Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The respected and celebrated president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Mrs Madeleine Moon.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

During visits with the NATO PA and, indeed, the Select Committee on Defence to Finland, Norway and Sweden, I have noted their highly selective and competitive attempts to recruit young people to national service schemes, to the armed forces, and Government defence agencies. Those are much sought-after schemes in all those countries, and are highly effective not only in recruiting young people but in retaining them in the reserves. May I ask the Minister to look at Elizabeth Braw’s excellent article on this in The RUSI Journal, and will he look at that as an example for the UK?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady—Madam President—for those words of advice, and indeed for that constructive suggestion. I am more than happy to consider any way we can encourage more people to join and, crucially—this is the other side of the coin—remain in the armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

Indeed; the purchase of the nine P-8s was a very welcome step that this Government have made. It will significantly enhance our capability, and the investment that we have seen in Scotland ahead of those aircraft is significant and welcome.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of commissioning icebreaker capability to operate exclusively in the Arctic.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

The Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship, HMS Protector, has an icebreaking capability and can operate in the Arctic. We are aware of the importance of the high north region to our environment, security, prosperity and energy supply, and keep our requirements—including further icebreaking capability—under review.

[Mrs Moon]

Far too few women are engaged in defence, so may I welcome the Secretary of State to her position, as a fellow woman who has served with her on the Select Committee on Defence? The Arctic ice is melting, but during the winter its capability to freeze is still present. Both Russia and China are building large numbers of icebreakers. Will the Minister look at forward planning so that Britain can also have icebreaker capability in the north to protect British shipping when those sea routes begin to open up, as they will?

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I will give way in time.

Given the opportunity that we have to discuss the matter this afternoon, we will take the unusual step of dividing the House this evening to show our opposition to the Trident renewal programme.

I intend to set out three clear arguments as succinctly as possible for why there is no military case for the continuous at-sea deterrent—there is certainly no economic case for it—and indeed how we can come to the conclusion, given last week’s National Audit Office report on the failure of this Government and former Labour Governments properly to decommission nuclear submarines, that the United Kingdom is now an irresponsible nuclear power.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I give way to the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

[Mrs Moon]

I just want to say on behalf of the NATO nuclear alliance that that alliance greatly values the UK deterrent and would actually be grateful for common sense, trust and belief in the UK’s deterrent and our capacity and willingness to dedicate ourselves to its stability and security. The alliance would actually be horrified by the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

While listening to some of the fantastic speeches we have had so far I have been able to cross out whole swathes of my speech, because I do not intend to repeat what others have said. I would, however, just like to reiterate that we are here to celebrate 50 years of Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent, which has maintained peace and security for those 50 years. Many will talk of the NATO alliance being a nuclear alliance. I can say that not one member of NATO has ever stood up in the parliamentary assembly and said, “Let’s get rid of it. We don’t need the alliance. We don’t need the British deterrent.” Quite the opposite.

The one thing I dedicated myself to doing during my presidency is to remind people what NATO is, what its role has been in keeping peace for the past 70 years, and why it is critical to the defence and security of the United Kingdom and the rest of the alliance. Sadly, we have forgotten to do that. I was in Croatia the week before last. Every year, it celebrates its membership of NATO. The Croatian people know what it means in terms of building a democracy and providing security. We need to do that more in this country. That is why I am so pleased that we have this debate today.

I do not want to go over the past. That has been ably done by those who have gone before me. I want to look at what the current threats are and why the CASD remains absolutely critical to the defence and security of the alliance and every member state within it. Today, as has been said, the tempo and the threat is changing. It is rising again. States are building and expanding their nuclear missile systems, threatening across the alliance. I therefore want to stress the importance of a hidden deterrent—not an airborne or land-based deterrent, mobile though they are. The absolute uniqueness of the at-sea deterrent is its capacity to hide: the lack of certainty about where it is and when it will be brought into commission.

I accept that the sea domain has been neglected. I think everyone in this House who knows anything about defence will know that certainly across the alliance but especially in the UK because we are a maritime nation, we have failed to maintain our capacity as a military capability. We have also not built the number of submarines that we need, so that NATO’s surface and sub-surface fleet is diminished. The SDSR has, however, stressed that we are in a position where revisionist states are building new threats and new tensions. It is on them that I want to focus today.

Revisionist states seek to use military power and threat to change and challenge the status quo to acquire more power by seizing territory, as we have seen in Ukraine and Georgia, and imposing a new form—their form—of government, not democracy, or by unilaterally and fundamentally rewriting the rules of the game. The best description I have had of what is happening in Russia in particular was by Norway’s defence attaché to the UK, Colonel Olsen, who said:

“Russia is introducing new classes of conventional and nuclear attack submarines and is modernising its Northern Fleet through the addition of long-range, high-precision missiles. The totality of its modernisation programme adds up to a step-change strengthening of Russian maritime capability in support of an anti-access strategy that could challenge NATO’s command of the high seas”—

with potentially both Europe and North America being placed “at existential risk”. This is a strategy that we have not seen since the cold war.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend, as I will call her, for allowing me to intervene. Russia now practises using nuclear weapons on its exercises, so we ought to listen and watch what it says it will do, because my goodness, it will do that if it is pushed. That is why we need the nuclear deterrent.

[Mrs Moon]

I could not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman says. Those of us who are on the Defence Committee are very aware of that threat.

Russia has revamped and reoccupied seven former USSR bases in the Arctic. This is important to its ability to project power down through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Access into the north Atlantic and the ability to disrupt or control the sea lines of communications between North America and Europe would have a huge impact on the global economy, as well as preventing reinforcements from reaching Europe in the event of hostilities or crisis.

Russia has new capabilities, such as the Kilo SSKs, which are armed with dual-capability Kalibr missiles, which are very fast. The Yasen—SSBN—and Kalina-class subs are extremely long endurance. Russia has about 40 combat subs, the balance of which are in the northern fleet. Added to those impressive new subs are modern patrol boats, frigates and destroyers, all joined by a new ability to deploy submarines by stealth, explore underwater cables and exercise electronic warfare jamming.

Russia has also done something else: it has withdrawn from the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. The US and NATO argue that Russia has violated the INF treaty by testing and deploying a prohibited intermediate-range cruise missile. Russian officials deny that the missile in question—the 9M729—can fly that far. We tend to forget that the INF treaty banned all US and Soviet ground-launched missiles of intermediate range—that is, between 500 and 5,500 kilometres—and it resulted in the destruction of some 2,700 missiles up to 1991. There is a simple way of resolving this conflict: the special verification commission, established as part of the INF treaty, could be used to work out procedures for Russia to show that its missile does not fly that far. Russia has refused to do so. However, this is not just about new missiles and whether a treaty has been broken. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has made it clear that these missiles are hard to detect, mobile and nuclear capable, and they can reach European cities. They are a direct threat to NATO.

Equally, China is not a signatory to the INF treaty. It has deployed intermediate-range missiles on its territory. It has also begun to turn its attention away from land forces and towards the sea. Since 2013, there has been a marked acceleration in China’s investment in naval resources. In 2017, it overtook the US as having the world’s largest navy, whose reach goes beyond traditional strategic interests in the South China sea. That navy includes an impressive number of submarines—about 60, according to the United States Congressional Research Service. Not all of them carry nuclear warheads, but China is reported to be seeking to diversify the structure of its nuclear forces and to have a credible deterrence.

Alongside its fleet, China has opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti, and continues to develop interests in bases across the Indian Ocean. It also has an ambitious strategy of investment in commercial ports around the world. The Hudson Institute estimates that 10% of all equity in ports in Europe—including ports in Ukraine, Georgia and Greece—is now owned by Chinese companies. Much of the strategy is economic, but it brings with it defence threats.

For 50 years, this deterrent has kept us safe. We owe a huge debt of thanks, not just for the past but for the future, to those men and women in the silent service—in our industrial base—who continue to provide peace, security and stability, and who have prevented nuclear war for all those 50 years.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who painted a very clear and well-informed picture of the threat that we face. It is also a pleasure to speak in the debate.

I last spoke about this subject during a debate on alternatives to Trident under the coalition Government. It was a most unusual debate, in that it began with the then Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury putting forward one position, which would put CASD at risk, and ended with me, in closing the debate, putting forward another that would sustain it for the foreseeable future. I recall colleagues—perhaps in all parts of the House—being somewhat bemused at the novel idea of Ministers pulling in opposite directions. I had firmly wished that those days were behind us. However, in a sense that highlights the main point that I wish to make today: regardless of the turbulent politics of the time or the party of government of the day, the continuous at-sea deterrent has been there, day in, day out and night after night, the ultimate guarantor of our nation’s security against existential blackmail or threat.

Let me begin by adding my personal tribute to the Royal Navy personnel who have made Operation Relentless the longest sustained military operation in this nation’s history. With each boat having two captains and two crews, allowing continuous deployment, there are a large number of personnel on whom we rely and who perform to the highest standard in the challenging conditions that other Members have already described. We should also be grateful for the support of their families; long operations can take a particular toll on loved ones. There are pinch points of skills, which means that attracting and retaining skilled submariners is vital, but difficult, for the maintenance of the deterrence. I support the Royal Navy’s efforts to allow increased flexibility in service to take account of modern family life in such difficult circumstances.

Of course, the deterrent has an impact on employment not only through boat crews but in the wider community. I hope that the House will excuse this shameless plug, but colleagues who read the Dunne review last year will be aware of the contribution of defence to our economy around the UK, and the submarine programme is a vital part of that. About 6,800 military and civilian personnel are currently employed at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that number is scheduled to increase to more than 8,500, and Clyde will then become the largest employment site in Scotland. Those vital skilled jobs would be lost should the Scottish National party’s policy of scrapping the nuclear deterrent ever come to pass. Thousands more are employed in keeping the deterrent both current and afloat, working for companies in the industrial supply chain in constituencies all over the country—in addition to the particular concentration in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who is in the Chamber to hear me point out that he is a long-standing champion of this whole endeavour. Now more than ever, it is vital that we make the case for our continuous at-sea deterrent.

Looking back over the 50 years of Operation Relentless, it is clear that in its infancy the need for the deterrent was fresh in the public consciousness, following the horrors of the second world war. In the years that followed, the immediate concern of Soviet proliferation and posturing outlined the very real potential existential threat to the west—perhaps no more so than during the Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world so close to the brink of devastating nuclear war. But since the fall of the Berlin wall 30 years ago and the collapse of the Soviet Union, current generations have faced a less obvious threat. For some, that has led to an undercurrent of public perception—so readily fed by social media misinformation—that there is less threat and that the need for a nuclear deterrent is behind us. But that, as we have heard so well from the hon. Member for Bridgend, is fundamentally to turn blind eyes—to underestimate and ignore the global risks that we face as a country.

[Mrs Moon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that also much of that disinformation on social media is actually generated out of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Lady is quite right to point out that the nature of warfare and threat has changed. It is no longer purely a direct kinetic effect. It is taking place in the airwaves all around us, and it will take effect not just through social media; the potential to disrupt vital national infrastructure is becoming a tool of conflict for the future. That is one of the challenges that I feel that we, as a nation, have to face up to more than we have to date.

The attitudes that I have just described are personified by the previous career of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry to have to raise that again and slightly disrupt the consensus that there is across at least the two main parties, but if, God forbid, such attitudes were ever allowed to pervade public discourse and become the official policy of the Opposition, it would do irreparable harm to our national security.

Now, as in the past, the UK faces a range of threats for which conventional forces simply cannot act as sufficient deterrent. The increasing Russian aggression, which we have heard about, the upgrading of its nuclear arsenal and delivery mechanisms, will continue to threaten the potential security of the west. Other states, including Iran and North Korea, maintain their nuclear ambitions despite international pressure. The existence of 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world today shows the risk that we still face.

Fortunately, in the face of such threats, we do not stand alone. Our membership of NATO—a nuclear alliance, as has been said by others—remains the cornerstone of our defence, and our decision to maintain the continuous at-sea deterrent sends a clear signal to our allies that we will continue to play our part in contributing to the security of all NATO members. It also provides NATO with another centre of decision making, alongside the primacy of our strongest ally, the United States. By sharing the burden of nuclear responsibility, we demonstrate the true collaborative nature of the nuclear alliance and of the mutual defence we are committed to upholding.

That close co-operation over our nuclear capability with the United States is at the very core of the strategic defence relationship between our two countries. It also places us in a pivotal role in offering continuing leadership to the free world. That was encapsulated by Winston Churchill in his last great speech in this place as Prime Minister, as he ushered in the era of the strategic deterrent. He said:

“Our moral and military support of the United States and our possession of nuclear weapons of the highest quality and on an appreciable scale, together with their means of delivery, will greatly reinforce the deterrent power of the free world, and will strengthen our influence within the free world.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1955; Vol. 537, c. 1897.]

In my view, that remains the case today and is worth our bearing in mind as we approach the challenge of life after we leave the European Union.

Britain has the opportunity, as a responsible country, to show that nuclear powers need not relentlessly pursue further proliferation. While other states seek to increase their stockpiles, we have committed to reducing our overall nuclear weapons stockpile to no more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s, having already reduced our operationally available warheads and the number of warheads and missiles on each boat, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), the previous Defence Secretary, has just told us.

Britain has already led the way in this decade in showing that the existing stock of nuclear weapons in the world can be reduced. Next year, there will be another important milestone in that effort: the 2020 review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Our position as a P5 member of the UN Security Council provides the UK with the opportunity to continue to make the case for non-proliferation. Our work on developing disarmament verification solutions, particularly with the US, Sweden and Norway through the Quad Nuclear Verification Partnership, is helping to deliver an effective verification regime, which is essential if non-proliferation is to become a trusted way forward.

The fact that we have not had to use a nuclear weapon in conflict is a sign of their efficacy. Discouraging action through fear of consequences is the very definition of deterrence. In that respect, our continuous at-sea deterrent has been remarkably successful. A credible deterrent is not something that we can afford to relax. The skills on which it relies cannot be switched off and back on again in a time of crisis. To move away from a deterrent-based system would present an enormous risk to the country. It has not been shown how any alternatives to the deterrent would make the UK safer in the face of existential threats now and for future generations.

I point out to colleagues who believe that future risk is small enough to justify the removal of our deterrent that the world is an incredibly unpredictable place. The Dreadnought class of submarines is due to come into service in the 2030s with a 30-year expected lifespan. Our decision to maintain the deterrent will provide the ultimate guarantee of safety for our children and grandchildren.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am not as qualified as many to speak in this debate, but I remind those who wish to look into the subject further that they should read the 1934 book “Peace with Honour” by Alan Alexander Milne. He had served continuously in the first world war and in the book he wrote the reasons why war should become unacceptable—he argued for pacifism. In 1940, after he had re-enlisted, he wrote a book called “War with Honour”, in which he explained what had gone wrong.

In the middle of the 1934 book, A. A. Milne imagined a situation in which Germany attacks the United Kingdom in 1940. He asked what would happen if Russia said that it would join on our side but set various conditions. We have to understand that people have been thinking about such issues rather more deeply than, from some of the remarks we heard, the Scottish National party—but I want to leave them to one side.

I will move on to the other great person who could deal with the constitutional, policy and moral principles of nuclear deterrence: Sir Michael Quinlan. He was permanent secretary at the Department of Employment when I served there as a junior Minister. He then moved back to the Ministry of Defence, which was his real home.

While working for the Government and before he got moved to the Treasury in 1980 or ’81, he wrote some words that were not known to be his at the time:

“Our task now is to devise a system for living in peace and freedom while ensuring that nuclear weapons are never used, either to destroy or to blackmail.”

No one has yet made a serious case that our abolition of the continuous at-sea deterrent would do much to reduce the possibility of blackmail or the risk of destruction.

[Mrs Moon]

May I remind the House of the Budapest memorandum? Ukraine gave up its nuclear capability of 1,700 warheads and a large number of other capabilities; in return, Russia, the US and the UK agreed to secure its stability and safety.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Lady, the leader of the NATO parliamentary delegation, makes the point better than I could, and I am grateful to her for doing so.

I occasionally speculate what would have happened had not Mr Putin but his FSB predecessor become President of Russia. Had Nikolay Kovalyov become President, things might not be so rough now—nor for Ukraine—but that is not the issue.

We have to prepare for whatever happens in any major country around the world. We have to remember that one of the reasons why we had our independent deterrent was to give a second place of decision making, so that people did not rely only on the Americans being prepared to respond, but thought we might if we had to. I hope that we never do have to.

I recommend that real students of policy operating in this field get the collected correspondence of Sir Michael Quinlan and go through the essays in the book edited by Francis Bridger in 1983 for the chapter that Michael contributed. It followed on from the work of the Catholic bishops’ conference in the United States, and all that has guidance for us now. It does not say what we have to do in the future, but it gives us the reasons for where we have been in the past 50 years.

I join with others in paying tribute to the submariners and to the people in the dockyards and the like who have kept the deterrent going. One of the proudest times in my life was when I held a dinner in 2003—two years before the 200th anniversary of Nelson’s death at Trafalgar—at which I sat down with two Marine generals and 38 admirals. Those admirals were there to represent the people of all ranks who had served and all the civilian contractors who had helped. We thank them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his analysis. By investing in defence along the eastern border against the threat of Russia, we are as much investing in our security here in the United Kingdom as we are investing in the security of nations such as Poland, Estonia and Romania. We need to continue to do this, and other nations need to step up to the mark as well.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Recent Russian military activities fall well below the provisions of article 5 of the north Atlantic treaty. Does the Secretary of State share my sadness that the public do not understand articles 1, 2 and 3 of that treaty, which promote peace, security, justice, stability and mutual aid, all of which are vital to our defence capability?

[Gavin Williamson]

We have to be confident about what NATO can deliver, and we must increasingly make the arguments for what NATO delivers for everyone and explain its full remit. As we look to the future, we are seeing nations such as Russia and, increasingly, China operating in a grey zone, just below the level of conflict. That does not mean that those actions are any less dangerous. In Ukraine, the grey zone has merged with conventional power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I point out, as much for the benefit of our visitors as for right hon. and hon. Members, that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) not merely represents Bridgend and is a member of the Defence Committee, but is President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and we are very proud of that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Civilian authorities and agencies are now often on the frontline in dealing with cyber-attacks, chemical weapons attacks and drone incursions. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence is stepping up training and resilience capability of our civilian agencies to ensure that the skills transfers are there, so that they too are able to defend our country?

[Gavin Williamson]

Yes; of course we always have that backstop of being able to step in and support civilian authorities as well. Increasingly, as we touched on earlier, there is a growing grey zone where people who wish to do us harm are acting, and we need to consider how we support civilian authorities more in future to help them best deal with those threats.

Modernising Defence Programme

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We have recently seen, in Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman, how we have used traditional technologies, such as tanks, in conjunction with drones to be able to enhance their ability to operate in such areas. We are also looking at investment to secure our submarines to make sure that they continue to remain undetected and are in the best position to detect others and at enhancing the capabilities of jets such as the Typhoon. These are all areas in which we are looking at making extra investment. It is also important that we make that extra investment because it increases the exportability of some of these products and capabilities that we have around the globe.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

No matter what platforms we buy or capability we have, if we do not have the personnel, we have no military capability. We have a major shortfall—according to the National Audit Office, between 21% and 45% of our armed forces is not being recruited. What will we be doing to ensure that we not only have the platforms, but the people with the skills mix and the training to ensure that we have the capability to move forward?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady’s point is very valid. That is why I said that one of the key priorities is looking after the service personnel who serve in our armed forces. This is not just about recruitment, but about retention and looking at how we make the offer better and attract people who have left the services back into them. However, the recruitment issue that she highlighted is one on which we have already initiated a number of pilot programmes to make sure that we get the numbers of people applying to join our armed forces and shorten the amount of time that it takes from their application to them joining the armed forces.

RAF Centenary

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the best birthday present that any service can have is probably a little bit more cash. I am sure that the Chief of the Air Staff would very much echo that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I hope that I am not interrupting the Secretary of State in order to mention something that he is going to come to in his speech. One of the critical elements of defending this country is our rapid reaction force. Every day, that force stands on high alert for incursions into British airspace—both of adversaries and of civilian flights that might have been taken over by terrorists. It is the rapid reaction force that protects our skies across the UK every day.

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct to state that the RAF is always vigilant. It is always ready to act. It is always ready to respond. Within literally a few minutes of a warning, it is up in the air defending our skies and dealing with these threats. That sense of protecting our skies has been a theme of the Royal Air Force throughout its 100-year history.

It is both humbling and inspiring to meet the extraordinary men and women who are doing this—to see their commitment, their passion and their dedication to their duty and the service that they are part of. We in this House must always do everything we can to protect them and to make sure that they always have the very best, much as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), a fellow member of the Defence Committee, and the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

I speak as chair of the all-party group on the Royal Air Force, an alumnus of the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF, chair of the all-party group on reserves and cadets forces, about which we have heard a lot, and, very proudly, co-chair, with former Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup, of the Royal Air Forces Association parliamentary branch here in Westminster.

We have heard a lot about this year being the 100th anniversary of the RAF, but we have also been celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first world war. It is coming to an end, but I urge people if they have time to pop down to Porthcawl and see the fantastic display both commemorating the events of the first world war and showing the connections of Porthcawl and south Wales to the RAF.

I have a poster in my office that was put out in the first world war encouraging people to join the new Air Force. It is a wonderful inducement to join, saying, “If you volunteer to join, you will not be forced against your will to join the Army or the Navy.” I can see people thronging to join up on that basis alone.

We heard early on about the RAF being formed on 1 April 1918, with the merging of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. That partnership endures and is still important today, and those of us who are following events on the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier can see how vital that synergy continues to be through to today.

Right at the start, the RAF was a service that embraced new technology and techniques, and it has been that way ever since. The new air service fought all over and in every aspect of the battlefields of the first world war, providing invaluable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, as well as carrying out what we all know in terms of its bombing missions, and that was vital to the eventual victory.

After the war, innovation moved into civilian life. A department of civil aviation was created within the Air Ministry to regulate aviation in the UK in 1919, the same year that two RAF officers, Captain John Alcock and Lieutenant Arthur Whitten Brown, made the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic ocean, a seemingly impossible task.

During the interwar years, the RAF began its long tradition of training apprentices in the skills of aircraft engineering and maintenance, setting them up for great careers both in the service and in the growing aircraft industry, which was vital for the regeneration of the UK economy. During those interwar years, the RAF became a true national institution. With the outbreak of the second world war, the RAF once again stepped up to defend the country; it fought valiantly, defending our skies and our shores from invasion.

I want to talk about two things. The first of them is the way the RAF has always been willing to absorb people from across the world. The RAF’s No. 145 Squadron consisted of men from Belgium, Australia, Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Trinidad, Poland, the US, Canada and South Africa. The fantastic Air Transport Auxiliary consisted of 166 women pilots who often flew a plane after getting just 15 minutes to read a manual. They had no navigation capability; they literally had maps on their laps and navigated themselves around the country. But it attracted pilots from Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the US, Poland and the Netherlands, again coming to Britain to fight on our side, but coming to Britain also because of the chance to fly with the RAF.

Since I have been chair of the all-party group, we have taken to having a battle of Britain dinner. I want to tell Members about the first of them, because it was one of the most moving experiences I have had in this House. I asked those pilots and aircrew who were with us if they would each give us just three minutes of their memories. The first man said, “I want to thank the merchant navy. Without the merchant navy and their bravery, we couldn’t have flown. So that is my memory: the death of all those men in the merchant navy.” Everybody was rocked.

Then the second man stood, and he said, “I want to thank the French civilians. My plane came down and I walked for two days. I did not know where the heck I was, and eventually in desperation, I knocked at a door and a family took me in. They hid me; at risk to their own lives, they fed me, they dealt with my wounds, and then they moved me from family friend to family friend until I actually made it to Portugal. And I got back, and I had the chance to fly again.”

The whole history of the RAF is about amazing people. I cannot tell hon. Members how wonderful everyone from the RAF I have ever worked with has been and how willing and open to new ideas and innovation they are.

During the cold war, the RAF played a critical role in keeping us safe. We tend to dismiss the cold war now, but it was the deterrence represented by the RAF that kept us safe. Because people knew the risk of challenging the Royal Air Force, the cold war remained a cold war and never became a hot war. Even today, the RAF remains one of the world’s most capable and respected air forces. Its fighter capability and its intelligence gathering are huge.

During its first 100 years, the RAF has shown the spirit and invaluable service that our air force provides to this country, not only in defending our skies but in innovating, adapting and improving and in making use of new technology in combination with the skill and professionalism of its servicemen and women to create a national institution that we are all rightly proud of. That challenge continues and faces us every day.

The Secretary of State talked about Carbonite-2, the satellite capability launched recently by the RAF, along with its range of sensors and ground stations. Carbonite-2 is huge by comparison with some satellites that we see nowadays. It is about the size of a washing machine, but its telescope and high-definition video recording will provide critical information for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—ISR—purposes. That information will be sent into the cockpits of our fighter jets before we know it.

In 2017, I presented a report to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on “The Space Domain and Allied Defence”, in which I said:

“NATO needs a whole-of-alliance approach to protect its interests in space to enhance resilience and deter any threat to its space-based capabilities.”

I am very proud that the RAF takes on that challenge.

[Jim Shannon]

It would be remiss of us here in the House not to record our congratulations to the hon. Lady on becoming President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We are all greatly encouraged by her elevation to that position, and we wish her well.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

We have a problem within the NATO alliance, however. At the moment, there are just six postings in NATO, in six different departments, that are designated as space operational positions. That is not good enough. We must all welcome the development of the bi-strategic command space working group, which has recommended the creation of a NATO space operational centre of excellence to offer expertise and experience that will benefit nations across the alliance. We are fortunate here in the UK, because we have a very capable space technology community. Not everyone is so advanced in that field, and we need to spread that expertise.

NATO’s joint air power strategy is dependent on national space-based capabilities to support air, maritime, land and cyber domains, and for early warning, ISR, communications, positioning, navigation and timing information. We are at a time when the treaties and regulatory and legal frameworks relating to space will have to change. We have always argued that space should not be weaponised, but the threats that are coming our way indicate that other countries will not abide by the existing rules, and we need to be ready to face those threats.

The Secretary of State talked about the RAF already being engaged in 15 missions across 22 countries, the majority of which are alliance missions. We all have a responsibility to ensure that they have the money, the personnel, the training and the best technology to ensure that the RAF’s edge is maintained and that its ability to command the air environment continues.

One of the most amazing things about being a member of the Defence Committee is that we have the capacity to drill down into areas that other people do not always understand. An example would be the RAF rules of engagement. When I was doing a report on behalf of the Committee on remotely piloted air systems—known as drones to the rest of the world—it was fascinating to see the rigorous nature of the rules of engagement and of the tests that everyone going in to pilot a drone in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world is required to go through before they can go on duty. It was fascinating to see the checks and balances involved, and the requirement to ensure the safety of civilians, which was central to everyone’s thinking. I do not think that we speak enough about that. We do not tell our public how high the level of integrity is of the people who serve this country, how that manifests itself day after day and how respected it is around the world.

I want briefly to mention the importance of the defence industry. The combat air sector has contributed 80% of the total defence exports over the past 10 years. It has an annual turnover of £6 billion and supports 18,000 skilled jobs. That vast network is part of the RAF legacy and an offshoot of this national institution.

I cannot finish without speaking about the people of the RAF. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and I share a great friend. When I became the chair of the RAF all-party parliamentary group, a liaison officer was appointed by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that I understood things and perhaps that I behaved myself—he did not do very well at that—as well as to ensure that I was accurate in the things that I said and did. That man was Wing Commander Philip Lamb. After being a parliamentary liaison officer, he went on to be the station commander at St Mawgan and then to become our defence attaché in Sweden. It was there that he became ill. On the day—in fact, at the very minute—that I was told I was to be the next President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a text appeared on my phone. I opened it, and it told me that Philip had died. Philip was a man who, like so many in the RAF, served his country with distinction, commitment and integrity. Like so many others, he was a man who let the world know that the RAF still attracted the best people. They are people who really do go through adversity to the stars in protecting this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For those who were not here on Thursday I reiterate, I hope on behalf of the whole House, congratulations to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on her election as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is with some joy that I call not only Mrs Madeleine Moon, but President Moon. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees with me that the nuclear deterrent—I stress the word “deterrent”—is also a vital part of our NATO alliance security and defence strategy, and that it is vital not just for the UK but the whole of the alliance?

[Gavin Williamson]

If I may address Madam President on that point, Mr Speaker, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are the only country that assigns its nuclear deterrence to the defence of NATO, so it plays a vital role. It also plays an important role in ensuring that Britain is an even more powerful voice within NATO and acts in a real leadership role in that organisation.

Armed Forces Covenant

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Dr Lewis]

I am glad to see that she will—very good. We look forward to that.

Very recently—it arrived a few days before last week’s debate, which is why I was so anxious that the matter be flagged up—Judith sent me something I had asked for in the course of our conversation: a concise summary of the situation and some personal recollections and reflections by individual war widows. I intend to put those on the record today.

First, the summary. This is how the commissioner spells out the situation:

“If your spouse died or left Military or War Service before 31 March 1973 and you also receive the War Pension Scheme Supplementary Pension you keep your War Widow’s Pension for life. If you were widowed after 5 April 2005 and receive Survivors Guaranteed Income Payment from the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme you keep your War Widow’s Pension for life.

From 1st April 2015 if your spouse died, left Military or War Service after 31 March 1973 and before 5 April 2005 and you were in receipt of a War Widow’s Pension on that 1st April 2015, you keep your War Widow’s Pension for life. However, if your spouse died or left Military or War Service after 31 March 1973 and before 5 April 2005, and you remarried or co-habited you were required to surrender your War Pension or Compensation; to date this group do not receive their War Pension or compensation.”

There is an anomaly, which is that if a person who was unlucky enough to fall outside the appropriate date range were now to divorce their other half, their husband or wife, the pension would be reinstated, and if they were then to remarry the very same person, the pension would not be taken away. That is, frankly, bonkers. It is basically creating a perverse incentive on people who, by definition, have already suffered trauma and tragedy to part from the person with whom they have found renewed happiness and go through a charade of this sort if they wish to have the pension permanently reinstated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

And backdated.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon]

I wish to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, particularly for the leadership he gives those of us who serve on that Committee. The more he reads out, the more it becomes absolutely clear that Governments are happy to write names on memorials and to make soundbites in this Chamber, but they are not willing to allow the country to maintain its financial commitment and promises to war widows and their children to mitigate for their lost life. As parliamentarians, should we not take that into our hands, perhaps as the Committee, by putting forward a private Member’s Bill?

[Dr Lewis]

That is a wonderful idea, and it is exactly the sort of constructive suggestion I would expect from the hon. Lady. I suspect that at the root of this situation is probably not a flaw in the Ministry of Defence, but a problem being raised by people from the Treasury saying, “If we do something for this group, we’ll have to do something for another group. We will be opening some sort of Pandora’s box.” And so on and so on. I say, frankly: if that is the argument, they should hang their heads in shame.

Although I think I have already made the point quite forcefully, I intend, if I may, to read out two or three more of these extracts, so that the point cannot be escaped, because every one of these stories has a different dimension. I hope that is acceptable. If I start to see urgent signals from those on the Front Bench when I really need to get a move on—[Interruption.] I am getting a few of them now, so I shall do this as concisely as possible.

I come to the case of Margaret, whose first husband, William, was a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was murdered—blown up—in 1986. She says:

“At the time we didn’t know if we would even be able to have William’s coffin open due the extent of injuries…in the end all we could see was his face, with a wee cut just above his right eye. No one has ever been convicted of William’s murder.

She talks about the “rituals” that they always had to go through for their own security, and the circumstances in which what happened took place. She continues:

“I am now happily remarried to my second husband, John and we have two sons. When I married my second husband John in 1993 I automatically lost my pension. To me this was highly unfair, as older widows and now younger widows have got to keep their pensions, what is the difference, between widows like them and me? I have endured the same trials and tribulations as them.

I detest writing this letter and find it extremely difficult, to me it’s like a begging letter, yes I have endured financial hardships in the past and if my pension was reinstated it would mean a lot to me financially, it would be extremely useful for my two sons’ further education and for repairs to our home. But, to me, it would be some acknowledgement from the Government that they realise and appreciate that William laid down his life for his country and for our people, and that although I have remarried I still bear the scars of the past.”

The final extract I will read, given the unexpected time pressure—I hope the other ladies will forgive me—is from Eileen, whose husband David served part-time in the UDR and was murdered in 1977. She says:

“I was so proud of my husband and how he sacrificed his life to try to keep to his community safe at nights and weekends. When he was on duty I waited at home in bed until he arrived safely back home. Those were worrying times for me.

I felt the need to serve my country with pride and also allowed my family to make a positive contribution to maintaining peace and I became a member of the UDR in 1984.”

So this lady, seven years after losing her husband in the defence of her country, joined the same regiment herself. Does that not make us feel proud of her and does it not make us all feel ashamed of the way that she and the other women whose stories I have related today have been treated?

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

Let me echo the comments made by the esteemed Chair of the Select Committee and congratulate our colleague on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), on her elevation in becoming the NATO Parliamentary Assembly president. I am sure she will serve in that role with great distinction. All I can say is—I was there when it happened.

[Mrs Moon]

I would not want people to think I had already got above myself, in not being here for the start of the debate. I had a visit from members of Parc prison, in my constituency, who went to the Ministry of Justice to be given an award for their work with young prisoners with autism, and I felt they deserved my time. This was not a case of neglecting this debate; I got here as quickly as I could and I do apologise to colleagues.

[Douglas Chapman]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on a topic that affects every Member of this House. Those who are serving or who have served in our armed forces are owed a great debt of gratitude by us all, and they deserve to be supported and looked after, both in service and after they have left.

The core principles of the armed forces covenant set out to ensure that these individuals suffer no disadvantage compared with other citizens when it comes to accessing services and that, where appropriate, they are given special consideration. However, according to some of the personal accounts I have heard, that is not always their experience. We have heard a long list of other examples from people across the country for whom this is not their experience either. We know that that must change, and I welcome the Minister’s recognition that change was inevitable and that continuous improvement in the support for veterans was required.

The Ministry of Defence is currently struggling to recruit and retain the personnel we need. This year, the British Army was 4,000 troops short of the 82,000 it was set to have; only 7,500 were recruited. It is 2,000 shy of the 10,000 required to maintain troop numbers. The total number of trained personnel based in Scotland dropped by almost 2% in 2016, to 9,970; with a drop of almost 19% in the officer ranks. Across the rest of the UK, the picture is no better, with an astonishing 10% drop in the number of new recruits. The Public Accounts Committee report published in September reported skills shortages in more than 100 critical trades. All of this leads us to see a jigsaw that will undoubtedly have an impact on existing personnel, through increased workloads and pressure, not to mention an alarming lack of capability to respond to the changing threats facing the UK.

On remuneration, the Government say that they are moving away from the 1% pay cap for public sector workers, which is to be welcomed. However, the Defence Committee noted that

“no additional funding will be made available to the MoD for increases above this level for Service personnel”.

Those who serve in our armed forces are exceptionally skilled and committed people, and they absolutely deserve better than what they are getting at the moment. Furthermore, if we are to have any hope of attracting the talent and skills we need to the services, the MOD has to do better than the decidedly unattractive package currently on offer.

Other Members have talked about housing. For years, service personnel and their families have had to put up with poor maintenance standards that would simply not be tolerated in the local government sector. In June, the Defence Committee stated:

“The record of CarillionAmey, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) in managing Service accommodation has been lamentable.”

This disrespect of armed forces personnel and their families is one of the reasons that people are increasingly leaving the services. Ministers must urgently grip the dysfunctional organisation and lay out an action plan for radical improvement.

[Mrs Moon]

One of the issues brought to my attention by John Allison is the problem with local authorities’ residency rules for allowing people to move from the military into areas where they might not have had a previous residence in order to set up home. That is resulting in people being denied housing accommodation. This should have been dealt with in the armed forces covenant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to ensure that we do not have a homelessness problem among our veterans when they leave the military?

[Douglas Chapman]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point, and I will discuss what is happening in that regard in Scotland a bit later in my speech.

Ministers must get a grip of the current situation if they are to convince service personnel and their families that they are valued and that their housing needs will be cared for appropriately in future. The welfare of families is often challenged directly by the difficult lifestyles of those who serve, and considerations relating to the continuity of education for children, support for spouses, financial advice and family accommodation must be taken more seriously.

I would suggest that veterans in Scotland have a somewhat different experience of accessing public services from those south of the border, and I make no apology for that. It is a thoroughly good thing, and if we can learn from other parts of the UK in order to improve matters for everyone, surely that is the best way forward. The Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh established a £1.3 million Scottish veterans fund to support projects that provide a wide range of advice and practical support to veterans. As well as having a Minister responsible for veterans in the Scottish Government, we have appointed a Scottish veterans commissioner—the first such position anywhere in the UK. Our commissioner produced a report on veterans’ health and wellbeing earlier this year, the recommendations of which the Scottish Government are taking forward.

Members have mentioned the importance of armed forces champions, and I want to say a big thank you to my local authority armed forces champion, Councillor Rod Cavanagh from Fife Council, who does a tremendous job. I am sure that his commitment and efforts are being replicated across the country by our other armed forces champions to keep the needs of their armed forces at the heart of local government, alongside the work that we do here to keep these matters at the heart of central Government.

The care and health of our veterans is of huge importance, particularly in the area of mental health, which the Minister spoke enthusiastically and sincerely about. Our society is becoming more open to discussing mental health issues in general, but we must ensure that the specific concerns of veterans are included within this evolution. The armed forces charity SSAFA found in 2016 that 40% of working-age veterans said that they were suffering from depression, that 36% felt they had a lack of hope or purpose, and that 30% reported mental health problems. SSAFA also found that loneliness and isolation were widely reported. I welcome the £10 million of further support allocated to addressing the mental health needs of veterans at the last Budget, and I hope that that line of funding continues to be a priority area for addressing the needs of veterans.

I should like to return to the question of housing and homelessness. There are varying estimates of the number of veterans who might be homeless, ranging from 7,000 to 13,000 across the UK. It is shameful in this day and age that homelessness should be the future for any citizen, never mind for people who have served their country. Members may be aware that, in Scotland, all local authorities have a duty to provide permanent accommodation for all applicants who are unintentionally homeless. The code of guidance on homelessness in Scotland states that housing applications from veterans should be treated sympathetically and that close links should be made between the armed forces and local bodies to help to support those re-entering civilian life. The Scottish Government have also recently updated their Scottish housing guide for people leaving the armed forces and for ex-service personnel, which contains advice on all accommodation options for veterans.

There are a lot of really good organisations already providing support to armed forces personnel and veterans in Scotland, and we all know who they are, but I would welcome the development of a more comprehensive support network for veterans and, in particular, for those who feel that they have absolutely nowhere to turn. I look forward to seeing the new tri-service defence holistic transition policy when it is published next month, and I hope that it will go some way towards filling the gaps.

My SNP colleagues and I support the creation of an armed forces union to accommodate the wide range of interests, concerns and identities within this community. We owe our armed forces personnel a voice in the development of policies that serve and support them and their work, and this should take the form of a permanent organisation that can readily represent and consult current and former personnel. The body should be able to be truly representative. It would not be a trade union in the sense that people would be able to go on strike. Rather, it would be like the bodies that support police officers, for example. Such a body could support our armed forces personnel to enable them to raise genuine concerns and areas of interest affecting all serving personnel in a mature and adult way, to ensure that their voice was heard.

The armed forces covenant has provided a central focus for developing a veterans policy, but there is still much more work to be done. We need to do all we can to ensure that our veterans and serving personnel feel included in the decisions that are made on their behalf to help them back into civilian life. I speak for all my colleagues on these Benches when I say that we stand ready to support any measures that the Minister might wish to bring in, so long as the issues around pay, housing and support for our armed forces personnel and veterans are at the heart of the discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I thank the Minister for his wise words and his support for this case. There is criticism of Combat Stress, but I am sure most people in the House will remember that just a few months ago I reinvented the Lords against Commons pigeon race—it was one of the great events of 2018 in this place and will be remembered for decades to come, I am sure—and the charity that we raised money for and to which so many Members of this House and of the other place donated was Combat Stress. It was the designated charity, and it does a tremendous amount of work, as do so many charities. Nevertheless, mistakes were made, as the Minister said. He has ordered a review of Combat Stress and the period when mistakes were made and veterans slipped through the net. I can only praise him again for that. I must also say to any veteran listening out there: please do not stay away from Combat Stress, because just like so many other charities, it is still doing an enormous amount of tremendous work for our veterans. That work will continue, because we must not forget that PTSD does not happen just like that; it can happen 10, 15 or 20 years after people have retired—after our servicemen and women have seen conflict. It is very important that Combat Stress continues to offer that support.

[Mrs Moon]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Gus served in the Falklands. I do not know whether part of the problem that Gus is experiencing today is because of that service, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the support that the Falkland Islanders still give to veterans? They subsidise flights so that veterans can return to the Falklands, and they give them support in revisiting some of the battlefields and help them to work through some of the trauma that they experienced. I wonder whether that might help Gus. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, I can give him further details later.

[Chris Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I congratulate her on her election referred to earlier. A Member of the Legislative Assembly flew over from the Falkland Islands when they heard that Gus was on hunger strike, and they have been involved in his case.

Among the many people who have been involved in Gus’s case are my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not present, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan). I thank them for their support for Gus and, indeed, their work with Combat Stress. I pay tribute to the president of Combat Stress, General Sir Peter Wall, who has gone to Newport in Shropshire on several occasions to meet Gus. Ironically, he was previously Gus’s commanding officer, so it is wonderful that he has offered that support. A great deal is happening, but I wanted to raise Gus’s case because he has done a lot and has caught the public eye. It is important now that the Department and we MPs get behind our veterans and make sure that nobody else has to go on a hunger strike to bring these issues to our attention.

Combat Stress is not the only charity out there, of course. The Royal British Legion was very much to the fore in the run-up to Armistice Day. I also wish to pay tribute to Care after Combat, which is unfortunately one of those charities that some people stay away from, because it primarily deals with people who are in prison. They are ex-servicemen and women who, in the main, have mental health issues. They are in prison because of drug and drink-related issues and because they cannot cope with society. Care after Combat does such a good job and is one of the only charities to take these people on board, take them under its wing and look after them. I pay exceptional tribute to Jim Davidson, who is of course well known in many other theatres, not necessarily the theatre of the House of Commons. He has done a superb job of taking these servicemen and women under his wing as chief executive of that charity. He does a vital job.

I am being pressed by the Whips because of the time, but before I sit down, let me give the House a statistic for Care after Combat. In the first year, the reoffending rate is 8% when Care after Combat gets involved, compared with the national average of 45%. That just shows how a little bit of money goes a long way with such a superb charity.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We in Wales can be especially proud that Parc Prison, which largely takes prisoners from Wales, has established the endeavour unit, which particularly focuses on veterans. The work that it has been able to do with building veterans’ links with charities, such as Care after Combat and many others, has turned veterans’ lives around and changed their reoffending rates. That is something of which we in Wales can be very proud, and I am particularly proud that it is happening at Parc in Bridgend.

[Chris Davies]

A lady with a prison—you can’t beat that, can you? I congratulate the hon. Lady on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate. I set up the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant when I was first elected in 2015, and found that the covenant had been published for five years, but had never been discussed in the House. It was a great pleasure to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to give colleagues and me time to do so. Two years on, it is even more exciting to see the Government bringing the matter forward themselves. I commend the Minister because I know that it is down to his efforts that this is now part of the national conversation. That is, of course, what the covenant is and should be—part of the national conversation. It is also a moral obligation that is practically delivered, and it is thought about by everybody who lives and works in our great country.

I will cover a few areas today. The report is extensive and shows the real depth of work that is beginning to emerge in this area, and that is fantastic to see. I would like to raise just a few issues that are brought to me most often by serving families and, indeed, veterans.

The first is education for the children of service personnel. It is fantastic that the Department has agreed to finance the education support fund for another two years. This is used by those who are doing research and helping us to understand, in particular by data collection, much more about the impacts on service family children. That is incredibly welcome, because it is very difficult for Ministers to make decisions that will genuinely be effective if they do not understand the realities of the situation.

I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill some 18 months ago asking the Department for Education to change the status of military children when they have to move to the same as that of looked-after children. The Minister said that it can sometimes be a four-month wait, but several families have come to me for whom it was six or eight weeks to deployment. In those cases, there is not only no time to get their lives in order and sort themselves out, but invariably the wife was doing most of the work because her husband was serving, although in one case the wife was a serving member of the armed forces. It is incredibly difficult, and the challenge with civilian schools is that people cannot apply for a school unless they have a house, and they cannot get a house until they know where they are going, and the Department can only move them so fast when they have a six-week window to go from one deployment to another.

There is progress, but I urge the Minister to push the Department for Education further to take this on. It involves a change of regulations, not primary legislation, and it would make a dramatic difference to a very small number of families who get very short-term deployments in the middle of the school year and whose children are just left out in the cold. Not this September but last, there was a statistic that showed that more than 70 children were still not in school in November because they had special needs and a place could not be found for them in the new location.

[Mrs Moon]

One of the other issues is the lack of understanding when families are not in community-based schools with a lot of military families but are isolated. Schools do not necessarily understand the additional stressors and tensions in families where the father, mother, or sometimes both, is on deployment. Is there not also work to do with schools to understand the additional tensions and problems of our young children when their families are away and to help them, particularly at times of stress such as during exams, to ensure that their education does not suffer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to all those who worked so carefully and so hard in Salisbury and Amesbury on our behalf. As I said, the £950 million is there to improve this over the next 10 years. That includes £48 million to help to set up a new chemical weapons defence centre in Porton Down to make sure that we maintain our cutting-edge capability in chemical analysis and defence.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, along with other Members of the NATO Parliament, I visited the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence Centre of Excellence in the Czech Republic. One of the training courses that it runs is a skills training course for first responders—for police and ambulance personnel—who may often, as in Salisbury, be the first on the scene. What efforts is the Ministry of Defence making to make sure that we have that capability in this country?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Of course, this is not just about the armed forces; we have to recognise that all the emergency services were there very quickly. We need to ensure that they have all the training that they need. I will speak to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that that is happening.

Closures of RAF Scampton and RAF Linton-on-Ouse

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) for securing this very important debate.

In my constituency, I have the historic RAF base of Linton-on-Ouse, and I quite understand that the Minister has a difficult job. No one wants their local base to close. Bases are not just about bricks and mortar, tarmac and concrete. They are places of heroic deeds, great endeavours and often the ultimate sacrifice.

Linton-on-Ouse has a proud history. It was first formed in 1937, in the lead-up to the second world war. The No. 4 Group RAF was based there, and it undertook some heroic bombing raids on Norway, the Netherlands and into Germany. Linton-on-Ouse was also host to the No. 6 Group Royal Canadian Air Force. In some of the pubs in my area there are lots of photos of those days—of Canadian airmen and British aircrew together, looking valiant and invincible. Of course, many of those people never returned from their bombing raids. Indeed, in 1941, the base at Linton was bombed by the Luftwaffe, with a loss of 13 men, including the station commander. All my life, RAF Linton-on-Ouse has been part of the local community. I remember playing darts in the officers’ mess there as a young man, and I also went to a very extravagant, formal military wedding there. As a young boy, my son Charlie was first shown how to fly a plane on the flight simulator there by a very good friend of ours, Flight Lieutenant Rod Leigh—a great man who is sadly no longer with us.

The announcement that the base would close in 2020 has shocked the entire community because of the part that it has played in people’s lives. It employs many people—as the hon. Member for Lincoln said, these bases employ many people directly—and many people work in the base’s supply chain too. Many jobs will be at risk because of the closure and, of course, the local community is very proud of the base’s historic contribution to our previous fights against tyranny. The Minister has a very difficult job because he is responsible for taxpayer’s money—it is not Government money—and he has got to make sure that all the resources he has are used in the most cost-effective way possible. I understand that maintaining the military estate costs £2.5 billion per annum. The closure of the base at Linton will save £140 million by the end of the decade, and will contribute to a significant investment of £4 billion in our infrastructure and military bases going forward. It is hugely important that our military bases and forces are fit for purpose and can do us proud when they are needed in the future.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech, which is very effective. Does he agree that another of the problems that we face is the need to keep the capacity to flex and to expand our capability in the event of threat? With Russian submarines off our coast, Russian aircraft coming very close to our airspace and ships also coming into our waters, is this not a time when our capacity to expand is central to our defence not only in the future but now?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes some excellent points. The international threat that she outlines—particularly from Russia—is greater now than it was for many years, so it is absolutely right that we have a military that is fit for purpose.

The Minister will acknowledge that we have corresponded many times over this closure, including with senior officers from the RAF, to challenge them on whether closing the base is the right thing to do, or if it is a false economy. I understand that it makes sense to aggregate all training needs in a single place—they are being moved to RAF Valley on Anglesey—but I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions about some concerns we have, which were first raised by the Public Accounts Committee during a session on military flying training in October 2015. The Committee raised concerns about the prospect of all training being moved from Linton to RAF Valley, and it noted in its December 2015 report that the full implementation of the new training system for military air crew had been delayed by a number of years and that only 151 students had graduated, at a cost of £143 million to the taxpayer—that shows how expensive it is to train pilots—when we were aiming for an annual figure of around 320 students.

On top of this, part of our capacity will be used to train other nations. The RAF is a world leader in its field, so many nations come to it for training, which we should be very proud of. However, there are concerns about how those providing the training will manage with only one simulator when there are currently three at Linton-on-Ouse. It is calculated that the number of flying hours required to make sure that we have the extra capacity has increased by 20 to 25%.

I have a number of concerns—I know the Minister has addressed them before and given me every assurance—along the same lines as those expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). Is this going to mean that we have the capacity when needed in the future, particularly in extra training needs both for our nation and for services that we provide to other nations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I may be cut off by the Division bell, but many might be grateful for that.

I want to emphasise that this is such an important issue. I am lucky because some of the air traffic control personnel in RAF Scampton at present will move up to RAF Boulmer in my constituency as a result of RAF decisions. The reality is, however, that the one group of people who are not ever able to speak for themselves, and who indeed colleagues have perhaps not mentioned much, is those in the RAF itself. This is very much their decision.

As ever, the RAF is in a state of continuous change and, although this year we have commemorated in extraordinary ways the RAF 100 and the exploits, bravery, and extraordinary and impossible challenges of our incredible airmen and women over the past 100 years, the reality is that those in the RAF look forward. While respecting history, we must allow those who are planning for the future—with technology and aircraft that are out of this world in terms of a normal human’s comprehension—to be in places that necessarily work for the RAF. We must respect the RAF’s decisions.

I completely respect the position of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) on the community, however, and I hope very much that the Minister and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which will be charged with finding new uses for the site, are mindful of history and the need to maintain the location whence extraordinary deeds were done.

I am no shrinking violet when it comes to criticising the way the DIO has managed housing challenges: the MOD was set the challenge of finding a huge amount of land to build housing on, as part of the Government’s big housing strategy, and I led the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into how that was going. I continue to say that much more needs to be done. I commend colleagues on encouraging the Minister to ensure that that relationship is stronger than it has been so that communities know the MOD understands the value of a community. This is not just about taking a piece of land and building houses on it.

We must remember that the RAF wants to move forward. It has a budget—everyone has a budget—and it wants its technological abilities to be honed in the right places. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned the Russian threat, but the MOD’s investment in Lossiemouth, where the P-8 is coming in, will enable it to do so much more. Technology is constantly moving forward, and the RAF wants those centres of excellence and those training and base centres.

[Mrs Moon]

The point I was making was not about meeting current capability; it was about having the capability to flex and expand. Once we build on an aerodrome, it is gone. We have to have the capacity to keep things operational, so that should the bases be needed, we can make them so.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I entirely agree. During the second world war, we built hundreds of airfields in a hurry, so that we could move those brave young men in and out of the country to defend our shores, but they have not been used since. We always have to look forward. The reality is that we have no idea what the future warfare space might look like. The RAF is telling us constantly that it wants those centres of excellence where it can have the investment.

I am an east coast MP too, and we have long seen our potential enemies as coming from the east—that is why most of those airfields that are now redundant are on that side of the country. However, we must always look forward and support RAF decisions.