Army 2020

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We have been treated to a lecture on the strategic context by a member of a Government who did not conduct a strategic defence review in 12 years. We have been told about reductions in the Army by a shadow spokesman who wrote to his party’s leader saying that they would have to examine the structure of the Army and that he recognised the need for manpower reductions. The Labour leader wrote back to him saying that

“we can expect to have to make further savings after the next election”.

What we have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman today is any kind of plan for how he would manage the £38 billion deficit in the Ministry of Defence’s budget that we inherited from him—no plan, no clue.

Let me address some of the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He referred to Germany and France. Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defence, while this country spends 2.1% of its GDP on defence. He talked about France. France is only at the beginning of a fiscal review that will lead to the production of a new livre blanc in the spring for the French armed forces. If he knows that there will not be cuts in the French armed forces, he is better informed than I and better informed than most of the French politicians and staff officers to whom I talk.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about sustainability. One of the achievements of the work that has been carried out over the past few months—it has been a huge piece of work—is the maintenance of capability through an intelligent approach to the challenge of doing more with less. We are using the reserves more intelligently, using our contractors more effectively and reshaping the Army—this process is about the shape of the Army in the future—to improve the tooth-to-tail ratio. We are ensuring that the manpower cuts are made in the areas that will have the least impact on the Army’s fighting capability. I assure him that the Army will be able to deliver the SDSR outputs required of it.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the strength of individual units. He referred to a leaked letter from the colonel of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The Army has looked at the recruiting ability of regiments and battalions not at a spot-point in time, but over a period of 10 years. It has looked at the demographic projections in the areas where the regiments and battalions recruit and drawn the appropriate conclusions.

The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand how a public duties incremental company works. The 100 or so men who make up the PDIC in Scotland will be drawn in rotation from the other battalions in the Royal Regiment of Scotland, so no one will serve a career in the Army being, as he disparagingly put it, photographed by tourists.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the arrangement of affairs within the regiments where battalions are being lost. He asked specifically about the Green Howards and the Duke of Wellington’s. When battalions are withdrawn, it is for the regiments to decide how the antecedents and the thread behind those battalions are merged into the other battalions.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the reserves. We are talking about an Army reserve of 30,000 trained strength, not 15,000 as he mentioned. Reserves will be deployed on operations. That is what will give the Army its sustainability in the future. On an enduring operation, we would expect the first six-month tours to comprise less than 10% reserves, with the reaction forces making up the bulk of the land forces.

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

It’s 12 months.

[Mr Hammond]

It is six months. In the fourth and fifth turns of the handle, we would expect reserves to make up as much as 30% of the deployed force.

Defence Reform

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the need for defence reform; notes with concern the speed and depth of redundancies and the threat to historic regiments and battalions; supports the armed forces covenant but is anxious about the implications of changes to Service pensions and allowances and the effect of these and other measures on morale; further recognises the necessity of an advanced equipment programme but is worried about capability gaps, notably carrier strike; calls on the Government to end disadvantage and discrimination against the Service community in order to strengthen the covenant; and further calls on the Government to reassess the assumptions on which the Strategic Defence and Security Review was based.

Let me begin by acknowledging the courage and professionalism of our armed forces and recognising the invaluable support provided to them by their families. I know that that sentiment will be shared by all Members in the House. We ask servicemen and women to risk making the ultimate sacrifice, and to forgo many freedoms in the name of our national security. Their contribution to our safety must never be forgotten or underestimated.

Opposition Members recognise that our armed forces cannot be allowed to stand still. The combination of changing threats in an increasingly uncertain world with budgetary challenges means that we must be ahead of the curve in terms of technology and the tactics that we apply. We must be bold and practical in order to create an efficient fighting force which serves the primary requirement of our national security while also ensuring that we do the right thing on behalf of our servicemen and women and their families.

The major conflicts of recent history are drawing to a close. Meanwhile, a wave of popular uprisings throughout the middle east poses new challenges, as do new technologies and threats from cyber. Global changes will alter the balance of power, risk and how resources are allocated in the modern world. That is why Opposition Members support armed forces reform. Since May 2010, we have not opposed the Government simply for opposition’s sake. National security and support for our armed forces are worth more than cheap political point-scoring, although when we believe that the Government have made an error or strayed from their pre-election pledges, we will righty criticise and scrutinise their decisions.

We welcome the coalition’s commitment in 2010 to launch the security review. It built on the Green Paper published by the last Government, and our commitment in the last Parliament to undertake a defence review. Unfortunately, however, the one thing the coalition Government’s strategic defence and security review was not was strategic. The SDSR has unravelled quickly, displaying the same short-term, ad hoc and rushed decision making that is becoming characteristic of many areas of Government policy. The decisions that have been taken have left Britain with serious gaps in its defence capability. Events in the middle east last year—the Arab spring uprisings—were not foreseen, which meant the review was rendered out of date almost as soon as it had been printed. The Government were forced to use resources they had planned to scrap and bring back capability at very short notice.

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

The motion calls for a reassessment of the “assumptions” on which the SDSR was based. Which assumptions does the shadow Minister not agree with?

[Mr Jones]

I know the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in defence issues, but if he had read the Green Paper he would have seen that it takes a strategic look at the world. The SDSR was very rushed, and did not have the long public consultation and engagement with stakeholders that the 1998 review had. It was basically a Treasury-led review, which has resulted in some strange decisions that I shall describe later, which have affected the capability and capacity of our armed forces.

[Mr Gray]

I am simply focusing on the word “assumptions”. In the motion, the Labour party criticises the assumptions that lay behind the SDSR. My opinion is that those assumptions are absolutely fine—although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the other detail was not so good. Which of the assumptions behind the SDSR does he not like?

[Mr Jones]

I would talk about the developing situation in the middle east, some of the decisions made post-SDSR in taking away maritime capability, and the whole issue of the deployability of our armed forces. All those decisions were taken within a financial straitjacket, instead of addressing questions such as where we need to deploy in the world and what our priorities are. That has overridden the security needs that are so vital and that were outlined so well in the Green Paper.

As a former Ministry of Defence Minister, I know only too well that the easiest ways to make the kind of in-year savings in the defence budget that are being demanded by the Treasury are to scrap capability or to make personnel cuts. However, the Government have scrapped important capabilities—Nimrod and the Harrier fleet—without any plans as to how they will be replaced. It appears that Ministers have been inflexible in their pursuit of short-term savings at the expense of our long-term security. Too often we are given the impression that the Government are presiding over decline, rather than planning for the future. The Government must reassess the security and spending assumptions on which the review was based.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

How would a Labour Government have dealt with the £38 billion overhang that the Conservatives inherited from the previous Labour Government? Also, is the hon. Gentleman saying he would, in fact, spend more on defence than the current Government? He should be explicit about that, but his motion is not explicit.

[Mr Jones]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has asked about the £38 billion black hole, because it has become folklore, but the Government have not produced any evidence to justify that figure. Let me quote from an excellent Defence Committee report—which I am surprised he has not read as he is a former member of that Committee. It says:

“We note that the MOD now state the genuine size of the gap is substantially in excess of £38 billion. However, we also note the Secretary of State’s assertion that the ‘for the first time in a generation, the MOD will have brought its plans and budget broadly into balance, allowing it to plan with confidence for the delivery of the future equipment programme’. Without proper detailed figures neither statement can be verified.”

We should also consider the evidence given to the Committee by the then Secretary of State. He promised the Committee he would give details, but the final report states, at paragraph 205:

“We are surprised that this assessment has not yet begun and expect to receive a timetable for this exercise in response to this Report.”

The £38 billion figure has been bandied around ever since it was spun out of Conservative central office in the election campaign. The Government have been asked on numerous occasions to justify it, but they have not done so. They should.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On the subject of wasting taxpayers’ money, the Government said last week that almost £39 million had been spent on preparing the carriers for “cats and traps” and the variant carrier aircraft, but the media says a quarter of a billion pounds have been spent. How much money does my hon. Friend think the Government have wasted?

[Mr Jones]

As with the £38 billion figure, the Government are very good at not explaining their mistakes. The original figure was, I think, £37 million. It then rose to £39 million, but the MOD subsequently briefed that it was £100 million. However, some informed sources say that it could be upwards of £250 million. The Government should state how much was spent in respect of that disastrous decision, which was taken at a time when the defence budget was experiencing savage cuts. They seem to have swept this matter aside, however, as if it is not important.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The hon. Gentleman is right: £38 billion is a huge amount of money. However, I should draw his attention to a note entitled:

“Note to Ed Miliband: Defence team work update”.

It states that Labour needs to be

“credible on defence spending and neutralising the ‘£38bn’ charge, which is our biggest weakness.”

So the Labour Defence team think that that charge is Labour’s biggest weakness.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister is making various assumptions, which is not unusual for him. That note says precisely what I am saying today, which is that we need to shoot down this erroneous myth that has been put about by this Government. If he wants more evidence on this, he should read the National Audit Office “Major Projects Report 2009”. It says of the defence budget:

“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. If, as is possible given the general economic position, there was no increase in the defence budget in cash terms over the same ten year period, the gap would rise to £36 billion.”

Even the NAO did not reach the £38 billion figure, therefore. I acknowledge that the figure it gives is £2 billion out and this Government seem to think such sums are unimportant, but I have just quoted from the NAO report. That is possibly where Conservative central office first got the figure of £36 billion, but there is a big difference between £36 billion and £38 billion. The £36 billion is based on an assumption of a flat-cash budget over the next 10 years and every single item in the equipment budget being maintained, when everyone who has ever been involved in MOD matters knows that things come into the equipment budget and things fall out of the equipment budget.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Defence Committee was advised in one of its briefings that the projected figure of £38 billion included a roll-forward of all items on wish lists—not things for which contracts had been let, but items the MOD had expressed a possible interest in purchasing for the future. This was, we were told, the equivalent of an individual becoming bankrupt because they fancied buying a Ferrari but never actually bought one.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Let me quote from the evidence given to the Select Committee by the former Secretary of State. In response to a question from a Member, he said:

“There is a huge ability to reduce a very large proportion of that. My guess is that of that £38 billion we are talking of something like £8 billion to £9 billion, and that is a ballpark figure.”

During that evidence session, he gave a commitment to the Select Committee Chair that he would write giving details of how he arrived at that figure, but he did not. The Committee was still waiting for that information when the report was produced, but it did not appear. I heard one of the Government Front Benchers scoff when I said that certain things move in and out of budget, but they clearly do. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right: the Government racked up everything in the programme over a 10-year period and assumed that it would all be delivered. That is similar to the argument used about pension black holes, the assumption being that all the money is paid out, today. That is not the way the defence procurement budget is structured.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The Government obviously intend to keep the myth going, and who could blame them for that? However, can my hon. Friend explain how, on two separate occasions—we should remember that this Government have only been in power for a little over two years—two separate Secretaries of State can have claimed that the £38 billion gap has already gone and that the budget is now in balance? If the imbalance was as large as they alleged, how on earth have two separate Secretaries of State been able to claim within two years that the budget is in balance already?

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend, like me, knows the MOD budget very well. Clearly, what the Government have done is to take out in-year capability. We should also remember the reductions in armed forces personnel—the people who are paying for some of this. My right hon. Friend is correct: the idea that such a big black hole can be filled in two years is complete nonsense. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), says that it is 10 years, but that is not the impression the Government have been giving. All their decisions, such as slashing personnel numbers, are predicated on this £38 billion black hole. Earlier last year, the previous Secretary of State stopped using that figure—for a while. Suddenly, under the new Secretary of State, it has come back. The Government have got to explain their use of it, because it is the entire raison d’être for some of the cuts they are making.

[Mr Jenkin]

I remind the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) that the £38 billion figure was furnished to the Defence Committee under the previous Labour Government when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. At the same time, Mr Bernard Gray produced a report saying that, on present plans, the MOD could order no new equipment at all for the next 10 years, so dire was the state of its finances. It is only by bringing defence spending within the Department back into balance that any new equipment has been able to be ordered at all.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry but that is complete nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should read the NAO report that I referred to earlier, which makes the assumption that many people have made in respect of flat cash. I will read the quote again, because he has obviously not picked up the argument:

“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”.

There is a huge difference between £6 billion and the £38 billion figure that the Government are claiming. Even if, in line with the NAO report, we assume a flat cash budget for 10 years, we only get to a figure of £36 billion. Where the Government get the extra £2 billion from, I do not know. This issue was also dealt with in Bernard Gray’s report, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, the £38 billion figure is based on the principle that every single piece of equipment that was planned for would actually be delivered. However, anyone who knows the defence budget knows that that is not how things work. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the £38 billion figure is a fiction, and this Government have got to justify it, because they are using it to justify some of their most draconian cuts, not only in equipment but to the service terms and conditions of members of our armed forces.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that there is a gap and that it could be up to £36 billion. What is the gap?

[Mr Jones]

Let me read what the NAO report says—for the third time:

“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.”

The figure of £36 billion is reached only if flat cash over 10 years is included. Ministers said that the £38 billion figure is over 10 years—that is not the impression they have been giving to the media, the armed forces and the public. Instead, they have been suggesting that we somehow have to lay our hands instantly on £38 billion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East said, the idea that that figure can be wiped out in two years is an accounting fantasy.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Listening to this debate, the one thing that is clear and that the hon. Gentleman accepts is that there is a gap, be it £6 billion or £38 billion. Given that there is a gap, why did the last Government not balance the budget?

[Mr Jones]

We were on line in that regard. One of the jobs that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East gave me when he was Secretary of State—it was something of a poisoned chalice—was to draw up some reductions. Just before the general election, I had already identified some £1.2 billion of savings, but some of that involved investing money in order to save it. The problem at the moment is that the Treasury want instant cash out of the budget, and the only way to do that is to slash personnel and equipment straight away. The more sensible approach that we were going to implement was a planned phase of three to five years, involving some investment and some reductions. That is in stark contrast to the Government’s approach. What is driving this process is not defence strategy but the desire of this Government and the Treasury to take 8% out of the budget in years one and two. That has led to the short-termism we are seeing now.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

If the gap is a mere £6 billion, as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, does he believe that that in itself is acceptable—yes or no?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, because some of the programme was not committed. The former Secretary of State was asked by the Defence Committee how much of that budget was committed, and quite a large portion of it was not. One approach could be to delay projects, as this Government and the previous Government have done, or to cancel them.

When the previous Secretary of State took office, he said that he was going to save a load of money by renegotiating contracts with various suppliers. We have yet to see a single example of his having been able to renegotiate procurement contracts and make great savings. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am not going to take any lessons from the Conservatives on the carriers, given that they have wasted upwards of £100 million through a decision that—[Interruption.] Government Members are shouting, but I do not remember either the Minister for the Armed Forces, or the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire, saying when in opposition that the carriers should not be ordered. That is the problem: they were calling then not only for the carriers, but for a larger Army and a larger Navy, but now that they are in government they are doing completely the opposite.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman interested in the fact that the Royal United Services Institute, which is known for being a very independent-minded organisation, stated in September 2011:

“Whichever detailed assumptions are made, however, there was no doubt that the funding gap was large and real. It would take considerable energy, and political cost…to escape from…It was, in a very real sense, a black hole.”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is fine—[Interruption.] Well, it is fine; if it was true that the previous Government were doing nothing to address the situation, that would not be the case. But if the Government are going to claim that the black hole is £38 billion, there is an onus on them to explain in detail exactly how they arrived at that figure, because they are using it to justify every single reduction in defence expenditure that they are making. It is important that they do that. We had plans to balance the budget.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be accepting that there is a black hole. He denies that it is a £38 billion black hole, but he will not say whether it is a big black hole or a little black hole. What was the size of his black hole?

[Mr Jones]

The last Labour Government were committed to looking for efficiencies and reviewing the procurement contracts. So some of the things that were planned would not have been procured, which would have closed that black hole to which the hon. Gentleman refers. [Interruption.] He asks me what the size of the black hole was. He and others have kept saying it is a £38 billion black hole, but if that is the Government’s sole justification for what they are doing, they should have the guts to explain it to the public.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

One of the battalions that recruits from my constituency, 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, is one of only two specialised mechanised infantry battalions. It is due to be disbanded under the current proposals, so is it a proper use of public money for it to be disbanded only for these specialised services to have to be recruited again?

[Mr Jones]

There are so many leaks coming from the Ministry of Defence, some official and some unofficial, and it is not helping the process. We are seeing a ludicrous situation whereby in order to claim that the headcount of MOD civil servants, in particular, is being reduced, people are being made redundant only then to be rehired as consultants, at huge cost to the taxpayer.

Last month, the Secretary of State told the House that he had brought the MOD budget “back into balance”. Every announcement or decision made by the Government is based on that claim; he says that he has “balanced the defence budget”. However, unless we get hard evidence soon, it will remain impossible for us to believe those claims. Ministers must be honest with our armed forces men and women, who deserve to know the full picture of the MOD budget so that they can understand why they are having to undertake the pain that they are taking under this coalition Government.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has said that the previous Labour Government had looked at making £1.2 billion-worth of cuts. Will he share with the House details of where those cuts would have fallen?

[Mr Jones]

One example is that we would have taken some strategic decisions on basing around the world. I must say that, in the spirit of co-operation, I gave one of the papers to my good friend the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) to assist him in the process. Some efficiency savings could have been made, including some through restructuring the Army and other things. The other point to make is that some of these things also needed investment, and I had been given clearance by the Treasury in some areas to invest to make longer-term savings. They were not just in-year savings to try to satisfy the Treasury and the deficit reduction programme on which this Government are embarking.

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

Can we leave black holes to one side for the minute and concentrate on the Black Watch? On Saturday, the colours of the Black Watch were lowered for the last time, marking its passing as a regiment. It was the Labour party that amalgamated the Scottish regiments and they are fighting for their survival now as a battalion with cap badges, insignia and the heritage and culture that has been maintained. The Labour party moots a threat to the battalions and our regiments, so will it support us in ensuring that their survival continues and that the fantastic heritage and culture will be continued in the Royal Regiment?

[Mr Jones]

I understand people’s emotional attachment to the regiments, and I understand the proud traditions and how they are held. However, I must say that I always find the Scottish National party talking about this issue difficult. If we had an independent Scotland, not only would many of these regiments doubtless have their cap badges removed, but they would be abolished altogether. The SNP’s so-called campaign on this issue is a little hollow, to say the least. The SNP needs to explain exactly what the new Scottish armed forces would be if Scotland were to be independent. Would the Navy be something like fishery protection vessels? Would the Army be downgraded to some type of border force to patrol the border between Scotland and Northumberland? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position, but the SNP claims to be supporting these regiments and the onus is on him to say exactly what the SNP is going to do if there is to be independence in Scotland, not only on regiments, but what the shape and format of the defence forces of an independent Scotland would take. I am sure that they would be a lot smaller and a lot more ineffective than what we have now. I doubt whether they would be larger, and I am not sure what their role would be and whether they would be in or out of a NATO command structure.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is right, but this point about an independent Scotland is not just about the regiments and the size of the armed forces; it is about all the procurement. I am sorry, but many English shipbuilders will be arguing strongly for contracts to be placed with English yards rather than Scottish yards if Scotland becomes a foreign country. We do not procure warships from foreign Governments.

The Secretary of State’s statement dealt primarily with the 45% of the budget that is spent on equipment and support. There will be no 1% real-terms rise for the 55% that is spent on other areas of defence, including personnel. We are very concerned that this will result in a real-terms cut to the armed forces personnel budget, particularly given that these costs tend to rise higher than the usual rate of inflation. Not only was the announcement therefore less comprehensive than it was spun to be in the newspapers, but it would appear that the limited investment in equipment budgets is coming at the expense of investment in personnel, who are already suffering under the Government’s cuts to personnel numbers, allowances and pensions. So it is becoming clear to many that the Secretary of State has balanced the budget on the backs of our brave service men and women, and Ministers will have to offer this House the information it needs to take these claims seriously. [Interruption.] The Whip says from a sedentary position that that is a silly thing to say, but I think I might have a little more knowledge of the intricacies of the defence budget than he has.

On the capital investment side, Ministers have not factored in the costs of the proposals to withdraw British military bases from Germany. They will have a significant short-term cost, which they seem to have conveniently just ignored. I considered that idea when I was a Minister and even four years ago the price tag was some £3 billion. Again, that seems to have been conveniently forgotten in this so-called new balanced budget.

On top of all that, the Minister has failed to substantiate the figure of £38 billion. I will not reiterate the points I have read out already, but I will add a third example. Mr Jon Thompson, the director of finance at the MOD, told the Public Accounts Committee that Ministers were committed to producing a report in autumn 2011 on the extent of the so-called gap in the budget. We are still waiting. That information is vital because the legitimacy of everything the Government are doing through the defence cuts is predicated on that so-called gap.

I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a few questions. As the post-2015 1% rise is an “assumption”, could it be revised between now and 2015? What rate of inflation was used to calculate the 1% real terms annual increase in the equipment budget between 2010 and 2020? When will we get the National Audit Office’s assessment of the MOD budget and, more importantly, when will the House have an opportunity to debate that report?

The Secretary of State also needs to factor defence inflation into his calculations. It would be interesting to know what figure he is using for the real-terms cuts to the 55% of the MOD budget that lies outside the equipment and support budget. Members might be aware of reports over the weekend, for example, that an ongoing study of British shipbuilding might result in the delay of one of the new aircraft carriers and the potential closure of Portsmouth dockyard, with a threat to some 3,000 jobs. That casts even greater doubt on the Ministers’ claim to have balanced the budget. It is hard to see how they can justify their triumph when such issues remain unresolved. The Minister’s comments on the Portsmouth report would be welcome.

We now hear announcements from the MOD by leak—either official or unofficial—and an interesting one is on the future of Defence Equipment and Support. The Chief of Defence Matériel is supposed to be pushing forward the Government-owned contractor-operated model. Restructuring is important in defence procurement, as we would all agree, but there are huge questions about the impact on accountability to Parliament of privatising decisions that deal with many millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

As for the carriers, the Government have sought to present themselves as economically competent and the Opposition will resist the temptation to take Ministers at their word. As was mentioned earlier, the costly, unnecessary and humiliating U-turn on the British aircraft carrier capability meant that we ended up with a policy that the Prime Minister had rubbished the year before and that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been wasted at a time when the defence budget is being cut deeply. The Government must come clean and explain in detail how much was squandered by that reckless decision.

Britain is a proud maritime nation, but as a result of the decisions taken in the SDSR we are left with no maritime surveillance capability and with no carrier strike capability until at least 2017. Huge issues remain unaddressed. The Secretary of State has not decided how many aircraft he will purchase, just as he has deferred his decision on whether a second carrier will be operational. He stated to the House that he would be committed to “continuous carrier availability”, but that might now not be the case.

With such a backdrop, it is not surprising that morale in our armed forces is low. Morale has been described as in freefall as a result of some of the decisions on redundancies, cuts in allowances and permanent pension reductions. The Forces Pension Society has said that it has

“never seen a government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly”.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had the opportunity to look at today’s report on housing by the Select Committee on Defence. It shows that the cuts in expenditure on improvements in forces accommodation are leading to real pressures in Army housing.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions pensions and a number of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber have a particular interest in service pensions. No doubt they will want to hear whether, if he were returned to office in 2015, he would reverse the changes that have been made.

[Mr Jones]

We need to consider armed forces pensions as a whole, which is something else that I considered as a Minister. Many people do not realise that although the armed forces pension scheme is non-contributory, members of the armed forces pay for it through abatement in their increases. As the Government have abandoned the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s recommendations and our proud record on such recommendations when we were in office, it is time to look at how armed forces pensions are dealt with as a whole. Interestingly, when I wanted to look more closely at such issues, the Secretary of State who resisted was Lord Hutton, who is now advising the Government on pensions in general. The issue needs to be considered as a whole—not only pensions but abatement in pay, too.

In 2010, we were committed to spending £8 billion on accommodation in the next decade, £3 billion of which was for improvements and upgrades. In contrast, this Government have slashed spending on housing by some £41 million. I remember that when I was a Minister and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East was Secretary of State, despite our record investment in accommodation, the then Opposition were highly critical of what we were doing. Many in the armed forces will now be dismayed by their actions in government.

It is also important to listen to the armed forces federations. Dawn McCafferty of the Royal Air Force Families Federation has commented that families felt as though the covenant had already been broken within months of its announcement because of the cuts. Until the fall in morale is acknowledged and acted on, many will question Ministers’ commitment to upholding the military covenant.

A particular concern for us is the way in which reductions in the number of armed forces personnel are taking place. Two weeks ago, the Minister ordered yet another tranche of redundancies affecting 4,100 personnel, 30% of which were compulsory. It is a great worry that we are losing not only important skills but expertise and capability that we can no longer afford to lose. The public and armed forces community are quite rightly angry that individuals who are ready to deploy to Afghanistan are being given their P45s, despite all the assurances given by the previous Secretary of State and by this one. I know from experience that if we had treated the armed forces in such a way when we were in government, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members would rightly have pilloried that decision. We feel it is only right to hold them to the same high standard that they put forward when they were in opposition, which they seem to have conveniently forgotten now they are in government.

Many will be concerned by the rumours that are circulating about the Government’s plans to cut regiments and battalions. Our regiments embody our proud history and the national prestige of our armed forces. Many have served with distinction in the fields of Flanders, on the beaches at Normandy and, more recently, in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of State’s now-trademark lack of sensitivity when dealing with this issue is understandably creating anger among many serving in the armed forces and those who have retired.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

May I remind the shadow Minister that his Government cut and disbanded regiments while they were on operations? They also wholesale disbanded historic regiments and invented names from “Alice in Wonderland” for new regiments, so there can be no lessons from the Opposition about the maintenance of historic and honourable regiments. Many of us wear the scars to bear witness to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are now on 46 minutes.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Don’t worry.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am worried. It is no use telling me not to worry because Members—I ought to warn them now—may be down to a five-minute limit or less if we are to get them all in. I wanted to let people know so they could alter their speeches.

[Mr Jones]

I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, and not take any more interventions. On the comments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), he knows that the recommendations put forward at that time regarding structure and names were put forward by the Army.

Any uncertainty needs to be clarified. It is almost a month since the Secretary of State told the Royal United Services Institute that some units will inevitably be lost or merged. Given that he has gone outside Parliament to light bonfires of rumours, it is not acceptable for him to throw more petrol on them by delaying. We are told that the Ministry of Defence has signed off on this issue now but that matters are being held up by Downing street for political reasons. That uncertainty is leading to a lot more rumours, which are causing more uncertainty.

In conclusion, when they were in opposition the Conservatives called for a larger Army, a larger Navy and increased investment in the armed forces. In government, their actions have been to do exactly the opposite. It is not surprising that they are losing the trust of the armed forces community and the public so quickly. We in opposition want to support strong reform on procurement and the principles of the military covenant and we want the equipment programme to be improved. Too often the Government have put austerity before security. I hope that in his response the Minister will not just answer the questions I have put forward but will also agree with the terms of the motion and the recommendations regarding the assumptions of the defence review to give those whom we ask to serve on our behalf the confidence and certainty they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister is correct that the shadow Secretary of State is in Australia—unfortunately with the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), but I understand that they did not travel on the same plane so that is one good thing for him. He has stayed on after the defence visit because a member of his family there is seriously ill. That is why he is not here today.

[Nick Harvey]

I am sure we all wish the family member well. I did say that no criticism attaches to the shadow Secretary for his absence and I mean that most emphatically.

The matter before us is this nonsensical motion. It seems to say that the Opposition recognise the need to make the changes we are making, but the fact is that they ducked these changes year after year. They went for 12 years without a defence review, with pressure building up in the defence programme all the time, and there was a black hole of whatever size—we will come back to that in a minute—by the time of the strategic defence and security review. They left our armed forces overstretched, under-equipped and underfunded for the tasks they were set. That is the legacy of the Government in which the hon. Member for North Durham served. The blame for the need to remove platforms, reduce manpower and make the other reductions we have had to do sits very squarely at the previous Government’s door. They wrecked the economy, they wrecked the defence budget and they failed to make the changes necessary to prepare our armed forces for the future.

The hon. Member for North Durham made heavy weather of the black hole. When we began the SDSR process in the summer of 2010 we asked the officials who were presiding over it at the MOD, “What is our baseline and what is the true financial situation as we start this process?” The explanation came that if we took the manpower commitments, all the overheads and all the committed expenditure, including the contracts that had been signed for procurement and those that had been announced by the previous Government as Ministry of Defence policy, and planned to bring them on stream when the Labour party said they would be, over the 10-year period, there was a gap between all that and a “flat real” terms assumption on funding—not a “flat cash” assumption—in relation to the 2010-11 budget. We were told that the gap over the 10-year period would amount to £38 billion. It was a 10-year period because that is the length of time over which the MOD plans its budgets.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said that that was an unreasonable thing to view as a starting point. She compared it with the situation of someone who was about to go personally bankrupt aspiring to buy a Ferrari, but I do not think that is very kind to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). When he came to the Dispatch Box a few weeks before Christmas in 2009, he announced that there would be 22 new Chinook helicopters. He did not sign a contract or find the money to pay for them but he announced there would be 22 new Chinook helicopters. I do not know whether in the fantasy budget of the Labour party it does not think that that was a commitment, but it was one of the commitments that that Defence Secretary made, and it was on that basis that the £38 billion black hole was presented to us by officials.

I do not call into question the personal commitment of the hon. Member for North Durham, but he has to recognise that his motion opposes everything that this Government are doing and is pretty scant when it comes to proposing any alternatives. He says that he recognises the need for defence reform, but the only response in his motion is to be concerned, “anxious” and “worried” about how we are clearing up the mess he made. He has not presented one properly costed plan or given us a coherent alternative. He has not given us a plan A, let alone a plan B. He needs to recognise that he has to do better if he wants to hold us to account for what we have done.

[Nick Harvey]

I think it was a perfectly sensible alternative to explore the “cat and trap” option. As we said at the time, it would have given us the ability to project a much better aircraft type off the carrier. I think that to commission the detailed work on that proposal was entirely responsible. If it ends up costing us the maximum, as the Secretary of State suggested, of £100 million, that is a small sum compared with the £1.5 billion the previous Government added to the carrier project in one afternoon, when they announced from the Dispatch Box that it was to be postponed by a year. That was a far greater drain on the defence budget than the relatively small bounded study, which unfortunately concluded that the costs of going ahead with the plan were such that it was not viable.

The shadow Defence Secretary has identified £5 billion of cuts that he says he supports, but that would barely scratch the surface of the black hole that his party’s Government left behind. Of course, his cuts are not new; they are already being made. On Labour’s current public plans, the defence budget would still be in chaos. They have pledged neither to make any extra savings, nor to restore the cuts that have been made. What is interesting is not what they are saying in public, but what they are saying in private. Earlier, reference was made to the interesting correspondence between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary. It is worth quoting the letter from the Leader of the Opposition to his colleague, dated 23 January this year:

“You have powerfully made the case in your recent interventions that there is no easy future for Defence expenditure and clearly in the context of the current fiscal position we can expect to have to make further savings after the next election.”

In public, the Opposition are against the cuts that we are making, but in secret, they are planning even deeper defence cuts. Today’s debate is not simply opposition, but opportunism as well.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We said that at the last general election. What we were not going to do is rush the process. I challenge the Minister of State to place in the Library of the House the details of how he arrived at the £38 billion figure. Today he has said something that no other Minister has ever said: that the £38 billion is over 10 years. The impression has always been given that it is there right now. Will he produce that information? Without it, some of the cuts he is making are not credible.

[Nick Harvey]

That is absolute nonsense. It has been clear from the outset that the £38 billion figure was over 10 years. I remember many a debate with the shadow Defence Secretary about whether we were talking about the 10 years being measured out on the spending side in flat real or in flat cash, and I have said again tonight that it was by reference to flat real. It has always been a 10-year figure, and the suggestion that we have magicked £38 billion out of spending in two years is clearly nonsensical; it has always been over 10 years. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman further details of how we worked that out, but there is no getting away from the fact that the Labour Government left behind a massive black hole. The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) has identified a tiny number of cuts that he thinks need to be made and he has secret plans to make more, but he is not prepared to face up to the difficult decisions that have to be made to clear up the economic inheritance across the piece and specifically in defence.

Transforming Britain’s armed forces by implementing the 2010 SDSR is necessary to recover capabilities after a decade of enduring operations. It is necessary to prepare the armed forces for a future in which threats are diverse, evolving and unpredictable. It is necessary to help to tackle the fiscal deficit and to put the defence budget and equipment plan back into balance. We have to build for the future with strict financial discipline, making certain that the armed forces have confidence that projects in the programme are funded and will be delivered. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last month, the black hole has now been eliminated and the 10-year defence budget is now in balance. I readily acknowledge that Future Force 2020 will be a smaller fighting force, but it will still be able to deploy a brigade-sized force on a sustained basis on operations, or a divisional-sized force on a best effort.

There was much criticism from the hon. Member for North Durham because we have had to reduce manpower numbers, but it is worth noting that in the memo the Opposition defence team sent back to the leader of their party, they said, in reference to Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel, that they recognised that there would be reductions in personnel numbers. On Army restructuring, too, the memo stated that they recognised the need for manpower reductions. So they recognise the need for the measures we are taking; they just do not like the grim reality of having to do it.

Despite all the changes that we are making, we will still be supported by the fourth-largest defence budget in the world, meeting our financial responsibilities to NATO. We will configure the armed forces for a world where threats to our homeland and allies are increasingly to be found outside Europe, rather than on the north German plain, and we will move from a heavily armoured force to a more mobile, adaptable and deployable force.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is down to individual circumstances. We have given a clear commitment that as long as someone who has suffered injuries on active service is in the process of treatment or rehabilitation, where it is appropriate for them to remain in the Army, they will so remain. Once they have completed the rehabilitation process, we will do our very best to find positions that they can fill in the Army. Many service people who suffer disabilities as a result of their service have been found positions that they can continue to hold down in the Army, but we cannot give a guarantee that nobody will be medically discharged after they have completed the rehabilitation process.

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

Given that the Secretary of State’s statement about supposedly balancing the defence budget relates only to the 45% of the budget spent on equipment, how will his announcements this week of compulsory redundancies in the armed forces affect the other, unaccounted for, 55% of the budget? When can we expect the details of how he has balanced the rest of the budget?

[Mr Hammond]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was here when I made my statement, but he is completely wrong; my statement related to the whole budget, not simply the equipment plan. As he will know, the announcement of a reduction in the size of our armed forces was made last year. We are now making a series of tranches of redundancy announcements, of which the one due tomorrow will be the last for the Royal Navy and the RAF, to get us eventually to armed forces of the size specified for Future Force 2020 in the strategic defence and security review.

Afghanistan (Civilian Killings)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that we demand exacting standards from our new military recruits, and they certainly have to pass physical tests, among others. We are always on the lookout for signs of people suffering psychological stress—that occurs at every point—and considerable progress has been made in recent years on removing some of the stigma that attaches to anybody in those very exacting circumstances suffering from the effects of stress. There should never be any shame attached to that. We are making progress in identifying it, in extending a sympathetic arm to those suffering from stress and in improving the long-term assistance given to them when they return to the UK, because the sorts of incidents that some of them will have witnessed will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

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

The killing of 16 innocent civilians in Afghanistan yesterday was an appalling act, and I join the Minister in rightly sending our thoughts to the families of the victims of this incident. The information we have so far is that it was the act of an isolated individual outside the chain of command, and it is important that we do not draw any wider conclusions about the conduct of US or other ISAF forces, who act with unparalleled bravery and professionalism in the conduct of their mission in Afghanistan.

We have all heard the warnings from the Taliban of reprisal attacks on coalition forces. In the light of that, may I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the increased threat posed to UK armed forces and civilian personnel working in Afghanistan? Have any operational changes been made—notably on ending the use of night raids—and has additional security been put in place to protect diplomatic and civilian staff working on behalf of the UK Government?

The influence of ISAF forces in stabilising Afghanistan depends on the trust of the Afghan people. This act has clearly put that trust, carefully built over the past 10 years, in jeopardy. Will the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with ISAF counterparts on measures that can be put in place to build trust in the light of this appalling incident? The post-2014 planning will determine the success of our mission in Afghanistan, so will he say a little more about what early assessment ISAF has made of the impact of these events on negotiations over ISAF’s presence post 2014?

Although the tragedy is undoubtedly a blow to the ISAF mission, what about the UK’s mission and British public opinion? Will the Minister tell the country more clearly what the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan will be and what type of nation he expects to leave when the draw-down takes place post 2014?

We have always approached the issue of Afghanistan from a bipartisan standpoint, which it is important to do while we have our forces in harm’s way there. We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to raise the issue of Afghanistan at his meeting in Washington with President Obama this week, and we look forward to seeing greater details of the plans for post 2014.

[Nick Harvey]

It is important to stress that there is a US and Afghan investigation now under way into exactly what happened. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this would appear to be the action of one isolated individual, completely outwith the control of the chain of command, and he is also absolutely right that it is in no way indicative of the behaviour of the rest of the ISAF forces who are there.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about force protection. We were already operating on an enhanced set-up for force protection in the light of the Koran-burning incident; following this incident, vigilance will be even greater, and at a local level, commanders on the ground will be making whatever sensible arrangements they think are necessary. Operations in the night are increasingly led by Afghan forces, and I think this is likely to be the case even more so in the foreseeable future.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly raised the issue of trust. It is absolutely essential to what we are doing that there is trust between the international forces, and the Afghan authorities and the Afghan people. There is no doubt whatever that that trust will have been tested severely by the incidents of the last few weeks. Of course, this is not one-way traffic, because we have seen incidents where both British and French troops have been killed by Afghan troops they were mentoring. These are delicate relationships, but I was impressed when I was there two weeks ago that the commander of ISAF took this aspect of his work extremely seriously and had been very quick to get on the front foot and go to President Karzai and the Afghan authorities to apologise and make clear the profound regret that he and the west felt for the incidents that have happened.

As for the post-2014 situation, it is important that everybody understands—both in the west and in Afghanistan—that the end of western troops being in Afghanistan in a combat role does not mean the international community walking away from Afghanistan. It is certainly the case that we will continue to have troops stationed in Afghanistan, providing training and mentoring for Afghan troops. Specifically, we have made a commitment, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, to take the lead internationally in running the officer training programme from 2013 onwards. However, as we begin and continue the process of transition, we expect to see a greater number of international partners coming in and helping Afghanistan to build up, in terms of both aid and, increasingly, ordinary trade and economics. We cannot allow the setbacks of the last few weeks to put us off that overall objective, which in my view, notwithstanding all the pressures, remains on course.

Defence

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Military Aircraft: Procurement

[Mr Kevan Jones]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the oral answer of 8 February 2012, Official Report, columns 300-01, on Libya, what the cost of the new C17 aircraft will be.

[Official Report, 20 February 2012, Vol. 540, c. 469W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on 20 February 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

The cost of the new C-17 aircraft is subject to final commercial negotiations but, as announced by the Prime Minister on 8 February 2012, Official Report, columns 300-01, it is expected to be in the region of £300 million.

The correct answer should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The decisions made on 16 Air Assault Brigade and elsewhere are quite rightly made by the individual services, not Ministers. Also, we believe that our fighting capabilities are somewhat greater than they were during the Boer war.

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

An internal MOD document states that the Department considers the UK force structure to be

“out of proportion with modern working practices”.

With the reduction in the number of armed forces personnel, why is the Minister doing nothing to correct the top-heavy force structure and the imbalance by making cuts across all ranks?

[Mr Robathan]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of Hansard. If he goes back to about 1994, he will see that I raised this matter then in the House of Commons—I have been here too long. He is right that there is a disproportionate number of senior officers. They are excellent people, but we are looking to reduce that disproportionate number so that there are fewer senior officers in relation to bayonets on the ground.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a member of the reserve forces.

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on introducing this important debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and his Committee on their timely report, published this week. I read it with great interest and if I have any criticism of it I would have to start with the fact that it perhaps does not sufficiently recognise two rigorous and well-regarded studies, the Levene report and Bernard Gray’s report, which set the scene for many of the points that it raises. In May 2010, of course, the coalition Government inherited the extremely difficult task of bringing some order to a chaotic defence budget.

The Gray report was leaked to the electorate before the general election, so voters such as those in my constituency, which has a large defence interest, had the benefit of seeing it, as did I. The previous Government might well have tried to delay the publication of the report because the word “grotesque” reflected some of the real horrors in Defence Equipment and Support that were unearthed in the dying days of Labour’s 13-year stewardship. Bernard Gray told us that the MOD was running a “substantially overheated equipment programme” and that the sclerotic Department was hampering our ability to conduct difficult current operations. He went on to say:

“The problems, and the sums of money involved, have almost lost their power to shock, so endemic is the issue.”

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

But do I not remember the hon. Gentleman arguing from the Front Bench for more ships, larger armies and more aircraft?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will also remember that Bernard Gray was a special adviser to his party. In that context it is quite important to note that the report was produced by a supporter not of the Conservative party but of his party.

The gap between the programme and the budget in May 2010 was a truly grotesque £38 billion. Also grotesque is the disarray over how to deal with the crisis among those who masterminded it. We heard examples of that today from the shadow Defence Secretary. He says he supports only £5 billion of Government cuts, but the shadow Chancellor says that the Labour party would keep all the remedial spending reductions that the Government are making. The figure of £5 billion is interesting because the shadow Defence Secretary also said today that it would be invidious in advance of a general election to try to work out what the requirement would be in personnel and equipment. It is therefore difficult to work out how he came up with the £5 billion figure, even assuming it is correct. The isolation of the Opposition is increasingly apparent as even the United States reins in its defence spending to deal not with an incoherent defence budget but with a crippling federal budget deficit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend will recognise that by doubling the operational allowance for the armed forces, exempting them from the pension contributions increase and continuing the incremental pay system, we have sent a very important signal to them about the importance that we attach to them. I think that most members of the armed forces understand that we are facing some very tough decisions in order to get the MOD budget back on track and ensure a sustainable future for our armed forces, and that the restraint was necessary to achieve that.

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

Frozen pay, reduction in the pension and compulsory redundancies: can the Secretary of State explain how that squares with the Prime Minister’s statement in The Sun this morning that he intends to uphold the military covenant and support our servicemen and women?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I assure my hon. Friend that the rules of engagement are kept permanently under review. Having looked closely at this issue, I am confident that we are not in any sense causing our people to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. The rules of engagement are, in my view, entirely appropriate to the task that they are being asked to perform.

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

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that the Prime Minister stated two weeks ago that there would be draft regulations on proposals for arming British merchant-registered ships. Will the Minister confirm what the legal status of those individuals will be, what the rules of engagement will be and, more important, how they will interface with UK personnel who are already deployed off the horn of Africa?

[Nick Harvey]

I say again that the details of how this policy will work are a matter for the Home Office. It will shortly issue guidance that will cover some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The Home Office has taken a view on the legality of the policy and it is satisfied that it is legal within existing legislation. On the interface with the armed forces, the armed guards who might be carried on ships—that is a matter for the owners to decide—are there in a preventive capacity. The Royal Navy and other navies will continue to patrol the entire area. The focus of the military effort is to deter and disrupt. As I said a moment ago, it would not be possible, no matter how much resource navies were to deploy, always to have somebody there in a preventive capacity. All ships that have taken the necessary precautions have successfully prevented themselves from being pirated.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? In no circumstances should he believe everything that he reads in the Daily Mirror. However, in response to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who referred to payday loans on Thursday, I made the point that the issue had never been raised with me.

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

You said that you had never heard of them.

[Mr Robathan]

I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would be quiet. I had indeed never heard of them, because the issue is not something that has come across my desk. However, I deprecate these ridiculous, high-interest loans, which are appalling. They are not something that we find in the chain of command. It is true that the Royal British Legion does an excellent job in helping families and, indeed, ex-service personnel when they get into trouble with debt.

Armed Forces Personnel

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I should like to begin by joining the Minister in his thoughts on the loss of the soldier in Afghanistan this week, and on Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham. They served their country in different ways, and with great distinction, and their sacrifice should be remembered not only today but over the coming years.

It is fitting that we meet today to debate armed forces personnel in the lead-up to this weekend’s remembrance of those who have lost their lives in the service of their country. We must remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as their families. We must also remember those who have suffered serious injuries as a result of their service, whether on active service or in training. We should also pay tribute to those who are serving their country—not just those on active service abroad but all those who, through their dedication and hard work, protect the freedoms that have been hard fought for over many generations. Their actions at home and abroad make the streets of Britain safer, and we all owe each of them an immense debt of gratitude.

Today’s announcement on the reorganisation of the Army footprint in the UK will have a major impact on the lives of many thousands of armed services personnel and their families. The announcement in this morning’s The Guardian and the subsequent press release from the Ministry of Defence about rebasing from Germany will equally have an effect on servicemen and women and their families. The fact that the Secretary of State chose to inform The Guardian yesterday and to put out a press release this morning rather than make a written ministerial statement to the House is not acceptable. The announcement on Germany was not included even in this morning’s written ministerial statement on the realignment of the Army footprint in the UK, which seems completely illogical to me.

The written ministerial statement on Army restructuring and the press release on Germany raise more questions than they answer. The press release states that the savings to the Ministry of Defence will be some £250 million a year, but no reference is made either to the investment needed to achieve that or to the year in which the £250 million will first be realised. Many will conclude that the cuts to Army numbers—both those announced in the strategic defence and security review and those announced in July by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—are paying to make these moves possible. I ask the Minister to confirm in his winding-up speech that these Army redundancies are subsidising this restructuring.

[Nick Harvey]

I think the hon. Gentleman conflates two things. A written ministerial statement has been issued today, which covers some big-picture decisions taken at a national level in the Ministry of Defence concerning the divisional and regional headquarters of the Army throughout the United Kingdom. The decisions have an impact on people throughout the UK and have been communicated to all relevant parties.

The hon. Gentleman also talks about tactical decisions to move certain units, which are made all the time and are never normally the subject of ministerial announcements. He portrays them as though they were all to do with moves back from Germany, whereas the reality is that three quarters of them are nothing of the kind. Two units are being moved back from Germany—one involves a total of 450 people, the other involves 120—but such things happen all the time and are not suitable for announcement in a ministerial statement.

[Mr Jones]

I am absolutely astonished. The Minister had 40 minutes in which to make an announcement, but did not choose to do so. I have to say that he is completely wrong. His written ministerial statement this morning rightly dealt with changes to Army headquarters in the UK—something that I was already on to when I was the Minister. He put out a press release—I have it here with me—that mentions the savings that could be made from the draw-down from Germany. Clearly, The Guardian was briefed last night on the major changes proposed regarding the withdrawal from that country. I am sorry, but I do not accept the Minister’s statement that these are minor movements around. These are major reorganisations that will affect many thousands of armed service personnel, civil servants and their families. The Minister said that some £250 million a year would be saved at the end, but the press release does not say exactly when that will be achieved.

As the Minister who used to be responsible for the defence estates, I know the figure I was given in relation to the rebasing from Germany. It was roughly £3 billion.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the evidence given by James Murdoch to the Select Committee. He has admitted that members of the Committee were followed at the point when the Committee was undertaking an inquiry into the phone hacking activities of News International. This is obviously an extremely complex matter, but I wonder whether a breach of privilege might be involved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Anything going on in respect of evidence given to a Select Committee is a matter for that Committee to deal with. If the hon. Lady believes that a breach of privilege has been committed in any way, as an individual Member of this House she should write to Mr Speaker about it. It is not a matter that would be dealt with on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the consultants brought in by the MOD estimate that the figure would be more than £3 billion. I do not know whether pennies have suddenly dropped from heaven for this investment or whether since the departure of the former Secretary of State the Treasury has given the MOD an early Christmas present. It will be interesting to find out where this extra investment is coming from. We need a clear statement on that, particularly in respect of the converting of Cottesmore and Kinloss from RAF bases into Army bases.

In addition, the total footprint in Germany is 47,000 individuals if civil servants and dependants are included. What will be the cost on other Government Departments and local authorities of relocating these individuals to their new local communities? For the Minister and the MOD to have any credibility about these plans, we need the answers published and we need a detailed time scale for when people will return from Germany and how the moves will be funded. We need to know how the money will be spent and where exactly it is coming from. If we do not have that, there will be some incredulity about how the plans will be affordable and how they will affect the lives of many thousands of armed service personnel.

[Nick Harvey]

Let me clarify the moves for which the Army has preliminarily planned: 7 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps will move from Bielefeld in Germany to Cottesmore, with some 450 service personnel moving by the summer 2013. This will allow a saving of £55 million a year from 2014-15. In the other move, 43 Close Support Squadron Royal Logistic Corps will move from Guterslohe to Abingdon in 2012. There are small capital costs involved, which the director general of the Defence Intelligence Organisation is perfectly content can be found from within his existing budget.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I just do not accept that. It is all very well to say these are small matters. Why will he not publish the overall plan? He has set an ambitious target of bringing the Army back from Germany. Why will he not set out clearly what the investment will be and what the costs of withdrawing will be in compensation and reparation payments to the German Government? It is not good enough to say that these are preliminary announcements. Why stick out a press release this morning, stating that £250 million a year is going to be saved and that this will somehow boost the British economy by £650 million, when the Minister has just admitted that these are preliminary plans? It is not good enough for our armed forces to be treated in this way. [Interruption.] The new Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), chirps from a sedentary position to question whether this is the right tone. These are issues that will affect many thousands of individuals and their families, so we need to ensure that we have the answers. Without that, credibility will not stand much scrutiny.

As we debate the future of our armed forces personnel, it is important, as the Minister said, to focus on the military covenant and how it can be strengthened. I also think it important to take account of what we have achieved over the past 10 years. The Minister rightly referred to the service personnel Command Paper, which was published by the previous Government and which was the first piece of work to make the welfare of our personnel a mainstream commitment in Government Departments.

Like the Minister, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) for his championing of the policy, not just through the MOD but across Whitehall. I believe that it genuinely changed the way in which the armed services and their families, and veterans, are perceived in other Departments. It brought about, for instance, the armed forces compensation scheme, the doubling of welfare payments to those on operations, the advancement of education services for service leavers who have served for six years, increased access to the NHS—I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for continuing that work with the NHS—and improvements in accommodation, including accommodation in Colchester, as I saw when I visited the town with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Most important, it brought about increases in pay.

The Army recovery capability was another key achievement, and I am pleased that the Government are following it up. It will not just change the way in which we look after injured service men and women while they are in service, but enable us to ensure that they receive care and support throughout their lives. I want to record my thanks to the service charities, with many of whom I worked closely while I was a Defence Minister. They not only look after our veterans, but increasingly support men and women who are currently serving in our armed forces. We need to uphold the principles of the covenant, but we also need to ensure the upholding of the basic principle of the Command Paper that no disadvantage should arise from service.

I know that welfare support for the men and women of our armed forces and their families is a priority for Members in all parts of the House, and it is important that, on occasion, we speak with one voice in support of our veterans and service men and women. However, Labour Members will also scrutinise the Government’s policies carefully, and will make it clear when we think that they have got it wrong, and I think that the way in which they have addressed a number of personnel issues needs to be examined more carefully.

I welcome the Government’s progress in regard to, in particular, the enshrinement of the military covenant in law. Unfortunately, however, that was not done by choice, but was forced on Ministers by the Royal British Legion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester is chuntering, but he voted against the enshrinement of the covenant in law when the Armed Forces Bill—which became the Armed Forces Act 2006—was in Committee. He should remember what he did then, when it was open to him not to support the Government.

[Bob Russell]

I am sorry that, having embraced the unity of the House on the subject of Her Majesty’s armed forces, the shadow Minister should nitpick on the armed forces covenant—he should use the correct description—when he knows full well that members of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill were united. The Committee argued only around the edges, and that is what we are talking about here. The hon. Gentleman should not be churlish.

[Mr Jones]

It is not churlish to remind the hon. Gentleman what he did at that time. When we tabled an amendment to enshrine the covenant in law, he voted against it. I know that he is a Liberal Democrat, and thus can pick and choose and place a certain interpretation on what he does, but he must be reminded of the fact that he voted against that amendment. It was only after the Royal British Legion’s campaign that the Government were forced to change their policy and the covenant became law.

[Mr Ellwood]

While preparing for the debate, I wondered whether the Opposition would raise the issue of the covenant. They had 13 years in which to introduce such legislation themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the personnel paper and I concede that it was a good step forward, but it was not legislation. The fact that, after 13 years of Labour government, the covenant is now enshrined in legislation is thanks to our Government, not his.

[Mr Jones]

No, actually, it is not. In July 2009, I produced a Green Paper on the covenant. I do not think the hon. Gentleman read it and I do not think many of the new Ministers did either, because they clearly fell for the civil service tricks that were tried on me. They were obviously told how hard it would be to implement such a measure, although they finally realised that it could be implemented.

Although not widely read in the House, my Green Paper was widely welcomed by the services community. It received a good deal of coverage and would have formed part of our programme had we been re-elected. It is not true that it was not on anyone’s radar screen when we were in government. I suggest that everyone should read the very well thought out Green Paper that I produced. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the current veterans Minister, has admitted that it covered the main points.

One of the Government’s policies we are concerned about relates to armed forces and war widows’ pensions. The year-on-year change to uprate pensions using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces community, who rely on their pensions at a younger age than almost anyone else. The impact will be felt not just by the present generation, including those who are fighting today in Afghanistan, but by those who landed on the beaches of Normandy.

The Forces Pension Society estimates that, as a result of the Government’s changes, a disabled double amputee of corporal rank aged 28 will lose some £587,000 by the age of 70, and that a war widow with children will receive a basic per annum pension that will be £94 less next year. The society has said:

“The extent of devaluation of Armed Forces pensions has become a matter of deep concern to Service people, past and present.”

The society’s chairman, Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, has said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly'”.

Julie McCarthy of the Army Families Federation—I had the privilege of working closely with her when I was a Minister, and I pay tribute to her and to the representatives of the RAF and Naval Families Federations—has said:

“The demands of the service have not gone down... but”

personnel

“are seeing their pay frozen, the threat of redundancy and now allowance cuts.”

[Interruption.] In the light of that, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We really do not need a continuous commentary from Members who do not wish to intervene. A Member who wishes to intervene must stand up and make his or her point if the Member who has the Floor gives way. Otherwise, Members must not shout across the Chamber.

[Mr Jones]

As I was saying, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why that change has been made permanent. It will extend even beyond the target date for the end of the deficit reduction period.

Another matter of concern to many Members involves the office of the chief coroner. As the military covenant states, no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service, and special provision should at times be made to reflect their sacrifices. That is why the post of chief coroner is so important. It can provide an independent, expert service for bereaved families, and scrapping it undermines the Government’s commitment to the covenant.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I have received letters from constituents who are worried about the effects of the abolition of the office of the chief coroner. Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision should be reversed as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I do indeed. It worries me that, not only the Royal British Legion and other service charities, but a range of organisations that deal with the bereaved cannot see the logic of the decision. It disturbs me that the cross-party support I saw when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Committee in the last Parliament seems to have been withdrawn.

[Dr Murrison]

On the subject of no disadvantage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly regrettable that the Administration in which he served allowed the MOD to pay for expensive barristers to argue the Department’s corner in coroners’ courts, which are supposed to be non-adversarial situations? That has been represented as a genuine concern in the context of no disadvantage, whereas the office of chief coroner has not.

[Mr Jones]

I disagree. We put in place, with the Royal British Legion, support for bereaved families at military coroners proceedings. That was important, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East was very keen to do it. I simply do not accept that not having a chief coroner will help bereaved families to get the answers they want, and I cannot see why this Government have suddenly changed their position from the one they held when in opposition.

The RBL has said the change in policy is

“a betrayal of bereaved armed forces families”

and that it

“threatens the military covenant.”

The Government’s stated reason for the change in policy is deficit reduction, but the costs of the office are widely disputed and both the RBL and INQUEST are prepared to work with the Government to find a more cost-effective option. It is regrettable that Justice Ministers—not MOD Ministers, I accept—have not listened to the RBL’s well-founded concerns.

It is difficult to understand the Government’s deficit reduction measures, especially when we learn that a firm of consultants, AlixPartners, has been employed by the MOD on a £4,000 a day contract, meaning that it earns more in a week than a front-line soldier in Afghanistan earns in a year. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the RBL’s arguments about the chief coroner.

Substantial numbers of armed forces personnel have been made redundant in recent months. That is, of course, only the start of the service personnel cuts that are to be made over the next four years. When the strategic defence review was published in October 2010, we were told that 17,000 personnel across the three services would have to go. As of July 2011, however, as the Government prepared to issue their latest round of redundancies, we were told that the number had risen to 22,000. When outlining the further reductions, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, failed to offer the armed forces any clarity on what the precise size of the armed forces would be by 2015. We are still waiting for confirmation of exactly how many redundancies there will be on top of those sketched out in the strategic defence and security review, and of whether the new Secretary of State agrees with the statement made by his predecessor. The new Defence Secretary has said that he “regrets” cuts to our armed forces, but it is not yet clear whether he has the courage of his convictions and intends to act on those regrets.

The redundancies issue is not just about numbers, though; it is also about the individuals and the skills that are being lost to all three services. When I hear that some of the individuals I once worked with when I was a Minister are now leaving the services, it makes me concerned about whether our armed forces and this country can afford to lose those capable and well-trained individuals. Greater clarity is the very least our armed forces deserve. If there are to be cuts, we should know where they will fall. Service personnel must be allowed the opportunity to plan for their futures and the futures of their families.

One of the most worrying aspects of the latest round of redundancies last month was that 800 members of the Royal Navy actually volunteered to leave. They were not asked to leave by the MOD, but instead felt that they would be better off outside the service. They made that decision at about the same time as we learned that morale in all three services is in decline. It is essential that today we ask why that is the case. We must ask why 800 members of the Royal Navy believed they had better opportunities elsewhere. It is vital that our forces are able to attract the best talent and retain it, and I am worried that we may be left with skills shortages as a result of the short-term budget changes currently being put in place.

The Conservatives did exactly the same thing when they were last in office in the 1990s, and in the following decade we had to deal with the problems that caused—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Devizes chunters from a sedentary position very often, but does she realise that as a Parliamentary Private Secretary she should be the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, not his mouthpiece? A bit of quiet from the hon. Lady would be a better idea. She might want to take some lessons from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sat in the Chamber quietly while serving very effectively as PPS. May I put on the record my appreciation of the good job he did in that role? I was very sad to see him replaced, especially given what we have experienced today. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is obviously not listening: it does not help Ministers if she sits behind them whingeing and making snide comments. She should seek advice from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who might be able to give her some tips on how to do the job properly.

When he winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say what the MOD is doing to ward against the decline in morale in all three services?

[Bob Russell]

In the context of morale, the shadow Minister has not yet mentioned the condition of armed forces housing. Although I acknowledge the situation the last Labour Government inherited, they had 13 years to sort it out and those were years of relative economic prosperity, so can the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government did not modernise all the Army family housing in my constituency and across the country?

[Mr Jones]

That question is a bit rich—although the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, and we know we have to accept such things from them. I visited Colchester garrison with him, where we saw the investment that had been made not only in recreation and training facilities, but in housing. He knows as well as I do the problem we all grappled with and that the current Government are still grappling with. I understand, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at the Annington Homes issue, but to get to the bottom of that, we have to go all the way back to a decision made under the previous Conservative Government. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), is present, and his fingerprints are on that decision, which was not a good decision for the taxpayer and limited what we could do to improve armed forces housing. None the less, we made great strides in both married quarters and single-living accommodation in the Navy, the RAF and the Army, and it is now some of the best accommodation of its kind to be found.

Although the Minister hinted at possible future provisions, there is a question whether we should provide housing at all, or whether we should instead move to an allowance system, so that individuals have options in housing, rather than being wedded to a contract, which was also very bad news for the taxpayer.

[Mr Brazier]

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on how that proposal would work in places such as Catterick? It is the largest forces base and there is a huge concentration of soldiers out in the countryside with almost no civilian housing anywhere nearby.

[Mr Jones]

What has happened at Catterick and in other places is very interesting. People are speaking with their feet, as it were, by commuting large distances. At Catterick, many people stay in single-living accommodation during the week or commute to Tyneside or even further afield. We have to recognise that the way people organise their lives is changing. The hon. Gentleman talks about examining how we provide housing and allowances, and we need to do that. The piece of work that I kicked off—I do not know whether it is still going on—looks at the options, including paying allowances or working with, for example, housing associations to provide accommodation where people want it. In all three services, many people are choosing to buy or rent accommodation far from their workplace and travel at the weekend. That creates new challenges for the armed forces in providing single-living accommodation, and these are things that we need to examine.

We ask our armed forces to risk all on our behalf. In return, we must make sure that we give them the proper equipment, training and financial support that they deserve. The sacrifices that service personnel make for the country are such that they should not be treated as other public sector workers. They deserve special recognition. In that spirit of recognising the unique nature of military service, I look forward to hearing the contributions to today’s debate. The debate about our armed forces mainly concentrates on equipment, and that is important, but this is an opportunity to recognise the work that our armed forces do. We should not forget that without the input of the men and women of our armed forces, some of the fantastic, dangerous and, in some cases, unique things we ask them to do would not be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), my colleague on the Defence Committee, and his comments about the poppy.

The debate today is about armed forces personnel, so I shall talk about them and not necessarily about Parliament. It is interesting to find out who the people who currently serve are. Over a number of years, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the opportunity to engage with our forces in theatre and out of theatre. One finds that a fantastic variety of people make up our armed forces. They have a fantastic array of skills, some of which we bothered to give them and some of which they come along with in the first place.

I remember being in Kabul doing some canvassing for the presidential elections. I was masquerading as a soldier at the time and it was not for any particular candidate; it was about the process of presidential elections. I said, “Come on, boys. We had better go over here. We’ll go to the caff and have a word.” They said, “You’re good at this, aren’t you?” I said, “Well, one thing I ought to be reasonably good at is canvassing. You do the soldiering, I’ll do the canvassing.” We were walking up the street when all of a sudden the Fijian flanker I had been given to look after me started to chat to the locals. I said to him, “How come you speak the local language?” He said, “I’m Fijian. I went to school with people who speak Urdu, and I can get along with these people.” I asked, “You’re not an interpreter, then?” “No,” he said. “I just get on and do it.”

The Gurkhas seem to have some Babel fish in their ear. Wherever one goes with them, they are always in some way or another able to communicate with the local people. When I was in the Balkans, there were Chileans and people from the area with a Gurkha in the middle. For some reason or another, he was able to make those people understand one another in some fashion. In the Balkans, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will know, the Welsh also serve. Our communications fell down. The only reason we could speak to one another was that there were two Welsh boys with mobile phones and they could speak Welsh to one another, just like the wind talkers did for the Americans in south-east Asia.

There is a fantastic array of skills among our armed forces, but we have to equip them as well. They come with these skills by default and we use them, but we must not abuse them. One of the things that is missing from the debate is how we enable them to do the things we want them to do. I was in Iraq and the place was jumping, as it usually was when we went to Iraq. I was talking to an American, who said to me, “See, the difference is that we train warriors. They go forward—blitzkrieg—they can fight anything in front of them, but you train soldiers. Once the fighting is done, they take their helmet off, put the beret on and start to engage with people. They are multi-skilled, so it’s different. I don’t know what you do, but you train different people.”

That does not come about by accident. We must equip our armed forces and enable them. If, as the Minister said, we need to understand them, then we need to engage with them. I would recommend any Member to use the facilities of the armed forces parliamentary scheme to get under the wire and go and live in a tent or a ditch with those people for two or three days. Very often it will be, “And another thing—” so the Member will soon find out who they are.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I slept in a tent with my hon. Friend in Iraq when I served on the Defence Committee. Does he recognise that whenever we went anywhere, we always seemed to meet someone who was from Merthyr Tydfil?

[Mr Havard]

The “Taffia” is at work. That is true. At the local field hospital at Camp Bastion when we visited, Andy Morris, who is now Major Morris, was there as a paramedic. These are the people who jump in the back of helicopters and bring people out. He is a reservist, not a regular. There is a real debate to be had about what the balance of forces is going to be. The report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is seminal. A decision will have to be made about the balance between regulars and reserves. We do not want to cheapen their capacity or their labour. We need to maintain and improve that quality. We must not make the mistake of using it as a way of cheapening the price, rather than improving the value.

The moral component is important. We heard reference earlier to war memorials. We all have the problem. I would like to find the bandit who nicked the bayonet off the Aberfan war memorial. We probably know who he is and where he lives, and we will get it back, but that is not the point. It is about respect. Tomorrow I will be in Rhymney comprehensive school, laying a wreath at the school at its memorial with the children. I will be visiting the cadets and the reserves at Maindy. We must engage with the people.

I do not have a big poppy. Perhaps the size of the poppy is important; I do not know. I have a 90th anniversary badge, given to me by the British Legion in Dowlais. There is a whole community involved. The social and economic impact that the Ministry of Defence has in all our communities is huge. We need to recognise that in deploying the resources that we have, because we also ask people to deploy.

Let me say a little about some of the things that we are discussing on the Defence Committee and the changes that are being made. Reference has been made to how it is possible to divide communities, as well as bringing them together. We can say that armed forces personnel have special interests, and therefore should have special services. By doing the right thing, we can inadvertently do something else and create divisions. Be careful that there is not a problem with consistency, rather than uniformity, in the application of these services across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned that earlier, and the same applies to Wales. The National Assembly for Wales yesterday published a document about what it will do to improve services for veterans.

The organisation of the health service will be different, because it is very problematic, as is housing and the rest of it. There is a variable geography and the operational delivery of services varies between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, but the Ministry of Defence must understand that the covenant is a UK document that will apply to service personnel wherever they are in the UK. If it does not have some consistency of application, it will get it wrong. That is a real problem it needs to grapple with, and I hope that we can help.

The Defence Committee—perhaps I am giving away secrets—plans to produce a report on housing in the same way as we produced reports on veterans and casualties. As my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire said, the Committee’s work is to bring those matters to Parliament, because it is a servant of the House and our work should be debated here. Frankly, it is a disgrace that the House has not had a proper debate on the matter in more than 12 months. However well meaning Front Benchers have been in today’s debate, they have their political knockabout and absorb the time and the way the debate is conducted is not in the hands of Back Benchers. I know that the Backbench Business Committee has become some sort of petitions committee by default, but I appeal to it to provide time for the House to debate the work the Committee has been doing and allow Back Benchers to say what they want to say beyond the direct control of the Executive, rather than by any other process.

I would like to say one more thing about understanding people. We deploy the armed forces, so we need to protect them. One of the current debates about respect relates to people’s respect for how they are deployed and what we send them to do. The armed forces are sometimes uncertain about their legal and moral status, and if we are not careful, that will cause difficulties for the operational capacity to do things on the ground. It is known in the trade to those of us who discuss these things as the “lawfare-warfare” debate; is it legal, but is it also morally defensible? If we want respect and legitimisation, we must not only enable and provide for those people, but give them and the community on whose behalf they work some certainty that they are being properly deployed to do things that they feel comfortable being deployed to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The wonderful thing about defence debates in this Chamber is that they are so well informed. When we stand to speak, we feel that we are really speaking to people who have expertise—people who served in the forces; people who are partners of people in the forces; people who serve on the Select Committee on Defence.

I cannot start a speech in a defence debate without congratulating the Royal British Legion. Yesterday, attending Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of whether I agreed with what the Prime Minister said, I could not help but notice the sea of red poppies on both sides of the House. The Royal British Legion truly deserves to be congratulated on the success of its campaign and on making the poppy a fixture every November. As an aside, I pay tribute to its “Time to do your bit” campaign. On Sunday, I did my bit by running seven miles along Cwmcarn scenic drive, which, as anyone who knows it will agree, is very hilly. I think I speak on behalf of my parliamentary researcher Dave when I say that, rather than just doing our bit, we were both in bits by the end, but there we go.

Since I became a Member of Parliament, the most amazing thing—a great honour, too—is that I am invited to so many remembrance parades. This weekend I will join people in Oakdale, Pontllanfraith and Meas-y-cwmer as they come together to remember the war dead. However, when we think of remembering people, we should be aware that there is a group of people in this country, only 1,011 in number, who have a case to be remembered that is rarely heard in the House of Commons. They are, of course, the nuclear test veterans—those who suffered illnesses related to the nuclear bomb tests in the Indian ocean in the 1950s and 1960s.

We are proud in Islwyn that we have the only commemorative stone to mark the commitment of those veterans to our forces; it sits in the memorial garden in Risca. I cannot mention it without paying tribute to a local councillor, Stan Jenkins, who is responsible for the stone. When he was the mayor of the old Islwyn borough council, he met with a nuclear test veteran and was so moved by his plight that every October he organised a march through Risca, with the whole community coming together to show its support for those boys, and this year is the last year it will be held. Their standard has been placed in St Mary’s church in Risca, and until it turns to dust over time, the cause endures and the fight goes on.

We as politicians are rarely faced with serious decisions, but in years to come, when children go to the memorial garden in Risca with their parents or grandparents and read what it says on that stone—a simple sentence: “Justice is all we ask”—and when they ask their parents or grandparents, “Did those soldiers have justice?”, what will we say? Will we say, “No. The Government stood behind judges and law courts and they kept frustrating them, so that they died without being compensated”?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When I was the Minister for veterans, I made an offer to settle those cases. It was the lawyers representing the nuclear test veterans who rejected that settlement proposal. I feel—I know the current Minister feels this too—that the injustice in this case is not helped by the lawyers representing those veterans.

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Coming from a mining area, he knows as well as I do how much the lawyers frustrated justice for our miners too. I say this to the lawyers: if the Government have made an offer that is fair and acceptable to the veterans, they should accept it.