Armed Forces Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Just as the Armed Forces Act 2001 required a degree of discussion, agreement and devolution to the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland, so too will this Bill. Our officials are in deep discussion with Northern Ireland Office officials. The Minister for the Armed Forces has written to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, and I am confident that, following the passage of the Bill, we will have arrangements in place allowing the proud armed forces covenant to be fully implemented in legislation at every level of government: the UK national Government, devolved Governments and local authorities across the UK.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Further to the previous intervention, the covenant is predicated on veterans not being disadvantaged by their service, as the Secretary of State will know. However, Northern Ireland veterans will be subject to records that do not apply to civilian terrorists. Will he confirm that there will be no disadvantage to Northern Ireland veterans, and that the covenant will apply to them as originally intended?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is speaking about the legislative provisions of a different Bill that is before the House. We will deal with that and strengthen protections for veterans. Successive Governments have failed because it has been too difficult, but, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland leading the way, we will finally have a settlement that allows the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary opened the debate by talking about the Bill taking significant steps to improve service lives, but the reality is that the rhetoric is not matched by the record.

Let me take as an example the significant section of the Bill that is devoted to reservists. There are measures that I have no objection to: it allows the recall of those in their early 60s; it aligns the provision across the three services; and it has a new, lower threshold to recall based on warlike conditions, although it does not explain to employers what “warlike” constitutes so that they can know on what basis their staff might be called up. But the reality is that under this Government the number of reservists has actually fallen. It was over 32,000 in October 2023 and under 32,000 in October 2024. The number of training days has also fallen, from 1.3 million in 2023-24 to 1.17 million in 2024-25. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said that our reservists “are critical” and “absolutely central”:

“Without them we cannot generate mass, we cannot meet the plethora of defence tasks”.

If that is his view—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) spoke about increased risks and the action being taken by other countries—then why is the number of reservists not increasing significantly?

There might be those on the Government Benches who say, “Well, perhaps our record so far hasn’t been great, but don’t worry—the strategic defence and security review promises a 20% increase in our reservists, so perhaps it will improve in future.” First, that starts from a very low base of 32,000, so a 20% increase is around 6,500. Let us put that in context. Even the French—the French, Madam Deputy Speaker!—are more than doubling their number of reservists, and from a higher starting point. They are going from 46,000 to over 100,000 in the next decade. Many other countries have already taken action. The US has half its army and over a third of its air force in its guard or reserve units. Scandinavian and Baltic countries have also taken action. If we want to see what other countries are doing, we can look at the action the Germans are taking, as my right hon. Friend talked about, or at Poland’s defence spending

We have a very weak target of 20% on a low threshold. What is worse is that the funding commitment to that is almost non-existent. The strategic defence and security review has no hard deadline, and it has the caveat

“when funds allow, most likely in the 2030s.”

Some might say, “Well, isn’t that just my view?” It is actually the view of the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. There are 10 Labour Members on that Committee. It is worth pointing out what that cross-party Committee said just a few months ago, in September:

“The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) sets out the Department’s ambition to significantly expand the reserves’ role, including a 20% increase in numbers from the current 32,000 reserves when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s. However, the Department does not currently have funding or a detailed plan for how it will achieve this expansion.”

That is a report from a Committee with a majority of Labour Members of Parliament.

Let us be honest: it is not just on the issue of reservists that there is no action and little transparency on the funding. To give another example, we do not even have the defence investment plan published—it was promised last year. Given what my right hon. Friend said about the funding steps being taken by other countries, let us put that in context. How much money are we talking about? Spending on reserve pay last year, 2024-25, amounted to £135.3 million, with a further £32 million for bounty payments. The Department’s budget is over £60 billion. A 20% increase in pay and bounty payments would be £33.6 million. We have Government Front Benchers saying that this is critical, central and urgent, but we cannot find low tens of millions until the 2030s.

[Luke Akehurst]

It is an honour to serve under the right hon. Gentleman on the Finance Committee, where we look at slightly smaller-scale issues on spending. He appears to be questioning the Government’s political commitment to find the funding necessary for defence. Does he accept that the downpayment on that political will was the very tough political decision of the Government to take an axe to international development funding, something close to the hearts of many Labour Back Benchers, to provide additional funding for the MOD? If a Labour Government are prepared to take a step with that political courage, he should be in no doubt that, as the years go forward, we will find the funding that is essential to deal with the future defence threats we face.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is one of the most astute commentators on the Finance Committee, so I always genuinely listen to what he says. However, the point I am making is on the urgency to address this now and the relative modesty of the sums we are talking about to significantly increase the reserves. We are talking about tens of millions in a budget of over £60 billion. Therefore, if the rhetoric that this is central to our national security is meant, why is the action being delayed? To the hon. Gentleman’s point on funding, as a Former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I know that pages 141 and 142 of the Red Book deal with the resource departmental expenditure limit, which I think is at £1.1 billion this year in cash terms, and the capital departmental expenditure limit is at £0.4 billion—so there is more money. From that £1.5 billion, if I was back in the Treasury I would be asking why tens of millions cannot be prioritised for this, if it is indeed a priority?

If we do not want to look at the MOD budget, we could look at the £27 million the civil service spends on diversity and inclusion officers, or some other areas, such as the over £100 million a year those on the Government Benches voted to spend as part of the Chagos islands giveaway. My point is that these are relatively small sums, which give us scale in terms of our ability to respond at pace.

Ministers are right to say that the reserves are critical, but their record is one in which they have failed to act, and there is no timescale to address those points. Just last month, the Minister told journalists that the UK is “rapidly developing” plans to prepare the country for war, and he warned that:

“the shadow of war is knocking on Europe’s door once more”.

How is that aligned with the approach of the Government in terms of failing to scale reserves, and in allowing their numbers to stagnate or even fall?

I have a specific question to ask the Minister with regard to the article 3 commitment under NATO, on our ability to defend the UK. Will he confirm that for the duration of this Parliament the current level of manpower available in our reserves is sufficient to meet article 3 and cover all our critical national infrastructure, and that in reaching that judgment, he is not double counting reservists—such as those who are police officers, doctors, nurses or work in our NHS—who could be counted as essential in those tasks as part of our article 3 requirements?

[Dr Arthur]

The right hon. Member is being generous with his time, but I feel that he is giving a glass-half-empty speech. He will know that overall recruitment to the armed forces has increased substantially. The latest figures, published in December, are 13% up, and the number of people leaving the forces is dropping. We heard from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that when he was Defence Minister he argued inside Cabinet for more money to go to defence. As the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet at the same time, was he joining in those calls?

[Steve Barclay]

When I was in the Cabinet we were also responding to a global pandemic and to the energy inflation as a result of Ukraine. What I am highlighting is that we have an Armed Forces Bill under the hon. Gentleman’s Government in which the Minister is saying that reservists are critical. I am simply pointing to their record and their future plans.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on to housing, which is covered in clause 3. Colleagues will know that just last April The Guardian reported the Prime Minister as telling the Cabinet that he wanted to stop outsourcing decisions to quangos, so it will come as no surprise to colleagues across the House that the Bill sets up yet another quango. In fact, the last Armed Forces Bill took a year to pass, so this quango will not be in place until more than halfway through the Parliament, on an issue which Ministers themselves could be making decisions on. The Prime Minister is telling his Cabinet one thing, and the Bill is doing the exact opposite.

More importantly, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) spoke about how Ministers will have oversight of the new body in terms of the targets. I am afraid I have some news for him: I struggle to find any targets in the Bill. I asked the House of Commons Library what the targets were for this Parliament on housing, and the answer came back that there were none. There are no targets, and yet housing is apparently a huge priority. One could perhaps take comfort at least from whom the Government have put in charge of the housing improvements, as they have appointed a new permanent secretary, but the cross-party Public Accounts Committee published a report just last week—I have not had to go through the archives—in which its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), says:

“I have served on the Public Accounts Committee for twelve years. In all that time a 98% failure rate in a public sector initiative amounts to the most catastrophic fiasco that I have ever seen on the Committee”.

The report itself says:

“The Department designed the schemes in a way that exposes it to both poor quality work and fraud…There was virtually no attention from senior officials and the Department did not know whether the scheme as a whole was or was not working for at least two years”.

It therefore seems a surprise that just three months ago, the Defence Ministers appointed the permanent secretary of that Department to be the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, in charge of its flagship programmes, including a housing programme. I ask the Minister, had he read the National Audit Office report when the permanent secretary was appointed?

I have a specific question for the Minister regarding clauses 28 and 29. Can he confirm whether any review has been conducted of Army discipline since the general election? If so, was it published, and if it was not, why not and will it be published before Committee stage? In his summing up, can the Minister explain how a Bill that speaks so much about the importance of the military covenant is consistent with removing protections from our Northern Ireland veterans?

On the issue of veterans, the Minister announced Operation Valour last May. The Department took six months before it put out a job advert, and it has still not appointed or announced anyone in that post. Can the Minister advise the House why it has taken nine months to appoint someone and when that appointment will be made? Finally, where are the incentives in the Bill? Where are the incentives for employers to recruit reservists —where are the tax incentives and the join-up across Departments?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

It is a true honour to close the debate. I thank hon. Members across the House who have spoken well in support of our brave servicemen and women, upholding Parliament’s proud cross-party tradition of expressing our profound gratitude to those serving in the UK’s armed forces. It is not lost on me who is not here today.

I appreciate that some in this Chamber have raised questions about the measures in the Bill or about defence in general, so let me address some of the questions. The hon. Members for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) rightly mentioned our service in Afghanistan, as did many others in the House. It is not lost on me that when 9/11 took place, it is the only time when article 5 has been called. The US relied on us collectively not just for a military response, but for an inter-agency response to build the functions and capability to deal with terrorism, which is so successfully dealt with today. It is also not lost on me that per capita, the Georgians, the Danish and the Estonians lost a significant amount of souls in that conflict. I often say that those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, and I think we saw an example of that.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) highlighted issues with the covenant, but also highlighted accommodation and the move towards the next phases of any review. The single living accommodation strategy is well under way. On that note, I pay tribute to Natalie Elphicke and the whole team, who put an in amazing effort on the defence housing strategy, which has resulted in some of the findings, in particular the creation of the Defence Housing Service, which will alleviate for the Defence Infrastructure Organisation some of the pressure of looking after housing and professionalise the service as we move forward. I also support the hon. Member in her support for Toby Gutteridge, an individual I know well and who needs our support as he continues with his standard of life.

I welcome Opposition Members’ comments on Ukraine. This is a bipartisan issue—it is an idea bigger than ourselves. We welcome and thank them for their support on Ukraine in the early days, which we took on and have continued after the change in Government.

My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) all highlighted issues with the covenant, as did many others. The reality is that it is moving from three areas of Government all the way to 14. It will be significant, but it will take time to put it in place. We have to accept that at the moment, the execution of the covenant results in a postcode lottery across the United Kingdom, but there is a requirement of adherence to the legal duty. There will be a communication and education plan to ensure that everyone knows the standards we need to live by. There will be statutory guidance, training and briefings. Indeed, some of the other projects like Operation Valour that we are rolling out will help us police the delivery of the covenant across those councils.

I have been a long-standing fan of the reserves, and I have to admit that I have a conflict of interest: I am a reservist. The Army, Navy and Air Force always respond to crisis, but the reality is that economies, industries and societies win conflicts. We can all learn the lesson from Ukraine that reservists often fill the ranks more the longer a conflict goes on. I will come later to comments about how reservists are being funded and how we will improve that process to ensure that the nation is ready should a crisis befall us.

I turn to the fitness application. I have met individuals who have destroyed a hundred tanks and individuals who have killed hundreds of Russians who could not pass a fitness test in their life. The reality is the changing character of conflict requires different skills. That is why things like cyber direct entry and different skills are just as applicable as being able to run or do pull-ups and push-ups. We have already got rid of 100 outdated medical requirements on the medical test. There is a long way to go on that, and I would like to see us open it up as we move forward, and we will see some of that in the Bill as it progresses.

I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on housing. The scrutiny and governance of that will absolutely be controlled by our Secretary of State. Within the covenant, the ability for us to produce an annual report to ensure that we are reporting to Government on the standards of adherence to the covenant and legal duty will be pushed every year. He mentioned a cultural change in the service justice system, which is far broader than what is in the Bill and is required. It is worth noting that Raising our Standards, the violence against women and girls taskforce, the zero tolerance policy and our tri-service complaints process are just some of the things that we are progressing outside legislation. The Bill goes further within legislation. Individually and collectively, the measures will be significant.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned several speeches in Davos. There are two quotes that I think it worth repeating here:

“A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable”,

and we must not

monetise…relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.”

Those two quotes from Davos are worth remembering. We have an idea far bigger than the dollar sign, the euro or the pound, which is a moral obligation towards decency, transparency, the right to self-determination and, of course, democracy.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for his tribute to the armed forces and in particular for mentioning Combat2Coffee and its indomitable member Terry Butcher, who pushes so hard to support the armed forces. More importantly, I would like the Combat2Coffee shop in the Ministry of Defence to be replicated in all Government Departments—perhaps we can take that on as a separate little task.

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) for his support for the Defence Housing Service. The House will be delighted to know that family satisfaction with defence housing has gone up to the highest level since 2021. There is a long way to go, but we are heading in the right direction. Similarly, recruitment is up 13%, and outflow is down 8%.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her constant support for all varieties of veterans across her constituency, and for being the MP of a constituency neighbouring mine. When people question whether we were on the frontline in Afghanistan or in any other conflict, I suggest one visit: to Birmingham’s Selly Oak hospital. The nurses, doctors and carers are second to none, and they have seen stuff that would shock us all. If there were any need for better validation of who has been on the frontline and who has not, Selly Oak hospital is the place to go.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) highlighted that the rhetoric is not matched by the record on reservists. I would say that, in some cases, his narrative is not matched with his experience. All the facts are useful, but unless he connects them together, he does not necessarily have the understanding. Some of his comments were absolutely on the money, but one of the biggest problems with the reserves is to do not with finances but with the complete and utter mess of bureaucracy when trying to join the reserves.

[Steve Barclay]

Does the Minister not accept that the number of reservists and the number of training days have both fallen on his watch, and that the sums of money to significantly increase them is modest relative to the £60 billion-plus that the MOD spends?

[Al Carns]

In the strategic defence review, we have committed to an increase of 20%. First, reserve spending went up in 2023-24 from £189.9 million to £202.4 million, so what the right hon. Gentleman says is factually incorrect. Secondly, on personnel statistics, in the last quarter our trained strength in the reserves has risen from 28,000 to 29,000. I think we need collectively to check our statistics.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that to stand here and tell the world about our ability to respond to article 3 would be slightly misguided. He mentioned the creation of quangos, but if he had read the Bill fully he would recognise that the reserve forces and cadets associations are going from 13 to one so-called quangos, with an increase of one in the Defence Housing Service, which is absolutely required to deliver an effective housing service. He will also know that Op Valour means more money for veterans than ever before. Tranche 1 of the funding has now been closed, and recruitment is fully under way. If he would like to talk through why the recruitment has been paused in the past, I am more than happy to talk about that offline, but I want to ensure that the right person is in the right job, so that the programme is a success.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for her passionate and unrelenting support, which is not lost on me—it is second to none and super impressive. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) has such a resounding history in the armed forces—it really is impressive. I know that supporting everyone in that constituency is a passion of his.

Will the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) please write to me about the issue with Pauline? I would like to look at it in detail, as I know would my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) welcomed the support for Op Valour. Her support for the Bill as it progresses is useful, and she always champions our armed forces constituents.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was, as always, articulate and to the point. I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland and to the armed forces Veterans’ Commissioner, and while the covenant is applicable to the whole United Kingdom, we must consider how it is executed within the devolved Administrations. I am willing to work with the hon. Gentleman and a collective group of Northern Ireland MPs to ensure that we implement it as best as we possibly can, while accepting that there are nuances with security and how it needs to be implemented as a whole.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a number of very old helicopters. That is one of the reasons that we made the decision to retire Puma—a helicopter that had in many cases been flying for many, many decades. We will continue to look at the military needs and to match those with the capabilities from a rise in the defence budget, but the NMH decision will be made in the DIP.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister said that he welcomed the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but he did not answer either; he did not tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published this financial year and he did not speak to the critical nature of a decision before going into the next financial year. He has explained missing multiple deadlines by simply refusing to give any further deadlines. Does he accept that this is a choice of this Government, without blaming the previous Government? If this Government can find additional funding for welfare, they could find additional funding to meet this contract.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have found additional funding for defence; there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year. We have an increasing defence budget for every single year of the decade ahead. Let me challenge his point, as I did answer the questions to which he referred; I just was not able to give the answer that he wanted. The NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan, which will be published shortly.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s observation that national security is founded on economic security. Economic security is dependent on strong national security; as an MP from the proud steelmaking town of Rotherham, I am very conscious of the commitment that this Government have made and of the imperative to ensure that as much as possible of what we procure through defence and more widely within Government, uses, whenever we can, British-produced steel, which is among the finest in the world.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary refused to say when the defence investment plan will be published, and there is a tension between the statement about the immediacy of the growing threats and the lack of urgency on funding as other areas of Government are prioritised. Does he recognise that other nations are moving now on funding? Why are the Government so complacent on funding that they are prioritising other Departments over moving now on defence?

[John Healey]

I certainly do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We have made a commitment as a new Government to put an extra £5 billion into defence. We have made the commitment to 2.5% of GDP—three years before his own unfunded commitment at the election—and we will raise that further.

As for the work on the defence investment plan, we are dealing with a programme, which we inherited from his own Government, that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. We are working flat out to complete that defence investment plan, and I will publish it and report its details to the House as soon as I can.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my constituency neighbour for her question. If there is a local defence business in the hon. Lady’s constituency, it is not far from mine, and I would be very happy to speak to her about that. First of all, we are looking at what has happened, and then we will make a decision based on the evidence. That is the right approach here, but I am very happy to look at this issue. Boxer is a good platform that has not had the issues that Ajax has had. I have seen Boxer under construction in Stockport and Telford, and I have seen the dedicated workforce who are delivering that. There is the potential for more to happen there.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

While the problems with the Ajax programme are familiar, what we have heard today is quite extraordinary, because both the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said from the Dispatch Box that they have been misled by officials. That raises questions for this House, because we should be able to rely on what is said by Ministers in good faith from the Dispatch Box. Has the Minister discussed this issue with the Cabinet Secretary? I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi): Members from across the House do not think that these problems apply only to this programme; they are more systemic. What the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said is extremely important to how this House operates and whether individuals are held to account. What action will the Minister take with the Cabinet Secretary to address that?

[Luke Pollard]

I deliberately did not use the same words as the shadow Defence Secretary because I have not seen the evidence of what has happened in this case. I am reserving judgment about the advice given to me, but I am asking for a review into the accuracy and timeliness of it to ensure that the information given to me is right. However, I am aware of the Sheldon review, which highlighted concerns in the past. I have spoken to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I shall seek to speak to further Members from across the House and, indeed, to former Members who have experience in this area, because it is vital that we can have confidence in the equipment that we are asking the men and women of our armed forces to use. In order to make a decision on the use of that equipment, we need to have absolute certainty that it is safe. That is the decision that I will be taking with the Secretary of State once we have seen the reports, but I am very happy to have further conversations on a cross-party basis to understand the concerns and to make sure that our defence procurement system is accurate and timely and, importantly, keeps our people safe.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I replied to the debate on defence in the north-east only a few weeks ago, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at that issue. This is not just about how we back the current defence industries that exist right across the country, including in the north-east; it is about how we provide routes for firms that might not think of themselves as defence companies to sell their products and services into defence. Making those routes easier to navigate, especially with the new SME offer, will greatly support many of the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am happy to meet her and her regional colleagues to make that case further.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Government said over the summer that the Dreadnought programme was on track, despite the fire last year at Barrow, the challenges of covid and the other Government programmes that are running delayed. However, there is a lot of latitude in saying that the programme will be delivered in the early 2030s. Is the Minister able to clarify in which year the first vessels will be in service? That has significant implications for the length at sea of existing submariners.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and in particular for framing it around our submariners. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both been to zero-day events, at which our nuclear bombers return to base after many months away. Their tours are far too long, and to ensure we can bring those down, we need to not only bring on the new Dreadnought-class submarines but make sure that the submarines that are in refit—the Vanguard class—get to sea faster. We are making efforts to deliver both those things. It is difficult for me to give the full in-service dates on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with some details that I may be able to publish.

Afghanistan

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on initiating the debate. I am sure that we could have listened to him speak for a lot longer on the subject. His knowledge of present conflicts and others is well known in the House.

It would be wrong not to start the debate by remembering those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those who have been wounded in the service of our country. I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence during the previous Labour Government, and I do not think that anyone takes decisions easily on the things that happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said that we should be reminded of the individuals who died. I say to him that if a duty Minister is rung late at night on a dark weekend to be informed that there have been nine casualties, it never leaves them. Irrespective of political party, no one can detach themselves from the individuals, the sacrifice that their families have made, or the circumstances in which they died.

The debate is about Afghanistan, but the hon. Member for Broadland drew out broader questions of strategy. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) talked about where we started with Afghanistan, and, of course, it leads back to the response to 9/11. I believe that it all started with the use of the terminology of a war on terror. I thought that that expression was wrong, and I never used it. It gave the impression that the only possible response was a military solution. We all know that the fight against terrorism involved not only the military, but law enforcement and politics, as has been made clear in several contributions today.

The initial invasion of Afghanistan was about dealing with the Taliban, who were the hosts for al-Qaeda. A lot of people forget the attempts that had previously been made by the Clinton Administration and the very early Bush Administration to get the Taliban to give up bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, but that did not happen. I think that there was confusion over policy. Members of special forces who went into Afghanistan in the early days have told me that their first remit was to expel the Taliban, and that there was no notion of nation building. I think that is where the confusion and mission creep came into being. From my dealings with the Bush Administration and senior figures, and as a member of the Defence Committee, prior to the invasion of Iraq the message was quite clear that they did not do nation building; they did war fighting. I do not think that they were committed from an early stage to nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has said that he met someone who called the recent wars “Blair’s wars”, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has just described them as Prime Ministers’ wars. However, we must not forget that Parliament took the decision that we should be part of the invasion of Iraq, and there was cross-party support for our mission in Afghanistan. It would be wrong, therefore, to try to apportion blame to an individual or a political party. Should we have questioned some things more? Yes, on some occasions we should have done, and that goes back to the strategic points that the hon. Member for Broadland made. One question we have to ask is about the relationship between politics and the military. The notion of the public, and perhaps the media, is that politicians are bad and the military is good, but we all know that life is not as simplistic as that. That relationship is one of the serious issues that we need to address.

The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned Lord Reid. I have spoken to him on several occasions about the deployment to Helmand, and he was the one who held it up for quite a while. The enthusiasm for going to Helmand clearly came from parts of the military. There is a saying in the Army: “We will crack on.” The military must give clear advice to Ministers, and if things are not doable, Ministers should be told that they are not. In my experience of the military, however, that does not happen, and there is a notion that everything can be achieved.

The hon. Member for Broadland referred to military structures. I would like to reflect a little on that, and especially on the way in which the military operate within the MOD. The hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a difference between the military, the political and the civil service: I used to refer to it as a three-legged stool. The situation in the military is even more complex, because of inter-service rivalry, as I have seen. On one occasion, I attended a meeting of Ministers and chiefs, at which the senior naval officer and the head of the Army shouted and swore at each other across the table. The relationship is not always unanimous or harmonious. Senior military must be joined up and speak with one voice, and I think that they are getting better at that. The movement towards the joint command under this Government is a move in the right direction to try to achieve more joined-up thinking.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The concern is often expressed that the senior military were speaking with one voice, under pressure from the then Government. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify which senior military generals spoke against the previous Government’s policy and were promoted under that Government?

[Mr Jones]

This is where the nonsense comes in—where the political line that was taken and the party politics of that line cause confusion. The problem we had was that there was disagreement between the service chiefs at the time on different strategies. If politicians ask the military whether it is possible to do something, there is an in-built response of “Yes, we can,” but I am saying that there has to be a grown-up relationship. When Ministers ask for advice, they must sometimes be told by the military, “No, that cannot be done.” [Interruption.] The hon. Gentlemanhas asked me to give an example. At the tail end of the last Government, certain senior generals acted completely outside their remit by being political, which was not a helpful stance and did not ensure that they were above the party political debate. That was unfortunate.

I return to Helmand and the deployment south, about which the hon. Member for Broadland raised an important issue. Corporate knowledge in an organisation is important, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I fear that we are losing a lot of that. In addition, in our approach to deployment we must not look solely at the military kinetic effects. We should consider, for example, employing anthropologists to inform the debate about what will happen when we deploy somewhere, to ensure that when people are deployed, they have the fullest possible knowledge about the situation.

I have to disagree with what the hon. Member for Reigate said about Iran. I accept his point about the Iranians being against the Taliban, although I think that that was mainly to do with the Taliban murdering Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998. It was a maligned force in Basra and, in the latter days, in Herat in Afghanistan, where it was used in the proxy war against the United States and ourselves. Should we actually engage with them in negotiations? Yes, I think we could.

Finally, one major strategic failing in Afghanistan was the issue of Pakistan. All the emphasis was on rebuilding, and on occasion we treated Afghanistan in isolation, but the real problem was related to Pakistan. When the history books are written, they will say that the Musharraf Government, by speaking both ways, made our job much more difficult in Afghanistan.

2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I had the privilege to serve, albeit briefly, with 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. As a Lancastrian I am well aware of the high regard in which the regiment is held by the local community, which is reflected in its successful levels of recruitment. I fully support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and I will not detain the House by repeating the points that he skilfully made in highlighting the many flaws in the Government’s case. I want to address not the criteria, which my hon. Friend tackled, but the wider decision-making rationale that underpins the Government’s measure and that was at the heart of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who is a distinguished former Ministry of Defence Minister, when he sought to justify why this cut is being made.

First, if a measure such as this is to be positioned on the grounds of cost savings, the first thing one might expect is clarity on how much is being saved. However, when I asked the House of Commons Library that question this morning, answer came there none—it could not tell me. A rough estimate might put the figure at £25 million a year, but the least we might expect from the Minister’s closing remarks is some certainty, if the measure is being justified on cost grounds, as to how much is being saved.

Secondly, the MOD suggests that this cut, which is out of step with the criteria applied to other battalions, is needed to address the defence overspend; but the saving is puny in the context of overall MOD spending, when one considers the reputational impact, the history and the esteem of the front-line service that is being cut.

Let me put this in context and draw the House’s attention to some recent National Audit Office reports. Last year the MOD increased its defence inventory at the same time as it was cutting the size of its armed forces, so we are buying more kit for fewer troops, even though we already had, for example, 10 years’ supply of overalls. We have 54 years’ worth of equipment for Nimrod, even though the plane has already been scrapped. The sums of money being wasted are not insignificant. The MOD spent £2.4 billion on non-explosive inventory, even though it already had five years’ worth of such items in stock—we spent £2.4 billion buying things when we already had five years’ worth of supplies. We are now trying to get rid of some—£1.4 billion-worth—of the stock that we bought by mistake. It is costing £277 million a year just to store the stock that we do not want, and which we should never have bought. That puts the saving that is being made by the decision on 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in context.

My second question to the Minister is therefore why, when the National Audit Office report in June—the very time when this cut was being proposed—could identify savings of that order, officials in the Department could not do more to avoid the necessity of cutting this battalion.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about overstocking. We are bearing down on that enormously. He will understand that, not having been in government between 1997 and 2010, we did not order most of this kit. We are selling off the kit so that we have to spend less money on storage, and we are spending less money on unnecessary kit; but he will also understand that the armed forces need good equipment, especially given the ongoing situation in Afghanistan.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am willing to recognise the big strides that the Government have taken in making those savings. However, we are spending vast sums of money on kit of which we have five years of supplies. The Minister says that this is about equipping our troops better, but we are not addressing that point by buying a higher specification of kit if we are buying things that we do not need. That was one of the key findings of the National Audit Office report.

If Ministers are not convinced that more could be done on logistics and supplies, perhaps I could put this saving of about £25 million in the wider context of our defence procurement. Again, I am willing to acknowledge the huge strides that have been taken by Ministers to get to grips with procurement. However, the 15 largest defence projects have overspent their initial budgets by £6 billion. The saving from this cut is a fraction of 1% of that, although we cannot know exactly how much it is because we have not had the figure. It is a tiny amount, and yet it is hitting the front line—our fighting units.

The case that I put to colleagues today is that surely more could be done, notwithstanding the efforts that are being made, to increase the scale, intensity and speed of implementation of the savings in logistics, supply and procurement. This decision does not provide value for money. It is too modest, it uses flawed criteria and the scope of delivering savings elsewhere means that it would be a mistake for the Government to go ahead with it. That is reflected in the comments from Members from all parts of the House today.

I have never voted against my Government, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and will do so if the motion is put to a vote. I hope that Ministers will listen to the strength of the arguments, look at the findings of the National Audit Office and deliver the required savings from other areas of the defence budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

If I may, I will cover my hon. Friend’s points as they were made in his speech. My responses are written down here, and it is better that I give him a detailed analysis rather than provide one off the top of my head.

While our armed forces might be smaller than before, they will still be able to reach across the world and operate across the full range of capabilities. We are reducing the size of the regular armed forces, but we are increasing the reserves, including an integrated element of the total land force of 120,000, with an extra £1.8 billion of investment in reserves, training and equipment.

The Army has been both pragmatic and imaginative in responding to this very real challenge. The blueprint was decided upon by the Army and announced by the Defence Secretary on 5 July. This project we call Army 2020. For the first time, this provides a pathway to a fully integrated Army of regular and reserve forces that will be configured for high-end conflict, rapid reaction, UK engagement and upstream conflict prevention.

[Stephen Barclay]

Will my right hon. Friend address the point that the value of the defence inventory is currently £40.3 billion? Just this June, the National Audit Office said:

“the Department is spending money on unnecessary levels of stock, which could be spent elsewhere in government.”

We are talking about such a modest sum of money; can it not be found elsewhere?

[Mr Robathan]

I have to confess to my hon. Friend that I do not deal with procurement measures. We have a defence reform project going on, which I think he will find addresses his point. I will ensure that he receives a letter from the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, setting out a proper response.

I think it would be better if we stuck with the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, because that is what people have come to speak about. Today, we have heard arguments about the withdrawal of 2RRF from the Army’s order of battle. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I take any pleasure in the removal of any unit from the Army. I can assure hon. Members that we did not come into politics to reduce our armed forces. There is not a battalion or regiment in the current order of battle that does not have a proud history and significant battle honours. If, however, we are to create an affordable and balanced Army offering serious military capability into the future, a small number of those proud units and battalions will have to be withdrawn from the line.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has been made aware of the reasons behind the Army Board’s decisions—and they were Army Board decisions, endorsed by Ministers. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate these reasons for the benefit of the House.

Military Covenant

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that not to be the case. Stuart Tootal made his position very clear at the weekend.

I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers’ words. I have made that plain at each and every turn when I have spoken from the Dispatch Box. However, there is real confusion and concern about their actions. The reason for the growing anger is that they know that the Government’s actions are sometimes enormously unfair, and, in the case of defining the covenant in law, utterly confused.

Let me explain why I think that the Government’s position is flawed. In the Armed Forces Bill, the Government have provided for an annual report on the covenant, explicitly using the term “covenant”. However, Ministers are choosing to overlook the fact that there is no legally binding definition of the term to accompany its use, which means that Ministers can themselves determine how it is interpreted.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee last month, the most senior official in the Treasury, Sir Nick Macpherson, said that

“there was a point in the middle of the last decade where the MOD lost control of public spending.”

Can the Minister explain what impact that has had on the military covenant?

[Mr Murphy]

At the same time the hon. Gentleman’s party was demanding more spending on the Army, more spending on the Navy, more spending on the Royal Air Force, more aeroplanes and more ships. When there was real concern about funding, his party was demanding ever more spending. He cannot be in denial about that.

I would rather rely on the evidence of one of the hon. Gentleman’s own Ministers in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill. He was very clear, and the Secretary of State must be clear as well in terms of meaningful commitment. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the veterans Minister, said that the Government had no intention of placing in law a legal definition of a covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

That is probably going to be the hardest question I am asked all day. Just why have the Government U-turned on this issue, given that it was not a pre-election promise, but a post-election commitment? It is for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to articulate the reasons for their Government’s action.

I come back to the point about principle rather than statutory obligations.

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

I know that for the hon. Gentleman’s party it is always someone else’s fault. The sacking of soldiers by e-mail was the Army’s fault, then it was the civil servants’ fault and by the end of the day it was the Labour Government’s fault.

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

[Mr Murphy]

I give way again, but I hope that at least one Conservative Member will say whether they are going to vote to detail the principles involved in a definition of the military covenant.

[Stephen Barclay]

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Conservative Members were pointing the finger elsewhere. Does he not agree with his parliamentary colleague, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, agreed with the following finding:

“The Department has failed to develop a financial strategy identifying core spending priorities”?

The report in question also said:

“The Department’s poor financial management has led to a…shortfall of…£36 billion”.

Does he agree with his parliamentary colleague? Why was the military covenant not part of his Government’s core spending priorities?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman is confused. The fact is that his party was demanding ever more spending on the armed forces in the midst of the recession and the financial crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I should correct the hon. Gentleman by saying that the meeting in question took place at RAF Kinloss. What I said to the Moray Task Force, whom I was meeting at the time, was that the costs of moving the in-depth maintenance facilities from Marham and, indeed, paying to relocate the staff of the contractors involved would be so prohibitive that it would potentially undermine any savings that might accrue from closing a base. The economics of moving the in-depth maintenance facilities for Tornado at this stage in Tornado’s life cycle would, as I said on Thursday last, be very questionable indeed.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to increase the effectiveness of project management for its major projects.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The National Audit Office’s recent major projects report shows that the well-documented problems with some of the largest procurement projects have generally been caused by poor and deliberate policy decisions, and that project management itself is improving. But we are doing more to improve project management, including: running a programme to increase skills; forming a major projects performance board to review our most significant projects regularly; and appointing Bernard Gray as Chief of Defence Matériel, where he will build on the improvements made by his predecessor.

[Stephen Barclay]

Following numerous Select Committee recommendations, the Department’s own guidelines run to eight pages in setting out what should be included in project histories, yet the £4 billion Nimrod project history runs to just two pages; makes no mention of senior responsible owners or senior staff changes; and took the Department seven weeks to produce, even though it already has this document, which is marked unclassified and had no redactions. Will the Minister write to me within the next month listing all the major defence projects that do not comply with the Department’s own guidelines on documentation and what the gaps in documentation are?

[Peter Luff]

I am reluctant to turn this into a diary session for my diary secretary, but I think it would be very helpful to discuss this important issue with my hon. Friend. Departmental good practice guidance on maintaining project histories allows scope for project team leaders to interpret it and decide what best meets the needs of their project depending on its size, complexity and nature. The format and content are not mandated and, frankly, the problems with the Nimrod MRA4 project are about the most well-documented of any major procurement programme we have.