Defence Spending

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) on setting the scene, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed.

Like others in this Chamber, I am massively concerned about defence spending, as every hon. Member in this place should be. We are known as a world leader, and for that to be in any way meaningful, it must follow that our defence is top class and that the men and women who wear the uniform of this great country—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—are irrefutably the best in the world. The very clear fact is that we do not do as well by them as they do by us.

We sit at the NATO target of 2% GDP for defence, but I cannot quite figure out why that figure means that we are doing okay. Some have outlined to me that while the paper trail can look like 2% GDP, the reality is very different. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), mentioned the figure of 1.8%, which would not be in order.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when looking at historical defence expenditure, the UK’s defence spending as a percentage of GDP has been reduced by more than 50% over the last 40 years? That is a real indictment of Governments of all types and descriptions. We need to do better by our armed forces.

[Jim Shannon]

I would adhere to and agree with my hon. Friend’s figures.

The obligations on our armed forces are incredible. From war zones to giving aid in peace zones and every area in between, such as simply helping Commonwealth nations to do the right thing on the world stage, as we often do, our men and women are the first on the scene doing the best job, but we stretch our resources in every operation or every time we lend a hand. I put on the record that some of the other NATO countries need to make an effort to meet their obligations. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have met theirs, but where is Germany on its NATO contribution?

All that heaps pressure on the everyday running of the forces, on their recruitment processes, and on the training for the next generation. I am not stuck on a figure for military spending, although I would aim high, and while I understand that a bottomless budget is impossible, an adequate one is not—it is essential.

Between 2018-19 and 2019-20, defence spending is planned to increase by an annual average of 1.4% in real terms. Defence spending in 2019-20 is planned to be £1 billion more in real terms than in 2016-17. That is good news, but if that is the figure we are aiming for, will it do the business? Is it enough to ensure that our armed forces personnel have the right equipment at the right time for the battle, the right training for the situation and the right support for when the fighting is done?

At present, what I am hearing is that we simply are not there. Recruitment officials cannot afford to run high-end campaigns to attract the next generation. We do not have the funding to give new recruits the appropriate training in different situations to ensure that they are as prepared as possible. On the frontline, we are certainly lacking in top of the range and fit-for-purpose equipment.

On recruitment, the armed forces have always recruited highly in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the campaign there is going well. Will the Minister give some idea of the recruitment figures? I commend the gallant Minister for his service and for his commitment and interest. I know that when he responds, we will get a reply that we will be happy with. Are we sourcing as much equipment as possible from our own shores to support local industry? Will the Minister ensure that everyone across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefits? We also need funding to address the mental health of veterans of all ages.

Our Navy, Air Force and Army are simply the best. We need to do better by them and that is why I support the calls for an increase in defence spending above and beyond the schedule and the target.

Armed Forces Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.

It is a real honour to open this debate to celebrate Armed Forces Day. It is an opportunity for us to say thank you to those in uniform who serve this country. It is an opportunity for us to express our gratitude to those who are in the regular service, the reserves, the cadets and those who served in uniform, our brave veterans. Also part of the armed forces community are the mums, dads, children, girlfriends, partners, wives and husbands; those who are in the immediate surrounds of those who wear or wore the uniform. On behalf of a grateful nation, I hope the House will join me in saying, “Thank you. Today and this week is all about you.”

This is the eleventh annual Armed Forces Day, and each year the event becomes bigger and bigger. I am pleased to say that the Defence Secretary will be going to Salisbury this weekend. That city is of course famous for its 123 metre spire, but it is also the home of 3rd Division. It is therefore quite apt for her and others to be celebrating our armed forces in Salisbury. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the Procurement Minister, will be visiting Wales and the Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) will be visiting Scotland.

I had the real honour of visiting Lisburn at the weekend. As somebody who served there during the troubles, how inspiring it was to be able to stand there in the high street with the mayor and various dignitaries to watch the parade of our soldiers, sailors, air personnel and cadets. They were able to walk through the town and receive the gratitude not just of those in elected office, but of the thousands of people who lined the streets. Armed Forces Day is not just about parades, but the open day that takes place afterwards. I am very grateful to the people of Lisburn and indeed to the people of the rest of Northern Ireland. The year before, I was in Coleraine.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister was also in Bangor in North Down. I was alongside him—that is how I know.

[Mr Ellwood]

I have made so many visits to Northern Ireland, but they do not blur into one and the hon. Gentleman is right. The point I am trying to make is that when I and others served there, there was simply no chance of being able to walk down any high street in uniform and there was absolutely no chance of the civilian population being able to express their gratitude. The change is absolutely fantastic and very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate that refers to the armed forces—it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, but this is a particular pleasure. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, for his commitment as a soldier, as a reservist and as a Minister.

I thank all those who wear or have worn the uniform, serving this great country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—as others have said, we are better together—through thick and thin. It is little wonder that our armed forces are the envy and measuring standard of the entire world. Our armed forces have supported us in times of peril—through two world wars, the troubles, Afghanistan and Iraq to name only a few. Today, they are stationed around the globe, carrying out work that we do not hear about, yet the world would be a worse place without their efforts and contributions. The blood that they shed and the burden they take upon themselves is all for you—I say that to everybody in the House—and for me as well. To think that they are not fully rewarded for their sacrifices and supported through their own times of peril is disappointing, to say the least.

I declare an interest—I should have done so at the beginning of my speech—as a former part-time solider. I served for 14 and a half years in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army.

Just last Saturday, the gallant Minister was in Lisburn for Northern Ireland Armed Forces Day. It was a smashing day, as he rightly said. I have a request for him, or, in his absence, for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who will respond to the debate. Northern Ireland will be 100 years old in 2021; will Ministers consider a national Armed Forces Day in Northern Ireland to tie in with that centenary?

The armed forces are 9,900 trained personnel short of their Government-set target: the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are some 1,230 short of their 30,450 personnel target; the Royal Air Force is 1,740 short of its 31,750 personnel target; and the British Army is 6,930 short of its 82,000 personnel target.

We are fortunate in my constituency to have a strong tradition of service in all three of the services—the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army. Conscription was never needed because the recruitment was always there. We also have strong TA battalions and batteries in the town, with a new Royal Irish Regiment section in the Crawfordsburn Road centre in Newtownards. We have that service ethic, so it is important to give people those opportunities. We also have active cadets in all three services.

The House might wonder why I brought up those figures, but the link is clear: why would someone put their physical and mental health on the line for the minimum wage? Why would they leave their family and all those they love for months on end when their Government—my Government—cannot give them pay that reflects their sacrifice? It is little wonder that so many of our trained and elite leave the service and serve privately—the pay is quadruple that which the uniform pays. The shadow Secretary of State referred to pay, and she was absolutely right to—we need to think about that.

Why would someone take the minimum wage when, added to that, they now know that they could well be abandoned in later life should another armed regime such as the republicans seek to rewrite history? Would it not be fair to say that the treatment they can expect once they retire is the reason they are not joining? Just like soldier F, they have to contemplate the prospect of facing prosecution for doing their job. The Government have to do more to protect their soldiers. That issue has come forward on numerous occasions. Soldiers should be allowed to retire in peace; that is the least we can do for them. The Democratic Unionist party, of which I am proud to be a member and to speak on behalf of today, supports our armed forces. We will not watch silently as our armed forces are dragged on their knees to appear in court at the age of 75. The witch hunt must stop now.

Our soldiers cannot simply disobey orders. That is called insubordination, and they would be punished for it. They cannot win in that scenario. They face two choices: be punished by their superiors for disobeying orders and for not following the appropriate procedure, or be punished by the media agenda of the day and even by the judicial system. Why should they willingly have to sign up to that? They should not have to do so, but they do. I doubt soldier F knew that that was what he was signing up to. Our soldiers deserve better. The very least that they deserve for protecting us is the right to protection in the courts. The sacrifice that they make for all of us to sleep safely at night is immeasurable, yet that is how they are treated. On behalf of all those soldiers who face the prospect of an investigation, let us make it clear that we stand by them and support them in these legacy battles. I believe that there is a consensus of opinion in the House to support that view.

We should remember that the soldiers who did wrong were prosecuted during the troubles in the appropriate way through the Army. They did face justice. What they face now is not justice; it is unacceptable. It is a sop to a republican agenda, and the antithesis of justice. For all the sacrifices that they have made, it is appalling that they do not receive the support they need when they retire. Royal Irish veteran Robert McCartney of the charity Beyond the Battlefield has estimated that some 400 veterans attempt to take their own lives each year in Northern Ireland, 30 of whom succeed. Those statistics are accurate, and they reflect the concern that we have for our veterans in Northern Ireland. I commend Robert McCartney and many other charities such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Help for Heroes, St Dunstan’s, and the Royal British Legion—they are almost too numerous to mention. They all help greatly, but we should be doing more to help our armed forces.

I do not think that there is one Member today who has not mentioned mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental issues that have come about because of things that have happened in the past.

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman add to that list of charities the Mission to Seafarers, which does excellent work for UK shipping veterans both here in the capital city and across the UK and the globe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It is always good to be reminded of these things by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, aside from the ones that we know directly, there are many, many other charities that do fantastic work. The Royal Air Force Association looks after its veterans well; it does really fantastic work.

In Northern Ireland, it is estimated that some 17,000 veterans have some form of mental health problem—diagnosed or not. That is a massive number of people who need help and assistance right now. These appalling figures are not matched with enough support. I know that charities fill in the gap, and, as I have said before, I am very pleased with the steps that the Government have taken, particularly the Minister’s Department. None the less, when we see magnitude of the number of veterans who have mental health issues, we should be thinking about setting extra money aside for them. The support that those veterans need should be made readily available to them, and I believe that we are failing in that regard.

I have been associated with SSAFA for a long, long time—since long before I became a Member of Parliament. My mother and father were also involved in that charity. We hold a coffee morning in September/October every year. The good people of Newtownards have contributed some £30,000 to the charity, selling tea, coffee and sticky buns. The Ulster man and the Ulster woman are very fond of their sweet stuff—as a diabetic I know that I should not be so fond of it. None the less, we do our best to help the veterans. We should also give credit to those Members in this House who have served so gallantly in uniform.

When the IRA were committing the countless atrocities during the troubles in Northern Ireland, it was the brave soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland who were there to help clean up the blood left behind and who tried their very best to limit the loss of life. These memories rage on in their minds to this day—a great burden that takes its toll.

The big gap in the rates of pay for our armed forces shocks me, especially when compared with our US counterparts. In our armed forces, the salary starts at £15,008, compared with that of the US army, which starts at £19,099. In 2018, the 2% pay rise for our armed forces was still below inflation, which was sitting at 2.4% at the time—for all that sacrifice. What kind of message does that send to our soldiers?

I hope those points show that action needs to be taken now. In a time of celebration for our armed forces, they should be able to join us. No longer should they have to face tough economic turmoil after retirement, no longer should they have to face the battle with their mental health following retirement, and no longer should we stand by and watch. Our servicemen deserve better. It is our duty to ensure that they are given better and are no longer persecuted for actions that they were commanded to undertake some 50 years ago. They helped us when we needed them. It is about time we helped them when they need us. We should do the right thing and give them the right pay and the right overtime—enough to keep their families at home, living while they fight to survive. We in this place must determine to do the right thing by them. I look to the Minister to outline in his response how these issues will be addressed, particularly the matter of pay. Then we will be beginning to do the right thing.

Use of Torture Overseas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am a couple of weeks into this role. I am looking at this situation, but I will not make pronouncements at the Dispatch Box until I am apprised of all the issues. I do not think that hon. Members would expect me to do anything else. I can assure the House that I am looking at the issue and at policy in relation to that. From what I have seen and from the inquiries that I have made in the Department so far, I think that the House would be reassured about our conduct. I think that the decisions that have been taken in the Department have been correct and that hon. Members would be reassured by that fact. But I fully appreciate that the House wants to have an update as swiftly as possible and I undertake to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State outline her understanding of the definition of torture, underline the position in a civilised society and, coming from a position of clean hands, confirm that the end does not and will not always justify the means?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I hope that I have given the House every reassurance. There is a legal definition of torture. At the beginning of my statement, I outlined all the descriptions and forms that that might take. It is never justified. It is also, as we know, not a reliable way of getting information or of being able to act on that information. We must not do it. Ministers should not do it, or allow it to be done. It is a breach of the law and no official could advise a Minister to take that course of action.

Commonwealth Personnel in the Armed Forces

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has clearly put over his support for the campaign. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) for presenting the case very well for all Members who will speak in the debate. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. I echo the thoughts that he expressed earlier: we can reach consensus today, and move forward in a constructive and helpful way. I also declare an interest as a former part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army.

I am honoured to stand side by side with my brethren—I use that word very clearly—in every arm of the armed forces, from the Parachute Regiment, which is facing persecution, to the Gurkhas, who fought for years for recognition. One of those campaigns is concluded; the other is still to be concluded. It is my belief that every person who wears a uniform and honourably serves deserves the gratitude and support of a nation that sleeps safely in bed due to their sacrifice. It is very simple for me; I think it is very simple for us all.

I have had the chance to participate in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, along with other Members present. Through that scheme, we meet many serving Commonwealth members who qualify for the British Army because of their Commonwealth attachments and their years of service. I am encouraged by those I have met, and by their clear commitment. Part of what we are trying to do today is to support their families—we cannot ignore them.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Mental health and suicide were mentioned earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that the welfare of our soldiers is vital, as well as that of their partners, children and families, who may go through the trauma of losing a loved one, or of a loved one sustaining life-changing injuries? I am sure that he agrees that it is important that families are looked after as well.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree with that, as I think all Members in the Chamber would.

The background to this issue is clear. In November 2018, the five-year residency requirement for Commonwealth personnel wishing to enlist in the UK armed forces was removed in the hopes of increasing the number of Commonwealth recruits to 1,350 per year. Having met some of those recruits and serving members, I realise just how important it is to have Commonwealth soldiers in our British Army.

That seems simple enough, but for Commonwealth soldiers who wish to bring family to the UK a number of requirements must be met for those family members to enter and remain. That is the crux of this debate. The Library produced a helpful briefing, which summed up the requirement admirably, stating:

“In addition to a valid passport and visa, individuals must also meet the English language requirement and suitability criteria relating to certain criminal convictions, including previous breaches of the UK’s immigration laws. Primarily, however, there is a Minimum Income Requirement which a Commonwealth soldier must meet before they can bring family to the UK”.

We know the minimum requirement, because we deal with constituents in our offices every day, but in the particular case of soldiers, gross annual income must be at least £18,600, with an additional £3,800 for the first child and an additional £2,400 for each additional child thereafter. For a partner with no children, it is £18,600. For one child in addition to the partner, it is £22,400. For two children in addition to the partner, it is £24,800. For three children in addition to the partner, it is £27,200. There are no exemptions from the requirement, and the guidance states:

“If you cannot meet the requirement, then you are advised not to apply to bring your family over”.

If we have asked that person to come and serve in the British Army, is it not right that they should be able to bring their families? I think it is. This debate is clearly trying to arrive at that.

As a result of the requirement, many Commonwealth soldiers leave their families at home, and some are taking second jobs to meet the affordability criteria. I will mention one such soldier later.

I was pleased to hear that there has been a move to improve awareness of immigration issues in the chain of command, and I thank the Minister for that, but I stand on the armed forces covenant, which I have spoken about in the House many times, and the current scenario that separates families in service is, in my opinion, a clear breach of that covenant. It is unfair to separate people who serve in the British Army and their families, wherever they may be. To pay our Commonwealth soldiers a wage that does not allow them to qualify for immigration, or to expect to be able to bring their families with them, is unacceptable.

I want to tell hon. Members about one of my constituents. A little child from a Commonwealth nation, whose daddy serves the Queen and this country—and does so exceptionally well—cries because she has not seen her daddy in two years. Her daddy also works in a Chinese restaurant to get extra money to get his savings up to the level to allow him to qualify. On top of that, it costs £10,000 in fees to apply to get his family to join him, which is difficult enough to raise to start with, but the fact that he has to do that through a second job illustrates where we are. That is a wee girl crying for her daddy for two years. He cannot get his family here until he earns the money and saves £10,000 for fees.

There is something drastically wrong with a system that—rightly—allows asylum seekers an opportunity to safely reside here, but takes out of the hands of people who have put their lives on the line the ability to have their families with them here, in this nation. It is wrong. For the benefit of everyone, I emphasise again: it is wrong, and it cannot be accepted.

I do not want to hear that the Ministry of Defence is aware that it is wrong and is thinking about it; I need to hear that the MOD is working with the Home Office to change it. I think that the Minister will tell us that, and I am looking forward to his response.

I stand with the cross-party delegation and demand that the fee for applications is reduced or scrapped for Commonwealth entrants. I am very conscious of how it works. Fees for indefinite leave to remain have risen by 127% in five years, to £2,389 per person. Since they were introduced in 2003, the fees have risen by 1,441%. While it is beyond admirable that the Royal British Legion, of which I am a member, and other charities have stepped up to the mark, providing £36,000 in grants to help to pay for visa fees last year alone, it is not the role of the soldiers’ charities to do that, although we are very pleased that we do. It is the House’s role to lay out in legislation that the armed forces covenant applies if someone was born in Birmingham, Belfast or Barbuda, and they have a right to live here with their families.

At a time when we are watching our armed forces being tried before juries for following orders in operations—I find that abhorrent to watch—the message must be clear to those who consider signing up for Queen and country that we will not leave them high and dry. We will support them and their families better than we are supporting Soldier F and others for different reasons. We will do the right thing by them and will put that into legislation to ensure that successive Governments will also do the right thing.

If ever our armed forces needed clarity about the feelings of this House towards them, it is now. This debate gives us the opportunity to say that very clearly. Let us stop talking and begin acting, and do the right thing by our soldiers, whether they are born here or born elsewhere.

Military Aircraft Manufacturing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mark Menzies]

My hon. Friend is very modest. He also represents a constituency with a substantial defence footprint, and he has dedicated much of his career in this place to fighting for the workforce and the interests of the companies he represents. His point is solid. Across the whole range of skills and technologies that building a modern, sophisticated aircraft platform gives us—whether in avionics, engine design, low radar signature and so on—it is critical that having that sovereign capability not only allows us to influence the manufacturing programmes that we may become part of, but is an incredible part of the UK’s strategic relationship with our key allies. That is something we must never lose sight of.

The combat air strategy, which the Government outlined in Farnborough in 2018, sets out the ambition for a new combat aircraft, expected to come into force in the 2030s. Government and industry have pledged over £2 billion over the next decade to the future combat air systems technology initiative. Team Tempest has also been created. That is welcome, but it is not likely to remain sovereign, due to cost; the reality is that we will need international partners, as we have done with Typhoon and Tornado, and with programmes as far back as Jaguar. It is incredibly important that the United Kingdom plays a significant role in shaping Typhoon, so that we do not lose any of that ability, which we hold so dear.

When it comes to sovereign capability, we are reaching a point where our workforce, which holds the skills required in the sector, may run out of work, and redundancies will follow. That is why it is crucial that the Government continue their support for the Typhoon export programme. The work currently taking place at Warton is for our export partners, which, in the case of Typhoon in Warton, is Qatar. If the supply chain is allowed to grind to a halt due to lack of export orders, we will lose not only the people and skills, but the ability and cash needed to innovate and invest.

Therefore, it is important that those who lament or complain about the United Kingdom’s defence export strategy do not lose sight of the tens of thousands of men and women—and apprentices—whose jobs depend on that carefully controlled export strategy. I urge the Government to work closely with our partners in Germany, to ensure that their decision to block export licences to some of our key export partners does not have a catastrophic impact on the UK’s defence manufacturing system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Everyone here will be aware of the work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, including the dinners that it hosts here, and those who sponsor those events. At those events we gather knowledge and we get a sense of the importance of those companies to all the regions of the United Kingdom. There is a labour skills base in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which we need to utilise to its full capability. Does he agree that, when it comes to the advantages of military aircraft manufacture in the UK, every region has a part to play?

[Mark Menzies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point.

I will now focus on the national value framework aspect of the combat air strategy, which states that the UK must consider a number of items. For example, it is important to maintain military capabilities and our ability to respond quickly and effectively to threats. We must maintain choice in our future combat air capability and acquisition. We must sustain investment in highly skilled jobs throughout the supply chain, the contribution to the UK’s science, technology, engineering and maths skills base, the development of high-end technologies, and the influence on international and trade relationships.

Above all, we need to ensure that we protect the UK’s operational, technological and economic advantage, and the ability, when required, to act independently, freely and at will. As part of any future strategy, we must also ensure that the needs and future requirements of the RAF are central and critical.

Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the future of Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College in Leicestershire. The college is in the constituency of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), by a few hundred yards, but I have been delighted to visit the college on a number of occasions, both before and since my election in 2010 to represent Loughborough. This is clearly a matter of national importance. It is good to see my hon. Friend in his place on the Treasury Front Bench. I think I can confidently say that at least on this subject he and I are going to be firmly of the same mind. In particular, we would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic staff, pupils and governors, both past and present, for their unwavering commitment to our armed forces, as well as their contribution to the local area and the college over many years; and also to Councillor David Snartt, who has always been a strong voice for the college.

Welbeck is a full boarding co-educational college, funded by the Ministry of Defence. It offers an A-level education to young people who go on to study a degree at a partner university and receive an annual bursary before starting their careers as technical officers within the Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force or the MOD civil service. The college now has over 300 boarding pupils, and students come from all over the UK and from a wide variety of backgrounds. This positive impact on social mobility is something I will return to.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. I declare an interest as a former member of the Army for 14 and a half years as a part-time soldier. Does she not agree that the college is a way of sowing into the future those whose career choice is the armed forces and that to close it down sends a contradictory message to the official one, which is that we want young people to make a career out of the armed forces? Money spent on sowing it into the lives of young people can never be wasted. In other words, money spent now will increase our forces, making soldiers who are special. The British Army is the best in the world.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed for that intervention. I agree with him. From testimonials sent to me by former students and their families, I know how strongly they agree, too. In many cases, Welbeck has transformed their life chances. As he also says, this is about building fantastic armed forces, particularly with a science, engineering and technology background, for the United Kingdom. I am sure the Minister will want to cover how he thinks the changes proposed will enhance that and not detract from it. There is some convincing to do on that score.

Welbeck aims to prepare students for life at university and beyond by giving them a well-rounded curriculum that will—as a champion of character education, I particularly endorse this—

“challenge and develop them academically, physically and socially.”

The college also aims to develop students on a personal level by challenging them through a diverse range of co-curricular activities, which include many different sports, combined cadet force activities, and working within the community through volunteering and charity work.

On 6 April 2018, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood:

“I am writing to inform you that the Ministry of Defence will be undertaking a review of the Defence Sixth Form College at Welbeck as part of an ongoing initiative to understand how to improve the supply of STEM graduates into Defence and the Armed Services…Welbeck is part of our wider scheme for recruiting STEM graduates. Its role is to educate pupils in relevant A-level subjects prior to moving to the next phase of the scheme where they are supported through STEM courses at university. If successful they then go into Initial Officer Training with one of the Armed Services or enter the Civil Service within the MOD. Like many other organisations, we”—

the MOD—

“have found it consistently difficult over recent years to attract sufficient, good quality, STEM candidates. Whilst the education and wider experience provided by Welbeck is of a high standard, and despite measures to mitigate shortfalls, intake targets are not being achieved. Equally, over the 5-6 years they are in the pipeline the numbers seeing it through to Initial Officer Training has consistently only been about 55%.

The review will look at the breadth of the operation of Welbeck, which is a private Finance Initiative establishment run by a contractor, Minerva. It will explore re-setting the current PFI, extracting better value from the current PFI, and also whether a different STEM graduate recruiting scheme would better meet Defence’s needs. We will be instructing PwC to work with Minerva to explore the viability of these options.

Whilst the review will be internal to MOD only, I understand that such a review can create uncertainty and potentially some concern among your constituents. I want to reassure you, however, that no decisions will be made until the review is complete, at which point I will write to you again. One of the assumptions of the review is that, whatever happens, students who are currently on the scheme will be able to see it through to graduation and joining the Services or Civil Service.”

I know that, as the local MP, my hon. Friend raised a question with the Prime Minister on this in the House last year and has had regular engagement on it with Ministers. But as far as I can establish, the review’s conclusions have not been released to the public, nor is it clear who was formally consulted, so it was deeply disappointing to read last month, in a written statement by the Minister here today, of the decision by the Ministry of Defence to

“put in place a new, targeted scheme to recruit undergraduates in related subjects; the STEM graduate inflow scheme…This scheme has been designed to significantly increase the number of STEM graduates brought into defence and the variety of STEM disciplines they are from…The new scheme will replace the current defence technical officer and engineer entry scheme…which has produced some excellent young graduates but is not meeting defence’s requirements or providing sufficient value for money. Ending the current scheme will also mean that the Defence Sixth Form College…at Welbeck will close, with a final intake in September 2019.”

We, and those watching this closely, note the Minister’s final comment in the statement:

“Full transition to the new scheme will take place incrementally over the next five years, during which the current intake of students will be fully supported. For the final two years Welbeck remains a going concern. That time will be used productively to work with local authorities and stakeholders to seek the best possible future use of this impressive school, including within the education sector or an alternative use within defence.”

I will return to the issue about the future in a moment but, first, for the sake of those affected, we must be absolutely sure that the Ministry of Defence is making the right decision. As the local MP, my hon. Friend has written:

“A number of constituents have written to me, following the announcement, to express their concern about the forthcoming closure of the College, particularly in light of the excellent opportunity Welbeck offers young people across the UK, since 1953 and on its current site since 2005, to get a first-class STEM and technical education in preparation for a career in our Armed Forces, and for the values and discipline it instils in its students. While I can understand the Ministry of Defence’s approach to ensuring that it has access to talented engineering and technical graduates needs to be updated from time to time to reflect changing needs and approaches to training and education, I do share the view that Welbeck's closure will be a real loss in that context.”

As local MPs, we note, and are grateful, that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee—I am delighted to see him here—has written to the Ministry of Defence to ask if it is wise to

“shut down a means of creating graduates who have been working towards a service career from their mid-teens.”

He goes on to say

“we are very concerned that closure of Welbeck College risks sacrificing an existing—and productive—source of STEM graduates in the hope that a new and untried system will be more successful.”

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). I respect the passion and conviction that he brings to these arguments, but I fundamentally disagree with him. The debate was opened superbly by the Secretary of State. His predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), gave an outstanding speech, as did someone we could rightly call President Moon, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon).

I rise to speak in this debate because it relates to a matter of principle for me and many of my colleagues. We have heard many things from SNP Members during the hours of this debate, but I assure the House that they do not speak for Scotland. The SNP is not Scotland, and its Members do not speak for the majority of Scots.

It is the first and most important duty of the state to ensure the safety and security of our country, and my firm belief and contention is that the continuous at-sea deterrent is essential to that. There is a clear moral case for it and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made that case in a superb speech, so I do not intend to go over the same ground. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that we are safe as a country and ensure not only that the peace is preserved, but that the cause of peace is promoted in the world. Peace is preserved through strength and threatened by weakness. That is the lesson of history.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The fact of the matter is that the possession of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other western countries in NATO is the peacemaker. That is the deciding factor for other countries not to attack. Being a nuclear power brings peace, but that fact has been lost in this debate by some in this Chamber.

[Stephen Kerr]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. History shows that a balance of threat in the world is a real deterrent to aggression.

Veteran Suicide

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) on bringing forward the debate. I declare an interest: I was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army for 14 and a half years.

I fully understand why veterans feel so out of kilter when they leave service and return to civvy street. I believe sincerely that we must do more to help smooth not simply their occupational transition, but their social transition. Robert McCartney, the chairman of Beyond the Battlefield—he and I have met the Minister—constantly raises awareness of veterans’ daily struggle and of the need for more funding and support for those who have put their body and their mental health on the line for Queen and country. The fact is that they carry things they have seen with them for many years afterwards.

In a Belfast News Letter article just a few months ago, Robert McCartney said that 400 veterans attempt to take their own lives in Northern Ireland every year, and 30 of them actually do. He added that veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and associated suicidal thoughts often fall through gaps in the safety net provided by the NHS and service-related charities. He estimates that there are some 141,000 veterans in Northern Ireland, 12% of whom have some form of mental health problem. Some 10% of those who do—some 1,700—are currently in the health system. He said that leaves almost 9,000 veterans

“who have been, or currently are, in mental health services in Northern Ireland.”

A recent survey of 400 GPs in Belfast found that there are between 300 and 450 attempted suicides by veterans every year, and that 20 to 30 people actually take their lives. Unfortunately, coroners do not record that formally. Not all deaths related to service take the form of a culminating suicide episode; some fall into the realm of death by self-infliction—by alcohol, prescription drugs or non-prescription drugs. Although Northern Ireland makes up only 3% of the UK’s population, it supplies 7% of its armed forces personnel. Some 15% of Northern Ireland personnel have been on the battlefield in the past 10 years.

Now more than ever, we need to put this matter on the frontline. The Minister has always been responsive, and I appreciate that very much. I thank him for meeting me and the chairman of Beyond the Battlefield. Supporting our veterans is as essential as providing education or free healthcare; it is an obligation, and it must be viewed as such. We should not provide support because of the feelgood factor; it has to be more than that. I again thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, and I look to the Minister for the response we need on behalf of our veterans.

War Pensions: Appeals Process

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We have had another momentous debate and series of votes affecting the nation’s future, but our role can also involve raising individual cases of injustice, so I am grateful for the opportunity to recall an issue that has affected one of my constituents. His experiences may well have affected others, which is why I want to bring it to the attention of the House. I hope that by debating it we can not only find a solution for my constituent by giving the Government an opportunity to do the right thing but also ensure that this situation does not happen again. I hope that by setting out the history of my constituent’s complaint lessons will be learned.

Those who serve our country make many sacrifices defending our interests, and they rightly deserve our respect, support and fair treatment both during and after their service. I want to take this opportunity to thank all our armed forces personnel, past and present, who represent our country across the world and stand ready to defend our country day and night. It saddens me that I have to bring this debate today to highlight a case in which a former serviceman has not, I believe, been treated fairly or with the respect that he deserves.

My constituent, David Cottrell, who lives in Neston, served in the Army, in the Cheshire, then Mercian, Regiment, for a period of 22 years, from 1987 until 2009, during which time he saw active service in both Northern Ireland and Iraq. As a result of his service, he was left with a number of serious and long-term medical conditions and was awarded a war pension at 50% and a lower standard of occupation allowance in 2012. He suffers from a number of conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, which causes him to suffer disturbed sleep, anxiety and flashbacks. He also suffers from polyarthralgia—aches and pains in his joints—and a number of medical conditions affecting his back that cause him severe difficulty in standing, walking, using the stairs, sitting and bending. It also causes him difficulty in using his wrists to lift and carry everyday objects.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene. Does he not agree that there must be a simplified appeals process for war pensions, when we take into account the fact that the stress of that process for those suffering from PTSD, to which he referred, can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? This is another example of how our veterans are being let down by a system that must be reviewed urgently.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In these times of uncertainty, we can rely on the certainty that he will intervene in the Adjournment debate. The point that he made is absolutely pertinent to my constituent’s experiences. As the debate develops, I will show that he has experienced a convoluted appeals process, which only exacerbated his general condition.

As Members will know, the war pension scheme is run by Veterans UK to provide benefits for people with disablement caused or made worse by service in the armed forces. There is no list of prescribed diseases; claims can be made for any medical condition that is suffered provided that there is a causal link between the condition and military service. Rates for a war disablement pension depend on the degree of disability suffered, which is assessed on a percentage basis akin to the industrial injuries scheme.

A range of allowances and supplements may be granted depending on an individual’s circumstances, including for employability, mobility, constant attendance or severe disablement. As of 31 March 2018, there were 101,630 disablement pensioners and 15,854 war widows in receipt of a war pension, and in the year 2017-18, £517 million was paid out. With that amount of money at stake, it goes without saying that the process for assessment must be robust.

War pension claims are made to Veterans UK. If individuals are unhappy with the outcome they can request a review of their war pension decision, and they can also make an appeal to an independent tribunal.

Carrier Strike Strategy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered carrier strike strategy and its contribution to UK defence.

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. May I at the outset refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who are co-sponsors of the debate. We will each deal with one of a trident of points, namely the strategy for operating large carriers, which I anticipate I will largely deal with; the foreign policy element; and a celebration of the industrial impact of the large defence procurement policy being rolled out by this country. My overall ask of the Minister is for an overarching national carrier strategy, to deal with every aspect of this afternoon’s discussion.

I will start by placing myself on the date spectrum, as it were. One of my earliest memories is of HMS Hermes returning from the Falklands war. I was very young at the time, but I remember very well that very large grey carrier nosing slowly into Portsmouth harbour, surrounded by many small ships welcoming it back. I was particularly struck by the fact that she was rusted and battered from having been at sea for months on end—battered but victorious at the end of that unique campaign. I well remember the white uniforms of the sailors lined up in perfect formation on the deck, and the noses of our little Sea Harriers, which in the freezing south Atlantic of 1982 had proved themselves to be an air defence system second to none.

HMS Hermes was laid down during world war two as HMS Elephant, the last of the Centaur-class of light fleet carriers. She entered service in 1957 as an angled-deck carrier before being converted into a commando helicopter carrier, and then being adapted again with a ski jump to operate the then new Sea Harrier, which was coming into service. We have not had large fleet carriers since the decommissioning of the Audacious-class HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal at the end of the 1970s, and the absence of the Royal Navy from the big carrier game has been sorely noted by the Navy and the nation.

The Sea Carrier was unquestionably a brilliant aircraft but was limited in its range and payload, while the RAF’s land-optimised Harrier was severely limited by the absence of an air-to-air radar, meaning that it was never an adequate fleet air arm aircraft. While that Harrier-Invincible class concept—the combination of those small carriers and the vertical take-off and landing jets—was a potent combination in the unique circumstances of the south Atlantic, or in the north Atlantic as part of NATO groups hunting Russian submarines, there is no doubt that the inability to operate conventional fast jets of the nature of the Phantoms and Buccaneers that we lost at the end of the 1970s has severely restricted the power that Britain can exercise. The country has mourned that loss ever since, resulting in Governments of all colours seeking to restore that capability.

The years have shown that although the end of empire has meant a smaller country, it has not meant a retreat from expeditionary warfare. Every 10 years at least, Britain has been involved in a capacity that has meant it has required expeditionary air power, often from sea. The country’s desire to express power and its values has not diminished at any stage over the course of the past 40 years. In 1966, the country took the decision to run down the fixed-wing carrier fleet, which was part of a series of extraordinarily inept defence decisions taken during that time. I am not making a party political point, as all Governments were involved. Within 10 years, that decision was regretted. In a curiously British fudge, to get around the politics of why we were not having aircraft carriers anymore—except we were—the three Invincible-class carriers were called through-deck cruisers. That always amuses me; it strikes me as the most absurdly daft political euphemism imaginable.

Although the ambition to return to the big carrier game is long standing, the political chicanery around re-establishing carrier capacity has meant that the philosophical, strategic concept of what big carriers are for, how they are to be used, who with, and under what circumstances, is lacking. To a large extent, that culture has been lost, and we need to re-establish it. I suggest that now is the time to do so, because so much of carrier design throughout history has been British, be it the first carriers such as HMS Furious during the first world war; the angled flight deck that came in with the advent of fast jets at the end of the second world war and in the 1950s; or the ski jump in the 1980s. British technology and British ideas were leading the world, with others having no alternative but to follow. The same is true now: we are not the only people using the F-35B, but we are the only country in the world using it in combination with aircraft carriers designed from the keel up in order to support that aircraft. We are not the only people using the F-35, but I can say with total confidence that the aircraft carriers we are using are better than anyone else’s.

The return of Britain to that big carrier game must also be accompanied by a strategic philosophy of what carriers are about and how they are to be used. For 20 years or so there has been a tacit, if not expressed, understanding that Britain will probably not act alone in another military conflict, or at least not a major one. We will act with allies, most likely with NATO, and hardly ever without the Americans offering support in one form or another. It is sadly inconceivable that we could undertake an operation such as the Falklands again. In 1982, we had approximately 60 destroyers and frigates. That taskforce comprised 127 ships, consisting of 43 royal naval vessels, 22 from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and 62 merchant ships. At the end of the 1980s, the Royal Navy had two aircraft carriers, seven amphibious ships, 13 destroyers and 35 frigates. After the 2010 strategic defence review, their combined number declined to approximately 19, and remains at roughly that level. In November 2018, there were 75 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy. Twenty of those are major surface combatants, including six guided missile destroyers—the Type 45s, which are primarily air defence destroyers—as well as 13 frigates and the new aircraft carrier.

Let us look at what a modern carrier group demands of a modern Navy, so that we can match what we are asking for with what we currently have available. We need to think innovatively about how to address what we need and what we have. No carrier strike group is a fixed body: its composition depends on the circumstances, what it is being asked to do, and the allies it is operating with.

If we look at the US Navy, we will see that a typical carrier strike group would include the supercarrier—of course, we would have a supercarrier—and the carrier air wing. The Americans would have one or two Aegis guided missile cruisers of the Ticonderoga class and a destroyer squadron with two or three guided missile destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class, which are roughly comparable—I stress the word “roughly”—to the Type 45s. That is a multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for air defence, and it is air defence and under-surface defence with which I am particularly concerned. The Americans would have two attack submarines, which would be used to screen the carrier group against other submarines and surface combatants, and they would of course have support ships.

The Italians, who also have a carrier battle group, would have the carrier, two destroyers, two support ships and three amphibious support ships. However, they may have to accept that they would need to expand or to operate with allies if they were to go into a near-peer environment.

This is not a lament for lost naval power, although I make no secret of the fact that, as far as I am concerned, we do not spend enough on defence. Our armed forces are constantly being asked to do too much with too little, and I will not even start on the pastoral aspects of armed forces funding, the combination of pay and conditions and the overall offer, which is a serious issue for recruitment and retention. I do not have time this afternoon to start on that topic. I know that whatever the Minister can say publicly, he almost certainly agrees with me, and I accept that I should be making this plea not to him but to the Treasury. However, I ask the Ministry of Defence to give serious strategic thought to how the carriers are likely to be used and with whom, to ensure—putting it bluntly—that we have sufficient mass and capability to ensure that there is space to be able to sustain loss or damage, either during a conflict or in its immediate aftermath. If we do not do that, we will probably be unable to use those carriers at all.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a superb case. There is a great need for the supply chain to be in place in order to repair and build again, and I would like the benefits of that supply chain to be spread across the whole of the United Kingdom. I know that rebuilding and repairing can take place only in specific places, but none the less there is a need for that supply chain to be representative of the four regions. Does the hon. Gentleman think that such a supply chain is in place and that all the regions are getting the benefit of it?

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that excellent point. I will refer to it in a little more detail shortly and I know that some of my hon. Friends will, too. I am keen to make the point that while the carriers are big grey ships that live in Portsmouth, they are not purely a Portsmouth matter. They have been built by constituents in all our areas and by companies across the whole United Kingdom. That has sustained the building of the carriers, but we need to ensure that they can be maintained and kept in service for decades to come. For that reason—it is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman made—I am asking the Minister to consider a strategy.

We need a whole-Government approach. It is no good us just looking at this purely as a Ministry of Defence issue. I am conscious that I am asking the Minister to do more than is in his power, but it has to be a cross-Government approach. We have to look at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to see whether we have the industrial base to ensure that the supply chain that built the carriers remains in place to sustain and maintain them in the years ahead. The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely the point I wish to make.