Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Murphy

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report by March, and will take careful note of the issues that it raises. I should point out, however, that way back in 2010 the national security strategy established cyber-security as a tier 1 priority, and that within a very few months it established the national cyber-security programme, which involved expenditure of £650 million over 10 years. I was delighted to note—without being complacent—that the Economist Intelligence Unit recently ranked the UK at No. 1 in terms of preparedness for a cyber attack.[Official Report, 5 February 2013, Vol. 558, c. 3MC.]

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

We all welcome the number of councils that have signed up to the community covenant, which will help to ease the transition from military to civilian life. This morning I was in Dagenham with the council leader, Liam Smith, to launch Labour’s campaign for a veterans champion to be appointed in every council so that service leavers have a single point of contact when they need it. Will the Minister commit the Ministry of Defence to a campaign to encourage the appointment of a forces champion in every local authority in the country, regardless of politics?

Defence

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Jim Murphy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have served on tours of duty of longer than six months in Afghanistan; and what the (a) tour dates, (b) rank, (c) regiment and (d) reasons for the length of tour was.

[Official Report, 21 November 2012, Vol. 553, c. 491-92W.]

Letter of correction from Dr Murrison:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) on 21 November 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Murrison]

[holding answer 19 November 2012]: The Ministry of Defence does not hold this information centrally in the form requested, and in the interests of anonymity we do not release information of individual tours.

The MOD is able to confirm that at present around 110 posts out of 9,500 in Afghanistan are subject to tour lengths of longer than six months to provide continuity to the campaign. These posts are broken down as shown in the following table:

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Murphy

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman has great and varied experience, but I think he will fairly accept that the urgent operational requirements worked well in Afghanistan, and after 9/11 we updated our defence review with a new chapter. In a debate that is intended to be relatively thoughtful rather than our traditional cut and thrust, it is fair to say that the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan changed and surprised many people, including those who were engaged in it day to day. As we reflect on what happened in Afghanistan, it is crucial that we learn deeply the lessons of the conflict, in the hope that we never have to deploy them, but in the fear that on occasion it might become necessary.

I was making the wider point that events in north Africa and the middle east continue to prove the uncertainty and unpredictability of the future shape of conflict. Coupled with the Arab spring, the growing global population, the threat of climate change, new information technology and biotechnologies, nuclear proliferation and cyber-attack, we live in what is, by consensus, an era of dramatic new global security challenges. All that means that it is sensible for the Government to invest the £650 million they have announced for cyber-security. The continuing emphasis on soft power and multilateralism to supplant the inevitable capability shortfalls resulting from spending constraint is vital. It was crucial in good times, but it is compulsory in these difficult times of budget cuts in a world of flux.

[Dr Murrison]

The shadow Chancellor is on record saying that he accepts all the Government’s spending cuts. However, the shadow Defence Secretary says that he thinks only £5 billion-worth of cuts in defence are necessary. Who is correct?

[Mr Murphy]

I have learned from experience that it would never be wise to misrepresent the words of the shadow Chancellor, and I dare say the hon. Gentleman is doing just that. We have been pretty clear; we cannot commit to reverse specific cuts that the Government have made. Similarly, before the 1997 election we said we would stick to the size of the state for the first two years of a Labour Government. It is important to be clear: before that election, we committed not to reverse individual spending cuts.

On defence reform, we know that we must meet the ambitions for our forces that we share across the Chamber, and which the Secretary of State referred to at the end of his comments. Reform is more important than ever before and when the Government make the right choices, they will have our backing. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who spoke with real passion about an important issue that can often be quite dry. Much of the restructuring of the MOD announced in the Levene report was as welcome on the Opposition Benches as it was, in the majority of cases, on the Government Benches, in particular, greater financial powers for service chiefs. Some of the rebalancing of the equipment programme, notably cutting tank regiments, was necessary and has our support.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for every decision taken in the Government’s controversial and much criticised defence review, which has set our country’s defence policy on an uncertain path. However much some try to depict the process as a success, the evidence to the contrary is striking. The strategic defence and security review was immediately reviewed in a three-month study that announced thousands of further redundancies in our forces and the civil service. There are new unfunded liabilities on the balance sheet and further cuts to the equipment programme appear imminent. The conflict in Libya saw military equipment planned for the scrapyard recalled. The UK has been left with serious capability shortfalls for a decade, most notably the carrier strike capability gap. Military experts have repeatedly been open in their criticisms, and all in all it is a cuts package still in search of a defence strategy and there should be a rethink.

On forces welfare, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said in the announcements that he has made in advancement of forces welfare, but last week saw 400 Gurkhas being made redundant—the second painful cut they have had to endure in just a few months. The whole House will recall that the Prime Minister championed those remarkable soldiers in opposition, and many will agree with the Defence Committee’s statement that the level of compulsory redundancies among those in uniform is “grotesque.” That comes alongside cuts to front-line allowances, and permanent changes to pensions that will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces and their dependants, who rely on their pensions at an earlier stage in life than almost anyone else.

Military Covenant

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Murphy

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The military covenant should not be whatever the Government of the day determine it to be. It should not be at the whim of Ministers to decide in a report what is and is not in the covenant. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

The Government say that it is not necessary to detail the military covenant, in principle, in law, because they are already taking action. They mention the covenant in the report and it was mentioned in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. All those involved in the debate today—except, perhaps, for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are free from involvement in these debates—will have received an e-mail from the Royal British Legion, which stated:

“As the nation’s guardian of the Military Covenant, we would be very grateful if you could urge the Government to honour the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last June to enshrine the Military Covenant in law. We do not understand why the Government is now claiming that the commitment to produce an ‘Armed Forces Covenant Report’ is somehow the same thing as enshrining the Military Covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all.”

I urge hon. Members from both Government parties to listen to the legion’s voice and vote for the motion today.

The military covenant cannot be whatever Government Ministers of the day deign it to be. It should be defined in law so that it is removed from the cut and thrust of party politics. If the Secretary of State is true to his word, which I believe him to be, he should meaningfully define the covenant in law. What is needed is specific legislation to put the definition of the covenant on a legal footing. In the words of Chris Simpkins, the director general of the Royal British Legion:

“To suggest an annual covenant report would be as effective as a piece of legislation is nonsense and would be evidence of the Government doing a U-turn on their explicit promises.”

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been talking for 20 minutes about putting his definition of the military covenant into law. Is he going to give us any form of definition before he winds up his remarks?

[Mr Murphy]

I know the hon. Gentleman understands that it is not for me to give a legal definition of the military covenant at the Dispatch Box. It is for the Government to define the principles of it in a legal sense, along with the armed forces and their families in public consultation. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is screaming at the top of his voice that there is no definition. If the Conservatives were in any way interested in the matter, we could arrive at a definition of the armed forces covenant on a cross-party basis, involving armed forces families across the entire nation. In truth, they have turned their back on their own manifesto, will not listen to the British Legion and refuse to act on the issue at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman has vast experience in such matters and I do not doubt his commitment, but there is limited validity in him brandishing last year’s British Legion document when he does not accept what it says in its e-mail today—it makes it very clear that it is unhappy with the Government’s position and that it would like a legal definition of the military covenant. Of course we should work on a cross-party basis on this, and I would be happy to do so—

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Jim Murphy

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman is usually very fair in these debates, and I think he will acknowledge that I have already welcomed six or seven of the measures in the Bill in my speech. There is nothing wrong with echoing the comments of Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces Pension Society, who has criticised the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to criticise Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his consensuality, which I, as a service pensioner, welcome. Will he not recognise in his remarks, which are becoming a little partisan, that this Government doubled the operational allowance within days of the general election? I assume that he welcomed that.

[Mr Murphy]

I think that the hon. Gentleman called me the Secretary of State; of course, I am the shadow Secretary of State, but I am sure that will be corrected by Hansard. There are measures that we welcome, some of which I have alluded to already; I shall discuss some of the others later and will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene at that point if he wishes.

The Conservative manifesto pledged to ensure that our armed forces, their families and our veterans are properly taken care of, but the taskforce was tasked with finding

“innovative, low-cost policy ideas.”

It is difficult for any Government to find the right support for our armed forces on the cheap, without necessary and adequate funding. They have not yet responded to the work of the taskforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

I have already welcomed the report and the fact that there will be an annual debate, but I do not welcome the fact that the production of the report will be in the hands of Ministers, rather than independent experts. It is an issue about which the Royal British Legion feels strongly.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. Can he define “independent”? I have attended a meeting of the external reference group and found it to be anything but. It is certainly made up, in part, of independent individuals, but also largely of officials, who can in no way be said to be independent of the Government.

[Mr Murphy]

I do not think Madam Deputy Speaker would welcome an attempt by me to provide the House with a definition of independence, but the fact that the three armed forces families federations are on the expert group gives it authority, independence, clarity and sincerity that, with the best will in the world, the most capable and sincere Minister cannot of himself provide. It is important that that work is continued.

My most serious concerns are about the proposals on armed forces pensions. The Government plan to link forces pension rises permanently to the consumer prices index, rather than to the retail prices index. That is a serious misjudgment and an indictment of the Government’s claim to want to strengthen the military covenant. We are in no doubt that in the current climate there is a need for restraint in public sector pay and pensions, but that year-on-year change will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces and their dependants, who rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else.

The impact of the proposed changes will be devastating. A 27-year-old corporal who has lost both his legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. War widows will also lose out enormously. The 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would, over her lifetime, be almost £750,000 worse off.

There can be only two possible justifications for that policy. First, Ministers think it right to reduce year on year the support to forces personnel and their dependants, and support the policy presumably because they consider the current support to be unfairly generous. The Secretary of State did not support the policy on that basis today, nor I suspect will any Government Back Bencher.

The second possible reason for this heartless policy is deficit reduction, but that argument does not add up either. The impact of the measures will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth. I ask Ministers today to commit to rethink the policy or, in the absence of a full rethink, and if they believe that it is part of their deficit reduction plan, to consider a time-limited measure during the period of deficit reduction and spending restraint. That would be a fairer approach. There is no logical reason why the bravest British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan should see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives, or why war widows, who have had the person most special to them taken away, deserve to have taken away from them the support on which they so depend.

When challenged on the issue in November, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“It is not possible to treat the armed forces differently from other public servants.”