EU Defence: Permanent Structured Co-operation
Debate between Mark Francois and Wayne David(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Francois
That is a first.
Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, I serve on the Defence Committee. Before Easter, we took evidence from a number of witnesses, including Earl Howe, the Minister of State for Defence, on initiatives relating to further European integration on defence. I speak today in a personal capacity, and I will speak only briefly, so my remarks do not necessarily represent the views of the full Committee, not least because we have not yet released our report on that subject, although it is not far away.
The 2009 Lisbon treaty, which I remember debating on behalf of my party in the House, created the legal framework for permanent structured co-operation—PESCO—which permits closer co-operation on defence issues among EU member states. In December, 25 EU countries, with the exception of Denmark, Malta and the United Kingdom, formally launched PESCO. As part of the new arrangements, EU member states agreed to create a new military planning and combat capability—MPCC—to be used initially for non-executive common security and defence policy missions. Historically, the United Kingdom has been opposed to any type of Euro headquarters that might act as a rival to the NATO command structure reporting to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—SACEUR. However, the Minister has been able to reassure us that the MPCC is of a relatively small and modest scale, and that, at least as it is currently configured and empowered, it is therefore unlikely to represent a serious challenge to SACEUR’s command centre. The Minister has reassured the Committee very well there.
The EU nations also resolved to create a list of 17 projects that will allow for greater European co-operation under PESCO. They cover a variety of subjects, including a European medical command, a deployable military disaster relief capability package, an armoured infantry fighting vehicle and indirect fire support—sometimes referred to as Euro artillery. Included on that list is a project relating to military mobility, which aims to speed up the transfer of military assets across the European Union, particularly at a time of crisis. I understand that the UK has sought especially to have some involvement in that project, which I think the Minister told us is Dutch-led.
This topic was of particular concern to the previous SACEUR, General Ben Hodges, who is on the record as having said that he believes the European Union has an important role to play in improving the fluidity of the movement of troops, including NATO troops, on the European mainland. Does the Minister wish to proffer anything further to the Committee about that project, as it is the one that the UK has specifically asked to opt into?
As the UK will be leaving the European Union in 2019, I understand that we will be participating in PESCO and projects such as the mobility project as a third country. I further understand that the EU is likely to finalise its guidelines on third-party participation in PESCO and related projects by the end of this year. The Minister touched on that in his opening speech, but is there anything further he can say about how those guidelines are evolving? On what basis will the UK be permitted to co-operate in the future?
Under the auspices of PESCO, there are also plans to establish a European defence fund, which will allow for investment in common European procurement programmes; and, as previously mentioned, a European defence industrial development programme, which could involve the co-financing and joint development of defence projects by up to 30%. Again, I understand that it may be possible for the UK defence industry to participate in such programmes on a case-by-case basis. Can the Minister say anything more on that subject today? Might he venture some thoughts on any such future procurement programmes in which the UK might want to be involved but is not involved in at the moment?
I note the Minister’s optimism about Galileo. We may yet be successful, but we have to accept the possibility that we may not. If that unfortunately turns out to be the situation, I would like some reassurance from the Minister that we will seek to recoup the United Kingdom’s extremely meaningful investment in the Galileo project. In short, if they will not let us play, we want our money back.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil rightly pointed out, the European Scrutiny Committee described PESCO as an important political development, and I believe it has twice recommended that the issue be debated on the Floor of the House. The Minister said it is a matter for the usual channels, but as we have representatives of the usual channels with us this afternoon, may I take this opportunity to convey my view, as a member of the Defence Committee, that the European Scrutiny Committee is quite right? It would be appropriate to debate this matter on the Floor of the House, perhaps some time in the autumn, in the run-up to the finalisation of the guidelines on how the United Kingdom is intended to participate. In simple terms, we might have some more meat on the bones by then—no pun intended, Mr Bone—so that would seem a suitable time to allow a debate in the House.
The Opposition spokesman referred a couple of times to the risk of a lack of influence. I understand his point, but I seem to recall that before the referendum, it was often suggested that if we left the European Union we would lack influence and would be isolated and without friends or allies. I suggest that the response to the Salisbury incident, when our allies in the United States, across the European Union and indeed in Commonwealth stood shoulder to shoulder with us and expelled well over 100 Russian diplomats in response to that outrage, rather gives the lie to the suggestion that by leaving the EU we will be friendless.
Armed Forces Pay
Debate between Mark Francois and Wayne David(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Francois
The hon. Lady anticipates what I am about to say. I will come on to boilers in just a minute. Her point about acting to the spirit of the contract is well made, and I agree with her.
The FCAS report states:
“Satisfaction with most aspects of SFA fell markedly in 2016 due in part to underperformance by the National Housing prime contractor and changes to the SFA charging method in April 2016.”
Similarly, the Army Families Federation—sometimes affectionately referred to as the Army freedom fighters—reports that housing continues to be the biggest concern for Army families. There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence about the poor performance of CarillionAmey and, put simply, we are not honouring our people by providing them with this shoddy service. We send a serviceman halfway around the world to fight for their country and we call them a hero, as that is what they are, but back at home their wife spends weeks trying to get their boiler fixed because of the startling ineptitude of the people we have hired to keep their home warm. And then we wonder why people leave.
This has gone on for too long, and it is simply unacceptable. Either CarillionAmey should materially raise its game on behalf of our service personnel or it should be unceremoniously sacked and we should find someone competent to do the work instead. Housing associations and registered social landlords around the country have been carrying out basic maintenance and repairs as bread-and-butter work for years, so why cannot CarillionAmey do the same?
There are a variety of reasons why people are leaving the armed forces at present, and pay is one factor but—as has already been pointed out—not the predominant one. As the Minister rightly said, the armed forces continuous attitude survey published in May 2017 points out that the primary reason for people wanting to leave the services is the effect of separation or long hours on their family life. That is the greatest challenge that Ministers have to grapple with. The Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill, which we debated in this House on Monday, should help in this regard, as it will allow service personnel to vary their commitment, rather than face an acid test of only being able to leave the services in order to reduce the pressure on their family. In other words, it might persuade some personnel to stick rather than twist when their family are under pressure because of their commitment to their country.
The issue of pay itself has now become something of a challenge, particularly in relation to retention. The AFCAS notes that only 33% of personnel are satisfied with their basic rate of pay, and that only 27% are satisfied with their pension benefits, although it should be pointed out that the armed forces have one of the few remaining pension schemes anywhere in the public sector where employees do not have to pay a contribution of their own—something that I know MOD Ministers have fought valiantly to defend.
Recommendations on pay are made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and its recommendation in January 2017 was essentially for a 1% pay increase, although certain personnel would qualify for additional increments and also for specialist recruitment and retention pay, particularly if they serve in areas where the armed forces are struggling to retain specialists. Any further pay increase for the armed forces will be subject to the next recommendation of the AFPRB early next year, so we will have to wait and see what it recommends. It is likely that any increase above 1% would need to come out of the defence budget, which could have implications for some elements of the equipment programme, for instance. However, given that the police have now had an above 1% pay increase, if the AFPRB were to recommend something similar next year, I think that Ministers would have to take it seriously.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that it would be quite wrong if the MOD implemented more cuts to equipment to finance a pay increase?
Mr Francois
I cannot say what the AFPRB is going to recommend. In fairness, we will have to allow it to go through its deliberations and see what it concludes. However, given that the police have been given an increase above 1%, I am sure that there will be strong views in the armed forces about what should happen to them. But let us await the recommendation of the AFPRB.
In conclusion, our armed forces, on whom we rely so much, continue to be under pressure in the fields of recruitment and retention. Although the principal reason for people leaving the armed forces is pressure on family life, pay also appears to be entering into the equation, and I think that Ministers in the Department are cognisant of that. We must also do something about the poor quality of repairs and maintenance of service accommodation. I urge the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon to formally review the performance of CarillionAmey and to be prepared, if necessary, to re-let the contract unless the company succeeds in materially raising its game. We have to continue to attract the brightest and the best to serve us in uniform, and we must continue to provide the resources to make that prospect a reality. We also need to ensure that those people have homes that are fit to live in.