Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The Government have already committed the same amount of money for this year as it did for last year, so in that sense the job is already done. Of course, how this year’s money is used will depend very much on what is going on on the ground. That is the most important part of the gifting programme. The relationship between the UK and Ukraine is now so strong that we are able to discuss very candidly each other’s plans and make sure that we support Ukraine every step of the way.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We heard before Christmas that the Government had finally signed a contract to replenish NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—but, in order to ensure that we can continue to be a leader in the international effort in Ukraine, how many other contracts have been signed to replace the consumable military aid that has been sent to Ukraine?

[James Heappey]

High-velocity missiles have already been placed on contract. Many of the other systems that have been donated were already in the process of being updated and were gifted when they were coming to the end of their life within our current inventory, and thus would not be expected to be placed on contract because they are part of a routine procurement process.

Ukraine

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, I think we can come together and agree on that. I am sure that other colleagues will want to discuss it in great detail.

So here we are, seven months on from this invasion, and—as was mentioned by the former Prime Minister—much in the world has changed. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO, unity among western countries is something like never before, and, indeed, unity in this House is something like never before. In fact, we may have been only partly joking with our Ukrainian counterparts, during a recent visit, in saying that supporting Ukraine might well be the only issue that unites this House. Given the noises coming from the new Government, I suspect that that will be even more the case, but it is important for that unity to be maintained and developed in support of Ukraine.

Back in February the German Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, told us that not just his country but all of Europe was at a turning point: a Zeitenwende, as they say in Germany. Seven months on, however, it seems to me less like a turning point and more like Gramsci’s interregnum, in which the old is dying but the new cannot yet be born. At the moment, we are in a messy flux. While I think that the unity of purpose that we have is serving us well to get through the tumult that we are going through and Ukraine is going through, I also think that there is much in our own record—the record of all of us in the House and across the west—that we need to assess, going back, yes, to 2014, but also to 2008. I have to say to the former Prime Minister that we should consider the issue of how Russian money has been treated in this country.

I think it takes a lot to admit it when one has got things wrong, and I think it only fair that we, as staunch partisans at times, give our opponents the space to make that admission. It is easier said than done, but if the new world that is incubating in the messy time in which we are currently living is to be born, that is the way in which I think we have to approach it.

There is another important point to be made. As the winter bites and energy prices go through the roof, and as what in some quarters has been called “Ukraine fatigue” may start to settle in, there is a particular group of people in society of whom I think we should be mindful: those whom the Germans call the Putinversteher, the “Putin whisperers”, who would seek to apologise for, or contextualise, or somehow make excuses for Russian “legitimate” interests in Ukraine. They should be thoroughly ignored. Since the February invasion, they have, temporarily and rather embarrassingly, been silent, but they are undoubtedly starting to rear their heads again.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those people are being fed by Putin’s cyber-warfare and that this country and our allies really need to invest in counter-offensive material?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, I agree. The hon. Lady is absolutely spot on. One of the most insidious arguments from that particular group—and they can be found on the extreme left or the extreme right, in every country and in Parliaments, National Assemblies, the media, think-tanks and elsewhere—is that we should stop arming Ukraine. I am sure that I speak for everyone that I was in Ukraine with recently when I say that we could see and hear up close what a difference arming Ukraine is making.

That support has to continue for three main reasons, which I will outline as briefly as possible. First, I do not believe that it is possible to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. We should look at his record not just in Ukraine right now but in Georgia and Syria. This is a Government who practise the famous double-tap strike, whereby the Russian armed forces hit an area, wait for the first responders to arrive and then hit it again. I do not think that it is possible to negotiate with a regime that carries itself in that way.

The former Prime Minister is absolutely right to say—this is another important point—that anything we do going forward has to be on President Zelensky’s terms. Ukrainians do not want to negotiate with the regime in the Kremlin. We only have to look at the sheer joy on their faces when Ukrainian armed forces turn up in their towns and villages to liberate them and save them what has been experienced in Bucha, Mariupol and Kherson. The emotional scenes that we have seen and, I am sure, will continue to see tell us that we have got our support for Ukraine right. They should also put paid to the ideas of extremists—that is the only way to describe them—who would seek to divvy up Ukraine on a map. I would love to hear them tell me which towns they would like to see handed over to the Kremlin.

When we were in Ukraine, we met a young 15-year-old guy and his father. I am sure that Members will have read about Andriy Pokrasa and his father. When Russians were surrounding his village, he had the bravery and ingenuity to launch his own drone into the air to take photographs of Russian positions and send them to the Ukrainian armed forces. Members can imagine what happened to those Russian positions soon afterwards. He is now back at school studying. It was an honour to meet him. I would love to see one of these armchair extremists tell him that he should instead have gone out and negotiated with the Russians at the end of his street. Imagine what would have happened had he been caught. They knew the danger, but still they did everything they could to defend not just their own hometown but their country as well.

Lastly, the war is not just a war on territory. It is a war on values, liberalism, democracy, sovereignty and everything that we have cherished since 1945. I do not think that that is the kind of thing that can be negotiated away lightly. The Putin whisperers must be ignored. They must feel the complete contempt of those of us who want to see Ukraine win. The war could stop tomorrow if Russia stopped fighting, but if Ukraine stops fighting, the country will cease to exist. A Russian victory would be a disaster for everyone in Europe, and it is something that we should not even consider. Russian soldiers and now this latest group of conscripts will be fighting solely for their wages, while Ukrainian soldiers fight for their future and for ours. We all remain united in this House. Ukraine must win. We must continue to support them. And it is in that vein that I offer that support to the Government this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

For years, countries in eastern Europe such as Poland and the Baltic states have been warning about Russia under Putin. We absolutely must recognise the gravity, scale and multifaceted nature of the threat and the lengths that Putin may go to.

While we have some encouraging bits of news, with terrain retaken in eastern Ukraine, we must not underestimate the scale of the challenges that remain. There is still extensive terrain to reconquer, the war efforts are taking a toll both on military personnel and on civilians, and Putin continues in his efforts to sow alienation and give false legitimacy to his invasion through the so-called referenda. A huge effort is also required to rebuild ruined towns and devastated communities.

Putin’s clear aim is to divide and conquer, so while the world is looking at the physical—the ground war and the threat of nuclear weapons—there is at the same time a huge propaganda war, sometimes more subtle and sometimes less so, trying to undermine the west’s unity and resolve, with internet users bombarded with clever false messages masquerading as the truth. I stress again to the Minister how important it is for the UK and allies to invest in combating internet warfare and mounting counter-offensives.

We need renewed efforts at diplomacy and at fostering unity. It is very important that we are putting money where our mouth is and supporting efforts in Ukraine. It is absolutely vital that we stand firm on sanctions, but we must foster the most positive and unified response from other countries. That includes, of course, investing Foreign Office expertise.

This is not just about Europe and NATO. In the wider world, how do we maintain world peace and deal with the bullies? First, we need to be strong and show strength. Appeasement does not work. In 2014, after the invasion of Crimea, the lack of action by the west was a monumental failure. We need to stand strong in the face of aggression. For all their imperfections, we need to rebuild our respect for international organisations such as the United Nations, and repair the damage caused by Trump when he belittled international organisations, tore up treaties and cut funding to important international programmes.

An important part of that international work is the need to tackle the gap between richer and poorer nations. Nations across the globe need reason to buy into international organisations and to feel that they are being heard. Coronavirus has taught us how interconnected we are, but that is also true in respect of security. We need to build up resilience and prosperity in developing nations, to stop them being used and manipulated by the world’s tyrants.

While continuing our direct support for Ukraine, we must also focus on fostering unity among our allies and taking a lead in world organisations to stand firm against Putin.

Ukraine: UK and NATO Military Commitment

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. This is turning into a war of attrition. It will last as long as President Putin has the mistaken conviction that, by killing people in the Donbas region and occupying Ukrainian sovereign territory, he is somehow delivering a strategic victory for Russia. He is not. Ultimately, the Russian people, undermined by their leadership, will be the lever to ensure a different direction is taken.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Since 2010, consecutive Conservative Governments have cut our Army by over a third, from over 102,000 to some 80,000, with further cuts planned. I absolutely despair at the Minister’s set-piece answers about changing threats. In the very week when the head of the Army, Sir Patrick Sanders, said that we need to be

“ready to fight and win wars on land”

and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee, who speaks with deep knowledge of the subject, says that the armed forces are overstretched, will the Minister now commit to rethink, forget the set-piece answers, and actually consider what numbers we need in our armed forces going forward?

[Leo Docherty]

We have considered what we need. We have more money than ever before, with an additional £24 billion, which is delivering a more lethal, better protected, more mobile and readier military. It is in the defence Command Paper; we have been at this for a couple of years. The Chief of the General Staff’s remarks are in accordance with that—he agrees with the plan, of course, because he is the head of the Army. It is not about simplistic measurements of numbers of people, but about effect. At long last, we are embracing technology to give our people the most lethal capability, which is what they need.

Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to voice my condemnation of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and to give my full support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. I would also like to voice the support of the people of Llanelli, many, many of whom have been hugely generous, offering accommodation for Ukrainian refugees, responding to an initiative by our Polish community to bring goods to send to Ukrainians arriving in eastern Poland and giving money, through an online facility kindly set up by Llanelli Rotary Club. I have also had lots of messages from constituents urging the Government to relax the visa rules and take a much more practical approach to enable and assist Ukrainian refugees to come here; they feel angry and embarrassed that the UK is not offering the welcome that other European countries are offering, with their permission for Ukrainians to stay for three years. I urge the Government to rethink their approach immediately and open our doors to Ukrainians.

It is understandable, when we see the horrific scenes on TV, to focus on the land, sea and air threats posed by Russia, but in the short time available I want to focus on the need for unity across the free world, and the very powerful threats posed to that united resolve by the use of cyber-attacks and information warfare. Make no mistake, Russia has very considerable expertise in those matters. There is nothing new about propaganda or information warfare, but technological advances and our increasing reliance on technology make it much easier, quicker and cheaper to customise messages ever more precisely, for ever more targeted audiences thousands of miles away.

No longer are we subjected to a billboard slogan merely four times a day or to the same TV advert aired a dozen times in an evening, but, every spare moment, as we idly thumb our phones, we are ready targets to be bombarded with internet messages. Moreover, this bombardment masquerades as our free choice, as we scroll and click, often oblivious to the subliminal messages that target us. Worryingly, some security experts argue that 62% of all web traffic is generated by bots. The potential for such “computational propaganda” to be used by state and non-state actors both overtly and covertly is enormous. It can be used to stir up social unrest and racial hatred and erode the will of the population to defend itself.

We have seen the use of hybrid tactics by Russia in Ukraine to influence not only different sections of the Ukrainian population and the Russian population back home, but opinion much more widely across the free world, which Russia has a very strong interest in. The very nature of this form of hybrid warfare is that it is difficult to attribute responsibility with certainty. Perpetrators may choose to claim responsibility, to create deliberate ambiguity, or to use technology to conceal their involvement completely, creating the impression of spontaneous, indigenous action. Furthermore, targeting and manipulating public opinion, even if systematic and attributable, cannot be prosecuted under international humanitarian law, which focuses on physical harm.

I appreciate the difficulties that Ministers have in speaking about these matters in public, but I simply urge the Government to make considerable investment in our capabilities in respect of information warfare and countering this type of attack, and ask that we urge our NATO allies to do likewise.

That brings me to unity, which is crucial to countering threats from Russia. It has been heartening to see such a unified initial response from our allies in NATO and, more broadly, from countries across the world, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said from the Dispatch Box, this will not be easy to maintain and we must constantly work at it. I urge the Government to make dialogue and strengthening relationships with our allies, both in NATO and beyond, an absolute priority and to give it the resources that it needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman is right: we need the very best equipment for our armed forces. As he is probably aware, the Army has no fewer than nine key projects for equipment modernisation, totalling some £17 billion over the next 10 years, and around 130 smaller projects. He mentions two in particular. On Challenger 2, we are well advanced through the assessment phase and will take decisions on that at a future date. On Warrior, we are on to the demonstration phase, which is going well, and we will be taking decisions in the future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The recent National Audit Office report on the Government’s defence equipment plan showed that there is a potential funding shortfall of £13 billion, which will no doubt affect Army equipment as well as Navy and RAF equipment. Given that this is now the third time that the NAO has deemed the plan unaffordable, when will the Minister get to grips with this funding crisis?

[Jeremy Quin]

We are getting to grips with it right now. We are grateful to the NAO for its work. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the Department hit budget this year, last year and the year before. We constantly review budgets to make certain that the equipment plan is affordable. We have shrunk the gap significantly, and we had additional assistance from the Treasury last year. We will make certain that we are meeting the needs of the armed forces.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but we know that the Army has cancelled various anti-armour projects and reduced the number of tanks it will upgrade. There have also been recent reports suggesting that the Army is to face further cuts in the integrated review. Can the Minister guarantee that the review will not be yet another cost-cutting exercise, leaving our armed forces short of the equipment that we need to defend the country?

[Jeremy Quin]

The integrated review is under way; it is nowhere near to bringing itself to any conclusions yet. The review looks at the totality of our place in the world, as the hon. Lady recognises, and how we operate as a country across the broadest spectrum. It is not a review designed to cut costs. It is a review designed to ensure that we know what we are doing in the world and that that is effected through really effective equipment—that is the purpose of the integrated review, and we look forward to its response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)]

My hon. Friend is right. Martin-Baker produces the ejector seats for our F-35s that fly off HMS Queen Elizabeth. Diary permitting, I would be delighted to join her.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

This weekend there has been widespread concern about the Government’s communication strategy on the coronavirus pandemic, including a number of anonymous briefings to the media, such as one on the role of the Army. As well as providing more detail about Operation Broadshare, can the Secretary of State explain reports that the Government are working on the assumption that at least 20% of personnel will contract the virus? What arrangements are in place to mitigate any impact that that may have on operations?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about media stories, some of which are entirely fictional. There is no Operation Hades, contrary to one report. There are absolutely no plans to send military personnel to guard supermarkets. However, despite our trying to clarify that with the media, there is still an intention in some parts of the media to continue to write these stories; indeed, there is some suspicion about where some of these stories are developed.

Of course we have made all sorts of assumptions that reflect, first, infection rates in the general population and, secondly, the unique aspects of the armed forces’ working life. We will make sure that we look after our armed forces and continue operationally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

On the one hand, the Government have rightly been challenging China’s aggressive military actions in the seas around south-east Asia, yet on the other hand, despite the Secretary of State himself having reportedly branded China a “friend of no one”, the Government have granted Huawei significant access to the superhighways of our cyber and telecoms systems. Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what his Government’s strategy in relation to China is?

[Mr Wallace]

The Government’s strategy towards China is that we treat it in a way that befits its actions but measure our response when China does things that we do not like. For example, we test freedom of navigation in the Pacific but also seek to listen to the experts when it comes to issues such as Huawei. That is why the Government made the choice last week to allow Huawei to have a limited amount of the 5G market. Our policy towards Huawei is to cap it, to ban it in other parts of the network, and to reduce over time our dependency on that company and others like it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I assure my hon. Friend of the importance that we attach to this area, given the stress under which it puts members of the armed forces. This is the first time in my living memory that all the Front-Bench team served on operations and were members of the regular armed forces. That is why we feel it personally, as do the Government. We are determined to deal with this vexatious issue for our armed forces, which is why we will introduce measures in the next 100 days.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Our armed forces were due to have access to Galileo’s encrypted system when it becomes fully operational in 2026, but now we have left the EU, that will not be the case. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when the UK’s own global navigation satellite system will be fully up and running? Given that the first satellites may only be launched by 2025, and the system will not be operational until 2030, what will fill the gap in capabilities that this presents?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady will be aware that all our systems currently run under GPS—the global positioning system—and it is not necessary for us to operate under any other system. This is about resilience and whether we need an alternative system. What happens in our negotiations with Europe between now and the end of the year will obviously be a matter for the negotiators, but I am confident that we will continue to work alongside the United States on GPS or, indeed, that we will provide further details to the House on what we plan to increase resilience.

[Nia Griffith]

The Government have actually said that the cost of any system could be up to £5 billion. If the plan is to have this UK option, what assurance has the Secretary of State received that the money will not have to come out of the existing defence budget, which is already under strain, leading to more cuts in other areas?

[Mr Wallace]

As I said in my first answer, we are currently dependent on using GPS with the United States. We will keep any alternatives that we need under review. I will of course make representations to the Treasury, as will the wider parts of Government that also rely on satellite navigation—it is not just Defence—to make sure that, if any funding is required, that is taken from across Government or indeed from the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am, of course, delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the amazing quality that they bring to our armed forces. I am a landlubber, as a former soldier, so I can only marvel at what I have come across so far in this job.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Happy Trafalgar day, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I had the pleasure of seeing the sea cadets parade in a splendid fashion for Trafalgar day. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Ministers to their posts.

The situation in the strait of Hormuz and the wider Gulf has significantly escalated in the past few months. We have seen unlawful aggression in the international seas, British flagged ships seized by the Iranian regime, attacks on Saudi oil facilities and a recent commitment by the US to send an extra 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia. We need to de-escalate tensions. With that in mind, can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will not be sending troops to Saudi Arabia?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have to de-escalate the situation in the Gulf, but what we will do is make sure that our allies in the Gulf are able to protect themselves by offering advice about how they can protect their airspace and protect themselves from loss of life, which is incredibly important. One of the ways to make sure this is de-escalated is to ensure, if there was another Iranian attack, for example, on an oil facility or any other facility in that part of the world, that it does not lead to loss of life because that for sure would lead to some form of escalation. We stand ready to help our allies with knowledge on how to do that, and that is the best way we think we can proceed to keep calming the tensions.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but he will also be well aware of the catastrophic impact of the US withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal. Sadly, this is not the only commitment that the Trump Administration have very publicly undermined—withdrawing from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty and putting the chances of a new strategic arms reduction treaty in doubt—so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with his US counterparts on upholding and strengthening existing international security agreements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

You know that your comments may go to my hon. Friend’s head, don’t you, Mr Speaker? I thank him for his question. Indeed, one of the most exciting things that I have had the opportunity to do in this role so far has been to set running the new Type 31 class of general purpose frigate. It will be built in Rosyth under Babcock’s guidance. At the moment, the contract is being drawn through to the final details so that we can hopefully get cracking early in the new year.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Minister to her post. A report in the Financial Times today demonstrates that botched public sector outsourcing contracts wasted more than £14 billion-worth of taxpayers’ money just in the last three years, with the MOD found to be the biggest culprit, accounting for £4 billion-worth of the extra cost. At a time when our defences are badly in need of investment after nine years of Tory cuts, does the Minister accept that this Government’s ideological obsession with outsourcing is failing our armed forces and the taxpayer alike?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have had a chance to look a little at the Reform think tank’s paper, which highlights some issues. All of us would agree that contracts have not always been managed as tightly as possible. I direct her, most importantly, to the outsourcing review that was done by the Cabinet Office and was set in place by the former Prime Minister in February this year. It has been very clear and set some really good guidelines for all Government Departments on thinking more proactively about early market engagement, in particular—I think that has been a weakness historically—and being much more active in the management of contracts, so that when we have great contracts, such as with Leidos and a new contract that I have just signed with Atos, we make sure that we are responsible in the governance of those contracts so that we get the best for our money and that the contractors provide the service that we need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Not only have RAF personnel numbers fallen by more than a quarter since 2010, but the Government are consistently failing to train enough pilots. Some 350 are currently on the waiting list, and the problem is going from bad to worse, the backlog having doubled in the past year. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on this situation and ensure that things are put right?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The pipeline for our pilots is one of the first things I asked about when I entered the Department. The numbers are improving, but it is an area where we are fragile; it is probably one of the areas where we are most fragile. That said, I would gently point out to the hon. Lady and the Opposition Front-Bench team that last I heard the leader of her party wished to reduce the headcount of our armed forces to zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

Defence engagement, in all its forms, is vital to promoting the UK’s influence, values and intentions around the world, whether it is promoting stability and prosperity, tackling environmental challenges or responding to natural disasters and humanitarian need. Our strongest relationships with some nations are military to military, and we need to make sure that the contribution of defence to the objectives of One HMG is really understood.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

At a time when Army numbers are consistently falling, it is all the more important that we draw on the widest possible pool of recruits. Why, then, has there been a 45% increase in the number of officer cadets admitted to Sandhurst from independent schools, compared with just a 7% increase from state schools? I know the Secretary of State is personally committed to creating a level playing field, so could she set out what she will do to seek out the brightest and best from all backgrounds?

[Penny Mordaunt]

If the hon. Lady had listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces earlier, she would know that our trained and untrained strength is actually not decreasing. The number of recruits coming in is actually going up, but social mobility is important. Of course the MOD can always do more, but our armed forces are one of the greatest agents for social mobility in this country. They are one of the largest education providers in this country, and we ought to continue encouraging them to do more.

[Nia Griffith]

I am a little disappointed by that answer because when it comes to officers, there is a lot more that can be done. It is not just those from state schools who face barriers: just 10 of this year’s 600-strong cadet intake to Sandhurst are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds—just 10. According to the MOD’s own statistics, the regulars and the reserves are also missing the Government’s 2020 target for BAME representation.

Will the Secretary of State now commit to a root-and-branch review of recruitment barriers to ensure that we have properly staffed and fully representative armed forces?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We already have a very clear idea of the barriers that exist and of the barriers that existed in the past, which is why our community engagement programmes are so important and why, since coming to the Department, I have protected those budgets.

Armed Forces Day

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a delight to speak in this debate. This Saturday people will come together in communities across the country to say thank you to the men and women who make up our armed forces community. Ever since the first national event in 2009, Armed Forces Day has become an important date in our towns, cities and villages. There are well over 300 events taking place this year in every corner of the UK, including parades, concerts, air displays and more.

In my own community in Llanelli, the local branch of the Royal British Legion and the Llanelli Veterans Association have organised a parade and a day of activities for adults and children, and I look forward to spending the day there. It is heartening to see the numbers of people attending events growing year after year and to see the whole community represented, from young children fascinated by the military equipment on display to the second world war veterans proudly wearing their medals.

There is a simple reason so many people turn out at events across the country: the public want to show their deep gratitude and admiration for our serving personnel, our veterans and their families—the men and women who stand ready at a moment’s notice to do whatever is necessary to defend our country, and the personnel who represent the very best of Britain in freeing civilians from the tyranny of Daesh, assisting in the aftermath of humanitarian catastrophes, deterring Russian aggression in the Baltics and Poland, and contributing to peacekeeping operations across the world.

Our reservists play a vital role in each and every one of those operations, bringing their unique skills and experience to work with colleagues in the regulars. Today, on Reserves Day, we pay tribute to all those who give up their time to train for and serve in the reserve forces, many of whom will be wearing their uniform to work today to highlight the important role that they play.

Armed Forces Day is also a moment to say thank you to our veterans for their service and for guaranteeing so many of the freedoms that we take for granted today.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Armed Forces Day is a great opportunity for our communities to support our armed forces, and I will be very proud to attend the celebration in Tredegar this Sunday. I have been working with local employers in Blaenau Gwent to encourage firms to sign up as forces-friendly businesses and we have had a good response. However, my experience is that not enough businesses have heard of the armed forces covenant, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need an even bigger awareness campaign to help organisations to get involved and to support our veterans?

[Nia Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. Considerable progress has been made on awareness, but we still need to make sure people understand what the qualifications mean and how the qualities and skills of our armed forces personnel can be translated into today’s workplace. I understand from the Minister that he is very committed to work in that field.

In recent weeks, we have been reflecting on the particular sacrifice made by those who served in the second world war and, in particular, the D-day landings. It was a great privilege to attend the commemorations in Normandy earlier this month and to meet some of the men who took part in that operation 75 years ago. It is clear from talking to them that they do not regard themselves as heroes—they were just doing what they were trained to do and they got on with the job in the way that that war-time generation so often did. At Bayeux war cemetery we saw the immaculate flowerbeds by each headstone, carefully looked after by the staff and interns of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does such important work in ensuring that the graves of those who made the ultimate sacrifice are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

There will be significant agreement across the House today because we are all committed to our Armed Forces Day and to honouring the men and women of our armed forces community. Members of Parliament also have an important responsibility to talk up our armed forces and to highlight the many benefits of service, particularly to young people who may want to sign up.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Government about several issues that matter to personnel, many of which were highlighted in the armed forces continuous attitude survey published last month. The first is pay. We know that subjecting armed forces personnel to the public sector pay cap has meant that they have received a real-terms pay cut for seven years running, which goes some way to explaining why satisfaction with pay is at just 35%. The pay award has again been delayed this year. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has submitted its report to the Government, so I ask the Minister to update the House on the current pay round when he winds up the debate. I do not expect him to announce the pay award today, but can he tell personnel when they can expect to hear what the Government propose?

Giving personnel below-inflation rises also has a knock-on effect on retention. The number of personnel choosing to leave the forces is at historically high levels and pay remains one of the top reasons personnel decide to leave.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I have to ask the shadow Minister the same question I asked the Minister: if this is such an important issue, does she not agree that in terms of pay and conditions members of the armed forces should be allowed to be treated as employees and have a representative body to represent them with the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a fine point and there is a very good case for having a consultation on what sort of voice would be practical for our armed forces—[Interruption.] If I may, I will make some progress.

The pay body’s 2018 report highlights the extent to which personnel shortages put additional pressure on those who remain in the services. The latest personnel statistics show yet another drop in the trained size of the armed forces, with each of the services now smaller than at this point last year. Although we have seen a slight rise in intake in the 12 months to March—by 120 personnel—that alone is clearly not enough to enable the Government to meet the target set out in the 2015 SDSR. Will the Minister set out what specific action he will take to ensure that we do not continue to see further falls—[Interruption.] I do hope that the Minister heard that and will be able to tell us in his winding-up speech what specific action he or his colleagues will take to ensure that we do not continue to see further falls in the number of armed forces personnel.

The Minister will know the Labour party’s view of Capita’s recruitment contract, which is shared by many on the Government Back Benches. Given that the Government are not willing to terminate the contract, as we would like, what steps will he take to compel the company to meet its targets? Will he consider financial penalties if it does not comply?

Let me turn to housing for our personnel and their families. There have been persistent complaints about housing maintenance in service accommodation. Will the Minister tell the House what recent conversations he has had with Amey about this issue? Will he also update us on the future accommodation model? We all want to see good-quality service accommodation that meets the needs of our personnel and their families. We accept that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work for everybody. Some families will be in a position to buy, and the forces Help to Buy scheme may be able to assist them, while others are happy to live in service accommodation. Living on site with other military families can provide a crucial support network for our forces and their families.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

CarillionAmey has had more than 36,000 complaints in three years about the conditions of service family accommodation—that is 1,000 complaints every month. There is outrage among service families about the contract with CarillionAmey. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time the Government stepped up and intervened so that we have decent maintenance for our armed forces personnel?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. None of us wants to see any of our serving forces and their families living in substandard accommodation. There are certainly issues to be addressed in respect of Amey and forces housing.

In respect of the future accommodation model, we do not want personnel to be pushed into the private rented sector without any choice. Indeed, a recent Army Families Federation survey demonstrated that, if the availability of the accommodation currently on offer was reduced and a rental allowance offered instead, only 22% of respondents would definitely remain in the Army. The insecurity, variable quality and limited availability of the private rented sector is a concern, and it is not clear how the additional costs of private sector rents would be met.

The armed forces community encompasses not only current and former personnel but their families, who provide a crucial support network to service members and who experience the demands of forces life at first hand. The nature of service life means that many forces families have to move house repeatedly, including to postings abroad. One difficulty that some service families face is finding new schools for their children, especially if they resettle outside the admissions cycle.

A recent Children’s Commissioner for England report highlights how service children are sometimes not placed in the most appropriate school with siblings or other forces children from the same unit, causing further and unnecessary distress. It can help if local authorities have better awareness of the needs of service children. For example, Rhondda Cynon Taf Council has a dedicated education officer who works closely with the families of serving personnel, and with schools, to ensure that the children of service members are supported in their education. The fragmentation of education in England, with admissions in the hands of academies or academy trusts, makes such work more difficult.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue that is really difficult for many schools to understand is the impact of Remembrance Day on children whose parents are serving? There might be only one or two children of service personnel in each school, and when children are taught about what may be happening in various areas of conflict, it means something slightly different to those whose parents could be out there. That is why education is so important, as is making sure that the covenant applies.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that children are properly supported and that a structure is in place within the local authority to ensure that schools are properly educated to understand that.

Obviously, we are very concerned about this fragmentation of education in England, with the academies and academy trusts being a bit of a law unto themselves. What consideration have the Government given to this issue, and what conversations has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department for Education to try to assist with the admissions process in particular?

The families of Commonwealth personnel, who make an important contribution to our armed forces, experience particular challenges owing to the Government’s minimum income requirements for bringing in spouses or children to this country. We on the Labour Benches believe in scrapping these income requirements so that all personnel are treated equally. I urge the Minister to prevail on colleagues in the Home Office to make that important change.

The nature of the work that our armed forces undertake—keeping us safe and representing us abroad—means that some people will not be in regular contact with service personnel if they do not have friends or relatives who serve. That is why Armed Forces Day is so important. It is an opportunity to say thank you, to show gratitude and appreciation and to commit to supporting our armed forces community the whole year round.

Use of Torture Overseas

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for applying for this urgent question. It is a critical issue. I agree 100% with what he said, and it is worth reminding ourselves that these laws and norms protect not just the enemy but our own armed forces. We cannot overrule the law, nor can Ministers be advised to overrule or disregard the law.

As I said, we have an opportunity to review the matter. I want to wait until the commissioner’s advice has been received. I understand that will take only a few weeks, so I will update the House as we review our guidance.

I understand that following a freedom of information request one of the policy iterations has been placed in the public domain. The latest iteration, from 2018, introduces not any substantial changes but a minor change at the request of the IPCO. These matters should receive the full light of day and full transparency. If my right hon. Friend will bear with me, once I receive the advice I will of course update the House on these important issues.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Today’s revelations that the MOD has discreetly rewritten Government policy on torture are extremely concerning. Torture is not only morally reprehensible but prohibited under international law in the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the convention against torture.

There can be no justification whatsoever for torture. None the less, today’s reports suggest that, according to the Ministry of Defence, torture is acceptable if, and I quote from the policy document,

“ministers agree that the potential benefits justify accepting the risk and the legal consequences that may follow”.

Will the Secretary of State confirm what the Government consider those “potential benefits” to be?

In response to the reports, the MOD has denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the

“policy and activities in this area comply with the Cabinet Office’s consolidated guidance”

on torture.

However, that guidance clearly sets out that

“in no circumstance will UK personnel ever take action amounting to torture”.

It further maintains that where the Government cannot mitigate the

“serious risk of torture at the hands of a third party”,

the

“presumption would be that we will not proceed”.

Will the Secretary of State therefore clarify how her Department has come to its conclusion? What legal advice has it received? Will she now publish this advice, if any?

We understand that the policy came into effect in November 2018. How many times since then has a Minister decided to authorise the transmission of intelligence that may have led to torture? No Minister should authorise any action where there is a serious risk of it leading to torture. Will the Secretary of State therefore now do the right thing and commit to scrapping the policy immediately, so as to ensure that basic human rights and international law are universally respected and upheld?