Defence

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House pays tribute to the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces; believes that the Armed Forces must be fully-equipped and resourced to carry out their duties; and calls on the Government to ensure that defence expenditure is maintained at least at current levels, that no significant capabilities are withdrawn from service, that the number of regular serving personnel across the Armed Forced is maintained, and that current levels of training are maintained.

I am not sure whether I have to declare an interest, but I want to put it on the record that my son-in-law is an active member of Her Majesty’s reserves. As a family, we are all very proud of him, as no doubt many other hon. Members will be proud of individual members of their families.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting the application and all Members of the House who supported my securing this debate, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

No one questions the desire of any Member of this Parliament to defend our country against any threat. I say loudly and clearly that neither does anyone question Parliament’s pride or belief in the professionalism and immense dedication to duty of our armed forces. It is really important to say to those watching this debate that Parliament will rightly challenge the Government and hold them to account, but all of us, whether on the Government or Opposition Benches, are united in wanting to defend our country and in our immense pride for the dedication and professionalism of all our armed forces.

No one questions that, but Parliament does sometimes have to ask whether starting these debates is enough. At a time when our country faces real challenges, we have to match our rhetoric with the reality of the threats that we face. The Government, like all of us in this House, will know—indeed, this is what prompted so many of us to ask for this debate—of the constant media speculation and headline splashes about cuts to the various capabilities of our armed forces. It is vital that our defence budget, whatever that is, ensures that our armed forces are properly equipped for the challenges we will face in the future. It is abundantly clear that our armed forces—this will be one theme of what I say and, I am sure, of what is said by many other Members—need resources over and above what is currently planned for them, particularly in the light of the increasing threats we face as a country.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his commitment to defence. Is it not true that the Government have not set out a strategic vision of how we, as a country, will meet the threats we face?

[Vernon Coaker]

That question goes to the heart of everything we read from the all the various Select Committees and debates. It is the desire of all those Committees, of this Parliament and of all of us who take an interest in defence that we identify the strategic threats we face as a country, and then mould and adapt our armed forces and our security and intelligence services to meet those threats. I will say a little more about my hon. Friend’s point in a minute.

Only yesterday, General Sir Nick Carter, the head of the British Army, said on the “Today” programme that the threats had never been greater in his 40-year career. In evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, Mark Sedwill, the National Security Adviser, confirmed that in the last two years we have seen an intensification of the threats we face. Indeed, the former Defence Secretary spoke at another evidence session of an intensification of the risks that our country faces.

We can all name those risks: we have seen the various adventures that Russia has been involved in; we have seen what has happened with China and North Korea; we have seen terrible terrorist incidents in our country; we have seen the identification of risks in respect of new technologies, cyber and artificial intelligence and where that may take us; and we have seen the undermining of the rules-based international order. Those are not made-up threats; they are very real assessments of what our country faces, alongside its allies and those who stand with us. Parliament has a responsibility and a duty to debate how we will meet those threats. That is, I believe, something that the public would expect us to do.

This has been added to, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, by Brexit, which has caused us, as a nation, to reflect on our place in the world. I say strongly to hon. Members—looking around, I think many will agree—that this Parliament should once again send a clear message to our allies and the rest of the world that as a senior member of NATO, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a leader of the Commonwealth, we will not turn inwards and we will not flinch from our historical role as a promoter of democracy and defender of human rights, while also ensuring that our own interests are fully protected.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned North Korea. Is it not the case that the actions of the North Korean regime are a massive threat to the international rules-based order, and does not that need to have higher priority in the thinking not only of our own Government but of our allies?

[Vernon Coaker]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. North Korea and China are threatening some of the rules-based international order—particularly, as he says, North Korea. We have to meet that threat, and this debate is partly about how we do that. We have to win the argument again with the British public on this. The British public have to be persuaded—or not, because they can say, “We don’t agree.” We as a Parliament have to make the case again for why it is sometimes important for us to be concerned about actions that are taking place thousands and thousands of miles away, and understand why they have an impact on our own interests and our own security here at home. It can no longer be enough just to assert a problem—we have to once again make the case as to why matters such as North Korea are important.

Just two years after the strategic defence and security review of 2015, here we are in the midst of another review, led by Mark Sedwill. I know—other Members have mentioned this to me—that the Defence Secretary is trying to pull away the defence part of the security capability to provide a longer time to reflect, and I hope he is successful in doing that. However, as it stands, we have a review that is shrouded in uncertainty and that we are now told is to be delayed. One particular thing that was said in the Committee is completely wrong and has to be changed by the Government. Mr Sedwill said that

“this exercise was commissioned by the Council as fiscally neutral.”

Fiscally neutral? How can we come to such a conclusion before all the strands of the review are finished? Surely this is about matching resources to threats, not the other way round. Let this be the line in the sand that ensures that this principle is at the heart of the decisions we take as we now move forward.

We see story after story appearing in the media, speculating on which capability may or may not be cut. Why does this speculation abound? Why are there not statements to Parliament? Why is there no explanation of what is actually going on? To be fair to the Minister, I know that he will be concerned about some of this, but it is not good enough for the Government to dismiss these potential capability cuts as mere speculation by saying, “We don’t comment on these” or “No decisions have been made”. I do not want—nor, I am sure, does any Member of this House—a statement to be made to this House in three months’ time telling us what is going to be done rather than this House having debated and discussed it and come to a view as to where we should go. I do not want, and I do not believe Parliament wants, to wait for a set of decisions to be presented to us as a fait accompli. That is not good enough. Our country deserves better. The public and Parliament need to be properly informed. I am certain that colleagues across this House believe that it is for Parliament to debate the issues, to inform the decisions, and to play our full part in the choices we make as to how we defend our country and its freedoms.

According to the permanent secretary at a hearing of the Defence Committee at the end of last year, it appears that the Secretary of State has, as yet, made no explicit request for additional funding from the Chancellor. Will the Minister tell us where the discussions that have been reported in the media have got to? Will he confirm what the Defence Secretary is now saying to the Chancellor? Has he demanded any additional funding? Where has the discussion got to, or not, as to whether there is to be any additional funding? Will the Minister also confirm whether the defence aspect of the capabilities review has been delayed?

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

The hon. Gentleman will probably be astonished to learn that the National Security Adviser—Sir Mark Sedwill, as he now is—wrote to me on 23 October and said:

“Because the main decisions on Defence were taken during the”

2015

“SDSR, this review is not defence-focused. Defence capability is one of several projects within the review.”

We are therefore finding difficulty in bringing the National Security Adviser to the Defence Committee because he says that the review is not defence-focused. Yet the first thing we will know about the review is when we are told what major defence capabilities are going to be cut.

[Vernon Coaker]

I could not agree more with the Chair of the Defence Committee. He is absolutely right. Sir Mark Sedwill says that the review is not defence-focused, but he also said to the Committee, if I remember correctly—he has certainly been reported as saying this in the media—that there is a need for us to increase spending on our cyber and intelligence capabilities. This is fiscally neutral, so where is the money going to come from? That is why we get the speculation about the cuts in defence capabilities to which the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) refers. Because this is fiscally neutral, we are looking to take money from one thing to pay for another. The whole thrust of my argument is that if one thing is a threat and another thing is a threat, we do not rob from one to pay for the other—we fund them both because our country would demand that we do so.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. With regard to many of the commitments that were made in SDSR 2015, the money that would be needed to deliver on all those does not match up with what has been allocated to defence in the Budget statements. We are already being promised a lot of commitments that do not bear any relation to the amount of money that is currently allocated to defence in the Budget.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree. I will come on to the point that my hon. Friend has made very well when I talk about affordability.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this debate and on his speech, with every single word of which the whole House would agree. We also could not possibly disagree with the motion, with one exception. It is exceptionally disappointing that he calls for defence expenditure to be maintained “at current levels”. Actually, defence expenditure should be increased quite substantially, and that is the thrust of his speech, so he has got the wording of the motion slightly wrong.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. I am sure that he has read the whole motion, which says that expenditure should be maintained

“at least at current levels”.

This is the problem that I have in trying to be conciliatory. I tried to put together something that everybody would agree with, but perhaps I should have been a bit stronger. I take the admonishment, but I did say “at least”.

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

My hon. Friend refers to maintaining a fiscally neutral position in defence spending. Does he recognise that in the past few years defence inflation has been 3.9%, on average, whereas the background GDP deflator has been only 0.8%? We are seeing a huge erosion of the effective purchasing power of the defence budget every year that is eroding our capability every year.

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend knows, from his own background in the defence industry, the importance of the point he has made. It is not just the headline inflation figure but the real inflation rate we face that needs to be addressed when we make any spending decisions, so the point is very well made. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak for just a few more minutes.

We find ourselves in an incredibly serious situation, given that a Defence Minister is reported to have threatened to resign if the Army numbers are reduced any further. Will the Government rule out any further reductions in troop numbers below the 82,000 figure? The Army is already 4,000 below that figure, recruitment and retention in our armed forces as a whole has reached crisis point and the current deficit in the number of service personnel needed is 5.6%. I say to the Minister that central to this—I know the Government have made some noises about it—is lifting the 1% public pay cap for our armed forces. We should ensure that something is done about it as soon as possible.

What about the cuts to training that we have all read about? The Government have confirmed that a number of training exercises have already been cancelled for 2018, largely due to costs. According to a parliamentary written answer I have seen, those include Exercise Black Horse and Exercise Curry Trail, which involves jungle training. Have we now abandoned the foolish idea of cutting the marines by 1,000 people, and of getting rid of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which would mean we did not have the ability to mount beach landings? As I have said, the Government say that this is speculation, but the Minister now has an opportunity to rule out such things; he could say that this is speculation, that these things are not going to happen and that this Government will not let them take place.

Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), all of this is taking place against the backdrop of continuing financial pressures on the MOD’s £178 billion 10-year equipment plan. The National Audit Office has said:

“The risks to the affordability of the Ministry of Defence Equipment Plan are greater than at any point since reporting began in 2012”.

That is surely right. The plan relies heavily on efficiency savings being made in order to make ends meet. The MOD’s permanent secretary has stated that there is a need to save £30 billion over a 10-year period.

The 10-year equipment plan for the MOD does have amazing new equipment for our armed forces—new frigates, new planes and the Ajax fighting vehicle—and our defence companies provide massive employment opportunities, including apprenticeships. Many areas depend on this military spending, as well as businesses such as BAE, Airbus, Thales, Raytheon, Babcock and many others, including small and medium-sized enterprises. They need certainty in their orders, however, and regular orders to maintain their skill base, and the questions raised by the Defence Committee and the National Audit Office about affordability and efficiency savings cannot just be dismissed. The refreshed defence industrial strategy must be something that makes a tangible difference.

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

I strongly agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. We must support our brave men and women in our armed forces in every way we can, particularly in equipping them sufficiently. I know he would agree with me that it is critical to support our armed forces personnel after they leave and to resource such support properly. There is one part of the United Kingdom that does not have full implementation of the armed forces covenant, and that is Northern Ireland, due to Sinn Féin’s continued antipathy to the armed forces. Does he not agree that we should all work together to make sure that our armed forces personnel are fully supported not only while they are in the Army, but after they leave, and that there should be full implementation in Northern Ireland as soon as possible?

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for the important point she makes. It is obviously crucial that all our veterans, wherever they are, are supported and that arrangements are made to do so. Exactly how that should be done in Northern Ireland needs to be a matter for discussion, but let me say it is clear that arrangements must and should be put in place to support our veterans.

I was talking about the equipment plan, and I will take a couple more minutes to put before the House some points that highlight the problems. Will the Minister be more specific about the cost of the F-35 fighter plane for our wonderful new aircraft carriers? This is crucial because if we do not know how much the planes will cost, we do not know what the impact will be on the other parts of the equipment budget. If I may say so to the right hon. Member for New Forest East, I thought the Defence Committee’s report was brilliant on this, including the questioning from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and others.

I find it frustrating that the Committee, and other Members of this House, use the Government’s figures, but are then told something else. The total estimated cost to 2026-27 is £9.1 billion, during which time we will purchase 48 aircraft. However, the Government tell us that they cannot say how much each aircraft will cost. They then dispute the £9.1 billion figure, saying it includes this and includes that, and then arrive at a different figure, so what is the right figure? If we are wrong to divide £9.1 billion by 48, which gives £189 million per aircraft, and if the figure of £150 million given in The Times is wrong, what figure are the Government using to make sure that their equipment plan adds up? These are crucial questions, because if they will not say what is affordable, we will not know the impact on other capabilities.

Let me conclude by saying that the stark choices before us have recently been quite starkly spoken about by three very distinguished former armed forces commanders when they expressed their concerns and observations about the national security capability review. General Sir Richard Barrons said that

“if you do not put this money back into defence and pay the bill for SDSR 2015, you will be responsible for tipping the armed forces into institutional failure. That will be a failure of Government, not the armed forces.”

Air Vice-Marshal Sir Baz North said that the Government needed to

“Fund the corrections of 2015”,

and, agreeing, Admiral Sir George Zambellas said:

“I cannot add value to the strategic comments of my colleagues.”

This debate gives the House—this Parliament—an opportunity to speak for the country, and to give our armed forces the resources they need to meet the threats that this country faces. Our armed forces deserve it, our country deserves it and our allies are looking to us to provide it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for securing this debate. I found out a couple of minutes ago, to my astonishment, that he is not right honourable, but I am sure that will be rectified in good time. He was quite correct in what he said in his speech, and he struck a chord with me when he talked about the economic benefits to the country of maintaining defence spending. I will use the last part of my speech to talk about that, particularly as it relates to shipbuilding and the national shipbuilding strategy.

I have a great family history in that many members of my family have served in the armed forces, and when it comes to defence spending, Thales, a company in my constituency, is celebrating its centenary this year. As I noted in early-day motion 292, the company has now provided visual systems equipment for submarines—or, for the lay person, periscopes—for 100 years. That resonates with me because, when it was trading as Barr and Stroud, my grandfather and grandmother met there, fell in love and ended up married for 61 and a half years. They were very keen supporters of the Scottish National party, and if it was not for them I would not be here in the Chamber today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for mentioning the Coming Home centre, which is celebrated in early-day motion 499. It provides 1,000 hot meals a month to veterans in Glasgow, and it does fantastic work. I am a regular visitor to that centre, and am always keen to help with its funding.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) made an important point that was backed up by other Members when he said that the Government should be allocating more time to discuss defence matters. For example, Sir John Parker’s report on shipbuilding was published on 3 November 2016, but the first opportunity for Members of the House to debate that report was 8 February 2017, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) secured a debate in Westminster Hall.

We had a ministerial statement on the national shipbuilding strategy from the former Defence Secretary—it is fair to say that it was a presentational dog’s breakfast—but we have not yet had the opportunity to debate that strategy, despite the best efforts of many members of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair, who are always applying for such debates. This is therefore an opportunity for Members such as me—and I am sure others—to debate the national shipbuilding strategy.

For me, the national shipbuilding strategy has flaws that should be explored by hon. Members across the House to see whether we can put them right. Our real fear is that the national shipbuilding strategy is going back to the thinking of the 1980s, which suggested that shipyards should be in competition with each other. Such thinking has only ever led to shipyards closing. Competition has not led to the cutting of costs; with shipbuilding it has led to higher costs and to some famous shipyards—such as Swan Hunter—no longer being around and trading.

We must consider whether we want specialist shipyards that build complex naval warships. That was the position of the former Labour Government who decided that the centre of excellence for building complex naval warships was on the Clyde. I am always grateful to the workforce at Govan on the Clyde, and particularly to the trade union representatives who do a magnificent job of representing their members in the shipbuilding industry.

The other flaw in the national shipbuilding strategy is the nonsensical position of ignoring Sir John Parker’s recommendations, and sending the building of Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships out to international competition. This country has just completed a process during which the Aircraft Carrier Alliance was built across shipyards in the UK. If that was good enough for the Alliance, surely it is good enough for Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. I do not believe that sending Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to international competition will save the Ministry of Defence money—far from it. Indeed, the Government would make greater savings if they built the ships in the United Kingdom, because the workers building those ships would pay income tax into Government coffers. There will be no savings in sending the building of Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to international competition, and I hope that the new ministerial team in the MOD will look seriously at that issue. These ships should be built in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned price tags, and his speech resonated with me with regard to general purpose frigates. There is a flipside to what he said about price tags, and I have the impression that the price tag set for a general purpose frigate will determine its capabilities. We have yet to discover—either in a debate or during Defence questions—what will be the capability of the general purpose frigate. It seems to be a downsize from the Type-26 frigate, three of which are contracted to be built in my constituency. What is the role, purpose and function of the general purpose frigate for the Royal Navy? We do not yet know.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am sorry to interrupt, but this is such an important point about capability. If you have an equipment budget projected over the next number of years, it must be based on a certain price. So if you do not know the price of those frigates and the price goes up, the only way to pay for them without increasing resources is to cut a capability somewhere else. It is ridiculous.

[Chris Stephens]

I fully agree with that point. Francis Tusa, a defence analyst, said that if anyone believes it is possible to build a general purpose frigate for £250 million they are guilty of a conspiracy of optimism. There is no defence expert who thinks that that is an appropriate price for building the general purpose frigate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on securing this debate. I rise to speak not only for the armed forces in Plymouth, but those right round the world. They deserve our thanks and respect for all the work they do. It is worth noting that it is not only those people who serve in uniform that we should be thanking in this debate, but all those civilian defence workers who do such a good job of supporting our armed forces, not only the engineers, designers, tradesmen and technicians at Devonport dockyard but those in the entire supply chain—sometimes called “the defence family.”

Plymouth is entwined with this debate, not only as a defence city but because HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and the Royal Marines, which are based in Plymouth, are at the heart of this debate about defence spending. A strong defence is worth fighting for, and that is a sentiment that has been shared by Members on both sides of the House. I think the defence communities have had enough of the talk of cuts—Plymouth certainly has—and they want to see a strategy laid out such that we can proudly talk up our armed forces, with a firm plan about how we will provide them with the equipment and training they need, and the support they need after their time in uniform has come to an end. That should be our collective ambition, but we are still far too far from that at the moment.

I would like to praise all those who have come to the defence of Albion and Bulwark and the Royal Marines. Plymouth, as we know, is at the centre of the universe—it has certainly felt that way in this debate. Members across the House, people across the country and our allies abroad have spoken about the world-class capabilities that Albion and Bulwark provide, and the expertise of the crews who serve on board and the people who provide support in port. I also support the Plymouth Herald’s “Fly the Flag for Devonport” campaign, which has enabled people in Plymouth to add their voices in support of our brave men and women who serve on Albion and Bulwark and in the Royal Marines.

As has been said, the context of this debate has changed. Russia is more assertive. Its use of Georgia and Ukraine as test grounds for new weapons and tactics is something that all of us in this House, whether or not we have a defence interest, should be aware of. Its weaponisation of migration, in particular, is a deliberate tactic deployed by the Kremlin. Its use of cyber to intimidate not only us but our allies is a growing threat. The threat to the northern flank, as detailed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), is something we should take seriously. We need to know about the threat to the Baltic states. I ran a quick test on the Baltic states, asking people to name them from north to south. I have to say that I am concerned by the results. It is critical to the defence of our NATO and EU allies that we understand why the Baltic states are important, so we should first be able to name them on the map.

[Vernon Coaker]

Go on then.

[Luke Pollard]

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and then, importantly, Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave in the heart of Europe. We should all be studying this important defence context.

We need to invest more in our cyber and intelligence capabilities, but not at the expense of our conventional forces, as has been said. We need to invest not only in our equipment, but in our personnel. I know from conversations with off-duty service personnel in the pubs around Plymouth that morale is a concern, not only because of the poor state of armed forces accommodation, as has been mentioned, but because of the pay cap and the uncertainty of their role in the world. Key to our armed forces is their ability to get on and do. They do not question; they just deliver. It is up to us in this place, and to Ministers, to do our bit to ensure that they have the backup they need. At the moment there is much more that could be done.

I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for meeting me yesterday to talk about the base-porting of frigates, which is an important issue in Devonport. I welcome the decision to base-port the new Type 23s with tails and ASW—anti-submarine warfare—capabilities in Devonport, but I encourage Ministers to set out a timetable for when the base-porting arrangements for the Type 26s and Type 31s will be made so that we can provide certainty. Devonport has a 25-year order book for maintenance in our dockyard, but that is not the case for our naval base. That certainty is very important.

In my maiden speech I made the case for the Type 26s to be base-ported in Plymouth. At the time I was expecting 13 Type 26s, as Scottish National party colleagues have mentioned, but we now expect only eight of them plus the Type 31s. I am concerned about the debate on the Type 31s, because we must have confidence in these warships, to ensure that they and the crews who serve on them around the world are respected. I think that the debate on the Type 31 frigate could be resolved simply if Ministers renamed it a corvette rather than a frigate. The Type 26 frigate will be world-class and world-beating. Let us not spend our time in this place talking down the Type 31. We should be having 13 Type 26s, but for various reasons we will not, so let us have five world-class corvettes, not just cheap frigates, which would do us and the Royal Navy no favours. I think that could easily be rectified.

While I am making requests of the Minister, will he provide some clarity today on what is happening with HMS Ocean? Having returned from expert work supporting hurricane-hit communities in the Caribbean, to hear from the Brazilian Government that they have purchased HMS Ocean for £84 million, not from the UK Government, felt like a kick in the teeth for all those closely associated with this world-class ship. I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarity on what is happening to her.

I mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark at the start of my remarks. I expect Ministers to hold true to their promise that Plymouth will be a centre for amphibiosity. That means not only retaining the Royal Marines in Plymouth after the closure of its spiritual home at Stonehouse barracks with a new purpose-built facility in the Plymouth area, but also ensuring that we have amphibious ships that are capable. The Bay classes are brilliant ships but they cannot replace the capabilities of the Albion class ships, and neither can the carriers. Losing HMS Ocean’s unique littoral capabilities for a helicopter carrier cannot be replaced by the Prince of Wales.

So we know we are having a capabilities cut already, but we need to make sure that, in providing a world-class centre for amphibiosity, we retain Albion and Bulwark and the Royal Marines. I am pleased that there has been cross-party and cross-Chamber support for the retention of the Royal Marines and the amphibious warships, and I know that Ministers have listened carefully to this. I must tell the Minister that many Members on both sides of the House will join him in any contest he has with the Treasury to make sure that he gets the resources he needs to provide for our armed forces.

On four occasions to date since being elected, I have asked Ministers to rule out cuts to Albion and Bulwark, but on each occasion I have been told it is simply speculation and is untrue. I ask the Minister now to give some certainty to those who serve on those ships by ruling out the cuts once and for all so that we can focus on where we need to get to, and to rule out cuts to the Royal Marines. Plymouth already saw the loss of 300 Royal Marines from 42 Commando just before the general election, so we have recent history of knowing that cuts to the Royal Marines can, and indeed do, happen. They are a vital pipeline for our special forces; the 6,500 Royal Marines provide 40% of our special forces. We must preserve and embed this pipeline.



On submarine recycling, we have spoken about the importance of our hunter-killers and our ballistic missile submarines, but I also want to raise the issue of the 19 decommissioned defuelled or fuelled submarines lying at rest in Devonport or at the naval base in Rosyth. Valiant, Warspite, Conqueror, Courageous, Sovereign, Splendid, Spartan, Superb, Trafalgar, Sceptre, Turbulent and Tireless are waiting in Devonport dockyard for recycling. The demonstration project on Swiftsure in Scotland is, I believe, paused at present.

We need a long-term solution so that we can safely dispose of our nuclear legacy, ensuring that, when new submarines are brought on board, we as a nation deal with the legacy of previous ones. We must ensure that the people of Plymouth and Rosyth do not have an indeterminate uncertain legacy in their dockyards without knowing what will happen to them in the future. This topic is being raised on the doorsteps in Plymouth, and although it only affects two places across the country, it should affect all of us in how we deal responsibly with the legacy of our armed forces.

I agree with all the remarks that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made about our shipbuilding strategy. We must have clear investment in that strategy, and the House should be firmly opposed to building the solid support ships abroad. The tonnage of those ships would equal that of the carrier programme, and we have demonstrated that the carrier alliance model works. As the RFA ships might not be armed but will be carrying munitions, the Government should determine that there will be a restricted tender for security and defence reasons, so that the long-term contract is provided to a UK facility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank all my hon. Friends and all hon. Members who have taken part in this well-informed debate. I gently say to the Minister that it is disappointing the Defence Secretary has not been here for at least part of the debate to listen to the intensity of feeling on both sides of the House that wants to get behind him in his arguments with the Treasury.

A lot of what the Minister said was, “There will be lots of answers in due course.” As it stands, we do not know from the Government about the size of the Army; about whether there are continuing threats to the number of Marines, to Albion and Bulwark, and to the number of planes; or about a whole number of equipment decisions.

The reason why the Government are in this predicament, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and many Opposition Members have said, is that the National Security Adviser told the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that he was instructed by the National Security Council to deliver a strategy review that is fiscally neutral. That means it does not matter what threats he uncovers or what threats he feels this country faces—we have heard that everyone believes those threats have increased and intensified—as he will not recommend that there should be more money; he will recommend that we cut from one area to pay for another. That is totally and utterly unacceptable to this Parliament, to the public and to this country. It is not good enough. The Government have to get a grip and realise that we will not have defence on the cheap—this Parliament will not vote for it.

I say this as a Labour politician: all power to the Department in its argument with the Treasury to get the money it needs to defend the country we all love and to continue promoting democracy and human rights across the world. That is what needs to happen, and all power to the Secretary of State as he argues with the Treasury to get that money. Anything else would be a diminution of the responsibilities of this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House pays tribute to the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces; believes that the Armed Forces must be fully-equipped and resourced to carry out their duties; and calls on the Government to ensure that defence expenditure is maintained at least at current levels, that no significant capabilities are withdrawn from service, that the number of regular serving personnel across the Armed Forced is maintained, and that current levels of training are maintained.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record, as it appears I may have inadvertently misled the House this morning. During business questions, I spoke of the Scottish Government sending two letters to the outgoing Culture Secretary without reply. Hansard did not record the words “without reply”, but the Minister responded to that specific point in his response. It has since come to my attention that the Scottish Government have recently received a response from the Secretary of State, and I did not want the day to end without correcting the record. I thank you for the opportunity to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I certainly was not anticipating that line of questioning from my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but he is absolutely right that this new class of aircraft carrier will give a powerful expression of national ambition and intent. They are versatile and agile ships and will be able to perform a wide range of maritime security roles.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government see the future of the Queen Elizabeth, when it comes into service, as an aircraft carrier and not as meeting defence cuts by replacing amphibious landing craft such as HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am delighted to confirm that we have not only one aircraft carrier but a second aircraft carrier, which is now structurally complete, at Rosyth. Of course, there will be adaptations to ensure that the carriers are able to support the full range of helicopters in our fleet, but we have absolutely confirmed that we will have a full range of maritime capabilities from these two remarkable and adaptable ships.

Defence Aerospace Industrial Strategy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Every Member has the best interests of our country’s defence at heart. The challenge to the Minister is not being made in a partisan way, but it is necessary because we want to hold the Government to account in this regard.

Let me say—in the presence of the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and some of the other Committee members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who initiated the debate—that I think some of the evidence that has been given to the Committee over the past few weeks about defence procurement and equipment should be essential reading for all Members. I commend the Committee and its Chair for that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that the debate is taking place in the context of a great deal of uncertainty about the entire equipment budget. That uncertainty leaves the Government unsure about how they will fill a gap which requires—depending on whom we believe—considerable sums of money. If we are not careful, we will end up with short-term fixes in relation to medium and longer-term strategic objectives. The aerospace industry is particularly vulnerable in that respect.

Let me quote from the Select Committee’s report, which was published this morning. The evidence of General Barrons and Admiral Zambellas was particularly challenging for the Government, but in the context of the debate, I want to quote what was said by Air Marshal Sir Baz North:

“as a juxtaposition, look at our defence exports—80% is in the air sector, yet we do not have an air sector industrial policy to support the very industries that we need to support the platforms at home to sustain those. It’s not just about foreign exchange, but about where we find ourselves. People wish to buy our kit, yet we are not joined up and together in terms of supporting that initiative”.

I think that that sums up where we are. Let us take BAE Systems, although of course there are many other defence companies. We have the Typhoon—or the Eurofighter, or whatever we call it—which has been rolled out until 2040. What will happen after that? We are not sure. We have the Hawk jets, which have been given a 2030 deadline that many of us had never heard about until a week or so ago.

My hon. Friends, and others, have asked why we do not use this as an opportunity to sustain the skills and expertise of our workers. Why do we not take this as an opportunity to look at how we might use the newer Hawk T2s, to showcase everything that is best about our industry and our workforce and to retain that sovereign capability? We cannot just see this industry as a tap that is turned on and off; we have to maintain capability and sustain that capability.

Much of that is about exports, but we do not know where this sixth generation combat fighter is coming from. We are uncertain about that, but we all know that certainty is the key to investment and to maintaining skills—through the training and through apprenticeships of future workers. So I say again to the Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East, that the evidence to the Committee should be essential reading for everybody. It challenges the Government to get a grip on equipment procurement, of which aerospace is a crucial and dynamic part.

Armed Forces Pay

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I shall give way one more time and then I must make progress.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. May I take him back to his comment about military salaries rising in real terms? Can he explain to the House why the Ministry of Defence publication of 1 September 2017 states:

“Fig. 11 highlights that growth in military salaries fell below inflation from financial year 2010/11 to 2014/15.”?

Will he source where his evidence is coming from, as opposed to the evidence that the rest of us are having to rely on, which is taken from the MOD’s own website?

[Mark Lancaster]

We are going back—are we not?—to the debate about the annual salary increase and incremental pay. I have always used the example of the private soldier, where we see almost a 20% salary increase over three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

No one believes that our armed forces are anything but among the best in the world. There is no division about that. Everybody knows as well that it is not just pay, but I think there are some real challenges facing our armed forces today both in terms of retention and recruitment.

I would like to use the Government’s own statistics, published on 12 October straight from the MOD. I think pay is relevant and is one of those challenges. I agree about accommodation and all the other comments that have been made, but pay is a factor. It is really important for the Minister to understand the scale of the challenge we are facing as a country in the recruitment and retention of our armed forces. The key points and trends from the Government’s own figures show that the strength of UK armed forces personnel is down. Full-time trained strength—down. I say to the Minister that that is with the new way to judge what are full-time personnel, where people do just phase 1 training, not phases 1 and 2. Deficit against the planned number of personnel needed—up. People joining the UK regular armed forces—down. People joining the future reserves—down.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vernon Coaker]

No. I am sorry, but other Members would not be able to speak.

People who have left the future reserves—an increase.

I am not saying to the Minister or the House that we are all doomed, but we would be neglecting our responsibilities if we did not look at what is happening. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in an excellent speech, pointed out the difficulties in relation to hollowing out. There is good news, but there are also real problems. It is the same with pay. The Minister said that pay had gone up, yet his own documentation shows, in figure 11, that armed forces pay has actually gone down. Either the Minister is publishing wrong information on the internet, or his speech is wrong. We also learn that the real growth of military salaries is negative, at minus 0.1% during 2015-16.

I just wanted to put those facts on the table, because there is a real challenge for us as a country and a Parliament in terms of what we do about this issue. We have been debating recruitment to the armed forces for years. We have been debating the retention of armed forces personnel for years. We can argue about who is right and who is wrong, but this country faces a very real difficulty with this issue. I think pay is one aspect of it, and accommodation is another.

However, I want to point out another thing to the Minister—members of other bodies to do with defence have heard me say this before. The policy briefing—this is part of the issue—talks about the main factors affecting decisions about the size of the armed forces required by the Ministry of Defence to achieve success in its military tasks. It lists a number of things, but the crucial one is an assessment of current and future threats to UK national security. We need to explain to the public what we want our armed forces for, what we expect them to do and, therefore, why we wish people to join them. Some of that is about having a grown-up conversation with people. Yes, we should talk about recruiting, but we should have a clear vision of why we are proud of our armed forces and the job they do, and why we need them to pursue the objectives we as a country have, whether abroad or defending our citizens at home against the threats we face.

There are real challenges, and they are set out in the Government’s own documents. The Minister needs to say how things will be different, so that we can see success, rather than these perennial debates about what we will do about the fact that we are not recruiting enough people and not retaining enough people for long enough.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth]

I could not agree more. We need to be careful about how we roll out flexible working to ensure that the whole workforce is covered from day one in 2019. We now have about a year until that date in which to recruit in order to ensure that staff are not increasingly overstretched. It has to be a whole-force approach. As with any business that implements flexible working options, a full complement will be needed to deliver flexible working, otherwise it will not work.

I will briefly mention women in the armed forces. The number of women currently serving is a key issue; 10.2% of our armed forces are women, which is a significant development from the situation 20 years ago, but it is simply not good enough. I think that many colleagues on both sides of the House—especially after debates earlier today—would suggest that more women everywhere would be a very good thing. But the reality is that there will not be senior female personnel, such as a female Chief of the Defence Staff, until women have progressed through the ranks. To do that, we need to ensure that they and their families, whether serving or not, have support around them.

The fact that only three women are at two-star rank is simply not acceptable. We need to look at the additional support they need, which is why this has to be the beginning, not the end—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is correcting me. There are, in fact, four women at two-star rank. The right hon. Gentleman will have to tell me who has been promoted; I celebrate and welcome all promotions. There are additional strains on family life for all women who serve, but there are also clear moments where career breaks are necessary. Women should not have to leave the forces to have a family or to look after ageing relatives.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

At the heart of the Bill and at the heart of what my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government’s proposed legislative change will require a cultural change in the armed forces. Is that not what is needed for the very fine and good aspiration of this legislation to be delivered in practice?

[Ruth Smeeth]

We are talking about a cultural change and a legislative change, but it is also a financial change. In order to ensure that our armed forces can protect us when we need them to, we need to deliver for them and look after them. That is the least we owe them. To get past these challenges and deliver for our armed forces, this legislation must be the beginning of reviewing their terms and conditions, not the end.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, but—there is always a but—we need to look at the armed forces’ overall broader package of terms and conditions, and at how much they earn. We need to look at the 1% pay cap because, as the shadow Secretary of State said, there is no trade union that can advocate for our armed forces. It is down to us in this House to ensure that they are well paid, and it is down to us to fight their corner because no one else is going to do it for them. While our service personnel are protecting our national security at home and abroad, we must ensure that we are looking after them and their families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, splendid!

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on what is happening with regard to ordering the aircraft for the aircraft carrier? It would be handy to have an update on that.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am pleased to be able to update the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, we already have 12 F-35 aircraft and they are already flying in the US. We will have 14 by the end of the year. Next year, we are on track to stand up the first squadron in the UK. I am pleased that I was able to announce last week that the F-35 has successfully completed the trials on the ski jump in the US and is now cleared to take off from the carrier.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I very much support what the Defence Secretary has said about the contribution that we are making in respect of NATO in Estonia and Poland, but having spoken to a couple of constituents at the weekend, I believe that the Government, and all of us, have a job of work to do to explain to the British public the importance of NATO and the continuing need for us to be vigilant in eastern Europe.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I absolutely agree. We need to keep restating the case for NATO, and it is sometimes sad to see the case for it being questioned. We must restate its importance. It was good to hear the President reinforce that in his speech in Warsaw on Friday, but I think that all of us in the House have a responsibility to explain why our troops are being deployed to Poland and Estonia, why our Typhoons are based in Romania this summer, and why we are committing Royal Navy ships to the standing maritime groups this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I would be delighted to do so.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Defence Secretary had with the US Government about the announcement over the weekend of the deployment of hundreds of US marines to northern Syria, what their purpose is and what co-operation will take place between us and the Americans with respect to that deployment?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I reviewed the campaign in Syria with the United States Defence Secretary at our meeting in Brussels a couple of weeks ago. We are not deploying combat troops to this particular campaign in Syria, but the United States is committing more support forces and working as part of the international coalition to ensure that the Syrian Democratic Forces have all the assistance and advice they need.

Armed Forces Covenant

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), although I did not agree with his last comment about women—but we will leave that to one side, as we are here to discuss the military.

I am never sure about these things, but I think I should start by declaring a non-pecuniary interest: my son-in-law is serving with the Army in Cyprus as an active reservist and my daughter has received some leaflets and so on from those supporting families with partners serving abroad. I say that just in case it matters somewhere along the line.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) on bringing this debate to the House and the other Members who supported her, the hon. Members for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). It is incumbent on us to debate these matters. We all agree that the armed forces—those who have served and those currently serving, as well as their families—deserve great credit and huge respect. When I taught in the 1980s—other Members might remember this—we did not, in some respects, celebrate or commemorate poppy day, and sometimes it was regarded as inappropriate for military personnel to come into schools. It represents a great step forward for our country that over the last few years the military have been welcome in our schools and we have celebrated poppy day properly. It teaches our children and young people the importance of service, how they live in a country that has been protected by people for generations and that the freedoms they deserve were hard won and need to be maintained.

It is important that we discuss these matters, and it is wonderful now to see so many young people at remembrance and other such events through the year. I am sure that everyone has noticed that. It is a huge step forward for us all, and it is happening across the country, including in Northern Ireland—I have been there and seen it for myself. Incidentally, I agreed with many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I know how hard he has worked, along with his colleague the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), on these matters.

I wish to challenge the Government on a couple of points, but I want to put that in context, because today’s report is generally a very positive one about the progress being made. From a consensual point of view, I think we all believe that progress is being made, but we have heard about accommodation and other such matters, and we all want to try to accelerate that progress and say to the Minister, “These are the challenges that still remain”. I make my comments, therefore, having recognised that much progress has been made. To be fair to the Minister, he recognised that himself in his evidence on 17 January to the Defence Committee.

In every aspect of the covenant, we have made huge progress, but there remain problems. Although every local authority has signed up—as I understand it—their record on implementation and action is variable. We have to find a way of holding local authorities to account. Where they have signed up to things, how do we hold them to account more effectively and help them deliver the outcomes they have committed themselves to? For example, a Local Government Association report has found that, regardless of our efforts, 40% of those who have served in the armed forces still feel that their service has left them at a disadvantage. That is not good enough.

We also need to understand that the covenant for communities is non-binding. The point has been made that we need to raise awareness of the responsibilities of people who have signed up to the covenant. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say in his evidence that the inter-ministerial group with overall responsibility for co-ordination is to meet only twice a year, and it was unclear who was to chair it—perhaps he will clarify that in his remarks. I know his answer will be, “Well, there are lots of other bodies below that responsible for delivery of the covenant”, but the inter-ministerial group is really important. I ask him gently whether meeting twice a year sufficient. I question whether it is sufficient.

The issue of housing has been raised. There can be no doubt that, frankly, some of the accommodation is appalling—every Member here could give examples—and that it has been so for a number of years. This is a real challenge for all of us, and we need to sort it out. It simply is not good enough that some of our service personnel are having to live in such appalling accommodation. A massive defence estate reorganisation is now taking place affecting some 27,000 families. There is an opportunity there, as well as a challenge, for the Government.

I agree very much with the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about schools admission policy. It raises an issue that the Minister might want to address in his remarks. What is the Government’s view of not disadvantaging service personnel as opposed to giving them preferential treatment? My own view is that the public accept, in certain circumstances, that we should advantage service personnel because of their service to the country, and I think that schools admissions is one such area in which they should be advantaged.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

In Aldershot, I find that Hampshire County Council has been incredibly enlightened: it makes allowances for all the schools in its budgets for what it calls “turbulence”. I am not hearing many complaints at all, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with his local education authority.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am making the more general point that the situation varies across the country. I am sure that it is really good in some local education authorities, but it is not so good elsewhere. Perhaps the situation in Aldershot, which is in Hampshire, is particularly good because there are a lot of service personnel, so they have experience. The Government need to consider what happens when service personnel disperse to areas across the country that do not have so many service personnel and how to give them the same quality of provision.

Finally, the issue of mental health will not go away. Significant numbers of veterans are still struggling to access the services that they need. We can debate why that is, but the reality is that things need to be improved and more needs to be done.

This is a hugely significant debate—it has almost been a discussion—and we all want the best for our veterans. We talk about their service to the country, and we need to make sure that the country does its best for them.

Trident: Test Firing

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the previous testing regime. The House might want to know that the demonstration and shakedown operation is critical at intervals for demonstrating the effectiveness of the deterrent. It comprises a comprehensive series of system and sub-system tests, as I have said, and it provides a period of intensive training for the submarine’s crew. It evaluates the complex weapons system involved in Trident, including the performance of the crew, and it concludes each time with an unarmed missile firing. HMS Vengeance successfully concluded that shakedown operation.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I am a supporter of the deterrent, but does the Secretary of State not understand that a leak to a Sunday newspaper, followed by, frankly, Government stonewalling, does not enhance support for the deterrent, but undermines it?