Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I cannot share the exact numbers with the hon. Lady. What I can say is that our focus will definitely be on the Afghan national officer academy, which is just outside Kabul. We are very much concentrating on that, but of course we need to consider force protection and other issues, and the actual details cannot yet be given.

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

At a time when some commentators outside the House doubt the utility of UK military force, it is crucial that those from all parts of the House again put on the record our respect for the remarkable contribution that our men and women are making in Afghanistan.

Let me return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), on which the Minister attempted an answer but did not give enough details. Will he say to the House in more detail what he understands to be the current commitment for UK equipment being retained in Afghanistan post-2014? When will the Government be in a position to share with the House the precise number of UK military personnel who will remain in theatre post-2014?

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about our armed forces, which, notwithstanding any excitements last week, are still doing an extremely good job in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to them as well.

Our focus after the end of next year will most definitely be on the Afghan national army officer academy outside Kabul. I am afraid that I cannot yet give the right hon. Gentleman or the House details of equipment that we might be leaving behind or anything like that, but we expect to announce it by the end of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Our position remains that there needs to be a robust response to the illegal use of chemical weapons. The House of Commons has ruled out military participation in any such response, but we will pursue every diplomatic, political and other channel to continue to deliver the robust message that my right hon. Friend calls for.

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

I want to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). On Thursday, after the vote, the Prime Minister ruled out UK involvement in military action in Syria. The Government of course will remain engaged diplomatically and on aid policy, but will the Secretary of State spell out for the House in what, if any, circumstances, following changes in Syria or internationally, the Government would bring back to Parliament the issue of UK military involvement in Syria?

[Mr Hammond]

If I may say so, it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman, who last week trooped into the Lobby behind the leader of his party, giving rise to the very situation in which we now find ourselves, to demand that I tell him precisely in which circumstances we might revisit this issue. I have already said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that we believe that Parliament has spoken clearly on this issue, and is unlikely to want to revisit it unless the circumstances change very significantly.

Consultants

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Jim Murphy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultancies have been given contracts with his Department since May 2010; and what the (a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) scope of work conducted under each such contract was.

[Official Report, 6 February 2013, Vol. 558, c. 228-34W.]

Letter of correction from Mark Francois:

An error has been identified in the written answer given on 6 February 2013 to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy).

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Francois]

[holding answer 10 December 2012]: A list of consultancies that have been awarded Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts since May 2010 is provided as follows. The table includes contract value and a broad description of the requirement. Contracts awarded by MOD agencies and trading funds are included, but the list excludes contracts awarded under the Framework Agreement for Technical Support and those classified by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation as Principal Service Providers; these contracts are defined separately from consultancy services.

Total MOD expenditure on consultancy for the last five financial years is listed as follows. These figures include spend by MOD trading funds. The table shows that between 2007-08 and 2011-12 expenditure on consultancy fell by 84%.

Defence Reform Bill

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The defence of the United Kingdom and the protection of our national interests must be the priority of any Government. The brave men and women of our armed forces do an exceptional job, and I am sure all Members of the House will wish to pay tribute to their dedication, and to the sacrifices they make not only on operations but, as the tragic events in the Brecon Beacons at the weekend reminded us, on a daily basis.

The armed forces can perform their vital role only if we provide them with the capabilities they need to operate effectively and safely. We have a duty to them to ensure they have the tools they need in terms of manpower, training, equipment and logistical support. At the same time, we must deal with the black hole we inherited in the defence budget, and the Ministry of Defence has had to contribute its share to the broader challenge of correcting the public sector structural deficit.

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

I wish to respond not to the Secretary of State’s discordant point but to address his earlier comment and say that Her Majesty’s Opposition wholeheartedly share the expression of sympathy offered by the Secretary of State about events in Brecon. I know there are limits to what he can say at this early stage because it is subject to a police inquiry, but can he share any more details with the House about his understanding of those tragic events? In particular, there have been suggestions that training regimes may recently have been altered as part of efforts to boost the number of reservists, but I suspect that they are unfounded. Will he say what he feels he can say at this early stage?

[Mr Hammond]

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires to get to the bottom of this matter—as do we all—but he is right that there is little I can say. An inquiry by Dyfed-Powys police is under way, and when it is complete there will be a service inquiry into the events of last weekend. We will get to the bottom of what happened, and if there are systemic lessons to be learned, we will learn them. I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that once the inquiry is complete, I will report to the House in an appropriate way.

The need to address the public sector structural deficit and the deficit in the defence budget has meant tough decisions and a relentless focus on squeezing more capability out of what remains the world’s fourth largest defence budget.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like the whole House, I listened intently to the Secretary of State’s necessarily detailed analysis of the specific points he announced in advocating the Bill. At the start of his speech he reflected on the tragedy in Brecon, and I associate the Opposition with his comments. After the controversy relating to today’s Health statement, I wish—I suspect to your satisfaction, Mr Deputy Speaker—to seek a more consensual approach to the tone of our debate. The principles driving the reforms in the Bill have the potential to unite all parts of the House.

Reform to defence procurement is vital to ensuring value for money, while upholding the highest possible standards and timely delivery of world-class equipment to our personnel. It is essential that increasing the number and enhancing the role of the reserve force be a success, in order to strengthen our front-line Army capability at a time when it has been subject to cutbacks. The Opposition’s aim is to ensure that these objectives are met through effective delivery, scrutinising the military as well as the financial implications of the Government’s proposals.

On Government-owned contractor-operated procurement, it is crucial that defence procurement practices be modernised to serve both the front-line overseas and the bottom line back home. Both parties agree that some of the issues that have plagued defence procurement have been insufficiently tackled by successive Administrations. In all Governments, momentum on modernisation has been lost. Major projects such as Eurofighter-Typhoon have grown greatly in cost and have been delivered years late. The roots of that lay in the late Baroness Thatcher’s Administration, showing just how far back some of these issues go.

Shared blame, however, is not as important as shared resolve, which is necessary to achieve meaningful reform. Such reform will come from greater professional project and programme management within Defence Equipment and Support, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes, and longer-term integration of military expertise.

The Opposition are genuinely open-minded about the management structure that will deliver this change, which is why we accept the proposed legislation that will enable a GoCo model to be established. Supporting assessment of GoCo’s feasibility, however, is not the same as supporting its creation. The comparison between a GoCo and DE&S-plus, as it is inelegantly named, should, we believe, be based on the following principles.

First, reform must strengthen value for money within programmes, with industry adhering to targets on time and on cost. Secondly, the chosen procurement management model must retain parliamentary accountability for decision making—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—so that oversight and scrutiny of multi-billion pound contracts is not hampered, but if possible enhanced. Thirdly, any change in management model must protect the rights of staff and engage with their trade union representatives, and finally, the procurement process should be characterised by talent and skill, with clear lines of responsibility, proper reward and career structures and a culture of consequences for those tasked with project management. Within that, military expertise has to be maximised without a single-service interest dominating decision making. The Opposition welcome a rigorous examination of all the options for achieving that and wish to see a genuine comparison made between the two options of GoCo and DE&S-plus.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I am delighted with the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but can I take it that he has no objection, in principle, to a GoCo, but that he wishes to see how it works out in practice?

[Mr Murphy]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my point entirely. We wish to see reform. It is difficult to defend the status quo, which, despite the many efforts of the professionals involved, has ill suited successive Governments and has not delivered value for money. In addition to testing the logic of GoCo and DE&S-plus against the three principles I mentioned, we will consider the points the Defence Committee raised.

Further to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is important that the comparison be genuine and be seen to be genuine. I say gently to the Secretary of State, however, that so far he has failed to guarantee that the Government will publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies. I hope they will take the opportunity, today or in Committee, to commit to doing so. It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that affordability is a determining factor in this process, but that can be achieved only if we have public transparency in the findings prior to a final decision being made and Members being asked to vote in favour.

I hope, too, that we will receive reassurances about the role of Parliament and the National Audit Office in scrutinising the internal decision-making process of a GoCo. It is understood that the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable—to be fair, he said the same again today—but the decisions taken by the contractor in the handling of multi-billion pound projects should not be free from public oversight. It will also interest the House to know how reform will impact on one of the centrepieces of the 2011 Levene review, which was for service chiefs to

“take responsibility (and ultimately own the budget) for detailed capability planning”.

Any enhanced power for a contractor could contradict the increased control over budgetary management and planning given to the service chiefs.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am happy to clarify that point. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the process of devolving budget responsibility to the front-line commands, including responsibility for equipment procurement and support, starting with the smaller equipment procurement projects, but eventually including all but the very largest and most strategic. They will be the customers for the GoCo, just as in the current model they are the customers for DE&S. One of the disciplines that the proposed change will introduce is a harder boundary between the customer and the provider. At the moment, we suffer from a permeable boundary that allows decision making sometimes to be a bit woollier than it should be.

[Mr Murphy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that genuinely helpful intervention. In Committee, we will have to interrogate the expertise of the civil servants operating at that interface. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but they are up against remarkably talented negotiators with an entirely legitimate commercial interest, so we have to get that interface right. The simplicity the Secretary of State spoke about is important.

[Mr Hammond]

I apologise for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman again, but that is exactly the point: the civil servants and the military people in the front-line commands—who are the customers—will interface with DE&S-plus or GoCo, which is their service provider. It is the service provider that will have to deal with the hard-nosed negotiators of the multi-billion pound international defence companies, and which will need to hire and fire in the marketplace at market rates in order to face them across the table on a level playing field—if I may mix my metaphors.

[Mr Murphy]

We are looking for a level playing field and a level negotiating table—if a metaphor it is—because this issue is so significant. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about hopefully simplifying and strengthening the process. However, procurement might have become a little more complicated as a consequence of a speech given today by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place—which would normally mean the second Chamber, but which on this occasion appears to mean the Royal United Services Institute. We are pretty clear: Labour have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent. Actually, I should correct myself: we have not always said that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think it has always been the case for you, Mr Murphy.

[Mr Murphy]

You know me well, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since we were serious, we have always said—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Sorry: since we are being serious about our nation’s defence and have a passing affection for the public’s opinion, we have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent. It would require a substantial body of evidence for us to change that view, but the review published today does not appear to offer such evidence. We will continue to scrutinise today’s report on the grounds of capability, cost and disarmament. Labour will also continue to look at ways in which a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent can be delivered most efficiently, based on protecting our capability, delivering value for money and advancing disarmament objectives.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

If you will permit me for a moment to continue straying off the topic slightly, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I put on the record the fact that the shadow Defence team deserves a great deal of credit for keeping both sides of the House on the right path, both for the thousands of jobs in my constituency and for our future defence for generations ahead?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should try to hold back his speech for tomorrow? I would not want him to use it all up today, and I think he got the point across.

[Mr Murphy]

I take your strictures about our not using the speeches we intend to give tomorrow, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am not making a speech tomorrow—my hon. Friends will be speaking then—so I thought I would say it today.

The point I am making is about procurement, GoCo and DE&S-plus, and the complexity of the deterrent programme in that process. However, what we have learnt today is that the Lib Dem part of the Government has taken two years to review a policy and spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to conclude that the Lib Dems’ past policy was unachievable. Today they appear to have managed to advocate both a Trident-based system and part-time unilateralism simultaneously. That is a real achievement. The British people will marvel at the incompetence of suggesting that we should pay tens of billions of pounds to send boats to sea, while the media are now being briefed that on occasion they will not even carry missiles. That is like someone having a new, expensive burglar alarm at their home with no batteries and a sign above the door saying, “Come on in—no one’s at home”.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman must understand and be accurate in his descriptions. This was not a Liberal Democrat review; it was a review by the Government, insisted on by the Liberal Democrats, which says:

“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”

Credibility—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are in danger of running tomorrow’s debate today. I do not want to do that; I want to get back to the Bill. [Interruption.] No, you are taking the bait, Mr Horwood. It is no use looking to Mr Murphy; we know he is not here tomorrow, but you will be.

[Mr Murphy]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), it was impossible for him not to take the bait. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State sensibly says, “He’s the only Lib Dem here.” There is no audience, as it were, from his party for him to perform for, although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make the Lib Dems’ policy clear tomorrow in the Chamber—I hope. However, there is an issue—I will finish on this matter after this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—about how taxpayers’ money has been used to inform a Lib Dem process. I accept that the Government will say that the review is a Government document, but it was intended to inform the Lib Dem manifesto.

One of the primary arguments for a GoCo is its supposed ability to attract and retain higher skills and prevent a loss of talent from DE&S. The Opposition are clear about the need to increase the skill levels in our armed forces, but we recognise that this requirement limits itself to those in uniform. Those at the front line of defence procurement within government should be the equal in experience of those within industry—a point to which the Secretary of State has alluded. We will carefully scrutinise the procedures in place to ensure that the assessment phase is fair and transparent, and that sufficient controls are in place to ensure that those involved in the possible preparation of a GoCo cannot immediately go and work in that GoCo, a point to which we will return.

While we are on this theme, it seems unacceptable that the Government have not yet fully published their findings on The Sunday Times revelations on cash for access within the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State, of course, wrote to me on the matter, explaining the outcomes, but this was a private letter and I was not at liberty to disclose its contents and have chosen not to do so. I think it important, however, for the Secretary of State to provide the full details to the House.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but I was not aware that I had not explained the situation publicly. If he would care to ask me a written parliamentary question, I will publish in the public domain the full information I have provided to him.

[Mr Murphy]

That is a kind offer from the Secretary of State, although he could have done so off his own back, and the problem is that we are running out of time for named day questions and replies. The alternative, with his permission, would be for me simply to tweet his letter. That would be quicker and I would be happy to do so if he so wishes. [Interruption.] With the Secretary of State’s permission, I will now tweet the letter I received some months ago detailing the Government’s response to The Sunday Times revelations.

These issues, alongside the impact of any reform of our strategic and working relationships with major international partners, particularly the US, and providing clarity on the ownership of risk, will be priorities for the Opposition. The restructuring of DE&S, however, should also be seen as part of a wider structural reform of defence procurement.

There is much else that I could have said, but time is against us today and my colleagues will raise in Committee additional points about sovereign capabilities, long-term planning and predictability for British industry, so I shall now turn briefly to reform of the reserves.

The Opposition want to ensure that reservist recruitment is successful so that the reserves can work alongside regulars to project force globally. Our reservists make an enormous contribution here at home in many ways. About 2,000 of them, some of whom I saw for myself when I went to see the Greco-Roman wrestling, helped to protect the London Olympics. Many serve overseas in far-away terrain in the name of national security. We should pay tribute to each one of those who have served, and above all to those who have lost their lives serving our nation.

While we champion the reserve force, we recognise the need to modernise. The name change to “Army Reserve” will reflect a modern composition and hopefully help to attract a new generation of recruits. The task ahead is, however, enormous and we should not pretend otherwise. The plan to double the size of the reserve forces to 30,000 by 2018 is now central to the Government’s ability to deliver their planning assumptions—originally, of course, designed for an Army of 95,000, but after further cuts now reliant on a regular force of just 82,000.

The scale of this task is underlined if we consider that the reserve forces of the US, Canada and Australia make up between 40% and 50% of their armies, as opposed to 20% here in the UK. Many analysts worry that, rather than reform of the Army being synchronised with that of the reserves, both are disjointed and the reserve uplift will not complement the regular Army but supplement lost capacity. Cuts in the regular Army are happening regardless of the success of any uplift in the reserves, rather than the one being contingent on the other.

This development comes as Army reserve recruitment has hit real trouble. The figures are publicly available—that recruitment targets were missed by more than 4,000 last year. Great care has to be taken to ensure that the loss of 26 Territorial Army centres does not make civilian communities in certain areas more disconnected from the military and disinclined to volunteer for the reserves.

[Mr Ellwood]

I echo the tone adopted by the shadow Secretary of State, but I am concerned by his direction of travel. Will he not take some responsibility for what happened to the TA during the previous Government’s tenure? The size of the TA fell by 40% and recruitment was down by tens of thousands. As a member of the TA, I remember an announcement from this place that training was to be cut and that no funding would be provided. He must acknowledge that the previous Government have some responsibility for where things are today.

[Mr Murphy]

That would be a very fair point if it was based on a fact. I suspect that our conversation today will be less productive if we repeat some of the debates of recent times, but the fact is that we increased the size of the Regular Army, whereas this uplift in the reserve forces is happening at a time of reductions in the Regular Army—that is the significant difference.

[Mr Ellwood]

I did not mention the Regular Army, but the TA. When Labour came to power in 1997, TA numbers were 62,000. When Labour left power in 2010, they were 37,000. It does not take a maths degree to realise that that is a massive reduction in TA capability.

[Mr Murphy]

My point is that in the same context, Regular Army numbers increased. I do not want us to bat each other about the head on this; I am assessing how we can make a success of the boost in reservist numbers. The comparison the hon. Gentleman invites me to draw, however, is with the Labour Government, and we boosted the size of the Regular Army. His party said that it was not big enough; it wanted an even bigger Army and was elected on a manifesto of going in that direction. The comparison is clear: we boosted the number of regulars. Of course, there is always pressure when it comes to reservists, who were under-recruited for about nine decades, so this is not a short-term problem for us or the current Government to grapple with.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Does he accept that the six-month cancellation of TA training announced by the previous Government in October 2009 was not the way to stimulate TA recruitment and confidence? Also, as he is talking about Regular Army numbers, does he now accept a Regular Army of 82,000 as the basis for Future Force 2020, or does he still hanker after a reversal of that reduction?

[Mr Murphy]

As the Secretary of State knows, the previous decision on training was based on the recommendation of the Regular Army and the best available military advice. It was the type of situation that he faces whenever it comes to considering the best available military advice. We will make the detailed shape of the formation of our forces clear in our strategic defence review and in advance of the election.

The Opposition support moves to improve the training for reservists and ease their deeper integration with regular forces. We also support moves to use niche civilian skills, for example on cyber, in a military setting as well as to expand occupational health services. There are, however, areas where we believe the Government could go further. It is essential that the changes, particularly the extended periods of training and deployment, be compatible with employment patterns and that the reforms be designed in collaboration with employers.

It is worth noting the huge impact the changes could have on employers, particularly small employers. More than 600,000 businesses in the UK employ between two and four people. I suspect that we Members all employ a similar number of people in our parliamentary offices. We should ask how we would cope with losing a staff member for up to a year. Although I am sure that each and every one of us would be enormously supportive of a staff member’s military ambition, we might struggle to fill that space. Once we reflect on how we would feel about that, it gives us a better understanding of what many within that core group of 600,000 businesses will be confronted with.

Our view is that the reservists in those businesses will be a remarkable bonus and asset for them, but we must do more together to make that argument. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that for one in three businesses, nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, whereas almost 40% of those who had employed or would consider employing a reservist said that they believed that the Government’s proposed reforms would have a negative impact on their business. I do not agree with that; nevertheless, it is a sentiment felt by all too many businesses.

I welcome the announcement about access to unfair dismissal tribunals, but, as we have said before—and the Secretary of State referred to this—we believe that Ministers could go further. Current legislation clearly states that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation in which he was employed before his service, on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent employers from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on grounds of military affiliation.

We hope that, rather than embarking on a new consultation, the Government will work with employers on new legislation to provide further protection against discrimination in the hiring of reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation for reservists to make a transparent declaration at the interview stage. We believe that that should be part of a wider collaborative approach, and that a permanent employer engagement committee should be established to enable Governments to take the lead in advocating the employment of reservists.

There has been some debate about whether £1.8 billion is the right amount to invest, but we should also consider whether it will provide value for money. We hope that Ministers will be able to shed light on that in Committee. We shall want to know what proportion of the money is intended to fund financial incentives for employers and the “reservist award”, which tops up reservists’ salaries to match their civilian salaries. We shall also want to know whether the £1.8 billion covers reservists’ training, medical costs and pension payments, or whether those will come from another part of the MOD’s core budget. We are keen to establish what elements of the Reserves 2020 plan have clear funding streams, and where there may be unknown liabilities in a budget that involves competing interests.

The Bill has the potential to help the United Kingdom develop world-class procurement procedures that will be the envy of every nation. It gives us an opportunity to make a success of the enormous challenge of doubling the reserve force. The Opposition will support and scrutinise its proposals in Committee, and will give it a fair passage today.

Points of Order

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I happily accept that offer from the Secretary of State. As he will know, I am principally concerned with matters of order and good form. Although in a human sense, no doubt, particular sites are of interest, they are not within my sphere of competence, and he knows that. What I am interested to hear about is the handling of the matter. He has given me a commitment on that, and I am grateful for it.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has just raised a point of order about Kilmarnock being on the list of reopened or opening sites. The only place in Scotland that is determined as a location appears to be in Edinburgh, which is nowhere near Kilmarnock. It seems that every Member of the House, including Ministers, was reading this list for the first time.

I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, because I was handed a copy of the Secretary of State’s oral statement as I arrived towards the end of Prime Minister’s questions, which is why I did not thank him for advance sight of it. The written statement was provided late. In fact, I have an e-mail from the House of Commons Library confirming that it arrived at 12.55 pm. That is well after the Secretary of State spoke and well after I spoke. When the House of Commons Library receives it only at 12.55 pm, something deeply untoward has happened. At 1 pm, a few minutes later, the supporting paperwork arrived.

Then, in the midst of all that, at about the same time, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), took it upon herself to scurry round the Chamber with a poor photocopy of documentation that we should have been provided with earlier. It does not have Kilmarnock on the list, so it was not only a rushed photocopy circulated informally but perhaps also incomplete.

My point of order, therefore, is to ask whether you would look kindly, Mr Speaker, on a request by the Minister for the Armed Forces to make a supplementary statement tomorrow in light of the fact that the weighty impact assessment arrived only in the past couple of minutes. No Member apart from myself and, I suspect, the Secretary of State is in possession of the impact assessment of the measures announced today. Would you look kindly, Mr Speaker, on a request by the Minister for the Armed Forces to make an additional statement tomorrow, so that this sordid mess can be clarified once and for all and so that we can have proper scrutiny?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a matter for Ministers to decide whether they wish to make oral statements to the House. As he will be aware, the convention whereby a Minister delivering an oral statement begins it by saying, “With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement”, is just a convention and, frankly, a courtesy that is, I think, on the whole appreciated by the House, but Ministers can make statements to the House when they wish. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to wait to see whether there is an offer of a statement, but there are various parliamentary devices open to Members to deliver the scrutiny that they think a particular measure warrants and everything ought to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps I can leave it there for now.

Bill Presented

Defence Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Secretary Hammond, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Danny Alexander, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Chris Grayling, Francis Maude, the Attorney-General and Mr Philip Dunne, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with any arrangements that may be made by the Secretary of State with respect to the provision to the Secretary of State of defence procurement services; to make provision relating to defence procurement contracts awarded, or amended, otherwise than as the result of a competitive process; to make provision in relation to the reserve forces of the Crown; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 84) with explanatory notes (Bill 84-EN).

Reserve Forces

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State and his officials for giving me advance briefing, but I am disappointed by the fact that we have been given only half a statement. The House does not have the luxury of possessing a list of the bases that the Government intend to close, because that has not been shared with Members on either side the House. It does not appear to be in the Library either, and it is not contained in the White Paper. I will happily accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether I should continue.

[Mr Speaker]

It is certainly open to the right hon. Gentleman to continue. If it was the Government’s intention that such further details should be available in the Vote Office and they are not, that is at the very least regrettable, and arguably incompetent. If it was not the intention for the material to be available, it should have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the Secretary of State can respond at this stage. He will have to do his best to respond to questions later, and we shall have to cope as best we can, but the situation is deeply unsatisfactory.

[Mr Murphy]

Is it your advice that I should continue, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that the House has not been provided with the information relating to the statement?

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order! I cannot take points of order in the middle of a statement.

The shadow Secretary of State is his own best adviser. He has material, he is a dextrous fellow, and I suggest that he will wish to continue.

[Mr Murphy]

Under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I shall of course do so, but I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will, like me, consider it utterly unacceptable that we are being expected to comment on a statement that has not been shared with the House. We have been told that a number of bases are to be closed—26, I understand—but the House is not in a position even to scrutinise any of the measures that have been advocated by the Government. I do not think that that is malevolent; I believe it to be utterly incompetent. However, on the basis of your advice, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue.

We support an enhanced role for the reserve forces, working alongside regulars to project force globally. Our reserves make an enormous contribution here at home in many ways, including the 2,000 who helped to protect the Olympics. Many serve overseas in faraway terrain in the name of national security. It is right that we pay tribute to each of those who have served, and above all to those who have lost their lives. It is even more important for us to reflect on their courage, professionalism and patriotism so soon after Armed Forces day.

While we champion reserve forces, we recognise the need to modernise. However, it is worrying that rather than synchronising the reform of the Army with that of the reserves, today’s announcement appears to have been belated. There are also fears that the reserves uplift is designed not to complement our Army, but to supplement lost capacity. Many people will reasonably want the Government to explain the defence rationale. They will want to know why the cuts in the regular Army are happening regardless of the success of any uplift in the reserves. Concern about that is only added to by the fact that the TA recruitment targets were missed by more than 4,000 last year.

Labour Members welcome much of today’s announcement—that which has been shared with the House—including the information about mental health. Increased training alongside regulars and investment in equipment will enhance reserves’ capability. Transferability of qualifications will encourage recruitment, and the change in the name is welcome. However, there will undoubtedly be concern and real hurt in the 26 as yet anonymous communities in which centres are being closed. We will examine the detail of that as soon as the Secretary of State and his team deign to share it with the House, as they have already shared it with the media.

There will be concern in certain parts of the country, particularly Scotland and south-west England, about some of the decisions that seem to have been reached. We have said repeatedly that we want, and the country needs, a reservist plan to succeed, but much of that will depend on getting the offer right for employers and reservists. A central challenge to be overcome is ensuring that reservists’ employment patterns are compatible with longer deployment periods, and that they do not face discrimination in the workplace. Service experience is an enormous asset to business, but despite that, a recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that one in three employers believed that nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the balance between transparency and security, particularly in respect of reservists in Northern Ireland? Will he also tell us what measures he will introduce to ensure that the employers who are least well equipped to absorb the impact of large-scale deployment, such as small businesses, are able to manage requests for leave?

Engagement with public sector employers is compulsory. We should not be inviting demands on the private sector that we would not make of the public sector. Will the Secretary of State explain how the process will be managed and monitored across Departments, and will he tell us how many Departments currently bill the Ministry of Defence for the cost of members of their work force who are deployed as reservists?

It is essential that those who volunteer to protect our country are protected in their workplace. The announcement on access to unfair dismissal tribunals is welcome, but, on discrimination at the point of hiring, I fear that the Secretary of State may be missing an opportunity. We need to get this right, rather than be rushed, but many will worry that time spent on consultation on the principle could be better used by consulting business on specific proposals.

A number of reservists who have recently lost their jobs will be on welfare. We have heard assertions from the Government on the bedroom tax and the armed forces that have turned out to be unfounded. I do not doubt Ministers’ intentions on welfare, but question the implementation, so for the purpose of clarity will the Secretary of State publish full detailed tables on how reservists in receipt of benefits or credits will be affected?

On niche specialisms, can the Secretary of State say more about how he would seek to recruit reservists with specialisms where there are current skills shortages, particularly in languages, with targeted recruitment among diaspora communities?

These reforms must succeed to fill the capability gaps, but, more importantly, they should mark a change in culture where we strengthen our front-line force with a greater and more integrated use of civilian expertise. Our modern forces must be as diverse as the threats we face, and that means having a new, high quality Army Reserve. In the interests of national security, we will work with the Government to make that a reality—but I wish to say again on behalf of the whole House how unacceptable I find it that I am expected to respond to a statement about the closures of bases, the detail of which was not shared with any Member of this House, whereas those who gather to record our proceedings have the full detail. It is a shameful way to behave, and occasionally Ministers have to have the courage to come and advocate their own policy in this Chamber.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Armed Forces

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.

I am pleased to start what I think is an important debate in advance of Armed Forces day on issues that should transcend party politics. The care and support that we offer those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of others in our nation’s name across the globe is something that we rightly celebrate every day and in particular this weekend. The patriotism, courage and dedication of the men and women who serve are immeasurable. The first duty of any Government to protect our citizens would not be possible without our forces’ commitment, and they must at all times be properly valued and rewarded.

I want this House to know again that the Government will always have the support of those on the Opposition Benches when they seek to support our service personnel. This is more important as Armed Forces day approaches. That is an opportunity for people across the UK to come together locally to celebrate the contribution our forces and their families make, not just to our national security, but to local communities. So it is in that spirit that I offer my comments today. In doing so, however, I cannot guarantee the tone or the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will wind up today’s debate.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I strongly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said about Armed Forces day and about support for our armed forces. Having read his motion carefully, I strongly agree with every single word in it and I am most grateful to him for proposing it. However, I look forward to the response of his hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Is it not the job of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition not simply to propose a motion on which we all agree, but to try to point out what is wrong with what the Government are doing? Why has he wasted the opportunity to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

There are 364 days of the year to point out where the Government are going wrong. We have chosen today in advance of Armed Forces day to celebrate the contribution our armed forces make and to offer, as the hon. Gentleman will realise as he listens to the rest of my comments, some of the ways in which we think the country and our politics could further improve the service and support for our armed forces. But I will take his advice and when I next return to the Dispatch Box I will do so in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, rather than making my own comments.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May I answer the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)? I will tell him what is wrong with the armed forces, if he really wants to know—the cuts to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

[Mr Murphy]

There will be opportunities throughout the debate for right hon. and hon. Members to make their own assessments of the strength of the Government’s defence policy, but my intention today, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is to make constructive suggestions about how together we can do more to honour our armed forces and support their families.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In a comradely spirit, does the right hon. Gentleman think that military bands have a role to play in the future of our armed forces?

[Mr Murphy]

I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency a number of times and know how passionately he argues that case. Of course military bands play an important role, as we saw at trooping the colour a couple of weeks ago on Her Majesty’s official birthday. I think that the remarkable sights and sounds of military bands are celebrated by the entre nation.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

I will give way, as long as the hon. Gentleman understands that this will be his second and final intervention.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

Good luck!

[Sir Bob Russell]

The reason I intervened is that under the Labour Government the number of Army bands was reduced by almost a quarter.

[Mr Murphy]

I knew that I would enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s second intervention. Someone shouted from a sedentary position “Good luck” in relation to his not seeking to intervene again. All I will say is that I will not give way to him later in my speech. I am pretty proud of the changes and reforms introduced by the Labour Government with regard to our armed forces. Members today will offer their observations and criticisms, but on balance I am pretty proud of our record.

Our armed forces stationed overseas are rightly at the front of all our minds, including those stationed in Afghanistan. They operate in the dust and danger of a far-away terrain to protect security on our streets at home. Of course, after the pain of the past few years, many people understandably ask why it is in our interests to engage in such causes and to confront unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The answer, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward: we do so because we do not want it to visit our shores.

We have recently seen UK personnel operating in Libya and Mali, alongside the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, in a sign of the unpredictability of today’s security landscape. Today the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way do so in a rapidly evolving defence environment that will demand new skills, technologies and strategies alongside their timeless courage and ingenuity.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s preliminary remarks. Are not many armed servicemen and women worried about any future entanglement? Will he take this opportunity to share with the House the answer to this question: do Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support or oppose arming the Syrian opposition forces?

[Mr Murphy]

As my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have already made clear, there is a great degree of scepticism and worry about any decision to arm the Syrian opposition, not least because it is not possible to quarantine the arms provided or guarantee who will be the end user. We look forward to hearing the Government make their argument. I thought that the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions the week before last, had an argument, but he did not make it very well.

Our purpose in the world is to defend our interests and promote our values, but the means by which we achieve those ends and the threats that challenge both our interests and our ideas are increasingly diverse, complex and intense. The global population is growing rapidly, putting massive pressure on resources and space and forcing migration from poor to rich states. Climate change will reduce available land, food and water, exacerbating the drivers of state failure. Weak and unstable states already outnumber strong and stable ones by more than 2:1. A youth bulge is seeing rising aspiration and great emotional urgency in the desire for political change. The advance of information technologies and biotechnologies threatens international security infrastructure, while nuclear proliferation and cyber-attacks pose the potential for mass destruction.

Within this context, it is our duty collectively to ensure that our forces are designed to meet new threats, with a strategy defined by adaptability, prevention and partnering with our allies. Labour has argued that our recruitment plan must be advanced and affordable, defined by discipline in budgetary management as well as maximising modern technology and a new multilateralism, and that our armed forces must be higher-skilled, focused on stabilisation, cultural embedding and building other nations’ underdeveloped forces so that they can share the burden of future heavy lifting. We see a new role for our services based on earlier intervention, to prevent the need for the large-scale conflicts of our recent history. However, it is our duty to ensure that such capability is based on reform throughout the ranks.

Our duty to forces on the front line is matched, of course, by our duty of care to them when they return. The armed forces covenant, enshrined in 2010 following a campaign by the Royal British Legion, has at its heart the principle that no one should suffer disadvantage as a result of their service. That principle should infuse all our work in support of the covenant and those men, women and their families.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about the armed forces covenant. I am sure he welcomes the news that all three local authorities in my area have signed up to the community covenant. Indeed, this Saturday morning we will name the town square in Corby after Lance Corporal James Ashworth, who, as my right hon. Friend will know, made the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Helmand, Afghanistan. He was awarded the Victoria Cross—only the 14th person to receive the honour since the second world war. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to encouraging local authorities to recognise the sacrifice of our troops.

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend speaks again with great passion about Lance Corporal James Ashworth. This is not a partisan point: my hon. Friend has been in the House for only a short time, but no Member on either side of the House could fail to be impressed by the diligence with which he has taken an interest in armed forces and defence issues. The whole House is improved by his contributions. I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, Members across the House will be doing their bit in their own town and city centres this Saturday. I will be in Nottingham at the national celebration of Armed Forces day.

Only recently did we graphically witness both the danger that our forces face and the unity that they can inspire. The atrocious murder of Drummer Lee Rigby sickened us all—a feeling whose intensity was matched only by the resolve to defeat the extremist sentiments that shaped the minds of the murderers. The result was not division, apart from that in respect of an exploitative minority; instead, it was a simple act of Britain standing together to defy that violence, hatred and intolerance.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

When that dreadful murder occurred, it was suggested that the uniform be removed and people should go out in civilian clothes. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was a bad idea? Like other Members, I am glad that that did not happen. We should stand up to such acts and be proud that the uniform of the Army, Navy or Air Force is worn in this country.

[Mr Murphy]

I fully endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. I recently enjoyed visiting his constituency in an unusual bout of sunshine; coming from Glasgow, I was not used to that.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. For understandable reasons, our armed forces were, for a number of decades, to some degree invisible to the public eye because of the republican extremist violence emanating from Northern Ireland. Although there were questions during the first few hours after the attack the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is right that we have settled on the position that our armed forces should continue to travel and be visible to the public mind and public affection. Although such a position is always taken under the best available advice, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

On the cuts to the armed forces and their replacement with reservists, the Federation of Small Businesses said that a lot of their members would think twice before employing a reservist. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

[Mr Murphy]

I will comment on that a little later. It is an important point. The Regular Army is being cut to about 82,000 and the reservist force is being doubled to about 30,000. It is crucial for our country that that is done in the right way. The issue is partly about how the Government interact and explain the benefit of having reservists in the workplace. I shall come back to that a little later.

I hope that Armed Forces day, in recognition of all those who have fallen, will be a reflection of the emotions that we feel—a commemoration of loved ones lost and a celebration of all they achieved and their comrades can continue to achieve; I am thinking not just of their deeds in the armed forces, but the love they gave, the friendships they built and the memories in which they are held.

The covenant is a statement of collective purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said. Its principles cut across classes, sectors, regions and nations of the UK. Businesses, local communities, central Government and local authorities all have a responsibility to deliver the highest possible levels of care and support to the service community. Of course we operate within financial constraints, but a pooling of our commitment and imagination can lead to better policy and meaningful results. That is why we have urged local authorities to have veterans champions—a dedicated person at each council to develop support for service leavers to help them to resettle into civilian life. On return from the front line or in departing the forces, many service leavers struggle with the transition from military to civilian life.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in praising all of Scotland’s local authorities for signing the covenant. On pooling, does he think that there is a useful model in understanding the work of Veterans Scotland, which brings together 53 veterans’ organisations to work with the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that veterans have the appropriate policy delivered at a Scottish and a UK level?

[Mr Murphy]

It is a rare occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I are in full agreement on defence matters, because we have an entirely different vision for the future of UK defence. He makes a very important point. It is a cause for some celebration that all 32 of Scotland’s local authorities have community covenants. Of course, there is an issue of scale in England, but achieving 100% in Scotland is a remarkable achievement. I would like to put on record the whole House’s congratulations to all those local authorities.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Mention of Scotland raises in my mind a prospect that many of us regard as unfortunate: that the contribution made by Scotland over many years—hundreds of years—to the British Army might in some way be prejudiced were Scotland to become independent and create its own armed forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that tradition is worthy of protection and is as powerful an argument as any against the idea that Scotland should hive off from the United Kingdom?

[Mr Murphy]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right; he makes an important point. One of the remarkable things about the patchwork nature of the United Kingdom is the way in which our four nations come together in some of our most important institutions, none more so than our armed forces. For very many people in Scotland, but also across the UK, the idea of tearing that apart demonstrates that independence is a powerful idea of the 19th century that is ill suited to the complexity of the 21st century.

All this work and all this support from veterans’ champions are crucial to ensure that the armed forces covenant becomes a reality on the ground. For some time, I have reflected that although an Opposition party is formally out of office, it is not out of power. That is why we, as the Opposition, have worked with business to develop and deliver the veterans interview programme, which encourages employers to offer veterans a guaranteed interview or other form of enhanced employment support. It is a voluntary scheme that gives veterans a chance to show employers how their skills and experience could benefit their businesses. The Department for Work and Pensions has agreed to roll it out nationally.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the several hundred charities that now exist all facing in the right direction, there is perhaps a lack of co-ordination in bringing their efforts together for the best benefit of the veterans concerned?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman, who served with such gallantry, makes an important point. The work that COBSEO—the Confederation of Service Charities—is doing could be important in this regard. Understandably, a plethora of new organisations has been created, born out of the remarkable emotion in the country whereby people wish to do something—anything—to support our armed forces. In a little while I will announce one more organisation that will be doing important work in future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my sense of satisfaction about that.

Through the veterans interview programme, about which I have just spoken, we are working in partnership with some of the nation’s largest employers. This morning, in another partnership with business, I updated the Opposition’s Fighting Fitter campaign, through which health and leisure centres provide discounts for members of the forces and their families. Five national health companies are taking part: Nuffield Health, Pure Gym, David Lloyd, Virgin Active and ukactive. Between them, they have more than 450 sites that will offer discounts for the armed forces. We hope that others will do the same this weekend and beyond.

I was joined at the launch this morning by an Olympic athlete. When I tweeted that fact earlier this morning, people got in touch to find out which Olympic athlete would be joining me on the publicity trail. The top suggestions were Jessica Ennis and Sir Chris Hoy. However, if you will forgive me on this one occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the misuse of parliamentary terminology, it was not Sir Chris Hoy, but another knight: our very own Sir Ming Campbell. As the House will know, he competed a blink of an eye ago in the 1964 Olympic games in Tokyo. His other claim to fame, as he has said before, is that he defeated O. J. Simpson on the running track. We were joined, I am pleased to say, by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), in the House of Commons gym in an all-party show of support for the Fighting Fitter campaign.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to complain that he was not invited to the gym this morning, I will happily give way.

[Bob Stewart]

There is no chance of me ever being an Olympic athlete. I would like to inform the House what happened when the shadow Secretary of State visited the Marines. Apparently, they sent him on a run and he beat the lot of them. Since then, they have never recovered.

[Mr Murphy]

Defeating the Marines in a run is one thing; defeating the shadow Chancellor in the marathon is another. I know which one I will pay for the longest. I think that he was only two hours behind me —[Interruption.] However, I do not keep records of these things and, I am sure, neither does he.

Let me get back to what I am meant to be reading out. The Opposition believe that it is vital to protect through anti-discrimination legislation those who protect our nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, recent polling shows that one in 20 service personnel have suffered abuse in the street. My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of businesses in the survey. A private Member’s Bill presented yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) proposes that abuse of the forces should be treated as aggravated, thus guaranteeing specific punishment for those who attack our forces. The polling also demonstrates that 18% of service personnel have been refused service in a public place. The Bill also proposes to outlaw discrimination against members of the forces in the provision of goods and services. That is vital if we are to tackle disadvantage that arises from military service. Although I am certain that the Bill can be improved technically, I hope that it will gain cross-party support.

We hope that the whole House will support the initiatives that I have mentioned: the veterans interview programme, local armed forces champions, the Fighting Fitter campaign and the anti-discrimination legislation. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom we also did not invite to our session at the gym this morning. I hope that he will reflect on each of those initiatives which, although launched by the Opposition, are free from party politics.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from veterans, does he think that it is important that we recognise the role played by British nuclear test veterans? Those veterans played a unique service role at the dawn of our nuclear weapons programme, but the country has never recognised them properly. We rank pretty close to the bottom of the international table of decency on this issue compared with other nuclear countries. Does he think that it is time to put that right?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important and long-running issue. All I would say is that I have met, and will continue to meet, representatives of those veterans, as do hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am sure that the Government are grappling with this matter. Under the previous Government a settlement offer was made, but my recollection and understanding is that that was blocked, seemingly by legal process and by lawyers. If that had not been the case, compensation might already have been provided. It is disappointing and regrettable that that has not happened.

An essential element of duty of care is how we support those who have served to get back into work post-service. Being in the armed forces often provides personnel with friendship, if not near-familial support. It can be disorientating and disconcerting when bonds with compatriots are suddenly broken and the norms of military life are lost.

[Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will then, with your permission Madam Deputy Speaker, make some progress.

[Charles Hendry]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a challenge for people who have tremendous skills and expertise from their time in the armed forces? When they move on, potential employers who have suitable vacancies often do not employ them because they do not have relevant industrial experience. Does he see a role for organisations such as ForceSelect and others to work with those leaving the armed forces and with potential employers to help ensure that they have the opportunity for a long-term career outside the forces too?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He and his wife continue to do so much to support armed forces charity. I had the opportunity to attend one of his functions, which managed to raise thousands of pounds. His point about the relationship and interaction between potential employers and service leavers is crucial. The Government, as part of a national effort, should help to lead the way in breaking down some of those barriers and fostering a greater degree of understanding. The approach that we favour, as the hon. Gentleman hinted at, is to enhance post-service support and introduce much more rigorous in-service training. That would not only ensure that those who leave have the skills and structures to help them advance in new careers, but strengthen the operational effectiveness of the services by increasing the skill levels of personnel while they are still serving.

On post-service support, we want to see a permanent umbrella body, set above the brilliant but sometimes fragmented third sector, that will be a one-stop shop for leavers and that would vastly increase access to support and services.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I, with other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, recently met the US Department of Veterans Affairs, which produces a “bible” for veterans. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to have something similar in this country: a one-stop shop for all the services, support and benefits that are available for veterans?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about how we can learn from international experience. A lot of information is available online, but not in print. If he wishes to suggest to the Government that they produce their own bible, I am sure that the Education Secretary would be happy to write the foreword. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench are listening.

While it is right that members of the armed forces—this relates to the point about an additional organisation—do not have a union and cannot join a union, I want to mention for a moment the role of trade unions in the important work of post-service workplace support. I know that some in the country, and perhaps even some in the Chamber today, bemoan the role of unions, but I am delighted to inform the House that earlier this afternoon I attended an event with the general secretary of the Community union, Michael Leahy. I hope that the whole House will welcome the news that the Community trade union has announced its intention to work with parliamentarians on all sides and other stakeholders to position themselves as the UK veterans’ union. It is well known that Community supports me in my work as shadow Defence Secretary, and from now on it will be able to offer specialist, bespoke provision to help veterans find gainful employment and continue to make a valuable difference.

Changes in post-service support should be just one side of the reform we need, which is why we are arguing for faster academic attainment within the services. In recent evidence, the Defence Select Committee said:

“The provision for meeting the literacy and numeracy needs of our service personnel would benefit from further improvement.”

A system where many of those who defend our country are left without additional basic skills is bad for our troops, the Army and our country. We believe that through close collaboration with the MOD, the Department for Education and the devolved Administrations across the country, there can be opportunities to reach level 2 within two years for those without qualifications. This should apply across the UK because while education may be devolved in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, our collective responsibility to our forces is not. I want to make it certain that members of the forces would benefit from such changes, no matter where in our islands they live. There should also be specialist training in literacy teaching, increased provision of Army apprenticeships within the infantry and easier conversion to civilian qualifications. Enhanced in-service education would be a genuine means of progression for military men and women.

Turning briefly to the issue of reservists, the House will be aware that in the light of the Government’s structural change in the Army—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South has mentioned—realising defence planning assumptions rests largely on doubling the number of reserves to 30,000. Labour Members support a larger role for the Army reserve, as it will rightly be known, but we are concerned that plans are as yet insufficiently available in detail to give members enough information and senior military figures have raised public concerns about their confidence in the success of the current process.

In advance of the forthcoming White Paper, there are a number of policies that we believe the Government should consider, not least to ensure the compatibility between longer training and deployment time periods and the employment of a larger reserve force.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people of Dudley on the contribution they make to the reservists through A squadron of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, which is based in Vicar street, Dudley? It is the best recruited squadron in the country; it recently took on 47 new trainees and is processing another 60 now, and has had two dozen volunteers on active service in Afghanistan.

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend has been so strong in support of his Territorial regiment. When I was in Dudley, the campaign was so fierce that it was the one issue about which the local media wanted to talk. I congratulate him, and the Government will have to take into account the point he makes, not only about the high regard in which the unit is held in Dudley but the fact that it is recruited to full strength and is indeed over-subscribed. I look forward to the Minister responding to that specific point.

There must also be real protection for reservists. Current legislation says clearly that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation they were employed in before their service and on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent an employer from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on the grounds of their military affiliation. The Government should now consult employers specifically on new legislation to protect against discrimination in hiring reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation of transparency from reservists to declare their status.

[Mr Baron]

Is the shadow Secretary of State’s concern compounded by the fact that if we look at the present mobilisation rate of the existing TA, which stands at about 40%, we see that plugging the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regulars would require 50,000 reservists and not 30,000? Does the rundown of the TA forces in recent years, including the closure of TA centres and the fact that TA numbers are in decline, worry him?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman has raised these matters in Defence questions and other defence debates, and he will continue to do so. He sounds a clear warning to the Government and anyone who wishes to govern that in order to be successful, this policy—of boosting reservist numbers, engaging with employers and getting right the proportion of regulars to reservists and the relationship and integration of units and individuals—has to be done almost faultlessly. It is an enormous challenge to cut the Regular Army at this pace in the expectation that reservists will fill the gap, and I know that he will continue to raise that point.

Finally, the evidence shows that some reservists can suffer worse post-service psychological issues than regulars, in part because of the speed of the transition from military to civilian settings, so we should consider how we can increase access for reservists to military medical services in order to tackle the potential mental health problems that a minority—I stress, a minority—experience.

The Opposition will regularly disagree on many aspects of domestic and on some aspects of defence policy, and the decision to leave certain key capability gaps following the defence review will remain controversial and continue to provoke enormous debate, but Armed Forces day should be defined not by a political contest between parties, but where possible by consensus and celebration. The groups comprising our national defence—the high-skilled industrial work forces that make world-class equipment, the civilian government work force who do so much to support our forces, the charities whose unrivalled support and commitment to our armed forces personnel provide a lifeline when often another does not exist, and the families, who are sometimes forgotten, but who make sacrifices to support the actions of their family members on the front line—will each participate in this Saturday’s celebrations, but uppermost in our thoughts will be the hundreds lost in recent conflicts and the thousands in service overseas this weekend and unable to be at home and to join in the commemorations and celebrations. We remember them, we thank them and, this weekend, we celebrate them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I am pretty sure that I do not have to, but I will anyway, declare that I am in receipt of a service pension so I have an interest in this debate.

I will not be able to respond to all the points that have been raised today, but I will try. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be hesitant in sending me letters if they want a particular point answered to which I have not been able to respond.

Today’s debate has been remarkably consensual, which I welcome. It has demonstrated that Members of the House care passionately about supporting our service personnel. We are fortunate to be able to rely on the men and women of our armed forces, for whom as Minister for the Armed Forces I have some responsibility. It is a much over-used word, but it is a real privilege to have that responsibility and to work with members of our armed forces. I know that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has done that, as well as others in the House.

The dedication of our armed forces to maintaining our security and protecting our interests and values means that Britain is able to act as a force for good in the world, defending our national interests and our international obligations. We are all proud of what they do.

I was in Scotland this morning visiting one of our deterrent submarines and the submarine service on the Clyde, and it was extremely impressive and very professional. I know that other hon. Members will have seen that as well. The role of the armed forces both in the deterrent and elsewhere is difficult and sometimes dangerous. I pay tribute to their bravery and professionalism, which represent the very best qualities our nation has to offer. We owe them and the families who support them an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are committed to supporting the success of Armed Forces day, which was indeed introduced by the previous Government. It allows the public to express their appreciation of those who have served their country.

I was going to say that the right hon. Member for East Ranfrewshire, sorry Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy)—

[Mr Murphy]

It is not that hard to say.

[Mr Robathan]

Sorry, it is for me. I was going to say that he was better at running a marathon than—but then he was very consensual, so I won’t. I pay tribute to his time for the marathon. As he knows, I set him a target, which he beat very easily. Well done.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) will have to wait for the White Paper for a decision about moving 38 Signal Regiment from Sheffield. I would like to have heard more discussion from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the Supreme Court judgment last week on extending human rights to the battlefield. It is a subject on which Members from both sides of the House may wish to comment. I know that we will be looking carefully at that judgment, and that we have some concerns.

I was sorry to hear about the constituent of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), wrote to him only yesterday and we do not believe that this is a general problem. Leaving aside the armed forces and reservists, I thought that the Opposition had accepted that we need to make serious savings, as we have been doing over the past three years, for all the reasons that he understands. On this day the newspapers have published the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) which says that there is no money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

Already, reservists are paid the same or very much the same as regular service personnel. We are looking at all aspects of this subject. Again, I am afraid that my hon. Friend must wait for the White Paper on reserves. I am relatively confident that enough people will come forward to join the reserves and that we can look forward to having a vibrant reserve Army.

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

Tomorrow, the Government will announce the next round of Army redundancies, which will be painful for everyone who is affected. To fill that gap, it is crucial that the reservists plan is a success. There may well be a problem of reservists losing out in job interviews, as some employers worry about a prospective employee being away for prolonged periods. Does the Minister accept that it is crucial to consult on new rights at work to protect our reservists, who do much to protect our country?

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, about which we are very well apprised. When the White Paper comes out, he will find much that satisfies him. He will know that the Secretary of State has said that we are considering financial incentivisation for employers, and for small employers in particular, who suffer disproportionately. If one person out of a work force in single figures leaves, it has much more impact than one person deploying out of a thousand people from a large employer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Both areas mentioned by my hon. Friend are identified gaps in European NATO capability. Once again, I made it clear at the NATO ministerial meeting that the UK will have surplus capacity in air-to-air refuelling once our new Voyager fleet is fully delivered, and that we are more than willing to share that capacity with other NATO allies in the spirit of pooling and sharing.

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

The Government and other NATO members have our support in difficult circumstances in trying to end the bloodshed in Syria. As the UK and some other NATO nations consider arming the rebels, will the Secretary of State say what successful precedent there is for the UK arming an opposition force and using a vetting process to ensure that weapons provided are quarantined so that they do not fall into the possession of those whose aims we do not share?

[Mr Hammond]

I think there is a hypothetical hidden premise in the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The UK has made no decision to arm the rebels in Syria and we maintain our focus on achieving a political solution, in particular at the Geneva II peace conference, and that will be a central theme of the discussions going on right now in Lough Erne. We must, of course, leave all options on the table while the terrible attrition of the Syrian population continues at the hands of the Assad regime.

Better Defence Acquisition

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Reform of defence procurement is one of the major challenges facing UK defence. Those on both sides of the House will want to see reforms that deal with overspends and overruns, and ensure that world-class equipment is delivered when and where our forces need it. For too long, the good intentions of successive Administrations have not delivered sufficient reform in defence procurement. However, just as some of the responsibility can be shared, our resolve to learn the right lessons and deliver far-reaching reform must also be collective. We therefore welcome much of today’s statement.

Future procurement systems must provide value for money within financial constraints. Better performance will come from greater professional project management, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes and a more considered use of military expertise. Labour supports reforms—the Bernard Gray report, on which today’s White Paper is based, was commissioned by the previous Government. We have proposed a new budgetary discipline, whereby deferred decisions that increase cost are accounted for within a rolling 10-year cycle, and increased certainty for industry over sovereign and off-the-shelf capabilities.

Labour Members are open-minded about how that is achieved, but I wish to be clear that welcoming this process today is not the same thing as supporting a GoCo in principle. There needs to be rigorous examination of all the possible options and a robust comparison between the two options of a GoCo model and DE&S+. That comparison should rest on the principles of ensuring value for money within programmes; industry adhering to new targets on time and cost; maintaining parliamentary accountability; enhancing a culture of consequence for decision makers; and military involvement being based on tri-service working, not on single-service rivalry. So reform must extend across the Ministry of Defence. Too often, scope creep has led to systems exceeding identified need, and major decisions have been pushed to the right to save in the short term at the expense of longer-term budgetary bow wave. Today’s challenge for Ministers is not just to determine a management model, but to demonstrate that decades-long entrenched behaviours are being corrected.

Let me deal with the specifics of today’s announcement. On the assessment phase, will the Secretary of State pledge to publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies and allow for a consideration by this House prior to a final decision being taken in the legislation? It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that strategic affordability is the determining factor in this process. On costs, will the Secretary of State say whether the new management team of either model would re-cost the baseline of the core equipment programme, or would the figures published earlier this year remain? Furthermore, in the light of the National Audit Office’s observation that the MOD’s assessment of risk is “not statistically viable”, would the new management be able to reform the current method of risk assessment? On staffing, the MOD has said that current reductions will not affect outputs. Would either management model be able to make decisions over staffing independently from the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that trade unions will be consulted throughout the assessment phase?

It is essential to maximise military expertise, so will the Secretary of State say whether he considers it preferable to change the current ratio of military to civilian numbers in procurement within the MOD? Specifically on the GoCo, will he pledge that senior officials currently working on this process within the MOD will not be able to work for the GoCo consortium without a prolonged period of purdah? Many in the country will have a concern about the extent of a private entity’s potential reach over public policy. So, under these plans would a GoCo model cover the whole equipment programme, including the nuclear deterrent? What is the time scale for the implementation of a GoCo? That will enable us to judge when efficiencies may begin to accrue.

One of the biggest uncertainties around GoCo has to do with the ownership of risk and whether contractors could generate private profit while financial risk remained in public hands. For example, can the Secretary of State say whether liability for the £468 million cost overrun noted in the National Audit Office’s “Major Projects Report 2012” would have rested with the taxpayer or the GoCo, had it been established?

On the single source regulations office, we welcome the proposal in principle and will examine it closely. It is essential to drive down cost where possible in single sourcing, as the Secretary of State said. Will he say a little more about who would appoint the members, and whether regulations would be subject to the one-in, one-out rule?

In conclusion, we will support what we hope is a genuine competition. We will scrutinise the processes carefully, because efficient and effective defence procurement is essential, not just for the Ministry of Defence bottom line, but for the remarkable men and women of our armed forces, whom we place in harm’s way to serve on the front line.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of this announcement. Of course I completely accept that the Opposition’s willingness to look at the issues with an open mind is not the same as an uncritical endorsement of the GoCo concept, and just in case I did not make this clear in my opening remarks, we have not yet accepted the GoCo concept as the chosen outcome; we are conducting an assessment. However, I think we agree across the House—Opposition Members who have, in office, experienced the challenge of trying to make the defence budget add up will certainly agree—on the need for change. The intentions are very clear.

The process that we are talking about was kicked off by the Gray report, published in 2009. I note that the then Secretary of State has strongly endorsed the GoCo model, which he feels is the way forward. We are examining the case for GoCo against the baseline of DE&S+. We have two separate teams, working with Chinese walls between them, that are equally resourced. One is trying to build the maximum fully-public-sector case that it can, taking advantage of all freedoms and flexibilities available. The other is working with potential GoCo bidders to look at the value that they can deliver. At the end of the process, we will make a comparison.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost drivers from past scope creep. One of the clear advantages of changing the way that DE&S works is creating a harder boundary between the customer and the company supplying the requirements, making it less easy for scope to creep without a proper change process and proper recognition of the costs involved. He asked me whether the baseline would be re-costed. We do not anticipate a re-costing of the programme baseline. If we go down the GoCo route, we will negotiate with GoCo bidders for an incentivised fee structure, based on the existing costed programme. He will know that an independent cost advisory service sits alongside DE&S, and will play a continuing role in independently assessing the costs of projects and the appropriate level of risk to be attached to them.

Unsurprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about staffing levels in a post-GoCo DE&S, if GoCo is the selected solution. The staffing transfer would be made under the TUPE regulations. We anticipate about 8,000 of DE&S’s projected 14,500 2015 staff numbers transferring to the new entity, with the remainder—in naval dockyards, logistics, communications, and information services—remaining in other parts of Government, or being outsourced.

There is no reason to suppose that the GoCo route is more likely to deliver further staffing reductions than any other route. Clearly, the new management team, whether it is a GoCo or DE&S+, will seek to run the business efficiently, and to use the freedoms and flexibilities available to it to deliver outputs as effectively as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the ratio of military to civilian personnel in DE&S. At present about 25% of the personnel in DE&S are military. We expect the military role, which will be performed by secondees in the future, to focus on providing specifically military advice to the DE&S organisation, rather than filling line management and project management roles, so I do not expect the military proportion of staff to increase, and it may decrease under a future model.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, the motivation for which I entirely understand, about senior officials. Nobody wants to see such exercises becoming a gilded exit route for senior officials, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the Chief of Defence Matériel, the most senior official in DE&S, will transfer to the MOD side—the customer side—of the equation and will be responsible for designing and managing the customer side. I cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, give him an absolute assurance that other officials in the Department, should they choose to leave the Department, would not at some point in the future be able to join a GoCo, but of course there are rules and restrictions in place—a Cabinet Office regime which has been reinforced following revelations in The Sunday Times last year—and we will make sure that nobody is able to abuse this process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the GoCo would cover the nuclear deterrent. It will certainly cover the procurement of Vanguard replacement submarines. The management of our nuclear warheads is carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, itself already a GoCo. We have not yet finally decided whether the new GoCo, if there is one, will be responsible for managing the MOD’s relationship with AWE or whether that will be managed directly. That will be one of the issues dealt with in negotiation with potential GoCo bidders.

On timescale, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we expect to reach a decision in the summer of next year, with a view to the new arrangements, whether GoCo or DE&S, being stood up before the end of 2014.

Finally, I turn to the question of risk ownership. This is an important point which has been somewhat misunderstood by some commentators. Clearly, it would be very attractive to think that we could transfer the programme risk in the defence equipment programme—£160 billion of it—to somebody in the private sector, but the reality is that there is nobody who has a balance sheet big enough, probably anywhere in the world, and the taxpayer would not be prepared to accept the price for taking on that risk, so the risk ownership in the programme will remain with the Government and the taxpayer. What the private sector partner will be at risk for is his fee, which will be structured in such a way as to incentivise the delivery of the key performance indicators that will be agreed with the partner during the negotiation process. That will be designed to align the GoCo partner’s incentives with the interests and priorities of the Department. That is where a great deal of our time and energy is being invested at present.

Operation Herrick

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing notice of it, although unfortunately much of it appeared in this morning’s media.

I wish to start in the same way as the Secretary of State by paying tribute to those who lost their lives recently in Afghanistan: Corporal William Thomas Savage and Fusilier Samuel Flint, both from the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and Private Robert Murray Hetherington form 7th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Little we can say in this House can heal the hurt that their families feel, but they should at least know that they remain in our thoughts and prayers. Members on both sides of the House will always remember the remarkable individual acts of heroism and the collective acts of courage that define our armed forces. It is their sacrifice and bravery that is helping to make Afghanistan more stable and the UK safer.

It is essential that the progress our armed forces are making in Afghanistan becomes permanent and that full transition to an Afghan lead on security is successful. This remains a mission that is not just in our national interest, but in the interests of international stability.

The Opposition consistently commit to bipartisanship on Afghanistan and our support is, of course, complemented by scrutiny. Today is no different: we see the logic in the Government’s move, but many will be concerned about the impact on the individuals affected.

The enormous operation mounted over the past 12 years will require extensive and expensive effort as it is brought to a close. Recouping and reintegrating equipment, training the Afghan forces, facilitating inward investment and seeking a political solution are all essential elements of the international community’s task. As part of this, we see the merit in ensuring that there is not a destabilising changeover during the Afghan presidential election next year and that personnel are present to ensure that equipment is repatriated efficiently.

Could the Secretary of State say which regiments and units will be affected, how many of those expected to stay for longer he anticipates will be reservists, and why the Herrick draw-down allowance does not start from the beginning of the extended tour?

I say gently to the Secretary of State that there appeared to be a slight contradiction in his statement. He said that he was not aware of the exact number that will be expected to stay beyond six months, but towards the end of his statement he said that everyone who will be expected to stay for longer than six months has been informed by their commanding officer. There therefore seems to be a glitch, if not a contradiction, in the logic of his argument.

Many people will worry that a smaller force operating in Afghanistan after the withdrawal deadline may be subject to higher risk. Will the Secretary of State say whether all those who are planned to be in-country in 2015 will be combat troops with NATO-provided force protection?

Extended exposure to conflict increases the risk of physical and mental health problems. Research for King’s College London has shown the importance of adherence to the Harmony guidelines. Will the Secretary of State say how the Harmony guidelines will be altered for those affected by today’s announcement? Research for King’s College London also shows that if tours are longer than anticipated, servicemen and women are much more likely to report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

This is a one-off measure which, as I have said, has merit. However, many will note that the 2010 strategic defence and security review stated categorically:

“We need to challenge some of the fundamental assumptions which drive force generation, such as tour lengths and intervals”.

It stated that the single service chiefs would carry out the review,

“completing their work by the spring of 2011.”

Last year, that work was still ongoing. Will the Secretary of State say what work has been done internally on the wider application of longer tours of duty? If there is to be a shift to longer tours on a more regular basis in any future conflict, the military community will want a better understanding of the recommendations of the service chiefs.

Today’s announcement also raises the issue of the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan. As part of an alliance presence, training and support for Afghan forces post-2014 will be essential. There is no word yet on the size and scope of such a force or the UK’s role within it. Who will be responsible for the protection of UK service personnel? Will any commitments that are made before 2015 be open-ended or time-limited? When does the Secretary of State expect more detail to be forthcoming?

Today we are focusing on the temporary extension of two tours. I want to turn, finally, to how we will mark permanently the contribution of all those who have toured and, in particular, those who have not returned. The Opposition believe that there should be a national memorial for all who have served in Afghanistan. We have also proposed that streets be named after fallen personnel, should their families and communities request it, and that veterans champions should be working hard in every local authority to help service leavers with the transition to civilian life. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to support those and other measures.

As the operation in Afghanistan draws to a close, our nation is rightly showing huge support for those who have served. That public sentiment will prevail beyond any withdrawal timetable and so should the commitment of the Government, no matter who is in power. It is in that spirit that we want today’s announcement to be successful. We offer to work with the Government to achieve a fitting legacy in Afghanistan and to support our troops.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reasserting the bipartisan approach that has prevailed on matters relating to Afghanistan. I welcome his pragmatic engagement with this announcement and his perfectly legitimate questions.

I should say at the outset that when I said that the people who were eligible and likely to be affected by the announcement had been informed, I should have used the military term warned off. Those in the pool from which the people will be drawn have been warned off that they may be affected. It will be some time before we can be clearer about who precisely will be affected. Although the next Herrick rotation is in preparation, we have not yet announced the precise composition of the next brigade. That will be determined by the practical evolution of things on the ground. I am afraid I cannot therefore give the right hon. Gentleman more detail today.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me why the Herrick draw-down allowance is not payable from day one of the tour. It is intended to compensate for the longer period of duty, the uncertainty and the austerity that may exist in the final part of the Herrick campaign. Normal allowances will be payable throughout the deployment. The Herrick draw-down allowance is an additional allowance payable from the seven-and-a-half-month point. That ties in with the current campaign continuity allowance and makes it fair and equitable among those who have served longer than six and a half months historically and those who will do so in the future.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman’s points about additional risk and the additional potential for physical or mental health issues arising from longer tours are legitimate, and we have considered them carefully. It is worth pointing out to the House that as we draw down, a higher and higher percentage of the troops deployed will be deployed to main operating bases, where they will be relatively much safer than they have been in the forward operating bases, patrol bases and checkpoints that they have occupied in the past. Conditions will generally be significantly better.

The Harmony guidelines will not routinely be breached. Harmony is measured by the number of nights of separated service over a three-year cycle, and nothing that I have announced today is expected to have an impact on the armed forces’ ability to maintain Harmony. I should also say that this is emphatically not a systematic shift in policy with regard to tour lengths. It is a bespoke solution to deal with the final few months of the Herrick campaign and will not affect our standard deployment policy for the future.

On the two generic points that the right hon. Gentleman raised about the timing of our announcements on post-2014 deployment, he will know that discussions are going on with NATO literally right now, as we sit here, on the post-2014 configuration. We will continue to discuss the options with allies, and as soon as we have come to a conclusion we will of course inform the House.

Finally, I am pleased to say that we are in complete agreement on the question of a national memorial. My expectation is that the memorial wall in Bastion will be dismantled and recovered to the UK, probably for re-erection at the national arboretum in Staffordshire. My personal view is that we should also look at having a fitting memorial in central London to those who have given their lives both on Op Herrick and, before, on Op Telic. I would be happy to enter into a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman about that to see whether we can make it a bipartisan initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

As I think I have already said, I am confident that we can do this, based not least on my own experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who, as my hon. Friend will know, was a Territorial Army officer in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—the same regiment to which he belonged.

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

We all wish the Government’s reservist White Paper to be a success. Within existing competition rules, would the Minister consider MOD procurement processes that take into account whether companies support reservists? I wish to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy). Current legislation protects reservists returning from the front line, but no equivalent employment legislation protects them from the minority of employers who discriminate against reservists in their hiring processes. Although the Minister has held out against such legislation in the consultation, will he at least consult employers large and small to see whether there is an appetite to prevent that small number of employers from discriminating against those who protect our nation?

[Mr Francois]

In some ways the right hon. Gentleman has, for honourable reasons, asked a similar question to his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), who sits on the Benches behind him. We are aware of the issue and intend to address it directly when we publish the White Paper later in the spring. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has offered bipartisan support in principle for the White Paper and the process of growing our reserves, which clearly we welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would go further and say this: the life expectancy of the replacement ballistic missile submarines will be about 35 to 40 years, and it would be a very brave man who would claim now that he could see, 40 years ahead from the 2020s, that there will be no need for that capability.

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

It is in all our interests that the situation in North Korea is resolved not only peacefully but meaningfully so as the US deploys military assets to the Korean peninsula, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with his US counterparts about the provision of any UK logistical support? Should the US move any military assets out of Afghanistan to that region, has he confirmed to the US that the UK would be willing to fill any of the gaps created by that redeployment?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. There have been no discussions with and no requests from the US, as far as I am aware—certainly at ministerial level—regarding any form of logistical support in relation to the tensions on the Korean peninsula. Again, as far as I am aware, there is no proposal by the US to move any assets from the Afghanistan theatre in response to this crisis.