Ministry of Defence
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an extremely good point, and if I have time I will deal with amphibious capacity later in my speech.
This is a real challenge. As Professor Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, pointed out in his evidence to the Defence Committee:
“While the MoD budget is set to grow by 0.5 per cent per annum over the next five years, national income (GDP) is projected to grow by an average of 2.4 per cent per annum over the same period.”
That means that the current Government commitments to defence spending imply that UK defence expenditure will fall from 2.8% of GDP in 2015-16 to 1.85% in 2020-21. I believe that Ministers need to come clean and make it clear whether they intend to abandon the 2% commitment, as seems to be the case.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that the Government are committed to a 0.5% increase, but does he agree that that is just on equipment, not personnel? Something like 55% of the budget goes on daily running costs and people, and that will be completely constrained if no new cash is put into the people side of the budget.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an extremely good point, and I will come on to deal with the people side.
As the Defence Committee has pointed out, there appear to be some shenanigans going on in relation to how we reach the 2% target, and this is a really good opportunity for us to discuss money in detail and for the Minister to reply to these points. The criteria seem to change from year to year, with new bits—war pensions and other expenditure—qualifying when they have not previously done so. NATO is apparently satisfied, but this rather gives the impression that we are meeting our targets only by means of creative accounting, and when it comes to the defence of the realm, surely creative accounting is not good enough.
Let me say a word about procurement. What are our procurement procedures, and are we getting value for money? Professor Julian Lindley French testified, again to the Defence Committee:
“If you look at the $90 billion being spent by the Russians as part of their modernisation programme, the $150 billion or so being spent by the Chinese and what other countries around the world are doing, what strikes me is how few assets—both platforms and systems—the UK gets for its money.”
As a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am talking not just about more money for the MOD, but about spending the money more wisely.
The MOD committed itself to new purchases arising from its 2015 strategic defence and security review before it established how they could be paid for. This requires the MOD to generate £5.8 billion of new savings from within the defence equipment plan itself, in addition to £1.5 billion from the wider defence budget, which is already under pressure. We never of course know what crisis may happen, and if a crisis happens and our troops have to be deployed, where will the money come from? In such a case, will we end up taking money from procurement that we had not expected to take?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the fantastic overview that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) set out of the defence estimates. For Members who do not find themselves—as many of us do—becoming defence-obsessed, due to our concerns at the lack of funding being sent into the defence of this wonderful realm, it was a fantastic primer on the concerns that we must face as a country.
I want to look at the reserve forces, an area that the hon. Gentleman also raised. I declare a sort of interest as the chair of the all-party group on reserves and cadets. I recently met an academic from the University of Bath, Dr Patrick Bury, who has been looking at the progress of the Future Reserves 2020 plan, the main purpose of which was to provide direct support to a reduced Army and to increase the reserves to 35,000. Following the meeting, I rather upset a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, who received more than 100 parliamentary questions in the lead-up to Christmas. He took me aside to remonstrate with me for giving him so much work. I pointed out that if he had answered some of the questions the first time around, there might have been 50% less questions, but that is the way of asking and pursuing parliamentary questions.
The information I will speak to in today’s debate is all provided—sometimes reluctantly, but it was provided eventually—by the Ministry of Defence following parliamentary questions. I am deeply concerned that the expenses involved in Future Reserves 2020 not only show a programme that is struggling to achieve its goals, but are such that we need either to redefine or to look at whether the money we are spending, given the outcomes we are achieving, would be better spent elsewhere. We all know that the Ministry of Defence cannot afford to waste that expense. Every penny counts in the Ministry of Defence.
To provide context and make the costs clear, what is the current reserve structure? The reserve model means that Army reservists sign a contract in which they commit to achieving a certain amount of training time, and to achieving training targets over a financial year. That involves 27 days’ training, including a two-week continuous period away, which is known as annual camp. If the reservists achieve that commitment, they are considered to be fully trained and up to date, and ready to fulfil their role in supporting the Regular Army—in other words, they are deployable—and are rewarded with a tax-free bounty cash payment.
It goes without saying that, for a reservist to achieve a high level of practice and well-honed skills, they would need to achieve that minimum level of training. It is only 27 days. Many members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme spend more than 27 days in the armed forces and do not qualify to be reservists. They nevertheless give that commitment. Unlike those in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, the reservist is not compelled to complete their commitment to get their pass-out certificate. They have only to complete a minimum of 27 days. The only compelling desire is achieving the tax-free bounty.
We can therefore use that tax-free bounty as a useful way of assessing how many people in the reserves are deployable. It is possible to be an Army reservist without achieving any training targets in a financial year, so if we want to know about the Army reserves, we need to look at how many achieve their bounties. Let us look at the cost of the programme. The easiest way to calculate the cost is to look at the bounty payments combined with the number of reservist service days claimed over the past few years. I am making a general assumption. A basic private’s pay in April 2017 was £46.42 a day—some will earn more, and therefore my numbers might be lower, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt and working on the assumption that everybody gets the minimum payment.
In 2016-17, 1,008,290 reserve days were claimed, and 14,930 reservists qualified for their bounty. That resulted in a spend of £68 million—it was nearly £69 million. In the year 2015-16, 957,390 reserve service days were claimed, and 14,990 reservists qualified for their bounty. In 2014-15, 884,050 reserve service days were claimed, and 14,270 reservists qualified for their bounty. Therefore, despite the rising costs, and despite continual recruitment, the true number of qualified reservists has remained stable, at just less than 15,000. It is not just that we are failing to meet targets year on year, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but we are not increasing our numbers of deployable reservists.
The wages and the bonuses are low.
Mr Kevan Jones
What my hon. Friend is describing is fascinating. Does she agree that Army 2020 was really designed to give the Government political cover in the light of the reduction of the Regular Army to 82,000? It is not just a question of the retraining days; it is a question of whether the 15,000 reservists to whom she referred can actually be deployed alongside regular troops. I am told that in some cases there is no joint training at all.
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we have here is a consistent pattern of only about 15,000 deployable reservists. Despite the money that has been poured into the reserve forces, we have not increased their number, but we have massively decreased the number of regulars. Our Army capability is therefore shrinking. That is something that we must be very worried about, but what worries me even more is the fact that we are spending huge amounts of money while receiving little or no return.
Mr Kevan Jones
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about civil servants, but the decision to cut the defence budget by 16% between 2010 and 2015 was not a civil servant’s invention. It was the political decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government at the time.
Dr Lewis
Yes, and I will come to the issue of how we can use the percentage of GDP to track what has been happening to defence in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—a former Defence Minister in the Labour Government, of course, and a very good one—will try to be non-partisan about this for the simple reason that successive Governments are responsible for what has happened.
What actually took place was, as has already been hinted at, something that has been going on over a very long period. Colleagues on both sides of the House have heard me recite this so often that I am afraid they might do that terrible thing and join in, singing the song with me. But I will just run through it again. In 1963, the falling graph of defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP crossed over with the rising graph of expenditure on welfare at 6%. So we were spending the same on welfare and defence—6%—in 1963. In the mid-1980s, as we have heard, we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was the period when we last had an assertive Russia combined with a major terrorist threat—the threat in Northern Ireland. We were spending at that time roughly the same amount on education and health. Nowadays we spend six times on welfare what we spend on defence, we spend four times on health what we spend on defence, and we spend two and a half times on education what we spend on defence.
We have to ask what we mean when we say that defence is the first duty of Government. If it is the first duty of Government, it is a duty that is more important than any other duty, because if we fail to discharge it everything else is put in jeopardy.
Dr Lewis
What I am looking for today is agreement across the House that we recognise that we should not be having almost theological debates about whether we are just above or just below the 2% minimum guideline that NATO prescribes to its member states for defence expenditure, but that we have to get back to the level—at the very least—of what we considered appropriate for so long, right up until the mid-1990s, when the Labour Government came in, which was 3% of GDP.
Mr Jones
The facts do not bear out what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. According to the Library, the last time defence expenditure was 3% was 1993-94. After that, there was a 7% decrease in 1995, a 1% decrease in 1996 and a 5.7% increase the following year. The Labour Government came in, following the Treasury rules laid down by the previous Government, and in 1998 increased defence spending by 5.8%. The idea that the last Labour Government were following a trend that had been set is just not the case.
Dr Lewis
It depends whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about absolute figures or percentages of GDP spent on defence. In 2016, the Defence Committee produced a unanimous report called “Shifting the Goalposts? Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge”. We had the Committee staff use all available sourcing to draw up a definitive table of what had been spent on defence by Britain as a proportion of GDP over the past 50 years. The figures for the period we are talking about are: 1990-91, 3.8%; 1991-92, 3.8%; 1992-1993, 3.7%; 1993-94, 3.5%; 1994-95, 3.3%; and 1995-96, 3%. It then dips below 3% in 1996-97 to 2.7%, and thereafter it is down and down, with little blips here and there, until it is hovering around 2.5% because the cost of operations were included.
The point about all this is that we should not be arguing about who did the most damage. We should be agreeing about what we need in the future. If we are hearing a chorus of voices from the Labour Benches—it is music to my ears—saying that we have not been spending enough on defence and we need to be spending more, that is what we should be saying loud and clear to those people who seem to be perfectly content to spend the existing inadequate sums.
I do not wish to prolong my contribution, but I do wish to speak briefly about the equipment plan that was alluded to in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. The equipment plan of 2016 is for £178 billion over 10 years. That includes a small number—nine, which some would say was too small a number—of new P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, replacing a capability that was quite wrongly dispensed with after 2010. We are also supposed to be replacing 13 Type 23 frigates and supplying mechanised infantry vehicles out of this budget, and we are of course engaged in resurrecting carrier strike capability—another capacity that was temporarily lost after 2010.
The first report of the Defence Committee in the new Parliament was entitled, “Gambling on ‘Efficiency’: Defence Acquisition and Procurement”. The word “efficiency” was in inverted commas because we believe that the affordability of the scheme is predicated on an estimate of £7.3 billion of theoretical efficiency savings that are to be made in addition to some £7.1 billion that was previously announced. As we have heard, the National Audit Office thinks that the equipment programme is at greater risk than at any time since reporting was introduced in 2012. The truth of the matter is that we encounter black holes everywhere we look in defence. This brings me to my concluding point.
Vernon Coaker
There we go—that is the power of Parliament. That is the point I am making. We had the debate before and this was fiscally neutral. The original review—the national security and defence capability review, or whatever it was—was not set up by accident; the Government set it up, and defence was included in it. Parliament said that that was not acceptable, and the Government responded and took it out. We then said that it was not acceptable for that review to be fiscally neutral, and now the Government are saying that it will not be. Of course no one is saying that we should buy chariots or whatever—what we have has to be relevant to the needs that we face. Before, the process was budget-driven: it was a case of having whatever it needed to be in order to meet the budget requirement.
It is going to be difficult for the Government to do this when, for example, we are told today that, even in their response to the Select Committee’s report on the F-35 programme, they will not put a figure on what one F-35 is going to cost. Then the Government say, “We’re buying 138 F-35s—that is the current plan—and 48 will be F-35Bs, but we’re not sure what variant the other 90 are going to be.” How can the Government talk about being fiscally neutral in their plans when they could not say to the Defence Committee a couple of months ago what the cost of the F-35 is and they cannot tell us in their response published today either?
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not just the F-35. Much has been said in the past few weeks about the procurement of the new Type 31e frigate. There is no line in the defence budget for that. Likewise, the P-8, which is being trumpeted as a vital need for our maritime patrol aircraft—I agree—is not capable of delivering the sonar buoys or torpedoes that are currently being used, so there is added cost there.
Vernon Coaker
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the point of the debate on estimates days. For the Minister to be able to say that we will have the capabilities that we need to meet the threats that we will face, we need to be able to say how much those capabilities are going to cost. My hon. Friend raised the issue of frigates; I am using the example of the F-35s. Cannot the Minister go back to the people who plan this and say, “We need some detail on these costs. Otherwise, how can we project forward what the equipment plan or any other plan is going to cost us?”
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on his introduction to the debate. I agree with him that it is important to secure more such opportunities to discuss defence and how it is financed.
I do not think that anyone who follows the defence world and the way that the MOD has conducted itself over the past few years would conclude that the situation is anything other than dire. It is fair to say that the new Secretary of State realises that as well. There is also, however, a collective sense of acute amnesia, certainly among those who were Government Members in 2010, about how we arrived at this position. It is clear that the mess that the defence budget is in today is a direct result of policies taken by the coalition Government and the present Conservative Government. Seven years of ill-thought-through, rushed cuts and, on occasion, very bad decisions are now coming home to roost. The new Defence Secretary has the unfortunate task of sorting it out—a task that I do not envy, to say the least. It is therefore worth recapping how we have arrived at this position.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said that these were not political decisions. They were political decisions that led directly to the mess we have today. To ignore that is to avoid the evidence and means that we will not learn lessons for the future for how we manage our nation’s defence. In 2010, the new Conservative-led coalition implemented a number of deep cuts to the armed forces. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the then Defence Secretary, justified them by claiming that the defence budget had a £38 billion black hole, which somehow meant that rash and direct action would have to be taken straightaway. No one knows how he arrived at £38 billion. I have asked Ministers in this House to explain it on numerous occasions. The NAO and the Defence Committee could not arrive at a £38 billion black hole either, but it was used in every debate as the reason why cuts to our defence budget had to be made.
The Government stopped using the figure after a while, when they realised they could not justify it. I think it came about from a clear misinterpretation of the 2009 NAO report on major projects started under the previous Labour Government. The report was a snapshot of cost increases in 2009 and related primarily to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, the A400M transport aircraft and the Astute submarine programme.
Mr Jones
It was a deliberate strategy, in the Cameron-Osborne Conservative party, to ignore the facts and spin—“If we keep saying it long enough, people will believe it.”
The 2009 NAO report said that if the equipment budget was not increased at all over 10 years, it might be possible to arrive at a figure of £36 billion. How did they then get an extra £2 billion? I think the then Defence Secretary just added some personnel revenue costs to get to the £38 billion figure. What the report actually said, however—this point was completely ignored—was that the scenario it envisaged, of the budget remaining constant in real terms over the 10-year period, would lead to a £6 billion funding gap, which could have been managed over that 10-year period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right. The impression was given to the public, and to everyone else who wanted to hear this spin, that the £38 billion had to be found in year straightaway. That was a clear fabrication. We know that, because when the current Chancellor became Defence Secretary, following the resignation of the right hon. Member for North Somerset after two years, he suddenly announced that the black hole had disappeared. I do not know whether he was auditioning for his current job as Chancellor, but the idea that it is possible to get rid of a £38 billion in-year black hole in the defence budget in just two years is complete nonsense.
The Conservative Government used that as a smokescreen to allow them to cut the defence budget, as part of the Chancellor’s austerity drive, by 16%. The effect of that has been some of the decisions referred to earlier on, including the scrapping of capability such as Nimrod. Making people compulsorily redundant in our armed forces was completely inexcusable. Certainly, if the Government I was a member of had done that when I was a Defence Minister, we would have been rightly decried by the people who are always arguing for defence. Those decisions have had an impact on what is happening today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) referred to the increased expenditure on the Trident programme. The £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion in additional costs happened because that decision was delayed. The deal done by the then Prime Minister David Cameron to get the Liberal Democrats on board in coalition delayed the programme, which built in costs.
Mr Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. He and I kept raising that and asking why that decision had not been made. The costs arriving now are because of the decisions taken by the coalition Government. I accept all that has been said about increased defence expenditure, but we cannot get away from the core decisions that have led to the problems we have today.
The 2015 pre-Brexit strategic defence and security review announced an additional £24.4 billion spending on new equipment. Some of that, for example on the P-8, was to fill the gap the Government created in 2010 with a hasty decision to scrap the Nimrod. Reference was made earlier to the civil service making decisions. I am sorry, but it was not civil servants or generals making those decisions; it was Ministers making these decisions, including the right hon. Member for North Somerset and the current Chancellor, when he was Defence Secretary. They decided to reduce the size of the Army to 82,000. I asked a retired senior general, “Who came up with the figure of 82,000 for our armed forces?” He scratched his head and said, “We were just told that that was what the figure was going to be to fit the cash envelope.” We then had the construct of Army 2020, which is a complete political cover, to try to give the impression that we are going to keep the Army at nearly 100,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend very eloquently outlined in her contribution to the debate, that is not only not producing the additional personnel required, but is actually costing more than if we had not done that in the first place.
Another point about the 2015 review is that, again, hasty decisions were taken in ordering the P-8. There is a gap, created by this Government, in maritime patrol aircraft. The P-8 was to be bought off the shelf—the Apache contract was announced at the same time—from the United States. That was pre Brexit. The added costs in foreign currency exchange are now creating pressures on the defence budget, and that is before we look at the effect on the economic and industrial base of our country. It may seem an easy option to buy off the shelf from the United States, but that lets our own industrial base decline, and that is what is happening. I have not yet seen any meaningful commitment by the contractors, Boeing, to create real jobs in the UK. What angers me is that if it was the other way around and we were selling equipment to the United States, we would be unable to do so without a clear commitment to jobs and investment in United States industry. That is where the MOD woefully and shamefully let down the British economy.
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that during a visit to the Boeing factory in Charleston three weeks ago, I asked Boeing whether it regretted taking action against Bombardier and almost damaging and destroying the economy of Northern Ireland. Its response was, “We’re American, it’s what we do. It’s America first, second and third.” That is the sort of company that we were putting our trust in.
Mr Jones
It is. As an example, we have to look only at the sale of Airbus in the United States market. As part of that deal, it had to build a plant in Alabama, I think. We have the mindset in this country that somehow the ticket price looks cheap, but we are not thinking about the loss in tax revenue going back to the Exchequer and the fact that the defence industrial base is suffering.
Some decisions in 2015 were very strange. The Navy has been mentioned, and I accept that naval platforms are far more capable than they were 10 or 20—and certainly 50—years ago, but people are fixated on the number of hulls. The Government came up with the novel idea of having a cheap alternative through the Type 31e. This was literally just to deal with the idea that we have a certain number of hulls. I asked what the Type 31e is capable of doing. It cannot do NATO tasks and it is not clear what weaponry will go on it. Lo and behold, when I looked at the Ministry of Defence budget, I saw that there was no budget line for it at all—it has a £1.3 billion price tag on it—so again, how will it be paid for?
The Secretary of State needs to look not just at asking for more money, which the budget clearly needs, but at some of the ill-thought-out decisions. Take the P-8, for example. Buying off the shelf from the United States might look like a simple solution, but as I understand it, sonar buoys and missiles cannot be fired from the P-8 as it is configured, so we will have to redevelop the programme, adding more costs in. This is about looking at whether we have to revisit some decisions and take things out of the budget. I think that will be the case if we are to fit the budgets,
The issue of numbers is always contentious. When we were in government, I remember the hue and cry from the Conservative Front-Bench team—the right hon. Member for New Forest East was part of it—when we froze training days for the Territorial Army. The cost was £20 million. From looking at the headlines and at the way some Conservative politicians were going on, one would have thought that the world had stopped. If a Labour Government had slashed the defence budget by 16% and sacked people or made them redundant, as this Government have, they clearly would have been condemned.
It is the same old story. I understand the point that the right hon. Member for New Forest East made about arguing for defence—I have argued consistently for it in this House—but these are political decisions. When I was in the Ministry of Defence in 2010, I did not hear Conservative politicians stand up and say, “No, we do not need extra expenditure.” We were being condemned because we were not spending enough. In 2010, I did not see a single poster or anything in the Conservative manifesto saying, “We are going to slash the defence budget by 16%,” but these are the real facts and we cannot ignore them.
Let me turn to recruitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend touched upon. I do not like to say, “I told you so,” but the decision on the Capita contract for recruitment was criticised at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised complaints, asking why armed forces personnel were being taken out of recruitment centres and why such centres were being closed in some areas. The position we find ourselves in now was bound to happen. We have heard some of the stories. The recruitment process is not only taking a year, but given the rate at which people are being failed, it is no wonder the Government are not meeting the targets. It is now time to revisit the contract and put uniformed personnel back into recruitment centres. The Capita contract should be scrapped, because it is completely failing to deliver what was outlined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend talked eloquently about reservists. It is time to rethink Army 2020. It was never going to work. It was political cover so that when the Government were cutting the Army to 82,000, they could still give the impression that they had an Army of more than 100,000. The issues my hon. Friend raised are not the only concern. I have never had an answer to the question about how we get formed units. How do we get training whereby regulars and reserves can train side by side to go on operations? I have not seen any evidence that that is happening in practice. If, in addition, it is costing what my hon. Friend says it is, it might be time to revisit it and see whether those resources can be put elsewhere. Let us come back to the suggestion that Ministers were asking advice from the Army about this. They were not; it was a political decision imposed on the Army.
Mr Francois
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from recruitment, may I ask whether he accepts that the other main problem with Army recruitment is the very large number of people who are being failed on medical grounds, often for very minor medical ailments that date back to their childhood? For instance, in the year to February 2017, some 10,600 people—both regular and reserves—who wanted to join the Army were told, “No, you cannot join on medical grounds.” At the same time, the regular Army was 3,000 recruits short. Does he believe that the MOD should look at that area again?
Mr Jones
That situation was predictable when the system was set up. What is worse, I have heard stories about young people who have nearly got to the end of the selection process but do not get called back in, but then get a telephone call from some Capita call centre saying, “I’m sorry, you’ve failed. That is it.” I am sorry, but that is not the way to treat people who have tried to join the armed forces.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) makes a good point. When we had senior non-commissioned officers stationed in recruitment offices, they could work out how to handle the recruits and use their breadth of experience to explain what life in the armed forces is like. This situation could have been avoided. Unless something has changed radically in the last few years with injuries, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I had case in which someone had a childhood knee injury. That person had to wait six months for a decision and then the knee injury was flagged up as the reason why he could not join the armed forces. That cannot be acceptable.
Mr Sweeney
To give a personal example, I joined the Territorial Army back in 2006 with a good friend, who went on to serve in Afghanistan. He left the reserves and when he sought to rejoin, he was disqualified on medical grounds. That is someone who had actually served in Afghanistan and who did not have any obvious injuries.
Mr Francois
I am sorry to hammer the nail, but this is very important, and we have the Secretary of State on the Front Bench at the moment to hear this. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases, people have been failed and prevented from joining the Army for relatively minor issues such as asthma? Paula Radcliffe and Sir Chris Hoy would have failed on the same grounds.
Mr Jones
That prompts the question, “How are the tests being done, what criteria are being used and how are they being interpreted?” The problem is partly that if we have a civilianised and, as it has been described to me, bureaucratic, tick-box process, common sense does not kick in, and perhaps common sense is what we need as well.
The problem is that we need to look at the size of our armed forces from a strategic point of view. What do we actually need? A decision was taken suddenly that the answer was 82,000—the Army was told that that is what it would get because the budget required it—but we need to look at the strategic needs of our armed forces. Members of the Royal Navy are under severe pressure in terms of deployment. With smaller numbers, there is a bigger turnover of individuals. In addition, people are doing constant back-to-back tours, which is not good for morale or family life. If that is happening, the chances of people staying long term will clearly be affected.
We need to look at our Navy. The idea that we have a Navy that cannot deploy and that we have ships that are laid up—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said that we are not deploying ships—is a damning indictment. The sight this week of HMS Mersey, an offshore patrol vessel, escorting three Russian vessels through the English channel summed it up in one. We need to think seriously about what we need. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that we are a maritime nation, and that it is about not just kit, but people.
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we do exactly what he says, we will be in a ludicrous position. We will be saying, “To facilitate scrapping Albion and Bulwark, we will modify our aircraft carriers,” which takes us into the realms of never-never land. What does that mean? We are not going to do a beach landing from an aircraft carrier. We might have a few more helicopters or a dry dock facility, but the idea of carrying out an amphibious landing from an aircraft carrier belies the point of having amphibious craft, which is to land on beaches and lay marines off on them.
Mr Jones
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but that goes to the point—this was the problem back in 2010—of the Treasury being let in the door of the MOD, and being in control and in the driving seat. When I was a Minister, I chaired the finance group in the MOD when we were looking for savings and dealing with the Treasury. I know exactly what Ministers are dealing with. The Treasury does not understand the value of our armed forces and how they operate. I am glad that the Secretary of State seems to have wrestled control of that element back. If our defence policy is determined by Treasury figures, we will have very strange decisions that will not match strategic needs.
We keep hearing from the Government that they are meeting the NATO 2%. As someone who is committed to NATO and who supports it—I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I can say that that is an academic argument. It is important in that we are trying to get people to spend a minimum of 2%, but it is also important to look at what our NATO partners spend that 2% on. It is clear that the Government have rejigged the figures. I am not saying that they have done something illegal or anything like that, but in 2015, they changed how defence spending was calculated. War pensions of £820 million were included; assessments of contributions to UN peacekeeping of £400 million were included; and the pensions of retired military personnel, which was another £200 million, were included. The thick end of £1 billion of that 2% is made up of things that the hardiest defender of Government policy would not think were frontline defence commitments.
It is about being realistic. It would be fine if we were spending only 1.8% on defence but spending it on the right things. There is a case for increasing the defence budget—that argument was made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling—but we need to do it by setting strategic objectives that show why we need more than we are spending. There is also an onus on the MOD to ensure that what it is spending is not only efficient, but provides value for money for the taxpayer.
All hon. Members who have contributed to this debate have said that our armed forces are universally and rightly held in the highest regard. I agree, but it is not just national sentiment; it is because they are vital for our nation’s security and because they define our place in the world. I do not think for one minute that the new Secretary of State or his ministerial team lack commitment to the armed forces—they are all committed to defence and want to do the best for our armed forces, so I wish them well in the battle they will have with the Treasury—but without new money or a radical rethink about the commitments we ask our armed forces to fulfil, I fear for our forces’ future, and more importantly for Britain’s place in the world.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that when equipment such as ships is being ordered, the payback to the Exchequer in tax should be taken into account and the jobs should not be exported?
Mr Sweeney
Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made an excellent and salient point. He and I are both members of the all-party parliamentary group on shipbuilding and ship repair, which is currently undertaking a study of that issue. According to another study, conducted by the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde, the overall benefit to the UK economy per annum from the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde alone is £366 million a year, in purely multiplier effects. As for the idea that we can competitively tender programmes overseas, we are losing the opportunity of industrial benefit as well. We are not just talking about the loss of core capabilities; we are talking about the loss of revenue and economic potential for our country.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
During this debate, the subject of how much we should spend on defence and what we should be spending on has taken up a lot of the time, as is only right in an estimates day debate. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my agreement with the sentiments expressed by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), and the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney). Simply put, I agree that more needs to be spent on the defence of our nation, and that the continued speculation about cuts to capability and manpower not only weakens us in the eyes of our allies, but does untold grievous damage to the morale of our men and women serving today. I also want to mention something that has not been touched on this afternoon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and others for their tireless campaign to get more help and investment into mental health support for serving personnel, and to the MOD for the announcement this weekend of the creation of the new helpline operated by Combat Stress.
Today, however, I want to raise something different, which I estimate would cost the UK Government very little money at all. All Members are aware of the current problems in recruitment to the armed forces. I know that a great deal of time and effort is going into revamping and modernising the recruitment process and the new recruitment campaign. However, there is one group of people that, apart from in the rarest of circumstances, is very unlikely to be found in the ranks of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force: subjects from the British overseas territories. These territories are British by choice and their residents are British subjects. However, despite being loyal citizens and holders of a British passport, and being fit and able and willing, individuals are still ineligible to serve in the armed forces of this country unless they have resided on the British mainland for five whole years.
Let us put that into perspective. That means that an 18-year-old Falklander or Gibraltarian who wanted, like his compatriots on these islands, to have a rewarding career in the armed forces would be forced to move to the UK mainland and live, and presumably work, here until the age of 23 before being eligible to join up. Some might argue that, for example, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the Falklands Island Defence Force give the chance for rewarding careers in the armed forces for citizens of overseas territories, but if they wanted to join the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Air Force or any regiment in the regular British Army they would be prevented from doing so for five whole years simply by virtue of not residing in these islands long enough. I put it to the House that that is not only daft, but is borderline discriminatory, and it is doing our loyal subjects in our overseas territories a huge disservice, and denying our armed forces willing volunteers at a time when we are struggling to fill the books.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I have no problem with it, but it was his own Government when they came into office in 2010 who turned off the pipeline of recruits from the Commonwealth. If he wants to increase the numbers and “fill the books”, as he said, there is an easy option in terms of Commonwealth recruits.
Andrew Bowie
I agree. That was a decision of my party and the previous coalition Government, and I am taking action on it with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard); he asked me to join him in attempting to change the situation, and I was only too keen to assist.
This is simply an unfair situation, so in late November the hon. Gentleman and I wrote to the Home Secretary expressing our hope that something might be done to arrest this wrong. We received a reply from the MOD, which was welcome of course, saying it could not do anything as this was a Home Office policy. We knew that, which is why we sent the letter to the Home Office. It obviously feels it has enough on its plate to be dealing with just now, which is understandable, but the fact is that this is not a tricky issue to solve; it requires a minor tweak, and it has precedent. Until 2006, citizens of British overseas territories had to pay “overseas” fees at British universities. In 2007, however, due to the fact that overseas territories do not have their own higher education institutions, the Government brought in legislation equalising the levels of tuition fees, so that now at British higher education institutions a student from Stanley will pay no more than a student from Southampton.
Surely it is possible to do something similar for those young people who want to serve their country in the finest armed forces in the world. In this 100th anniversary of the end of the first world war, a conflict that saw thousands of young men from across the then empire volunteer to fight for this country—76 from the Falkland Islands alone—we should do honour to those who fought under our flag by righting this wrong.
We have heard many times this year that Britain is charting a new course in the world, re-establishing relations with allies old and friends new. What better signal to send to the outside world that this truly is a “global Britain” than granting citizens of our overseas territories the same rights as citizens living on these islands? What better way of honouring the commitment to this country of citizens of our overseas territories throughout the years than by removing this residency requirement and allowing British subjects, wherever in our global family they reside, to serve without restriction in the armed forces of this country?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would hope that such a model could avoid some of the incredibly alarming passages in the NAO report, which have been highlighted by many right hon. and hon. Members. There is a funding hole in the equipment plan of up to £20 billion. To make that clear, that means that we cannot afford to buy the equipment we say we need in order to keep us safe.
I give all the weight I can to the Ministry of Defence in trying to get it the money that it needs—if not just to stand still, then certainly to move forward—but I do have some criticisms of how the Department has managed to get into this position. Why were the exchange rate projections so badly out—by up to a quarter in some cases?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I understand that that was what caused it, but how did the MOD manage to get the calculations so badly wrong? When there is a funding hole of £20 billion just in the MOD’s equipment spending—before we get to estates, personnel and all the rest of it—why is no one being hauled over the coals? I cannot think of another Minister or Department that would be allowed to get away with that, but it is due to a fundamental problem in how this Government, this Parliament and Governments over many years have decided to fund defence. It needs radical change. Even if the solution that we think might be helpful is not the perfect solution, something has to give, because the situation is unsustainable. The NAO is clear that the result is that projects must be cancelled, delayed or scaled back. I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear to the House which projects are to be cancelled, delayed or scaled back. Can we have a guarantee that not a single project in Scotland will be cancelled, delayed or scaled back, because that is the road that the NAO says the UK Government is heading down?
The situation adumbrates the need for a new SDSR—one that takes account of the change in currency fluctuations and of the fact that Britain will no longer be in the European Union. Our current security policy is based on our being members of the EU, so we need a new one that takes account of the fact that we are coming out, because that undermines operational capability.
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 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 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 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 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]
Lord Beamish ExcerptsMonday 29th January 2018
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 View all Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 January 2018 - (29 Jan 2018)
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the female intake is so important is that we have a pretty atrocious record of females getting to senior positions in all three services? If we are to change that, we need young women joining now.
Gerald Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
This highlights more than ever that active steps need to be taken if we are to reach the targets that are in place. The new advertising campaign for the Army is a good example of that. In spite of the negative reaction in some parts of the press, we welcome this new campaign and think that it is quite right that the Army does not limit its recruitment pool, but looks to get the best people from across society.
Toby Perkins
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am too much of a traditionalist to call him an hon. Friend in this place, but he knows I call him a friend elsewhere. I agree entirely with what he says about the importance of locality. We could have a wider debate about whether the Sherwood Foresters should have been put into the Mercian Regiment. When I was on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we talked about our local regiments, and it became clear that the Mercian Regiment is considered to be the local regiment for people over an incredibly diverse geographical split.
All the more reason, therefore, where information about the original home address of all the new recruits clearly exists, for that information to be made available. That would enable MPs to be part of the programme of trying to drive recruitment and to take pride in the level of recruitment in their area. Just imagine, if we had three MPs all within a few recruits of each other as we approached the end of the year, how much we could be driving such a programme. It would be a real force for good.
If geographical challenges were thrown up in relation to communities—religious or race communities—or areas where the Navy or the Air Force particularly recruit, and the figures were available to all of us, it would put positive pressure on the Government to take action on such things. We talk about diversity, and it seems to me that this is one of the ways in which we could drive it. To sum up, I would be very interested if the Minister would consider the idea of making the information that currently exists publicly available.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we are considering introducing a new element of flexibility into service in the armed forces, we should look again at the maximum enlistment time? Although the military have moved towards extending the retirement age in view of our ageing population, perhaps it is time to revisit that as well. People who are well into their 60s, and even 70s, are quite capable of doing some of the modern jobs in the armed forces, which would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago.
Mr Jones
I think it is a fact of life that the pool of 18-year-olds is becoming smaller. I hope the right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) should be brought out of retirement; I do not know whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing for the armed forces, but it would certainly be interesting for them. However, he has raised an interesting point. When I was a Defence Minister, people who could have made a further contribution were leaving the forces in their early to mid-50s, for reasons connected with, for instance, pensions. Given that that pool of 18-year-olds is getting smaller, we should also revisit the idea of recruitment from Commonwealth countries, which has been successful in the past. It has made a tremendous contribution to our nation’s defence over the last few years.
Ruth Smeeth
My hon. Friend has referred to serving personnel of a slightly more mature aspect. Might not the most effective way to ensure that flexible working proceeds as the Bill proposes be to ensure that at least one one-star officer takes the opportunity to sign up for it?
Mr Jones
That is an interesting concept, which returns me to an important point made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We need new role models, and not just in the context of flexible working. We need, for instance, to see a senior general who is a woman. We can do all the talking we like about trying to encourage women to join the armed forces and take an active part in advancing their careers, but unless there is a career path that will help them to progress, many will assume that that will never be achievable. We need only look at our US counterparts and others, where female officers have attained the highest rank. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth): why can these provisions not be open to senior managers and others in the military and other armed forces? That would send a positive message that it is important.
I welcome the Bill, but disagree with the Minister in that I do not think it is a silver bullet, because people join our armed forces and are retained for reasons not only to do with work-life balance, but because of pay and other things such as career breaks, which other armed forces in the world offer, enabling people to leave the armed forces and then come back. That does two things: it gives the expertise that those individuals have learned in the armed forces to business, charity and other sectors, and brings a wealth of knowledge back into the armed forces, which is needed. Career breaks are not unusual in the United States and other countries. This Bill is a start in terms of flexible working, but I hope that that will develop through career breaks and other initiatives.
Carol Monaghan
Some countries make far better use of reservists for that same reason. They bring their armed forces skills into civilian life and vice versa. Some countries’ armed forces have huge numbers of reservists making up their ranks, as opposed to UK armed forces which have only a very small number.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady makes a good point; reservists do add something, but I am talking about regular members of the armed forces being able to leave for a certain period of time on the understanding that they will come back. In the United States, many on senior military courses leave to do doctorates or work in business and do other things and then come back into the armed forces, and doing that is not seen as a black mark against their career; on the contrary, it is seen as enhancing both the armed forces and those individuals’ careers.
This Bill is a start, therefore, and I assure the Minister I will be scrutinising how it works in practice and the uptake of its provisions. I also join him in thanking the Clerks and everyone involved in the Bill on making sure it has gone through both Houses with a degree of consensus from all sides and with additions to the offer that we can now give to people who want to join our armed forces.
Several hon. Members rose—
Shipbuilding Strategy
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do agree. The great strength of this debate on the national shipbuilding strategy is that we can praise the contribution not only of those yards that might be seen on the 10 o’clock news—the ones with the very large cranes and very large warships—but also all the supply chains to the smallest yards, and all those businesses that supply the kit that goes on the ships. That makes the UK a formidable power when it comes to shipbuilding. I am glad that the shipbuilding strategy hints at that, but perhaps it could go a little further in celebrating it.
That brings me to the second point, and recognising that many hon. Members want to speak, I will be brief. In my maiden speech in the House of Commons in June 2017, I called for more, and more capable, frigates. The Type 31e is not exactly what I had in mind. I am concerned that the shipbuilding strategy embeds the reduction of truly world-class frigates from 13 to eight. The Type 26 is a fine global combat ship, although one of the City class should be named after Plymouth—a campaign started by my Conservative predecessor and continued proudly by me. It is a good ship and a good programme that will serve UK interests well, but there are too few of the ships—to be precise, five too few.
The top-up light frigates have an ill defined military role, a confused capability and a price tag that gives this the potential to be the Snatch Land Rover of the Royal Navy—a comment by the Royal United Services Institute’s director of military sciences. I have a different name for that class: corvettes. I am genuinely concerned that over the next few years this class of ship will be the focus of much critiquing, as it fails to hit established frigate standards and looks less capable than the Type 23 frigates that the ships replace.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On the point about an undefined task, we had it from the Minister—I have had it in a written answer—that the ship will not be able to do any NATO tasks, and it will not be able to do any carrier protection work, so can my hon. Friend suggest what the role of this vessel will actually be, apart from being a glorified fishing protection vessel?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is spot on. The confusion about the role of this warship is at the heart of the problem with the shipbuilding strategy. It looks like we put the cart before the horse in defining a price tag but not a role. It is essential that in the next couple of months the Ministry of Defence comes forward with that, to provide all defence-leaning Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, with a reason to celebrate this warship, not critique it, because I worry that the critique will not support it and help its attractiveness as an export product. We should turn those weaknesses of the Type 31 into its strengths and promote a corvette class, not a poorer frigate. That would give the Royal Navy two carriers, two amphibious assault ships retained and not cut, six destroyers, eight proper frigates, five corvettes and the new offshore patrol vessels. That is still too few ships, but a line we should not go below, or accept further cuts or reductions against.
The shipbuilding strategy suggests that UK yards will build five Type 31s as replacement for the Duke class, and pitch for competition for 40 to export. As Darth Vader warned Director Krennic in “Rogue One”—a film I am sure we have all watched:
“Be careful not to choke on your aspirations”.
I truly want to believe the MOD when it says that there is a market abroad for 40 Type 31s, built in Britain, but I cannot see where that might be.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a fact that Britain last exported a frigate over 40 years ago. When I raised that with the new procurement Minister at Defence questions, all I got was an accusation of talking down the British shipbuilding industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that as a matter of urgency the MOD needs to clarify exactly where it sees the market for these 40 frigates?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend. Clarity around the role, capabilities and market for the Type 31 is absolutely critical in building a strong case—a marketing dossier—that says, “British Members of Parliament support this ship and will actively go out and sell it,” because I am concerned that we cannot even advocate for the Type 31 for UK military use, let alone military use for those abroad.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
My hon. Friend is a champion for the cadets. With more than 800 cadets and 125 adult volunteers in 20 detachments, the Hereford and Worcester Army Cadet Force demonstrates how the cadet experience provides opportunities for young people to develop self-discipline and resilience. I started my military career in the cadets, I am a great fan of the cadets, and we certainly continue to support the cadet expansion programme.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Guto Bebb
Once again, the hon. Gentleman’s comments are disparaging of our ability as a nation. This country aims to deal with past failures by ensuring that we have a platform that will appeal to nations around the world. The MOD is confident that the platform that we are developing for the Type 31e will appeal around the world. It would be good if some Members who claim to represent British industry were willing to support rather than attack it.
National Security Capability Review
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, and I will certainly look into it. We want to make sure that battalions are properly and fully manned so that they are able to deliver the right capability with the right equipment and the right resources, but I take on board the points that he makes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In 2015, the Conservative party was very clear that the size of the Army should be 82,000. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment today that on his watch the size of the Army will not drop below 82,000, and if it does, will he resign?
Gavin Williamson
We are meeting all of our operational commitments. We have also made it clear that we want to deliver on the numbers that we outlined in the manifesto in keeping the forces at the levels that they are, and we will be doing everything we can to deliver on that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
I will always listen intensely and very carefully to the arguments of my right hon. Friend. I have always seen 2% as a base as opposed to a ceiling, and I will certainly take on board his thoughts and comments in discussions going forward.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post and to the world of defence. The National Audit Office report earlier this year highlighted the fact that the Government have committed £24.4 billion to extra equipment, but only another £6.4 billion was actually there in new money for the joint strike fighter. How will he fill that £18 billion black hole in the budget on the basis that both the efficiencies and the headroom identified by the NAO have not yet been met?
Gavin Williamson
We have an unparalleled commitment from this Government to continue to increase defence spending on equipment—0.5% above inflation every single year. I will be very happy to look at all the issues in the National Audit Office report and make sure that, working with our industrial partners, we deliver very best value for our armed forces.
UK Amphibious Capability
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more. At this point, we need to agree what capabilities we need, and then what the budget should be—not the other way around. That is what the former Secretary of State said to us, and that is what we need to do.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the black hole is of the Government’s own making? In 2013, they increased the whole great shopping list of new equipment, with no extra cash to pay for it. It was predicated basically on efficiency savings and land sales, which have not yet been achieved and will not be achieved.
Ruth Smeeth
We need to be very clear about how big the hole is in the equipment budget. That has not happened yet in terms of invest to save, what efficiencies will be made and how we are going to pay for things. However, that is not an excuse to cut the numbers in our military or to get rid of current capabilities and platforms.
It would be a matter of grave concern and a genuine national security risk if tomorrow’s Budget included cuts to our military or made necessary additional savings that put our operational capabilities at risk. It is not just me saying so. Over recent days we have seen MPs, former Defence Ministers and retired senior service personnel lining up to warn that our armed forces are being hollowed out and to condemn the proposed cuts to our amphibious capability, including the reported loss of up to 1,000 Royal Marines—one of our most elite infantry units.
That is why today we must send a united message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his decisions on these matters will have consequences, that we cannot do national security on the cheap, that we must ensure our armed forces have the resources they need to deal with the threats we face, and that any reduction in our amphibious capability or in our Royal Marine numbers would be the wrong cuts at the wrong time. His Back Benchers are telling him, his own party’s grandees are telling him and those in this room today will tell him, I am sure, that as we prepare to exit the European Union and chart a new course for Britain’s role in the world, we cannot play fast and loose with the defence of the realm. The stakes are just too high. Let us be clear: that is exactly what the loss of our amphibious capability and the suggested cuts to our Royal Marines would do.
Amphibious capability at its most basic means the ability to land troops from the sea. As an island nation, that is a core capability for the senior service and a central plank to our NATO contribution. In fact, we are the lead for NATO’s immediate follow-on group in 2019 and the main delivery partner for the Netherlands in 2020. Can the Minister tell us how we will meet those commitments with 1,000 fewer Royal Marines and no amphibious platforms? In fact, given the current threats from the Russian Federation, can she illuminate us on how she intends to defend our allies in the High North and protect our northern flank without our amphibious and cold weather specialists?
Our two landing platform dock ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, can carry 405 troops with amphibious vehicles and combat supplies. They are amazing platforms, as I can attest, having visited HMS Bulwark last year. They give us the capability to land our Royal Marines quickly and quietly in order to have maximum impact and to take land in hostile environments in the most effective way possible. Both those vessels are currently expected to remain in service until 2033 and 2034 respectively, which we have guaranteed by spending £120 million in the last seven years to refurbish both ships. In fact, HMS Albion only returned to service in April this year.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the cuts to equipment such as Albion and Bulwark that are worrying? The cuts that have been made to winter training for the Royal Marines, for example, take away a unique capability we have at the moment.
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more. Having visited our Royal Marines in the Arctic to observe their training, I know how important that is for not only our own capabilities but the partnerships we build with other marines from our allies.
It has been suggested that the role of HMS Bulwark and Albion could be replaced by our two aircraft carriers or a cheaper Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service offering, but that is not what either is designed to do.
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more. Our Royal Marines work day in, day out—40 Commando and all the others—to ensure that we are where we need to be, helping our allies as well as protecting the nation.
To return to my speech, when using the carriers, our troops would have to be deployed by air. Although it may make sense to deliver the first wave of troops quickly by air, that has its limitations. First and foremost, it is impossible to infiltrate enemy territory by stealth by means of military helicopter. Troops may also need heavy weapons, vehicles, fuel, food and ammunition, which cannot be delivered in sufficient quantity by our current complement of helicopters. In more intense conflict, armoured vehicles, artillery and even a few main battle tanks may be required. Unless there is a convenient port close by, the armour and logistical support must be delivered over the beachhead even if in a second wave after the helicopter-borne troops have secured the area. In the words of Admiral Sir George Zambellas:
“Nobody in the world of complex warfare, especially for an island nation that delivers force from the sea, thinks that a reduction in the sophisticated end of amphibiosity is a good idea.”
Another option, which has been floated for some time, concerns proposed cuts of 1,000 Royal Marines. I feel immensely privileged to have had the opportunity to visit our Royal Marines around the world and even to have sort of taken part in their Arctic training in Norway, or at least what they allowed me to pretend to do. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) can stop laughing at me now.
I have seen at first hand the Royal Marines’ extraordinary courage, ability, focus and fortitude. They are truly an elite fighting force. However, what really stood out for me and, I am sure, for anyone who has spent any time with them is the mindset that they bring to their role. “First to understand, first to adapt and respond, and first to overcome”—that is the mindset of the Royal Marines and it is reflected in their extraordinary ability and versatility.
It is no wonder that the Royal Marines are disproportionately represented in the ranks of our special forces. In fact, the Royal Marines constitute only 4.5% of defence infantry but produce 46% of our special forces recruits. It is clear that making any cut to this life force of the UK special forces would make no military or economic sense. It has been suggested that as the threats we face as a country have changed, the need for these sorts of capability has diminished. I do not dispute that we must be ready to adapt to new threats and challenges. It is absolutely true that cyber-attacks and asymmetrical warfare open up whole new theatres of war, for which we must be prepared.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fleet protection role that 43 Commando plays in securing our nuclear deterrent is a vital role and that, if lost, it would be very difficult to replace?
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more. I have visited 43 Commando and seen up close the work that it does protecting the deterrent. Without it, I would be concerned about how we would move forward.
Where I disagree in relation to changes to warfare is with the idea that our amphibious capability is no longer a strategic necessity and is not a core aspect of the military mix that we will need going forward. It provides the option for small-scale raids, interventions and humanitarian missions. We must surely recognise that the ability to land troops from the sea, potentially in stealth conditions, has such a wide range of applications and is so vital a capability for an island nation that to diminish it would be an act of gross irresponsibility.
The 1981 review, “The United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward” advocated a reduction in the quantity of Royal Navy ships and a refocusing of the remaining resources towards Europe. Just a few years later, the Falklands war highlighted the continuing need for both our naval strength and a global outlook.
We saw a further U-turn in our approach from 1998 to the strategic defence and security review in 2015, when we looked away from Europe and towards the middle east. We had to review everything after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I do not doubt that threats change and that our military must change to meet them, but the role of Government is to ensure that we have a well resourced, mixed defence capability that is strong enough to defend us at home and abroad to keep us safe. When we look at the lessons of history, we see that we can never truly predict what capabilities we may need tomorrow, never mind next year. The truth is that there has been no change in the strategic environment to justify the current proposals. It is cost-cutting pure and simple. To make cuts that risk undermining our amphibious capability now, not knowing what the future holds, would be deeply irresponsible and could have serious ramifications for our future readiness.
Many people in Westminster Hall today know my fondness for the Royal Marines, and I am proud to be your deputy, Mr Gray, on the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, but today is not about that or even about our wonderful commandos. It is about whether we have what we need to keep us safe. Tomorrow is decision time for the Chancellor. Will he listen to the concerns from my party and his, and from servicemen and defence experts, and hit the pause button on these reckless cuts to our amphibious capability and, for that matter, to our defence budget? Will Britannia still rule the waves, or will she yield to them in the name of austerity?
Johnny Mercer
I am so sorry; I am half asleep. It is only a matter of time.
I want to make three really clear points to the House, to the Minister and to the Government. I have made my views on this clear. I am grateful for all the support that we have had from across the House because this is an issue of singular importance. However, it is very important that we do not dictate tactically what we ask our professionals to do in this country. What I mean by that is that our job here is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, and to ensure that what they do is consistent with what they say. I do not think it is our responsibility to say, “You can never change this or that capability.” My attempts with the letter that has been signed by so many are simply a first stage in drawing a line in that battle.
What I am saying, though, is that I hope the Government, the Department and, critically, the Treasury and the Prime Minister now understand that there is a resilient cohort of Government MPs who will hold the Government to account on defence spending. Whatever our party or priorities, above all we are patriots, and it is not right to allow the Government to say something about defence on the one hand and yet under-resource it on the other. They cannot always say that defence is the primary duty of Government and yet hold their hands behind their back.
Johnny Mercer
That is an interesting intervention —in fact, I am just going to ignore it because it was pretty childish.
We must get our priorities right when it comes to defence. Over the weekend the Government announced that £2.3 billion would be put into artificial intelligence and driverless cars. Fantastic—great stuff—but when it comes to social policies such as those we cut our cloth according to what we can afford. When it comes to defence, we listen to the professionals who we ask to go and do the job for us and to wear the uniform. We ask them what we need and we provide them with what they need to keep us safe. As has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) time and again, the idea that we can come to this place and say, or sell it to the general public, that threats have intensified, diversified and increased so much that another security review needs to be conducted, and yet reduce the budget or capability for our armed forces to do that, is simply not credible. It will not be worn by the British public and it will not be worn by Back-Bench Conservative MPs.
Finally, all that I am asking for, and all that the MPs who have signed my letter, and MPs across the Conservative party, are asking for—we are the party of defence—is that we meet our manifesto commitment of a 2% of GDP spend and a 0.5% above inflation increase in the defence budget. That is the platform on which I stood at the general election, and I fully expect that commitment to be realised. We must get to a stage where we are being realistic about defence, and if the threats have increased, that must be met by a commensurate increase in money, commitment and willpower from both No. 11 and No. 10.
Harriett Baldwin
Indeed. In our national security capability review, we seek to understand how to spend that growing budget in the most intelligent way, by further modernising our armed forces against the traditional and non-traditional threats that we now face. In that context, it is only right that all areas of business across defence—
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Gray. We have had a very good debate this morning. A lot of questions have been asked by Members across the Chamber. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I thought it was the role of the Minister when replying to a debate actually to reply to it and not just read out a prepared statement.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. Of course it is not a point of order; the Minister may indeed say what she likes when replying to the debate. However, if she replies inadequately, that is of course a matter for the record.
Defence Aerospace Industrial Strategy
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Smeeth
I completely agree. Let us be clear: this is a brand-new aircraft, and our Red Arrows, with their skills set, should be selling it to the world.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
At the moment, this clearly hinges on the Qatari order, but does my hon. Friend agree that if that does not come forward and the Government do not bring forward the Red Arrows replacements, we may not have any sovereign capability for building fast jet trainers in this country?
Ruth Smeeth
I completely agree. The reality is that this is about our sovereign skills mix, and about whether we can develop future training aircraft or fast jet aircraft. This is also about people’s lives: for the people in the Gallery, this is about the jobs they will move on to in the future. This is therefore a key moment at which the Government should act.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate. She has outlined the importance of this industry to the UK economy. The crisis that we face is of the Government’s making. In 2010, they came into office and took great capability out, scrapping elements such as Nimrod. Then, in the strategic defence and security review two years ago, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, tried to put in place a more ambitious programme of development, including the P8 purchase, more unmanned aerial vehicles and the attack helicopter.
The interesting point is that there was no extra money for that programme. It was going to be paid for by efficiencies and property sales. According to the National Audit Office report, the shopping list came to £24.4 billion, and the only extra money was £6.4 billion, which was earmarked to accelerate the in-service date of the F-35. That left the need for £7.3 billion from efficiencies and £10.7 billion from land sales, neither of which have been met. By 2020, £310 million will be met through staff efficiencies, but the drawdown from Germany—which many of us said would cost us—is going to cost £1 billion. This black hole in the equipment programme is of the Government’s own making.
Added to that are some ridiculously stupid procurement decisions that have been made in the past couple of years. In the light of Brexit and the plummeting pound, the procurement of the P8 and the Apache will add to the costs. The Minister intervened earlier to announce the importance of orders that had been placed with Airbus. Why did she not give that contract for the P8 to a British company? Boeing has made lots of promises about investing in this country, but I can tell her now that if that had been the other way round, with the US buying a British product, it would not have been done without a clear commitment to a workshare taking place in the USA. We have only to look at the AirTanker contract to see the muscle involved and the way in which it protects jobs in America first, rather than those overseas. The Government are actually adding to the problem.
The simple question is: do the Government want strategic capability for fast jets and certain other sectors? If they do, they are going to have to pay for that. In regard to the Hawk, there is a clear danger that we will be unable to provide fast jet trainers in this country. It used to be an annual thing when I was a Defence Minister for tabloids and Tory MPs to say that the Labour Government were going to scrap the Red Arrows. We never were, but under this Government, there is a danger that that is exactly what will happen if those orders do not come forward. This short-sighted Government are making lots of promises about equipment, but in practice, those promises are not being funded. The problem facing our industry is that, once we get rid of those skills, we cannot turn them back on again like a tap when we require them. We will be out of this industry for good. If we then wanted a Red Arrows display team in the future, it would have to have aircraft from Korea, France or Italy. That would be a damning indictment of this Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
It gives me great pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing it. We have heard 14 interesting and compelling Back-Bench contributions, and I will start by picking up on some of the general themes that came from them.
Many hon. Members spoke out on behalf of the incredible work of the BAE workforce in their constituencies. There has been an urgent question on this subject in recent days. The decision was made by the company, and it is currently consulting the workforce. As the Department is its largest customer, I have been in discussions with the company, asking that it looks to avoid any compulsory redundancies. As an employer ourselves, we are also in ongoing discussions regarding staff with the right skills who could fit into our organisation.
On the subject of the unfortunately named MUFC—the maritime underwater future capability—there is no hon. Gentleman who speaks up more for his constituents than the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). However, I am sure that he would acknowledge that there is a very solid pipeline of work in his constituency for decades to come. That shows the amazing work of those who live and work in his constituency. The maritime underwater future capability project is still ongoing work, and he will have seen some of the wonderfully imaginative recent ideas.
Regarding the Hawk pipeline, I can reassure the House that we continue to work on export opportunities to Kuwait and India. The RAF has 28 of the T2 aircraft, and there is no risk to the Red Arrows. A number of colleagues mentioned the P-8 aircraft. The first of that capability will come into service in 2019, and will be based at RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, which will be good for the local economy. Some excellent UK companies are in the P-8 supply chain, including Marshall with the fuel tanks, Martin-Baker with the crew seats and General Electric with the weapons pylons.
Harriett Baldwin
I will not take any interventions because there is so little time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke eloquently about the excellent Puma squadrons in his constituency. A number of colleagues asked about Typhoons. So far, just over 500 Typhoons have been built, and they are in service and have been ordered by nine countries around the world. There is still a significant pipeline of Typhoons to be built, and the statement of intent was signed with Qatar. Of course, the Government are working as hard as possible to ensure that those and the 12 Hawk aircraft are on contract by the end of the year.
Contributions from across the House have shown that not a corner of our great country is untouched by the nationwide enterprise that is defence aerospace. Indeed, we have a rising defence budget overall, and the strategic defence and security review in 2015 set out a £178 billion equipment plan for the next decade. In the last year for which we have the recorded numbers, 2015-16, the MOD had a spend of over £2 billion with UK aerospace, and that directly sustained over 7,000 jobs. In fact, I am delighted to be able to announce today that we have awarded Babcock three new contracts, worth £160 million, to provide RAF bases across the country with expert support.
As we heard in today’s debate, aerospace strikes a real chord with the British public, and we have heard some key reasons for that. There is obviously the historical connection and the fact that we have 100 years of the RAF coming up in the next year. We also know that our country would be a very different place were it not for the immense intervention of air power in world war one and particularly during the battle of Britain in world war two.
The current crop of aerospace experts in the UK has a worldwide leadership reputation. We have some of the most technically advanced and capable aerospace companies in the world. Aerospace is an engine of local and national prosperity. Up to 2,500 UK companies are involved in it, and it generates more than £33 billion of turnover, employing more than 120,000 people, including 26,000 just in research, design and engineering. Interestingly, more than 80% of the sector’s production is exported. Of the £64 billion brought into this country through defence-related exports in the last decade, 85% was generated by aerospace, and much of that was from the combat air sector.
Crucially, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned, we are using our kit in places such as Iraq today. A combination of our Tornadoes and Typhoons has helped to bring Daesh to its knees and liberated millions of people from an evil death cult. I am sure hon. Members will want to join me in paying tribute to all the brave men and women who are currently serving in our aircrews on deployment.
We are absolutely right to celebrate the aerospace sector, but we also need to talk about the future. The Typhoon has been selected by nine national air forces, and we are currently pursuing exports to Bahrain, Belgium, Finland, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Qatar. Other Typhoon nations are also pursuing export opportunities to other countries.
On the export pipeline, we are looking ahead not just one or two years. We need to look decades ahead, because we know our Typhoon aircraft will go out of service in 2040. The 2015 SDSR allocated a substantial budget over 10 years to the future combat air system technology initiative, precisely to protect and develop key design and engineering skills in our industrial base. The money includes funding for a national technology programme to maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in this area. Some of the work to mature other high-end technologies is with France, and some is with the US.
The decision on the future of combat air will require us to decide at some stage to replace the capabilities currently delivered by the Eurofighter Typhoon. It will be a complex decision, involving a clear military requirement and requiring detailed consideration of the industrial and financial implications. In terms of the timing, the decision will be made in the very early 2020s or sooner to enable a maingate decision on the procurement in or around 2025.
In conclusion, this is a key sector, and we have had a good debate highlighting a number of the issues in it. Our approach to the defence aerospace industry should be about an overall industry strategy, taking into account the business leaders, the educators, the representatives, the unions and the local economy. We must ensure that, whatever the dangers to come, the great industry we have been discussing today flies even higher, faster and further in the future.
Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Lord Beamish ExcerptsTuesday 14th November 2017
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 View all Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 November 2017 - (14 Nov 2017)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(3B) The proportion of regular forces serving on a part-time basis in any single regiment may not exceed 15% of the total regular forces serving in that regiment.”
This amendment limits the proportion of part-time regular forces to no more than 15% of any regiment.
This is a probing amendment that seeks clarification from the Minister on how the Bill will work in practice, and specifically whether there will be any kind of cap or upper limit on the number of personnel on part-time working. The amendment refers to no more than 15% of any single regiment serving on a part-time basis, which is simply a way to establish whether the Government have any plans to place a limit on personnel who work part time, and at what level a cap would be placed.
There are significant problems with recruitment and retention in our armed forces, which is one reason for the Bill. As of September 2017, the regular armed forces were at a 5.3% deficit against the liability—an increase in the deficit from 4.1% under the liability in September last year. Furthermore, the outflow of regulars continues to outpace intake. Voluntary outflow is the main source of outflow, so most personnel who are leaving are doing so before the end of their agreed engagement or commission period.
The pay review body highlighted in its most recent report that issues with recruitment and retention have been acknowledged by the Department:
“In evidence MOD stated that there were recruitment and retention challenges across all Services for certain groups in the engineering and aviation cadres. It stated that recruitment of Regulars had continued to be challenging throughout 2015-16”.
Our armed forces are not in a situation where they can feasibly allow a significant number of personnel to work part time.
The Government’s fact sheet for the Bill says:
“We anticipate from the existing evidence that there will be a very small initial take up of the new flexible working arrangements, no more than 1% when they are implemented in April 2019. We anticipate that this will increase slowly as cultural change is fully embedded over the next 10-15 years.”
However, there is no indication of what the Government expect that figure to grow to and whether there will be any limitations on numbers.
The amendment highlights the fact that problems are more likely to emerge if a much greater proportion of those in specific roles want to work part time, particularly if they are in operational pinch points. OPPs are branch specialisations, sub-specialisations or areas of expertise where the shortfall in trained strength is such that it has a measurable detrimental impact on current, planned or contingent operations. As of April this year, there were 15 OPPs in the naval service. The key pinch points relate to engineering roles, plus some specialist roles such as warfare specialists. The Army has four OPPs, the key ones being logistics roles, and the RAF has 11 OPPs, where the key pinch points are in engineering and intelligence roles, as well as shortfalls in the aircrew branch. The Bill’s administration fact sheet says:
“The Approval Authority will take into account the chain of command’s recommendation, overall manning levels of the Service and the individual’s trade, and any specific skills held by the Service person.”
Presumably that means those from OPPs are automatically ruled out.
While I am not expecting the Government to accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will answer some questions that were not addressed on Second Reading. Will there be clear limits on the number or percentage of those working part time in any specific regiment? How would that look in the RAF and the Navy? Would the percentages be universal or different for each service? If somebody applies for part-time working after that limit has been met, will they automatically be rejected? Will personnel from OPPs not be given the option to apply for part-time working, or will they be allowed to apply but, because of their trade, have no chance of being accepted?
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.
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.
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has highlighted one of the many concerns that we have around the work of the contracts, or the way that the contract is not working for families in our armed forces.
Last year’s National Audit Office report on service family accommodation was damning of Carillion’s performance:
“The performance of CarillionAmey has been totally unacceptable”.
Although I welcome the action that has been taken, the Government had the option to terminate the contract, yet they did not, which leaves me with some concerns about how seriously the matter is being taken. I appreciate that there have been some improvements, but reports have shown that continued dissatisfaction with the delivery of the contract is still widespread. For those in service family accommodation, satisfaction with the quality of maintenance/repair and with response to requests for maintenance/repair fell to just 28%, which is very alarming indeed.
Of course, this is all in the context of many personnel seeing increased costs for their accommodation and ongoing pay restraint. The pay review body commented on that in its latest report:
“A key consideration in people accepting the increases in charges being seen…will be a clear improvement in both the overall quality of the housing stock and the effective delivery of maintenance services.”
I would like to hear whether the Department has any specific plans to take action to improve performance and at what point we might see that happen.
Recruitment and retention issues are at the heart of the Bill, and housing is a crucial factor in that. I hope the Minister can give me some assurance and answer my questions about how the new working practices will impact on housing allocation, what the latest progress with the future accommodation model is and how the Government will deal with housing contracts if marked improvements are not shown.
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.
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.
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
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nia Griffith
I agree that pay is not the only factor that makes it difficult to recruit and retain staff, but it is certainly a significant one when both AFCAS and the pay review body list it as such.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I find the comments of Conservative Members quite astonishing, because I remember as a Defence Minister being harangued by Conservative Members in opposition arguing that we did a bad deal for the armed forces, even though we accepted the pay review body’s recommendation. With regard to the X factor, in 2013 the pay review body chairman was sacked because the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, did not want to recommend an increase in the X factor.
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend refers to an absolutely shocking situation. It is very disappointing that Conservative Members are starting this debate on such a negative note.
More and more personnel are choosing to leave the armed forces, and every one of the services is shrinking in size. A recent Government-commissioned report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) found that recruitment to the services was “running to stand still”, leading to the “hollowing out” of our armed forces. Yet rather than getting to grips with this problem, the Conservatives’ record is a litany of missed targets and broken promises. Their 2015 manifesto pledged to keep the size of the Army above 82,000. That was hardly an ambitious target, considering it was well over 100,000 when Labour left government, but miss the target they did, and the trade-trained strength of the Army is now just 77,600.
The figure of 82,000 had mysteriously disappeared by the time of the Conservatives’ 2017 manifesto. That fateful document simply promised to
“maintain the overall size of the armed forces”.
We can add that pledge to the rubbish pile along with the rest of the Tory manifesto, because since June’s election we have seen a reduction in the size of the Army, a reduction in the size of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and a reduction in the size of the Royal Air Force. Now we are in the shameful position where the Defence Secretary cannot rule out cuts to our Royal Marines, or even promise that the Army will not shrink further.
The Government may be complacent about the diminishing size of our armed forces, but we are not. At a time of immense global uncertainty—
Nia Griffith
Indeed, the number needs to go up, because costs are escalating. We have said clearly that we would match that increase, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that costs are escalating far higher than that figure will accommodate.
At this time of immense global uncertainty, we cannot allow numbers to continue to slide, month after month, while all we get from the Government is warm words and crippling complacency. The Government’s chosen recruitment partner, Capita, is completely unfit for the job at hand. We have had warning after warning that Capita has not fulfilled its basic obligations, but as the number of personnel recruited continues to fall, the amount paid to Capita has grown and grown.
We propose to take real action to begin to address that state of affairs, by lifting the public sector pay cap and giving our forces a fair pay rise. I recognise that that alone would not be a silver bullet for the crisis in recruitment and retention, but we know from personnel that pay is one of the main reasons why they choose to leave our armed forces. Satisfaction with basic rates of pay and pension benefits is at the lowest level ever recorded. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has found that there is an
“over-riding sense of uncertainty and an increasing view that the offer will only get worse”.
Barely a third of service personnel are satisfied with their basic pay, and 42% have said that pay was a push factor for them in choosing to leave the forces. Is that any wonder, when our servicemen and women have had to shoulder real-terms pay cuts that have left them badly worse off? Between 2010 and 2016, the starting salary of a corporal fell by nearly £2,000 in real terms, whereas for a flight lieutenant that figure was £2,800.
At the same time as they have been hit by real-terms pay cuts, our servicemen and women have faced rising costs in forces housing because changes to charges for service family accommodation mean rent increases for nearly three quarters of occupants. The Government’s future accommodation model risks adding to that pressure because it fractures forces communities by forcing service families into the private rented sector, with all the additional costs that that brings to them and the taxpayer. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has warned of a “perfect storm” for personnel who face increases in rent and national insurance contributions, at the same time as their pay is cut in real terms.
Let us be in no doubt that the responsibility for the below-inflation rises lies firmly with the Government. Since the Government lost their majority at the general election, Ministers have made great play of the supposed independence of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. They would have us believe that the pay review body sets the rates and Ministers merely implement them, as if it were some coincidence that the body had not recommended an above-inflation rise since 2010. But that is little more than a cynical attempt by Ministers to shirk responsibility, because of course they instruct the pay review body to work within the context of the cap. Despite all the warm words from the Secretary of State and Ministers, the Treasury has said that it will not fund increases above and beyond the 1% cap; that is a fact.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is worse than that? The idea is that the pay review body should be independent and able to make recommendations for Ministers and the Government to look at, but in 2013 the then Prime Minister sacked Alasdair Smith, the chair of the pay review body, because he made recommendations that the Treasury and the Government did not like. Does she agree that that is outrageous?
Nia Griffith
As my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely outrageous, and it betrays an appalling attitude on the part of the Government.
Mark Lancaster
I will move on in a moment to that very question. I would add that many of us also sat through Prime Minister’s questions, and I would simply refer the hon. Lady to the very powerful argument that the Prime Minister made in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the very subject she has raised.
The second point this motion ignores is the impact of pay progression. Officers and other ranks are tied to incremental pay scales, and they routinely and regularly move up the bands. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about privates. The average private soldier starts on a salary of £18,673. After one year, through incremental pay alone—not including the 1% pay increase—that rises to £20,029, which is an increase of 7.26% in one year. After three years, the salary rises to £21,614, which is an increase of 15.8%, not including the 3% increase that would have been given. That is an increase in pay of almost 20% over the three years.
Mr Speaker
Order. No, the hon. Gentleman must not use that word. He is a person of felicitous phrase and extensive vocabulary, and he must find some other way to express his irascibility with or disapproval of the Minister.
Mr Jones
The Minister is wrong. The point is that, in any job, people get a pay increase because they are being trained and their ability to serve increases as that goes on. The fact is that the yearly increases my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned affect a private’s pay because they affect the levels of the bands and the percentages. He cannot argue that, just because somebody gets pay progression, not giving them an increase in their basic pay every year will not affect their ultimate pay. Of course it will.
Mark Lancaster
I am slightly worried about the hon. Gentleman’s approach. We have actually been great friends in this House for many years, so I am somewhat surprised that he called me disingenuous. I am sure that I will get my revenge at some point. As somebody who continues, after 29 years, to serve in the armed forces, I would like to think that accusing me of all people of being disingenuous when it comes to the armed forces is slightly unfair. I like to think that I have done my bit.
At the end of the day, I do not think that a private soldier receiving £18,673 in their pocket on day one—admittedly before tax—and then receiving £21,614 after three years will care too much whether that is due to pay progression or annual increases; it is money in their pockets.
Mark Lancaster
Here we go: the hon. Gentleman says—perhaps this is testimony to Labour mathematics—that £21,614 is less than £18,673. [Interruption.]
Mark Lancaster
I am a very agreeable chap, but this is yet more speculation from The Times. No decision at all has been made to scrap the operational allowance. Every year since the operational allowance was introduced 12 years ago, there has been a review of where it should and should not apply. Soldiers have not been told that they will not receive it when they go to Iraq. I am deeply proud that this Government have doubled the operational allowance from £14 to £29. Finally—to get the last word, for the time being at least, with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—none of those figures takes into account the substantial rise in the personal tax allowance introduced while this Government have been in power.
Mark Lancaster
I will not give way at the moment—I am taking my revenge—but I am sure he will get another chance.
Despite fiscal constraint, salaries in the armed forces throughout this period have not stagnated. Indeed, they have actually risen on average by 1.5%. What is more, the MOD has the option of introducing targeted payments where there are particular recruiting and retention issues. These payments can range from time-limited financial incentives through to longer-term recruitment and retention payments that recognise the particular challenges we face in retaining certain specialisms, such as military pilots or submariners.
That brings me to the third aspect of the pay story, which has been conveniently glossed over. Joining our forces comes with a range of often unacknowledged additional benefits: a non-contributory pension scheme, subsidised accommodation and food, access to free medical and dental care, and allowances packages—I have just mentioned one of them—towards additional costs. It is therefore unsurprising that pay is neither the primary reason why people enter the service, nor the primary reason why they leave.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Government are nothing if not consistent, as Conservative Governments have been throughout history, in that in opposition they call for more expenditure on the armed forces and argue that they are proud supporters of the armed forces, but when they get into power the first thing they do is cut the defence budget and show no respect for the men and women of the armed forces in terms of their pay and conditions. We have heard some remarkable things today. Conservative Back Benchers—including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who must have quite a few members of the armed forces in his constituency—have been suggesting that pay is not important. Well, I am sure that will be news to those members of the armed forces, when they get that message.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that what I was trying to say—and what I did say—was that pay was not the No. 1 issue for service. It would be disingenuous to suggest that it was. There are a number of reasons why people serve, and a great experience is on offer to the people of this country who serve. Pay is important, but it is not as important as this debate suggests.
Mr Jones
I find that remarkable. The hon. Gentleman is letting down his constituents by not supporting what we are arguing for, which is a fair deal on pay for members of our armed forces. If I were in his shoes, I would be making sure that I did.
The last Labour Government, during which I served in the Ministry of Defence, had a proud record of accepting the recommendations of the pay review body every single year. For example, the increase was 3.7% in 2001 and 2002 and 3.2% in 2003, and that goes right up to 2010, when the increase was 2%. However, this Government have put in an artificial cap, completely ignoring the pay review body, and it was remarkable to hear the Minister say that that does not matter because people are receiving increments. I am sorry—this may be the trade union official in me coming out here—but where someone starts affects where they end up. A 2% incremental increase may mean an increase in pay, but a 2% increase on the basic level of pay is a damn sight bigger, and we need to recognise that.
Something else that cannot be forgotten is this idea that armed forces pensions are, as I think someone said, gold plated and generous. However, people do not recognise that that is taken into account by the pay review body. I also want to remind the Conservatives that if I had sacked armed forces personnel or made them compulsorily redundant weeks away from their retirement date when I was in charge, I would have been rightly condemned. That is just another example of a Conservative Government saying one thing, but doing another. Making people compulsorily redundant is astounding.
As for the independence of the pay review body, it is clear that the Government have completely ignored its recommendation, but things are even worse than that. The previous Prime Minister David Cameron sacked the head of independent pay review body in 2013 because he did not like what it said about the X factor and pay increases. The Government have not just ignored the pay review body; they have interfered in the independent process. Conservative Members may say that pay is not important, but I am yet to meet anyone in life who does not think that getting a decent reward for their efforts is important to them.
Alongside that, we have seen declining morale. One of the Conservative Government’s betrayals is that they say, “We stand up for the armed forces.” Well, the armed forces stood at 191,710 personnel in 2010, but that is now down to 149,366. The situation is worse than that, however, because there are artificial caps on numbers in the individual services, including the Navy, which is leading to real deployability problems. Ships are not sailing because they do not have the crews. As I said, the Conservatives say that they stand up for the armed forces, but if they genuinely want to do that, they should pay people accordingly and recognise the efforts and sacrifices that individuals make on our behalf. Empty words are fine, but actions in government are different. I am proud that the Labour party—not just in the last Labour Government, but throughout its history—has always stood up for our armed forces by supporting personnel and by ensuring that our country is defended.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
That last Labour Government, for which the hon. Gentleman presumably has some responsibility, left a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. By contrast, this Government are increasing defence spending. Does he accept that he has some responsibility for that and that the Conservatives stand up for the armed forces?
Mr Jones
I thought the Cameron Kool-Aid had been dispensed with. That figure was plucked out of thin air. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at the 2010 National Audit Office report that says that there would be a £6 billion so-called black hole over the next 10 years. The Conservatives dishonestly tried to give the impression that there was a £38 billion black hole to be met in 2010. Both the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), his successor as Defence Secretary and now Chancellor, miraculously got rid of that black hole within 18 months and said that it had been plugged—do not ask me how they did it. If they could get rid of a £38 billion black hole in less than 18 months, they are in the wrong job. That was complete nonsense. The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) should stop repeating things that are just not true. I give the Conservatives credit for their great job of changing the narrative at the time, but the actual facts are different.
Mr Jones
No, because I am about to finish. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the black hole that exists in the current Government’s procurement plan. I am not suggesting that it is an in-year black hole; this is about the 10-year equipment plan. The hon. Gentleman may want to look at that, the NAO report and the excellent report out today on how the Government are cannibalising equipment. Please look at the details.
I will finish with a non-partisan point. Everyone across the House recognises the dedication and service of the members of our armed forces, and they deserve that recognition. In just over a week’s time, we will remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and there is a consensus across the House of support for our armed forces, but if we are to support and recognise the sacrifices they make, they need to be paid and resourced at an acceptable level.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate. They have spoken with insight and conviction about the importance of ensuring fair pay for our armed forces personnel, not just as a point of principle but as an essential guarantee for our future recruitment and retention across all three services, which in turn ensures that we will have the right people in the right place and in the right numbers to keep us safe.
We speak here today because our armed forces and their families make daily sacrifices to protect us, so it is only right and proper that we do our duty and look after them. I am therefore delighted that today’s motion, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), directly mirrors an early-day motion I tabled earlier this year on the need for enhanced salary levels for our armed forces personnel.
I am privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, and it is because of that role that I wish to contribute today. At a time when we and our allies face renewed threats from a resurgent Russian Federation, when the global order is facing unprecedented realignment and when we see global terror attacks on the news bulletins on a weekly basis, not least the horrendous scenes in Manhattan last night, we find ourselves with a Government who seem to be missing the point. It is our service personnel who keep us safe, and we need to ensure that their overall terms and conditions are good enough to recruit and retain in post.
Let us be clear about the current challenge. As other hon. Members have said, we find ourselves facing a personnel deficit of 5%, with stories of declining morale and faltering recruitment targets, and with no fewer than 38 operational pinch points across the three services—gaps that threaten to have a detrimental impact on our planned and contingent operations. We need to ask ourselves, why?
We expect our armed forces personnel to do the extraordinary every day. It is challenging and, all too often, life-threatening work. We ask them to make incredible sacrifices and to cope with intense physical, mental and emotional challenges in the line of duty. From engineers to infantry soldiers, bomb disposal experts to intelligence officers, logisticians to caterers, and pilots to submariners, all our armed forces personnel, at whatever grade and in whatever role, are exceptionally skilled and dedicated men and women.
Our armed forces personnel do not do the job for the money, and we should be in no doubt that people of their calibre may well be able to earn more in other fields, but they do need to pay their bills, as we all do. They deserve recognition, including financial recognition, for their service. It is unacceptable that anyone who makes sacrifices to keep us all safe should struggle to support their family. As chair of the all-party group, servicemen and women and, as importantly, their families tell me that they are struggling. The House needs to recognise that we have a problem when they are earning less in real terms than they were seven years ago.
The pay cap has meant real hardship for many in service, and it is undoubtedly one obstacle to recruitment and, more so, to retention. Not only that, the pay cap is symbolic of how much—or should I say how little?—the men and women of our armed forces mean to the country they serve. The cap’s removal would be symbolic, too.
I welcome that the Government are now back-pedalling on the continuation of the 1% pay cap for armed forces personnel. Their recognition that the men and women of our armed forces deserve better than they have been subjected to for these past seven years can only be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, but I am sure I speak for many when I ask the Minister, what took so long?
My fear, however, is not just the pay cap, which many others have raised today. We need to look at the terms and conditions of our service personnel in the round. Too many servicemen and women have contacted me with concerns about potential cuts to their tour allowances and bonuses for me not to be worried that the Government are planning to rob Peter to pay Paul to fund pay rises. This may all prove to be smoke and mirrors, and our proud servicemen and women might end up no better off next year because they lose the X factor, the tour bonuses from Iraq or other things.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the pay cut over the past seven years will have an ongoing effect throughout these individuals’ lives, as it will affect their final pension?
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Let us be clear about realities: where someone’s base salary is not increased, their pension, which is based on that salary, is also affected. So this affects everybody.
That brings me on to my next point. No trade union can advocate for our armed forces and no staff association can stand up to the Government for them. It is therefore down to us in this House to ensure that they are well paid and to fight their corner, because no one else is going to do it for them. They follow orders—that is what we pay them to do and train them to do. Therefore, they are never going to challenge us. So while they do their duty protecting our national security, at home and abroad, we must do our duty and look after them and their families. Next week, we have Remembrance Sunday and although our servicemen and women do not consider themselves heroes, we should. Heroes do not want handouts—they just want a fair deal. It is the very least they deserve.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. First and foremost, it is important that the discussion is based in fact. On that note, we must recognise that a 1% increase to armed forces pay was recommended in January this year—
Leo Docherty
In 2017. The Government accepted that recommendation. They declared that they were moving away from a blanket 1% cap on public sector pay, and we anticipate that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will make suggestions that the Government will accept. We must bear in mind that good news when we discuss this issue.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying is just wrong. Over the past six years, the Government have completely ignored the pay review body. I do not know where he gets the idea—I must have missed this—that the Government are going to accept its future recommendations, because I am not aware of such an announcement.
Leo Docherty
If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention back in September, he would have noticed that the Government indicated that there will be a move away from a blanket 1% public sector pay cap. If the pay review board makes a recommendation to the Government about increasing pay, it is likely that the Government will accept it, so it is entirely erroneous to paint a picture of armed forces pay being cut.
We must recognise that, broadly, the offer to the armed forces is good. In addition to increases in basic salary, armed forces personnel enjoy subsidised housing and non-contributory pensions. That is important and we must recognise it. There are of course concerns, and we must be vigilant in safeguarding and improving the experiences of our armed forces personnel, but the offer is good. I hear from people in my constituency concerns that are more related to kit and equipment, and to opportunities for training and deployment.
The issue of pay should not be a political football to be kicked around by Opposition Members. There is a good story to tell and we should be positive about the broad offer that the armed forces present to people. Sadly, the Opposition are talking it down; to demonstrate how, I shall quote the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Alex Chalk
That is exactly the kind of sophistication that should be brought to this debate. We should be looking at specific issues, that can improve the lives of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen and women.
The principles that we should apply are tolerably simple. First, we should listen to independent experts—the pay review bodies—and, secondly, we should build in flexibility where there is a skills shortage. I will return to that briefly in a moment. It is right, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in Prime Minister’s questions today, to look at the context of the public finances. She said that we are spending £50 billion a year on debt interest alone. That raises a really important moral argument. When we talk about the future of our armed forces, we do not just want armed forces for today, tomorrow or next week; we want our children to be able to enjoy the protection of the armed forces as well.
What is Labour’s suggested solution to this? Notwithstanding the fact that we have public borrowing of about £58 billion each year and a national debt of £1.7 trillion, its remedy is more borrowing, more debt and more tax. Where does that leave us as a country? If we were to borrow an additional £500 billion, as has been suggested, our national debt would go from £1.7 trillion to £2.2 trillion. What happens to that £50 billion that we are spending each year? It goes to about £65 billion. Basically, before we pay for a single soldier, a single police officer, or a single nurse, we will be spending £62 billion a year when the entire defence budget is £36 billion. There will be people born today in our country who in 30 years’ time, through no fault of their own, will either knock on the door of the welfare state because, as an entirely deserving case, they need assistance, or they will want the protection of our armed forces, but the cupboard risks being bare if the Opposition are able to achieve what they want to achieve.
Mr Kevan Jones
I thought that the Tory party’s script had changed; obviously the hon. Gentleman does not have the new one. Will he explain, therefore—
Mr Kevan Jones
The Government were able to find £1 billion out of fresh air to pass over in their agreement with the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland so that they could stay in power, so why can they not fund the pay of our armed forces?
Alex Chalk
With respect, that argument has been made with tedious regularity. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of the public finances. This country borrows £58 billion every single year. The nation spends £803 billion a year. Yet, Labour wants to borrow £500 billion, which in turn would increase our annual payment by something in the order of £12 billion. That would be monstrous and disastrous for the UK economy and future generations. There is an issue of generational justice, and that is a message that Labour has not learned.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not going to speak today but I felt compelled to come to the Chamber and give my two pence-worth. I very much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), but it would be remiss of me not to point out how narrowly he danced on the line between delusion and fiction. He was veterans Minister in 2008-09, when I was fighting those campaigns. This is not about me or about anybody’s personal service; this is about truth and fact, and the fact is that the equipment with which we fought those campaigns and the care for veterans were simply appalling. I cannot stand here and allow Opposition Members to say that Labour’s record on defence is so—
Johnny Mercer
No, I will not give way at this moment.
I cannot say that the Labour party’s record on defence is so superior to the Conservative party’s.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for one Member to accuse another Member of something that is not true and then not allow that Member to respond to it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) will feel that if he has referred to another hon. Member in that way, he might like to take an intervention.
Johnny Mercer
Am I alleged to have said something that is not true? What have I said that is not true?
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not going to get into a discussion. What is not true is what the hon. Gentleman just said about cutting support for veterans.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can we not have conversation across the Chamber? This is an intervention and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View will then respond to it.
Mr Jones
I was proud to introduce the Army Recovery Capability, which made sure we supported the armed forces coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq with severe injuries. I was proud to be a part of a Labour Government who introduced the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, which for the first time brought in lump sum payments for those severely injured. The track record of our Administration on support for veterans will stand up to any scrutiny in comparison with what the Conservative Government have done since.
Johnny Mercer
It may be worth the hon. Gentleman putting that debate on our offer to our veterans and service personnel to the court of public opinion. The time between 2003 and 2015 saw the biggest explosion of military charities this country has ever seen because of the lack of provision that he presided over. It would be a good thing to put that into the public domain and to see whether his argument bears out the facts.
It is important that this debate is grounded in fact. This should not be a partisan issue. We should not be talking about what Labour did or what the Conservative Government did. There are areas—[Interruption.] I have to talk about it, because of the fiction coming from the Opposition. We need to work harder on some serious elements of defence—mental health, veterans’ care, what we want our armed forces to stand for, and, crucially, what we do not want from our armed forces as we move forward to the period post-Brexit—but we must ground this debate in credibility and reality.
Yes, when it comes to pay everybody would like to be paid more. I could not find a single serviceman or woman in the UK armed forces today who would not like more money, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme if I were to stand here and say that that is the single blanket issue that drives down recruitment and reduces our ability to retain skilled men and women, or to say that a career in the armed forces is not worth it or completely constrained by appalling terms and conditions. That is not the case.
I want to address what is one of the most frustrating things about this place. We have a world-class military. Of all the things I can be accused of, of which there are many, being a Government lackey on defence is not one of them. If Members look at my record on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and defence spending, or have a brief conversation with the Minister for the Armed Forces, who recoils at the very mention of my name, they will know that I am not a defence lackey. On our capability, yes, we had more ships in the Falklands and more tanks and so on, but in the Falklands a lot of the guns and the ships did not work. The Type 26 frigate is one of the world’s most capable combat ships. Members can shake their heads and say, “Well, it doesn’t employ millions of people and the steel did not come from exactly where I wanted it to,” but we have a world-class military. It is therefore extremely disingenuous to the people of this country to constantly use this as a political football between the Labour party and the Conservative party over who is doing better on defence. We have deep challenges, but I gently suggest that pay is not one of them.
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 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
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 Deputy Speaker
Look what you’ve done now. You’ve got a point of order: Kevan Jones.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Hang on. The Minister has been here long enough; you know you have got to sit down. Please, let us follow the rules of engagement. As ex-Army personnel, you are very good at that. Kevan Jones.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Sir Mike Penning, thank you. Your knighthood goes before us. [Interruption.] Order. Now, we know that that is not the parliamentary way. I am sure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) does not mean it in the sense in which it was given.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Okay. I will accept “accuracy” but not “truth”. Minister.