Armed Forces Covenant

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The armed forces covenant represents the solemn and enduring commitment that we owe to members of the armed forces community. Those who serve our country make so many sacrifices in defence of the UK and our interests, and they rightly deserve respect, support and fair treatment both during and after their service, along with their families at home.

The sacrifice made by our servicemen and women has of course been at the forefront of our minds recently, with the Remembrance commemorations and the centenary of the armistice. However, the covenant reminds us that the debt that we owe to the armed forces community is not for a particular day or week, but runs the whole year round. Labour Members fully support the covenant and the important guarantees that underlie it, and we supported its becoming law in 2011; but, of course, simply writing it into a statute is not enough. What matters is whether it is making a difference on the ground. Are our veterans actually receiving that special consideration when accessing healthcare? Do the children of personnel really experience no disadvantage when it comes to their schooling? On that count, a lot more needs to be done, and I want to touch on some of that this afternoon.

Let me begin with healthcare. I welcome some of the steps that have been taken in recent years to try to improve awareness of what the covenant requires of health professionals. The Welsh Government recently issued guidance to all health boards on veterans’ priority healthcare, and knowledge of the covenant now forms part of the membership exam for the Royal College of General Practitioners. However, the Royal British Legion has expressed concern about a lack of awareness and understanding of the policy of priority treatment, as well as an inability to measure implementation and a lack of clarity about the Government’s interpretation of the policy, and the Defence Committee has noted confusion over how the principle of priority treatment should be implemented among both clinicians and veterans. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what more is being done to improve understanding of this important guarantee.

When it comes to mental health, the picture for personnel, veterans and families is worrying. The latest families continuous attitude survey has found that four in 20 of the families who sought mental health treatment experienced difficulties or were unable to access treatment, and we know that that is sadly true among the population at large. Our mental health services have never been under more pressure. Funding for mental health services in England has been cut by over 8% since 2010, and the number of mental health nurses has fallen by 6,600. The Defence Committee has also found that

“it is still taking too long for veterans to access treatment when they need it”.

As was mentioned during last week’s debate on the veterans strategy, it is important to be clear that rates of mental illness among personnel and veterans are generally no higher than those among the population at large. However, support must be available to those who need it, and it must be delivered quickly and effectively.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Local authorities are key to this topic, as they are responsible for housing and social services. Does my hon. Friend agree that they must be 100% behind it in the future, so that our servicemen and women are given the best possible support?

[Nia Griffith]

I absolutely agree that we want the full support of all our local authorities, and our health boards, but I must put on record again that they have experienced very severe cuts under this Government. That is an issue, particularly when we are trying to develop new initiatives and make progress.

We know that the requirements of service life do not just affect personnel. They can also have an impact on families, including children. We do not always recognise just how difficult and stressful being the spouse or partner of a member of the armed forces can be, given the loneliness, the upheaval of moving house frequently and trying to get the children settled, and so on. I congratulate the women behind Forces Wives Challenge, whom I met yesterday and who are raising awareness of the problems. Early next year, some of them are going to Chile to climb the highest volcano in the world, Ojos del Salado. Just as important, however, is the fact that they are working with partners and wives across the country using challenges—in their words, “enabling ordinary women to do extraordinary things”—to bring women together, foster a sense of community, and help women to deal with issues such as loneliness.

One particular challenge arises when service families have to move, which can have a knock-on effect on schooling. I welcome the changes in the common transfer file—for instance, the inclusion of more contextual information. That should ultimately help children with the process of moving schools, but it is clear that some issues remain. In its comments on this year’s covenant report, the families federations identify a “distinct spike” in the number of school admissions issues raised with them over the past year, and say that recent surveys show that

“finding school places is a key source of anxiety for Service families.”

Some local authorities are clearly taking a proactive approach to dealing with the problem. For example, Rhondda Cynon Taf council employs a dedicated forces education officer, who is himself a former soldier and a serving reservist, to work closely with forces families and schools to ensure that the children of personnel are properly supported.

Of course, as the families federations themselves point out, schools continue to be challenged by funding constraints—despite the Chancellor’s promise of cash to cover “little extras”—but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what work his Department is doing now to ensure further improvements in time for next year’s report.

We know that the quality of housing for personnel and their families is a matter of real concern. Members will be familiar with the appalling service provided by the contractor CarillionAmey. Many of us have heard at first hand from personnel and families about unacceptable delays to repairs and the poor quality of maintenance. I myself have met representatives of Amey, which has taken over the contract following the collapse of Carillion earlier this year. They assured me—as, no doubt, they have assured the Minister—that they are working hard to improve the service because they recognise that things have simply not been working well enough, but the fact is that there is a very long way to go. The latest families continuous attitude survey found that barely a third of families are satisfied with the response to requests for maintenance and repair work.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the use of the private sector that has created this crisis in the maintenance of armed forces housing?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is the issue of privatising services, but there is also a need to watch what those contractors are doing and keep an eye on whether the service providers are actually providing the service. That is the challenge to the Minister; this is a real issue in the defence sector at the moment. Unfortunately, only three in 10 families are satisfied with the quality of that work, which is the lowest level for at least eight years.

However, the use of a private contractor to deliver maintenance services cannot absolve the Government of their responsibility for overseeing—or failing to oversee—the contract properly. Indeed, the Defence Committee has concluded that the record of the MOD and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in managing service accommodation has been “lamentable”.

Looking to the future, the MOD is currently in the process of taking bids for the four regional facilities management contracts, with a decision expected in February. Will the Minister set out how the Department will ensure that whoever takes over the running of MOD housing will be held to the highest standards? What assurances are being sought and what penalties will be in place to deter poor performance?

The Department is also still working on the future accommodation model. That causes concern to those living in service family accommodation, with the families federations recording confusion, anxiety and uncertainty over the past two years. I have said many times that the Opposition do not want to see personnel being forced into the private rented sector, with all the additional costs and insecurity that could result, but can the Minister at least provide some certainty to families about when they will learn more about what is being planned?

One of the most worrying trends that we have witnessed over the past few years is the fall in morale of serving personnel and the perception that the overall offer to those who serve is declining. Morale has fallen steadily since 2010 across both officer and other ranks, and, very worryingly, the proportion of Royal Marines who rate their service morale as high has more than halved in the last two years alone.

[James Heappey]

The 2010 data coincide with an end to the most regular and intense operations, and it is indeed a perversity of the mindset of those of us who have served that we are happiest when we have some combat operations to go away on, so I cannot help but feel that the dip in morale since is a consequence of that, as well as other factors that I am sure the hon. Lady is about to mention in her speech.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that valid point.

The number of training exercises that have been cancelled will not have helped matters, nor will the months of leaked reports on plans to cut the Marines as part of the modernising defence programme. The state of morale should concern us all, so I would be grateful if the Minister set out what he feels is behind this worrying fall, and more importantly, what he plans to do about it, because low morale will only compound the problems that we are already experiencing with retention in the forces. Personnel numbers are down across each of the services compared with last year.

Satisfaction with pay and pensions is the lowest ever recorded, and while I am of course pleased that the Government have finally agreed to lift the pay cap, this alone will not make up for seven years of below-inflation rises, and of course the Treasury has refused to provide the money centrally, meaning that we are likely to see yet more defence cuts.

As we had a debate on veterans last week, I will keep my comments on specific veterans issues brief, but I want to raise with the Minister my very considerable concerns about further privatisation of the veterans service. Members from across the House have talked about Capita’s abject failure to deliver the recruitment contract and Ministers’ seeming unwillingness to sack the company, so would the Minister kindly explain to the House why, given the problems with other contracts, his Department now proposes to hand over yet more services, including the armed forces compensation scheme, the war pension scheme, the Veterans Welfare Service and the Medal Office, to private contractors, who inevitably will be tempted to put profit before serving our veterans? And Members do not need me to tell them who one of the bidders is in this case. Will the Minister put a stop to this now, and have a complete rethink?

[James Heappey]

As a former adjutant, I agree very much that the best recruiters are serving military personnel and I think that the old-fashioned recruiting sergeant does that much better than a civilian, but that model of recruitment meant lots of people being appropriated from regimental duty to go off and recruit, causing all sorts of tensions when we were trying to fill our order of battle within a unit. So while I understand the hon. Lady’s point, the MOD needed to make a difficult decision between operational effectiveness and the recruiting operation.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am asking why we are privatising more services, including the particular ones I mentioned. I would like the Minister to explain why the Government are not considering putting a stop to this and having a complete rethink.

At the heart of all these issues is the need to ensure that the promises made in the covenant are being effectively delivered in a way that benefits the forces community— regulars, reservists, veterans and families.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a disproportionate number of veterans in Northern Ireland—not just those, like the Minister, who served in Operation Banner, but those who served in other sectors? Does the hon. Lady feel—as I, other Northern Ireland Members, and, I suspect, the Minister, feel—that there is a need for more proportionate funding for veterans in Northern Ireland because of the large scale of service that there has been? In terms of looking after people, the service of those from Northern Ireland needs particular attention.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a valid point, and we are very grateful to all those from Northern Ireland who have served our forces so well.

Local authorities are responsible for many of the services that fulfil the covenant’s guarantees, yet they have borne the brunt of much of the Government’s austerity programme. Many councils are doing their very best, despite devastating budget cuts from central Government, and I pay tribute to the armed forces champions who do so much in councils up and down the country to promote the armed forces covenant—and look forward to welcoming some of our Labour champions to Parliament on Monday. However, as the Minister has said,

“we know there is much more still to be achieved, particularly in ensuring consistency of outcomes”,

and I think that there is a discussion to be had on whether some aspects of the covenant should be formalised as statutory duties to ensure that they are being delivered properly, because ultimately what matters are not the warm words of politicians, but the real-life experience of our forces community, who do so much for us all and who deserve the very best.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

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

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

Veterans Strategy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Before I start, I must apologise. I might be a little croaky today, but I will do the best I can.

I am pleased that the Government have scheduled a debate on the veterans strategy in Government time. It is vital that we recognise the unstinting service of our brave armed forces men and women and ensure that the best opportunities are available to help them transition into civilian life. This is first and foremost important for veterans themselves, their partners and children, but it also benefits our wider society if their skills are used to best advantage.

Many veterans transition successfully into civilian life, but we want easily accessible early intervention and support services for the veterans who need them. Moreover, we should aim high and be ambitious for our veterans. We want to see the best possible opportunities and the smoothest possible transition to civilian life for all our veterans. Let us not forget that delays in obtaining suitable housing, accessing appropriate educational opportunities and getting a job also have a detrimental impact on veterans’ families.

I welcome the Government’s publication of a veterans strategy, but, as we all know, this is only a first step. There will now be a consultation. Then what will really matter will be the implementation of the strategy, its outcomes and how it actually improves the lives of veterans. I do not doubt that the Minister and his team are committed to improving provision for veterans, but there has to be a genuine cross-governmental approach. As the strategy explains, the vast majority of services for veterans are delivered through Departments other than the MOD. It is not enough for the Government simply to establish the ministerial covenant and veterans board. There must be a genuine commitment from the Treasury to ensure that the necessary funding is provided to local councils, health services, housing providers, further education colleges and the devolved Administrations, so that they can all deliver high-quality services for our veterans.

Time and again, there seems to be a complete disconnect between the warm words of Ministers about their concern for veterans and the way they vote in Parliament, as if the problems have nothing to do with the cuts and policies they have voted for, and as if it was not they who voted to slash council budgets by 50%; who have cut further education funding by over £3 billion in real terms since 2010—25% of all FE funding; who have broken the link between inflation and benefits for the first time ever; who introduced the bedroom tax; and who have not built the affordable homes needed to end the housing crisis. Fewer new homes for social rent were built last year than in any year since records began. It is often as a direct result of those decisions that veterans are left homeless, unable to access courses to help them into a new job, waiting too long for health care, getting into financial difficulties and even sadly ending up in the criminal justice system. Estimates on the number of homeless veterans vary.

[Mr Francois]

I apologise, but as the hon. Lady has introduced a note of partisanship into this debate, I have to ask her something. Last Thursday, I took part in a debate on LBC with a vile man called Aaron Bastani, who is a close associate of the Leader of the Opposition. During that debate, he said, first, that the poppy was a militaristic symbol and that it was racist to wear it, secondly, that the Royal British Legion should be abolished and, thirdly, that celebrating the Invictus games was like

“putting lipstick on a pig”.

As I understand it, this man is a member of the Labour party. Will the shadow Secretary of State condemn unequivocally those remarks and assure the House that he will be thrown out of the Labour party without delay?

[Nia Griffith]

As I have already said on air—it is on the record—I absolutely deplore that man’s comments. I reassure Members from all parties that he holds no position of office in the Labour party, that he is not an elected representative, and that he in no way represents the views of my colleagues, many of whom were at their local war memorials up and down the country on Sunday morning, wearing their poppies very proudly. The man is an utter disgrace and I have called on him to retract completely what he said. It is up to the party authorities to consider further action in his case.

Let me go back to homeless veterans. Estimates of the number of homeless veterans vary, but it is truly shameful that anyone who served this country should find himself or herself on the streets. This Conservative Government must take responsibility for their failure to deal with the problem. Rough sleeping has doubled since 2010, and homelessness is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions on housing and welfare reform and their unprecedented cuts to local council budgets and charities. We cannot deal with homelessness unless we build more homes that are affordable to rent or to buy. Labour is committed to dealing with homeless veterans through our comprehensive plan to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. As we have announced, we would make 8,000 affordable homes available for people with a history of sleeping on the streets, and a Labour Government would build 100,000 affordable homes a year—homes that are affordable to rent and homes that are affordable to buy.

Despite the severe cuts imposed on councils by the Conservative Government, many councils are trying to improve their provision for veterans. I wish to share with the House some examples of the Labour council initiatives to provide homes for veterans, which I have had the privilege of visiting. Cardiff Council has worked with the housing organisation Trivallis and the Welsh Veterans Partnership to deliver a new housing development in Cardiff bay. It is made up of 152 properties, of which at least 15% are allocated to veterans and their families. The Welsh Veterans Partnership also provides help with employment, education and healthcare. It is clear that this multi-agency approach is beneficial to the resettlement and wellbeing of veterans and their families.

I have also visited the Nelson Project, which is part of Labour-controlled Plymouth City Council’s award-winning plan for homes, an £80 million investment to increase the quality and supply of new housing in the city. The project enabled ex-service personnel themselves to help to build a 24-home site, thereby providing them with construction training and other valuable job-based skills. Thanks to that initiative, many have subsequently found work in the construction industry.

Armed forces personnel develop a whole range of skills, and it is vital that those skills are tradeable in civilian life. I know that some work has been done to link the skills people gain while serving in the armed forces to recognised qualifications, but there needs to be a comprehensive system of recognition and equivalence to established qualifications, so that veterans themselves value the skills they have and employers recognise those skills when recruiting. We also need comprehensive provision throughout the country to enable former armed forces personnel to improve their employment chances by enhancing their existing skills or learning new ones. In the fast-changing world we live in, even what we learn today can be out of date by next year, and people may need to retrain or upskill more than once during their working lives. That is why we on the Labour Benches are so committed to lifelong learning. As we set out in our manifesto last year, we will introduce free, lifelong education, delivered through further education colleges, to enable everyone, including veterans, to upskill or retrain at any point in life. That is in sharp contrast to the Government’s cuts to adult education. Of course, one way in which former personnel can gain valuable skills is through apprenticeships. Labour has also made a commitment to set targets to increase the number of veterans who are able to take advantage of such opportunities.

Labour Members also support a guaranteed-interview scheme for veterans, in which former service personnel who meet the minimum requirements for a job would be guaranteed an interview. Some local authorities, such as Labour’s North Tyneside Council, already operate such schemes, and we are keen to see them rolled out throughout the country as a practical way to help veterans with the transition from the services into employment.

Let me turn to mental health. As I have already said, the overwhelming majority of personnel transition into civilian life without any difficulty, so we must challenge any negative stereotype that serving in the forces leaves personnel in some way broken. That is clearly not the case, and I was pleased to see that the veterans strategy makes reference to the work that is needed to challenge the public perception of veterans and to dispel unhelpful myths. At the same time, proper support must be available for those former service personnel who require access to mental health support. The effects and consequences of mental health problems can be devastating.

Earlier this year, the Defence Committee found:

“It is still taking too long for veterans to access treatment when they need it, and levels of care vary across the UK.”

There is particular concern that the guarantee contained in the armed forces covenant—that veterans should receive priority treatment if it relates to a condition that results from their service in the armed forces—is caveated by the phrase “according to clinical need”. The reality is that any meaningful prioritisation is near impossible when waiting times are often far too long, even for urgent cases. The fact is that our mental health services are under considerable pressure, with funding cut by more than 8% since 2010 and the number of mental health nurses down by 6,600.

The strategy aspires to better collaboration and co-ordination of veterans’ services, although there is little suggestion as to how that might be achieved. I am also a little disappointed that the strategy does not do enough to tackle the thorny issue of keeping track of veterans. It is not straightforward because, while some veterans will want to maintain contact with their previous employment through one of the many military organisations, others may not. We need a discussion about the usefulness and the practicality of keeping in touch with veterans.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as my husband is a veteran and a veterans’ champion. Professional services need to become available, but veterans themselves have great skills in understanding the experiences that other veterans have had. I wonder whether Members across the House could come together to agree that peer-to-peer support would also be extremely important for veterans and to support the funding of that moving forward.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Lady makes a valuable contribution to this debate. We would certainly want to look into that.

The strategy does not really consider whether parts of the armed forces covenant should be statutory and not simply aspirational. It does not propose a strategy to develop and maintain greater consistency across all sectors of our public services. The Minister has rightly expressed concern that there is patchiness across the country. There are some fabulous examples of things really working well, but that is not always consistent. There is a debate to be had about the degree to which Government should intervene. Potentially we should be thinking about making some things statutory. Perhaps there should be some requirements to improve consistency across the country.

This morning, I visited the charity Veterans Aid. It is clear from its work that veterans can and do experience many of the same socioeconomic challenges that are faced by society at large—challenges caused by eight years of the Government’s austerity programme. Indeed, among the support that Veterans Aid has provided in the last year is emergency food and money for clothing, needs arising from the problems that many of us see all too often across our communities. It beggars belief that, in 2018, anyone—veteran or otherwise—should need that kind of assistance, but we know that the use of food banks has skyrocketed under this Government.

To be clear, the point is not that veterans specifically are reliant on emergency funds from charities, but rather that it is the political decisions made by the Conservative party since 2010 to slash social security and to impose measures such as the bedroom tax that mean that the real issue is poverty. It is all very well having a strategy that identifies ways to support veterans, but we cannot divorce that from the context of eight years of Conservative cuts. So let us have a proper joined-up approach across Government which increases funding for mental health services, funds lifelong learning and builds more affordable housing. That is what is needed for our veterans and, if this Conservative Government cannot deliver it, a Labour Government will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I have not seen any evidence that supports what my hon. Friend has just said, so I would be grateful if he could supply it. None the less, the point he makes about our veterans being pursued legally is an important one. I can only refer him back to the Adjournment debate, I think on 25 June, when over 50 right hon. and hon. Members came to the House to discuss the matter. There is a consensus across the House that this is an issue we simply must address. He will be aware that the Government have consulted on the issue and we intend to publish the results of the consultation shortly.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A scathing report by the Public Accounts Committee has found that the Ministry of Defence lacks the strategy to remedy, before 2023, the skills shortages now apparent in over 100 critical trades. Those shortages are putting an unprecedented strain on servicemen and servicewomen, with morale in freefall. When will the Government face up to the fact that personnel numbers have been plummeting on their watch, and what specific action will the Minister take to respond to the recommendations in the Committee’s report?

[Mark Lancaster]

We have already discussed some of the actions we are taking, but equally it is important to say that, while the hon. Lady likes to project a picture of gloom, the Army, for example, is actually over 93% manned and fulfils all its operational commitments. Our service personnel are getting opportunities today—the opportunity to train overseas, or, crucially, through training itself—that they may not have had five or six years ago. I have already talked about the fact that the Ministry of Defence is the largest provider of apprenticeships in the United Kingdom. These are some of the things that the hon. Lady might like to champion and praise for a change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

The whole House will be united in complete disgust at what has happened. These are war graves. We would not tolerate the desecration of war graves on land, and we should not tolerate the desecration of war graves at sea. We have instructed a survey of the site and are engaged with other Governments to ensure that, where ships are under their flags, action is taken to ensure that such behaviour does not go unpunished.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

At last month’s Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that austerity is over, but we know that the Tories’ record on defence is one of deep cuts and falling budgets. In cash terms, defence spending has been slashed by £4.9 billion since Labour left office. Can the Secretary of State tell us by how much his party has cut the defence budget in real terms?

[Gavin Williamson]

The defence budget is going up in real terms year on year. We have a commitment for it to go up every year by £1 billion up to 2021.

[Nia Griffith]

With due respect, I have to correct the record. Between 2010 and 2017, the real-terms value of the defence budget fell by nearly £10 billion, which puts immense strain on the ability of the Ministry of Defence to meet its commitments. We welcome the long overdue pay rise for service personnel, but whereas Labour set out a clear plan to fund a fair pay rise, will the Secretary of State confirm that his Government is providing no new money to cover the cost and therefore that he will have to make additional cuts elsewhere to give our forces the pay rise they deserve?

[Gavin Williamson]

We all welcome the increase in service personnel pay. When I meet service personnel, whether in the UK or abroad, they particularly point out that this is the largest pay increase they have experienced since 2010.

Combat Air Strategy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. May I pay tribute to the former Defence Procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who was forced to resign last night for supporting the Prime Minister’s position on Brexit?

Our aerospace and defence sectors are truly world leading and are vital to our security and national prosperity. We welcome the publication of the combat air strategy, but might it not have been better to publish an overarching defence industrial strategy to give the wider industry the certainty it requires? If the Secretary of State’s Department will not do that, will it publish a land strategy sometime in the near future?

A key aspect of the combat air strategy is the creation of a project to consider how to deliver next-generation capability. I am not quite sure how the Government adopted the name “Team Tempest”, but it seems apt this week. The Secretary of State has been clear that the future approach hinges on international collaboration, so what discussion has he had with allies about this project? Has he considered the impact that partnering with non-NATO nations could have on our interoperability?

This strategy has been published at a time of great uncertainty in the aerospace industry about the impact of Brexit. Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of the industry, the trade body ADS and Members from across the House that the UK must be in a customs union to guarantee the industry’s future success?

The Secretary of State said that he wants to see the Tempest fly alongside the Typhoons and the F-35s. Will he confirm how many F-35s the Government plan to buy, in what timeframe and which variant they will be?

Rumours abound that the UK’s future airborne warning and control system capability will be gifted to a company without competition, just as the mechanised infantry vehicle was. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would be a hypocritical approach, when his defence industrial policy refresh emphasised the importance of competition? Can he confirm that there will be an open competition for the UK’s future AWACS capability?

Members from across the House, our industrial partners and our allies are all eagerly awaiting the publication of the modernising defence programme. We were told that we would get the headlines before last week’s NATO summit, and then we were told that it would be out before the summer recess. In the light of the Government’s proposed new parliamentary timetable, will it be tomorrow or Thursday?

[Gavin Williamson]

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who served with great distinction as Defence Procurement Minister and was instrumental in securing the order of the future frigates programme from Australia, which benefits many people and adds to the prosperity of this nation.

The hon. Lady proposes a defence industrial strategy. We have looked at a national shipbuilding strategy and at combat air, and we will look at the concept of developing a land strategy. We want to ensure that whatever we do in defence adds to the prosperity of our nation. That is why we welcome the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), which highlights the importance of defence in creating jobs and economic growth.

We should look not just to Europe in forming partnerships with other nations. For far too long, we have been bound by the thought that we can look only to other European Union nations. Now is the time to look to the whole globe, see what other nations we can partner with and build strong new alliances. We have strong military links and deep connections with many nations. We are confident that, because of our world-leading position in combat air, many nations will want to work with us. I do not believe that we should be in the customs union, and that is the Government’s policy. I do not believe for one minute that being outside the customs union will in any way restrict our ability to deliver Tempest.

Finally, on the modernising defence programme, as I said just the other week, we intend to update the House before the recess.

Afghanistan

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it and join him in paying tribute to all the servicemen and women who have served and are serving in Afghanistan. We remember the 456 men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice there and those who continue to live with injuries sustained during the conflict. We commend the courage shown by our Afghan partners who work under the constant threat posed by insurgents.

As alliance leaders gather in Brussels today, we reaffirm our commitment to NATO and to the range of operations that it supports around the world. The UK has always played its full part in contributing to NATO missions, and we currently have personnel deployed in Kosovo and in Somalia, as well as on the Resolute Support mission. It is right that the skills and professionalism of our armed forces can be used to benefit our partners in Afghanistan by training Afghan forces to the same high standards.

May I ask the Secretary of State for some further detail on today’s announcement? Will he outline the planned timetable for our troops to remain in Afghanistan? Our armed forces have a range of technical skills, so will he say more about the specific work that they will be undertaking? Will the training offered to our Afghan partners focus on specialist activities or continue to be more general? As the Secretary of State will be aware, there has been some recent concern about the eligibility rules for operational allowances, so will he confirm that troops will continue to receive the allowance for their work in Afghanistan? The Resolute Support mission currently comprises some 16,000 personnel from 39 NATO member states and partners, so will the Secretary of State set out what discussions he has had with NATO allies about upping their commitment to the mission?

The work of the armed forces in Afghanistan must of course form part of a wider strategy to promote good governance there, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how it and the Ministry of Defence can support one another? We welcome the U-turn in Government policy on locally employed staff, such as interpreters or drivers, whose work in Afghanistan has been vital to the UK and NATO’s efforts in the country, so will he update the House on the progress that his Department has made on that issue?

Members across the House support the important work of our personnel in Afghanistan, recognising it as part of the process towards reaching a lasting peace settlement, but we must also be clear that the work is quite distinct from the combat operations that ended in 2014. So, finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional troops will be there for training, not in a combat role?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady raises several important points. We want to be in Afghanistan to ensure that we get the right outcomes for the peace process, and it is not possible to put a date on when that will be concluded. However, we continue to work closely with all our allies in the NATO coalition and, most importantly, with the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to try to promote the peace process and bring it forward as rapidly as possible. Work will be undertaken with the Kabul security force, which we have been leading. There is a rapid reaction force element that will support Afghan forces if there are incidents. We have a force there, but it is very much there to support Afghan forces.

All personnel will be in receipt of operational allowance, which is important when we ask service personnel to put themselves in harm’s way. They do such an important and valuable job. I re-emphasise that our work not just with the FCO but with the Department for International Development and other organisations across the international sphere is pivotal in bringing a peaceful resolution to Afghanistan.

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the important contribution of the defence industry to the UK; calls on the Government to support the UK defence industry by taking into account the economic and employment benefits to the UK when awarding contracts and to publish a full, overarching defence industrial strategy; and further calls on the Government to make the competition for the Fleet Solid Support ships contract a UK-only competition to maximise the return on that contract.

Today could be a significant step forward for things coming home. Of course, I am talking about the contract for the fleet solid support ships. As a proud island nation, the UK shipbuilding industry is vital for our prosperity and defence—a message that workers’ representatives from the shipyards spelled out loudly and clearly to Members yesterday. The industry makes a substantial economic contribution, directly employing some 23,000 people and contributing £1.7 billion a year to the UK economy.

Throughout our history and to the present day, the industry has supplied our Royal Navy with the ships that it requires, thereby playing a crucial role in the defence of these islands. Our ships contribute to many NATO and EU missions, including Operation Atalanta, which combats piracy in the gulf of Aden and off the horn of Africa, and they were vital in the humanitarian relief efforts following last year’s hurricanes in the Caribbean.

In the light of events this week, I will not suggest which ship the Government most closely resemble, but the phrase “rearranging the deckchairs” comes to mind. I know that Members on both sides of the House want the industry to thrive, and the Government have an important role to play in that regard. I was disappointed to hear in Defence questions on Monday that the Government will not publish the conclusions of the modernising defence programme this week, as had long been promised. Instead, we have the Secretary of State’s less than inspiring commitment of “aiming to” introduce the headline findings before the summer recess. We wait with bated breath.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Opposition’s approach. We want a strong Navy and more ships built in Britain. Anything we can do together to achieve that will be greatly welcome, and I trust that the Government will agree.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent intervention.

I hope that the delay will allow Ministers to reflect on the overwhelming case for an active defence industrial strategy that recognises the immense value of building in Britain and takes a longer term view of the orders that the Government will place, giving industry the confidence to invest in the UK and to plan for a steady stream of work.

Long-term planning is vital, not just for the prime contractors but for the supply chain companies and foundation industries such as the steel industry. It gives them the time to gear up to fulfil orders, and the certainty that they need to justify additional investment. A clear strategy needs to balance getting the very best value for the taxpayer—a crucial consideration, especially when the defence budget is under such strain—with the needs of our armed forces and defences. This would allow us to defend sovereign capabilities, support UK manufacturing and continue to develop the highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships that allow us to compete on the global stage. Research and development must be at the heart of any industrial strategy, promoting links with our universities and technical colleges. We should recognise the need to plan for the skill sets we will need in the future, and to inspire our young people, both girls and boys, with the challenge and excitement of pursuing a career in our world industry.

We have had the national shipbuilding strategy and the combat air strategy is being developed, so rather than just the defence industrial refresh it would make perfect sense for the Government to come forward with an overarching and far-reaching defence industrial strategy that would give industry the certainty it requires.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed, but Rolls-Royce is in the market to sell off its industrial marine division—the power generation division. Nobody knows yet who is likely to buy it, but it is likely that once again our defence is going to be manufactured abroad instead of being protected in this country.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the need for certainty and long-term planning, so we can give business the confidence to invest here.

As well as ensuring that our armed forces have the very best equipment, a core objective of our defence industrial strategy should be to promote our national prosperity. We can only do that properly if we factor in the true value of defence contracts to the UK economy. Buying British is not just about the basic fact that a UK-based company will pay UK tax; it is also about the broader economic and social benefits, and the value of the skills and apprenticeships that the industry creates.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that if the fleet solid support ships were built in the UK, 20% of that cost could be recovered by the workers working on those ships paying tax and national insurance?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed—at least that amount.

Reports by Oxford Economics highlight that the UK defence industry has an output multiplier of 2.3, meaning that £100 million in UK industry generates some £230 million to the UK economy. Its reports also highlight that each additional job created in the manufacturing element of the defence industry results in a further 1.8 jobs being created in the wider economy.

At present, the Government do not routinely factor in these wider socioeconomic values when making a procurement decision. We on the Labour Benches believe that to be a serious mistake. It is particularly anomalous when companies that bid with the Ministry of Defence are quite used to having to set out the socioeconomic value of contracts when bidding with Governments of other countries. Labour is committed to expanding the definition of good value to include wider employment, industrial or economic factors when making procurement decisions.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am listening very attentively to what the hon. Lady is saying. I am sure she will be aware that in March this year HM Treasury published, after a seven year review, a new definition of managing public money, which specifically allows, under UK procurement rules, for the concept of social value to be taken into account. She is therefore asking the Government to do something they have already decided to.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I congratulate him on his excellent report, which he presented on Monday. I note that in it he recommends that UK prosperity should be taken into account in all major procurement decisions. I welcome that statement.

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

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) raises an interesting point, but the issue is not so much about the policy as about the implementation of it. That is what the Treasury and others have got to start doing.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. When we speak to defence contractors, we find it is a sad fact that they are not being required to put those details into the bids they make. We very much hope to see that change. I hope that this is an urgent step on that way. The approach has been endorsed by the Defence Committee and has received the support of the trade body, ADS, as well as the defence trade unions such as Unite, GMB and Prospect.

The contract for the fleet solid support ships would bring immense value to this country if it were awarded to a UK bidder. Our carriers, frigates and destroyers will, of course, always be built in the UK, but with ships such as the fleet solid support vessels, the Government have a choice to make, and Labour Members believe that they are making the wrong one by choosing to put this order out to international competition. I know that some in the Conservative party like to blame everything on the European Union, but the fact is that the Government would be able to procure these ships in the UK under existing EU law, and there are compelling reasons for doing so. The GMB trade union has estimated that the ships would support 6,700 jobs if they were built in UK yards and up to £285 million of the £800 million potential UK spend would be returned to the Treasury through taxation.

The case for buying British is clear, and it would be a betrayal of our UK workers if this contract were allowed to go overseas, so we need to question what is really driving Ministers to put this out to overseas bidders. Perhaps it is the view that there will be a lower price tag for the MOD. We all want to get the best value for money, and we are aware of the difficulties that the MOD is having in balancing its budget, but this short-sighted, narrow, silo mentality about what might look good on the MOD’s balance sheet ignores both the benefits to the UK economy of building the ships in Britain and the costs of not doing so. We as taxpayers all want to see value for our money, and taxpayers up and down the country would far rather see that money spent on supporting skilled jobs for workers here in the UK than see it spent abroad, knowing that some 30% of the money spent on wages will come back directly to the Treasury as taxation, and that the spending power of those workers and their families will sustain local businesses in their communities.

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

I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Lady is making, but the consequence of going down the route that she recommends, and which I am inclined to support, is that the black hole in the defence equipment budget will become even greater. If we accept that there needs to be an uplift in the defence budget to be able to make this sort of investment and get the long-term gains that she describes, will she confirm that her party’s policy is to support an increase in the defence budget?

[Nia Griffith]

As I just outlined, it is extremely important that we take into account the way that the money can be brought back into the Treasury, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s message will be well understood by Government Front Benchers.

I will make a bit of progress. As taxpayers, we all want to see value for our money, but we recognise the consequences if we do not spend the money in the UK—the immediate impact on workers and their families, with workers unemployed or able only to find much lower-paid work, leaving them and their families much more reliant on social security payments and tax credits. All that is a cost to the taxpayer and, sadly, there are all too often the hidden costs of the increased risk of mental health problems and family break-up. While workers and their families will take the hardest hit, the wider consequences will be far-reaching and long term. Shipyards will close. We will lose a skilled workforce and a generation of apprentices.

If UK companies do not win these contracts, they will have less money to spend on research and development, and that bodes ill for the future. We have to stay ahead in this game to stay in the game. We know that UK-based companies are interested in putting in a bid, but they will be less inclined to if they think that this order will simply be handed overseas, as happened with the MARS—Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability—tankers. Bidding is a lengthy and expensive process, and companies understandably do not want to take that risk if there is no chance that they will succeed. Awarding this contract to an overseas manufacturer would be particularly galling when we note the subsidies, both direct and indirect, that benefit many foreign yards.

To those who argue that UK companies should simply compete on a level playing field with international bidders, I say that the point is that currently the field is simply not level. For example, the South Korean shipbuilding industry has been the subject of a great deal of criticism for the level of state aid it receives. Shipbuilding is a significant element of the country’s economy, and state-run lenders have injected billions of dollars into the industry. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has found that German yards benefit from targeted research and development, from funds for redeveloping and upgrading yards and from regional development funding, while significant potential bidders in Italy, France and Spain are owned in whole or part by their respective Governments. Rather than allowing this valuable contract to disappear overseas, the Government should do the right thing and put UK yards and workers first.

Of course, in this global marketplace, I recognise that not every contract can or should be delivered in the UK, and where we buy from abroad or work in collaboration with allies to develop assets, we should prioritise work-share agreements to create jobs and boost growth in the UK.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a poor track record in doing what she suggests? Under the P-8 and Apache contracts with Boeing, for example, there is very little work share and very few jobs coming back into the UK.

[Nia Griffith]

Yes, indeed; as my hon. Friend says, the Government have a poor track record. It is a great shame that so many opportunities have been wasted.

[Mr Dunne]

I cannot allow that to stand. I was in post when the P-8 Poseidon contract was placed, and an integral part of the relationship with Boeing was an understanding, now being fulfilled through contracts, that it would make a significant investment in RAF Lossiemouth. As a result, £400 million is now going into that base, in part to support and maintain those aircraft and other aircraft operated by our allies. Those aircraft will be coming here to the UK to be maintained and serviced. That means UK jobs and UK investment.

[Nia Griffith]

It is incumbent on the Government, though, to look again and strain every muscle to get the very best work-share agreements wherever they exist.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The argument from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), whom I congratulate on his report, does not hold water. Of course, if we are buying these planes, we will need maintenance facilities, and if that is being done by industry, industry will provide those facilities, but they are service facilities for the RAF, and there might even be work from abroad. Where, though, are these planes being manufactured? They are being manufactured in the United States, with very little return of work coming to the UK. They have been allowed to get away with a very cheap deal.

[Nia Griffith]

On that note, I shall make progress.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nia Griffith]

One more time.

[Douglas Ross]

As the Member of Parliament for Moray, which is home to RAF Lossiemouth, I have to take exception to the points made from the Labour Benches. This is a major investment—£400 million and hundreds of new jobs—in Moray and Scotland and is welcomed locally by every man, woman and child. They will look very poorly at the Labour party today trying to say it is not good enough for the area.

[Nia Griffith]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) clearly explained, a much better deal could have been done.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talks about the benefits to his constituency, but what about the people who live near Woodford, the BAE Systems site in Manchester, who in 2010 watched as the Nimrod MRA4 programme, 94% complete, was smashed up by JCBs and Britain’s capacity to build large fixed-wing aircraft permanently destroyed? Was that not the total destruction of British industrial capability—something we are trying to avoid in this debate today?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and now I shall conclude, as I am sure that hon. Members are thinking about what they will be watching later this evening.

When I was very young, I remember not only the excitement of England winning the World cup in 1966, but the I’m Backing Britain campaign. Before they go off to support the English football team this evening, I urge Members from across the House to recognise that the order for the fleet solid support ships represents a prime example of one that can and should be awarded here. I urge Members to back British industry and to vote to build them in Britain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The question is as on the Order Paper. Tobias Ellwood!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I have hinted that I will come to that in a second, but there is a distinction between fleet support ships that employ civilians and Royal Navy ships that employ Royal Navy personnel. There is a distinction between the two from a security perspective.

Going back to the point about value for money for the taxpayer, the Defence Secretary, the Procurement Minister and I all want to ensure that we are able to utilise the advanced skill sets in our defence industry across the UK, but the bottom line has to be value for money. Let us take as an example the ships that were recently purchased in Korea. The price was half the British value. Is the hon. Member for Llanelli saying that she would pay double the price for the same auxiliary support ships?

[Nia Griffith]

The Minister needs to take into consideration the fact that something like 36% of that spend would immediately come back to the Treasury in taxation. There would also be a knock-on effect for all the small businesses that would benefit from that money being spent out into the local economy. We would also have to take into account the cost of social security if those people were unemployed, as well as the disastrous cost of losing our shipbuilding industry altogether. Does he recognise that if we do not invest now to create a drum beat of orders, we could see the shipbuilding industry going the same way that the Tories let the coalmining industry go?

[Mr Ellwood]

Now we really are seeing the difference between us, if the hon. Lady is comparing this situation with the coalmining industry. Is that where this debate is going? I certainly hope not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because other Members wish to speak. Let me make some progress and I will give way shortly.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister recognise that the Parker report very clearly mentions having a “drumbeat” of orders? That is vital to the industry so that we do not lose skills, so that we do not fall behind on R&D and so that we can remain in the game. Does he agree that that is important and that these ships could contribute to that drumbeat of orders?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not disagree. I try to be less partisan than others who jump up at the Dispatch Box, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that drumbeat of orders, but it should not come at any price. We need to make sure it blends with what is built for the Royal Navy and for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. We have accepted every single recommendation made by John Parker, and we thank him for his very wise report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

That is absolutely correct. We need to stand together with our allies, and we have had an unprecedented amount of support from countries right across the NATO alliance saying that the behaviour of Russia is completely and utterly unacceptable and is taking that country down the route of pariah status.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the conclusions of the modernising defence programme will be published in time for the NATO summit. I would never suggest that the Government are in the grip of complete chaos and, even if all those around him were to lose their head, I know the Defence Secretary, of all people, will keep his. Can he now assure the House that the promise to publish before Wednesday’s summit still stands?

[Gavin Williamson]

What we are aiming to do is introduce the headline findings of the modernising defence programme before the summer recess.

[Nia Griffith]

It is very troubling indeed that the UK risks going to this NATO summit without being able to offer certainty to allies about our future defence capabilities. The past few months have seen unprecedented leaks from the MDP, speculation about cuts, outlandish briefings to the media and even a reported threat to bring down the Prime Minister, although I gather the Defence Secretary may now have to join a queue for that. The MDP review will ultimately be a futile exercise, however, unless it is properly funded. Can he tell us what assurances he has had from the Chancellor that the Treasury will provide additional funds, as required?

[Gavin Williamson]

What we see is a Conservative Government who this year committed an extra £800 million over the budget that was going to go to the Ministry of Defence to support our armed forces. We are undertaking the modernising defence programme to look at the threats this nation faces and to make sure we have the best equipped and best trained armed forces to deal with those threats. The Government have committed money to our armed forces; we have a rising defence budget. We are a very proud nation in the sense that we can see we have been hitting 2% in the past and will continue to do so going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

Britain always has been and always will be a tier 1 nation. SDSR ’15 set out clearly what we would expect from a tier 1 nation. We are very much looking at the evolving threats to this country to ensure we are best placed to deal with them.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Capita’s recruiting partnership project is failing on every measure. It has missed the MOD target for savings by more than £100 million in the past six years and the latest figures show that the number of personnel in the Army has fallen yet again. Does the Minister agree with Labour that it is time to take this failing contract back in-house?

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

No, I absolutely do not. The hon. Lady’s comments are slightly short-sighted. There have been challenges for the defence recruiting system in recent months, but I am confident that, because of some of the hypercare measures, we are firmly on the up.

[Nia Griffith]

After Capita’s abysmal failure to deliver the recruitment project, many people would question its capacity to carry out any major MOD contracts, but the Government’s decision to outsource the Defence Fire and Rescue Service to Capita when the MOD has scored the company as 10 out of 10 for risk simply beggars belief. The Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) suggested that the Government are ideologically obsessed with privatising key services without considering the consequences. Is it not surely time for an urgent rethink of this dangerously short-sighted policy?

Counter-Daesh Update

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.

The Opposition welcome the extraordinary progress that has been made in the campaign against Daesh. This evil organisation and its poisonous ideology must be defeated wherever they emerge. We pay tribute to our UK servicemen and women, whose courage and commitment is hastening the demise of Daesh, and we pay tribute to our allies and partners on the ground, who have sustained such heavy losses while liberating their peoples from the scourge of this terrorist group.

Following the success of the operation to liberate Mosul and much of Anbar province, the Iraqi Government are now focused on securing the border with Syria to ensure that fighters cannot return. Will the Secretary of State outline in greater detail the support that the UK is providing to that effort?

The campaign against Daesh has inevitably caused very substantial damage to infrastructure in Iraq and Syria. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed, as has much of the fabric of governance. The World Bank has estimated that the overall cost of reconstruction and recovery in Iraq alone is more than $88 billion. Will the Secretary of State say more about the UK’s role in not only the reconstruction but the stabilisation of the areas affected?

Daesh fighters have carried out crimes of unspeakable barbarity. Many have been captured and are now in the custody of the Iraqi Government and other authorities in the region. Will the Secretary of State outline what action is being taken to prosecute them for their crimes and what monitoring there is of fighters and their families who may seek to return to the UK?

The global coalition against Daesh is engaged in degrading and defeating the organisation by tackling its finances. That is key to ensuring that Daesh does not simply reappear elsewhere or in another form. The loss of territory in the region has also precipitated a loss of assets and oil revenue, but what further steps is the UK taking to combat the funding of Daesh? As the organisation becomes vastly diminished as a territorial force, what work is being done, alongside internet companies and social media providers, to combat the online spread of Daesh’s vile propaganda?

As the civil war in Syria has entered its eighth year, will the Secretary of State say what steps are being taken to achieve a ceasefire and a lasting political solution? As the UN-sponsored Geneva peace process has stalled, what effort is being made to co-ordinate that process with the discussions in Sochi and Astana?

The campaign to defeat Daesh has made significant progress in liberating territory, but we know that operations continue on a daily basis, as does the vital training that we provide to forces on the ground. That is down to the extraordinary commitment of our personnel and that of our allies. No one who serves in our armed forces does so for medals or acclaim but, particularly in the RAF’s centenary year, I know that the whole House wants to see our personnel being commended for their bravery. The Ministry of Defence has been examining the criteria for awarding a medal to those serving on Operation Shader. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on that work so that we can ensure that the bravery and dedication of our personnel is recognised properly and without delay?

[Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her continued support for our armed forces as they continue to be involved in this important operation.

Our commitment in respect of a training mission to Iraq and the need to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure stability in the region was underlined by our recent visits to Iraq and meetings with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Defence Minister. We will continue to do everything that we can to train Iraqi forces to ensure that Iraq’s border forces are in the very best position to deal with some of the threats and challenges. We are also looking into how we can do more with Jordanian forces. On top of that, we have committed to providing more than £30 million of support for UN stabilisation efforts. That makes it clear that Britain is a long-term ally of our Iraqi friends.

We are the second largest bilateral donor in Syria. We have consistently been the country leading the way in making sure that humanitarian support gets through, and we will continue to do that on top of the funding and support that we have been giving to Iraq.

The hon. Lady made an important point about the funding of Daesh, which the Government take exceptionally seriously. We talk about the dispersal of Daesh in Iraq and Syria, but the challenge is actually much wider, with Daesh dispersing much more globally. We need to look carefully at the financial flows that follow these people and that provide support for the acts of violence they wish to perpetrate in the countries to which they go.

The hon. Lady’s point about countering propaganda is vital. For the first time, the United Kingdom has been incredibly active with an offensive cyber-capacity to deal with, correct and address that propaganda. We have seen a 70% reduction in the amount of propaganda coming out of Daesh, so our work is really showing results. We cannot rest on our laurels, however, and we will continue to look at the issue and drive down that propaganda, because we do not want to see any of Daesh’s vile hatred on the internet at all.

On the hon. Lady’s final point about a medal for those who have served in Op Shader, I have been incredibly touched by the commitment and dedication that all our service personnel have shown in the operation, and by the sacrifices that they have made to keep Britain safe—I know that the hon. Lady has, too. We are looking closely at medallic recognition. Ultimately, we hope to try to find a solution that ensures that all service personnel who have been involved in the campaign get the recognition that they deserve. As the hon. Lady knows, we are looking to try to land the support of all members of the cross-Government Committee.

NATO

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to debate the role of NATO. The timing is particularly appropriate, with the debate coming ahead of the NATO summit next month. The alliance is the cornerstone of our defence and our collective security, and Labour Members are proud of the role our party played in its founding. The leadership of Clement Attlee and his Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was so instrumental in setting up the alliance in 1949. Bevin moved the motion

“That this House approves the North Atlantic Treaty”.

That established NATO. He spoke in that debate of the backdrop of growing global instability and the shared determination of the 12 founding members to avoid any return to conflict. The increasingly aggressive actions of the Soviet Union drove the Government to consider, as he put it,

“how like-minded, neighbourly peoples, whose institutions had been marked down for destruction, could get together, not for the purpose of attack, but in sheer self-defence.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2011-2013.]

Bevin was clear that the creation of the alliance was not an aggressive act but was instead about deterrence, a fundamental principle of NATO to this day. The Atlantic treaty was to send a message to potential adversaries that NATO’s members were not a number of weak, divided nations, but rather a united front bound together in the common cause of collective self-defence.

[James Heappey]

Last year, the Labour party leader was asked about article 5 of the NATO treaty and he responded:

“That doesn’t necessarily mean sending troops. It means diplomatic, it means economic, it means sanctions, it means a whole range of things.”

Will the hon. Lady clarify from the Dispatch Box now that, if one of our NATO allies were attacked militarily and he were Prime Minister, he would respond with military action?

[Nia Griffith]

I will confirm that Labour 100% supports NATO and, as the Leader of the Opposition has made absolutely clear, we want to work within it to promote democracy and to project stability. That is exactly what we would do if we were in government.

[Dr Murrison]

Nobody doubts the hon. Lady’s commitment to our armed forces and to NATO, but her leader has one signal virtue, consistency—it is a virtue in a politician. He has not changed his mind on anything since the 1970s. What then are we to make of an individual who only six years ago said that NATO was a “danger to world peace” and that it was “a major problem”?

[Nia Griffith]

As I have just explained, our leader has been very clear about the position we hold, and he does see that working within NATO is very important for projecting stability and promoting democracy. Let me make some progress now, if I may.

NATO’s founding was not meant in any way to undermine or detract from the primacy of the United Nations; rather, it was to work alongside the UN, in full conformity with the principles of the UN charter. The generation that established NATO, the one that endured the horror and destruction of two world wars, were keenly aware of the overriding need to achieve peace and stability wherever possible. When he outlined article 5’s implications and its guarantee of collective security, Bevin told the House:

“This does not mean that every time we consult there will be military action. We hope to forestall attack…We have to seek to promote a peaceful settlement.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2020-2021.]

Indeed, the principle of settling disputes by peaceful means is articulated clearly in article 1 of the NATO treaty.

Today, the alliance has grown to 29 members and, as well as its central role of ensuring the security of the north Atlantic area, NATO supports global security by working with partners around the world. NATO supported the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Sudan and has worked alongside the European Union’s Operation Atalanta to combat piracy in the gulf of Aden off the horn of Africa. NATO offers training, advice and assistance to the Afghan national security forces through the Resolute Support mission. In addition, the NATO training mission in Iraq provides support and mentoring to Iraq’s armed forces personnel. The alliance has also assisted with humanitarian relief efforts, including those in Pakistan after the devastating 2005 earthquake and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Russia’s recent actions, including its disgraceful and illegal annexation of Crimea and the Donbass in 2014, have led to renewed focus on the immediate security of the alliance area and, indeed, the need to secure NATO’s eastern border. At the 2016 Warsaw summit, the allies resolved to establish an enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states and Poland as a means of providing reassurance to those NATO members and a credible deterrent to potential adversaries. The tailored forward presence in the Black sea region makes an important contribution to regional security there.

I have had the privilege of visiting Estonia twice, and I have met our personnel serving there as part of Operation Cabrit. It was clear from our conversations with the Estonians that they truly value our presence there, particularly as they have worked so closely with our personnel in Afghanistan. The Estonians themselves have offered to help another NATO ally, France, with its mission in west Africa. For them, that is about offering reciprocity for the security that NATO allies give them to maintain their freedom in Estonia. They know that the collective protection of NATO is what makes them different from Ukraine.

Although the provision of deterrence through conventional means in Estonia, Poland and Romania is of great importance, we must also be alive to the risk that adversaries, including non-state actors, will increasingly deploy hybrid and cyber-warfare and use destabilising tactics specifically designed not to trigger article 5. We have all heard the reports of how Russia has used cyber-warfare; indeed, when I visited the cyber centre in Estonia, I heard about how Estonia has had direct experience of a cyber-attack that affected major computer networks throughout the country, and about what the staff there did to combat it. That was a reminder that when we reflect on the state of our own defences—as the Government are currently doing with the modernising defence programme—we must bear in mind the need to invest in the whole range of conventional and cyber-capabilities, and not to view it as an either/or situation.

The Warsaw summit communiqué, which set out plans for the enhanced forward presence, also stated that

“deterrence has to be complemented by meaningful dialogue and engagement with Russia, to seek reciprocal transparency and risk reduction.”

Of course, Russia’s aggressive stance, and her repeated assaults on our rules-based international system, have made any productive engagement nigh on impossible. The response to the recent poisonings in Salisbury, for which we hold Russia responsible, demonstrated the strength of the alliance in the face of Russian aggression, with a great number of our allies, and NATO itself, joining us in the expulsion of diplomats. It is none the less positive that the NATO-Russia Council has met recently, because we need to use any and all opportunities for dialogue. What is perhaps most worrying about the current state of affairs is that even at the height of the cold war we maintained lines of communication, which are essential to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to very rapid escalations. There is currently far less engagement.

Our co-operation with allies in Estonia and Poland highlights the importance of the interoperability of our equipment in enabling us to work closely with other NATO members in a variety of settings. That is something that was raised with me when I visited NATO headquarters in Brussels shortly after I took up my post. It was clear that NATO wishes to see greater harmonisation in equipment. Although I recognise that decisions about defence procurement must of course be taken freely by sovereign states, it clearly does make sense to maximise the opportunities to work together and to avoid unnecessary duplication, wherever possible.

Of course the need to invest in the equipment necessary for NATO missions merely adds to the case for proper levels of defence spending. NATO allies are committed to the guideline of spending a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence, with 20% of that total to be spent on major equipment, including research and development. Only a relatively small number of NATO members can even claim to be hitting the 2% figure at present, and it is right that we encourage all allies to meet the NATO guidelines, as the 2014 Wales summit communiqué made clear.

We must lead by example. The simple fact is that the UK is barely scraping over the line when it comes to our own levels of defence spending. The latest Treasury figures for the year 2015-16 show that the Government spent 1.9% of GDP on defence. The International Institute for Strategic Studies has also concluded that UK defence spending is not reaching 2% of GDP.

The reality is that the UK only appears to meet the 2% in its NATO return because it includes items such as pensions that do not contribute to our defence capabilities, which Labour did not include when we were in government. Whichever way we look at it, the truth is that the deep cuts that were imposed in 2010 and the implementation by the Conservative party of those cuts in the years following mean that the defence budget is now worth far less than it was when Labour left office. Defence spending was cut by nearly £10 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2017, and our purchasing power has been cut dramatically owing to the sharp fall in the value of the pound.

I note that the Minister for defence people, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is no longer in his place, has said recently that he would like to see defence spending rise north of 2.5%. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify whether this is, in fact, now Government policy, or whether it is simply another plea, which will, doubtless, be rebuffed by the Chancellor.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all she does in the defence world. I entirely agree with her about pressing the Government to increase our spending to 2.5%, or, as I have often said, to 3%. Will she take this opportunity to commit an incoming Labour Government to doing the same thing?

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman simply needs to look at our record. We consistently spent well over 2% when we were in government. We do have a good record on spending.

I know that there is concern across the House about current levels of defence spending, as the hon. Gentleman has just indicated. The recent findings of the National Audit Office that the equipment plan is simply not affordable, with a funding gap of up to £20.8 billion, will have done nothing to assuage this. As I have said many times, the Government will have support from Labour Members if the modernising defence programme results in proper investment for our defences and our armed forces, but there will be deep disquiet if the review merely results in yet more cuts of the kind that have been briefed in the press in recent months.

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union means that our NATO membership is more important than ever. Although we have always recognised NATO as the sole organisation for the collective defence of Europe, and defence has always been the sovereign responsibility of each EU member state, it is none the less the case that from March 2019 we will lose our voice and our vote in the EU Foreign Affairs Council and in many other important committees. We must therefore look at other ways of co-ordinating action with European partners where it is in our interests to do so—for example, in defending the Iran nuclear deal, which was so painstakingly negotiated and risks beings completely trashed by President Trump.

It is also very important that we retain the position of Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe once we have left the EU and that we resist any attempts to allocate that role to another European state. Ultimately, Labour believes very firmly that Brexit must not be an opportunity for the UK to turn inwards, or to shirk our international obligations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Speaking personally as someone who has worked for the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and been chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I cannot see in any way how anyone could suggest that the Deputy SACEUR could be anything but British as things stands. It has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to let the hon. Gentleman intervene. We absolutely agree with what he says.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

May I pick up the hon. Lady on the point that she has just made? Like me, does she see the future of our role in Europe as being twofold: first, on defence, with NATO; and secondly, on civil affairs, with the Council of Europe? They were both formed at the same time. They both have similar membership and they both try to do the same thing.

[Nia Griffith]

The Labour party wants absolute, full co-operation with European partners. We recognise that we are leaving the EU, but in every other respect we want to be fully European. We want to have full co-operation within NATO and the Council of Europe.

We are living in an increasingly unpredictable world, with a very unpredictable—and, at times, isolationist—United States Administration, so it is all the more important that the UK uses its voice.

[Mr Francois]

I do not know whether the House is aware, but I was born in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so I ask the hon. Lady: if the right hon. Gentleman were to become Prime Minister, would it be his intention to declare our nuclear deterrent to NATO as it is currently declared?

[Nia Griffith]

We have made our position on the nuclear deterrent absolutely clear. We support the nuclear deterrent and we support NATO. That is our party policy.

I think that I had just mentioned the isolationist US Administration.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

On that point, there is a huge danger that we spend our time focusing on the President’s tweets and not looking at what America is actually doing. Certainly at the moment, its financial contributions, its people contributions and its commitment to NATO are higher than they have ever been. The support that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly receives from members of Congress such as Mike Turner, Joe Wilson and Jennifer González-Colón is absolutely 100% towards the NATO alliance. It is dangerous to see the US totally through the prism of the President.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend not only for the work that she does on behalf of this Parliament in respect of NATO, but for making a very valid point and clarifying exactly the position that we do seem to have at the moment with the United States.

It is all the more important for the UK to use our voice, through organisations such as NATO, to be a force for good in this world. It was the same internationalist outlook that inspired Ernest Bevin when he said:

“In co-operation with like-minded peoples, we shall act as custodians of peace and as determined opponents of aggression, and shall combine our great resources and great scientific and organisational ability, and use them to raise the standard of life for the masses of the people all over the world.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2022.]

I sincerely believe that NATO can still be that stabilising influence in an ever-changing world, and a strong and resolute force for the values of democracy and freedom that we cherish.

Galileo Programme

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK’s future participation in the Galileo Public Regulated Service.

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

The Government have been clear that our preference is to contribute fully to Galileo as part of a deep security partnership with the European Union and that negotiations should be allowed to run their course. That includes UK involvement in the design and development of Galileo’s encrypted signal for use by Governments, the Public Regulated Service.

On 13 June at the European Space Agency Council, member states agreed to proceed with the procurement of the next phase of Galileo. UK companies are not eligible to bid for those contracts. By forcing through that vote while excluding UK companies from the contracts on security grounds, the European Commission has put all of this at risk. The Commission also published slides setting out the EU’s response to the UK’s technical note on Galileo published on 24 May, which explained our requirements for future participation in the programme. The EU proposal does not meet UK defence and industrial requirements, and we could not justify future participation in Galileo on that basis.

The UK has explained that without full, fair and open industrial involvement, guaranteed access to the signal and full understanding of the system’s technical characteristics, Galileo would not offer the UK value for money or meet our defence needs, and that we would be obliged to walk away, resulting in delays and additional costs to the programme that will run into the billions. The Government will need to consider the implications of the recent ESA vote, but we are looking at other options, including a UK global navigation satellite system.

[Nia Griffith]

The future of the UK’s relationship with Galileo is extremely important, and yesterday’s release from the Commission reveals the enormous gulf between the UK Government’s position and the Commission’s view. This matter must be dealt with urgently.

The strategic defence and security review highlighted the importance of Galileo for our armed forces, saying:

“we will enhance the resilience of military users and key domestic resilience responders using new technologies incorporating the European Galileo system.”

Having secure access to global positioning and navigation systems is vital for our armed forces, given the increasing threats to GPS integrity from cyber-attacks, jamming and spoofing. Will the Minister tell us what arrangements will be in place for the armed forces if the UK is excluded from the public regulated service, and what implications that will have for their ability to conduct planned operations?

The Commission’s latest release is clear that the UK outside the EU cannot have the same relationship with the programme as we would have as a member state, but it does say that access to the PRS is possible for third countries if a specific agreement is in place. Is that what the Government plan to do, and if so, what urgent steps is the Secretary of State taking to get such an agreement? How many times has the Secretary of State personally met or spoken to Federica Mogherini about the specific issue of Galileo?

We do not simply want to be third-party users of the EU Galileo systems; we want our industry to be at the heart of the design process. However, the Commission is insisting that working on the design and development of security-related and PRS elements is restricted to EU member states only. The UK space industry is worth nearly £15 billion annually to UK plc, with over 40,000 direct employees and 1,400 apprentices. What discussions has the Minister had with industry stakeholders about the impact of the UK dropping out of Galileo?

Finally, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have made repeated reference to a UK alternative to the Galileo system. Will the Minister tell us what steps they have taken to explore such an alternative, and what discussions about it they have had with key non-EU allies? We know that this would be an extremely expensive endeavour to undertake, so what contingency money has been set aside for the project and what advice has he received about a timeframe for delivery? Galileo and the PRS are of major importance to us, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with some concrete answers.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Indeed, it is important that we have a very strong cross-party view on this issue, because all Members of this House would find the idea that the UK is being excluded on security grounds to be completely unacceptable. The merest concept of the UK being considered a security risk should be challenged by all Members of this House, and I am sure the hon. Lady will join me in highlighting our disappointment that such a decision has been taken.

On the questions asked by the hon. Lady, at this point in time the PRS system under Galileo will not be in operation until the mid-2020s, and in the meantime we will be working under the current GPS system. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the Ministry of Defence has made no secret of the fact that we consider the capability we will offer our military from Galileo to be increasingly important and crucial, and it is an issue of real concern that we will have to look at this in very great detail.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Secretary of State and Ministers are looking at this issue and talking to the industry. I assure her that the Secretary of State has had numerous meetings on this issue, and I have personally taken it up with every single counterpart from the European Union whom I have met over the past few months, including with the junior Defence Minister from Poland yesterday. The Department has communicated this very strongly to our counterparts, and we are disappointed that we have not as yet secured the agreement we need.

May I stress that the agreement we need is one that will be good for the security of Europe and for the security of the United Kingdom? I state again that the United Kingdom, in leaving the European Union, has made it very clear that we are not leaving our obligations to the security of Europe. Those obligations are unconditional and, frankly, we find it disappointing that the European Union has not taken those guarantees and assurances in the spirit in which they have been offered.

On discussions with the industry, I applaud the hon. Lady for acknowledging the strength of the UK industrial offer on space. Indeed, only recently when I spoke at the defence space conference, I highlighted the opportunities we see for the future of the space industry in the United Kingdom. We are now having to look extremely carefully at the possibility of developing our own options.

I stress again that this Government would prefer to remain involved with the Galileo project, but given the strength of this industrial sector and the strength of what we can offer the Galileo project, I think it is really a case of the European Union doing damage to itself, while we are in a position to move forward, building on the strength and expertise of the industry in the UK, to ensure that we meet the requirements of UK defence and the wider defence sector. I assure the hon. Lady that we will not allow any flight of expertise from the space sector as a result of the decision taken yesterday.