Christmas Island Nuclear Testing: Compensation

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Because it is an independent study, I do not have the details of the fourth report, but I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm whether the offspring are included. I hope that they are. It would make sense, because often these things can get passed down, as we saw with the tests after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On the family risk, as part of the compensation that was offered and never taken forward, a study was done in, I think, 2009 of family members. The Minister may well want to look at that study. If he wants access to that file, it is under my papers and I am quite happy to give him the authorisation.

[Mr Ellwood]

The fact that the right hon. Gentleman had to deal with this when he was a Defence Minister reflects how long this issue has been alive. I would be grateful for any further information that helped us. Ultimately, we want to do the best we can for those who are serving and who have served.

On the pension and compensation issues that are involved, the Government’s policy on claims arising from nuclear test programmes is based on detailed and impartial analysis of world literature, including the National Radiological Protection Board reports. A revised MOD policy statement for armed forces personnel was published in December 2017, and it takes into account scientific studies that have been published since 2003. It is important to make it clear that the Government do not accept in general that those present at sites were exposed to harmful levels of ionising radiation. RFA personnel are covered by the mercantile marine scheme, based on the personal injury civilian scheme, which was extant during world war two. Like the scheme, the MMS applies only in wartime to war injuries and is enacted specifically for such events. Most recently, that was relevant in the 1990-91 Gulf war. The UK atmospheric tests were a peacetime operation, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the experience that he brings to the Chamber. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I would like to pursue these conversations—perhaps with the Prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—to see what more can be done.

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

What?

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put it like that, because I was worried that he was going to say that state aid had been involved. I am sure that he would not suggest that that was the case, because I know him better than that, even though that was hinted at by those on his Front Bench. That was the commercial decision that the company took, but we are left in a situation where Britain is getting value for the taxpayer’s money.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister is talking complete and utter nonsense. On the military afloat reach and sustainability contract, there was no UK bid, and the reason for that was that the industry was told that the contract was going abroad. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley has just said, the Korean bid was underbid and basically bankrolled by the South Korean Government.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman sits down and folds his arms, but there was a UK bid.

Ministry of Defence

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I can say it again and I think I am going to say it a bit later, because it is in my speech: I am happy to confirm that it is not fiscally neutral. That is exactly why we are doing this. I am not saying this just because the Defence Secretary is in his place, but the first thing he recognised was the fact that the capability review was fiscally neutral and it was prohibiting us. We saw a lot of the stuff that came out in the media and so forth. The challenges that that would have imposed on our armed forces were exactly why there was a requirement to look in more detail at what our armed forces are doing. We now have that opportunity and we have to make the case as to what changes we need, what our defence posture is and how we move forward—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not going to give way again. If I may, I will make some progress.

Let me make it clear that this approach will allow us to deliver a better understanding of the implications of the new threats. It will confirm what conventional capability is critical and it will place the MOD on a more sustainable, affordable long-term footing, optimising our relationships with the private sector.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not giving way at the moment. As I have said, as has the Defence Secretary, the programme is not fiscally neutral. It allows us to expand and propose changes. It will assess the capabilities and the force structure we need to deal with the threats the UK faces. We will then consider the implications for funding.

When the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary met in December to confirm a way forward on the national security capability review and the defence modernisation programme, it was agreed that no changes would be made to our capability until the modernising defence programme was complete. With one eye on next year’s 2018-19 budget, I very much hope that that is still the case. The requirement for the defence modernisation programme is making sure that we understand the financial pressures affecting defence and looking into the future. If it is not the case, there would be no requirement for a defence modernisation programme. As the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff for Military Capability told the Defence Committee last week, we are, unfortunately, seeing cuts to training exercises and

“a general suppression of some force generation across…frontline commands”

I stress that this is being managed without affecting prioritised units which are heading on operations, but if units are not training, it builds up a backlog of diminished capability.

Another issue raised in the Defence Committee last week related to the National Audit Office report on equipment, which cited a £20 billion deficit over the next 10 years. I make it clear that that makes some significant assumptions of risk, many of which will not be realised, and does not factor in the efficiency recommendations that the defence modernisation programme might make. Nevertheless—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not listen to what I am saying, because it is important and pertinent. Perhaps he can hold on to his seat for a second and allow me to finish this important point about the NAO report. Is that okay with him?

The NAO report does not factor in the efficiency recommendations, but nevertheless we must acknowledge the financial pressure on our equipment programme. As has been mentioned, there are also new and emerging factors, such as cyber, space and complex weapons upgrades. We must respond to them all, which of course adds to the bill.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says that this is fiscally neutral. He knows what the problem is now—[Interruption.] What was agreed in 2015 was fiscally neutral. It was unachievable because the efficiencies were unachievable and the land sales were unachievable. That is not my opinion; that is what the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), said. If we know that, we know that in reality the only way that we can fix this is with more cash.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman should refer back to Hansard to understand what I have actually said. I shall make some progress.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

As I said in Committee, I broadly welcome the proposals. At the top of the armed forces and obviously at ministerial level, there is a recognition that society is changing and that if we are not only to attract people to the armed forces but to retain them, we need flexibility in the way in which they are employed.

The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) is very clear, and I cannot understand what the objection to it could be. We need to ensure that one of the main aims of flexible working is to attract more women into our armed forces, but without being able to monitor that through the Department producing reports, I am not sure how we can gauge whether it is a success. The Minister may say that we could rely on tabling parliamentary questions, but I have to say that the quality of the answers from the Department recently has not been great, and it takes two or three attempts to elicit any answers. I do not see anything wrong with how the new clause is structured. It is a matter of making sure that we monitor what is going on.

The same applies to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). The other side of this issue is about knowing why part-time or flexible working is refused. In other workplaces, people refused this type of thing have a course of redress. It is important to be able not only to see whether flexible working proposals are being used, but the reasons why they are not being implemented, which could lead to a lot of dissatisfaction. It will be important to have some oversight to ensure that we know if, for example, people leave because at a certain level in the Army or other armed service they decide that they do not like it.

On the broader issue of armed forces recruitment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) raised some interesting points. We are failing on recruitment, and the MOD is now reverting to the usual answer, which is to say, “The reason why we are not attracting people is the economic upturn and we are in a very competitive environment.” That is an old chestnut, and I think I even used it on some occasions when I was a Minister. I am sorry, but that is not the reason. The fundamental issue is that the privatisation model used for recruitment has failed and, as was mentioned earlier, it has also broken the link to local areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) raised the important point that flexible working is part of a bigger package, which is not only about career opportunities for individuals, but about accommodation. In Committee and when we debated the Bill previously, the Minister talked about the future accommodation model. I must say that he is going to have to get on with it, because anyone who reads today’s National Audit Office report on Annington Homes will find that it does not make for very pretty reading. This was one of the worst decisions ever taken by—I have to say—a Conservative Government in 1996, and the legacy it leaves for not just this Government but future Governments is quite frightening.

Ministers think that the future accommodation model is the way out, and I hope it is, but it will have to be done creatively. To look at one statistic alone in the report, if the discount the MOD currently gets is reduced from 58% to 38% when it comes up for renegotiation in 2021, that will cost the MOD and the taxpayer an additional £84 million from a budget that is already very restricted. There will have to be some very creative thinking about how to extract the Government from that contract, but it should not be done at the expense of servicemen and women who rely on accommodation as part of their package. As I said in Committee and the last time we discussed this in the House, I am not opposed to a new accommodation model, but there are two issues: one is that it will take time to introduce; and the other is that it will cost money.

I do not know whether the issue of accommodation will be a priority in the current MOD review, but I ask Ministers to consider it an important part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North rightly said, we concentrate a lot on equipment and it is quite right that we should have the equipment that people need. However, we can have all the equipment in the world, but if we do not have skilled, highly trained personnel behind the equipment—if we do not retain people and keep them, and more importantly their families, happy—we are not going to be successful.

To finish, I would urge that personnel are seen as an important integral part of our defence effort, and nothing should detract from that. The Government have created their own mess with the budget for it. I wish them and the Defence Secretary well in trying to sort this out and in pleading for more money from the Treasury. The current Chancellor was the Defence Secretary when some of these decisions—chickens that are now coming home to roost—were taken. At the end of the day, these are the people we rely on to keep us safe, and the men and women of our armed forces and their families are the ones we should always bear in mind.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber for the Report stage of the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill and to see again right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues who have been on this journey from the very beginning. I have listened carefully to those speaking in support of new clauses 1 and 2 and amendment 1, which I will come on to specifically in a moment. Lots of views have been put forward that are technically beyond the scope of a Report stage, but that does not prevent hon. Members from raising such points, which are all valid. It reflects the House’s commitment to understanding and indeed scrutinising defence matters as a whole, as well as matters being considered on Report.

There has been much talk about recruitment on a geographical basis and understanding the numbers. I am pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is responsible for this issue and is looking at it very carefully indeed. I say this as a former infanteer. The history of our armed forces—indeed, the Army—across Britain varies depending on whether the unit in question is a corps, a service, or indeed an infantry regiment. There are some huge and wonderful geographical connections, including with my own regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, going back to the Rifles and the Ox and Bucks regiment and so forth. Then there is the RAF and the Royal Navy, which recruit nationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend, if I may call him that, makes an important point. I had the opportunity to visit Belfast recently for Remembrance Day, which was very moving indeed, and I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces is to visit Belfast shortly.

Let me turn to the group of new clauses and amendments we are debating. I welcome the opportunity to speak again about whether there is benefit to imposing a statutory requirement to evaluate and report on the impact of the new flexible options on the armed forces. The size and strength of our armed forces is of course important. It has been a recurring theme in recent debates, most recently in Westminster Hall. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing that important debate, and I pay tribute to all who contributed. The Minister for the Armed Forces said in that debate that we must do everything we can to persuade our young people that the armed forces remain a great place to work.

Recruitment remains a challenge for the armed forces, as has been reiterated today. We face strong competition from other employers. We acknowledge that, but we also acknowledge that we can do more to encourage our people to stay, so that we do not lose their valuable skills and experience. That is why we are responding with a range of short and long-term initiatives to ensure that the offer of a career in the armed forces remains competitive. This Bill will help by enabling us to make the changes necessary to enable our armed forces to work flexibly, reflecting the realities of modern life.

The amendments and new clauses in this group revisit the theme of placing various obligations on the Ministry of Defence to publish reports on the effects of flexible working measures on the armed forces. These measures involve a major change of approach to the terms under which some of our brave armed forces serve this country and are an important part of how we modernise our armed forces. The changes are as important as some of the other modernising steps taken in recent years, such as our change in policy on homosexuality, introduced in 2000, and our decision in 2016 to allow women to serve in close combat roles. The measures we are considering are another positive step in the right direction and are aimed at making serving in the armed forces a more attractive proposition, both for those who already serve and those considering serving.

What we propose in this Bill lies at the heart of our armed forces covenant. For that reason, Earl Howe committed during the Bill’s passage through the other place to report on the impact of the new measures in future armed forces covenant annual reports. I commend this to hon. Members as an appropriate place for reporting on the impact of the new measures. Indeed, the latest report, published in late December 2017, trailed the introduction of the measures in this Bill. In debates and in the information we have published, we have been clear that the introduction of these measures is not a silver bullet that will instantly resolve the recruitment and retention challenge that we face—and that the hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene has raised.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The publication of that information is obviously a welcome step. The Minister says that the report will talk about progress, but will it produce the statistics or, more importantly, the numbers declined and the reasons for that, as would be required under new clause 2? If the good intentions behind this Bill are not followed through, we could have people declined flexible working, which could lead to more disenchantment rather than success.

[Mr Ellwood]

If I may, I will come to how we recognise and acknowledge the impact of the Bill, which I think will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

We believe that these measures, along with a range of others that the Department is introducing, will impact on recruitment and retention, not immediately but in the longer term. We should also be clear that we are competing with other, wider societal factors that are affecting our ability to recruit and retain, such as record youth employment and a smaller number of 16 to 24-year-olds entering the workforce over the next few years. This is an ongoing journey of change, which will be undertaken at a steady rather than a high-speed pace, against a background of continuing societal change. However, we fully recognise the importance of maintaining effective metrics following the introduction of these measures, to enable us to judge how well they are working and whether we need to make other changes.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will perhaps touch on in more detail on Third Reading, when we come to it. It is important to recognise that the conduct of wars is changing. The type of people we need to recruit is also changing, and he gives an excellent example of the need for us to improve our cyber-capability. A great example of that is not necessarily to train in-house, but to recognise that there are high-end skills in the civilian sector that we can introduce through greater use of reservists.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Let me ask a clear question: what is the resistance to producing these statistics? The Minister talks about a matrix, whatever that means in civil service-speak, but this is a pretty straightforward question.

[Mr Ellwood]

It is a straightforward question, and I did tell the hon. Gentleman that I would get to it shortly. I then gave way to another Member and he asked me the same question again. If I can make a little progress, before he asks me a third time, I am sure we will get to where we want to be.

We absolutely recognise the importance of keeping the effect of these changes under continuous review, in terms of the benefits to our personnel and the impact on recruitment, retention and diversity. I remind hon. Members that the overall number of personnel taking up the new opportunities will initially be small and that flexible working is but one of several initiatives aimed at improving recruitment and retention in the longer term. It would therefore be extremely difficult to isolate the impact on recruitment and retention that is due solely to the Bill. Introducing a system of measurement would be difficult and would delay what we are trying to achieve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is complete and utter nonsense. I accept that the numbers might be smaller as the system gets going, but surely there must be a way of logging this. I do not know why the Ministry is so opposed to producing these statistics. Clearly, in the early days, it could say that the system was bedding in. The Minister is going to get freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions about this, so he might as well produce the information.

[Mr Ellwood]

I fear that unless I say something to win the hon. Gentleman over, we might go around this merry-go-round many times. I will certainly look at this, but in Australia and other countries that have successfully gone down this road, the initial take-up has been so small that introducing a measurement system would delay the initiative’s introduction, and the numbers will be so small that it would be difficult to determine whether the effect is the result of the initiative or others that are being introduced. To discourage him from intervening again in two minutes, let me say that I will be more than happy to look at this and discuss it with him in the future.

The Ministry of Defence meets its obligations under the public sector equality duty to provide information on the workforce in relation to the protected characteristics identified by the Equality Act 2010, through the disclosure of information relating to the gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion and age of personnel. Our new UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics will, like the monthly publications they replace, provide detailed information and analysis on the number of service personnel by strength, intake and outflow, and detail is provided for both the full-time armed forces and the reserves. The number of people who take up the new arrangements will be significant to us, because obviously they are the people we want to retain, but it will be modest at first— somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the armed forces. We therefore judge that collating and reporting information on a cohort of such a size would not provide significant or beneficial data, particularly in the early stages.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, let me say that as the system grows and develops, I will certainly consider whether introducing such a thing would be worthwhile.

The principal long-term aim of the Bill is that we attract, recruit and retain people from a more diverse cross-section of society with the knowledge, skills and experience that we need to deliver operational capability. Let me be clear that we will not see results overnight. We are proposing good, positive steps in the right direction, but this is one of several proactive initiatives that we are introducing as part of an ongoing journey of change. We need to modernise our armed forces if we are to attract and retain the right mix of people and skills, which is why we are introducing these measures alongside others, collectively managed under the armed forces people programme. That programme includes the future accommodation model, which has been touched on, and the enterprise approach.

The MOD has been transparent about the challenging recruitment and retention climate in which we are operating. British society is changing and, if we are to compete in the jobs market, so must defence. Shortages in our traditional recruiting grounds and record youth employment mean that we must modernise and make our offer more attractive to those who are already serving and those we want to recruit. These measures will benefit a small but significant cohort, such as women and men starting a family, those with caring commitments and those who wish to undertake long-term studies. We have a good body of evidence on the demand for such ways of working that has been derived from external reports, internal surveys and focus groups. Our ongoing flexible duties trial shows that providing our people with modern choices will help us to retain highly skilled personnel who might otherwise leave.

I should reassure hon. Members that intake and strength by rank, trade and specialisation are regularly monitored and managed at service level and centrally by the MOD. Commissioning an external body to evaluate the early impact of the flexible working measures would serve only to delay their introduction in 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of the debate, he would have heard me say that a pay rise is being considered by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The 1% pay freeze has been lifted, which is good news, and we look forward to the recommendations that will be made in March.

The MOD already gathers evidence on the impact that new forms of flexible working will have on our people. We think that that will provide more value than any evaluation from an independent contractor. We do not need to introduce more evaluation, further levels of statistics or additional reporting. It remains our view that imposing new statutory obligations would be unnecessarily costly, delay the introduction of the new measures and benefits for our people, and add little value to what we are trying to achieve. As I have said, we recognise the importance of keeping the effects of these changes under continuous review, in terms of the benefits to personnel and the impact on recruitment and retention.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman for a fourth time.

[Mr Jones]

If after one year the Minister gets a parliamentary question or an FOI request on this, how will he respond?

[Mr Ellwood]

If the hon. Gentleman asks the parliamentary question or makes the FOI request, I will respond.

I said earlier that the introduction of the new flexible working opportunities falls firmly within the scope of the armed forces covenant, which I think the whole House can be proud of. I assure the House that we will monitor the introduction of the new measures during the first year of implementation from 2019, and report on the impact in future armed forces covenant reports. Given the reassurances that I have offered, I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) will withdraw new clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the Bill. I was trying to work out how many armed forces Bills I had dealt with over the past 16 years, either as a Minister or as a Back Bencher. [Interruption.] As the Minister says, I am a veteran.

This, I think, is one of the simplest Bills I have encountered, but, as the Minister has said, it is important. It is intended to ensure that working practices in our armed forces are modern, but also attractive to those who are thinking of joining. The Minister may think me pedantic in wanting to know how its implementation will be monitored. However, I think we need to ensure not only that the armed forces are offered these opportunities, but that the information is cascaded down the chain of command, so that people are aware that they can ask for flexible working arrangements, and those who are in a position to make the decisions recognise that they can use them.

Training will be needed, and, in some cases, attitudes must change. I have no problem with the senior levels of the armed forces, who have, I think, bought into this, but the Bill must have an effect in practice, throughout the chain of command. That is why I think it important for us to monitor the number of people who take up these opportunities, and also when and why they are refused. Is there a good reason for that? I know that civil servants have convinced the Minister that such monitoring would be an onerous task, but I do not accept that for one minute. As the system beds in, the information will obviously need to be produced internally in the Department, for monitoring purposes, and I find it difficult to understand why it cannot subsequently be published. I think that in future, as a result of freedom of information requests or parliamentary questions, the Minister, or his successor, will have to publish it anyway. I also think that it would be positive to project the fact that the forces are introducing flexible working by giving examples.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the first of five interventions that I intend to make.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about the need to trickle information down to commander level to ensure that people are aware of the opportunities. That will be incentivised and supported by local commanders, but there will be a higher approvals authority. It is all based on operational capability, which we must not lose sight of. I hope that that clarifies the way in which the system will work.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that. I do not question for one minute what the armed forces will do in trying to ensure that the information is instilled in the chain of command, but this is a new way of working for them. I am not criticising them, because it is inevitable that when such a change is introduced in any company or other organisation, some people will not get it, and some will positively resist it. Some people will see it as a radical change. I think we should ensure that those who ask for flexible working are given good reasons why, in some cases, it cannot be implemented. I accept that there will be operational reasons.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I want to expand on some of those issues.

As my hon. Friend said, this is a probing amendment, but it goes to the heart of the entire Bill and how it will be implemented in practice. Will the 15% limit operate in the same way across the three services, and how will it work within each individual service? Let us take trades, for example. We all know that fast jet pilots are quite a small pool of individuals. If someone from that pool wanted to work part time, that would obviously have an adverse effect on the capability of that frontline unit. Likewise, if 15% of a ship’s crew suddenly decided to apply for part-time working, on what basis would a decision be arrived at in terms of operational effectiveness? As my hon. Friend said, there are certain niches or pinch points within the Army, with trades that are in scarce supply because of recruitment problems. What limit would be put on the number of those individuals who could apply for part-time working?

I would like to get an understanding from the Minister of how this proposal will work across the various ranks. There is a big difference, for example, between a private and a general applying for part-time working. We can envisage a situation where a senior officer in all three services wanted to go part time. One aim that General Carter has put forward for the legislation is to encourage opportunities for more family-friendly working practices, and obviously there is the aim of encouraging women not only to join the armed forces, but to advance up the career path. I would therefore like to know from the Minister what the rules are. Will there be uniform rules across the ranks for how individuals, and what percentage of individuals, would be covered?

Having read the Bill, I am not sure whether this issue is covered. Clearly, the ultimate decision is about the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. We could not have a situation in which, even if there was a 15% upper limit, we took out an entire capability that was needed by our armed forces.

I would be interested to know, through the probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, what the appeals mechanism is. One issue in the armed forces is women not advancing up the pay spine or rankings because of breaks in service and other situations, so what would be the appeal mechanism? If someone felt that they were being unfairly denied part-time working, what would be the process? If it relates to a female member of the armed forces, is that not opening us up, potentially, to a claim of discrimination against that individual if she feels that that is the reason why she has been denied part-time working?

[Mr Ellwood]

First, it is a pleasure to be here. I am very grateful that the Bill has reached Committee and, from looking around the room, it is clear that there are many committed right hon. and hon. Members who want the best for our armed forces. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage and that we can scrutinise what I hope will be an important stepping-stone in our support for our armed services.

In the wider debate on the clause, I will expand on the virtues and benefits of the Bill, but specifically on the amendment, questions were raised about recruitment and retention. We concede that this is a difficult climate in which to recruit and retain personnel. That is why we have put forward the armed forces people programme, of which there are four distinct parts. This Bill on the flexible working programme, which we are debating here today, forms one part of that. We need to advance, to modernise. We need to reflect society and ensure that we can recruit from that gene pool—the voluntary force out there—and make the armed forces attractive in a modern-day context. That means providing an element of flexibility in the work that we expect them to do.

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body was touched on. We will probably look at this matter in further detail under a later amendment. Now, I will simply say that the freeze—the pay cap—has been removed. Absolutely, there may be a requirement for an increase in salaries for specific trades where there is a shortfall, and we need to attract people and fill posts. That is beyond the scope of the Bill and this debate, but it sits in the wider context of ensuring that we are doing our best to attract and retain people for the most professional armed forces in the world.

I was asked whether this provision applies across the three services. It does. However, the word “regiment” would not necessarily apply in all contexts of the armed forces. It is important to remember the requirement in respect of operational capability. The example was given of an individual seeking to apply for flexible working while on board a ship. The hon. Member for North Durham will be aware that they will be attached to a posting for a period—possibly nine months—and they will make an application for the future. They would hope, perhaps, to be able to remain in a geographic location or to have the freedom to work part-time or reduced hours once they got off the ship. Ultimately, operational capability is of first and foremost importance, and it must not be affected at all by any aspect of the Bill.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister is right that a person on a ship would be applying for the future, but what would be the decision-making process when putting together a crew for a ship? What percentage of the crew would be allowed to work part time?

[Mr Ellwood]

When we look at countries that already have this process, figures like 15% simply are not applicable. Australia has, I believe, up to 1% or 2% of its personnel interested in pursuing this. Ultimately, it is about the operational capability of any ship and the force on board. Any commander or authority has the ability to deny any individual application because of that. Should an individual still feel that they require this kind of working because of their personal circumstances, there will be an appeals process. We will come on to that under a later amendment.

We have the mechanisms in place to recall service personnel. I want to make that clear. Even if permission was given for an individual not to be on a particular ship, they could be recalled because of operational capability if the situation demanded it. That is the agreement under which this entire offering is being made.

These measures have been designed by the services for the services. This is the Army, Air Force and Navy looking at their own protocols and personnel situations, and seeing how they can manage situations like the one on the ship that was described by the hon. Member for North Durham. It makes sense, therefore, to leave many of the judgments on the details to the services themselves. They own the responsibility to deliver operational duty and capability in order to recruit and fulfil their tasks.

In our view, the arbitrary limit of 15% in the amendment was put forward with good intentions, but would inevitably prove unhelpful. I am pleased that it was clear from what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said that it is a probing amendment. We must allow the services to retain the flexibility and agility to manage their manpower as they see fit.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister says that this proposal comes from the services. How far down the chain of command is there buy-in on this? If anyone in the Navy is asked about their next posting, they will always say, “Put the two at the top that you don’t want and you’ll get the one that you want third.” Will there be a cultural shift so that this is not just something that is recognised by the senior heads in the Ministry of Defence, but something that has buy-in from the people actually making the decisions about where people go?

[Mr Ellwood]

As I say, this has been designed by the armed forces themselves. A series of surveys has been put forward. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the opening speech given by the then Secretary of State on Second Reading, which made clear the length and depth to which the Ministry of Defence has gone to ensure that there is buy-in and approval not just among service personnel, but from their families and partners who are directly affected by this. There is absolute support for this and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, particularly with his experience, that it would not be wise to go ahead with it if the chiefs did not agree, if the commanders did not agree and if the armed forces personnel themselves were not calling for it.

Looking at the surveys, one reason why individuals make the tough decision to sign off and leave the armed forces is the stress and strain that it places on their families. That is why we have said, “Let’s adapt, let’s reflect on what society is doing and on what happens in civilian areas.” That is why I believe that it makes sense to persevere with this idea. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has support across the board.

As I suggested, we envisage a modest take-up of between 0.5% and 1% of all service personnel. The take-up rate is highly unlikely to exceed 15%, but of course it would be wrong to place a cap or arbitrary limit on it. Following the assurances that I have provided, I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will agree to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister has spoken about these new working practices, which I support and which are designed to make the armed forces more attractive to individuals. I can clearly see that people already in the armed forces may well take some of these on board as their lives change—with changing family commitments, for example. Has the Ministry of Defence considered offering part-time posts as part of recruitment?

The main thrust of the amendment is toward those already in the armed services, but would it allow the Ministry of Defence or the three armed services to advertise a role as part-time? People might say that that goes against the ethos of what we want from the armed forces, but I could see a situation in which someone who has previously served in the armed forces wants to come back once their circumstances change—certainly, if we are to try to attract more women back into roles—and they may want a specific role in the armed forces that is not full time. Will the Bill allow that, and has the Minister considered advertising certain posts as part-time? He has already talked about pinch-point trades, and some of those that are geographically restricted in certain areas could offer part-time work as part of a recruitment exercise to fill some of those posts.

[Mr Ellwood]

There has been helpful discussion on this clause, and I welcome the tone adopted by both hon. Gentlemen. We discussed the excellent report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on the armed forces. It is called “Filling the Ranks”, and I recommend it to all right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased that we have accepted all the recommendations. It is a sober consideration of the challenges that we face in our armed forces today, and part of the work that we are doing—including in this Bill—is about moving on from that.

We want to widen opportunities for those in the armed forces, and it could be that instead of working part time, somebody may wish to leave the armed forces all together. I remember from before I left regular service—I do not know whether others who have served felt this as well—that as soon as someone put their hand up and said that they were going to depart, they were given different types of jobs and treated slightly differently, simply because there was perhaps a question mark about their commitment that should not have been there. We now have a process of leave well and then rejoin well, because it could be that after a period in civilian life, someone might fancy going back again, and they need to be able to do that. People should not leave under any cloud, and the service should be welcoming so that somebody can come back in.

The importance of diversity was mentioned on Second Reading, and I agree. We want to recruit the very best from across the country—men and women from different ethnic backgrounds and geographical locations. There should be no inhibitors for anybody wishing to serve.

The contract with Capita was also raised, and there have been some issues and concerns about that. Again, we must advance and modernise to reflect the modern needs of our armed forces personnel.

The idea of the part-time post was raised. I will take that away with me as it is certainly worth considering. We must bear in mind that some of those posts already exist for reservists, and it will be for the services who are designing the arrangements to ensure that operational capability is not threatened in any way. It would, however, be silly not to consider any of the freedoms and opportunities that could be set up underneath that, and I welcome the input from the hon. Member for North Durham.

The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Ministry of Defence to commission an independent report on the effects of new forms of flexible working on recruitment to the armed forces. The new flexible working measures are designed to attract, recruit and retain people from a more diverse cross-section of society. We stress that we need the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver that operational capability, and we believe that these measures will benefit a small but significant cohort who wish to take up this offer—for example, women and men starting a family, those with caring commitments, or those who wish to undertake long-term studies. However, evidence gathered by our external report, the internal surveys, the focus groups and our ongoing flexible duties trial shows we are providing our people with modern choices, which will help us retain highly skilled personnel who might otherwise leave—a concern that has already been expressed in this Committee.

This evidence already provides us with detailed assessment of the benefits of the new forms of flexible working. The MOD is experiencing many of the same skills and recruitment challenges that are being faced nationally, so to meet those challenges as proactively as possible, we are modernising the employment offer for our armed forces to better allow defence to attract and retain the right mix of people and skills. As I mentioned earlier, those are being managed collectively under our armed forces people programme, which comprises projects including the new joiner offer and the enterprise approach. The latter is about taking people with civilian skills—for example, working for Rolls-Royce or Babcock—and bringing them straight across to work in the defence environment.

The Committee will be aware that the intake in strength by rank, trade and specialisation is monitored and managed on a regular basis at both the service level and centrally by the MOD. The MOD already publishes detailed information analysis on intake in the “UK armed forces monthly service personnel statistics” publication—a long title. The overall numbers taking up the new opportunities are likely to be low, as I have mentioned before. This will mean that any detailed evaluation, external or otherwise, of the impact of the new flexible working measures on overall recruitment in the armed forces will be difficult to achieve in the early years of operation. Furthermore, evidence gathering already conducted by the armed forces of the benefits and impact that the new forms of flexible working will have on our people is of greater value than an evaluation from an independent contractor. The obligation proposed in the amendment will be unnecessarily costly, will delay the introduction of the new measures and their benefits for our people, and will add little value to what defence is already trying to achieve. With those assurances, I hope the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will agree to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I would like to get an understanding of how the housing of someone who works part time will be dealt with. Housing has always been seen as part of the overall remuneration package that armed forces personnel get. We will potentially have a situation where someone who works part time lives in a house next door to someone working full time, with both getting the same housing package. If someone goes part time, will there be a way to recoup some of the advantage, or will they continue as if they are working full time? I can see that creating some issues, where people working full time and people working part time are getting the same benefits. How will the Ministry of Defence address that? There could be an issue of perceived fairness for the individual working full time and the idea that someone is getting benefits that they are not working for. I would like to know how the Minister thinks that would be addressed when this is rolled out.

[Mr Ellwood]

We have wandered into another huge chunk of the armed forces people programme. It is pertinent to the Bill, but it is so important that it sits alone as one of the four major pillars of improvement we are trying to make to recruit and retain armed forces personnel.

The future accommodation model has been mentioned. It will be coming round the corner very soon in more detail. It is still very much being planned, so I am not able to share too much detail, but it is helpful to hear the concerns, which we are very much alive to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I know that the hon. Lady has spent a lot of time looking at these issues, and I am grateful for her input. She has done well to finesse those concerns into the Bill. She knows that that is a separate but very important subject. I hear what she says.

CarillionAmey was mentioned. That concerned the previous Secretary of State, and the company was called in to ensure that improvements were made to meet the KPIs. The contract comes up for renewal in 2020. That does not stop us making sure we provide the best accommodation we can for our armed forces personnel. We should recognise that what people choose and expect today is very different from 15 or 20 years ago, when a room this size would have been full of 20 beds. Now people expect individual accommodation, wireless networks and decent cooking facilities, and that is what we are providing, not least as we build new premises and new accommodation, with the returning of our armed forces from Germany.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney seeks to place an obligation on the MOD to commission an independent report evaluating the impact of new forms of flexible working on armed forces housing contracts. The Government have already provided assurances during the passage of the Bill that regular service personnel, when taking part-time work, will retain those entitlements currently available to full-time regulars. There will be no change there. Providing our people with service accommodation is pivotal for their work. We must ensure that their families have that guarantee and that support, particularly if circumstances change and they need to be called back at short notice.

Regular service personnel who successfully apply to undertake the new forms of flexible working following the introduction of these measures will be entitled to service accommodation commensurate with their personnel status category and other qualifying criteria, in the same way as their full-time colleagues. Individuals will take up these new arrangements for a defined period only and will retain an enduring liability for mobility. They will still be subject to the same moves associated with new assignments as others in the regular armed forces.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is common sense that no one will suddenly be turfed out of accommodation, but can the Minister not see that tensions might rise if someone working part time is living long term next door to someone working full time? He said “as long as that contract continues”, but what happens if the person is still part time and is redeployed somewhere else for new accommodation? Will they have the same access to housing or will that change in some way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand where the question comes from; it is a detailed, specific point, but it needs to be considered. They will be treated in the same manner as anybody else in the unit that they are with if there is an ORBAT change or movement. It will also be down to the arrangements made when the application is put forward in the first place. If a unit is moving from one location to another, that needs to be factored into the decision. Someone might look over their shoulder and have a view about that, but that same person might request a period of absence or a change in their circumstances to move to part time at a later date. I hope the fuller explanation that we give to our armed forces personnel as these measures are rolled out will clarify that and ensure that there are not those feelings that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Support for service families was a recurring theme on Second Reading. The Bill is at the heart of the work we are doing to support our people. I reaffirm that enhanced flexible working options are about providing opportunities for our people who want to work more flexibly and not about disadvantaging them or their families by limiting access to support and entitlements. I have said before that only a small yet significant number of personnel will undertake flexible working and that the longer-term impact of these new options will be difficult to assess in the early years of implementation. For those reasons, the impact on service accommodation contracts is likely to be minimal—I do not see a huge change there—and challenging to assess, particularly in the light of the fact that there are no plans for the entitlements to be altered, and an independent evaluation is therefore deemed unnecessary.

The Ministry of Defence recognises that the current system for accommodation can be unaffordable and inflexible, and that it does not support personnel to live in the way that many of them want to today. We are reforming the accommodation model so that all regular personnel can receive support to live how they want to. We recognise the need to offer accommodation that meets their needs and expectations today and in the future. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about the future accommodation model, which is due to be introduced in 2019 as part of the defence people programme. We are exploring options for a more flexible accommodation offer to give service personnel more choice in how they live.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I suggest that the Minister delve into the bowels of the Ministry of Defence? There was a plan there in 2010 that is clearly gathering dust, but it addresses quite a lot of the issues that he has raised.

[Mr Ellwood]

I shall certainly go back to the bowels of the MOD and see whether I can find anything that the hon. Gentleman has left behind.

Extensive work is being done to consider a wide range of options, from widening entitlement based on the current model of service-provided accommodation to helping service personnel to meet their aspirations for home ownership. We hope to be able to say more about that at the end of the year. Eligibility under the future accommodation model will not be altered for personnel who work part time or who are subject to geographical restriction when the new measures come into force. I hope that makes it clear to the Committee that there will be no change. I hope that hon. Members are reassured by what I have said and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I think we are probably coming from the same point of view. It is difficult to know the impact if we do not monitor it. The impact of every change we make has to be monitored. However, given the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I just have a question. Clause 3(5) states:

“Section 1 and this section extend to—

(a) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,

(b) the Isle of Man, and

(c) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.”

I wonder what the issue is with Gibraltar.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman poses an important question. There is a technical reason for this. It is simply because, as has come slightly mysteriously and miraculously to my attention, we have been liaising with the Gibraltarian Government about whether any provision of the Armed Forces Act 2006, with which he will be familiar, should be part of the new law of Gibraltar. They have undertaken to introduce their own legislation in the near future to effect this. I did know that, but a little piece of paper arrived to remind me of it. I am grateful for his question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Protection of existing flexible working options

“(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the ability of persons serving with a regular force to avail themselves of the flexible working options provided for in Chapter 1 of Joint Service Publication 750 (centrally determined terms of service).

(2) If the flexible working options in subsection (1) are withdrawn, the Secretary of State must make similar provision through regulations.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”—(Gerald Jones.)

This new clause preserves current flexible working practices for the Armed Forces.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He tests the patience of the House in rising to his feet after denying my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces I do not know how many times the opportunity to intervene.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), talked about the importance of Remembrance Day, which was also highlighted by other hon. Members, and about the importance of pay itself. She also talked about the role of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whose recommendations will, I understand, come through in March.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) used the debate as an opportunity mostly to promote his views on Trident, which are not shared across the House. Indeed, this nation would become a lot weaker if we were to get rid of Trident. That would not be in anybody’s interest.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford produced a report highlighting some of the challenges we face, and I fully agree with him that we need to work on improving diversity. It is important that we attract the brightest and the best, and that includes recruitment moving up to 15% by 2020 for women, and up to 10% for BAME—black, Asian and minority ethnic. I am grateful to him for the work he did on that important report.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the black hole in defence finances. We came into government recognising that £38 billion was seemingly missing, because it had been stolen from future budgets, but let us take a step back.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

In a second. When we came into government, we found a black hole in the nation’s finances, with £150 billion missing. Although the Labour Government managed to balance the books back in 2000, in every single year thereafter they spent more and more money that they did not have, but which belonged to the taxpayer. That is why we ended up with the deficit and the recession—they were taking money that did not exist.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry that the Cameron Kool-Aid is now being handed round again in the Conservative party. I ask the Minister to look at the facts—

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

Look at the National Audit Office report of 2010. What it said on the equipment budget, not the overall budget, was that on its current basis the figure would be £6 billion. If there was no increase in line with inflation over a 10-year period, the figure would be £36 billion, not £38 billion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First, if the Minister takes the intervention both Members cannot be on their feet and he cannot suddenly say, “I don’t want to hear any more of it.” In fairness, if he gives way he needs to let the intervention get to the end. If I think the intervention is too long, let me take that decision. Let us not have both Members on their feet.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I make it clear that the facts are very clear. Look at any—

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

We have a very robust relationship with Saudi Arabia. We are able to raise matters in confidence and in private that we would not be able to raise in public, and that applies to many of the issues that have been raised today. However, this is a legitimate coalition, and it is allowed to use weapons that are provided and sold by the United Kingdom.

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

One of the accusations against the Saudis is that UK-made cluster munitions have been used in Yemen. The former procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), told the House before the recess that the last time the UK sold cluster munitions was 30 years ago. What assessment has the Minister or the MOD made of the usability of those weapons and whether they have ever actually been used?

[Mr Ellwood]

I recognise the interest and also the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House given his work as a Minister in the MOD. As a reservist and an ex-member of the regular forces, I would not go anywhere near any ordnance that was over 20 years old. The cluster munitions that are being discussed are well past their sell-by date. They are dangerous and should not be used by anybody.

Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the region, not least for the reasons I articulated in my previous response, and also from a regional and historical perspective. Because of that strong relationship, this Government and previous ones are able to have frank conversations that are able to effect change. We want change to happen at a pace, but it has to happen at a pace that will work. The frank conversations I was able to have when I was there covered a range of issues, not least human rights, and not least Ali al-Nimr, the juveniles and even women’s right to drive. Those are the issues that we are able to discuss and try to move forward on.

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

Tens of thousands of workers’ livelihoods in this country rely on exports of defence equipment around the world. I am proud that a Labour Government introduced the arms Export Control Act 2002, which regulates our defence exports. Will the Minister use his good offices to take up the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that the quadripartite Committee should take up those investigations? Will he resist any attempt to boycott arms sales to Saudi Arabia before the evidence is looked at? All that would happen is that the gap would be filled by other countries exporting those arms when they do not have our robust regulation.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, Labour also cut TA training completely in 2009, so it is difficult to take lessons from Labour Members. It is opportunistic to join this argument now, as others have said.

Defence Reforms

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate, which has been excellent. There have been 16 speakers. I have done a quick tally and I think we have had 10 blue on blue attacks and two yellow on blue attacks so far. It has been good to recognise the importance of our armed forces and the unique role that reservists play. I have seen our reservists in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think everyone in the House would like to thank them for their contribution to the defence of our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the hon. Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) raised the issue of the fusiliers. The Minister needs to answer why the Government have decided to axe the fusiliers in spite of the their good recruitment record.

The current situation needs to be put into context and I know that some hon. Members have short memories. It is important to recognise that, at the time of the strategic defence and security review, the Prime Minister said:

“Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]

We all know the reduction was increased to 13,000 and that compulsory redundancies have taken place. There is concern among many that the increase in the reserve is not for operational purposes, but to fill the gap.

We have heard that the reason for the gap is the previous Labour Government’s black hole in the finances—the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) tried to support that notion. We have heard about a £35 billion black hole, a £36 billion black hole and a £38 billion black hole. The fact is that a 2006 National Audit Office report said that the gap in the defence budget, if it continued in line with inflation, would be £6 billion and would only go up to £36 billion if there were flat growth over a 10-year period. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will learn to listen in time. The Government have used that to hide behind their reason for making cuts to defence spending.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way. Unfortunately, I do not have much time.

It is time for the Government to be honest with our servicemen and servicewomen and say why they are making these cuts. The real reason is that in the SDSR, the Government reduced the defence budget by 9% and have made some silly mistakes since.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East spoke eloquently about the need for the carriers, but he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary who not only recommended changing the “cats and traps”, which wasted £74 million, but wanted to mothball one of those carriers.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Indeed, and the decision was budget-led, rather than being made in the best interests of the Army.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not, because of the time limit.

The conclusions of any review should also take into account the long-term strategic objectives that will be in the interests of this country, but neither Army 2020 nor the strategic defence and security review did so. The SDSR was rendered out of date within weeks of being written by events in Libya, with equipment that had been scrapped weeks before being brought back into service. Army 2020 has got rid not only of some of the British Army’s best battalions, but of some of the bravest and most dedicated members of the armed forces. The Minister must explain what his criteria are, and how he is going to maintain the necessary skills, even though many have already been lost.

We are told that the numbers have to be cut, but I want to concentrate on the way in which that is being done. There was confusion this summer as the Government let the process linger on, allowing rumours and uncertainty to continue, mainly to save the Prime Minister the embarrassment of making this announcement before Armed Forces day. There have also been substantial cuts in the numbers of our armed forces personnel. Let us remember that, when in opposition in the last few years before the general election, the Conservatives were calling for a larger Army and a larger Navy with more personnel. They have achieved exactly the opposite since they have been in power. They are saying one thing and doing another. [Interruption.] I will come to the question of budgets in a minute, if the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) will just hold his water.

These decisions are resulting in the Government having a credibility deficit on defence matters, not only with the public but with our armed forces. It is no wonder that there is confusion. The planning assumptions in the SDSR were based on an Army whose manpower was 95,000. Will the Minister tell us whether those assumptions are still being achieved, now that the number has been reduced to 82,000? Will he also be precise about the time scale for the build-up of the reserves? It has already been pointed out that there could be a capability gap in that area. I pay tribute to the members of our reserve forces. It is not surprising to discover from the continuous attitude survey of the armed forces that morale is at an all-time low.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay talked about the criteria that had been applied when making the decisions. Serious questions need to be asked about how and why they were made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I have been punished with time taken away from me as well.

This debate has been a healthy and valuable reminder of the important role that our armed forces play not only in meeting our national and international obligations but in maintaining links with society and community, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) also stressed. The armed forces are also the force of last resort to which we turn when there are problems with, for example, flooding, foot and mouth and, most recently, the Olympics—let us remember their last-minute contribution there.

Sadly, the Opposition did not recognise, register or apologise for the dire financial situation that led to these tough decisions having to be made and the fact that there was a specific funding gap of £38 billion.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am happy to show the hon. Gentleman the National Audit Office report specifying that exact figure and showing that the Opposition stole money from future budgets.

[Mr Jones]

The NAO report does not state that. It states that the only way to get to a £36 billion figure on the procurement budget is with flat cash. Without it, the figure would be about £6 billion. I suggest he read the report first.

[Mr Ellwood]

We have read the report carefully. It is true that the last Government took money from future budgets, and of course that money cannot be spent twice. It is also true that in the good times prior to 2007 the then Government cut the defence budget in real terms, while other budgets across the board went up.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but I remember the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members at the general election calling for a larger Army and Navy, but what have they done in power? They have cut, cut, cut.

[Mr Ellwood]

We did not call for a larger armed forces at the election itself. It was our intention. It is where we would like to go. When we made these announcements, we were not expecting Labour to have ruined the Treasury numbers, as it did.

As has been repeated again and again, Labour made a mess of something else. I refer to the madness of its procurement strategy, which wasted billions of pounds in overruns. The worst of it was delaying the carrier build by one year, which cost £1 billion alone. Given that the capitation cost of a brigade is £100 million, let us think how many battalions we could have saved. To take an operational perspective, for years our troops in Afghanistan were forced to use Snatch Land Rovers, but suddenly the last Government woke up to the fact that they were not adequate and there was a flurry of buying off the shelf. The Cougar, the Mastiff, the Ridgback—all these vehicles were purchased off the shelf, wasting huge sums of money, while our armed forces suffered on the front line. All those funding issues had a knock-on effect on the decisions we are debating today and the decisions for the future, not only on battalion and brigades, but on the order of battle.

I am an infanteer—I served in the Royal Green Jackets, another regiment that disappeared under the last Government—but I am also a national politician. We are all national politicians, and we must consider the capability of our entire armed forces—the demand to save ships; the demand to save planes, such as the Harrier, which has been debated by this House many times; the demand to save intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability; and, of course, the demand to save regiments, not least my own. As we have heard, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has an amazingly proud history, dating back to James II —I am sorry that the Father of the House is not here to confirm that—and it has had an impact not just in its own area, but right across Britain as a whole. When the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was formed, it was given the most up-to-date weapon of the day, the fusil, which gave it its name, and in the first world war it had a total of 196 battalions in operation. How different the picture is today.

We have heard some powerful arguments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to the support we have heard for the Fusiliers. However, I would also say to him—I hope he listens carefully to this proposal—that if it is the Government’s intention to reconfigure the balance of our armed forces between regular forces and the Territorial Army more towards the Australian and American models and to increase the size of Territorial Army units, and if it is also the Minister’s intention to decide to disband the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, then why not allow this fine battalion to configure immediately into a Territorial Army unit? I absolutely accept that that is not an ideal solution, but it would prevent that footprint in history and the contribution made by this amazing battalion from disappearing in their entirety.

Armed Forces Personnel

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Lord Beamish

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It is not churlish to remind the hon. Gentleman what he did at that time. When we tabled an amendment to enshrine the covenant in law, he voted against it. I know that he is a Liberal Democrat, and thus can pick and choose and place a certain interpretation on what he does, but he must be reminded of the fact that he voted against that amendment. It was only after the Royal British Legion’s campaign that the Government were forced to change their policy and the covenant became law.

[Mr Ellwood]

While preparing for the debate, I wondered whether the Opposition would raise the issue of the covenant. They had 13 years in which to introduce such legislation themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the personnel paper and I concede that it was a good step forward, but it was not legislation. The fact that, after 13 years of Labour government, the covenant is now enshrined in legislation is thanks to our Government, not his.

[Mr Jones]

No, actually, it is not. In July 2009, I produced a Green Paper on the covenant. I do not think the hon. Gentleman read it and I do not think many of the new Ministers did either, because they clearly fell for the civil service tricks that were tried on me. They were obviously told how hard it would be to implement such a measure, although they finally realised that it could be implemented.

Although not widely read in the House, my Green Paper was widely welcomed by the services community. It received a good deal of coverage and would have formed part of our programme had we been re-elected. It is not true that it was not on anyone’s radar screen when we were in government. I suggest that everyone should read the very well thought out Green Paper that I produced. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the current veterans Minister, has admitted that it covered the main points.

One of the Government’s policies we are concerned about relates to armed forces and war widows’ pensions. The year-on-year change to uprate pensions using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces community, who rely on their pensions at a younger age than almost anyone else. The impact will be felt not just by the present generation, including those who are fighting today in Afghanistan, but by those who landed on the beaches of Normandy.

The Forces Pension Society estimates that, as a result of the Government’s changes, a disabled double amputee of corporal rank aged 28 will lose some £587,000 by the age of 70, and that a war widow with children will receive a basic per annum pension that will be £94 less next year. The society has said:

“The extent of devaluation of Armed Forces pensions has become a matter of deep concern to Service people, past and present.”

The society’s chairman, Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, has said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly'”.

Julie McCarthy of the Army Families Federation—I had the privilege of working closely with her when I was a Minister, and I pay tribute to her and to the representatives of the RAF and Naval Families Federations—has said:

“The demands of the service have not gone down... but”

personnel

“are seeing their pay frozen, the threat of redundancy and now allowance cuts.”

[Interruption.] In the light of that, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why—[Interruption.]