Battle of Arnhem: 75th Anniversary

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of those who fought at Arnhem 75 years ago as part of Operation Market Garden, which began on 17 September 1944. Before I go any further, I should say that this debate was due to take place last month, prior to the commemorations, but the proroguing of Parliament meant that it did not go ahead. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to grant this debate and for the chance to commemorate this historic milestone.

From 17 to 26 September each year, we remember the anniversary of the battle of Arnhem—nine days of some of the fiercest fighting witnessed in the second world war, and the largest airborne operation ever conducted. Arnhem would indeed prove to be a bridge too far, but the story of those who fought there is one of immeasurable bravery and unspeakable tragedy. It would come to define our airborne forces, forging an enduring legacy.

Buoyed by victories in northern France and Belgium after the D-day landings, Operation Market Garden was a bold plan devised by Field Marshal Montgomery to end the war in 1944. Following its conclusion, he predicted that

“in years to come it will be a great thing for a man to be able to say: ‘I fought at Arnhem’.”

Montgomery was indeed correct, but, of course, not for the reasons he originally envisaged.

As part of the operation, the US 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions were ordered to secure key bridges and towns in Son, Veghel, Grave and Nijmegen. To the north, the British 1st Airborne Division, supported by the Polish 1st Parachute Brigade and the Glider Pilot Regiment, were tasked with capturing the bridges at Arnhem and Oosterbeek.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I sought his permission to intervene beforehand. While there are some fantastic examples of heroism, does he agree that the role played by the Irish Guards in the battle of Arnhem should be a source of considerable pride, especially for the people of Northern Ireland? Not only did they lead 30 Corps into the battle, but by the time the war had ended in May 1945, they had been awarded 252 gallantry medals, including two Victoria Crosses—heroism above and beyond the call of duty.

[Dan Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his intervention. I have proud and happy memories of serving alongside the Irish Guards. They are a regiment with a long and proud tradition. I seem to remember that they were fond of describing themselves as being at the more relaxed end of the Household Division, but he is right to reference their outstanding service in this and many other campaigns.

Had Operation Market Garden been successful, the allied forces would then have prepared an assault across the Rhine, but a combination of poor planning, lack of intelligence and bad weather contributed to a catastrophe at Arnhem. The human cost of the operation was colossal: more than 1,500 allied troops were killed, while nearly 6,500 were captured. The damage was lasting, and the division would not fight as a collective unit in the war again. Despite German success, casualties on their side were put at 3,300, although some estimates are as high as 8,000. The ambition of ending the war by Christmas was met with failure, and the people of Arnhem would have to wait another seven long and desperate months for liberation.

Arnhem would, however, come to define what it meant to be airborne, and still today it is a story recounted to every fledgling paratrooper in training. The bravery and mettle shown by those who fought against all the odds is the standard to which everyone who served in an airborne unit would subsequently be held. That is because, facing unrelenting assault from German armour and infantry, the allies held firm. The British and Polish paratroopers at Arnhem were outnumbered, increasingly running low on ammunition, food and supplies and cut off from support. Despite the overwhelming adversity, they did not falter. It was a lesson in true solidarity and one from which we can all learn.

The past year has been a poignant one for remembrance in our country. As we have shown on numerous occasions, most notably during the centenary of the Armistice and the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, it is our collective responsibility to honour the dedication and professionalism of those who have served in our armed forces.

This year, the Parachute Regimental Association co-ordinated a series of commemorative events, at which thousands paid their respects. Our nation was privileged that a number of veterans of world war two were in attendance. For many, the 75th anniversary will be the final time that they will gather together. As such, it is important that we cherish these men while we still have the opportunity to do so.

Many of us will have had the privilege of meeting veterans from Operation Market Garden. I am proud to know Tom Hicks, one of my constituents in Barnsley. As a sapper in 1st Parachute Squadron, Royal Engineers, Tom was a veteran of operations in north Africa and Sicily. He was dropped in to Arnhem and after nine days’ fighting he was injured, taken prisoner by German forces and spent the rest of the war in a forced labour camp. It was with great pride that our community congratulated Tom on another milestone earlier this year: his 100th birthday. He typifies the very best of our country and our airborne forces. Whatever else is going on—and let us be honest, there is a lot going on—we should never lose sight of the fact that the freedoms we enjoy today are a direct result of the determination that Tom and so many others showed throughout the second world war.

The act of commemorating this battle now, and over the years, is particularly important to me, not least because I had the great honour of serving in the Parachute Regiment. I also hope that in 75 years’ time, we will not only continue to commemorate the sacrifice of those who fell in the second world war, but commemorate the sacrifice made by my friends and comrades in more recent conflicts. As well as reminding us of our past, the act of remembrance is an opportunity to be mindful of the present and to think of those who have fallen in more recent conflicts around the world.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, who is making an extraordinarily powerful speech. However, I am extremely grateful to him for mentioning the contribution of the Polish forces, which is very often overlooked. Will he join me in placing on the record our appreciation for the absolute gallantry of the Polish forces? Their nation had been invaded and they were not to experience freedom for many years, yet they fought with exemplary courage, shoulder to shoulder with our paratroopers. May I also say that it is an honour to sit on the same Benches as my hon. and gallant Friend, who is a distinguished former member of the regiment?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great eloquence on these matters. I did not expect his intervention. He is absolutely right and I completely agree with him. I do not want to say anything further because I may struggle to get through it, such was the eloquence with which he expressed himself. I am grateful to him for his intervention.

I was reflecting on the fact that commemoration is, of course, about what has gone before, but it is incredibly important that we also think about what is happening today. It is in that spirit that we reflect not just on the heroes of the past and those who have served previously, but on those who serve today. The environment in which our armed forces operate has changed significantly over the years, but it is just as important to champion those who serve today.

While serving with the regiment, I made the pilgrimage —I use that word deliberately—to Arnhem on a number of occasions. I remember standing in front of the graves of those who fell. I felt humbled and inspired by their courage and their service. As was rightly said, they are, in fact, men apart—every man an emperor.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He is fully aware, as I am, that five Victoria Crosses were awarded at Arnhem: two to members of the Parachute Regiment, one to a Royal Air Force officer, and two to members of my regiment, the South Staffords. A sixth VC got away. Mike Dauncey’s VC was downgraded by Montgomery because he thought that five was enough for a debacle, which the battle had turned out to be strategically—nothing to do with the courage of those involved, but strategically.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for making that point. He is absolutely right to make reference to the outstanding courage and valour of those who served; I will do so in a bit more detail myself in just a moment.

I was reflecting on the fact that each year a commemorative service takes place at Oosterbeek cemetery, during which local schoolchildren emerge from the woods to lay flowers on the graves of those fallen allied soldiers. It is, without doubt, one of the most moving scenes that I have ever witnessed; the hairs on the back of my neck are standing up right now as I recall the reverence with which those schoolchildren and the whole Dutch community pay respect to those who lost their lives, to whom they feel a debt of gratitude for their service. That remembrance service has taken place every year since 1945, and of course it took place again this year. Marking the anniversary of Arnhem is an important tradition to our friends in Holland; the reverence that the Dutch have for those who served is truly inspiring and hugely appreciated.

For those not familiar with the story of Arnhem, it may seem incongruous that it is held in such esteem, given that German forces saw the battle as such a major success. But there is a reason why it is the most important date in the calendar for our airborne forces. Arnhem is the moment when they wrote themselves into the pages of history.

As the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, among many acts of valour five Victoria Crosses were awarded during those nine days of fighting. They were awarded to: Lieutenant John Grayburn, of the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment; Captain Lionel Queripel, of the 10th Battalion, the Parachute Regiment; Lance-Sergeant John Baskeyfield, of the 2nd Battalion, South Staffordshire Regiment; Major Robert Cain, of the 2nd Battalion, South Staffordshire Regiment; and Flight Lieutenant David Lord, of 271 Squadron, Royal Air Force.

One of the most powerful testimonials given following the battle was delivered by General Eisenhower, who, in writing to Major-General Urquhart, the British commander at Arnhem, said:

“In this war there has been no single performance by any unit that has more greatly inspired me or more highly excited my admiration, than the nine days action of your division between 17 and 26 September.”

On the anniversary this year, I thought of Tom Hicks, all his comrades and all those who served on Operation Market Garden and at Arnhem—not celebrating, but commemorating. In doing so, I tried to understand the heroism and tragedy and how they shaped the lives of so many, including myself. We will forever be in their debt.

Armed Forces Day

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

No, he wasn’t Dutch.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about national Armed Forces Day. Of course, it is open to all local authorities to apply, so we look forward to seeing applications from across the country, including one from Northern Ireland, I am sure.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate and a timely reminder of the importance of thanking those who step forward to serve in our armed forces. On local authorities putting themselves forward to host Armed Forces Day, as a fellow Yorkshire Member of Parliament—there is another Yorkshire Member in the Chamber—will the Minister send our very best wishes to Scarborough as it prepares to host Armed Forces Day next year? I am sure that, collectively, we want to ensure that that day is a stunning success—not just for the country, but for Yorkshire.

[Stuart Andrew]

Absolutely. I am doing a tour of the country now. It is great news that next year the event will be going to Scarborough. Earl Howe will be there this year to support that. It is going to be great news for Yorkshire and for the whole of the country.

Veteran Suicide

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) on securing this timely debate. He made an excellent speech, and has done the House a great service in bringing this matter to our attention.

I am conscious that time is short, so I will be brief. I was reflecting earlier on the fact that it has been some time since I last wore uniform and was on operations. Over the period since, there have been many times when I have remembered with absolute clarity the faces of fallen friends. Regimental reunions, Remembrance Sunday and anniversaries all give pause for thought and cause to remember. In addition to those occasions, there are the unexpected triggers: a turn of phrase, an accent or someone’s gait when they are walking down the street. They can all prompt the memory of a comrade who is no longer with us.

That is the cost of combat and, to an extent, it is to be expected. However, what I did not expect is the roll call of new additions to that list of faces. It seems now that not a week goes by without the sad news of another veteran’s death—all too often, tragically, as a result of suicide. It is not because we are currently on major combat operations; we are not. It is because the impacts of the operations that we were on have lived longer in the memory, feelings and mental health of those who served than any of us could have expected.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

On the length of time that it can take for trauma to manifest itself, we in Northern Ireland have had a number of useful research reports, some of which were authored by David Bolton, indicating that post-traumatic stress disorder, including among veterans, has sometimes not manifested itself for 10, 20 or even 30 years after active service. It would be useful for the Ministry of Defence to take those reports into account, and to learn from that experience in Northern Ireland.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She raises an important point. The truth is that veterans who suffer from PTSD often report the trauma that they experienced serving our country many years after. It seems to me, and I think that the public would completely agree, that as a country and a society we have a lifelong commitment to those people who stepped forward and served our country. We all understand the cost of that service, and we have a responsibility to look out for, and look after, those people for all their lives outside the armed forces.

I will end by reflecting on the fact that this Friday there will be a memorial service for a great comrade of mine—someone I served alongside in my regiment—who took his own life just a few weeks ago. The terrible problem of veteran suicide has never felt more real to me than it does right now. The fact that we, frankly, do not really understand the problem, or even its scale, has never concerned me more than it does today. My ask of the Government, and of the Minister, who I know takes these matters seriously, is a simple one: please give this issue the attention that it deserves, help us all to understand it better, and let us work together to address it.

Modernising Defence Programme

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We will be continuously working very closely with Sir Mark—given that a great deal of work has already been done on the NSCR, it would be crazy for us not to do that. What the review identified was that more work needed to be done on the Ministry of Defence budget. If the exercise were fiscally neutral, it would not have been possible to deliver in such a way. We will be working closely with the Cabinet Office to ensure that everything that we have done sits within the priorities of the National Security Council. As for cyber-attack, the Ministry of Defence itself leads on aspects of that. All the work across all those realms is done in conjunction with all the parts of our national security infrastructure—GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. It is essential that that continues going forward.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Given the Secretary of State’s desire to consult, I think that there would be merit in his coming along to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy so that we could dig into the detail of his announcement more thoroughly. Does he agree, however, that quantity has a quality all of its own, and that, given the threats that we know we face, any further reduction in armed forces personnel would be extremely unwise?

[Gavin Williamson]

We have made a commitment in relation to the size of our armed forces. I think there is a strong argument that we need forces with not just the very best equipment but mass, if we are to be able to deploy.

British Armed Forces: Size and Strength

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to be called to speak in this debate. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing this timely debate. He walks in the footsteps of many of his predecessors in being a stout defender of our armed forces. I have very happy memories of my own service, starting in his constituency in New Normandy barracks and Normandy barracks with 2 Para and 1 Para. He has done us a great service today in providing an opportunity for an important debate about the size and structure of our armed forces.

It is also, as always, a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I know that he takes these matters incredibly seriously. It is a reality of parliamentary procedure that questions and debates relating to defence are responded to by Ministers from the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps we could employ our collective nous to see whether at some point in the not-too-distant future we can find a way of gathering like-minded colleagues together to make some of these points and put some of these concerns to the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments, namely the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.

Like all hon. Members present, I am constantly inspired by the skill and commitment of our servicemen and women, who serve our country often in the most difficult circumstances. My concern, though—and this takes us to the nub of the debate—is that very soon there may not be enough of them to do what is required, and not only will they suffer from being over-exposed and overstretched but, as a result of having fewer personnel in our armed forces, the UK will be less secure.

With that in mind and with an eye to the forthcoming defence review, I want to draw attention to a few of the reasons why, in recent years, the importance of numbers has been downplayed. First, there is a misunderstanding about the threat environment. In recent years and months, the eyes of Westminster and Whitehall have been focused on cyber-threats and the broader concepts of soft power and security. It is important to look at such emerging threats, but we run the risk of that focus coming at the expense of a focus on the conventional threats that we still face. At a time when the UK is under greater threat than at any point since the cold war, that focus has resulted in the Government considering reducing the personnel in our armed forces to an historic low.

As hon. Members are aware, the risk associated with those low numbers is often hidden behind the term “capability”. Every time people voice a concern about size, what tends to follow is a response about technology, structures or training, and someone telling them that in the 21st century, less in fact means more. The truth, however, is that even in the 21st century, less still means less, and quantity still has a quality all of its own. I am certainly not denying that new equipment and structures can mitigate the loss of numbers, and it is of course true that technology is a force multiplier, and that well trained troops are better than poorly trained ones, but it is equally true that there is an irreducible number of people that a credible Army cannot go below.

My greater concern, however, is focused on why those misunderstandings of both threat and capability occur, and why they are allowed to take root. In my view, the answer is threefold: poor processes, a lack of expertise and undue emphasis on money. For too long, we have allowed the loud whispers of Whitehall generalists, often in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, to drown out the voices of subject matter experts, be they civilian or military. That must stop.

Due respect must be given to those who understand hard power, hard security and the application of conventional force. Similarly, any review process must be done correctly, beginning with analysis of the world in which we live, including the threats posed by it and the role we want in it—not with a list of the savings that must be made, and where the Cabinet Office and Treasury think they should come from.

As such, I very much hope that the Minister and his Department use any forthcoming review to re-emphasise to those in Whitehall the importance of both strategy and of specialists. If they do not, I fear that we run the risk that any review may be no more than a fig leaf for yet another round of Treasury-inspired cuts.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), my colleague on the Select Committee, for securing this debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential defence review is an appalling added pressure on our armed forces, because they simply do not know what will happen to them in the weeks and months ahead? That is simply unfair, and the Government need to get on with it and tell us what will happen.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She and all hon. Members will be most welcome to join me later today when we play host to soldiers from the Yorkshire Regiment. That will be a good opportunity to listen to the concerns of soldiers. She is right, however, that there is significant uncertainty about the future of our armed forces.

I understand that the Defence Secretary will make a statement in the House today; from the recent debate in the main Chamber he will know the strength of feeling across the House. There is a challenge for all of us who believe that the size and structure of our armed forces are such that they should not be reduced further, and he should understand—I hope the Minister will take this away—the significant support from Members throughout the House for the position that we want the Secretary of State to take: hold firm to the line that we cannot reduce our manpower.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I am sorry for making another intervention, and I thank my hon. Friend for taking it. I believe that the Secretary of State has decided not to make a statement to the House this afternoon.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry to hear that, if it is the case. We will hear about that from the Minister later.

To conclude, emerging cyber and information threats have not and will not result in the decline of conventional threats; the opening up of new fronts does not mean the closing down of old ones; and threat mitigation is not a zero-sum game. As such, I very much hope that the Government will ensure that we do not further reduce the number of men and women who serve in our armed forces with such distinction. I very much look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that the Government do not make any further cuts, specifically to the size and structure of our armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We recognise that this is a new form of warfare, and we have been working very closely with those engaged in it, making sure they have that support and that it is put in place before they go on operations, during and after. We are also working very closely with the United States air force to make sure we learn the lessons they have learned over the past few years so that our service personnel might benefit.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The one thing above all else that gives us legitimacy in using force under these circumstances is the rule of law. Further to what he just said, will the Secretary of State confirm that UK operations will always comply with both the rule of law—the law of armed conflict—and the Geneva convention?

[Gavin Williamson]

Yes, they do.

National Security Capability Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that he will not be drawn on the detail, and to an extent that is understandable. Is not the fundamental problem, however, that the review is already constrained in that we know it is fiscally neutral? Would not the best way to proceed be to look very carefully at the extensive range of threats we face as a country and to allocate resource and capability accordingly?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I know that the first thing at the forefront of the minds of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister is making sure we get the right outcome. Everyone is very keen to listen and to look at how to get the right solutions for this country’s needs. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his contribution.

Defence

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on securing it. He has been a tireless champion of our armed forces, and he has done us all a great service today by giving us an important opportunity to debate this most important of matters. I will seek to do so in the most constructive way possible, because I believe that we all have a responsibility to hold the Government to account. My remarks, and the concerns that I will express, are not about securing short-term political advantage; they are about ensuring that our nation is properly defended.

Throughout my time in the armed forces and in this place, I have come to believe that every Government’s policy on defence should be underpinned by two promises. The first is the Government’s promise to maintain the freedom and integrity of the UK, its overseas territories and its people, and it is rooted in their recognition that this is their primary duty. The second is the armed forces covenant: a promise from the Government, on behalf of the nation, that those who serve or who have served, and their families, will be treated fairly. For reasons of time, I will not talk about the military covenant today. Like all hon. Members present, I am constantly inspired by the incredible skill and commitment that our servicemen and women demonstrate, often in the most difficult circumstances; it is just that today my emphasis will be on the risk to our defensive capability.

When thinking about this speech, I looked at the “UK Defence Doctrine” to see what it says about the role of defence. It states:

“Our national security encompasses the safety of our state and protecting it from external and internal threats. It also requires us to endeavour to preserve the security of UK nationals living overseas.”

The same document goes on to talk about the many varied potential uses of our armed forces, from enhancing soft power influence to the evacuation of non-combatants, the application of force and responding to natural disasters. However, my concern is that it is not a publication that is read much, at least not by those who seem to be making the decisions on the future of our armed forces. I am thinking, in particular, of some of those in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. Instead, some of them seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that, in the age of information conflict, the need for our armed forces is decreasing. That could not be further from the truth. Mitigating threats to our security is not a zero-sum game.

In recent years and months, the eyes of Westminster and Whitehall have become increasingly focused on Russia’s activity in the UK’s information domain, our critical national information infrastructure and the broader concepts of soft power and security. That is commendable, but it is worth remembering that in 2015 the national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review identified four primary threats to UK national security: the increasing threat posed by terrorism, extremism and instability; the resurgence of state-based threats; the impact of technological change, especially cyber threats; and the erosion of the rules-based international order. Our armed forces are critical in mitigating those threats.

Since then, some members of the Government have repeatedly told us that

“the threats identified have intensified”

and that

“there is a need to strengthen our defences”.

Yet the growth in threat has not been matched by a growth in resources. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State told the Defence Committee that the mismatch between intensifying threats and the capabilities available was in fact being exacerbated by

“the challenge of inflation, cost growth in some of our more complex programmes and the ambitious efficiency targets.”

Yet the ongoing capability review appears to have no intention of addressing that underfunding, because it cannot. Unlike the full SDSR in 2015, it is not taking place at the same time as a spending review, and the budget for the Ministry of Defence has been fixed up until 2021. My first question to the Minister, who I know thinks very carefully about these matters, is therefore this: what is the purpose of a review that may conclude that there is a need for more capability if there is no chance of the Government providing it? Surely such a move will only highlight to our adversaries both the paucity of our ambition and the degradation of our capabilities.

The past few years have not been good for defence. Too much influence has been ceded to people who do not understand or value our armed forces. That has resulted in the mismanagement of the defence budget, delayed the delivery of crucial equipment and created holes in our strategic and operational capabilities. Now, as the national security capability review runs the risk of channelling funds away from our armed forces in favour of a focus on cyber-security, the Government run the risk of making matters worse.

I could speak at length about the capability areas damaged and in danger, but today I want just to touch on our amphibious capability, Joint Force 2025 and the importance of training to both of them. First, on our amphibious capability, I have had the privilege of serving alongside Royal Marines and, although I would not necessarily have told them this at the time, I know how important they and their enabling capabilities really are. That is why I hope the continued rumours regarding their future—specifically, the selling off of HMS Ocean, the cutting of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, and the reduction of the Royal Marines by up to 1,000—are not true. A cyber capability cannot do what they do, and what they do remains absolutely crucial, be that the application of force, crisis relief or the evacuation of non-combatants. Our amphibious capability is a critical national asset.

In 2005 General Sir Rupert Smith said that the future of warfare was “war amongst the people”. He was right. Considering that over 40% of the world’s population live within 100 km of the coast, it is absurd that we should even be talking about cutting our amphibious capability, or pretending that Bay class and Queen Elizabeth class ships offer similar functionality. Crossing the littoral boundary is not only essential to our ability to deploy troops in many future conflict scenarios, but hugely important to the UK’s humanitarian work around the world, and cutting it would signal that we are stepping back from both our global responsibilities and our responsibilities to UK nationals overseas.

The real-world importance of those capabilities was demonstrated recently by Operation Ruman, the UK’s military response to Hurricane Irma, and continues to be illustrated by the fact that, at the joint force headquarters in Northwood, two of the highest priorities for NEO—non-combatant evacuation operations—planning are South Korea and Lebanon. As such, we must acknowledge that any decision to reduce this capability would come not as part of a wider strategy for the UK’s role in the world, but as a misguided attempt to get the defence budget under control. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he can confirm today that neither Albion nor Bulwark will be scrapped as part of the national security capability review. Can he also confirm that there will be no cuts to the regular manpower of our Royal Marines?

I am similarly concerned about the current threats to my old service, the Army. Since 2010 we have seen numerous initiatives affecting the manpower, equipment, training and structure of the Army. The most recent, Joint Force 2025, was initiated by the 2015 SDSR and is rightly focused not on equipment and platforms, but on output and effect. The planned reforms were intended to deliver armed forces that were more agile and reactive, and to prepare the Army to deal with growing threats from state adversaries. That kind of development and evolution is critical to our national defence, but such modernisation is predicated on harnessing emerging technologies and, as such, requires investment in research and development, capital expenditure on new equipment, and the right number of well trained personnel. All of this was to be underpinned by greater cohesion and co-operation between regulars and reserves and paid for by MOD efficiency savings, but I fear neither is happening and Joint Force 2025 is, as a result, under threat.

I therefore ask the Minister three further questions. First, is the MOD still on track to deliver Joint Force 2025 as planned? Secondly, how is the MOD ensuring that the outcomes of the capability review in relation to defence do not similarly rest on false assumptions and overly optimistic promises? Thirdly—I say this slightly in jest—should regular reserves like my parliamentary assistant and myself, and I suspect the Minister as well, really be included in the “whole force” figures? Although I say that slightly in jest, it highlights the important point that for our armed forces, in the land environment in particular, capability is not just a question of numbers. Personnel have to be correctly equipped, trained and accustomed to operating in deployable structures. Too often, training is seen as an overhead that can be cut back. That ignores the importance of training in ensuring that our armed forces are ready to respond and in demonstrating capability to allies and adversaries alike. As threats diversify and intensify, our training must adapt and deepen.

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

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about training, but is it not just as important to consider accommodation for our armed forces? We have seen the pay cap and rising rents, and we now have our forces being written to saying that civilians will be allocated services accommodation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for maintaining our capability and training programmes that we have good accommodation, in good condition, at the right price?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Because of the time available today, I have not got into discussing the armed forces covenant, but that is crucial for ensuring that we have people who continue to wish to serve our country in the armed forces now and young people who wish to serve in the future. We as a country, a Government and a House of Commons must be able to demonstrate that we are committed to ensuring good circumstances under which they can serve, which includes ensuring they have rewarding professional opportunities. That is why training is so important. We must also ensure that they and their families are properly looked after, and accommodation is a very important part of that.

This debate has come at a crucial time for our armed forces. The UK is now under greater threat than at any time since the cold war, yet I fear that, as well as there being serious questions about how the targeted 2% of GDP is being spent, our Government run the risk of being seen to have no coherent security and defence strategy. Furthermore, the national security capability review risks channelling more funds away from our armed forces in favour of a focus on cyber-security. There seems to be a belief that the emerging cyber and information threats have somehow resulted in the decline of conventional threats; they have not, and they will not. The opening up of new fronts does not mean the closing down of old ones, and the unprecedented hollowing out of our armed forces must end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we do not have to distinguish between the two things, because the radars made by BAE Systems are unrivalled around the world.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I agree with what the Secretary of State said about Daesh, but he will know that one thing that separates them from us is that we are bound by the rule of law, specifically rules of engagement. Will he confirm that our conduct will always be bound by the Geneva convention?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Absolutely. That is one of the things that distinguishes our armed forces from Daesh—the way in which it has unscrupulously used civilians to prosecute its case.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend shares my ambition for the Royal Navy. I want it to be bigger and stronger, and to have the ships that it needs so that it can protect our trade routes, promote our prosperity and contribute to security on each of the seven seas. That is our ambition as a Government, and I am going to do everything I can to drive that forward with the new ships and submarines that we are now setting out to build.

I note my hon. Friend’s point about the Royal Marines. The frigate will have to be adaptable and flexible, and amphibious fighting capability is something that foreign navies might be looking for. I will certainly ensure that that is further considered.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Defence Secretary did not say much in his statement about the strategic context in which these decisions are being taken. Given that the Government have decided not to conduct a strategic defence review in this new Parliament, will he say more about the long-term planning assumptions that underpin the publication of this strategy?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

In the light of the deteriorating international situation and the intensification of the threats identified in the 2015 review, we have undertaken to look again at the specific capabilities available not just to the MOD but to the Home Office and the other Departments, to ensure that as the threats intensify we have the right capabilities in the right places to meet them. I hope to report further to the House on how that review develops later in the year.