RAF Centenary

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: a good idea is a good idea. It has been introduced with the genuine best of intentions, and I hope that the Government will see it in that spirit.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), mentioned the issue of funding, which also plays into the whole notion of whether a young person today would choose to sign up to the armed forces. If they were to spend any time at all looking into how the armed forces are funded—the pages of The Times newspaper are usually where someone can read all about this—it would cause them some concern. SNP Members have offered to the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers to try to get to a sustainable level of funding for the MOD, because that is clearly not there now. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports that show that the affordability gap in the equipment plan has got worse, not better—indeed, the best-case scenario has got worse by around £3 billion.

We can really only hold our fingers in our ears about this issue for a certain amount of time. Again, we have brought forward another good idea. Indeed, the former Minister, whose constituency has gone right out of my head, but who chose to resign from the MOD over the Brexit issue, said that he would consider our proposal of multi-year defence agreements to try to bring some sustainability to how the armed forces, such as the RAF, can be funded. Again, this is an entirely normal practice in other NATO member states and in other European countries. It helps to take the heat out of how defence is funded—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) shouts that the Minister was the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). The proposal could help to take the heat out of some of that discussion and put some proper weight behind what the MOD want to achieve.

In that context of what the MOD wants to achieve, what is the role of the armed forces, and what is the role of the RAF to be? We thought we would all see that in the modernising defence programme, a programme that is now so steeped in controversy that I am not sure whether anyone will be able to take it seriously when it is published. We were supposed to see something earlier this year that would be linked with cyber-security and cyber-defence, but that was hived off in about April, which I think was a sensible decision.

The Government then promised to produce the programme before the summer recess, but instead the House was treated to—I think—four or five paragraphs in a written statement on the day the House rose for the recess. My nephew could have written that in a couple of hours, and he only started high school this year. It is really not on. If I were in the armed forces, looking on, I would be thinking, “What on earth is going on at Government level to ensure that we have the necessary equipment and funds so that we can continue to have the fine armed forces that we deserve?” When will the modernising defence programme be published so that the House can consider it?

I said earlier that creating the Royal Air Force was a tremendous act of foresight by Parliament. I think that we now need to revisit these questions: what is the modern Royal Air Force set to achieve for the United Kingdom and its allies, and what is its role to be in a changing threat picture involving kinetic and hybrid threats? I accept that we cannot give any serious answers in the time that remains this evening—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

There is plenty of time.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I do not want to prevent others from showing their worth, Mr Deputy Speaker.

That is the level to which Parliament needs to take this debate. I think that Parliament is up for it; I just hope that the Government are as well.

Armed Forces Covenant

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have been informed that the Prime Minister is to make a statement to this House at 3 o’clock. However, I understand that the Prime Minister has already spoken to the press outside No. 10 Downing Street. I consider that to be a gross discourtesy to this House.

Secondly, I understand that an agreement has been reached between the Prime Minister and the European Union on a draft declaration. I would have thought that that draft declaration would be available to this House, but as of 10 minutes ago it is not available in the Table Office. Will you ensure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that draft declaration is made available well before the Prime Minister gets to her feet at 3 o’clock?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is good practice to share such information and there is still time. If Her Majesty’s Opposition have got to listen to a statement they should be well informed in order to be able to put the right questions. I also say that this House should be told first, not the TV studios; Members of Parliament are here to be told first, not everyone else. We know that that is best practice and it should be the practice: whoever they are, they should come to this House first, and then by all means go to the TV studios. The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record, and I hope that anything that needs to be printed and produced will be ready for the 3 o’clock statement. We do have time, and I am sure that message has gone out loud and clear, and I am sure the Whips will be dealing with it very quickly.

[Mr Ellwood]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I confirm that, in coming to the House and presenting the ninth annual armed forces covenant report, I did not go to the media beforehand, but came here first?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is the best practice, and I am sure you will advise the Prime Minister on how to take it forward in the future. What a great Minister you are.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On a point of order, The outworking of the statement that we are due to hear at 3 o’clock this afternoon is, I imagine, that this important consideration of our armed forces covenant will be curtailed. Can you confirm whether the intention is to have the winding-up speeches in this debate before the Prime Minister’s statement, or do you envisage its proceeding beyond the point of interruption? What are the plans for full consideration of the covenant statement?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In fairness, that is also in the hands of Members such as your good self, who have put in to speak. They can help the House to finish this debate ready for the statement. I am sure that the Whips will work closely to ensure that that happens. Looking at the time, I am sure that everything will come on time, as predicted and as, I would say, now planned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

And so say all of us. I hope the Whips are listening and act accordingly—[Interruption.] Even at this moment, I see messages being passed urgently. Could this be some good news? I would happily give way if it is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Another resignation?

[Dr Lewis]

Heaven forbid.

Other matters deserved equal attention today. We have heard about the legal hounding of Northern Ireland veterans and other veterans of different campaigns; that is an ongoing matter. Also, at some point it would be right for the House to consider the Home Office’s failure to allocate sufficient British passports to veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Royal Navy. That injustice needs to be rectified. However, as I said, in the time available to me today I will concentrate on war widows, and I will do so slightly unusually—in their own words.

First, I remind the House of the terms of the covenant itself, which the Minister read out. The words relevant to my remarks are the following:

“the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families… Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.”

Back in May, I had the pleasure of meeting Judith Thompson, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. We discussed the plight of 200 to 300 war widows who lost their war widow’s pension and did not have it reinstated when others were more fortunate.

I see the hon. Member for Bridgend has just taken her place. Sadly, she missed the tribute paid to her achievement in becoming president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, but she is here to hear me reiterate it. I hope she will contribute to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Of all 650 Members of this House, he knows better than anyone, in personal terms, the devastation these killings left behind. That is why I intend to read out several more extracts before concluding. Mr Deputy Speaker, please indicate if you feel I am going on too long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Whip is there.

[Dr Lewis]

Okay, I will do my best. I do not intend to elaborate over and above the words, which speak for themselves.

Muriel, the widow of Jimmy, writes:

“My husband was 40 years old when he was murdered and I was left a widow at 37 with 5 children. Jimmy gave his life in defence of this country and I believe I should have the recognition that I am a war widow. It should make no difference that he died in 1977 and not on another date that the government has decided qualifies widows for pensions.

My husband was murdered because he put on a uniform and tried to uphold law and order. He died in his own home when gunmen shot him at our front door. I have had to live with the horror of this and our family has suffered terribly but instead of feeling that the government recognises our sacrifice we feel betrayed and that we are a nuisance asking for money the government says it can’t afford. I felt I had done something wrong when I remarried and tried to rebuild my life, as if everything that I went through meant nothing.

I don’t even get a full state pension because I paid married woman’s national insurance and I often think I should have been better advised by the MoD who should have given more priority to my welfare. I am a war widow and should be acknowledged as such and the government must do the decent thing and reinstate the pension for those of us whose lives were destroyed so that democracy could flourish.”

Now I come to a daughter, Elizabeth, who says:

“I am disappointed and saddened that I am even writing this… My Father”—

John—

“was a member of the UDR and he was shot dead when aged 40 years in 1981 doing his civilian job.”

I will not go through the events that happened, but Elizabeth continues:

“Each Remembrance Day and on my Dad’s anniversary, we remember him with pride. The impact of my Dad’s murder was severe, my Mum was left to bring up 3 children, I was aged 11 years. This was very difficult for my Mum both financially and emotionally. We all as a family still struggle today.

When she remarried her war pension was taken away from her. This is an absolute disgrace. We as children were still orphaned. It is a struggle for my Mum. She has no financial security in her later years and she can’t help her family the way she would like to. My Dad would be extremely saddened at the way the MoD have treated us.”

That is the very point made a few moments ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Elizabeth continues:

“I would also like to add that the aftercare is a disgrace as there actually isn’t any aftercare. When I enquired at the MoD about the pension being reinstated I was told no but if my Mum divorced her husband and then remarried him again she would get it back. How morally wrong is this? It is ridiculous that she is being penalised because of when my Father was murdered and for when she remarried. The pension should be reinstated and a full apology given for the way my Mum and other widows have been treated.”

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I may have misunderstood—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Minister will have to sit down.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was just grabbing some water.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I don’t care what the Minister thinks he is doing; I am just telling him what he has to do.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I may have misunderstood the Minister, and I know it is not the custom to ask a question to which one does not know the answer, but I think he said that royal naval ships were confined to aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers. Would that not also apply to any replacement amphibious craft that we might need?[Official Report, 24 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 8MC.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Minister was adamant that there had been a British bid for the MARS tanker contract. That was not the case, and I wonder whether he would like to correct the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Do you wish to speak, Minister?

[Mr Ellwood]

Because of the mechanics of the Defence Committee, I, rather than the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), stepped forward to open this debate. However, defence procurement is his brief, and it would make more sense for him to give a comprehensive reply on this very subject as he is concluding this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The matter is now on the record for it to be picked up—[Interruption.] Hot potatoes!

I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division, which was subject to a double majority vote under Standing Order No. 83Q, in respect of the Question relating to the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order. The Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 211. In respect of the same Question among those Members from qualifying constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 282 and the Noes were 201, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will have to introduce a seven-minute limit on speeches. I call Kevin Foster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was customary in a wind-up to reply to the debate. I am sorry, but Big Ben has not been mentioned this afternoon. The many defence workers who lobbied Parliament yesterday on this contract expect us to respond to this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is part of it, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is leading on to the debate that we have had.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am leading on to that issue. It is a debate not only about the ships in question, but about wider manufacturing procurement strategy.

Given the severity of the crisis facing British steel, this is simply shocking. The Government need to take a long-term approach to procurement, appreciating the wider economic and societal benefits of their decisions, rather than simply driving down the upfront costs. The Minister said that this is what the shipbuilding strategy states, but what I have read so far in the strategy is extremely ambiguous, and there is no detail as to how these wider socio-economic benefits are measured or quantified. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that point in his summing up. It would also be helpful to have confirmation that reports that a deal worth £2.5 billion in relation to the AWACS—airborne warning and control system—contract has been awarded to Boeing with no UK content.

Our motion recognises the wider socioeconomic benefits of procuring wisely. We have sought to place the fleet solid support ship order with domestic shipyards, creating or securing 6,500 jobs, including 1,805 shipyard jobs, which are highly skilled and 45% better paid than the average for all jobs. It would also mean that £285 million of the estimated cost of the order could be returned to the Exchequer through taxes. Many people across Britain clearly see it as right, moral and economically sound to take this course of action. The Government have a duty to use their enormous spending power to support British industry and its workers. Tonight, football’s coming home; we need a commitment from the Government that the same will happen to British manufacturing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I think that we have had 12 passionate speeches on this matter. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

Although we all agree about the importance of the future of our shipbuilding sector, there is clearly a differential between my views and those of the Ministry of Defence, and the views of many Opposition Members. However, I am willing to recognise completely openly the commitment of those who have spoken in this debate to our defence sector, the defence industry and jobs within that industry.

Before I go on to my detailed notes, I want quickly to say two things. I have been asked to be short in my response because of a football match that is going on this evening—although, as a Welshman, I am quite happy to miss kick-off.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I assure the Minister that the rest of us are not—come on!

[Guto Bebb]

I just want to place on the record a clarification of the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). He was correct in saying that UK companies were involved in the MARS tanker competition and procurement process, but Opposition Members are also correct in saying that there was no British company involved in a final bid. I hope that that clarifies the point of order made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).

I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State has brought this debate forward. The comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) were also very interesting, and there is no doubt that the team from Glasgow have very much argued the case for their city on this issue. I also welcome the speeches made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who made an important speech highlighting the fact that we have to understand the context in which these decisions are being made.

The truth of the matter is that we did recommend a shipbuilding strategy and we commissioned a report from Sir John Parker. We have accepted all the recommendations of that report, and it is important to highlight that we have done that in full. The crux of this issue and of this debate may come down to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I thank him for his kind words. He said quite clearly that he had no problem whatever in companies based in the United Kingdom that are not owned or held in the United Kingdom competing for these contracts. That goes to the crux of some concerns that Government Members have about this motion, because it says very clearly that that contract should be offered only to “UK-only competition”. There is no definition of what that means, so the right hon. Member for Warley was probably discontented with the Opposition motion.

It is very clear that the Government are fully committed to supporting our defence sector. The shipbuilding strategy was not developed in order to avoid our support for the shipbuilding sector. The whole point was to ensure that we did support, in a coherent manner, a shipbuilding sector that would be competitive on an international basis, that would be able to retain the skills about which hon. Members have spoken so passionately, and that would allow the qualities of our shipbuilding sector to be understood and appreciated on a worldwide basis.

The Australian Government’s order of the Type 26 frigates in the SEA 5000 competition is an acknowledgment of the design skills that we have on the Clyde. It is also an acknowledgment of the confidence that the United Kingdom has in saying very clearly that we want to compete on an international basis and to offer our products on an international basis, and that we want to do so with a degree of confidence. We do not believe that the way forward for our shipbuilding sector is simply to say that every single vessel has to be built in the United Kingdom, because we are more ambitious for our shipyards. We want to see our shipyards winning contracts on an international basis.

I want to correct something. When I first stood at this Dispatch Box as a Defence Minister, I was told by the right hon. Member for North Durham that we had not sold a warship design in 40 years, so what made me think that we would start now? Well, we have. That is an indication of the fact that our strategy is working. It is working because we have confidence in our shipbuilding sector.

NATO

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am reducing the speaking limit to five minutes, so that everyone will be treated equally and everyone will have a chance to speak.

Ministry of Defence

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us have the hon. and gallant Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).

Armed Forces Pay

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

Where will the money come from? We will call for extra contributions of up to 5% from large corporations and we will demand that the super-rich pay a little bit more, instead of enjoying the largesse that the Government have given them. I am not hopeful that that will happen, however, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State and his friends—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the shadow Minister to give way, or not. My understanding is that there was no giving way earlier, so if there is tit for tat, that is up to each individual; it is not for the Chair. What I do not want is this continuous barracking across the Chamber, with Members saying, “He is not giving way” and, “Will he give way?”. [Interruption.] Order. There are no more contributions, are there? Wayne David, please.

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the chuntering and the interruptions are indicative of the crass behaviour of the Ministry of Defence, which we are debating this afternoon.

I am not hopeful that Ministers will stand up for the armed forces, which they claim to support, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State for Defence is considering scrapping the special allowance given to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister, in his response—I will give him time to respond—make a commitment not to cut the special service allowance?

As we approach Remembrance Sunday—several Members mentioned it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)—it is surely imperative that the House unites in support of our armed forces. This afternoon, many contributions have strongly supported lifting the pay cap. I very much hope that all of us will support the motion, and call for a fair pay rise for our armed forces. Especially at this time of the year, our armed forces deserve nothing less. [Interruption.]

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister should sit down for a second.

Mr Lancaster, I do not know whether you are deliberately trying to frustrate the Chair—I am sure that is not your intention—but you are going a good way towards doing so. Let me help you. It is up to the Opposition spokesman when he sits down. The Minister has asked for extra time to respond, so you should be thanking Mr David for sitting down to give him that extra time. Let us have less chuntering, and let us hear from Minister Ellwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Look at the National Audit Office report of 2010. What it said on the equipment budget, not the overall budget, was that on its current basis the figure would be £6 billion. If there was no increase in line with inflation over a 10-year period, the figure would be £36 billion, not £38 billion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First, if the Minister takes the intervention both Members cannot be on their feet and he cannot suddenly say, “I don’t want to hear any more of it.” In fairness, if he gives way he needs to let the intervention get to the end. If I think the intervention is too long, let me take that decision. Let us not have both Members on their feet.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I make it clear that the facts are very clear. Look at any—

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Look what you’ve done now. You’ve got a point of order: Kevan Jones.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Hang on. The Minister has been here long enough; you know you have got to sit down. Please, let us follow the rules of engagement. As ex-Army personnel, you are very good at that. Kevan Jones.

[Mr Jones]

It is a serious point of order. The right hon. Gentleman gave way to me, and then he stood up when I had not finished. But the serious point is that what he is saying is not true—not the facts—and as a Minister, he should not be actually saying that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Whoa! Nobody would mislead the House with an untruth.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Withdraw!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir Mike Penning, thank you. Your knighthood goes before us. [Interruption.] Order. Now, we know that that is not the parliamentary way. I am sure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) does not mean it in the sense in which it was given.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. All I am saying is that accurate information must be given. If the Minister looks at the NAO report from 2010, he will see the actual figure, instead of the bluster which he keeps—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Okay. I will accept “accuracy” but not “truth”. Minister.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure whether I should sit down or stand up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, I tell you what: you’ll sit down. If we are going to play the game, we will start playing it. Now then, Minister: on your feet.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the hon. Gentleman did, and continues to do, in supporting our armed forces, but the numbers are clear. The growth of the deficit since 2000, moving forward, increased, increased and increased; and that is the black hole that I was actually referring to.

I think we have milked this subject enough for the moment, so I will move on. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) spoke about the importance of the covenant. She is in her place. I thank her for the work that she does on this important matter and I would like to meet the Committee at the earliest opportunity.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) spoke of the package of financial support, which is very important. I have touched on that. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said that the reserve numbers are increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke with passion about his constituency. It was a pleasure to visit the event to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Falklands campaign. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about the importance of the Royal British Legion. I am really pleased that the Office for National Statistics has agreed to include a tick—a requirement—for veterans and I am pleased that everyone has worked towards that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about the importance of the equipment that we have—£178 billion is being spent on that. He also said that the total cost of the promises that Labour has made so far under this Government is £500 billion. I do not know where that money will come from.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) spoke about cats and traps. I want to make it clear that the electromagnetic aircraft launch system—EMALS—was being promoted. That simply had not matured in time. There was no way that we were going to buy F-35Cs for the aircraft carrier; they could not have been launched off it because there is no steam.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Now you will have to sit down again, Minister, but don’t worry: I will bring you back up. Wayne David.

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is being economical with the truth. But what is absolutely outrageous is that the subject under consideration is pay rises for the armed forces, but Ministers have hardly referred to it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think people will deliver figures in different ways, and the interpretation of those will always be in dispute. Minister.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was just going to mention the animation—the passion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who has done a service to the House with his work to promote the needs and requirements of veterans. I hope that continues.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made an interesting and measured contribution. He was the first to point out that what we need to do is to ask the question, “What do we want our armed forces to do?” Only by asking that question will we determine the size and the equipment we need, and that is why we are undertaking our capability review.

The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke with passion about Remembrance Sunday and the poppy appeal. It was a real honour to visit the Poppy Factory a few months ago to see the work that it is doing with veterans, and the work for Remembrance Sunday itself.

In conclusion, like all Members of the House, the Government want to ensure that our brave armed forces, those exemplary men and women who give their all for our country, continue to get what they deserve. Our forces are currently serving in 25[Official Report, 20 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 4MC.] operations around the world. They are keeping us safe and enhancing our reputation around the world. They are the best of British, and they have the right to expect the best in return. Therefore, although the need for pay discipline will remain a constant in the coming years, we remain committed to ensuring that their overall package of pay, progression and benefits continues to reflect the enormous value that we place on their work. We await the next review’s findings with interest. Members can rest assured that, as a Defence Minister, a former officer and a reservist, I am determined to do everything in my power to ensure that our people get what they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the pay of Armed Forces personnel has been capped at 1 per cent in 2017-18 and that this represents another below inflation pay settlement; further notes that the size of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and Royal Marines is below stated targets; notes that dissatisfaction with pay has been identified by service personnel as a reason for leaving their respective force; and calls on the Government to end the public sector pay cap for the Armed Forces and give Armed Forces personnel a fair pay rise.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am apologetic for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I was waiting for him to take a natural pause, but one did not appear. Am I right in saying that there is a convention in this House that speakers should remain in their place for two speeches before they leave? The Secretary of State has left after only one speech, and the Chair of the Defence Committee is speaking. Have you been notified of any reason why the Secretary of State has had to leave so soon, when many of us would have expected him to want to know what was being said?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Secretary of State went at such speed that he did not even say goodnight or anything, so I am not sure why; he may well be coming back. He may have been taken short, given the speed he went at. It is convention that Members normally hear at least two speeches, and it is normal for Ministers to stay around to hear a bit more. Of course, when we have such a learned Member as the Chair of the Select Committee, we all wish to hear him. I had better bring him back on.

[Dr Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say in defence of the Defence Secretary that he spent no fewer than two hours and 25 minutes before our Committee last Wednesday afternoon, and I felt that was—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is no reason for him not to be here—let us put that on the record now.

[Dr Lewis]

But I did feel it was somewhat beyond the call of duty, and I believe that the whole Committee appreciated it.

My fourth question is: will this new system send a positive or a negative signal—first, to recruits and, secondly, to potential adversaries? That is where the controversy arose in the upper House, as grave concern was expressed about the Bill’s repeated use of the terminology of “part-time service”. To give a brief example of the dangers of the use of such terminology, I take a moment to refer to the lyrics of a “Glee Club” song composed by Liberal Democrat activists at their 2014 conference, sending up their party’s policy of sending nuclear submarines to sea either without warheads—we appear to be without Liberal Democrats, too—or only for part of the time. I will not sing it, the House will be glad to hear. [Hon. Members: “Do!”] It is done to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” and, talking of the boats, one of my favourite verses goes, “We can send them back to base if we’re really up the creek and request the war’s postponed until the middle of next week.” The chorus then is, “We believe in a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine,” and so on. Members can, thus, see the potential for the use of “part-time” in relation to armed forces to allow our adversaries and our critics in the media to suggest there is something less professional and less committed about the way in which we are conducting ourselves. Lord Craig of Radley, former Chief of the Air Staff, did suggest an alternative wording, which I hope might still be considered in Committee.

My final question is: will it be possible to apply to go on so-called part-time service just in time to avoid an operational deployment? The answer to the first question about emergency service clearly covers the issue of whether someone about to be deployed to a war zone could use this scheme to get out of it—clearly, they could not—but I would like a little more clarification from Ministers on whether there is any risk that some people might see a less popular deployment looming up on the near horizon and decide that the time was appropriate to start thinking about applying not for so-called part-time service but for a change, a reduction or an alternative to full-deployment just at that point.

Subject to those caveats, I wish the Bill well. I look forward to hearing further elaboration on the points I have raised, perhaps in the closing speech from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who I believe will be summing up. I endorse the commendation of both Front Benchers for this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am slightly bemused. Can you confirm whether we have until the moment of interruption for the Minister to continue his remarks?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but there are 33 minutes to go.

[Mr Ellwood]

As I said, without exception, all Members from across the House came to support the people in our armed forces today.

For centuries and across continents, our armed forces have been respected—indeed, revered—for their grit, tenacity and courage. When we define who we are as a nation—our standards, our values, our tolerance, our interests and our aspirations—they are neatly interwoven with the reputation of our armed forces and the role that they play on the nation’s behalf.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I think that that is the nearest we are going to get to a welcome from Scotland today, so let us bank that and thank the hon. Gentleman for it. He is right about one thing: the Type 23s are beginning to age and we must ensure that the Type 31e and the Type 26 are ready to replace them to keep up the overall numbers of frigates and destroyers. That is why we aim to insert real pace into the programme through the new procurement process by accelerating the design phase, running the tender next year, placing the orders towards the end of next year and starting, as he says, the regular drumbeat of orders to replace the Type 23 frigates. He will know that they were not all built at the same time and that the older ones will soon need to be taken out of service. Our aim is to have the first Type 31e in service by 2023.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last, but certainly not least, I call Alan Brown.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

They used to tell me that when I was the last pick at football as well.

In the 2015 strategic defence and security review, an extra £16 billion was found for the successor nuclear submarine project’s budget, which clearly led to a cut in orders for the Clyde and to the disappearance of the frigate factory. If the costs for the successor submarine programme continue to spiral, what effect will that have on the national shipbuilding strategy and on today’s promises?

Counter-Daesh Update

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

On his re-election, I call Dr Julian Lewis.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The reason why, surely, these cities have not been liberated sooner is precisely the care that is being taken in the targeting of the aerial bombardment. Does the Secretary of State accept that whereas the intervention with airstrikes in Iraq was non-controversial because we were prepared to see the army of the Iraqi Government win, the same does not apply in Syria? Apart from the Kurdish elements in Syria, who else does he expect to run the country when Daesh’s land is taken from it, if not the Syrian Government, with or without Assad?

Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

No, frankly, I do not think we are. That comes back to the fact that this is not a target that we have to hit precisely. This is a minimum—in my opinion and from my point of view, an inadequate minimum. It is much easier to land the helicopter on a deck when the deck is quite an enormous one: all we have to worry about is putting the helicopter down on some part of that enormous deck. We do not have to worry about which part of the deck we manage to alight upon. Therefore, should we end up spending, for example, 2.5%, 2.8% or 3%, we shall still have fulfilled the purposes of the Bill. At this point, it may be convenient to reflect on what the size of the deck of that carrier has been in decades gone by. Then, perhaps, we shall see that we should not be struggling to get on to the deck; on the contrary, we should be asking ourselves why we are engaged in achieving such a very modest aim.

Between 1955 and 1960, the percentage of GDP that we spent on defence varied from 7.2% to 5.9%. Between 1960 and 1969, it varied from 6.1% to 5%. From 1969 all the way until 1980, it varied from a high of 4.8% in 1975-76 to 4.2%. As recently as 1980-85, it varied from 5.1% to 4.7%, and in 1985-90, it varied from 4.6% to 3.9%. Even after the end of the cold war, in the period between 1990 and 1995, it varied from 4.1% to 3.2%. Not until the financial year 1994-95 did the figure dip below 3%. I would argue—and this was foreshadowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot in his excellent speech—that a country with our level of commitments and responsibilities certainly ought to be thinking about spending 3% of GDP on defence.

The situation in terms of the threats that we face has become increasingly fraught. I, for one, was very surprised that only a year after the 2010 strategic defence and security review made what I think was an 8% cut in the defence budget, we were already keen to engage in an additional conflict in Libya, the wisdom of which has subsequently—and, in my view, rightly—been questioned. But whichever side we take in that particular argument, it follows that if we are in the business of still wishing to intervene, we must certainly be in the business of making the appropriate financial investment.

During one of the public hearings that we have held so far, it was pointed out that it is not enough simply to look at the amount of defence investment that we make, because it is possible to spend a lot of money on the wrong things and still end up with inadequately structured armed forces. If I may dip into history, I suspect that the Maginot line occupied a rather large chunk of the French military expenditure budget in the period leading up to the second world war. It was not a very good investment.

It is, of course, difficult to quantify outcomes when it comes to the appropriateness of the way in which money has been spent, but even if spending a lot of money on defence is not a sufficient condition for the achievement of good defence outcomes, it is certainly a necessary condition. Earlier, I described in detail what happened to the defence budget when it was in decline. Over the same period, our welfare budget ballooned, our education budget ballooned, and our health budget ballooned as percentages of GDP. I am not criticising that in any way, but it is rather extraordinary that that pattern of steep decline in spending on defence as a national priority has been allowed to occur, given the extent to which we have remained engaged in the carrying out of military activity from time to time on the world stage.

Embodying the proposal for 2% in law is a worthwhile endeavour because it will send a signal that any Government who wish to renege on the commitment will have to unpick the legislation in order to do so. It is unsatisfactory that we as a country cannot feel comfortable that defence occupies a sufficient role in our league table of commitments to spend from the public purse. As I said in an intervention, however, the endeavour of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot to ensure that the commitment is enshrined in law carries with it the risk that what should be a minimum will become a target. It is true to say that, from time to time, some of us on these Benches who take a particular interest in defence have been less than totally helpful towards those on the Front Bench when we have felt that their commitment to defence had fallen short of what it should be.

Around the time of the Wales summit, the Prime Minister made a statement about the importance of urging our NATO allies to meet the 2% minimum, and I decided to seize the opportunity to show my full support for those on my Front Bench by asking him an easy question. I got to my feet and the Prime Minister gave way graciously, as he always does. I asked him whether he would like to give the House an assurance that, as long as he remained Prime Minister, there would be no question of this country dipping below the 2% minimum. Rather to my discombobulation—[Hon. Members: “Sorry?”] I thought that would attract a bit of attention. Rather to my discombobulation, I was told that, although the commitment was being met that week and that year and was going to be met the following year, after that we would just have to wait and see. That prompted concern among a number of us that the commitment to the NATO minimum was in jeopardy.

I well remember how, during the long years of opposition, we used to excoriate the Labour Government for playing fast and loose with the figures relating to the GDP spend on defence. In particular, I remember one statement that Tony Blair made, I think in 2007 when he was coming to the end of his 10-year period in office as Prime Minister. He made a speech on HMS Albion, in which he said that, taking defence expenditure as a whole over the preceding 10 years of the Labour Government, it had remained roughly constant at about 2.5% of GDP if the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan were included. As a Member of the shadow Defence team, I was quick to point out that the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be met from the Treasury reserve funds, and that if they were stripped out of the picture, Labour was actually spending more like 2.1%, which was inadequate. I continued to make that point in speeches in the House over quite a long period—some would say an excessively long period.

What worries me about the debate on defence expenditure generally is that we are being subjected to the management of expectations. There should never have been the slightest doubt that this country would continue to meet the NATO minimum. We had always done so, and we never even had to think about doing it because we had always surpassed that level quite comfortably. It is a measure of the situation in which we find ourselves today that, as I said in earlier interventions, we are apparently supposed to be ringing the church bells in triumph that we are not going to dip below the NATO minimum.

Because of this undercutting of belief in what politicians do, compared with the commitments that they give, I think it is important that this Bill should go through. I therefore propose to set a good example to other right hon. and hon. Friends by keeping my remarks brief, because I would not like us to find that we were running out of time for the Bill to make the necessary progress that it needs to today. Not that I would ever think for one moment that the Government Whips Office would encourage people to expatiate excessively on this important subject, but just in case they might be tempted to do so, I wish to make that task as difficult as possible and will therefore conclude my contribution to the debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Bob Stewart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for that clarification. The idea that there is any quick solution to sorting out the status of such people when they arrive there, granting them asylum or perhaps relocating them is wishful thinking. It takes a very long time indeed under our current processes.

Let us look back roughly one year to Michael Moore’s Bill that set a target of 0.7% for international development. I said at the time that I was appalled by the Bill because we were already spending the 0.7% and I could see no reason for encapsulating it in our law. I could see no logic in doing that, based to some extent on my own experiences of overseas aid. I had the chance to see the good, the very good, the bad, the ugly and the downright bad in Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere. There is no question but that in some parts of the developing world our aid programmes are making a profound difference on the ground. They are helping with sustainability and development, they are helping small businesses expand and they are making a big impact on the growth of those countries. British humanitarian aid is saving lives in different parts of the world.

Staff from DFID, the related agencies and the NGOs with which they are working in partnership are doing a superb job in many countries. I had the chance to see that all over Africa—in places such as Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where I saw a clean water and road building programme; in Juba, the capital of the newest country in Africa; and in the refugee camps in northern Kenya. That is the good, but there are also examples where aid is not being well spent. I lost count of the number of heads of DFID I saw on my travels around Africa who told me that they would struggle to get good-quality aid out of the door. We were looking for programmes and partners in many of those countries, and I was warned on a number of occasions that there were aid programmes that would not deliver and on which mistakes would be made and things would go badly wrong. I can think of at least four examples in Africa where there had been outright scandals involving British aid.

To be fair to DFID, it is taking action, but there is growing evidence that we must try to move from aid relationships with those countries to trade. Many of those countries will move to middle-income status during our political lives, and as they do so it is extremely important that we reduce the aid and move to a trade relationship. My argument at the time was that the 0.7% was not necessary, it was an ill-thought-out move, and the only reason we did it was because we made a pledge in the election campaign. That is an honourable reason for doing something, but it is the wrong reason for doing it because in many cases the 0.7% will be redundant. Furthermore, as our economy expands, that aid budget will go not just from £8 billion to £13 billion, as it has done over the past five years, but it could well be up to £20 billion-plus by the end of this Parliament if our economy grows.

You are looking at me, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall conclude by saying that we have a moral obligation to help the poorest in the world. I feel that very strongly. We have a moral obligation to help those who are less in need. We have a moral obligation also to educate our children and young people in this country—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was hoping the hon. Gentleman was going to come back to defence. I thought there was an analogy coming, but my worry is that he is going to continue doing the same thing.

[Mr Bellingham]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have those moral obligations to house our people, to educate them and to make sure they have good health, but if we did not provide that as a Government, in many cases the private sector would step in. However, the private sector will never step in to defend this country. We have a duty to defend our country, and that is why, of all the Departments that should be ring-fenced, Defence is the one. There is no logic whatever in ring-fencing and encapsulating in law the 0.7% unless we do the same for defence. That is why I support the Bill wholeheartedly. If we do not get it through, that will send a very bad signal not just to all those constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), but to our partners in NATO, our friends in America and many countries around the world that are looking to Britain to set an example in this crucial area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I will not comment on my hon. Friend’s last remark, but the town very much supports the regiment. Indeed, every year soldiers from Holland visit Congleton to celebrate with our town the wonderful work many of them did when they were stationed there during the last war.

My second different perspective comes from being a member of the International Development Committee. I also sat on the Bill Committee that debated Michael Moore’s International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. I very much wanted the 0.7% commitment to international aid to be enshrined in legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot also sat on that Committee, but he was on the other side of the argument. I am pleased to say, however, that we are on the same side today. I absolutely agree that if we can commit to a particular target for the overseas aid budget, why not do the same for defence? I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others that 2% must be the minimum.

The International Development Committee visited New York last month for the announcement of the sustainable development goals, to which 193 countries have signed up. One of the new goals is to ensure that we keep the peace and provide good governance, the rule of law and sustainable institutions. Unlike the millennium development goals, which were far shorter and simpler, the SDGs require every country not only to endeavour to support the developing world in meeting them, but to commit to do so ourselves. As a country, we have now committed to ensuring that we will do what we can to promote global peace through the SDGs. We did so very publicly, with the Prime Minister and several other Ministers going over there to make that commitment. However, we need the capacity and resources to ensure that we can do so and that we can, when crises occur, ensure that stability, security and peace are promoted.

That is very much my perspective when I say that our forces must be properly resourced to keep the peace. When crises occur and other institutions lack the necessary resources and expertise to tackle potentially devastating problems, it is often British armed forces who step in. I am not seeking to take away from all the other essential roles our forces play with their defence capabilities, on which other hon. Members have much greater expertise, but want to talk instead about the remarkable role that British forces play in promoting peace and containing crises that would otherwise lead to severe instability.

The Ebola crisis last year, particularly in Sierra Leone, was absolutely devastating, but it would have been far worse without the 800 UK military personnel who were sent to west Africa. Military engineers built six treatment centres, each of which had 100 beds. The UK naval ship RFA Argus anchored at Freetown, acting as a base for helicopters to distribute aid and supplies.

When the International Development Committee was in New York last month for the announcement of the SDGs, we met Dr David Nabarro, the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy on Ebola. He told us that last September, when the speed of the epidemic suddenly became clear, the UK provided immediate, strong political leadership. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary all said together, in effect, “Count on us.” But it was our military that enabled them to translate that political commitment into immediate and very effective action, saving countless lives. I made a careful note of what Dr David Nabarro said:

“My abiding memory of tackling Ebola in Sierra Leone at an early stage were the district Ebola response centres—the DERCs—run by UK Army officers.”

He continued that the UK “wins the prize” on military support:

“The big prizes go to the young Army officers in district offices using management disciplines to bring everyone around the table.”

Without that, he said that

“the epidemic would have been far worse.”

He told us:

“The very presence of RFA Argus in the port of Freetown projected an important symbol of solidarity and stability which helped the capital remain calm.”

We cannot be complacent because, time and again, global health experts tell the International Development Committee that there is likely to be a similar and possibly worse global health crisis within the next 30 years. Unless our forces have the capacity to deal with such situations, the world will be a far less stable place. Unless they have that capacity, we will not be able to reassure our people not only that the defence of this country is provided by the Government as a priority, but that so is the global peace to which the Government are committed as part of the SDGs. However, in speaking about that, I do not want to take anything away from all the other aspects of the work that our forces do so expertly.

In closing, I want to give another example of the remarkable impact of our servicemen. I was a member of the International Development Committee when we went to Nepal just before the terrible earthquake disasters, with which our Gurkha regiment officers and retired Gurkha officers helped out. I want to tell the House about the work that a young serving engineer in the Gurkha regiment oversaw in Nepal. The Gurkha welfare scheme looks after retired Gurkhas in Nepal quite remarkably.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The Bill is about NATO. I understand that great efforts were made by the Royal Army Medical Corps on Ebola and everything else, but we are debating the funding of NATO. I have been very lenient, but if she could just come round to funding that would be helpful.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will conclude by saying that some remarkable work was carried out in Nepal to provide the water supply for an entire village, at a cost of just £18,000, and it was overseen, with his engineering skills, by that young Army officer. I support the Bill because I believe that it is an essential key to promoting global peace, stability and security, to which our country and 192 other countries have signed up with the SDGs.