Middlewick Ranges

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I will call Will Quince to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Middlewick Ranges.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. This is my first debate since rejoining the Back Benches, which I hope demonstrates how serious this issue is to me personally and to my constituents. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding; I have a huge amount of time and respect for him, and I know he will take seriously the points I make.

I have been consistently outspoken about the future of Middlewick Ranges throughout my time as the Member of Parliament for Colchester. I have consistently raised the future of the site with ministerial colleagues in writing, orally in the House and in various meetings since the site was designated for disposal. The Minister will be aware that it was announced in April 2017 that the Ministry of Defence had earmarked the Middlewick Ranges site for sale, because it wanted, for operational reasons, to consolidate on one site in Colchester. Despite Colchester being home to a large garrison, I do understand the rationale and I do not challenge the validity of the argument to invest in one range in the area—Fingringhoe. That is arguably more suited, given the security and exclusion zone requirements for live firing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. It is a particular pleasure to respond to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I congratulate him on not only calling this debate, but particularly, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, on commissioning out from Sandhurst as a captain in the Adjutant General’s Corps. That is a great achievement for a sitting, serving MP, and one who works so hard.

Let me also add a personal note, as my hon. Friend is standing down. No one knows what the future holds for any of us, but I was elected alongside him, and he has been the best of the best in this place. He was a brilliant Minister. I had the criminal Bar strikes as a Justice Minister, and I know how hard things were for him as a Health Minister. However, he has worked particularly hard as a constituency MP, and he has shown that again today. Above all, has always had compassion at the core of everything he has done. He is a credit to his constituents, and I wish him well, whatever happens.

Turning to the subject of today’s debate, my hon. Friend rightly said that Colchester has a long and proud military history. The town is the home of some of the most highly trained, high-readiness forces in the world. Our premier airborne forces have launched from Essex to respond to some of the most hostile environments in the world, all in the name of protecting our national security and upholding our commitments around the world.

We are here to discuss my hon. Friend’s valid concerns about the disposal of Middlewick Ranges, with a rebalancing of the defence estate to more modern and efficient facilities at Fingringhoe that will help to keep the forces in the east of England at their very best and most lethal and ready to defend our nation at a moment’s notice. We have proudly run ranges from the site for many years, but it no longer offers us the optimum environment for our training needs. We have, however, been committed to seeing the site released to support local need, and have therefore worked with the local authority since 2016, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out.

First, it is important to stress that the Ministry of Defence’s reason for selling the site, in the simplest terms, is that it has become surplus to the requirements of a modern armed force. At a time when families across the nation are feeling the pinch, it is right that each Government Department looks at all its outgoings and ensures that, where we are spending large amounts of public money, we are delivering services in the most cost-efficient way. Bringing Middlewick Ranges up to a usable standard would require significant amounts of public money when we have similar and more efficient facilities literally down the road.

Value for money for the taxpayer and ordinary families across the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is at the core of this decision. The enhanced facilities at Fingringhoe will offer modern, electronically operated targets that provide better training for our armed forces. They can also offer training for an additional 20,000 troops a year above what is currently available in the Colchester area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just departed, but I was about to address the point about mothballing and the hon. Member’s concern about the use of the site by the reserves. To be clear, we believe that we are more than supporting effective training in the area by using this new site.

The key point is that the world is becoming increasingly volatile. If we are asking our armed forces to respond to global crises, it is right that we, as the MOD, invest in their skills and the facilities we use to train them. Our service personnel make huge sacrifices to serve King and country, and it is our duty to make sure they are adequately prepared to respond to the most demanding circumstances. That is why these new facilities are part of a £5.1 billion investment in a more modern, green and sustainable defence estate that can meet the demands of our ever-busier armed forces.

It is commendable that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made positive alternative suggestions. From a practical perspective, we have found that the site is becoming difficult and increasingly impractical to use due to its proximity to residential properties and public footpaths. Incursions have been occurring and became a risk to those operating the ranges. There were simply too many people from the local community walking across live firing exercises—so much so that we were unable to conduct training safely. With no firing at the range since 2021, it would take a significant amount of public funds to make the perimeter safe for the people of Colchester and for our armed forces training there. My hon. Friend said the site should be mothballed and it is, in effect, currently mothballed.

That all being said, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns around any new development that could be proposed following the sale of this land. New housing causes great consternation to communities up and down the country, and particularly where it impacts on our beautiful habitat—I know that as an MP for a rural constituency near my hon. Friend’s. Equally, however, there will be people in my hon. Friend’s constituency who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, and I am sure that is true in your constituency too, Sir Charles.

The release of this land can also be seen as a great opportunity for the local community, who can develop it to meet their needs and, at the same time, encourage the local authority to place suitable protections on any environmental considerations. My hon. Friend says that he is not a nimby, and I put on record that he absolutely is not. Colchester has seen huge growth, but the reality is that new housing has to be allocated somewhere.

I remind my hon. Friend that it is, of course, not the MOD that will decide the future use of the site. That decision is for the local authority, its planning department, the future owner, and the local community as part of any public consultation process that forms part of any ultimate planning process. Such a process will consider and balance the need for housing with the requirement to deliver biodiversity net gain measures that protect and enhance the fascinating ecology of the site.

Of course, in looking at those concerns, the local authority will also have to consider the transport issues my hon. Friend referred to, which are always a consideration with new developments. We have the same issues in my constituency of South Suffolk; where new developments are proposed, there are concerns about pressure on roads and so on. However, that is fundamentally for the local authority to consider.

My hon. Friend is rightly concerned and speaks passionately about the lowland acid grassland found at the site. That is precisely why the MOD has invested significant funds on ecology studies over a three-year period to inform our understanding before the disposal of the site and to inform the MOD concept plan on how the site could be developed sympathetically. The concept plan, or master plan—to give it the real name for those familiar with the matter—recommended that more than 63% of the allocated land for development is kept as green space, while the disposal area includes another 44 hectares of green open space for recreational use and ecological enrichment. The plan also suggested leaving the most ecologically valuable habitats untouched and advocated avoiding and protecting the woodland at Birch Brook. That is just one way any potential new development could be approached, and the future owner and the local authority will no doubt have other, equally exciting ideas that will bring new opportunities and enrichment to the area. However, there is one thing I know for certain: my hon. Friend, as a brilliant constituency MP, will hold them to account on that, as he clearly stated.

The Ministry of Defence is, and always has been, committed to seeing this land used in a way that benefits the local community and environment, and we make that clear to potential future bidders for the site as part of tours of the site and the marketing literature we have released. While we are, of course, not able to impose those conditions, we are doing our best to make them clear to the local authority and any interested bidders looking at the marketing materials for the site.

My hon. Friend’s commitment to the site, and indeed to his whole constituency, has been abundantly evident today, and I applaud him for raising this matter. I fully appreciate his need to ensure that the area is developed in a way that protects the site’s ecological value and, at the same time, benefits the community in a meaningful and sustainable way, such as in relation to transport and other matters. I hope that I have been able to set out the main drivers behind the MOD’s decision to sell the site, which are the public interest at a time of economic challenge, when public finances are under intense scrutiny, and the need to support our military requirements. It is vital that we can train our armed forces to the very best of our ability, so that they can protect and defend our national security. [Interruption.]

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We conclude, as thunder crackles around us.

Question put and agreed to.

Defence Procurement and Supply Chains

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered defence procurement and supply chains.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am most grateful to hon. Members for participating in this important debate. I especially want to thank the Minister for Defence Procurement for being here today. I look forward to working closely with him on this issue in future and would welcome the opportunity to meet him to discuss the matter further.

The question before the House is broad and multifaceted, with profound implications not only for the UK’s national security, but for the domestic industry and the many left-behind towns that are home to Ministry of Defence suppliers. I hope that, in the short time available to us, we will have a suitable and wide-ranging discussion.

I warmly welcome the breadth of experience that hon. Members bring to today’s proceedings, whether they have served in our armed forces or come, as I do, from a trade union background or have experience in Government.

Today’s debate could not be more timely. It takes place amid an economic crisis unlike any in recent memory. Across the country, joblessness continues to soar and unemployment might hit more than 3 million by spring 2021. British industry has been especially hit badly by covid-19 and the resulting lockdown. Already we see a haemorrhaging of jobs across the sector, with left-behind towns in the north and midlands bearing the brunt.

Thousands of workers at companies such as Bentley, Airbus and Safran Nacelles now find their jobs under threat. The scale of the crisis has been starkly illustrated by the situation of Rolls-Royce, Barnoldswick, where operations have been offshored and striking workers locked out of the plant just before Christmas.

The job losses are not confined to plant manufacturing sites. Wider supply chains have been devastated as well, with 5,000 lost in aerospace alone. As the Institute for Public Policy Research has demonstrated, redundancies in this sector have a disproportionate impact on local economies, compounding the already high levels of deprivation and joblessness found in towns such as Birkenhead.

Meanwhile, the UK is struggling to adapt to a fast-changing and volatile global situation. Our departure from the European Union risks leaving us more isolated on the world stage, while the threat posed by non-state actors and cyber-terrorism continues to grow. My argument is simple: defence procurement has a vital role to play in helping British industry to survive the current crisis. The demand for British manufacturing has slumped, but the need for high-tech cutting-edge defence projects remains as pressing as ever, and British suppliers are well placed to meet the demand.

The Chancellor stated in the spending review that there would be additional funding of more than £24 billion in cash terms for defence in the next four years, including more than £6 billion for research and development. The Government say that they are serious about levelling up the UK and building back better. If that is the case, it is imperative that the additional funding goes towards projects that sustain high-skilled employment and provide quality training opportunities to young people across the country.

The argument is not just an economic one; it is also about national security. When the pandemic first struck, it exposed dangerous vulnerabilities in international supply chains. If we are to keep Britain safe in an uncertain world, we must maintain sovereign capabilities and build up our onshore defence industry. We have heard a great deal in recent years about the supposedly draconian restrictions placed on the UK by the European Union, but where our European neighbours rightly exploit the freedom afforded to them on defence procurement, the UK all too regularly buys off the shelf and undermines British industry by opening up defence contracts to international competition. It is not just British manufacturers that lose out, but the British people through the loss of taxes, GDP growth and high-skilled jobs, which are already all too rare in a modern economy. That is why the public overwhelmingly support prioritising British manufacturers for defence projects.

There have been promising developments in recent years. In fact, there is a growing consensus that defence procurement has a vital role to play in supporting domestic industries, and making the UK more secure by improving sovereign capabilities. That was recognised in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which called for promoting prosperity to be recognised as a core national security objective. It is similarly reflected in the national shipbuilding strategy proposal that defence vessels should only be open to UK competition and the incorporation of a national value framework into the combat air strategy.

There remains much more to be done. My party has called for a new defence industrial strategy that expands the definition of good value to include support for British manufacturers, small to medium-sized enterprises, and the high-skilled jobs that they create. I want to talk about what that would mean for the shipbuilding industry.

British shipbuilding and ship repair is a £2 billion industry that regularly employs 32,000 people in the UK and supports 20,000 jobs in the wider supply chain. Shipbuilding also accounts for 60% of defence spending in the north-west, and of course I have the great privilege of my constituency being home to the historic Cammell Laird shipyard. Despite significant challenges in recent decades, Cammell Laird has continued to provide high-skilled jobs and meaningful training opportunities to 700 people in Birkenhead. It is staying ahead of the curve. Just last month, it launched the RRS Sir David Attenborough, perhaps the most technologically sophisticated vessel produced in this country in the past three decades. As a passionate advocate of vocational training, I am delighted that it continues to provide opportunities for young people in my constituency. More than 300 young people have been offered apprenticeships in the past decade, with 51 starting this year.

Now Cammell Laird stands to benefit from the construction of the new fleet solid support ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Along with Babcock International, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, Cammell Laird is part of a team UK consortium that was shortlisted for the contract before the competition was suspended last November. Those companies represent the very best of British manufacturing and the benefits of building those ships in the UK are obvious. It would create or secure at least 6,500 jobs across the country, including hundreds at Cammell Laird. Of the £800 million spent on the new support vessels, at least £250,000 would be returned to Treasury coffers through income tax, national insurance and lower welfare payments. That is why I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence that the vessels will be classified as warships, guaranteeing that they will be built in Britain.

That is in line with the recommendations contained in Sir John Parker’s inquiry into the national shipbuilding strategy, but I am now hearing concerns that the Ministry of Defence could accept bids from consortiums including and even led by foreign companies. I echo the calls of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), the vice-chair of the Defence Committee. The Government must provide cast-iron guarantees that the ships will be built in British shipyards. I hope the Minister will be able to provide us with that assurance today.

Building the ships in Britain will not just benefit the hundreds of workers who will be guaranteed gainful employment for another decade or the young people whose horizons will be expanded through the provision of quality apprenticeships; it also means more work for the countless suppliers who provide the shipyards with parts and logistical support. It will mean more money spent in our town’s shops, restaurants and hospitality venues, which have been so devastated by the national lockdown, and it will mean more revenue for our local council, which is working tirelessly to support some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. In short, it will mean hope for the town of Birkenhead.

The fleet solid support ships are not the only defence project that has a role to play in kick-starting the economy. There are many others, perched on the slipway and ready to launch. This includes the new tranche of Typhoon combat aircraft, the Merlin Mk 2 helicopters and the Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, which are all ready to go into production. By placing an order for the new Type 26 frigates now, the Ministry of Defence could get the supply chain for long-lead items running. The Government should also consider bringing in phase 2 of the Tempest project, which has been scheduled for 2022 and 2023. Those are the kind of shovel-ready projects the Prime Minister has spoken about so often.

In short, this is not a plea for little England-style nationalism; it is about providing a practical and effective way of rebuilding British industry so that it can address the needs of people in this country in the face of years of neglect and decline. By ensuring that these projects are built in Britain, the Government have the opportunity to prove that they mean what they say about levelling up and building back better. It is in their gift to provide towns such as Birkenhead, Barnoldswick and Barrow-in-Furness with the jobs and training opportunities they deserve.

Last month, Remembrance Sunday provided us with an opportunity to honour not only those who have served in previous conflicts, but all those who continue to keep Britain safe. It is incumbent on us, in turn, to ensure that they are as safe as they can possibly be, and that means ensuring that they are equipped with state-of-the-art equipment, all built in Britain.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Simon Fell. I will give Mr Fell four minutes, but that is it.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I will try to be quicker than that. I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this important and timely debate. We keep hearing the phrase “levelling up” and the hon. Gentleman mentioned it. The Prime Minister tells us that it is his mission to level up the country, and for communities such as mine in the north that is a welcome prospect. We need to recognise just how important the defence supply chain is to that agenda.

In my constituency, we build the nuclear deterrent, and when I say we, I mean 10,000 of the most skilled, world-leading workers imaginable building submarines with a complexity rivalled perhaps only by what NASA does. That work—the completion of the Astute-class boats and the delivery of the four Dreadnought-class boats—is the beating heart of Barrow and Furness and our local economy.

Not to labour that metaphor, but if the work in the yard is the heart, then the supply chain is the blood that runs through our communities, keeping our businesses alive through Cumbria and beyond. The supply-chain spend alone was £1 billion in 2019 from the submarine programme. That supports 80-plus businesses in Cumbria, but it does far more than that. It trains apprentices and creates skills clusters that attract even more businesses and further investment. Used well—don’t get me wrong, I would far rather see more supply-chain spend in Cumbria—defence procurement can be transformative.

BAE in Barrow has recognised what it needs to do to invest in our communities to do its job well. To produce boats to a steady and reliable drumbeat, it needs to invest in our towns to make sure we can stand on our own two feet and that we are creating the people with the skills to keep fuel in that machine. I applaud it for acting in that way. It backed our local schools and college, it led Barrow’s successful town deal—I especially give credit to Steve Cole from BAE on that—and it is championing a learning quarter in our town, which will bring a university campus into Barrow and address the fundamental problem that towns such as mine have, where there is a brain drain of young people leaving to the bright lights of big cities like Manchester and Liverpool.

In Furness, defence spending is not just about submarines; it is about backing education and skills, backing local businesses and providing resilience for our local economy in these troubled times. I welcome the upcoming defence and security industrial strategy, which I hope will lead to much more of this in communities like mine; frankly, it is very badly needed.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Christina Rees. You have four minutes.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing this debate.

Aerospace and defence are inextricably linked, and are a cornerstone of the Welsh economy. Last year in Wales, the sector had a turnover of £6 billion, which is 10% of the UK total, and it employed 23,000 people before covid-19. In Wales, we have Raytheon Technologies’ airborne surveillance aircraft division at Broughton, BAE Systems at Glascoed, General Dynamics at Oakdale and Merthyr, Airbus Defence and Space at Newport, Thales at the National Digital Exploitation Centre in Ebbw Vale and West Wales airport in Aberporth. I welcome today’s news that the Ministry of Defence has announced that BAE has secured a new £2.4 billion next generation munitions solution contract, which will sustain 4,000 jobs in the UK over 15 years, with 550 of those at Glascoed.

The Welsh Government have provided support mechanisms for innovation and manufacturing in the defence sector. I will mention just two. The advanced manufacturing and research institute at MOD Sealand in Flintshire is unique in providing the UK with a defence-led R&D centre of excellence, which will create a technology and innovation cluster aligned to emerging technologies and capabilities, with long-term commercial opportunities.

The second project is Thales’ NDEC, which was opened in Ebbw Vale at the beginning of the year, supported by Welsh Government funding and in partnership with the University of South Wales. It will increase the cyber and digital knowledge base across business, education and academia, and will focus on protecting critical national infrastructure. There are opportunities for Thales in Tempest, as well.

Those two projects are examples of the Welsh Government working with the private sector, in partnership with the MOD. I call on the Minister to maintain and enhance this relationship to develop Britain’s sovereign capability, support economic growth across the UK’s nations and regions, and promote a levelling-up agenda that includes a positive weighting for British-based and Welsh companies for MOD procurement.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Grahame Morris. You have four minutes, although you do not need to take four minutes if you do not need them.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is an honour to be called to speak in this important debate, Sir Charles. Having served in uniform for many years, I know a bit about defence procurement. I am also privileged to have used some of the best British-made equipment in the world.

In 2018-19, the Ministry of Defence spent £19.2 billion with UK industry and commerce, deliberately supporting 119,000 jobs. It is jobs that we are talking about today. In 2020, our commitment under the spending review is to spend an extra £16 billion, on top of the extra £8 billion that was promised in last year’s manifesto. That is exactly what the Ministry of Defence and our defence industry have been waiting for. Keeping people safe is the primary role of Government, but it is also about providing the commitment, the certainty and the spending guarantees that allow our nascent defence industry to plan ahead, at what is now well over 2% of GDP.

In the time I have today, I want to emphasise three key things. First, we have fantastic equipment in the UK. I am confident that, in the main, our forces have what they need. Secondly, I am proud to serve under a Conservative Government that get defence. Thirdly, we must spend responsibly and flexibly to secure what we need and to keep our British defence industry at the forefront of R&D, and to be able to produce competitive exports.

What do we have to be proud of right now? Lightning II, the F-35B aircraft, is an advanced, fifth generation aircraft, but it is American. Typhoon is another fantastic aircraft, and almost British. The Dreadnought to come is British, and is being built in Barrow. Our Astute boats are again British and being built in Barrow. The QE2 carriers—two of them—are British. Ajax is integrated in the UK, although it is not a UK platform. Type 26 frigates are British, Type 31 frigates are British, and the fleet solid support ships are British.

That is all good so far, but there is a note of caution. The message for post-Brexit UK is that we need to export our way out of trouble. To do that, we must showcase what we make and build. When we have a UK-based product or project with export potential we must back it, even if it involves some security compromise. We must also lower production costs to make it fit for the export market. We must develop a longer-term strategy to design and build UK equipment. That will avoid often substandard commercial off-the-shelf solutions. The UK must also design with export in mind. Expensive platforms are all very well, but we need to be able to sell them to those who do not have a huge amount of money in comparison, particularly to our emerging allies. As for legacy EU competition rules, the simple answer is no.

It is time now for liberal freedom of choice in public money to be over. For example, I do not want to see Hyundai police cars in Thames valley. The point extends across the whole of government. Let us invest in our British defence industry; let us relinquish these ridiculous EU competition rules; let us plan ahead, design for export and sell ourselves out of our financial woes with the most cost-effective kit that money can buy. Above all, we must build British, buy British and sell British to put us back on the map.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair]

As everyone has been so well behaved, speakers can now have five minutes.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing the debate. He listed a number of criteria for people to be here. I tick two of the boxes: as a former union national officer and as a Minister. Indeed, I have been campaigning on this issue for many years, including when I was a Minister. I think colleagues need to understand that, underlying the debate, is a deep sickness within our civil service, which disregards, and even has a contempt for, manufacturing. It is laughable that we are having a debate with the EU over state aid when the Government refused to use the powers that they already have under European regulations. Quite frankly, other countries do not have to do that.

Let us take the example of the fleet solid support ships. France and Italy have ordered ships and prescribed that they be made in their own yards, and the same is true of the Germans. They use, interestingly enough, a foreign design, but they stipulate that the ships have to be built in German yards. There should never have been a question about this. There should have been a lot of work for our shipyards that would maintain a flow of work for the supply industries and, in particular, for the steel industry. Now there has been a welcome development in that the Secretary of State, who previously said that he would be putting out the invitation to bid in the spring, told a recent hearing of the Select Committee that that would happen shortly. I hope that that means that we are bringing that work forward. The Minister will be pleased to learn that I have been drawn to take part in Defence questions next week, when I shall be pursuing this issue.

We need to press on and do what would be taken as read in other countries. Companies understand that. They understand that if they are to sell in those other countries, they have to have substantial manufacturing bases there. Here they believe they can get away without having that. Furthermore, in its assessment of contracts, the Treasury refuses to consider the 30-odd per cent. that will come back to the Treasury directly in the form of the taxes paid by the workforce.

As the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) pointed out, the problem goes across the board and includes police cars, fire engines, trains and, recently, hydrogen buses. We are putting lots of money into green hydrogen buses, and there is a nice picture of one in Tyne and Wear that clearly shows that it was made in China. The UK and the Scottish Governments are putting a lot of money into wind turbines, but a huge amount of the work is going overseas. As I said, no one else behaves like that.

I also draw attention to and praise the document from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on shovel-ready defence programmes. It argues that we should do what Germany and France are doing and bring work forward. We already know that we need the kit and have already contracted for it, so we can help those companies and, in particular, their long supply chains to keep their workforce and to continue investing in equipment if we bring forward orders for equipment that we already know about. That is also important for aerospace. The civil aerospace industry is flat on its back as a result of the aviation crisis. Helping the supply chain through help to military aerospace is enormously important. As the hon. Member for Bracknell said, the issue is also important for exports. People will come to our companies and say, “If it is not good enough for the British armed forces, why do you say it is good enough for us?”

It is not just about the companies but about the apprentices who are the skilled workforce of the future and the backbone of engineering. It is about good skilled jobs, often in communities that are at the centre of the levelling-up agenda across the country. Many of the companies depend on major plants that have satellite plants around them. They have served us well for many generations. We should back them now.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Kim Johnson—five minutes.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing this timely and important debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak during this debate and to call on the Government to provide a multibillion pound boost to British jobs and to back British manufacturing by placing the defence orders that they have delayed over the last five years.

The UK is right now staring down the barrel of the biggest recession of any G7 country, on top of a decade of austerity and several more decades of disinvestment in manufacturing and industry in this country. We have been promised time and again that this Government will level up the economy by investing in our manufacturing sector. Protecting jobs and creating new ones will be the quickest way to get the country out of the economic crisis. Spending by the Ministry of Defence supports 119,000 jobs in the UK and nearly 4,500 apprenticeships—that is one in 220 jobs.

Strategic investment in our industrial and manufacturing infrastructure will play a vital role in ensuring that the British economy is able to weather the economic crisis resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. It will focus investment outside London and the south-east in areas that have suffered from a historic lack of investment and that are in desperate need of support to get through this crisis, particularly in the north-west.

The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, representing over 100,000 skilled industrial and manufacturing workers, has called for the prioritisation of nine major shovel-ready defence projects to directly safeguard nearly 13,000 jobs during the recession. This investment will benefit the wider economy, cascading into supply chains, including thousands of small businesses across the country that supply components and software. I ask the Minister to commit today to protect all north-west defence jobs and to stimulate domestic industry at a crucial turning point in our economy by bringing forward spending for defence jobs, such as the fleet solid support ship, Type 26 frigate and phase 2 of the Tempest project. Lastly, I ask the Minister to intervene to stop Rolls-Royce from offshoring to Japan, Singapore and Spain and to protect all 350 jobs at the Barnoldswick site.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon—five minutes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you. I was waiting for it to drop to two minutes. Other have not attended and I will do my best, indeed, I will keep within the five minutes as instructed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). I have been in two Westminster Hall debates with him and he always goes with good and important subjects. That there are so many members present indicates how important it is for all of us to be here.

There have been some fantastic contributions, but I want to make a big play if I can, as hon. Members would expect, for Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister’s response. He is always very helpful in his responses, and I look forward to what he will be able to do to encourage me and my constituents to buy British, to sell British and see that everything British is better, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said. I concur with that comment because I am as British as the hon. Gentleman and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to see those benefits coming to us as well.

Defence procurement must be based on a holistic view of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ensuring that each region’s manufacturing or supply networks benefit from defence contracts. I welcome the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s commitment to the £16.5 billion spend on defence, shipbuilding, space and cyber research and other sectors over a four period. That was a real commitment, a real shot in the arm, and we are all very pleased to see that.

Many independent aerospace manufacturers have capacity to build other products to a high standard and should be made aware of procurement opportunities. What work has been done with, for instance, Bombardier in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can take advantage of these projects as well? It is always great to read, as in the recent award of contract for 200 armoured vehicles in Telford, that the MIV programme aims to source 60% by value of the contract from within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To achieve that, the team have engaged with suppliers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that breakdowns of supply would be useful to ensure that there is a spread of British money across every part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I just want to ensure that we are all part of and benefit from this strategic overplay. It is good news.

The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) referred to apprenticeships, and I want to make a quick play for them as well. I have been on to the Minister responsible—not this Minister, by the way—and made a play for apprenticeships to be available in Northern Ireland. Bombardier offers apprenticeships, and many other companies in this sector offer opportunities. I very much concur with the comments about the need to ensure that apprenticeship opportunities through this procurement programme will be available for each and every person.

The questions put to the Secretary of State back in June still stand today. I implored him to work with colleagues in defence to ensure that Northern Ireland skills were used in defence contracts, with special reference—I say this quite unashamedly—to the second-to-none aerospace manufacturing skills in Northern Ireland. I implore the defence team to recognise and deploy the skills in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, in all regions. I am not looking to take anything away from anybody else; that would be grossly unfair. All I want to do is ensure that we get our share of the pie, so to speak, when it comes to the opportunities from the defence budget and how that is disbursed across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I recognise the importance of defence spending and highlight the fact that availability of procurement contracts for the small independent manufacturers or suppliers could be the post-covid-19 lifeline for small and medium-sized firms. That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Bracknell made in his contribution. It would be a very positive thing, and let us be positive about what we can do; there is positivity in where we are at this moment.

I will finish with this point. A written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) showed that the MOD spends per head per year approximately £60 in Northern Ireland as opposed to £850 in areas in the south of England. I will say it again: I am not taking the bread from anybody else’s mouth. I am just saying: can we have a share of that for Northern Ireland? I believe that if we can do that, we all benefit in this great country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Angela Crawley to speak for five minutes.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing this important debate about defence procurement and supply chains.

This debate is set in challenging times. We not only are living through the second wave of a global pandemic but are on course to leave the single market and the customs union by the end of this year. Therefore, I want to take a slightly different approach to the debate from that taken so far and highlight the fact that this problem is faced not only by this Government but by the many Governments around the world who are grappling with the self-inflicted harm that we are potentially causing and the unnecessary damage to people’s livelihoods and to our economy through Brexit.

The defence industry and those who work in that industry are not immune from the Brexit effect, and the end of the transition period is just a month away. This will undoubtedly have a damaging impact on the sector in the long term. The industry body, ADS, has reported that almost 30,000 jobs are already at risk as a result of covid-19. That will be compounded by leaving the world’s largest trading bloc without a deal.

The movement of skilled labour and the collaborative spending programmes of the EU allies will be negatively impacted by the decision to leave the European Union. That is summed up frankly, with the chief executive of ADS outlining the following:

“The UK’s aerospace, defence, space and security industries will face major disruption without a deal, through delays to cross-border trade, costly administrative requirements and a new regulatory system”.

Although defence supply chains are less intense, in terms of volume and complexity, than those of some commercial sectors, new processes at the borders and ports will ultimately create delays and additional logistical challenges for this sector.

Of course, much of this debate so far has rightly focused on the skills of the workforce, the essential role that that will play in the future and the significant contribution of the defence industry to the north and in Scotland. The announcement of £16.5 billion is welcome, of course, and it is necessary that that backing will go into the defence manufacturing industry as a whole as a vital means of support. We can do nothing but welcome that announcement.

As has been outlined, however, further jobs announcements by BAE, and the concerns raised by Rolls-Royce and others about the levelling-up agenda, deserve to be heard in further detail. I want to take this opportunity to highlight concerns on the Clyde about the future maritime support programme, its competition element, the potential fragmentation of contracts and the race to the bottom that could come of that. I would like the Minister to address those concerns directly.

I am conscious of time, so I will bring my speech to an end. It has been demonstrated that the lack of understanding of the strategic and logistical planning required—both for the pandemic and in the coming months with Brexit—needs to be considered in greater detail. The definition of “defence” should perhaps have been widened in this debate, to cover pandemic resilience and wider concerns with respect to climate change, but I do not have enough time to address that.

It is important that we consider the weaknesses in the defence supply chain—across many of our industries—that have been exposed by covid. We must learn the lessons of the pandemic, and whatever happens in the next few months, the UK Government must prepare for the impact of this critical economic change on the defence industry.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

The shadow Minister has 10 minutes.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing the debate on this important issue. As has been said, it is a timely debate—I absolutely agree—and I thank everyone for taking part. A number of excellent points have been made by colleagues on both sides of the House on the value of defence procurement and its wider economic benefits. I acknowledge those comments and will make a few broader points about the importance of defence procurement and personnel to the security and prosperity of our country.

I welcome the four-year funding settlement for defence announced by the Prime Minister last month. It is a long overdue upgrade to Britain’s defences after a decade of decline since 2010. The extra investment in R&D is important, not just for defence and security, but because, if managed correctly, it will have a positive multiplier effect in areas such as aerospace, maritime, higher education and the wider supply chain across the UK. I was particularly pleased to hear that, at such a difficult time for our economy, the funding is set to create 10,000 jobs a year and 40,000 jobs in total. We of course welcome that, and will hold the Government to account on it.

Labour wants to ensure that new jobs are created in all parts of the UK, which brings me to my central point. While the Prime Minister’s announcement of cash was welcome, the spending review figures confirm that the £16.5 billion injection is all capital spend, with day-to-day revenue funding for defence expected to flatline at around £31.5 billion per year. That equates to a 2.4% real-terms cut through to 2024-25. Inevitably, that will mean further cuts to our armed forces and armed forces jobs. What we saw from the Prime Minister was an announcement without a strategy. Capital investment is vital and long overdue, but it is nothing without personnel and staff to support it.

Labour stands squarely behind our armed forces, including everyone from squaddies to engineers, from caterers to staff at bases. Although the Government have made important commitments to infrastructure, the Ministry of Defence seems to have a blind spot for staff and service personnel. After the last defence review in 2015, the Government fudged the funding figures with efficiency savings and invest-to-saves, opening up a £13 billion budget black hole. They failed to recruit the troops that the UK needs, leaving the military 1,200 troops short of strength.

As we heard earlier, there is also continued concern about the splitting up of service contracts at our bases—the ongoing dispute at Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde is an example. Over the last few years, some services have been subcontracted, leading to a downgrade in terms and conditions. Cleaners transferred from Babcock to ISS, for example, have seen their pensions decline and their sick pay reduced. Managed incorrectly, those contracts pit team members against each other and begin a race to the bottom on standards and working conditions for staff who are indispensable for day-to-day defence and security operations. When the Minister responds, I shall be keen to hear what he can do to reassure workers at Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde.

The Clyde example is particularly important because, of course, Faslane is home to the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—an essential part of our nation’s defence infrastructure. I was fortunate enough to visit HMS Astute while she was alongside at Faslane in 2018, where we saw the expertise and dedication of service personnel aboard. It was during the week that Carillion collapsed, and as such was particularly instructive about the perils of mismanaging Government service contracts and the devastating impact this can have on vital services. Ministers must avoid the mistakes of the past, and place service personnel at the heart of defence and security operations. They must also use their significant buying power to drive up standards, and reinforce the high standards and working conditions that our personnel’s service and expertise deserves.

More broadly, this Government have an important opportunity to use defence procurement as a powerful lever to unleash prosperity in every region and every nation of the UK, including many areas that the Government claim they would like to level up. As ADS Group notes, the UK defence industry had a turnover of £22.7 billion in 2019, and directly supported 132,000 jobs, including 5,000 apprentices. Sadly, for five years Ministers dragged their feet on whether the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships would be built, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has pointed out and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) tirelessly campaigns on and has reminded us of today.

There are concerns that the MOD may still accept bids from consortiums, including—even led by—foreign companies. As I have said previously, there are enormous benefits to rewarding defence contracts to British companies, outside of the obvious security benefits. From the revenue generated for the Exchequer to the higher national insurance contributions, building British is a no-brainer, so I say to the Government that what can be built in Britain must be built in Britain. The defence and security industrial strategy must also involve plans to develop the UK’s future capability to build in Britain. This will be one of the tests by which we will judge the Government’s long-awaited integrated review.

I have several asks of the Minister, and would be grateful if he could provide some clarity on these issues. First, when will the Government publish the defence and security industrial strategy and the associated integrated review? Will the new defence and security industrial strategy place the rights of staff, who are indispensable to day-to-day defence and security operations, at the very centre of Government procurement, or will it continue the trend of undercutting them, threatening to undermine the operation of vital defence and security assets? Finally, will the strategy make an unambiguous commitment to spending on, and building, all platforms and assets in the UK to help built British jobs? I look forward to the response from the Minister.

Today, we have heard a positive consensus from all sides about the new funding. Ministers must now make sure that they put that new money to best use. They must close the £13 billion black hole in the defence budget, recruit and properly value our service personnel, and build new military equipment here in Britain.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Due to a rash of good behaviour, the Minister has acres of time in which to expand an argument and answer questions. However, would he please leave Mr Whitley two minutes at the end to wind up in his own way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

First of all, we have had a delay in this programme for quite some time—I do not know if it goes quite back as far as the previous Administration, but it might well have done. For a long period, people have been thinking about the FSS and how exactly it should be incorporated. All I can say is that I am delighted that, very soon, the right hon. Gentleman’s pain will be over, with the competition being launched. I am pleased that we have reached that point. It is critical, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that the next competition is extremely well founded, well based and successful, and we are putting in place the basis to ensure that that is the case.

I must move on. Another major project of direct importance is the future combat air system, which is a truly strategic endeavour. It will build on the success of Typhoon and F-35 to again promote great jobs in engineering in our high engineering base in the north-west of England and throughout the UK. On land, our exciting £2.8 billion commitments to Boxer at Telford is now feeding through supply chain orders throughout the sector. All these programmes, whether at the cutting edge of maritime combat, air or land capabilities support jobs not only at tier 1, but throughout the supply chain, as has been said, with 119,000 directly employed and a further 80,000 or so employed through the defence supply chain. While decisions on the allocation of funding across the breadth of our capabilities will be made and announced in due course, this settlement will support skills and jobs, and apprenticeships, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), throughout the UK.

In order to ensure a strategic approach, I announced earlier this year that we are leading a cross-Government review of the UK’s defence and security sectors. It will identify how we can ensure that we have competitive, innovative and world-class defence and security industries that drive research and investment. We recently launched the social value in procurement model which, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South’s point, will provide another tool to ensure our major procurement projects evaluate priority social value themes and outcomes linked to prosperity. As part of the defence prosperity programme, we are working with industry and Government colleagues to develop a joint economic data hub within the UK Defence Solutions Centre to collect and aggregate economic data from across the sector. It will provide a better understanding of the economic contribution of the defence sector at a UK, national and regional level that can inform our decision-making process.

Throughout defence, we are committed to ensuring that we seize the opportunities provided by smaller companies. We are targeting a 25% spend with such companies. We have already hit 19%, up from 13% a couple of years prior to that. We are extremely mindful of the need to maintain a clear vision of our supply chain, and we are working through a Department-wide supply chain resilience and risk programme. Defence has some of the most complex supply chains and challenging procurement programmes across government. However, they contribute to the UK’s proud history of providing the skills, capabilities and equipment that keeps us and our allies safe, and I am convinced that, given the Government’s commitment, the UK will have an equally proud future.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr Whitley, can you sum up this excellent debate, please?

Future Accommodation Model

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) for securing this debate, for making a very powerful case and for his questions to the Minister, which I hope will be answered today. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara).

I am sure we all agree across the Chamber that our armed forces need to evolve constantly to meet the security situation of the day, whether that is in their make-up, their equipment or their basing. Labour welcomes the chance to re-examine how we provide accommodation to our service personnel and consider how to make the offer as attractive as possible in order to keep encouraging our best and brightest into a career in the forces. It is vital that the wellbeing of our servicemen and women is a top priority in the changes made, but I am concerned that the future accommodation model focuses more on savings than on what is best for our personnel.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) raised concerns that mirror those of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) reminded us of the Public Accounts Committee’s findings on service family accommodation. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) asked whether the survey was good enough and stated her opinion that it was a very leading survey with limited choice—I shall refer to that point later. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the importance of this issue to us all and related his experience with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and his involvement with serving personnel.

To put the debate in context, voluntary outflow rates for our armed forces are at an historically high level, particularly for jobs with transferable skills such as engineering. In the 12 months to 31 January 2017, more than 7,000 personnel left the armed forces earlier than planned through voluntary outflow. It appears that the overall offer of life in the armed forces is becoming less attractive: this is the sixth consecutive year of pay restraint, national insurance contributions are going up and rents are rising under the combined accommodation assessment system. It is therefore more important than ever that service personnel feel valued and that they should want to join the forces and stay in them. I will return to that point shortly.

One of the most significant changes made to service family accommodation was the selling off of married quarters to Annington Homes by the Major Government. I was not a Member of the House in 1996, but I am sure that those who were will remember the debate about the sale. Under the deal, the Department retained the freehold, but Annington Homes holds a 999-year lease, with the Department renting the properties back from Annington Homes on a 200-year under-lease. The deal was met with opposition from the Labour Benches; the then shadow Defence Secretary, the former Member for South Shields, said:

“The deal is breathtaking in its short-termism.”

He also said:

“The Government have never seriously attempted to deny the fact that the sale was not concerned with the long-term interests of our service men and women: the scheme was concocted solely to raise finances for the Treasury coffers”.—[Official Report, 16 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 952-953.]

I understand that a rent review is due in 2021, 25 years after the initial sale, and every 15 years thereafter. As a consequence of that review, as is usually the case, the rent paid by the MOD is likely to increase.

I am concerned that if the future accommodation model is not done properly, we may see history repeating itself and the Government further tying the MOD’s hands. We are now hearing reports that because of poor management of the defence budget to the tune of £1 billion per year over the next decade, the Secretary of State is having to consider cuts to the Royal Marines. The Department has said that the future accommodation model will save it £500 million over 10 years, but we need to see more detail before we can take it at its word.

What we know about the future accommodation model so far is that the Government are fairly clear that they want to get personnel into the private rented sector, as well as promoting more home ownership, but are unclear on the detail of how to deliver that. The proposals laid out in the survey suggest that four potential options will be available to service personnel, loosely structured around the idea of stability or mobility. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington has already pointed out the need for transparency and much more consultation with service personnel; I completely agree, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers to my hon. Friend’s questions.

Our main concerns with the future accommodation model as proposed are the impact on service families and standards in the private rented sector, costs, and the knock-on effect on retention rates. In the future accommodation model survey, the most important factor in accommodation for service personnel was good quality: 97% ranked it as a top priority. All of us here are all too familiar with the question of standards in the private rented sector. While many landlords are good, there are also those who are not good, and we are concerned that there will be nothing to check standards, and that in some cases families may be forced to live in less than appealing conditions. There will not be the same access to maintenance and repairs that personnel have now, and while service family accommodation can be adapted for families with disabled members, in the private rented sector such families will have to find housing that has already been adapted or convince a landlord to adapt a house for them.

There is also the need for security of tenure in the private rented sector. Some 86% of respondents to the AFF survey stated that the lack of guarantee of tenure during a posting was either a negative or a very negative aspect to renting privately. I simply do not see how it can be workable to encourage families or individuals who need to be mobile to move into the private rented sector. In the event of a posting, the onus will be on personnel to find new rented accommodation. That may be in a place they have never been before, and there will likely be cost implications for ending tenancies early, which will have to be covered. The complications are seemingly endless.

As for cost, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington pointed out that there are no details when it comes to costing, except for the saving of £500 million over 10 years that the Department told the Armed Forces Pay Review Body it expects FAM to deliver, primarily through reduced running costs, capital receipts and savings, while maintaining the total subsidy that service personnel receive. However, if nothing has been settled in terms of the model, how can the Department make such a projection? I would be extremely interested to hear from the Minster what type of model that figure was based on and how the Department came to it.

Finally, there is the risk that FAM poses to retention rates. As I have mentioned, voluntary outflow remains high and we need to continue to attract people into the armed forces. Subsidised housing is a significant part of the overall offer, particularly when we consider that housing is becoming less and less affordable across the UK. The AFF survey made it clear that if service family accommodation was reduced in favour of a rental allowance, 76% of those surveyed would either consider leaving or would definitely leave the forces. That should be of great concern to the Government. The combination of a number of factors has created “the perfect storm” for retention issues and if the Government do not get the accommodation model right, they risk exacerbating the situation to a point of serious concern.

In conclusion, we know that in the past the Conservatives have made some rash decisions when it comes to service accommodation and we are concerned that this could be yet another costly example of that, hitting both the public purse and retention rates. The primary focus for a new accommodation model should be a balance between what is good for the service personnel and what works within the Department’s budget. Service accommodation should not be the first thing that gets cut to try to balance the books. The Government need to show that they value personnel just as much as they value equipment, and show that that view is much more than just words and translates into policies that have the wellbeing of our servicemen and women at their heart. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I hope that it will clarify some of the points that have been raised this afternoon about this very important issue.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. Minister, would you allow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) two minutes at the end to wind up?

Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will start at 20 minutes to 11. Colleagues can do the arithmetic based on who is standing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that wise and truthful contribution. We met soldiers on many occasions, and I thanked every one I met for what they have done, because soldiers make a tremendous contribution to the whole nation and to MPs. My desire is that the scheme continues through the armed forces parliamentary trust, and the arguments for that have been well made. It is a wonderful chance to meet and greet, but more importantly to understand our troops and their struggles and to reflect on them, as we fight for them at parliamentary level.

The soldiers I met were always appreciative of us as MPs. It is not that we are better than anyone else, but we are Members of Parliament and they want to tell us what they are thinking and they want us to reflect it. They need someone to represent their views, which cannot always be understood merely by reading a report, and that is why, with the transformation of the armed forces parliamentary scheme to the armed forces parliamentary trust, I encourage others to support the scheme and see for themselves what happens outside the doors of this place.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

There are four colleagues standing and 28 minutes to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I am going to call Sir Bob Russell next, and I am sure that he will be mindful of leaving a smidgen of time for the final two speakers to share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Sir Bob, that was a very short speech. We now have 14 minutes left, and I would be grateful if Ms Stuart shared them with the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—seven minutes each. She does not have to, but I would be grateful if she did.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure, Mr Walker, to serve under your serene and enlightened chairmanship. As I am in the mood, let me express some further sentiments—they are heartfelt—about the contribution to the scheme made by Sir Neil Thorne. Twenty-five years ago, we lived in a very different sort of world. We still had in this place a large number of Members who had served in the second world war or had pretty contemporary experience of national service. Sir Neil rightly identified that that would not be the case forever, and that is where we are today.

Sir Neil designed a scheme, 25 years ago, that would ensure that Members of the House and others understood a little bit about service in the armed forces and how defence works. That is important because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, although we get involved with a whole raft of things here, the most important thing that we do in Parliament—as it has always been—is connected with the armed forces. That is absolutely central to what Parliament is all about, and it is just as well that we have among us some understanding of defence and of how those who populate defence conduct their business. That is what the armed forces parliamentary scheme has been all about.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) first on securing the debate; secondly, on his hard work up to this point in securing the scheme’s future; and, thirdly and most importantly, on his election as chairman of the armed forces parliamentary trust. I fear that he is something of a rarity in Parliament today in having a really detailed understanding of the armed forces, and I can think of no better person to take the scheme forward to its next stage.

The scheme has interfaced with well in excess of 200 parliamentarians during the past 25 years—people who are then much better placed to contribute meaningfully to debate in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made an interesting point about trust and openness. I repeat that the world was different 25 years ago. Today we are much more open and transparent in how we approach issues, and if there was any difficulty at all 25 years ago in exposing parliamentarians to what sailors, soldiers and airmen got up to, that is far less the case today. One of the hidden benefits of the scheme is that it allows that level of transparency, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the number of instances of abuse of trust on the scheme has been very small over time.

Following the extraordinary vignettes that we have heard, which were terribly colourful, I fear that my contribution to this debate will be rather more prosaic. Nevertheless, it is important to put on the record how we have come to this point. Having accepted the excellence of the scheme—I reiterate that it is excellent—we must understand that we are in a different place today from 25 years ago. Public expectations of bodies that interface with parliamentarians are different from what they were in the 1980s. It is interesting—is it not?—that we should be discussing lobbying and transparency in this fortnight. It is appropriate that we should be making real inroads into the next stages of this scheme during this short return to Parliament in September, because it is lobbying and transparency that would worry people—if not the public, then certainly the press—in relation to the scheme.

I am mindful of the involvement of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in attempting to review the position of all-party groups, and of the recommendations that he has made. Although the scheme is not an all-party group, it is nevertheless an organisation that involves parliamentarians and commercial sponsors. Potentially, therefore, if the Ministry of Defence and Parliament had not taken the gardening action that I think has been appropriate, the scheme might have been open to criticism, however ill-founded. All of us who have lived through the past five years or so in this place know full well that if we do not take timely action, events will overtake us. What we have done has been absolutely necessary.

There are a number of people in Westminster Hall today who have been intimately involved with, or at least had cognisance of, what has been going on in respect of the scheme since November 2010. That was when the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and the previous Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), together with Mr Speaker, decided that the scheme needed to be moved on to the point that we have been discussing today. Without detaining the gathering here today unduly, perhaps I can say that it has been a long, complex and protracted experience, with a surprising level of complexity involved. As convenor of the process during the past 12 months or so, I am deeply grateful to all those who have been involved in it and contributed to it. It has involved some people of great seniority who are well respected in this place and beyond, all of whom have brought their collective wisdom to the piece and contributed to what we have today.

I think that it is true to say that there is one thing worse than being asked questions as a Defence Minister, and that is being asked questions that are ill-informed. Having taken part in defence debates since 2001, both in opposition and in government, I am always aware of the massive contribution made by the armed forces parliamentary scheme in ensuring that the debates we have in this place are properly informed. Those who have taken part in the scheme carry a deep and intrinsic sense that they know what they are talking about. This morning, a number of hon. Members have talked about the ethos of the scheme and about what really matters to them, which is trying to get under the skin of those who populate defence in order to try to understand what makes them tick.

Although I have never been a member of the scheme, from my personal observation of it I know that it really cuts both ways. First, it is extremely useful for the men and women who serve in our armed forces to know that Members of Parliament are not a race apart and do not—at least in the main—have horns growing from their head. When one gets past the inevitable question or joke about one’s expenses, including quips such as, “You’ll be filling out your expenses form, won’t you?”—isn’t that amusing?—one finds that the degree of empathy that Members of Parliament have with the men and women of the armed forces with whom they are billeted is of a high order.

I think that all of us have spoken to constituents and others who have experienced parliamentarians on the scheme and who have by and large come away from the experience impressed with the interaction. That is reassuring. I am talking about extraordinary valuable citizens in the armed forces—they are citizens like no others. We owe it to them to assure them that parliamentarians who have a huge influence on their lives and careers have their interests at heart, and certainly understand what makes them tick.

I am sure that the scheme will be hugely popular. I am given a lot of assurance in making that assertion by the fact that 35 parliamentarians have enlisted for what we might call the interim scheme, which is currently operational. It is in no way a substitute for the previous scheme or indeed the scheme that will succeed it, but at least it allows Members of Parliament to have some sort of continuity of interaction with the armed forces. I am delighted that in this interregnum we have been able to facilitate a programme of visits to military establishments, so that we can continue that programme now that the trust—under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire—is able to take up the reins.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to Sir Neil Thorne, who has done the House, and our discourse and our debate within it, a huge service over a protracted period of time. I have no doubt that the scheme—now under its new guise as a charity, which had to be established to give the public the assurances that they rightly expect of organisations of this sort—will be a massive success under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. We can look forward to the next 25 years with a great deal of confidence as the scheme, which is now a trust, goes from strength to strength.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank all colleagues for the excellence of their speeches and the brevity of their interventions.