Trident Renewal

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that those other members of NATO are part of the nuclear umbrella of NATO and agree to NATO nuclear policy?

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

My hon. Friend needs to go back and look at his geography. There are not 47 sovereign states in Europe which belong to NATO—

[Mr Jones]

NATO ones do.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

The NATO ones do, but if my hon. Friend listened, he would know that I referred to 47 sovereign states, and they are not all members of NATO by any means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Thank you very much for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it will be listened to by all Members present.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and I led the SNP debate on NATO. The policy seems to have been quite popular. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the SNP is up in the mid-40s in the polls. Who knows? I may have played my part in securing that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very pleased with the SNP’s current polling, which could have us winning as many as 50 seats at the general election. Who knows? It is certainly change for the SNP and, by definition, it is change for Labour in Scotland.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman says that it is SNP policy to join NATO. Does he therefore accept NATO’s nuclear umbrella? Would Ministers and armed forces personnel in an independent Scotland sit on the NATO planning group that controls its nuclear deterrent?

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that three of the 25 or 26 members of NATO have nuclear weapons. If we joined NATO, we would of course join other nations that have nuclear weapons, as well as nations that have maritime patrol aircraft, which the UK does not have. That would be an improvement. Scotland would certainly have maritime patrol aircraft.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

I have given way enough; I want to make some progress. I have commitments, but if time allows, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

I was discussing the Government’s use of the term “irresponsible”. Why do they use such terms when they know that mainstream opinion is not behind them? It is because they want to create a phoney debate on a phoney choice. They want to give the public a very narrow view on what is actually a very broad mainstream consensus. The SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru are in the international mainstream of common sense, not blighted by the hangover of imperial lustre and the narrow thinking that controls too much of the UK debate on this subject.

This week on this issue and last week on austerity, we have seen two dividing lines in Westminster politics: austerity, supported by Labour and the Tories, and nuclear weapons, supported by Labour and the Tories—I am not quite sure where the Liberal Democrats are, but I am sure they will clarify their position. These are the new dividing lines in politics, and these are the choices that people face. This is a tectonic shift in politics.

There are people in the corridors of Westminster who are even talking about the prospect of a Labour-Tory coalition, and even if that is tongue in cheek, it throws up a huge challenge on nuclear weapons and austerity—a challenge squarely laid at the feet of the broadcasters. Do they have a debate based on a false pretence, with Labour and Tory agreeing on nuclear weapons and austerity, or do they do a real public service and show that there are real choices to be made? Any free society should show that and should freely challenge these assertions; otherwise, the impression will be given by the broadcasters that anybody opposed to nuclear weapons is not taking defence and security seriously, and these matters will not be challenged.

[Mr Jones]

I challenge the hon. Gentleman again. He says that he wants to be part of NATO, which is SNP policy. Does he therefore agree that he will be joining a nuclear alliance, and that if we had an independent Scotland, members of that Government would sit on the NATO joint nuclear planning policy group? Is it not a fact that the SNP will, by joining NATO, be joining a nuclear alliance, so the hon. Gentleman cannot claim that an SNP Government will be completely non-nuclear?

[Mr MacNeil]

It seems that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me the first time. By joining NATO, Scotland would be joining a club, 90% of whose members do not have nuclear weapons. Scotland would be one of those nations. The hon. Gentleman seems to be having some difficulty comprehending that—[Interruption.] No, he has had his answer, even if he cannot comprehend it. We will fulfil our obligations in NATO. The hon. Gentleman can ask again and again, and he will find the same difficulty in understanding it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which brings me to the next part of my speech—the defence and security justifications for Trident renewal. Again, the arguments do not properly stack up. If the UK did not already possess nuclear weapons and I were to stand here today and argue for us to spend £100 billion on them, I do not believe anyone would support me. Trident is not an independent deterrent. The software, hardware and expertise are all provided by the US. Indeed, the UK could not fire Trident, heaven forbid, without the permission of the US. Supporters of Trident renewal will say that the world is a dangerous place, and that spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons offers peace of mind. “The first duty of Government is the security of its people, and the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place,” they will say. “Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy.”

Those are both arguments that we have heard during today’s debate. Yet this line of argument ignores the current strategic security challenges that the UK faces, and spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons is a dereliction of duty in the face of those challenges. In addition, to describe nuclear weapons as an insurance policy is an odd turn of phrase, given that insurance policies are designed to pay out after an undesirable event has taken place, not to prevent it from happening in the first place. If nuclear weapons were ever used, the consequences would be catastrophic.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I know the hon. Gentleman’s party is clear that it does not want to be part of NATO. Is he comfortable, then, with the fact that his partner on the motion, the SNP, is happy to join NATO and to join the nuclear umbrella which that membership gives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I listened very carefully to his words, as I did with all the other Conservative hawks. Indeed, we have heard a few Labour hawks, too. I say to him that there is at least an intellectual consistency running through the heart of the debate. We heard it during the period of high Thatcherism when there was a real and substantial threat and we knew what we were up against with the Soviet Union. We are hearing it again now, but we do not know from where the threat is coming or from what we are trying to protect ourselves. I have no idea at whom these weapons will be targeted. Even if we had a nirvana of world peace, we would still have the Tory hawks arguing for their nuclear weapons. They would be telling us why they were an absolute necessity and why the deterrent would have to be a feature of every community in our country.

I want to get back to what motivates us. I know what motivates the hawks on the Tory Benches. They like their nuclear weapons—of course they do—and they think they are an important feature of this country. But we all come to this matter with a set of principles—a value system—that helps to inform the important decisions that we have to take as public representatives and legislators. That is our political and moral compass, and it helps us to determine our approach to public life and the important decisions that we take in this House.

Nothing is more important to me than my fundamental belief, desire and drive to rid my country of nuclear weapons and to end the absurdity, nonsense and madness of nuclear deterrence. For me, it is an unshakeable imperative and a moral, non-negotiable responsibility. I could never countenance agreeing to have nuclear weapons as an ongoing feature of my nation.

I am appalled that my beautiful country is defiled by the presence of these evil weapons of mass destruction, 40 miles from our largest city. My lovely Scotland—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say, so let us get it over with.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman said that he had a principled position to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons, but he is prepared to join NATO, which is a nuclear alliance. Would he, as an SNP member in an independent Scotland, join the nuclear planning group and allow nuclear-armed submarines to visit Scotland?

[Pete Wishart]

That intervention was predictable. The hon. Gentleman is like a stuck record. I have been to Denmark—I actually sold 250,000 records in Denmark with my previous group—and for him to tell the Danes that they are a nuclear power would be a gross—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

No, I will not give way. I have heard that so many times: Denmark, Norway, Spain. Canada, for goodness’ sake, got rid of American nuclear weapons and is still in NATO. The hon. Gentleman does not understand and I am not prepared to take an intervention from him. He is a stuck record, spinning round and round all day, and I think the whole House is sick of it.

My peaceful Scotland is host to the largest silo of weapons of mass destruction in western Europe. Lorries carrying all sorts of parts to service and keep this genocidal arsenal roll happily along the roads of Scotland almost unnoticed and untroubled with their death-maintaining cargo. Weapons of mass destruction such as Trident sit uneasily and angularly with everything I know about the fantastic values of my country. It is a country of social solidarity, trying to promote the common weal and strong community values, yet my country hosts the biggest arsenal of genocidal weapons in western Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

On my hon. and gallant Friend’s first question, by looking back 18 months he is looking back past the bottom of the trough. The past six to nine months have been much more encouraging, and the next quarter is expected to be even better.

My hon. and gallant Friend has asked his second question again and again, and we have explained that, although we acknowledge that there are some extra costs, there is no way that we can separate them from the whole picture. Some of them are one-off costs, and some of them are connected with regular recruiting as well—we have to remind people, post-Afghanistan and so on, that we are recruiting.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The original plan to reform the reserve force stated that a force of 30,000 would be required by 2018. That was pushed back to April 2019, and last week in The Times, well informed sources in the MOD suggested that the date may well be pushed back even further. Can the Minister confirm exactly when the 30,000 strength will actually be met?

[Mr Brazier]

We are still firmly committed to April 2019 as the target date. As I have mentioned, recruiting has increased substantially. If we look at the latest quarter as opposed to the latest six months, we see that it has roughly doubled. Over the past six months it is up 62%, but over the second half of that period it has gone up even faster, and we expect a further continuation of that positive trend. We are firmly committed to April 2019.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

This training programme was organised by the United Kingdom at the request of the Libyan Government and a number of locations were considered for it. The most cost-effective turned out to be here in the UK, but I think it likely that we shall learn from this and that this kind of training is probably better provided and organised in the country itself, or very close to it. That is difficult at the moment given the security situation in Libya, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to work with all parties in Libya, particularly the moderates in all three factions in Libya, to secure a political settlement.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Three hundred and twenty-eight Libyan service personnel began their training in the UK in June 2014. Can the Secretary of State say how many remain in the country and how many have claimed asylum?

[Michael Fallon]

Three hundred and twenty-eight signed up originally. Some 100 left during the course of their training by agreement with the Libyan authorities. The remainder have all now been returned properly to Libya, apart from five who remain in custody and a very small handful who have claimed asylum.

Points of Order

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 4 November, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary, asking how many Libyan service personnel who received training in the UK had claimed asylum. I received a reply on 17 November saying that it was not the policy of the Home Office, hiding behind the Data Protection Act, to disclose personal information. On 18 November, I tabled a similar question, only to be told that it would not be possible to answer the question in the time available. Today the Defence Secretary has confirmed that a handful of personnel have actually claimed asylum. Does he think that the Home Office’s replies are acceptable, and how would he suggest that we go about getting an answer with the actual numbers who have claimed asylum?

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, that is not a matter for me. When the hon. Gentleman asks whether “he” can advise on this or that, I assume he means me. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not expect the Secretary of State to criticise one of his ministerial colleagues—the Secretary of State will not do that. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as he requires my protection or advice, is that he needs to pursue his usual approach, which is to be a busy bee. He should table questions and, in a legitimate, parliamentary sense, nag. In my experience of the hon. Gentleman, he requires no encouragement to do just that.

Reserve Recruitment

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his thoughts. Let us be clear on the numbers. The Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the Army, said to the Defence Committee on 5 November:

“Already, at the six-month point, we have got to 2,100”—

he was talking about new recruits to the reserves—

“and it is my sense that we will increase the numbers beyond the target in this year…It is not something that will be solved overnight, because we have had the last 10 or 15 years when we have not invested in the Reserve in the way that we are now investing in the Reserve.”

The point—I have tried to explain this to my hon. and gallant Friend a number of times—is that we had a very long period of decline and neglect. In setting up a new system that for the first time for a decade re-established proper medical checks and proper fitness checks, started to collate the numbers properly and so on, we had some glitches, which have been widely discussed. Most of the improvements we made have happened only in the past few months. In the last quarter, we recruited almost twice as many people as in the equivalent quarter last year. I am grateful to him for his continuing interest in the subject, but may I recommend that he does what almost every single unit I have visited recommends and visits some reserve units to discover the exciting things that are going on?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Army Reserve has expanded by just 20 troops in the past year—20, not the 30,000 personnel promised by the Prime Minister. Capita is being paid £50 million a year to assist in recruitment, meaning that each new net recruit costs taxpayers £2.5 million. That does not include the millions spent on online and other advertising campaigns. The Minister is failing so badly, two years after the policy was announced, that the upper age limit for recruitment is now to be raised, even though, from his reply to the question, one would not think that anything had changed.

This is a shambles—yet more along the lines of the failed IT systems that wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and the repeatedly missed and repeatedly readjusted recruitment targets. Now we have the fiasco of the increase in the upper age limit for recruitment, changing the goalposts to meet the targets. Urgent clarity is needed on the level of integration between regular and reserve units following the recent statement by the new Chief of the General Staff. Will the Minister confirm whether it is now Government policy that reservists will not be called on routinely and will instead be used only in times of emergency? When was he consulted on that change in policy?

May I ask the Minister to be honest with the Army and the British people about what size he envisages not only the reserve but the British Army will be at the end of the process? He said that his policy is bold. Yes, it is bold, but it is fundamentally flawed, it has failed to be tested, and the tragic consequence will be that Britain's defence will be vulnerable for years to come.

[Mr Brazier]

I think that the hon. Gentleman had drafted his points before he heard my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, so I will not repeat the same points about the changes in the system that are just coming through now and are evident in the latest quarter.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s more substantive questions. The message coming from the Chief of the General Staff has been cleared with the Secretary of State and me. We are all at one on this and I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear. When we talk about integration, there is an important distinction to be made between compulsory call-out, which will occur only in times of public emergency—in the long term, because we suddenly hit an unexpected conflict, or in the short term, because of flooding and so on—and opportunities for intelligent mobilisation for formed bodies or individuals that will be there all the time. Most people join the reserves because they want an opportunity to deploy on operations. It may help the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, if I give a few examples of that.

In February, under Operation Toral, the next phase in Afghanistan, a formed platoon from my local battalion, 3rd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, will go to Afghanistan with its sister unit, the Royal Anglians. We have 24 people, 19 of whom are medics, going out on the Ebola operation. In 2012, the framework battalion for Cyprus was a reserve battalion. The opportunities are there, but call-out will be compulsory only when there is a real emergency. It is worth noting that 25,000 individuals went through Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them under a Labour Government. All of them went through the intelligent mobilisation process, except for a relatively small number involved in the original Iraq operation.

My understanding throughout this has been that Labour’s policy is to support our plan in principle, while doing what an Opposition always should do: hold the Government to account for delivery. I have heard nothing in what the hon. Gentleman has said to suggest that that has changed, and I am pleased about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I know that he wrote to the Ministry of Defence only last week; in fact, I saw the letter this morning. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter, because I think it may not be quite as simple as it appears at first blush. I am sure we can find a way of resolving it and am happy to meet both him and, of course, his constituent.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

First, may I declare an interest as a Commonwealth War Graves Commissioner? The question that has just been asked relates to the confusion between MOD graves and Commonwealth war graves. Is the Minister aware that the MOD maintains large numbers of non-commissioned headstones in Germany? Will she have a look at what plans are in place to maintain those graves post-2014, after the British Army withdraws from Germany?

[Anna Soubry]

The simple and short answer is yes, I am more than happy to look at that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend—who, by the way, is responsible for the amendment that leads to the report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon)—is familiar with the whole process, and he and I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. To make the programme work as effectively as possible, we must continue to devolve responsibility for recruiting down to unit level to give commanding officers and their subordinate officers greater responsibility and challenge in meeting the numbers. As I have intimated to the House, that programme is already under way, and I believe that with his support, and support across the House, we can make this programme work.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The NAO report concluded that the Government’s incompetent handling of Army 2020 was leading to serious shortfalls in capability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) just announced, the only target they were meeting was handing out P45s. The Prime Minister’s announcement today of investment in special forces will ring pretty hollow as they go through a restructuring programme that has seen a reduction in their capability. Is this not yet another example of Ministers giving with one hand, only to take away with the other?

[Mr Francois]

The reason we have been able to announce more than £1 billion of investment in equipment for our armed forces is the careful financial management we have had to undertake because of the financial train crash we inherited from Opposition Members.

First World War (Commemoration)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

A long time ago.

[Sir John Randall]

It was indeed a long time ago and I can just about remember it. Just after my 18th birthday, I was standing, literally, in the footprints in the pavement in Sarajevo, by the river Miljacka, where Gavrilo Princip stood and fired those fateful shots that sparked the conflagration we are discussing today. At the time, it was chilling to think what had happened and what the consequences were. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and others have said, the causes of the war and who was to blame are matters for historians to discuss at great length. I have noticed that a certain amount of revisionism is going on in certain quarters, but I will leave that aside. Little did I realise then, of course, that Sarajevo, having been the trigger point for such conflict would in a few decades again become the very centre of more conflict and killing in Europe in our own era.

I am afraid to say that the folly of us all as human beings is that we never seem to learn the lesson of history. That is why these commemorations have to be held and why we have to educate generation after generation in the hope that somehow those mistakes will eventually be realised. We must remember, too, how easy it is to fall into violent conflict.

I congratulate the Government and the country as a whole on the way in which they are embarking on this anniversary. There will be many commemorations throughout the country—some grand, some major civic ones, some local, some individual ones. In my own small parish church, St Laurence in Cowley near Uxbridge, they are researching the names—not a great number—of those on the war memorial. We are still trying to track down the one lady whose name is on there—Olive Latham. We have not yet found out about her history, who she was and why she is on the memorial.

I am proud to say that when a memorial was built and consecrated in Uxbridge after the first world war, we called it a “peace memorial”. I grew up thinking that it might have been done in the ’70s—in a decade of awakening in which we felt that we should not be talking about war—but I found that that was the original name for our memorial. That is fitting, given that Uxbridge was, and to some extent still is, a centre of non-conformism. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) talked about her forebears in the congregational church, and that applies to me, too. For many of the local people, at heart, there was a degree of pacifism but perhaps there was a need for people to answer a stronger calling to serve their country.

As we have heard movingly from many Members, every family will have memories from those days that have been told down the generations. Both my grandfathers were in the forces. My maternal grandfather was in the Royal Flying Corps, principally because he was a woodwork teacher and the aeroplanes were made out of wood. He ended up doing important work mending the planes, so he did not have to serve on the front line. My paternal grandfather, Bert Randall, joined the Royal Horse Artillery and kept a diary. As a good Randalls, as I hope I have been, we always obey the rules. He wrote his diary every day, but it ceased as soon as he went overseas, when keeping a diary was not allowed.

It is fascinating to read what my grandfather had for breakfast, lunch, dinner and many other things from day to day, but it does not provide the sort of insightful, deep and philosophical thoughts of which we have heard from other diaries. I noticed from the diary that he started off with a boyish enthusiasm, joining up with his mates going off to war. While he was training, first in Reading and then in Norfolk, it is possible to see that enthusiasm being tempered, as he realised that some of his comrades were being sent off to France to fill the gaps as a result of all the casualties. The realisation that this was not a game was dawning on him.

One of the most poignant pieces of memorabilia pertaining to my grandfather is provided by a little note he sent. He was on the front line in France, manning a gun limber, and the horse was blown up underneath him, wounding him quite severely. He came home on a hospital train and I have the very note he scribbled out in pencil, which he gave to someone to deliver to his mother in Uxbridge, saying “I’m all right, I’m safe”. He said he did not know why he was being sent to Nottingham when he was only a few miles away from her, but he told her, “Don’t worry, Mum, I’m okay”. I find that incredibly moving, because these stories are all about people. I am sure that many of us here are parents and we can hardly begin to imagine the horror of seeing one’s children going off to war.

My grandfather never wanted to talk about the war—it could be an example of that non-conformism. On Remembrance Sundays, my father who had served in the second world war was very happy to wear a poppy, but my grandfather was not. I think it was the horrors he had seen. He never really wanted to talk about it. That stays with me.

Thankfully, both those grandparents returned home, but not everybody in Uxbridge was so lucky. Lord Hillingdon was one whose son, the honourable Charles Mills, died in action. He was killed in 1915 when Lord Hillingdon was the sitting Member of Parliament for Uxbridge. Everybody is affected and, as I said earlier, we have to educate every generation about what happened.

We have talked about some of the excellent schemes that have been put in place—that of the Institute of Education, for example—and there has been a concentration on the western front. It is quite easy to send schoolchildren across to France and Belgium to see the moving war cemeteries, the Menin Gate and so forth. We have to remember, however, that the war was fought on many fronts and that many people lost their lives throughout the world. In my own borough of Hillingdon, there is an obvious link with the wider world where graves of Australian and New Zealand servicemen can be found at Harefield church, which has an annual Anzac day service at which local school- children put a little Australian or New Zealand flag on the graves. Harefield is one of the smallest villages in Middlesex—it is still there, still a village and still in Middlesex—but it was home to two Victoria Cross recipients in the first world war.

Returning to my theme of remembering what happened elsewhere, I shall talk briefly about the conflict on the Salonika front. I shall do so not only because I studied the history and languages of the Balkans at university, but because I discovered recently the story of British women, particularly Scots but some English women, who served on that front. Although they are much feted in Serbia and elsewhere, we know very little about them over here—something we should try to rectify.

Those women mostly went out as nurses. One particular woman, not in the first flush of youth, had been rather snubbed over here. She wanted to join up and do nursing, but they did not think she had enough qualifications, so she joined the Red Cross and went over to Serbia, where along with various others who had volunteered, she was thrown into the middle of an horrendous typhus epidemic. In the early days of the war, more soldiers were dying there from typhus than they were from battle wounds. Many of the nurses and doctors succumbed to the disease, but these women gallantly turned some of these hospitals round.

Then, as the Serbian army pushed back, something began to happen in 1915. I hope that we shall take part in some of the commemorations of it next year, because the British were involved, although not as much as some. The Serbian nation—I say “nation” because this included the Parliament, the King, bishops, the army and many civilians—retreated across the Albanian mountains along to the Adriatic coast, and thence to the island of Corfu. It was a terrible retreat, during which hundreds of thousands of people died. It is interesting to note that the Albanian people allowed the Serbian army to pass freely. Some of the rivalries about which we hear today may not be as long-lasting as we probably assume.

At the time of the retreat, a nurse, Flora Sandes, decided to enlist in the Serbian army. She did not see why she, as a woman, should not be able, or allowed, to do what a man could do. The Serbian army personnel were a little bit sceptical, but they needed every person they could get. They thought that somehow having one of their allies—a British person—alongside them would be a morale-booster, and so it proved to be. Flora joined up as a private, and she did not get many special favours. She was on that terrible retreat, and she went to Corfu. After the French and the British had enabled those on the retreat to convalesce and re-equip themselves, they arrived at the Salonika front. Flora Sandes was very seriously injured.

As I have said, I do not think that we in this country have fully recognised that, at a time when women did not have the vote and it was very rare for them to be doctors, women such as Flora Sandes not only wanted to do such work, but were given an opportunity to do it in a place that was not their own. There is an excellent book on the life of Flora Sandes and others, and I have to say that the more I read such stories, the more of a feminist I become. That may seem unlikely, but it is true.

The Scots did not only send nurses. They, as well as the French, took some of the young people from Serbia who had gone on that terrible retreat—many of them had been orphaned—into their homes, where they were looked after. I think that some connections still exist. Scotland took a very proud part in those events, and is remembered very fondly in the Balkans as a result.

We know that we must engage in these commemorations for the reasons that I have already given, but I also remember an experience that I had a few years ago, just before we had to vote on the war in Iraq. I took two of my children—it was half term—to the site of the battle of Waterloo, and also to the cemeteries and trenches of the first world war. I am not a great military historian like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland, but I think it important for people to know about their history.

When I saw, face to face, the reality—the enormity—of what armed conflict means in terms of human life, it became very difficult for me to say that I had the right to send people to their deaths. There are times when we have to do it, and I recognise that: I am not a pacifist by nature. However, it makes us all have to think, because making such decisions is not an easy matter. For that reason, I am thankful that I had the opportunity to make that visit.

Let us go forward into these commemorations. Let us try to ensure, for the sake of those men and women who gave their lives—and those men and women whose lives were ruined for ever because of all the trauma, which might have been gassing or might have been just what they saw, and were never really mended afterwards—that those lives were not given in vain. We must do everything we can to try to avoid the follies that we end up going into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Let me first say how appropriate it is to have this debate today as we look forward to Armed Forces day this weekend. I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on their opening remarks, and I pay tribute to the work in this area of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) as the shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport.

I congratulate the Minister not just on his speech today, but on the work he has done over the past few years. I remember meeting him shortly after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative for commemorating the first world war. I give credit to the Minister, because what he envisaged should happen over the four years leading up to the commemoration and what I discussed with him then has actually worked. I refer to the idea that this should not be a celebration driven centrally by the Government; it should be about local communities coming together at a local level to remember not just those who fought and fell in action, but all those who made a contribution in the widest possible sense. I think that he should be congratulated on that vision.

In April, I had the honour of visiting Gallipoli with the Minister. As has already been pointed out today, it is important to recognise that this is not just about the United Kingdom; it is also about the Commonwealth countries that made a contribution during the war—India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Canada—and the other European nations that took part.

I have the privilege to serve as one of the 15 Commonwealth War Graves Commissioners, along with the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). I might refer to the hon. Gentleman as “my hon. Friend”, because I consider him to be a very good friend. I pay tribute not only to the work of the commission and its staff, but to their tremendous dedication. Last year, a gardener in France asked me, “When you think about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, what is the main thing that you think about?” I said, as I always say, that it was the dedication and hard work of the individual members of staff who maintain cemeteries and organise commemorations around the world—in 150 countries, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

One of the projects in which the commission has been involved as part of the commemorations is intended to raise awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and I have been trying to ensure that people are aware of Commonwealth war graves that are in churchyards in their own communities. If Members have not taken the opportunity to visit those graves with the commission’s staff, I urge them to do so. They will find the experience very educational, and I think it important for them to try to involve their local communities in that way.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I would, but I am very short of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on a fantastic maiden speech. Not only did he deliver it with force and passion, but he rightly praised the beauty of his constituency. Having been born in Nottinghamshire, I know the constituency very well. I went there once during the by-election campaign, but I have fonder memories of fishing on the River Trent—with, I have to say, not a great deal of success. I was also pleased to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is so highly thought of in the area, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find out very soon that the same sentiment is not shared among members of the parliamentary Conservative party. I wish him all the best for his parliamentary career, and congratulate him again on his speech.

We have heard 24 very good speeches today, which have demonstrated not only the breadth of knowledge about this subject in the House, but the way in which Members of Parliament are engaging with their constituents, with volunteers and with others to ensure that the story of the first world war and the involvement of their local communities is recognised. The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to Members of Parliament who had fought and died in the war. I think it important to recognise not only those who died but those who fought, because they influenced the debate that took place a generation later in the House. It is clear from the memoirs of Macmillan and Attlee, who fought in the first world war, that their experience brought a certain understanding of the gravity of the decisions that were made a generation later as we entered the second world war.

Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), related personal stories about members of their families who had fought and, in some cases, died in the first world war. I expect that we shall hear more such stories from all over the country over the next four years, as Members engage in family research to find out what their forebears did.

Another important point is that in some contributions and commentary, there is an emphasis that it was all about the western front, but what has been good this afternoon is that a number of Members have recognised that the commemoration has to recognise the idea that it was a world war, with fighting across the globe. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) mentioned the dedication shown by nurses in parts of Serbia, and he raised an issue that we sometimes forget: people not only died of their wounds; a number died of typhus and Spanish flu after the war.

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said that this war was not only on the western front, mentioning the fighting that took place in Mesopotamia. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and it is important, certainly when looking at issues from the first world war and how they impact on our lives today. We can look back and see that the boundaries that were drawn up after the first world war have had and still are having a direct impact in the tragic events in the middle east today.

Many Members have said thanks to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and can I put on record everyone’s thanks for the contribution it is making, in terms of allowing local communities to remember the first world war? From speaking to the Heritage Lottery Fund and from visiting various constituencies, I have been struck by the variety of projects that it is backing: for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth mentioned the excellent Tynemouth world war one project. Also, school groups are putting on plays and villages are holding events about their village at war. In a few weeks’ time, in Sacriston in my constituency, I will be attending a village at war presentation done by the local heritage group. That shows the variety of ways in which we can remember the first world war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland raised the issue of controversy around the first world war, and clearly that continues. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) also raised that issue, and I think he was wrong when he said that this is about the glorification of war. The Minister and the Government have made clear that this is not about celebration or jingoism; it is about remembering what happened during the first world war and how it impacted not only on Parliament and the international situation, but on daily lives. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Heritage Lottery Fund, he will see that it is funding projects including those remembering conscientious objectors, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). The role of conscientious objectors, whether for religious or political reasons, is important to the lessons of and the stories told about the first world war.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), spoke about Belgians. Again, it has been forgotten that during the war, this country opened its arms to large numbers of Belgian refugees, who settled here, fleeing violence in their own country. In the north-east, they made a huge contribution at the Royal Ordnance factory in Birtley to the war effort. I am pleased to announce that later this year, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will be re-erecting a number of headstones in Birtley to honour Belgian soldiers who lost their lives during the first world war.

The home front also featured in a lot of today’s contributions, whether it was the changing role of women, or the contributions made by coal miners and factory workers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central mentioned. In the North Durham coalfield, a huge number of miners not only volunteered for active service, but kept the pits going throughout the first world war to provide the coal that was needed.

There are also examples of people in reserve occupations. One of my predecessors, Jack Lawson, who was Member of Parliament for Chester-le-Street from 1919 to 1949, was in a reserved occupation at the time as a county councillor. When his brother Will was killed at the battle of Ypres in 1915, he volunteered at the age of 39 for service on the western front. That did not stop the Liberals in 1918 accusing him, when he fought the next general election, of being a conscientious objector because he had been a member of the Independent Labour party. That shows the contribution that many communities made across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke about the civilian cost, and it was the first war that brought war to the home front, such as in the bombardment of Hartlepool or the Zeppelin raids mentioned by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

Another great change, which was illustrated in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), is the contribution made from Ireland. We heard stories of Captain O’Neill and Willie Redmond, and today this opportunity is being used to ensure that reconciliation comes into being. I saw that first hand last year when I visited Glasnevin cemetery, and I pay tribute to the group there who are ensuring that there is a fitting memorial and a recognition of the contribution made.

With time pressing I will mention just one other area: education. That has been mentioned by many Members, and is something that we must press not just this year but over the next four years. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is taking his grandson to France, and we must also ensure that children visit local cemeteries to see graves. We must ensure that the sacrifices made during the first world war are not forgotten, and that some of the lessons can be learned.

Defence Spending

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I begin with a double apology? My first apology is for the fact that, unfortunately, as is so often the case, I have committed to addressing a group of people about the workings of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is at 4 o’clock, so I will not be able to return in time for the wind-ups, and I apologise to both Front-Bench teams and to the House more widely for that. My second apology is for the fact that, having only yesterday stepped off a transatlantic plane, my contribution today may be slightly more incoherent even than usual. [Hon. Members: “No, no!”] On cue, all my hon. Friends rush in to disagree, and I am very touched by that.

Seldom does a decade go by without one realising how brilliantly foresighted George Orwell’s classic political novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” was for one reason or another, whether it be on state surveillance, the abuse of linguistics, or—as is relevant to this debate—the constantly shifting conflicts that arise between blocs of countries. Orwell may have had in mind the dilemma of the democracies in the inter-war years, which were torn between confronting Nazism and appeasing it, and between confronting Bolshevism and learning to live with it. Often, the reason why people found that to be such a dilemma was that they felt that they could not do both, and they were not sure which was the greater of the two evils.

These days, one might say that we are in a similar position. The democracies are faced with at least two worrying blocs: the Russia, Iran and Syria axis; and the movement of jihadism on an international scale—this is extremely topical—involving not only the takeover of Muslim countries but the infiltration of non-Muslim countries and the carrying out of terrorist acts there. Whichever side one takes as to which conflict is the more important or which enemy is the greater, the one thing we can all agree on is that we are living in dangerous times indeed. Even the one thing that everybody thought had gone away, namely the traditional cold war threat from the former Soviet Union, has reappeared. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether we are spending enough on defence.

I propose to adopt the Speaker Bercow speech essential that has been drummed into me over 30 long years, which is that any speech, in the House of Commons or elsewhere, should preferably have one main point. My one main point is that I want to hear from the Government that as long as this Government and this Prime Minister are in office, this country will never spend less than the recommended NATO 2% minimum.

My mind goes back—that is the trouble; it happens to people when they have been in this place for a long time—to the beginning of 2007, when The Daily Telegraph reported the Conservatives as bemoaning the fact that

“defence spending as a proportion of the UK’s gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930”.

The article stated:

“Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of the UK’s GDP—or around £32 billion—was likely to be spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88.”

Of course, we know what had happened between the late 1980s and the early 21st century. The cold war had come to an end and there had been something called the peace dividend, so obviously defence spending had declined as a proportion of GDP.

In fact, in 2007, when the Conservatives were sitting on the Opposition Benches, we made much of the fact that when the Labour Government of Tony Blair had come into office they had reduced defence spending as a percentage of GDP in successive years. It went from 2.9% to 2.6%, to 2.8%, to 2.7%, to 2.7% again, to 2.5%, to 2.5% again, to 2.6% and so on. The bit we really did not like about that was that within the rough figure of 2.5% at which it settled was included the cost of the two ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, costs that were officially met from the Treasury reserve but that in reality were effectively met from the core defence budget. If the total figure was 2.5%, it did not really matter which budget was taking the cut, as it were, but effectively the real defence budget was much nearer 2.1% or 2.2%. That is where we stand at the moment, including the costs of our current military operational deployments. I must give immense congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who has consistently raised that point. As he pointed out, the figures quoted in the Financial Times on 16 June suggested that

“the UK’s military expenditure will hit 1.9% of the size of the country’s economy by 2017,”

which would, of course, be below the NATO target of 2%.

I found it almost incredible that this Government would ever dip below the 2% NATO GDP recommended minimum, so I have been trying to get the Prime Minister to confirm that we would do no such thing. I have not been doing too well. There was an exchange on 26 March in which the Prime Minister said:

“We should encourage other countries to do what Britain is doing in matching our at-least-2% contribution in terms of GDP and defence spending.”

I thought that that was an opportunity for me to be helpful to him, as I like to be when I can, and I intervened and said:

“May I take it from what the Prime Minister has just said that there is then no question of the British defence budget dropping below 2% of GDP?”

His answer was:

“We currently meet the 2% threshold. These things are calculated by different countries in different ways, but I am confident that we will go on meeting our obligations to NATO.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 359.]

That sounded reasonably encouraging, but he did not actually say that we were going to keep on spending the 2%, so I tried again on 7 May. This time, I asked whether he would

“confirm that under his leadership this country will never spend less than the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP on defence”,

to which the answer was:

“We are spending in excess of 2% and we are one of the only countries in Europe to do that. The Greeks, I believe, are spending more than 2% but, if I can put it this way, not all on things that are useful for all of NATO. We should continue to make sure we fulfil all our commitments on defence spending.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 147.]

My final attempt was on 4 June when I again asked the Prime Minister to give that commitment, and he said:

“It is very important to meet such commitments. We will set our detailed plans in our manifesto, but throughout the time for which I have been Prime Minister, we have kept—more than kept—that commitment”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 23-24.]

This is all very encouraging stuff and I like to think that the thing is that we have a NATO summit coming up.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman need only to look at the Red Book, where the figures used in the Financial Times are quite clear. There is no need to wait for the manifesto.

[Dr Lewis]

I am talking about trying to get a future commitment. I want to hear that as long as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is Prime Minister this country will always spend the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP on defence. We have not quite had that commitment yet. He might be intending to make that commitment at the NATO summit and to encourage other NATO countries to do the same, in which case I will applaud him. I do not wish to spoil his timing.

I will conclude with this point: it is necessary and understandable that this country’s intelligence services have a policy of “neither confirm, nor deny” in certain areas, but I do not think that that policy will do for this country’s Government when it comes to saying how much, as a minimum, we will spend on the defence of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this timely debate. It is healthy that on a Thursday when there is a one-line Whip, there is such pressure on time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute. That reflects the importance of the subject.

As always, it is right to begin by paying tribute to the professionalism and courage of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they so often make. We owe them our thanks.

The world in which the armed forces and the British Government operate is changing. We have rightly talked about the changing nature of the threats, but another way in which the world has changed is that our financial resources are not as great as they were. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) understands that. He mentioned by how much China is increasing its defence expenditure. I quickly looked up the figures of the International Monetary Fund on gross government debt as a percentage of GDP. China’s is only 22%; ours is 90%. That is a risky financial situation and is one of the reasons why we must have good fiscal discipline.

Otherwise, we might end up in the same situation as some of our NATO allies. Italy’s gross government debt as a percentage of GDP is 126%. Greece’s is 158%. If they allow that to continue, we all know what path they will have to go down—they will have to cut all sorts of expenditure, not least defence expenditure. If I had to speculate as to why Greece is one of the few countries within NATO that is achieving the 2% target for defence spending as a percentage of GDP, I would suggest that it is less to do with skyrocketing defence expenditure than with plummeting GDP.

That is one reason why we have to be a little careful about using such absolute percentages. If we were spending just above 2% and we had a good year in which GDP grew unexpectedly, we might fall below 2% mathematically without cutting our defence expenditure. If that happened temporarily, we would all regret it, but we must not fixate too much on the absolute percentage. Nevertheless, I agree with the broad thrust of the many contributors who have said that we need to encourage other NATO partners, when they can afford to do so, to step up to the plate. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) that we cannot guarantee that America will continue effectively to subsidise the defence of Europe. We have seen the risk of American isolationism in the past and it may well raise its head again.

I do not have much time to talk about how we can economise on our defence, but I emphasise that we are still spending £38 billion in 2014-15, giving us one of the best-equipped and most technically advanced military forces in the world. It is still arguably the fourth largest defence budget in the world—it depends on whose figures we use, but I think the worst estimate that I have seen is that it is the sixth largest, which is still substantial for a country of our size—and we are over the 2% of GDP target for NATO members at the moment. We are constructing the two largest aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy’s history, and we are planning a fleet of destroyers, a new fleet of both nuclear and conventionally armed submarines and, further ahead, the joint strike fighter and the Type 26 frigate.

That will all put intense pressure on our defence budget, so we have to consider ways in which we can make it more cost-effective. That is not just about budget cuts—it is a great tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence that he has put such emphasis on efficiency and better management. He may have been slightly disappointed not to have become Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the outset of the coalition, but the Treasury’s loss has been the gain of first the Department for Transport and then the Ministry of Defence. He protected investment in transport infrastructure, and he has been good at prioritising more efficient defence spending and procurement. Both the 2010 strategic defence and security review—the first for 12 years, it has to be said—and more recently the Defence Reform Act 2014 have emphasised the strengthening and reform of defence procurement, perhaps saving as much as £1 billion a year. That compares with the last year of the Labour Government—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Yes, I have heard that and I am sure there is an element of truth to it. I argue, however—I do not want to go too far down this road—that if a country cannot grow crops, for example, we should send them not billions of pounds but a farmer: we teach them how to do it. That is the way to help people help themselves. If we give them billions or millions of pounds, the money tends to disappear down a plughole or, worse, into some despot’s back pocket and a new fleet of Mercedes-Benz.

I wonder whether some politicians in the House—dare I say, perhaps the more modern politicians—really understand what our armed forces are about. I mean no disrespect to them, but they have not served. I do not say that because I and other Members of the House have served that we are any better, or even any better informed, but I believe we have an instinct—a gut feeling—that the armed forces in our country are the very backbone of the United Kingdom because of our history, and we ignore our history at our peril.

When I was serving in the 1980s we had the Falklands war. Many of my friends went down there and served with great distinction, as did they all. Expenditure then was more than 5% of GDP, and I understand we had more than 60 warships. Expenditure is now 2% of GDP, and we have 19 warships. I do not understand what has changed in the intervening years.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Technology.

[Richard Drax]

The shadow Minister says technology, and I agree that technology has changed. However, if we have one superb aircraft carrier and 10 Chinese submarines, and those submarines sink our superb aircraft carrier, we have nothing left. Technology is great, but it can be in only one place at one time, although it has a role to play.

Let me mention the list of responsibilities and wars that we have been involved in—I just literally scribbled them down. I asked what has changed, and my answer is “nothing”. The list contains Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Russia—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), Russia is flexing its muscles, not least in the northern approaches with its submarine fleet and in the air—as well as piracy on the high seas and the Pacific. We as a country have other responsibilities. Northern Ireland has not gone away, and—God forbid it ever happens again—let us not forget that we had 35,000 troops at the height of the troubles. The list goes on: Malta, Gibraltar, Cyprus, the Falklands, Belize, and now Kenya and getting our citizens out of that country if it implodes. We also have NATO commitments, aid to the third world and disaster relief. Those are just some of the vast array of the United Kingdom’s responsibilities.

We are a tiny country with a small budget compared with many others, but we have had and still have huge responsibilities because we stand up—as we have always done—for freedom, democracy and the rule of law. To do that we need some muscle behind us in the event it all goes wrong. As sure as eggs are eggs and history is history it does go wrong, and the Falklands war is a classic case in point. As I have said, we would be pushed to retake those islands were they to be taken now, with no aircraft carrier and no air cover.

I also wish to touch on rumoured reports on the cuts and expenditure. A report of 15 June commissioned from within the British armed forces shows that UK spending will fall to 1.9% in 2017, and 1.6% in 2024-25. Will the Minister assure me that that is not the case?

My father and grandfather served in the Royal Navy with great distinction. My grandfather would be turning in his grave. My father is not in his—a long way from it, God bless him—but he is certainly not a happy man. As Admiral Lord West said, the state of our Royal Navy now is a national disgrace. Freedom comes at a price and we must be prepared to pay it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for proposing today’s debate and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for introducing it. We have heard 11 contributions on the broad theme of the level of defence expenditure, while some of the new and developing threats to our nation have also been highlighted.

The debate is timely in light of last week’s National Audit Office report on Army 2020. I have seen many NAO and Select Committee reports over the years, but I have to say that this one has to be the most damning and critical I have ever read. The report is important, because it sums up all the shortcomings that characterise this Government’s position on defence. It also shows how the Defence Secretary simply failed to do his basic homework when it came to the Army 2020 reforms.

On page 7, the report says:

“The Department did not test whether increasing the trained strength of the Army Reserve to 30,000 was feasible”.

On page 8, it says:

“The Department did not fully assess the value for money of its decision to reduce the size of the Army.”

On page 19, it goes on to say:

“The Department…did not have a mature workforce model or good data to help it accurately assess how long it would take to recruit the required number of reserves”.

This is not rocket science—these are basic things that the Secretary of State for Defence failed to do in putting forward this defence reform.

Is it any wonder, then, that recruitment to the reserves is stalling? As of April 2014, the trained strength of the Army Reserve was 19,400 personnel, which has actually fallen in number since the plan was announced in 2012. That means that the reserves have recruited 67% fewer personnel than was planned for at this stage, and it is clear exactly how that has been allowed to happen. A series of preventable IT blunders were made because Ministers failed to follow through on their contractual obligations to Capita, the company selected to manage Army and armed forces recruitment. As a result of that basic incompetence, the taxpayer has incurred additional costs of around £70 million, written off an extra £6 million and, on top of all that, is spending an extra £1 million a month until the problem can be solved.

Since his first day in office, the Defence Secretary has prioritised the Treasury bidding and the need to ensure that the MOD meets the Chancellor’s deadline for cuts above all else. It is clear, and the NAO confirms, that there is only one element of the Army reforms on which the Government are making steady progress. It will not surprise Members to learn that, according to page 9 of the NAO report,

“The Army is ahead of its target to reduce its military staff…and deliver the staffing savings required by its reduced budget.”

Last week 1,000 more servicemen and women were made redundant, in addition to the thousands who had already lost their jobs. If Ministers had put as much effort into the detail of the Army 2020 reforms as they are putting into the issuing of P45s, Army 2020 might not be in its present parlous state.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

One sentiment has featured very largely in all the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. Obviously, much has been said about the 2% figure to which we aspire, but a deeper theme has emerged. It has been pointed out that modern politicians are often subject to short-term pressures, but these are, in fact, very long-term issues. I say that as someone who comes from a dual cultural background. When I speak to people in the east, they tend to say that we do not often have the stomach, the commitment or the long-term view to tackle these issues head on.

[Mr Jones]

This is not about a long-term plan; it is about basic competence, which the NAO report has clearly called into question. The report warns that there are “significant risks” to the Army’s operational capability because of the Government’s incompetence in handling these reforms. That is why we have called on the Government not to proceed with their redundancy programme until they have seen evidence that the recruitment of reserves has increased enough to fill the gap.

Defence Ministers have developed a habit of returning to a small number of stock phrases and soundbites, usually when their record is under pressure, and I look forward to the Minister’s trotting out a few of them today. No doubt we shall hear—as this has been their mindset from the start—that the Government had no choice but to make these reductions, because they had inherited a £38 billion “black hole” from their predecessors. Let me, for the umpteenth time, quote from the National Audit Office’s 2009 report. It states:

“The size of the gap is highly sensitive to the budget growth assumptions used. If the Defence budget remained constant in real terms, and using the Department’s forecast for defence inflation of 2.7 per cent, the gap would now be £6 billion over the ten years”—

not the one year that has been cited by some Government Members. No doubt the Government do not want to talk about the fact that the “black hole” has now increased to £74 billion because of the 9% spending reduction in 2010. No one seems to know where they got the £38 billion figure from. I suppose they think that if they repeat it for long enough, people will actually believe in it.

Remarkably, it was the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who first claimed, in September 2011, that he had eradicated the “black hole” in less than a year. Six months later, the present Secretary of State claimed that he had plugged the gap. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who exactly should be credited with this feat. Those two individuals have clearly missed their vocation: if they can make a £38 billion “black hole” disappear in less than 12 months, they should have gone to the Treasury rather than the Ministry of Defence.

At a time when the Government are sacking highly skilled, experienced and brave servicemen and women and scrapping key elements of defence equipment, Ministers must be honest with our forces and the public about why they underspent their 2012-13 budget by almost £2 billion. They also tell us that the UK still has the fourth largest defence budget in the world. That may be true, but we on the Opposition Benches believe such a statistic has little meaning if the allocated budget is not actually being spent, and it is on this count that the Government have failed spectacularly. They gave us aircraft carriers without aircraft. They scrapped the Nimrod programme when three of the aircraft were almost 90% complete, leaving the MOD reliant on Twitter to counter the maritime surveillance threat. They have also sacked regular soldiers before waiting to see whether increased reserve numbers would be able to meet the shortfall.

As the NAO report summarises, the Government

“did not fully assess the value for money of its decision to reduce the size of the Army.”

If the Minister reads the report, he will see that the fact of the matter is that recruiting reservists will be more expensive than having regulars, and that cost will have to be picked up by the Treasury some time in the future. I refer him to page 8 of the report if he wants to read that later.

It is clear that when deciding the future size of the Army, the Government decided on cost savings as their first principle, rather than any strategic underpinning of their decision. The NAO report makes clear on page 6 that

“The future size of the Army was determined by the need to make financial savings”—

an approach which has characterised the MOD under this Government.

Commentators and the Select Committee agree that, blindsided by the desire to achieve savings above all else, strategic considerations have been sacrificed in favour of reductions in personnel and capability. Unfortunately, some people are having to carry the can for this—unfairly, I would suggest. The current Chief of the Defence Staff offered perhaps the most candid description of Army 2020 when he told the Select Committee on Defence:

“I remember the genesis very clearly. It was a financially driven plan. We had to design a new structure that included the run-down of the 102,000 Regular Army to 82,000, which is pretty well advanced now, to follow a funding line that was driven by the austerity with which everybody is very familiar…It triggered the complete redesign of the Army.”

[Mr Brazier]

I have written a reply to that report because I do not agree with it, but all the report says is that there are extra costs associated with recruiting for the next year and a half until the new system is in place, and it also queries some of the figures the MOD has put forward, but it nowhere actually suggests that a man or woman who is employed only for 40 days a year could cost more than a regular soldier. It—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This debate finishes at 5 o’clock on the dot, and we have not yet heard from the Minister.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman should read chapter 11, on page 8 of the report.

We believe the approach adopted is damagingly short-sighted and plays fast and loose with our nation’s security.

[Jack Lopresti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I would do, but unfortunately I do not have the time.

Our approach is clear. Instead of having the Treasury-led SDSR conducted by this Government, we believe the UK needs a defence review that is genuinely strategic as well as financially viable. For us, these two factors are two sides of the same coin. This country needs an SDSR that provides strategic leadership and asks the most fundamental questions of all in terms of defence: what do we want our armed forces to actually do? As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), outlined in his Royal United Services Institute speech, we have got to be ambitious, but we also believe that to withdraw from the rest of the world as though it is not part of our problem is neither desirable nor possible to achieve. We are also realistic and know there are no gains to be made from promises that cannot be delivered; we saw too many of those at the last election by the Conservative party.

It is only by asking these questions and delivering the strategic leadership this Government have signally failed to offer that we can do our armed forces and the British public justice.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important debate. Seventy years ago this month saw the success of Operation Overlord. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the allied forces who crossed the channel on D-day and who were quite rightly commemorated at events in Normandy recently. Not least of those was former Royal Navy Lieutenant Bernard Jordan who slipped away from his care home to join his former comrades, but thanks to a comprehensive information-operations campaign, assisted by the national press, he mitigated the potential wrath of both Mrs Jordan and his care home on his return. I am sure that the House will want to join me in wishing him well on his 90th birthday, which falls this week.

On Tuesday, I was privileged to attend a memorial service for those members of the 7th Armoured Brigade who lost their lives in their recent tour of Afghanistan, reminding us all in this House that our armed forces continue to exhibit the utmost courage and bravery on our nation’s behalf.

Finally on personnel matters, I understand that my opposite number, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), is getting married next week. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I wish him all the best for the future, but I must caution him that this key decision may have important budgetary consequences in the long term.

[Mr Jones]

It already has.

[Mr Francois]

Having paid tribute to our personnel, both past and present, I wish to focus now on the Ministry of Defence’s capital programme, which is the largest in Government, accounting for some 20% of total capital spending this year. Our equipment programme comprises some £164 billion over 10 years, and is already published in our defence equipment plan. This will ensure that the Royal Navy continues to be one of the premier navies in the world by procuring and supporting, among other things, two new 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers, with HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of class, due to be floated up next month in Rosyth; seven Astute-class nuclear attack submarines; six Type 45 destroyers, plus the beginning of the transition from the Type 23 frigate to the new Type 26 global combat ship, which will maintain a force of 19 frigates and destroyers, but with other surface warships as well, including a strong amphibious capability led by HMS Ocean. That amphibious squadron will be able, arguably, to transport the most effective maritime infantry force in the world, the Royal Marines, who celebrate their 350th anniversary this year.

Crucially, we are also making full provision for the successor deterrent system, providing the ultimate guarantee of our national security, and a re-elected Conservative Government will continue with that programme. In mentioning this, I pay tribute to all those who have supported the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent and who have made sure that since April 1969 the Royal Navy’s ballistic missile boats have not missed one single day on patrol.

Turning to the Royal Air Force, we are investing to enhance the Typhoon via tranche 2 and tranche 3 upgrades to maintain its battle-winning edge, and to procure the new F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, placing this country as the only level 1 partner with the US in this key programme. We will further extend our global reach via a highly capable air transport fleet represented by the C-17 and C-130 aircraft, which are now being reinforced by Voyager, as well as the new Airbus A400M Atlas, the first of which is due to enter service before the end of the year. Combined, that will provide us with one of the largest and most modern air transport fleets anywhere in the western world. In addition, we have just taken delivery of the first of 14 new heavy-lift Chinook Mark 6 helicopters at RAF Odiham, which means that the UK has the largest Chinook fleet in Europe.

As part of the next strategic defence and security review, we will be examining the question of a maritime patrol aircraft to see what, if anything, can be done about this area of capability. We will do that as part of the SDSR, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has taken a particular and long-standing interest in this subject.

As an ex-soldier, I should also add that we are ensuring that the Army remains well equipped. We will: upgrade the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle and also the Challenger 2 main battle tank; expand our fleet of battle-proven Foxhound armoured vehicles; upgrade our fleet of Apache attack helicopters; and procure the new Scout specialist reconnaissance vehicles.

Furthermore and importantly, we are significantly increasing our investment in cyber security—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile)—ensuring that our armed forces are equipped with cutting edge capabilities across all environments. That investment is not only securing the best possible military capability, but helping to secure UK jobs and growth to help complement our long-term economic plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The ombudsman will play a huge part in making sure that all our services, notably the Army, now really do improve their statistics, but there are other measures that we need to introduce by way of legislation. The system needs to change, and I am confident that the sorts of proposals that Dr Atkins has come up with, many of which, if not all of them, I support, as do others, will make the sort of progress that we really now must see.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I add my thanks to Susan Atkins, who has done a great job in establishing the service complaints ombudsman. The Minister mentioned the ombudsman, and it was welcomed across the House when the Government announced that they would go down that route. Can the Minister tell me the exact time scale? Will legislative time be found in the next Session to ensure that the ombudsman is in place before the next general election?

[Anna Soubry]

I think we all know that I cannot say, even if I knew, whether any such legislative moves will be made in the Queen’s Speech.