Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) deserves some encouragement at this very early stage of his parliamentary career!
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does the Minister not understand that to export defence equipment we have to have a strong home market, and that is why other European countries insist on building vessels such as the fleet solid support ships in their own yards, with their own workers. What blind dogma is stopping these Ministers and their Department doing the same and ensuring that we make them in Britain?
Stuart Andrew
As I said a moment ago, we are making sure that we go out to international competition, because that gives value for money to this country, and we can also then invest the savings we make in other capabilities. It means that we attract the best and affordable solutions. It also brings competition at the heart of our shipbuilding strategy, because we want our shipyards to go out there and compete for international orders.
Defence Industry and Shipbuilding
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nia Griffith
It is incumbent on the Government, though, to look again and strain every muscle to get the very best work-share agreements wherever they exist.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The argument from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), whom I congratulate on his report, does not hold water. Of course, if we are buying these planes, we will need maintenance facilities, and if that is being done by industry, industry will provide those facilities, but they are service facilities for the RAF, and there might even be work from abroad. Where, though, are these planes being manufactured? They are being manufactured in the United States, with very little return of work coming to the UK. They have been allowed to get away with a very cheap deal.
Mr Ellwood
There is so much choice that I do not know where to start. Let us go with the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar).
John Spellar
Will the Minister confirm that the Korean shipbuilder that took this contract, DSME, underbid and actually lost significant sums of money on the contract? It was not a fair contract, and because of its general business practices, it came very close to going bankrupt and had to be bailed out.
Mr Ellwood
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put it like that, because I was worried that he was going to say that state aid had been involved. I am sure that he would not suggest that that was the case, because I know him better than that, even though that was hinted at by those on his Front Bench. That was the commercial decision that the company took, but we are left in a situation where Britain is getting value for the taxpayer’s money.
Mr Dunne
My right hon. Friend has been generous about my report, which was published on Monday, and I am grateful for the other comments about the report by Members on both sides of the House. On page 53 of the report, I refer to the fleet solid support ship and make the point that the fact that we are currently a member of the European Union means that we are precluded from taking advantage of the article 346 exemption to require that ship to be built in the UK. One of my recommendations is that we should take advantage of the opportunity of Brexit to consider the opportunity, after we leave the EU on 29 March 2019, to build UK content into our own procurement rules, which might allow us to change the position, but we cannot do that today.
Mr Ellwood
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow to understand the full picture. My hon. Friend is correct that EU regulations provide guidance on building those ships. The regulations do not apply to royal naval ships because, from a security perspective, every sovereign nation is allowed to bypass them, but the rules absolutely apply to non-royal naval ships—as in Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships—that employ civilians on board. I encourage hon. Members to read the report before judging what my hon. Friend has just said.
Moving back to what I was saying, we must have an honest debate about what is happening, which is why we need to develop a modern, efficient, productive and competitive marine sector that allows us to build on the work that has been done on the Clyde, in the north, in Belfast, in Barrow, in the north-east, in the north-west and in the south-west of England. We have incredible capability, and I am pleased to see so many hon. Members representing constituencies in those areas in the Chamber today.
Our new shipbuilding strategy sets out exactly how we can achieve such a marine sector. We will continue to build Royal Navy ships only in the UK while encouraging international collaboration in harnessing open competition for other naval ships. Our new framework will ensure that the impact of UK prosperity will be considered as part of our procurement decisions. The 2015 strategic defence and security review created a new security objective: promoting our prosperity. Competition and strategic choice remain at the heart of our approach, but we recognise that there are several different models for working successfully with the industry, and we need to take further steps to bolster that and make the right decisions to enable a strong partnership between the Government and industry.[Official Report, 23 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 7MC.]
That is part of the whole Government approach, spearheaded by the national industrial strategy, with its mutually reinforcing focus on driving productivity and supporting innovation, which provides a strong and clear policy framework in which industry can invest and grow. Key to that is how defence procurement might build economic value by strengthening UK productivity and industrial capability, including at a local level, and boosting exports sustainably. We recognise that responsible exports are now widely accepted as having a part to play in our wider national defence and prosperity objective. They are considered to be an opportunity, not a burden.
Sir John Parker’s 2016 independent review made a series of recommendations about improvements we can make, and, as I said, I am pleased that we will be accepting all of them. He did place emphasis on the dysfunctional relationships between government and industry. Old ships were retained in service well beyond their service date, with all the attendant high costs, and it is important that that changes. So our new strategy is founded on three pillars. The first is better planning, giving industry greater certainty and predictability. We are providing a 30-year Royal Navy shipbuilding masterplan to guide all future naval shipbuilding decisions, and to document the number and types of ships in which we will invest over the next three decades.
The second pillar is a new approach to design and construction. We want to challenge naval standards and introduce new ones, forcing through advances in design, in new materials such as composites, and in manufacturing methods. Our new carriers are a prime example of that. They are built in blocks, with parts built in different parts of Britain, drawing on the expertise of 10,000 people, and being brought together from centres of excellence from across the country. Thirdly, we want to focus on building exports, where there is an opportunity, as the Type 31 will be the first frigate for export since the 1970s. We know that more sales can cut costs in procurement over time and give us the potential to buy even more cutting-edge ships.[Official Report, 24 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 8MC.]
For now, for reasons of national security, the shipbuilding strategy sets out that warships will be built and integrated in the UK via competition between UK shipyards. However, for the purposes of shipbuilding only, the national shipbuilding strategy defines warships as destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers. All other naval ships, including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, as well as other Royal Navy manned ships, such as patrol, mine countermeasures, hydrographic and amphibious ships, will be subject to open competition—that means international competition. That remains where the difference lies between us and the Opposition, but it is the cornerstone of our defence procurement policy. I remind the hon. Member for Llanelli that she talked repeatedly about value for the taxpayer, and it is important we understand that. I hope that there is a compromise whereby where we want to and can, we will utilise British shipbuilding capability, but when it comes in at twice the cost of an overseas opportunity, we will have to be very careful about which decision we make.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I will now bring us back to the real world of the defence procurement industry. The Minister wrapped himself in knots over article 346, and it very much reminded me of Madeleine Albright’s response to Robin Cook when he told her during the events in Kosovo, “Our lawyers say I can’t do that.” “Change your lawyers,” she said, “and get better legal advice.” As I will come on to later, that is what every other country does.
We are not saying that we do not want to work in partnership with other countries; we do, and we want to do so effectively, and not just for shipbuilding, which obviously we are focusing on today. We have to look forward. I am pleased that the Minister announced an announcement on the air strategy next week. In particular, we are hoping for an announcement on the future combat aircraft, which we hope will go ahead, and some indications of who we will be partnering with.
Many firms in Europe are concerned by attempts to exclude us from such developments, as we are already seeing with Galileo. It is a bit ironic, in the week of the Brexit crisis, that we are asking Ministers and the Ministry of Defence to be good Europeans—to behave like our European partners. However, the MOD seems to want to act like the three wise monkeys, keeping itself in blissful ignorance. It told the Defence Committee:
“The MoD does not hold information on how other countries apply EU Regulations for defence acquisition.”
Why the hell not? Why has it not asked those questions? Why would it not make those inquiries? It almost reminds me of the sign outside Balliol College during the student demonstrations of 1968: “Do not adjust your mind—reality is at fault.” The MOD does not even want to know the reality, in case it finds it uncomfortable.
France is a very good example. Let me make it clear that I regard France as an excellent defence partner, both militarily and in manufacturing. I congratulate the Minister for Defence Procurement on an excellent performance in front of a joint committee of our Defence Committee and that of the Assemblée Nationale. That is what we are talking about—co-operation and collaboration between our two defence industries.
Let us be very clear: the four auxiliary oilers were awarded with no competition, and furthermore the work was directed to the Saint-Nazaire yard, which was the yard that needed it. From my experience as a Minister, that is not uncommon in Europe, in defence and in many other areas, particularly transport. Not only will European countries decide that work goes to a company of their nationality, they will say which company it goes to.
My respected colleague, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, talked about the percentage of the economy that is spent on defence. I am sorry that he is not here; perhaps he has another commitment. He ought to understand that the economic multiplier effect—the taxes that are paid, and the money that is spent, by the people who work in the yards that will build the vessels—would increase national gross domestic product, and with it the amount that went to defence.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, for giving way. Will he say quickly why we should not also support things such as Thales UK, Boeing UK and Leonardo in the UK? This is a way of doing it.
John Spellar
If they have locations in the UK and there is a fair share of the work, that is absolutely right, but let us look at shipyards. I have mentioned what happens in France. The Berlin-class support ships are built in Germany. The Vulcano-class tanker support ships are built in Italy. The Cantabria-class oilers are built in Spain, and of course the United States has an absolutely rigid “buy American” policy as well. That is the real world, not the fantasy world of neo-liberal economics.
It is poignant that, in the week of the National Audit Office report on the failure of Carillion, in particular through under-pricing contracts and the Government encouraging it to go for “cheapest is best”, we are still being urged to adopt “cheapest is best”. Even within that, we do not drive a hard bargain. We do not insist, in work in the UK, on compensation.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talked about maintenance work for maritime patrol aircraft. Maritime patrol aircraft will be maintained by the RAF and/or by industry, or in collaboration. That is not the issue. The real issue is what actual work there will be in manufacturing. Of course, maintenance is important, but that has to be done anyway. I refer not just to our shipyards and our aircraft factories, but to the UK’s very successful defence supply chain, particularly in engineering, electronics and, with regard to shipbuilding, our steel industry, which has been so dismissed by Ministers in the past.
This is also about maintaining the necessary flow of work, partly for that supply chain but also for our yards, in particular Rosyth. Rosyth shipyard will have a gap between the completion of HMS Prince of Wales, the second aircraft carrier in 2019, and the expected refit of HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first aircraft carrier, in 2030. Work on ships could keep the shipyard operational in between those dates and would therefore be very important in maintaining flow of work. We know how important that concept is, because of what happened in Barrow. There was a break in the drumbeat in the manufacture and production of nuclear submarines. The workforce drifted away to other industries and it cost a lot of money to recreate it.
As I said at the start, I urge the Minister to look at how other countries operate; to drive out the Treasury dogma, which has been imposed on the health service, transport and defence, that the cheapest and short-term is best; to think long-term; to work with industry, the trade unions and the supply chain. Back British industry. Back British shipyards. Back British steel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Guto Bebb
I need to make some progress because I must cover some of the points that were touched on.
From a defence perspective, we are trying to put a coherent plan in place to ensure that we have a competitive UK defence industry that can compete with the best. The way to do that is not to be scared of competition but to embrace competition. We have a shipbuilding strategy that says very clearly that we will understand the need for a national sovereign capability when it comes to building our warships. We need to make sure that we can measure our shipbuilding industry against the best in the world. The way to do that is not to go down the route of a protectionist “Britain first” policy but to invest in the capability that we have in our shipyards. That is why we invested £6.3 billion in Rosyth when we saw the fantastic build quality in the completion of the Queen Elizabeth class. That is why we are investing £3.7 billion in the first three Type 26’s in Glasgow. That is why we are showing a degree of confidence in our shipbuilding sector that Opposition Members need to share.
John Spellar
In a throwaway line, the Minister just made a disparaging comment about putting Britain first. What is wrong with putting Britain first?
Guto Bebb
The key thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, is that when Opposition Members talk about threats to the south Wales steel industry as a result of the “America first” policy, they are quite happy to attack Donald Trump for his protectionist attitude. The same thing can apply to this debate in spades, I am afraid. Competition and the ability to compete internationally are based not on protectionism but on the ability to be open in the way that we deal with this issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Given that every other European country that has shipyards and procures such vessels builds them in their own shipyards, why will the Minister not accept that the problem is not with Brussels or with European regulations but with Whitehall and its refusal to back British industry, British workers and British steel?
NATO
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Like the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), I am delighted we are having this debate and that it has attracted such strong attendance. NATO summits, unless we host them ourselves, do not always get the attention they should. I have attended three of them. They are always important, but they are each of them important in their own way. Rather than reminisce, however, I would like to focus on what I think will be important next month.
First, this will be the first opportunity for Britain to set out its view of our security post Brexit. We are leaving our partnership with the European Union, which involves far closer military co-operation inside the European Union than many people realise. For example, the European Union headquarters at Northwood has been mentioned. We need to be clearer about our ambition and the continuing role we want to play, both on the European continent and beyond. The security partnership document recently published by my right hon. Friends is a very good start, but I hope the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will use the summit as an opportunity to set out their view of our security after we leave the European Union. I hope they might be able to find a way of doing that in harmony.
Secondly, it is worth reminding ourselves that although the Russian threat is very real and has grown, certainly since the 2010 review and even since the 2015 review, we need to continue to take a 360 degree view of NATO. It is worth reminding ourselves that the only time article 5 has been invoked was to help the United States after 9/11. The last time that NATO troops were sent into live military operations in Europe was to help save Muslims in Bosnia. So it is not just the pressure on the eastern frontier. We need to keep looking at NATO security in the round: pressures on the Black sea, on the eastern Mediterranean and from the south. We need to understand that the survival of those very fragile democracies in the Balkans and in the middle east—even in Afghanistan—is just as important for our security here in the west, because if, in the end, they do collapse, we are vulnerable to the spread of transnational terror groups and the threat of mass migration on a scale that we have not yet seen.
Thirdly, on NATO membership, of course we welcomed the accession of Montenegro last year. It is very important that NATO continues to demonstrate that it is open and that there can be no veto on future applications. It is particularly important to the continuing stability of the western Balkans that we show that, provided they meet the proper criteria, there is a route through for those war-torn countries into the alliance.
Fourthly, on resources, there is nothing new about the American President’s insistence that European countries pay more—that has been said by every American President throughout my political career, and we should, of course, listen. However, at the Wales summit, four years ago now, we did all commit to the 2%. It is bad enough that only four countries meet the 2%, but what I still find really shocking is that 16 countries—over half the alliance—do not even pay 1.5%, including three of the biggest countries in Europe: Germany, Spain and Italy.
Fifthly, I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said about the need to continue to reform NATO—to drive forward the plans to modernise the decision-making structures, to enable the troops, planes and ships to be deployed faster across the continent of Europe, and to make sure that the political decision-making machinery is as equally adept and ready to be triggered.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about readiness and the ability to respond. Does he think now that we ought to review the previous decision to re-base from Germany back into the UK, and that we should actually have a forward presence in Germany?
Sir Michael Fallon
We continued in my time to keep that particular decision under review. There was not a particular year when all the troops were due to come home, and it was something that we watched particularly carefully as the plans for an enhanced forward presence in Estonia and Poland were developed. It is important, therefore, to be sure about whether the equipment is pre-positioned in the right places and whether it is ready to reinforce in the way that the right hon. Gentleman and I would want.
Finally, I hope that we will find ways beyond this debate of explaining the importance of NATO here at home—of explaining its success since 1949, as well as its obligations—to a new generation who do not, in this country, face conscription, but who are protected day and night by fresh cohorts of marvellous young men and women who step forward to serve in our armed forces. There is a compact there that I believe needs to be better understood. I hope this never happens, but when we next have to send our young men and women into military action wearing the blue beret, I think that we will regret that we did not do more to educate our public about the importance of NATO and the obligations that come with it. That said, I wish my hon. Friends every success at next month’s summit.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the importance of SMEs in innovation and capability. Our refreshed defence industrial policy published last December highlights how we are encouraging competition within the defence sector, maximising opportunities for SMEs. For example, we have produced new short-form contracts that make it easier for SMEs to bid into MOD opportunities.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that SMEs depend on main contractors for an enormous amount of their work, and that that is why his previous replies on the fleet support ships have been so disappointing? Can he imagine our European G7 partners, let alone President Trump, buying navy support ships from foreign yards? When is he going to shake off Treasury dogma, wake up to European reality, and buy British ships built in British shipyards by British workers, backing British engineering firms large and small, and backing British steel?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend is a champion for her constituents. As she knows, I wrote to her on 26 March regarding this matter. I would be delighted to meet her again if she has any further questions she wishes to raise with me.
In general terms, we work closely with Capita. I have mentioned before at the Dispatch Box how we are looking at moving to a more regional recruiting mechanism and ensuring that we have young role models.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on asking this question on the day Capita has announced a loss of half a billion pounds. That comes as no surprise when we look at the mess it is making of the recruitment project, which is not a channel for recruitment but a logjam. There are huge delays, with many people losing interest in the meantime. Will the Minister admit that the contract has failed and that it is time to bring it back in-house?
Mark Lancaster
I do not accept that. I have looked at this incredibly carefully. I have met the chief executive of Capita on several occasions and we continue to work very closely with Capita, which is investing large amounts of money. There have been challenges—there is no doubt about that—with the introduction of the new defence recruiting system. The manual workarounds have not worked, but I have seen at first hand now how most of those issues have been addressed and I am confident that, in future months, we will move forward with this contract.
Ministry of Defence
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good point. With France, and after America, we are the leading military power in Europe and we have to set an example. If we withdraw from exercises, that creates a bad impression.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is here. He introduced his Backbench Business debate on defence last month and pointed out that the risks this country faces are only intensifying. If we face a multiplicity and variety of threats, surely our capabilities must reflect that. Russia is indeed a threat again, because it realised that the only way to be taken seriously is to be seen to be a threat. We treated Russia with contempt during the 1990s and it has drawn the lesson. It is a geopolitical gamble that we may not approve of, but in terms of Russian influence it has paid off. What have we been talking about for the past hour except Russia? According to some estimates, its economy’s GDP is equivalent to that of Italy or even that of Australia. Russia’s emphasis on its defence spending has made it an extremely important geopolitical player. Although we are constantly told that times have changed and that defence spending is not as important as it was, perhaps the Russian example shows that defence spending does pay off. I am not for one moment defending or approving of Russia or anything it does, but it has drawn the obvious lessons from the 1990s. There is a threat from Russia and we need to take it seriously.
Surely one lesson we can draw from the past, particularly from the lead-up to the second world war, is that, in terms of commitments, we must have a real presence. There is no point in our having a token commitment to or presence in the Baltic states; we need a real presence if deterrence is to work.
Many other threats are developing from Russia, the Chinese and other potential opponents: cyber-attacks and information warfare are all potential threats.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies the potential difficulties on the north European plain. Should not the Ministry of Defence therefore reconsider its decision to withdraw from north Germany and reinstate our capability there?
Dr Lewis
I will not defend what happened in 2010. I was a shadow Defence Minister for slightly longer than the duration of the second world war in the years up to 2010, and I was told retrospectively that the reason I never became a real Defence Minister was that it was known that I would not go along with what they were planning to do. So I am not inclined to lay down my life for the Cameron-Lib Dem coalition of those years. I did not do it then, and I will not do it now.
Having said that, it is all part of a bigger trend, and I come back to my projection of the situation. At the end of the cold war, as we have heard, we took the peace dividend. We had the reductions, which were reasonable under the circumstances. But in 1995-96—the middle of the 1990s and several years after we had taken the peace dividend reductions—we were not spending barely 2% of GDP on defence as we do now, but we were spending fully 3% of GDP on defence. From then on it was downhill all the way—
Dr Lewis
I will give way to my good friend the deputy Chairman of the Committee in a moment.
I can remember Tony Blair on HMS Albion in 2007, looking back on his 10 years as Prime Minister and saying, “Well, I think we can say that we have kept defence spending roughly constant at 2.5% of GDP if the cost of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included.” But in fact the cost of operations should not have been included, because they are meant to be met from the Treasury reserve. The real figure over the Blair decade came down to 2.1% or 2.2% of GDP.
John Spellar
It is clear from the figures provided by the Library that while in most years there was an actual increase in defence expenditure during the years of that Labour Government, since 2010 it has been -1.4%, -1.4%, -4%, -3.3%, -2.4% and -2.9%, and in 2016-17 it did actually go into the positive, +1.4%. My friend should be clear that there was a step-change when the Cameron Government came in that led to year-on-year cuts, and our armed forces are feeling the effect of that.
Dr Lewis
What I am looking for today is agreement across the House that we recognise that we should not be having almost theological debates about whether we are just above or just below the 2% minimum guideline that NATO prescribes to its member states for defence expenditure, but that we have to get back to the level—at the very least—of what we considered appropriate for so long, right up until the mid-1990s, when the Labour Government came in, which was 3% of GDP.
Mr Ellwood
I am pleased the Defence Secretary is in his place, because this is very much of concern to him, as it is to all of us in the House, and it gets raised regularly. The last time he was in Brussels he raised it, and our allies in the United States are concerned about it too. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Let us be honest: we know that, for varying reasons, the financial year has been tough. We are grateful to the Treasury for recognising the fiscal pressures the MOD is under and providing an extra £200 million window to allow us to close the books on the financial year 2017-18. I make it clear that this is new money; it is different from the £300 million that has been brought forward to assist with the continuous at-sea deterrence programme.
Looking ahead, there continues to be a lot of debate, as has been expressed today, about the pressures on and size of the armed forces, their annual budget and the 10-year spending plan. I thought it would be helpful to place things into context following the defence and security capability review and the defence modernisation programme, and to flag up some realities that are not for this budget, but which are coming around the corner. The Defence Secretary has spoken of the need to look at outputs, rather than inputs. We must not just set out the number of tanks, ships or personnel that we need; we must first ask ourselves what we actually want to achieve. That leads us to determine the size of our armed forces and the defence posture we wish to show. This should reflect our duties, both domestic and overseas; our ambitions as a force for good; and our international responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and lead member of NATO.
We also need to adapt to the changing circumstances, as the threats we face become complex and intertwined. We must recognise that the world has become more dangerous since the publication of the 2015 SDSR. The risks and threats we face are intensifying and diversifying faster than expected, hence the purpose of the defence modernisation programme. It will allow more time to carefully consider how defence works, as well as what defence needs; it will aim to improve how defence operates; and it will focus on achievable efficiency and create different arrangements with suppliers. This modernisation will allow us to take the necessary long-term decisions about our military capability.
For clarity, let me say that the defence modernisation programme consists of four workstreams: the delivery of a robust MOD operating model, creating a leaner and more efficient MOD; a clear plan for efficiencies and business modernisation; a study of how we improve our commercial and industrial strategy, building on, for example, the shipbuilding strategy and the recently announced combat air strategy; and a focus on our defence policy outputs and our military capability—arguably the most important of the four.
John Spellar
That is all well and good, and all long term. Given that, why are the Government not sorting out the Capita contract on recruitment, which is clearly, visibly, obviously and lamentably failing the country, our armed forces and the recruits?
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman touches on something that I am not going to disagree with, but it is pertinent to and included in the workstreams I have just mentioned; we will be seeking more efficiencies and business modernisation. That means looking at our relationship with the contractors we work with, in order to improve the service we need to provide for our service personnel.
The work I have described will be led by the MOD, working closely with the National Security Secretariat and the Treasury, and engaging widely with Parliament, think-tanks, academics, defence experts, international allies, the media, devolved Administrations, the defence industry and, of course, the public.
John Spellar
Having all of those other worthy people involved does not get to grips with the problem of the here and now; it is pushing everything off to the right and over the horizon—again. Why will the Department not get a grip of just this programme and sort it out, because it is crippling to our armed forces?
Mr Ellwood
We have a programme—it is not fiscally neutral, as the last study was. This will allow us to make the changes and the recommendations that we need to take forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to get behind that, in order to make sure we can provide the service and the changes that we need to make, and which our armed forces deserve.
Modernising Defence Programme
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he has done for our armed forces. Without his work and campaigning, we would not today have a rising budget, with £4 billion of extra resources committed to our armed forces by the Government. I will take on board his comments. His article in The Daily Telegraph today sets absolutely the right tone and approach for how to take things forward. I hope I have the opportunity to sit down with him to discuss how we get the balance right and ensure that we achieve everything that he has set out and built on for our armed forces over the past four years. We must look at getting additional resources for our armed forces so that they have the capability to protect and truly defend Britain’s global interests, both near and far.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My reaction to this much heralded, hokey-cokey statement is, is that it? Although the voice was Williamson’s, the hands were clearly Hammond’s. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the programme is still fiscally neutral? Why does it not say that increases in security expenditure will not be at the expense of defence? Why does it rehash the same old tired call for so-called and unspecified “efficiencies”? Why will he not just confirm that the winner is in fact the Treasury and its view that there are no votes in defence? In spite of his warm words, will not the real losers be our superb troops, our excellent defence industry, and the defence and security of our nation?
Gavin Williamson
I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. There is not the constraint of the programme being fiscally neutral; we are looking at what we can do and how we can deliver it to the best of our ability. I am very grateful to both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for all they have done to work towards the position where we can put forward this programme and have the opportunity to look at the needs of our defence industry and establishment.
Defence
Lord Spellar Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vernon Coaker
That question goes to the heart of everything we read from the all the various Select Committees and debates. It is the desire of all those Committees, of this Parliament and of all of us who take an interest in defence that we identify the strategic threats we face as a country, and then mould and adapt our armed forces and our security and intelligence services to meet those threats. I will say a little more about my hon. Friend’s point in a minute.
Only yesterday, General Sir Nick Carter, the head of the British Army, said on the “Today” programme that the threats had never been greater in his 40-year career. In evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, Mark Sedwill, the National Security Adviser, confirmed that in the last two years we have seen an intensification of the threats we face. Indeed, the former Defence Secretary spoke at another evidence session of an intensification of the risks that our country faces.
We can all name those risks: we have seen the various adventures that Russia has been involved in; we have seen what has happened with China and North Korea; we have seen terrible terrorist incidents in our country; we have seen the identification of risks in respect of new technologies, cyber and artificial intelligence and where that may take us; and we have seen the undermining of the rules-based international order. Those are not made-up threats; they are very real assessments of what our country faces, alongside its allies and those who stand with us. Parliament has a responsibility and a duty to debate how we will meet those threats. That is, I believe, something that the public would expect us to do.
This has been added to, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, by Brexit, which has caused us, as a nation, to reflect on our place in the world. I say strongly to hon. Members—looking around, I think many will agree—that this Parliament should once again send a clear message to our allies and the rest of the world that as a senior member of NATO, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a leader of the Commonwealth, we will not turn inwards and we will not flinch from our historical role as a promoter of democracy and defender of human rights, while also ensuring that our own interests are fully protected.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned North Korea. Is it not the case that the actions of the North Korean regime are a massive threat to the international rules-based order, and does not that need to have higher priority in the thinking not only of our own Government but of our allies?
Vernon Coaker
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. North Korea and China are threatening some of the rules-based international order—particularly, as he says, North Korea. We have to meet that threat, and this debate is partly about how we do that. We have to win the argument again with the British public on this. The British public have to be persuaded—or not, because they can say, “We don’t agree.” We as a Parliament have to make the case again for why it is sometimes important for us to be concerned about actions that are taking place thousands and thousands of miles away, and understand why they have an impact on our own interests and our own security here at home. It can no longer be enough just to assert a problem—we have to once again make the case as to why matters such as North Korea are important.
Just two years after the strategic defence and security review of 2015, here we are in the midst of another review, led by Mark Sedwill. I know—other Members have mentioned this to me—that the Defence Secretary is trying to pull away the defence part of the security capability to provide a longer time to reflect, and I hope he is successful in doing that. However, as it stands, we have a review that is shrouded in uncertainty and that we are now told is to be delayed. One particular thing that was said in the Committee is completely wrong and has to be changed by the Government. Mr Sedwill said that
“this exercise was commissioned by the Council as fiscally neutral.”
Fiscally neutral? How can we come to such a conclusion before all the strands of the review are finished? Surely this is about matching resources to threats, not the other way round. Let this be the line in the sand that ensures that this principle is at the heart of the decisions we take as we now move forward.
We see story after story appearing in the media, speculating on which capability may or may not be cut. Why does this speculation abound? Why are there not statements to Parliament? Why is there no explanation of what is actually going on? To be fair to the Minister, I know that he will be concerned about some of this, but it is not good enough for the Government to dismiss these potential capability cuts as mere speculation by saying, “We don’t comment on these” or “No decisions have been made”. I do not want—nor, I am sure, does any Member of this House—a statement to be made to this House in three months’ time telling us what is going to be done rather than this House having debated and discussed it and come to a view as to where we should go. I do not want, and I do not believe Parliament wants, to wait for a set of decisions to be presented to us as a fait accompli. That is not good enough. Our country deserves better. The public and Parliament need to be properly informed. I am certain that colleagues across this House believe that it is for Parliament to debate the issues, to inform the decisions, and to play our full part in the choices we make as to how we defend our country and its freedoms.
According to the permanent secretary at a hearing of the Defence Committee at the end of last year, it appears that the Secretary of State has, as yet, made no explicit request for additional funding from the Chancellor. Will the Minister tell us where the discussions that have been reported in the media have got to? Will he confirm what the Defence Secretary is now saying to the Chancellor? Has he demanded any additional funding? Where has the discussion got to, or not, as to whether there is to be any additional funding? Will the Minister also confirm whether the defence aspect of the capabilities review has been delayed?
Dr Lewis
I am grateful to the Minister for making that point in that way, and nobody could be doing more than he is, within the constraints of his office, to make the case. We all know that.
The reality is that defence is always difficult to get funded in peacetime because it is analogous to paying the premiums on an insurance policy, and people are always reluctant to pay the premiums, although they are very glad to have paid them when the time comes to call in the policy because something adverse has occurred.
John Spellar
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee for giving way, but surely this is the role of Ministers. It is the role of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence to be providing that leadership, setting out that strategic vision, and therefore the reason for that expenditure. That is where the leadership has to come from.
Dr Lewis
I agree, but I think it is something more important than that. They must have a proper strategic planning machine at their service; otherwise, they are just a bunch of individuals giving their personal opinions.
It may suit civil servants to sideline the military professionals—to reduce the uniformed contribution to strategic planning to the input of one individual, the Chief of the Defence Staff. It may suit them, too, to sideline the Ministry of Defence and reduce its contribution to a single strand of a so-called national security strategy, but it does not suit the national interest to have inadequate specialist military pushback against politicians with poor strategic grasp and a political bee in their bonnet. That is how disastrous own goals, like the Libya fiasco, come to be inflicted upon us, despite the warnings of the then Chief of the Defence Staff against overthrowing the Libyan regime.
A single military adviser, no matter how capable, cannot have the same impact as the combined contribution of a Joint Committee of the heads of the armed forces. So it is not enough just to set ourselves a 3% target for defence expenditure, as indeed we must; it is vital also to recognise that our tried and tested machinery for making military strategy has been vitiated and largely dismantled. The Chiefs of Staff must once again be more than budget managers, stuck on the sidelines while politicians and officials call the shots and, as often as not, call the shots incorrectly.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
When it comes to defence, we have to accept that without the right personnel with the right expertise and in enough numbers, the military cannot function. All the most sophisticated technology imaginable is useless if we do not have the skilled individuals to operate it. The planes cannot fly, the ships cannot sail and the vehicles cannot move without the people with the expertise. In essence, without people there is no military capability, and yet it is the people that we keep cutting.
Following the strategic defence and security review in 2010, there was a restructuring of the Army through a plan dubbed Army 2020, along with Future Reserves 2020 for the Army Reserve. The plan was refined in 2015. It proposed to reduce the number of Regular Army, or full-time, personnel from 102,000 to 82,000 and to increase the rebranded and re-enrolled reserve forces, or part-time personnel, from around 15,000 to 35,000 to make up the shortfall. On paper, that looks great. In April 2017, the Regular Army numbered 83,560 personnel and the Army Reserve 29,940. However, we need to dig deeper.
Reserve soldiers work hard as reservists, but many also have full-time jobs. They are required to complete a minimum commitment of days and training with the Army Reserve each year to be fully up to date and able to deploy in support of the regular Army. The completion of this training is not mandatory, but those who do not complete it are not considered qualified to fulfil their function during that given training year. Those soldiers who complete the training are awarded a tax-free bounty or bonus. This bonus shows how many reservists each year are ready and able to deploy quickly to support the Regular Army.
Over the last few years the number of Army Reserve soldiers has increased dramatically, from 21,030 in April 2015 to 29,940 in April 2017. That is an increase of 42% in the space of a few years. Those figures have been obtained from the Ministry of Defence through parliamentary questions. Given such an impressive increase, one would expect to see a proportional increase in those achieving the annual bounty as more and more reserve soldiers achieve their annual training targets. In April 2015, 14,270 achieved their bounty. That was 67.85% of the total Army Reserve. However, in April 2017, 14,930 got their bounty, representing just short of 50% of the total. That represents a 17.98% fall in the proportion of the Army reservists achieving their annual training targets.
The bounty is broken down into five levels. Each year that a soldier achieves a bounty, the next level is paid until they get to year five. Of the bounties awarded in 2017, 1,980 were for year 1; 1,470 were for year 2; years 3 and 4 were grouped at 1,310; and the figure for year 5 was 10,160. That is not a weighting one might expect, given the increased numbers of recruits. The numbers imply that the number of reserve personnel able to complete the training required of them in order to be considered fully up to date and able to support their regular colleagues has been pretty stable but not growing. Despite the 42% growth, the number of reserve soldiers able to fulfil the minimum commitment set out by the Government is still at the same level. The growth in the Army Reserve is a paper growth, not a real growth.
The Government’s expectation is that people will be able to marry up having a full-time job with the capability to operate at the same level as a full-time member of our armed forces. That assumption is being made as a result of a cost-saving decision to cut the Regular Army, and it is simply unrealistic. We now have a Regular Army of about 78,000 and an effective reserve strength of roughly 15,000, with both barely able to fulfil their required duties, especially as the Regular Army was previously more than 100,000 strong.
There is a further problem with the Government’s approach. We are reliant on experts to operate in a sensible and effective manner equipment that is often at the cutting edge of technology. Those skills cannot be replaced overnight. The Government’s solution was to cut those experts from the Regular Army and attempt to re-recruit them as reservists with a £10,000 incentive scheme.
As of 1 October 2017, 4,350 ex-Regular Reserve soldiers had been recruited using the bonus incentive scheme since its inception in 2013. The £10,000 bonus is broken down into four instalments, called key milestones, that are paid out over four years provided that the soldier has completed a number of days of training and tests. Considering that it equates to almost a quarter of those cut from the Regular Army in a similar period, 4,350 is a good number. However, of those who have entered the scheme, 3,320 made it to key milestone 1, 2,370 made it to key milestone 2, only 1,280 made it to key milestone 3, and just 480 reached key milestone 4 —a drop-out rate of 88.97%. Therefore, despite the offer of a £10,000 bonus, these ex-regular soldiers are also unable to meet the requirements of a full-time job while being a fully trained reservist that is capable of deployment. We risk having an undermanned regular force that lacks the skills and knowledge that come from the experienced soldiers that we made redundant, and an overworked reserve force that is doing its best to make up the shortfall while its people also try to get on with a civilian career. Once again, the apparent cost saving is elusive.
Returning once again to the ex-regulars in the reserve forces, each ex-regular at the rank of private is on a basic rate of £50 a day. Many earn much more than that, but let us just go with the basic. The total amount spent since the inception of the scheme on just wages and bonus payments is roughly a minimum of £26.3 million. For that £26.3 million, we get an 88.97% drop-out rate and only 480 reserve soldiers. That is before any consideration of the cost of restructuring both the Regular Army and the Army Reserve. We are cutting full-time capable soldiers and replacing them with people of whom we expect too much.
The Government have created a personnel problem in our armed forces that threatens to spiral out of control. We all acknowledge that the men and women in our armed forces, whether regulars or reserves, are dedicated professionals who are asked to do a difficult and demanding job, but their numbers have been cut to dangerously low levels and we are losing vital expertise. To make up the shortfall, we have put in place increased, unrealistic and unfair burdens on the reserve forces, which are also made up of honest, hard-working people, in the name of a cost saving that appears to be nothing at all.
John Spellar
The immensely frustrating factor in all this is that the Ministry of Defence and the services seem to be replicating exactly the same mistakes that were made in the “Options for Change” White Paper at the end of the cold war. They are pushing regulars out and creating an atmosphere in which people think that the forces are not recruiting, and they are damaging morale. Then, during the Christmas period, they spend however much they did on blitzing the airwaves to try to attract people in an atmosphere in which people are seeing those who have been forced out of our services.
Mrs Moon
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Some statistics released today show that 71% of businesses in the service sector are finding it difficult to recruit from the skilled workforce, and the figure for manufacturing is 76%. We are operating in a climate where skilled people are at a premium. The armed forces had skilled people, but they sacked them and, rightly enough, the business community has grabbed them. We then tried to bring them back into the armed forces by offering them a bonus, but that has not worked. We have managed to keep only 480 of them. It is shocking, irresponsible and downright dangerous. This is an unpredictable world, and we cannot afford to play games. We are not showing our friends and allies our willingness and ability to support them and to support our own interests around the globe if we are not retaining and training our full-time personnel.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to go over the figures again. An Army sergeant with a salary of about £33,000 pays £1.44 a week more. I think that it is fair to ask them to pay a little more, and entirely fair to ask officers who are earning in excess of £65,000 to pay a little more. Let us bear in mind that the average salary in his seat is under £23,000.
John Spellar
Will the Army sergeant, or member of whichever rank, be paying these tax rates based on where he was born, where he was living when he joined the forces, or where he is based?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He asks an operational question about the amphibiosity of our capability. I stress to the House that we must maintain our amphibiosity, a capable Royal Marine presence and, dare I say it, a capable Para presence as well, so he can rest assured. I will not go any further than that because we are getting into the weeds of operational decisions, and more will become clear very soon.
John Spellar
Going back to the point made by the Chair of the Defence Committee, if the capability was vital last year, when we were given an end date, what has changed in the meantime to put that capability in any way in question?
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to pre-empt the capability review and what will follow. All I can ask for is patience, because the answers will be forthcoming.
Turning to a couple of other contributions, this has been a tough time for recruitment and retention, and we should be honest about the challenges, something which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) studied in detail in his report. Nevertheless, I am pleased to say that recruitment is moving forward. We do have to change our approach, and we need to recruit specialists as well, because the art of war is fundamentally changing. The requirements for what is needed on the battlefield mean that we should not necessarily have to train somebody from start to finish. It may be easier to have somebody with the technology, understanding or detailed knowledge instead. For example, a subject matter expert for a country in the middle east could be brought in and trained and then could join our armed forces to provide that intelligence detail. That is exactly what 77th Brigade does, and it provides huge value away from the teeth arms, with which the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and I are more familiar.
We need to adapt and to reflect society as a whole. We have now opened up all roles to women, and our new campaign has led to a rise in applications of 20% since 2016-17. Reserves are also up by almost 5% on last year. The offering must also change, and some worries have been raised about accommodation, but we are looking at a new accommodation model, and I am concerned about what is happening with Carillion. We need to give individuals more opportunity. Do they want to stay in a garrison, do they want to rent, or do they want to own their own house? That is what other people aspire to, so why should somebody who joins the armed forces not be able to do the same? That is what our accommodation model is looking at. Many hon. Members have participated in the passage of the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill, which will allow somebody to step back from what they are doing in the armed forces for a period of time, perhaps to spend more time with their family or possibly to have a child. That proposal is proving hugely popular.
The enterprise approach is about attracting people on sabbatical, such as someone with a senior engineering, cyber or linguistic capability whom it would not be cost-effective for us to train from the bottom ranks all the way through. The veterans’ package has been mentioned, and I am proud of this Government’s work in supporting the armed forces covenant, which over 2,000 companies have signed. We also have the Veterans’ Gateway which, if hon. Members are not familiar with it, is the online portal that allows any individual to comprehend the myriad military-facing charities that are there to support our brave armed forces as they make the transition into civilian life. It is an excellent bit of work, and I recommend that all hon. Members look at it. Finally on that front, through our mental health strategy we are trying to remove the stigma from someone stepping forward if they are suffering from any form of mental health issue.
A couple of comments were made about the public sector. Pay is obviously up to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, but the cap has been lifted and there is the freedom to go above 1%. However, it is for the pay review body to make recommendations.
The last contribution that I want to comment on came from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). His pertinent point was that if the armed forces are not being used, they can be perceived as redundant. As Sun Tzu wrote in “The Art of War”:
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
Having an armed force, a posture and a strong capability that backs up our soft power can do much to influence the world around us without our having to leave it to war fighting or military engagement.
I would like to give a couple of minutes to the hon. Member for Gedling, who moved the motion, so I conclude by thanking all Members for their contributions. I hope the House will agree that we are deeply indebted to all those who choose to wear the uniform and, if required, stand in harm’s way in defence of our country and values and in aid of those in need across the world.
The professionalism of our defence people forms the hard power that is respected by our allies and feared by our adversaries, and it is that hard power that sits behind the country’s soft power that allows us to continue playing such an influential role on the world stage.
As the world moves faster and becomes more dangerous, we must not be naive about the durability of the relative peace that the UK has enjoyed over the past few decades. Our country, our open international economy and our values are vulnerable to a range of growing world threats that have no respect for our borders. It is critical that Britain’s defence posture remains credible and that we maintain our military edge. That is exactly what the Secretary of State is working to achieve.
I end by reminding the House that President Reagan said:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Let us not take our ability to fight and the security we have for granted. All of us in this House should make the case for strong and credible defence.
UK Amphibious Capability
Lord Spellar Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Johnny Mercer
That is an interesting intervention —in fact, I am just going to ignore it because it was pretty childish.
We must get our priorities right when it comes to defence. Over the weekend the Government announced that £2.3 billion would be put into artificial intelligence and driverless cars. Fantastic—great stuff—but when it comes to social policies such as those we cut our cloth according to what we can afford. When it comes to defence, we listen to the professionals who we ask to go and do the job for us and to wear the uniform. We ask them what we need and we provide them with what they need to keep us safe. As has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) time and again, the idea that we can come to this place and say, or sell it to the general public, that threats have intensified, diversified and increased so much that another security review needs to be conducted, and yet reduce the budget or capability for our armed forces to do that, is simply not credible. It will not be worn by the British public and it will not be worn by Back-Bench Conservative MPs.
Finally, all that I am asking for, and all that the MPs who have signed my letter, and MPs across the Conservative party, are asking for—we are the party of defence—is that we meet our manifesto commitment of a 2% of GDP spend and a 0.5% above inflation increase in the defence budget. That is the platform on which I stood at the general election, and I fully expect that commitment to be realised. We must get to a stage where we are being realistic about defence, and if the threats have increased, that must be met by a commensurate increase in money, commitment and willpower from both No. 11 and No. 10.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and fellow member of the Defence Committee for giving way, but may I slightly correct him? He said that the Tories are the party of defence. They are the party that talks about defence. I fully accept the bona fides and the genuine intentions of the hon. Gentleman and many of his fellow Back Benchers, but in fact under “Options for Change” after the end of the cold war, it was the Tory party that slashed the—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. In the context of UK amphibious capability, Johnny Mercer.