question.

We have had a good debate this afternoon. It has been good natured—

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank the Minister, who has been helpful and charming throughout this whole process. I wonder whether he will indulge me in putting on record my thanks to the Officers of the House and to all the Members who have contributed to this debate. I am sure that he is about to do the same.

[Mr Dunne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for indulging so many Members of the House in an opportunity to use time that is rarely available to us to pass such niceties and congratulations across the Chamber. Yes, the hon. Lady’s remarks are absolutely reciprocated. We have had good support from the Officers of the House and from Members of the House throughout the Committee stage and all stages of the Bill. We have also had considerable support in the other place, where there was a great deal of interest not only from the former Chiefs of Staff who sit there but from many other Members on both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham, who aided and abetted her throughout the Committee stage. I place on record my thanks to my colleague, Lord Astor of Hever, who took the Bill through the other place in his customary exemplary style.

This is an important Bill that will help transform the way in which we procure equipment for our armed forces and the way in which we use our reserves. I am pleased that it will now proceed to Royal Assent.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 49

Commencement

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 7.— (Alison Seabeck.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.