Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

The Government are committed to increasing our maritime power to project our influence across the world and promote national prosperity. Growing for the first time in a generation, we will spend £63 billion on new ships and submarines over the next decade. We are also committed to increasing the number of personnel in the Royal Navy.

[Kevin Foster]

As the Minister will know, the strongest arm of the Royal Navy is the Royal Marines. Will he update the House on the work that is ongoing to transform the Royal Marines home base in south Devon into a world-leading facility and how it will enhance our national amphibious capability plans to ensure that we continue to meet our NATO and national priorities?

[Mark Lancaster]

In my previous role, I was responsible for the better defence estate strategy. I can confirm that it remains the intention to dispose of the Royal Citadel and Stonehouse in 2024 and Chivenor in 2027, and to provide units for the Royal Marines in either Plymouth or Torpoint. I cannot confirm exactly what form that will take at this stage, as further work is required, but I will update the House in due course.

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

The lack of clarity and the leaks and confusion surrounding the national security review are really hitting morale, and morale affects capability in the Royal Navy. Given the uncertainty over Plymouth’s HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark and, now, the leaked proposal to merge the Royal Marines with the Parachute Regiment, will the Minister clear up the confusion and rule out those Navy cuts and the merger?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I can only repeat what has already been said: the Government take the security of our nation incredibly seriously. I think it is far more important to ensure that the review is robust, comprehensive and detailed than to rush to make announcements simply to appease the hon. Gentleman.

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

May we take a moment to acknowledge the courageous service of Surgeon-Captain Rick Jolly, whose death has just been announced? He was the only person to be awarded a gallantry medal by both sides in the Falklands war.

Will the Minister please take back to those conducting the review the united opinion on both sides of the House that any loss of frigates and amphibious vessels before their due out-of-service dates would be totally unacceptable?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting the very sad passing of Commander Rick Jolly. He was indeed an absolute legend, and the service that he provided in the Falklands is worth reading about. It is unique to have been given awards for gallantry by both the United Kingdom and the Argentine forces. I also note my right hon. Friend’s other point.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Does not the passage of the Russian frigate Admiral Gorshkov through the English channel over Christmas prove that the Russians are intent on constantly observing our capability on the high seas, and is it not vital for us to maintain that capability at as high a level as possible?

[Mark Lancaster]

Absolutely. The Russian activity in the north Atlantic is as high as it has been since the end of the cold war, which is why we constantly assess it and respond appropriately. I was delighted that, as ever, HMS St Albans accompanied that Russian vessel during its passage through the channel.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

May I reiterate what Members on both sides of the House have said so far, and add my concerns to those that have already been expressed about the future of the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy? I believe that any cutting of the Royal Marines or any further part of our amphibious fleet—HMS Ocean having already gone to the Brazilians—is absolutely out of order and totally unacceptable.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend is a champion of the armed forces, and I am of course aware of his own service. I can only repeat what has already been said, but I entirely recognise the contribution made by both the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy. I was deeply honoured to be able to award green berets to our Royal Marines back in 2016, having accompanied them for a short run across the moor. I am only too well aware of what they are capable of, and I note my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What assessments have been undertaken of naval capability in response to the inevitable arms race in weapons of mass destruction which would follow the implementation of the United States’ nuclear posture review?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am sorry, but I did not catch the question. If I may, I will review it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

I think it would be fair to say that it was tangential to the subject of the strength of the Royal Navy.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We have heard from the Government ad nauseam that the Royal Navy is growing when that is demonstrably untrue. There continues to be a sharp divide between rhetoric and reality. It is utterly unacceptable that the House should hear about significant potential cuts from the newspapers, as we did yet again this weekend. Can the Minister refute those reports, and confirm that we will not see a repetition of the 2010 scale of cuts in our armed forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

It is deeply disappointing that the hon. Lady once again comes to the Dispatch Box almost trying to talk down our Royal Navy. As is clear from the opening comments, we are absolutely committed to some £63 billion-worth of investment in our Royal Navy. Only shortly before Christmas we saw the Queen Elizabeth arriving in Portsmouth, after £120 million worth of investment in Portsmouth. We have now laid the first contracts for the first three Type 26s, and we are looking at Type 31s, and there are also nine new P-8 aircraft. The investment in our Royal Navy is significant, so for the hon. Lady to come to the Dispatch Box and simply try to talk it down is deeply disappointing.

[Nia Griffith]

Once again we do not seem to have very clear answers on that front. We also know that a lack of personnel is a driving factor for decisions in the Royal Navy. Capita is failing miserably on recruitment targets, failing to deliver savings, and is still bungling its IT systems, so what specific steps will the Minister be taking to get to grips with this situation?

[Mark Lancaster]

We seem to be switching seamlessly from the Navy to the Army. [Interruption.] If it is in order, that is fine, but there is continuing work on recruitment in the Army. I am pleased to say that compared with this period last year, applications are up about 20%. There have been some minor glitches in the new computer system, but they are being ironed out and I am confident that we will see recruitment into the Army increasing.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

8. What recent steps his Department has taken to develop the future accommodation model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

11. If he will take steps to further recognise the work of munitions workers during the First and Second World Wars.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the thousands who worked in munitions factories during both world wars. They produced vital equipment that helped us to final victory. For practical reasons, it is not possible to pursue individual awards, but the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be happy to work with colleagues across the House to look at further ways of recognising the collective effort of former munitions workers.

[Henry Smith]

My constituent Sue Wickstead wrote to me about her aunt, who worked in a munitions factory during the second world war, and I urge my hon. Friend to work with BEIS to ensure that munitions workers are properly commemorated for their bravery on behalf of our country’s freedom.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am delighted to say that we are already in negotiations with the Department and will happily pursue that work.

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

Last year, I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Ethel Parker, a 99-year-old former munitions worker from Swynnerton. She is incredibly proud of her service and will be 100 in May—I am sure she will forgive me for mentioning her age. For her and many others, time may well be running out, and they would very much want to be at the opening of a memorial, which would ideally not be in London so that they could visit it. Can we progress this issue as a matter of urgency, just as we have with other memorials, so that those involved can actually see the testament to their work to deliver victory in world war one and world war two?

[Mark Lancaster]

Once again, I can only pay tribute to those constituents who played such an important part in the second world war—those who took part in world war one are no longer around—and I absolutely recognise the urgency. We had a similar issue when it came to the French Légion d’Honneur, so mechanisms are in place, but I will pursue this as a matter of urgency.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

12. If he will reinstate the war widows’ pension for widows who were required to surrender that pension due to remarriage or cohabitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

19. How many pilots have applied to leave the Royal Air Force in each of the last three years.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

A total of 145 pilots formally applied to leave the Royal Air Force in the last three financial years.

[John Grogan]

Does the Minister agree that the RAF needs to do everything possible to retain its experienced pilots, particularly in the light of competition from the civil sector? Will he look at the case of 100 experienced pilots who have been disadvantaged in relation to their peers by the latest change to pay and conditions?

[Mark Lancaster]

I absolutely recognise that we need to retain our experienced pilots, and of course a number of financial retention schemes are in place to do that. Equally, pilots have the choice as to whether or not they remain flying, by going into a specialist flying scheme, or stop flying, by going into the general scheme. Since the announcement that we would be buying nine P-8s, I have been deeply encouraged by the number of commercial pilots who have left the RAF and now want to re-join.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

RAF pilots from Lossiemouth and other military personnel in my constituency have contacted me about the Scottish National party’s “nat tax”, which makes Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom and potentially a less desirable posting. Does the Minister agree that the SNP should drop these dangerous plans? If it will not, what support could the Government give RAF personnel in Scotland, who will face paying more tax than their counterparts south of the border?

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t bang on about SNP policy—we don’t need to do that. The esteemed Minister should focus on the latter part of the question, which was orderly and did relate to the policy of the Government, for which he is responsible.

[Mark Lancaster]

I would not dream of banging on about the SNP, but it is of course for it to justify to our armed forces personnel its higher rate of income tax. I have yet to be contacted by any RAF pilots wishing to leave, and I will continue to do my best to ensure that they will want to stay in the RAF.

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

20. If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of holding a UK-only competition to design and construct the new fleet solid support ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

T4. At this time, when there is so much pressure on the departmental budget, will the Minister make sure that cadets, who do so much to make sure that recruitment carries on, are properly protected and resourced?

[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)]

T7. The national shipbuilding strategy states that overseas nations will order 40 Type 31 frigates. It is nearly 40 years since we last successfully exported any frigates, so will the Minister explain how that figure was arrived at? Is there any fact behind it, or is it just optimistic spin?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T6. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of the threat to Britain from Russia in the north Atlantic, and can he assure me that the Royal Navy’s submarine service has the resources needed to meet any such threat and provide a continuous at-sea deterrent?

[Mark Lancaster]

As I mentioned earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the level of naval activity that we see from Russia is at its highest since the cold war, but I am sure that the House will appreciate that I cannot go into too much detail. I can assure the House that our independent nuclear deterrent is continuously on patrol, as it has been every day now for nearly 50 years.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A constituent of mine and a veteran of two tours of Afghanistan, former Rifleman Lee Bagley, lost a leg after a non-theatre related injury incurred in February 2010. His subsequent complaint about delays to his treatment was dismissed in part because he was out of time. Will the Minister, under proposals to improve the armed forces covenant, ensure that, in any such circumstances again, the victim will have available a full explanation of what they may expect from treatment, and their rights?

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s constituent was the subject of an Adjournment debate that the hon. Gentleman and I discussed some 18 months ago. The advice at the time was that he should put in a complaint to the service complaints ombudsman. I am not sure whether that has been done. However, if I may, I will take this opportunity to review the case and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T9. The ability to communicate is clearly key to our national, economic and security interests. Will the Minister say exactly what plans he has to protect those on the basis of the new threat posed by Russia to undersea communications and internet cables?

[Mark Lancaster]

This is a very delicate issue. However, I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that we do have the capability to protect these assets. It would probably be inappropriate to say any more in this House.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

As the Secretary of State assesses the effects of the delays to the 2018-19 pay negotiations on retention to the armed forces, do they not agree that the Ministry of Defence is actually giving squaddies a real-terms wage cut, while the Scottish Government are in fact putting money in their pockets through the new progressive tax system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

In 2013, the regulatory reserve scheme was introduced. Since then, we have paid out more than £29 million and benefited by only 480 deployable reservists. Would it not have been better to use that money to improve the conditions, the pay and the benefits of those in our regular forces and to retain them?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am not quite sure whether I agree with the hon. Lady’s figures, but I will go away and look at them, because I do not have them to hand. I absolutely defend what we have done quite successfully in increasing the size of the reserve. Compared with where we were three or four years ago, we now have a usable reserve, which is a very positive thing.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Army on its new recruitment campaign, which shows the changing face and culture of our armed forces? Does he share my confidence that the corporals and colour sergeants who await those recruits in our training establishments, and the esprit de corps in our regiments that awaits thereafter, will ensure that our Army is no less professional, no less robust and no less lethal?

Afghanistan (Locally Employed Staff)

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

In June 2013, the Government decided that they would draw down employment of their Locally Employed Staff in Afghanistan by the end of 2017 and put policies in place to support those affected. I am responsible for overseeing and assuring the delivery of these policies on behalf of the interested Government Departments.

In terms of the implementation of these policies, the Ministry of Defence will have made the last of its local staff redundant by the end of the year, allowing them to access one of the three generous packages under our Ex-Gratia Redundancy scheme: these comprise financial support for 18 months, training and financial support for five years, or, for those in eligible roles, relocation to the UK.

So far, over 800 former staff have benefited from one of our redundancy options. Under the training offer some of our local staff are studying to be doctors or lawyers, completing their high school education, or improving their English language skills. In some cases, former staff members have chosen to gift their training to a family member, which has in many cases provided wives and daughters with the opportunity for further education or upskilling. These individuals will be better placed to play their part in working for a brighter future for their country.

The scheme has relocated more than 385 former staff and their families to the UK, and we expect around another 60 families to relocate over the next year or so. Of the 385, 12 individuals received Ex-Gratia compensation payments for injuries they sustained while working with UK forces. These were paid before they had decided to relocate to the UK and, some months ago, we initiated work to review the payments to adjust them for the different economic conditions of life in the UK. These were extremely brave people who worked alongside our soldiers on patrol, and who in some cases suffered profoundly life-changing injuries as a result of improvised explosive devices or small arms fire. The UK Government recognise that they have a special debt of gratitude to these individuals and we aim to complete this review by the spring of next year, giving priority to the more severely disabled cases.

Additionally, our Intimidation Policy continues to support all former staff who experience intimidation within Afghanistan as a result of their employment with the UK. This policy is delivered by an expert team based in Kabul, including a member of either the Home Office Constabulary or MOD Police to investigate the claims. This dedicated team has now assisted over 400 staff by providing bespoke security advice and, in over 30 cases, funding relocations to safe areas within Afghanistan. The level of intimidation faced has not so far been such that an individual has had to be relocated to the UK in order to ensure their safety. However, the changing security position in Afghanistan is kept under careful review.

The Government remain confident that the UK’s arrangements for addressing intimidation concerns meet our commitment to protect our former locally employed staff and we have taken a number of steps to assure these arrangements. Notably, I chair a cross-Government Locally Employed Civilian Assurance Committee. This plays a valuable role in scrutinising the application of the Intimidation Policy and ensuring that it is effectively administered and that Afghan staff who feel threatened due to their employment by the UK are properly supported. Members include peers from the House of Lords, a suitably experienced police detective, and a former local staff member who provides invaluable insight and advice.

More recently, we have also welcomed the former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, and the Bishop of Colchester into our ranks. The Committee has met five times, most recently looking at the line between what justifies relocation within Afghanistan and to the UK, and at whether our Intimidation Investigation Unit makes a reasonable assessment of the danger to an individual when the intimidation concern is first raised with the Unit. The 14 cases that have been reviewed by the Committee to date demonstrate that the intimidation policy was effectively applied on these occasions. We recognise that this is a relatively small sample and will continue to review cases until we are confident that we have reasonable evidence that the policy is being properly applied. The Department has accepted a number of areas where arrangements need to be fine-tuned and has taken action accordingly. The Committee has also kept under review the security situation in Afghanistan as it relates to the risk of intimidation and the viability of mitigation measures. No issues have so far been raised in this respect.

As an additional layer of assurance, a barrister from outside the Department, and more recently a member of the Government Legal Service, have continued to conduct regular reviews of at least 20% of closed intimidation cases to ensure that the decisions are robust. The most recent review took place in November this year and concluded that the decisions taken by the investigation unit are fair and appropriate.

It is the Government’s belief that our Ex-Gratia Redundancy scheme and Intimidation Policy remain fit for purpose and properly meet our responsibilities to men and women who played such an important part in our efforts to bring peace and security to Afghanistan.

[HCWS339]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve the UK’s cyber-warfare defence capabilities.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

We take cyber-attacks very seriously and are aware of the increasing threats. As part of the defence cyber programme, we are investing £265 million in a programme of cyber-vulnerability investigations for military equipment, building a new £40 million cyber-security operations centre, and ensuring that our people are fully equipped to meet the cyber challenge.

[Mr Carmichael]

Is the Department looking at the recent Russian activity in this sphere, especially in Ukraine and Crimea, where it is clear that cyber-warfare has gone hand in glove with conventional warfare? The initiatives that the Minister has outlined today are very welcome, but does he understand that he also has to speak to and include other Departments, commercial interests and media outlets?

[Mark Lancaster]

I was in Ukraine quite recently, and the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is precisely why this has to be a cross-Government effort, and why we are spending some £1.9 billion on our national cyber-security strategy.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My constituents in GCHQ are on the front line of the UK’s cyber-defence, and they are among the brightest and the best. Recruiting and retaining people of exceptional ability does, however, require competitive levels of pay. May I urge my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary to have that very much in mind when future decisions are made?

[Mark Lancaster]

I was in my hon. Friend’s constituency quite recently at GCHQ, looking at the joint work that the MOD and GCHQ are carrying out together. He makes a reasonable point. That is why we are determined to invest in a career structure for cyber specialists, and we will be opening the defence cyber school at the Defence Academy at Shrivenham in January 2018.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Tweets are cheaper than tanks, and Russia, Iran and other state and non-state actors are increasingly looking to cyber and to social media as a cheap, effective way of destabilising the west. The Foreign Secretary told this House that he had seen no evidence of Russian interference in UK elections or the referendum. Has the Minister?

[Mark Lancaster]

Let us be absolutely clear: there are limits on what we can discuss in this Chamber, and I think the hon. Lady will recognise that. In this age of constant competition, this country is under constant attack from both state and non-state actors, and this is a defence capability in which we are determined to continue to invest.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a trade-off between cyber and conventional capabilities is wrong; that the MOD needs to be capable of cyber, conventional and non-conventional forms of warfare; and that further cuts to our niche and specialist capabilities will do strategic harm to this country?

[Mark Lancaster]

I certainly agree that this is not a binary choice. Indeed, perhaps it is more of a digital choice, as we look further on in the 21st century. That is why it is absolutely right that we are carrying out the national security and capability review, because as the threats intensify across the spectrum, we have to invest in those things.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister heard BBC Radio 4’s “Profile” yesterday on Yevgeny Prigozhin, otherwise known as Putin’s chef, and his so-called troll factory in St Petersburg. If the Minister heard it, he should be very concerned indeed about Russia’s increasing efforts at cyber-warfare and the threat of disruption it poses to our democracy and the defence of the realm. What steps are he and the Department trying to take to minimise that serious Russian threat?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that I did not hear that profile yesterday because I was at the 100th anniversary of Cambrai—the first use of the tank—in France, and a marvellous event it was, too. He makes a reasonable point, and I can only refer him to some of the comments I have made during this question about investment and how seriously we take the threat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

9. What assessment he has made of the future threat posed by lethal autonomous weapons; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

The MOD continuously monitors developments and challenges arising from emerging weapon technology, including increasingly automated weapons systems. The UK considers the UN convention on certain conventional weapons to be the right forum in which to discuss lethal autonomous weapons systems, and welcomes the progress made in Geneva by the group of government experts earlier this month.

[Jo Swinson]

Weapons that can kill without human instruction or accountability are not science fiction, but a worrying potential reality with huge moral consequences. If we are to secure international agreement on the control of these lethal autonomous weapons, we need to start from a common understanding of the challenge, so will the Minister re-evaluate the UK’s definition of autonomous weapons systems to bring it into line with that of the United Nations?

[Mark Lancaster]

My understanding is that there is no international agreement on what an autonomous weapons system is, which is precisely why calls for, for example, pre-emptive bans would be inappropriate at this point. The task in hand is absolutely to get an internationally agreed definition, and we believe that the UN CCW is the right forum in which to do so.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that no matter what the advances of technology on the battlefield, only humans can effectively hold ground, deterring enemy activity and winning the hearts and minds of local communities, and that we will therefore always need an Army of about the current size or larger?

[Mark Lancaster]

We will definitely always need an Army.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Operation Sophia.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

The UK has been involved in the European Union’s Operation Sophia in the central Mediterranean since its start in June 2015. Since then, Royal Navy vessels have saved over 12,500 lives and over 500 smuggling vessels have been destroyed.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the Minister for that response. It is welcome that Operation Sophia has saved so many lives, but it is clearly failing to disrupt human trafficking in the way that was intended. Will he talk to our European partners to ensure that it can be recalibrated to achieve that goal?

[Mark Lancaster]

We routinely assess our contribution against the operation’s core objectives. We recognise that it has not prevented the flow of migrants, but it has lessened the ability of smugglers to operate in international waters, and forms just one part of a wider Government strategy.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

T4. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State express his steadfast support for NATO. What further steps will we be taking to support our NATO allies in Estonia in the face of increased Russian aggression?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that at the Warsaw summit in 2016, NATO committed itself to responding to Russian belligerence through enhanced defence, deterrence and dialogue. I am delighted to have been able to visit our armoured battlegroup in Estonia this summer. About 800 personnel are delivering the enhanced forward presence, together with the Royal Air Force, which has already supported that operation on two occasions.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

T10. Will the new Secretary of State get off to a better start than his predecessor by confirming that the new Royal Fleet Auxiliary orders will come to the Clyde, and that those vessels will not be built abroad?

Draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 2017

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 General Committees

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 2017.

The draft order relates to NATO headquarters and units in the United Kingdom. The UK follows a dualist approach to international law. Therefore, when we make international commitments to our NATO partners, we may need mechanisms in our domestic law to honour those commitments. The mechanism in this case is the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964, the purpose of which is to recognise that headquarters have certain legal capacities and immunities such as the inviolability of their archives; to recognise the status of military and civilian personnel working in those headquarters, and the jurisdiction arrangements that apply to them; and to make provision for coroners’ arrangements.

The scope of the draft order is narrow. It amends the application of the 1964 Act, which covers NATO’s headquarters and other international headquarters in the UK. The amendment is required because some of their titles have changed over time. We are simply taking this opportunity to ensure that the list of headquarters is up to date. I refer the Committee to part 2 of the schedule. The names of the Allied Maritime Command—MARCOM—and the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre have changed, and there are two new units based in the UK: the NATO Centralised Targeting Capacity and the 1st NATO Signal Battalion, which has moved back from Germany.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

We were gently straying from the scope of the motion. The most helpful thing I can do is probably to refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate about that subject tomorrow in Westminster Hall. I am sure that it will be discussed at length then.

Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Pay

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to discuss armed forces pay. The motion reflects a shared sense on both sides of House of the value our armed forces bring to the nation. It reflects an appreciation of their unparalleled bravery and enormous efforts all around the globe—whether fighting Daesh in the middle east, providing vital reassurance to our Estonian allies against Russia aggression, or bringing essential humanitarian aid to those whose lives have been devastated by hurricanes in the Caribbean. Lastly, it reflects a desire that those who put their lives on the line should receive the reward that is their due. At the same time, the motion presents but a partial picture of a complex issue, so I welcome this opportunity to correct some the misconceptions and provide some of the missing context.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Defence spend as a percentage of GDP in the final year of the previous Labour Government was 2.5%. Will the Minister tell me what it is now?

[Mark Lancaster]

Off the top of my head, I would say that it is just over 2%.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

It is 2.16%.

[Mark Lancaster]

I was going to say 2.14%, but it is 2.16%.

First, there is the broader fiscal context. We should not forget why pay restraint was imposed in the first place back in 2010. It was a consequence of a large inherited economic deficit. The whole public sector, not just our armed forces, was subject to the same conditions. Given that a huge chunk of the defence budget is spent on personnel—currently, just under £9 billion, which is more than we spend on equipment support—the MOD had an important part to play in supporting the Government’s efforts to restore the UK’s economic credibility. After all, a stronger economy means stronger defence. Having taken those tough decisions, we have since seen the deficit reduce by three quarters and the economy grow, while taxes are low and employment is high, which benefits us all.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Most of us in the Chamber sat through the proceedings on the ten-minute rule Bill, and no one spoke against it. Tribute was paid to the courage, the service and the sacrifice of our armed forces—not only in Northern Ireland, but in Iraq—and the Minister put his tribute on the record at the beginning of his response. There is a moral obligation, so I do not want to hear about fiscal reasons. I want this Government to recognise their moral obligation and duty to our armed forces and to lift the 1% pay cap in recognition of the armed forces’ courage and sacrifice for the country and the Queen.

[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 Kevan Jones]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being completely disingenuous—

[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.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

More money.

[Mark Lancaster]

More money, as my right hon. Friend says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It’s less.

[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.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) should not keep hollering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the stance taken by the Minister. Apart from anything else—he is chuckling about it—it is marginally discourteous to his hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who had requested an intervention and had it granted, before it was ripped away from him by the hon. Gentleman’s unseemly behaviour.

[Conor McGinn]

Talking about the figures, I was very concerned to read in the London Times this morning that the Government are considering scrapping the £29 deployment allowance that applies to soldiers on the frontline in Iraq. The Minister is an agreeable chap, and I would like to give him an opportunity to deny that categorically at the Dispatch Box.

[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.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise the frustration felt by the armed forces when they see rising costs in accommodation, but no real pay rise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

Let us be absolutely clear: the subsidised accommodation costs that our service personnel are charged are approximately two thirds—I repeat, two thirds—of what they would pay in the private sector. There has been a readjustment across the range, because some of the bands were completely out of date. For example, accommodation was graded according to how far it was from a public telephone box. What relevance does that have in 2017 compared with access to broadband? So there was a readjustment, but let us not forget that members of the armed forces pay considerably less than they would if they worked in the private sector.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend talk about non-pay benefits. My constituents at Catterick garrison and at RAF Leeming most often talk to me about the day-to-day hassle and unfairness they face as a result of their service. To that end, will he confirm the Government’s commitment to the armed forces covenant and perhaps develop further what they are doing to ensure that nobody is penalised by their service in our armed forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am delighted that perhaps we have a moment of consensus across the House when we talk about the military covenant. It is indeed one of the success stories of recent years. When I was in my previous role, which is now filled by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), we managed to convince the nation of the value of service, and to see so many companies signing up to the armed forces covenant—well over 1,400—is a testament to its success. Indeed, every local authority in England, Scotland and Wales—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[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.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Lancaster]

I have been generous, but I am going to make progress. I will give way again before I finish my speech.

In other words, when it comes to armed forces pay, context is all, and the decision to award a 1% pay increase in 2017 did not happen in isolation. It followed a recommendation by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body. They were clear that their decision

“broadly maintained pay comparability with the civilian sector”.

Critically, the AFPRB and SSRB are independent organisations that make annual recommendations. Their reports are detailed, comprehensive and take time to compile. For 2016-17, they gathered written and oral evidence from everyone from the Defence Secretary down, including more than 2,300 service personnel and 154 spouses. They held 186 discussion groups before arriving at a decision. Such a thorough, evidence-based approach is precisely why it would be wholly wrong to start introducing ad-hoc in-year reviews, as some people have suggested.

Focusing solely on the pay award also excludes the other reforms we have made to pay—reforms supported by the AFPRB itself. For example, in 2016 we introduced a new pay scheme, more effectively to reward personnel for their skills and simplify an individual’s pay journey. Consequently, people are better able to predict their future career earnings and make better-informed decisions.

At the same time, we recognise that, in an increasingly competitive world, we need to do more to plug skills gaps in parts of the public sector, such as engineering, if we are to continue delivering world-class public services. That is why the Government’s recent announcement that greater flexibility will be available in public sector pay remains key. It means the independent pay review bodies can now make their own judgements on future pay awards to mitigate any potential future impact. So, for 2018-19, the AFPRB will no longer have an across-the-board requirement to keep its recommendations within a total 1% maximum award. But let us not jump the gun. The 2018-19 armed forces pay review is still to come. It will be agreed as part of the budget process and we expect its recommendations early next year.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is extensively quoting the AFPRB, but it is also clear that it says that

“if inflation continues its upward trajectory, we could foresee recruitment becoming more challenging and morale being adversely impacted... we would need to consider very carefully whether a one per cent average limit on base pay was compatible with continued operational effectiveness”.

He knows my concerns about the recruitment figures and that I accept that pay is not the only issue affecting recruitment and retention, but will we see those recruitment figures going up, and will he listen to what the AFPRB is clearly saying?

[Mark Lancaster]

Over the past year, we have seen 8,000 applications to the Army, which is an increase of some 20% on the previous year, but I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view. I was deeply surprised to discover while reading a national newspaper that part of Labour’s plan is to use the money for marketing—some £10 million a year—as one source of income to give soldiers a pay increase. We have approximately 150,000 armed forces personnel, so that would be an increase of about £5.50 a month per member of the armed forces, but it would involve scrapping the one thing that delivers recruiting. So, no marketing budget for a bottom-fed organisation? Does he agree with that? Does he agree with the plan of his Front Benchers to scrap the marketing budget?

[Stephen Doughty]

Marketing is obviously a crucial part of the recruitment process, but the Minister needs to be clear. He has given me an answer that makes it clear that every single course—including those at Catterick in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has just left—is under-recruited. Every single course at Sandhurst since 2015 has been under-recruited. It is his Government who are leading us to this recruitment crisis. Pay is one part of that, and a crucial part, but he is the Minister and he is in charge.

[Mark Lancaster]

So we have a crucial marketing budget. Would that be scrapped? I am going to Catterick in two weeks to be the passing-off officer for the latest group of Gurkhas to pass off. That is a fully recruited course; not all courses are, but I am delighted to say that the last Sandhurst course was also fully recruited.

[Nia Griffith]

rose—

[Mark Lancaster]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make progress.

[Nia Griffith]

As the Minister knows well, newspapers do not always report things the right way round. The point we are making about the marketing costs is that they have rocketed. The question is, what value for money are those costs providing? What value for money is the contract with Capita providing? What evaluation have the Government done of whether the money spent on Capita—spent on marketing—is providing value for money in view of the returns they are getting? That is what we want to see.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am not sure whether we have seen a U-turn in Labour party policy—[Interruption.] So we have not seen a U-turn. Would Labour still scrap the marketing budget? Can we have some clarity? Is Labour proposing to scrap the marketing budget or not?

[Nia Griffith]

The point that I was making is that there has been a massive increase in the marketing budget for zero returns in additional recruitment. That is the point—is it value for money? The Government are running the contract. They are employing Capita. They need to answer as to exactly what value they think they are getting out of Capita.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am going to do the House a favour and move on.

As alluded to earlier, for those joining our armed forces, pay is not the be all and end all. People sign up to challenge themselves, experience adventure and learn new skills. The most frequently cited reason for leaving, according to the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey, is the impact of service on family and personal life. That is why we are keen to do all we can to improve life for our personnel. Some 70% of our people told a recent MOD survey that they wanted more flexible working opportunities, so we are introducing a flexible working Bill. It will enable regular service personnel temporarily to change the nature of their service, enabling part-time working or protection from deployment to support an individual’s personal circumstances “where business need allows”.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

I will in a minute, but only once more because others want to speak in this short debate.

At present, a woman considering starting a family, or an individual with caring commitments, faces a difficult choice over leaving when their circumstances change. We do not want to lose good people with knowledge, skills and experience from a more diverse workforce, and we should not have to.

By providing a more modern and flexible employment framework for our people, we will help to improve morale, retain and recruit the very best, and increase the overall effectiveness of the armed forces. More than that, we will also help to attract recruits from a wider cross-section of society—those who might otherwise not have considered a military career.

Pay and flexible working, in and of themselves, do not offer a silver bullet to address the issues of recruitment and retention, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford in his excellent report “Filling the Ranks”, but taken together with our broader people programme, we believe that it will have a significant impact.

[Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Mark Lancaster]

I will give way for the last time, to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who asked first.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I thank the Minister. Many colleagues have mentioned the overall package, but may we go back to service family accommodation? I shall be talking about pay later, but the reality is that SFA and the CarillionAmey contract are the No. 1 issue, in addition to pay, that is raised with us every day. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I think that SFA is becoming a headache for everybody and needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. In my previous role, I spent a lot of time with CarillionAmey. I took the chief executive on a walk around Woolwich to see the standard of some of the accommodation. I think that there is acknowledgment across the House that the situation has improved, but there is still an awful lot more work to do. We recognise that and are determined, as were the previous Government, to address this issue. Of course the better defence estate strategy is part of the key to that. As we begin to consolidate our barracks, we will have less mobility of our armed forces; we will be able to dispose of some sites and all that money will be reinvested.

[Johnny Mercer]

rose—

[Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Mark Lancaster]

I will give way one more time, to my hon. Friend, and then I will conclude.

[Johnny Mercer]

I really welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), my colleague on the Defence Committee, because this whole debate comes down to credibility. Yes, we would always want more money; people will always want to be paid, but that is not the No. 1 issue. Generally, we have a good offer for our servicemen and women. We have deep challenges with accommodation, veterans’ care and mental health, but this has to be a credible debate, and it is simply not the case that our men and women have a raw deal on pay and experience.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.

It is worth being clear about what this programme entails. It will see us offering greater help to personnel, so that they can live in private accommodation and meet their aspirations for home ownership. It will see us develop a new employment offer for new joiners to the service from 2020, better meeting the expectations of future recruits and targeting resources on the people we need most.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Lancaster]

No: I have been very generous.

The programme will also make it easier for people to move between the public and private sectors during their careers—retaining and making the most of their skills in areas where they are most needed.

Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford outlined, there is still more to do, whether recruiting more people from ethnic minority communities, improving accommodation or making sure that all our people are fit mentally as well as physically; but we are now hard at work developing an action plan to take forward his recommendations, including a planned medical symposium.

Our people will always be our greatest asset. As a Minister and a reservist, I have nothing but respect and admiration for achievements of our armed forces personnel. Of course I appreciate the impact that pay restraint has had, but I also believe we are taking a balanced approach. On the one hand, we are ensuring pay discipline, which is critical to the future affordability of public services and the sustainability of public sector employment. On the other hand, we are doing our utmost to make sure that our overall package not only reflects the value that our people bring to our country but retains the flexibility that is so vital in attracting the best and the brightest.

Armed forces pay structures and levels are regularly reviewed, and I look forward to hearing the AFPRB’s latest recommendations. In the meantime, I am personally committed to doing everything I can to make sure that our exceptionally talented and hard-working men and women continue to receive the recognition that is their due.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I look forward, as always, to hearing his contribution. To be fair to Members on the Opposition Benches, I do not think that anyone has said that this is just about pay. In fact, we had a very thorough debate earlier this week on flexible working, when many other issues were also addressed. I see that his colleague, the hon. Member for Burton, is nodding in agreement. [Interruption.] I understand what the motion is about. He is shouting from a sedentary position, but if he allows me to make a little more progress, perhaps he will hear what else I have to say on what might be stopping Scottish people joining the armed forces.

Colonel Kemp, who took command of UK forces in Afghanistan in 2003, has criticised the Government’s reliance on outsourcing with Capita, which in 2012 took over regular and reservist Army recruitment in a contract valued at around £44 million over 10 years. That seemed to cause a bit of a bun fight across the two Front Benches. I ask Government Members, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Burton, who seems determined to shout me down at every turn, why will they not heed the advice of a report part-authored by one of their own colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, which recommended in July this year that the Government should accelerate work on an alternative to the Capita contract? That thoughtful recommendation, which we support, was set out in a report part-authored by a Government Member.

I want briefly to mention pensions, because that is another area. I note that the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has now left the Chamber, having asked me to talk about other areas, which is a shame. It is well known that the Ministry of Defence is working on a new joiners offer, which I would like to hear more about. On pensions, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the Ministry is working on new joiners’ offer arrangements. If so, how does that square with the promise, given a few years ago, that pension arrangements were safe for 25 years? Will any new scheme apply only to those joining after a particular date, or will the cut be retrospectively applied to those currently serving?

[Mark Lancaster]

The clue is in the title. It is called a new joiners’ offer.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am glad that the Minister has cleared that up for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman’s researcher has clearly been on the ball. I know that in the United States service credit unions are far more advanced than here; there is a big movement in America. I for one would ask Ministers to look munificently on the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

Indeed, I think the Minister wants to intervene.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am now feeling guilty for not giving way to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). He makes a very reasonable point. I am very pleased with the progress we have made with the credit unions, but there is always more we can do. I will look into this point, and write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

We appear to have got some consensus there.

In July 2013 the Government published a White Paper entitled “The Reserves in the Future Force 2020: valuable and valued”, which envisaged an ambitious revival and expansion of Britain’s reserve forces, under the heading of Future Reserves 2020, or FR2020. The roll-out of that programme was initially complicated by a combination of excessive bureaucracy, delays to medicals for recruits and IT problems.

In response, the three services—in particular the Army, where the greatest problem lay—committed additional resources to reinforce the recruiting effort, and now, several years on, that has borne fruit. As of May 2017, the trained strength of the Army reserve is 26,730 as against a target of 26,700; the maritime reserves, including the Royal Marine Reserve, stood at 2,590 against a target of 2,320; and the figures for the RAF reserves, including the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, were 2,140 against a target of 1,860.

Reserve recruiting now enjoys support from across British industry, including the Business Services Association, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, and is an important part of the armed forces covenant. In addition, considerable success has been achieved by offering “recruitment bonuses” to ex-regulars who have left the services but have then joined their reserve counterparts.

There is no room for complacency. That has only been achieved with considerable investment, of both money and effort, by the regular as well as the reserve forces. If the targets in FR2020 are to be met, it is vital that this earmarked funding is continued and not sacrificed to in-year savings, which would run the risk of seriously compromising the momentum achieved to date. Overall, however, the reserves story is now becoming a successful one, and is far healthier than it was only a few years ago.

An important aspect of the overall quality of life in the services is represented by service accommodation, and this is where the Ministry of Defence must do better if it wishes to retain the support of service personnel and, particularly, of their families. Remember the saying: “Recruit the serviceman, retain the family.” The UK tri-service families continuous attitudes survey, published in July 2017, shows that the level of satisfaction with the maintenance of service families’ accommodation remains low following a large decrease in 2016. In particular—this follows on from the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)—there are issues surrounding the delays in the MOD’s housing contractor, CarillionAmey, responding to requests for maintenance and also with the quality of the maintenance and repair work subsequently undertaken. Only 34% of those surveyed said that they were satisfied with the responsiveness of the contractor and only 29% were satisfied with the quality of maintenance or repair work that it undertook.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor McGinn]

The hon. Lady makes an important and interesting point. We have certainly tried hard in my constituency and the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens more widely to implement the armed forces covenant, but there have been issues with its implementation in Northern Ireland. I am sure we would all wish to see those issues resolved and its full implementation in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK.

Despite the Government’s target in the strategic defence and security review to have 82,000 full-time fully trained troops, as of April this year there were just 78,000 soldiers in the Army. By any measure, that is an abject failure on the Government’s watch, and it was rightly identified as a key problem by the former commander of Joint Forces Command, General Sir Richard Barrons. The recent report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) confirmed that the Regular Army needs to recruit 10,000 people a year to maintain its strength, but managed to attract only 7,000 entrants last year.

Worryingly, alongside all that, the figures show that the numbers leaving the part-time Army Reserve, which we were told would be increased to meet the decline in numbers in the Regular Army, increased by 20% between 1 June 2016 and 1 June 2017. At about the same time, in the most recent financial year the reserve intake fell by 18%. The Government do not seem to have a strategy to turn these falling numbers around. In fact, their only solution so far has been to sack another 120 members of the armed forces personnel who serve as recruiters and replace them with civilians from Capita. I say gently to the Minister—as I said earlier, he is an agreeable chap—that he has a bit of a cheek on him to criticise our plans for recruitment and what we would do with the budget when he is taking money out of the pockets of armed forces personnel and giving it to a private company.

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Conor McGinn]

I suppose I had better give way.

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course people join the armed forces and people leave—that is the nature of any job and the nature of the armed forces—but to be absolutely clear, over the past three years the numbers in the reserves has increased, not decreased.

[Conor McGinn]

I do not wish to contravene the rules of the House by getting into a debate with the Minister, but I am not sure that he can express particular confidence that the target of 30,000 reserve recruits will be met. The Government started to publish the figures only after pressure from the Opposition several years ago. We will continue to monitor progress on that in particular, because although, like the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) said earlier, I am not a mathematician, I know that if we need to recruit 10,000 and we are attracting only 7,000 to the Regular Army, and we have not met the quota that we defined to meet national security needs through recruitment to the reserves, it is not going to add up. It is not going to add up for the armed forces, and it is not going to add for the British public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate today. Members of the House have made excellent contributions, but I do not have time to refer to them—I apologise.

It is true to say that our armed forces face enormous problems. They have a huge problem with recruitment and retention and face the scandalous inadequacy of the levels of remuneration for the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line to defend this country. Those problems are linked. In a report commissioned by the Prime Minister and published in July this year, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about a perfect storm against which military recruiters have had to battle. As he said, the regular strength of the UK’s armed forces is some 5% below what was planned. There is also the problem of retention, with more personnel leaving the services than joining them.

Although there are several reasons why the armed forces are in such a predicament, a large part of the blame must rest with how the Army recruits its personnel, for which Capita bears a large measure of responsibility. The “hollowing out” in the ranks, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his report, is caused by several factors. Without doubt, the privatisation of Army recruitment and the outsourcing of aspects of recruitment for the other services has played a major role. The poor quality of living accommodation for servicemen and women and their families is another important factor.

[Mark Lancaster]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

I am sorry, but time is short. Another huge problem is the levels of pay in the armed forces. As the most recent pay review body report indicates, members of the armed forces

“feel their pay is being unfairly constrained in a period when costs are rising, private sector earnings are starting to recover, and the high tempo demands on the Armed Forces have not diminished.”

[Mark Lancaster]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

Time is limited, as the Minister knows. I respectfully ask him to sit down.

The Government say that they are introducing flexibility in the future pay regime, but let us be clear. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body stated in its 2017 report that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury sent it a letter to say that the Government’s policy of pay restraint remained in place. The letter states:

“We will fund public sector workforces for pay awards of an average of 1 per cent a year, up to 2019/20.”

The pay review body report makes it clear that that is the context in which the body was obliged to work, and that point has been well made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Wayne David]

If there is to be greater flexibility, as the Secretary of State has hinted, where will the extra money come from? The MOD is already undertaking a mini defence review and significant cuts are already being considered, with 1,000 Marines, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion ready for the chop. It would be totally unacceptable for any pay increase to be funded by further cuts to the defence budget. Will the Minister indicate when he responds that the Department has the courage to stand up to the Treasury and demand that extra money be forthcoming for our brave men and women in the armed forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Wayne David]

Where will the money come from? We will call for extra contributions of up to 5% from large corporations and we will demand that the super-rich pay a little bit more, instead of enjoying the largesse that the Government have given them. I am not hopeful that that will happen, however, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State and his friends—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What progress he is making on meeting the targets for 2020 set out in the SDSR 2015.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

Since SDSR 2015, we have cut steel on the first Type 26 and signed the contract to buy new Apache helicopters. We are on track to deliver by the end of 2020: initial operating capability for carrier strike; maritime patrol aircraft; and to field Ajax. We have launched our innovation initiative, and published both our shipbuilding and our international defence engagement strategies.

[Mary Creagh]

HMS Bulwark helped to evacuate 1,300 British citizens from Lebanon during the 2006 crisis. Given the Foreign Office’s recent problems evacuating citizens caught up in Hurricane Irma, will the Minister argue for his Department or the Department for International Development to lead on future evacuations? Will he guarantee today that the Government will maintain the fleet’s littoral capacity, which is currently provided by HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion?

[Mark Lancaster]

One of this Government’s strengths is in how we successfully work together between Departments. We saw the comprehensive approach working very effectively during recent weeks in the cross-Government response to Hurricane Irma in the Caribbean. That is exactly the approach we should be taking.

[Alex Norris]

SDSR 2015 aimed for at least 10% of our armed forces personnel to be from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. Latest figures show that just 2.4% of regular officers are from a BAME background and that there are currently no BAME officers at a two-star rank or above. When will Ministers publish a new diversity strategy to get to grips with that challenge?

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that Britain is changing, and it is very important that our armed forces represent modern Britain. There is a very impressive strategy in place in which—he is quite right—the target is for 10% of recruits to be from the BAME community and 15% to be women. We have had varying success across our three forces. The Royal Air Force is doing the best by far but, year on year, we are seeing improvements, and I am determined that we shall continue to recruit role models to help this process.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

By 2020, the commitments set out in SDSR 2015 will be funded by a defence budget totalling a record £40 billion. The Government’s welcome commitment to spending 2% of our economy on defence is the minimum NATO requirement. Is the Government’s welcome commitment to that rubbing off on our fellow NATO counterparts?

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Indeed, we are committed to spending at least 2% and I am delighted that we continue to do that. Slowly but surely, we are getting this message across to our NATO allies. Although only a minority of them do spend 2%, we are conscious that the direction of travel is positive.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on implementing the national shipbuilding strategy and on procuring the Type 31e frigate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the size of the Army.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

We are committed to maintaining the overall size of the armed forces, including an Army that is able to field a war-fighting division. While Army recruitment and retention remain challenging, over 8,000 people joined the regular Army last year and since April applications are over 20% higher compared with the same period last year.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but in the year I was born—1989—the Regular Army’s strength was 140,000. In 2006, when I joined the Territorials, it was 102,000. Yet, in recent years, we have seen the Army fall below a regular strength of 82,000—the Government’s stated target—to only 80,000, and that includes a 40% fall in the armoured strength of the Army. Does the Minister not accept that this is an unacceptable degradation of British Army strength?

[Mark Lancaster]

No, I do not. It is important to note that the Army is currently 95% manned. I do accept that there are challenges. Having probably the highest employment rate we have had in recent years does not help when it comes to recruiting to the Army. There is also, as we discussed earlier, the changing nature of Britain, which means we have to fight harder to make sure that all parts of society will join the Army. However, this is also about the offer, and I must say that when the Leader of the Opposition says he cannot see a situation where he would deploy the Army overseas, that is hardly a good recruiting tool to get young people who want to join the Army to do exactly that.

[Jeff Smith]

The latest figures show that the Army is running at 6% under the number of personnel needed, with the gap growing. How understaffed do we need to be before the Secretary of State will put pressure on the Chancellor to lift the 1% pay cap to boost recruitment?

[Mark Lancaster]

The Army, as I say, is 95% recruited and quite capable of fulfilling all its commitments. I am pleased there will be some flexibility in how we apply pay—of course, we have the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which sets it. It is important to have some flexibility so that we can attract people into the skill sets we are currently short of.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny whether there is any truth in the current media speculation that the UK armed forces are about to be subsumed into a European defence force to placate the European Union?

[Mark Lancaster]

Blimey! That really is speculation. No, I think I can absolutely scupper that one.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Yeovil’s multi-role Wildcat helicopters ably support and protect our Army units and could be upgraded with missiles even better to support more focused strike brigades?

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course, those are just some of the questions we are considering under the ongoing national security capability review, the purpose of which is to decide how best we can use the money we are investing in our armed forces to maximise their capability.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

On the basis of the Minister’s first answer, can he guarantee that the Army’s strength will not drop below 80,000?

[Mark Lancaster]

We continue to work hard to ensure we have new recruits coming. As I say, the news this year is positive: we have over 8,000 recruits, which is up 20% on last year.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

7. What recent progress has been made on bringing HMS Queen Elizabeth into service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the role of amphibious ships in the Royal Navy.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

The tremendous work of RFA Mounts Bay last month in the Caribbean in response to Hurricane Irma demonstrated the versatility of amphibious ships in the Royal Navy.

[Helen Goodman]

It did indeed, but people in County Durham will be very alarmed that there appears to be a question mark over the future of HMS Bulwark. She is one of the newest amphibious ships; she has been the fleet flagship; and she has been used to rescue migrants in the Mediterranean. Surely, would not a decision to decommission her early be a false economy?

[Mark Lancaster]

I, too, have read the speculation in the press, and it is just that. As we have discussed at Defence questions today, a national security and capability review is taking place. It is very important that we have that review, which is about trying to bring together our capabilities with our investment. Equally, the hon. Lady will recognise that, while that capability review is ongoing, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to pluck out individual capabilities and comment on them.

[Mr Speaker]

I see the Minister of State is enjoying the benefits of family encouragement. This is something that we enthusiastically welcome.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

In welcoming my hon. Friend’s assurance that the future of our amphibious capability is under active and positive consideration, may I say, as one who has been privileged to spend a little bit of time on HMS Bulwark, that she is a magnificent fighting ship? She punches well above her weight. She has served this nation very well, and to remove her from service would be an absolute tragedy.

[Mark Lancaster]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s support, and indeed the support of colleagues from across the House who feel strongly on this matter. We enjoy an amphibious capability; of course, it is not just Albion and Bulwark. Albion is about to step up into the high-readiness role for the next five years and Bulwark will be going into the low-readiness role, but there are also the three Bay class ships and we will be investing in amphibious capability for the Queen Elizabeth class as well.

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

As the Member of Parliament who represents the dockyard and naval base where Albion and Bulwark are base-ported, may I ask the Minister to speed up this review? There are lots of people who are very concerned about their jobs and the local economy if Albion and Bulwark and the Royal Marines are scrapped?

[Mark Lancaster]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman seems to be unnecessarily adding fuel to the speculation—indeed, perhaps even scaremongering—among his own constituents, which I do not think is particularly valuable. What I will say is that the review will be completed in a timely manner, but it is important to get it right.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in taking decisions about our amphibious capability and other issues, he will always be guided by military advice on what capabilities we need?

[Mark Lancaster]

That is a very fair point. Indeed, at the moment, no advice has been put on Ministers’ desks about the outcome to which the review is leading, but it will be based firmly on military advice.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What personal information his Department holds on former armed forces personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T9. Given the concern on both sides of the House about the prosecution of Northern Ireland veterans up to 40 years after incidents occurred for which no new evidence is available, what would the Secretary of State’s reaction be to an approach from the main Opposition party to see whether some form of consensus could be agreed on how to prevent that from happening?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

There is broad agreement within Northern Ireland that the current systems and structures for dealing with the legacy of the troubles are not delivering enough for victims, survivors and wider society. We are working with the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that investigations are fair and proportionate, and that they focus on terrorists, not the personnel who kept us safe. We think that there should be, and would welcome, further discussions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Martin Whitfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

T10. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the members of the armed forces who provided such brilliant support to those suffering at the hands of Hurricane Irma, and set out for the House what difference those efforts have made?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am sure my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House. The military response to Hurricane Irma was swift. RFA Mounts Bay was pre-positioned. At the peak, we had nearly 2,000 troops on the islands, who were deployed very quickly. Through the use of helicopters and other support, they managed to get aid to areas that simply would not have received it had there not been military intervention. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the whole House, to thank the armed forces for their efforts.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

T6. Will the Minister please confirm to the House when the outcome of the armed forces compensation scheme quinquennial review will be published?

Royal Air Force Battle Honours

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

My right hon. Friend The Minister in the House of Lords (The right hon. The Earl Howe PC) has made the following written statement:

I am today announcing that Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of Battle Honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force, for their participation in Operation TELIC during the period 1 May 2003 to 22 May 2011, Operation DEFERENCE during the period 22 February 2011 to 27 February 2011 and Operation ELLAMY during the period 19 March 2011 to 31 October 2011.

Battle Honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force Regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of Battle Honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is “mere entitlement, signifying only that a squadron took part in the campaign”. The second (higher) level confers the right to emblazon the Battle Honour on the Standard itself. This ultimate accolade is reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy, and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.

Battle Honours were approved for 27 operational flying squadrons and eight Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons for their participation on Operation TELIC. Five operational flying squadrons and three Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons were awarded the highest honour of Battle Honour with Emblazonment.

For their part in Operation DEFERENCE and Operation ELLAMY, Battle Honours were approved for 13 operational flying squadrons with three being awarded the highest honour of Battle Honour with Emblazonment.

With the Right to Emblazon ‘IRAQ 2003-2011’ on Squadron Standards

No. 7 Squadron RAF

No. XXIV Squadron RAF

No. 33 Squadron RAF

No. 47 Squadron RAF

No. 230 Squadron RAF

No. 1 Squadron RAF Regiment

No. 26 Squadron RAF Regiment

No. 34 Squadron RAF Regiment

Without the Right to Emblazon ‘IRAQ 2003-2011’ on Squadron Standards

No. II (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF

No. IX (Bomber) Squadron RAF

No. 10 Squadron RAF

No. 12 (Bomber) Squadron RAF

No. XIII Squadron RAF

No. 14 Squadron RAF

No. 18 Squadron RAF

No. 27 Squadron RAF

No. XXVIII (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF

No. 30 Squadron RAF

No. 31 Squadron RAF

No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF

No. 39 (Photographic Reconnaissance) Squadron RAF

No. 51 Squadron RAF

No. LXX Squadron RAF

No. 99 Squadron RAF

No. 101 Squadron RAF

No. 120 Squadron RAF

No. 201 Squadron RAF

No. 206 Squadron RAF

No. 216 Squadron RAF

No. 617 Squadron RAF

No. II Squadron RAF Regiment

No. 3 Squadron RAF Regiment

No. 15 Squadron RAF Regiment

No. 51 Squadron RAF Regiment

No. 63 Squadron RAF Regiment

With the Right to Emblazon ‘LIBYA 2011’ on Squadron Standards

No. II (Army Co-operation) Squadron

RAF No. IX (Bomber) Squadron RAF

No. 47 Squadron RAF

Without the Right to Emblazon ‘LIBYA 2011’ on Squadron Standards

No. 3 (Fighter) Squadron RAF

No. V (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF

No. VIII Squadron RAF

No. XI Squadron RAF

No. 30 Squadron RAF

No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF

No. 51 Squadron RAF

No. 99 Squadron RAF

No. 101 Squadron RAF

No. 216 Squadron RAF

[HCWS148]

Chemical Weapons Convention

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the House of Lords (The Earl Howe) has made the following written statement:

The Defence Minister for the House of Lords, Lord Howe: The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the chemical weapons convention, with which the United Kingdom are fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing a copy of the summary that has been provided to the Organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme in 2016 in the Library of the House.

[HCWS37]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What discussions he has had with local authorities and the devolved Administrations on reserve centre closures; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

At the first Defence questions of the new Parliament, may I remind the House of my interest, namely that I am in my 29th year of service in the Army Reserve?

The Ministry of Defence regularly holds discussions with local authorities and the devolved Administrations on reserves. That includes engaging with all stakeholders on sites that are earmarked for closure or for the establishment of new reserve units. The release of sites no longer required by the Ministry of Defence will free up land for new housing and raise money to reinvest in our armed forces.

[Jim McMahon]

Like the Minister, my father was a Territorial Army reservist, so I know the importance of the reserve. Would it not make more sense, rather than jumping to a closure and then contacting the devolved Administrations, to have a pre-consultation to make sure that where facilities are being reviewed across the board—ambulance stations, fire stations and so on—we have a single estates strategy for public sector assets?

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course, we do engage with local authorities to the best of our ability, but no final decisions have been made in the Army Reserve Refine programme. It would therefore be premature to engage with local authorities to say which, if any, Army Reserve centres are closing. However, that piece of work on the reserves brings good news as well, so I am delighted to take this opportunity to announce the creation of two new infantry battalions as a result of it: 4th Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, whose headquarters will be at Redhill, and 8 Rifles Battalion, whose headquarters will be at Bishop Auckland.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

May I offer my hon. Friend very warm congratulations on his promotion to Minister for the armed forces? As a distinguished and senior officer in the reserve, is he not perfectly placed to make decisions on reserve centre closures?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his warm words. As his former Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department for International Development, I know only too well of his contribution to the comprehensive approach during his tenure there. It is rare as a Minister to be appointed to a Department one actually knows something about. On that basis, I am delighted to be here. It is great to be in this position and I hope to use any experience I have.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

May I, too, congratulate the Minister on seemingly knowing what he is talking about?

In recent days I became aware, via the office of the deputy lord lieutenant of the county of Dunbartonshire that he had informed the provost of West Dunbartonshire, as the local government’s civic leader, that armed forces veterans’ day would not take place due to there being no capacity in the armed forces to deliver it. As the Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, it gives me grave cause for concern that veterans in local families in West Dunbartonshire, including those in my own family who have served, will not be given the appropriate thanks by their local community. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, advise me and other Members of the House whose local communities may have been unable to hold veterans’ day that this will not happen again?

[Mark Lancaster]

Armed Forces Day has become quite a success, so I am disappointed to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I visited Bangor in Northern Ireland and my colleagues have visited other places in the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces Day centring on Liverpool this year was a particular success. However, I am concerned by what he says and would like to think that all our units, whether Army Reserve units, Regular units or cadet forces, will do whatever they can to support Armed Forces Day. I will certainly look into what he has said.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that a crucial criterion when considering dismissing or abandoning reserve centres is to ensure that our reserve centres are as close as possible to the reserve soldiers who will man them, so that they do not have to travel far?

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course, our reserves have become very much a success over recent years. Over the last year, some 5,000 extra reserves were recruited—an increase of some 5% on the Army Reserve of 2016. One of the great challenges we face is to ensure that the footprint is equal across the country. That is why the Army Reserve Refine piece of work that is going on is so important. One of the principal aims is to ensure that the footprint is even across the country.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Abertillery in my constituency is home to the 211 Battery, which has the reserve’s only unmanned air systems operators. I understand that the Department is scrapping the Black Hornet unmanned aerial vehicle, but is still using the Desert Hawk model. Will that have an impact on the successful and popular Blaenau Gwent-based unit?

[Mark Lancaster]

As I said earlier, I think that the reserves Refine piece is overwhelmingly a success story. I am sorry that I am not currently in a position to give the House the final details, but I will go out of my way to ensure that all Members are informed in advance of any changes in their local units.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to a footprint for the reserve forces. That is terribly important, because, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), they have to live near their bases. Reserve centres are also very useful as the outward face of the British Army throughout the nation where there is not otherwise any military presence. They are often co-located with, for instance, cadet battalions, and they have a huge usefulness quite apart from their military usefulness. Does it not concern my hon. Friend that what he described as a footprint may become a toehold?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am quite confident that at the end of the reserves Refine process, the footprint will still be substantial across the United Kingdom. We are not considering major closures across the UK, and I would hate to imply that that is the correct impression. Indeed, today I announced the creation of two new reserve units. I think that, as we continue to increase the size of our reserves, the story is a positive one.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

2. What contribution the Government are making to NATO’s reassurance measures in Estonia and Poland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of whether the Royal Navy has sufficient personnel to operate (a) all vessels and (b) the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The Royal Navy is growing, with 400 more personnel, more ships and new submarines. The Royal Navy remains on track to achieve its manning levels for 2020 and will have sufficient manpower to continue to meet all its operational requirements. That includes ensuring that the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers can always operate safely and effectively.

[Mr Baron]

Given concerns that we are hollowing out our armed forces’ manpower in favour of big-ticket items, what is the Minister, and indeed the Government, doing to ensure that we not only have the manpower to operate those big-ticket items but the ships to protect them when at sea? Global uncertainties abound, and over 90% of our trade is maritime borne.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenges we face in recruiting in our growing economy, and I am pleased that the Navy’s efforts to address shortages of engineers are beginning to show dividends, through the personnel recovery programme. He will also be aware of our investment in offshore patrol vessels, five of which are currently under construction, and in the new Type 26s—we will cut steel later this month.

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

In March 2017, total Royal Navy numbers were 710 below their liability, and it is reported that currently only six of our service escort platforms are at sea or fully operational. Given that last year we had a net manpower loss of 750, how can we be assured that we have the right retention policies to operate all of our platforms, when they are so desperately needed?

[Mark Lancaster]

The Royal Navy is growing; I am pleased that for the first time in a generation the establishment of the Royal Navy will grow, by 400, as I said. I have mentioned the personnel recovery programme, an excellent programme that has sought to address the shortages of engineers through apprenticeships and through affiliation with university technical colleges. It is a long-term programme, but it is working.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The truth is that the Royal Navy has experienced catastrophic cuts in personnel over the past seven years and now the chickens are coming home to roost; the Navy is even asking 55 to 60-year-olds to rejoin on short-term contracts. Will the Government now recognise the error of their ways and recruit, on good wages, the personnel we need? The Prime Minister has asked for ideas from the Opposition, so will the Minister pass my suggestion on to the Prime Minister?

[Mark Lancaster]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, this seems to be a common theme when we come to the Dispatch Box: he is always terribly negative. I am determined to try to support our serving personnel and, as I have tried to explain, an awful lot of effort is going in at the moment. This really is the year of the Navy, with more than £3 billion invested in the Royal Navy. We are seeing two new carriers; the fourth Astute class was launched recently; and we are seeing the contract launch for three Type 26s. The future is bright for the Royal Navy and I wish he would stop talking it down.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no doubting the comprehensiveness of the replies, but if we could make slightly more timely progress, that would be appreciated by Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

As part of Operation Sophia, the Royal Navy and UK assets have saved more than 12,500 lives, destroyed more than 170 smuggling boats and apprehended 23 suspected smugglers. We are the only country in Europe that has provided at least one ship at all times. It is UK Government policy to tackle migration at its source, and we are pursuing a comprehensive response including training coastguards, providing sustainable alternatives to unmanaged migration and disrupting criminal gangs.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T3. Given the delays in procuring the full order for Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, and given that HMS Ocean is to be paid off because of acute staffing shortages, just how does the Minister envisage that the Royal Navy will be capable of discharging its duties of protecting the UK at home and abroad?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it will have to be a brief answer or it may need to be in writing. There are a lot of other questions to cover.

[Mark Lancaster]

In answering, I have to declare the same interest, having served in Afghanistan.

Our armed forces are rightly held to the highest standards, and credible, serious allegations of criminal behaviour must be investigated. Op Northmoor has discontinued more than 90% of the 675 allegations received because there was no evidence of criminal or disciplinary offence. To date, no case has been referred to the Service Prosecuting Authority, but investigations continue.

[Mr Speaker]

Single sentence questions are really what is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T9. Will the Minister reverse the decision to shut down Operation Northmoor, given the recent report in The Sunday Times on possible criminal behaviour by an SAS unit in Afghanistan?

[Mark Lancaster]

It would be absolutely wrong for there to be ministerial interference in that operation. I am quite confident that Op Northmoor is appropriately resourced, both through personnel and finances, and I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

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

Will the Government consider reinstating ring-fenced funding for the BBC Monitoring Service, given that its absence is leading to the closure of Caversham Park and a considerable reduction in the service’s defensive potential?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am more than happy to look at the matter for my right hon. Friend.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

T10. Given that the UK claims to support multilateral nuclear disarmament, will the Secretary of State tell the House why the UK boycotted the UN’s nuclear ban treaty negotiations and how the UK Government will respond to the nuclear ban treaty? Can he understand the disappointment of so many of my constituents at the UK’s boycott of these negotiations?

Future Accommodation Model

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

Mr Walker, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I sense will be the last time this Parliament, although we shall see.

I start, of course, by congratulating the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) on securing this debate, which provides us with another vital opportunity to discuss the future accommodation model. It is vital because the welfare of our service personnel is the basis on which we build a world-class armed forces, able and willing to take on the threats and challenges of these volatile times. Getting this matter right is absolutely in all our interests. Let us be honest—we have not always done that.

As I have said previously, nobody is under any illusions that successive Governments’ records on service family accommodation in recent years have been an unqualified success. Indeed, issues with CarillionAmey, which several hon. Members raised today, have been well-documented. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), and others, which show that there is at least an acknowledgement that we have made progress in recent months. There has definitely been an improvement, but I am not remotely complacent. Much more needs to be done and I reaffirm my previous statement that if CarillionAmey does not perform on its contract, it will be replaced.

Equally, a number of detailed questions were put to me today and I will do my best in the time I have available to answer many of them. As ever, with some of the more technical questions, I will endeavour to write to hon. Members in the shortened timeframe we now have before this Parliament dissolves; I am sure that my officials will work especially hard to try to get those answers for me as soon as they can.

However, I will start by gently making just one point. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington basically said that he felt this process was being rushed; I would argue that it is anything but. Absolutely no firm decisions have yet been made, and this debate is yet another valuable opportunity for colleagues from all parties to contribute to this process and influence it. We do not anticipate coming to any firm conclusions, or rather that the next Government will not come to any firm conclusions, until probably the end of the year, with a trial not starting until the end of 2018, and a move to a new model will probably not be completed for perhaps 10 or even 12 years. With respect, that is hardly a rush.

The focus of today’s debate is not the past but the future, and in particular our intent to ensure that, when it comes to service family accommodation, we move with the times in a way that is logical and beneficial for all. As our troops return from Germany and we look to rationalise our estate, there is an unprecedented opportunity for us to do just that, by taking the opportunity to modernise the way we provide housing for our people, making it fair, flexible, and affordable.

Our future accommodation model is the mechanism for achieving that goal. Its benefits are not well understood —I accept that—and there are many myths and misconceptions shrouding it. However, before I hopefully go on to debunk the most prominent of those, I should start by explaining why the FAM will be a vast improvement on what has gone before.

Equally, however, in response to the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I must say that I believe that across the House there is a will to provide a workable, practical and sensible solution for our armed forces personnel. Indeed, this may well be one of the last points of unity that we find over the next seven weeks as we head towards the excitement of the general election in 51 days’ time. As I say, there is a will to try to get this matter right and although, judging by his comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury may feel that we are on different sides of this argument, I am not sure that we are. This is all about delivering choice rather than prescribing to our service personnel what they will take. Also, let us not forget that some 20% of our service personnel opt out of the system and get absolutely nothing, which cannot be right.

First, I want to see a system that will be fairer, reflecting the societal norms of the 21st century rather than those of some bygone era. Let me give just one example. Currently, a married senior officer will be assigned a four-bedroom home, even if he or she has no children or other dependents, and will usually pay just £350 to £450 a month for it. By contrast, an unmarried member of the junior ranks, with a partner of 10 years and two children, is entitled to nothing more than a single bedroom in a block. How can that be right? If that service person moves out into the private sector to live with their family, it could cost them well over £1,000 every month.

The absurdity of this state of affairs becomes all the more apparent when one reads the testaments of the men and women whom it affects, such as the Royal Navy sailor who wrote to tell me how he cannot live with his girlfriend, even though they have been in a relationship for several years and have children together, or the couple forced to live apart because they are not married, or the father forced to live as a visitor with his own family. We cannot turn a blind eye to these situations any more. So, under the new model, we are committed to ensuring that provision is based on need.

However, FAM will not only seek to redress inequity but to be far more flexible than the current model, and flexibility is the key. The current model is failing to keep pace with modern life. What our service personnel want today—indeed, what they need—is choice and stability. They want to be given the choice of how to live, where to live, and with whom they want to live, and to be near the schools of their choice, to own their home and to provide their partners with stability and employment opportunities. Currently, however, our personnel must like what is on offer or lump it and, if they choose to go it alone, we cut the purse strings and they get nothing—no assistance, financial or otherwise, from the Ministry of Defence. That does not make sense and it needs to change.

We have made a start, through our forces Help to Buy scheme, which has so far helped more than 10,000 service personnel, but we have to go further. Under the proposals being considered as part of the future accommodation model, service personnel will be better supported to make their own decisions, and will receive our support regardless of where they choose to live.

The final point in this section of my speech is that the future accommodation model will be affordable. The current offer is inefficient and increasingly unaffordable. At present, we spend more than £800 million a year on accommodation, and that is set to rise, but a fifth of the personnel do not benefit from it. FAM will make savings by reducing management overheads, reducing further spending and stamping out inefficiencies. Let me make it clear—in case hon. Members are in any doubt—that savings will not be made through reducing the effective subsidy that personnel receive. This is about doing away with inefficiencies, such as the 10,000 or so MOD properties that currently sit empty. How can it be right for the taxpayer that we have those properties, all of which take money to maintain and currently serve no purpose because they are empty? We now try to rent them out when we can, getting an income that is reinvested, but we must keep a number of them empty, and rightly so, to try to always have ready what we say a service family should live in.

The intent is clear: we want a model that is fair, flexible, affordable and fit for the 21st century. That is our steadfast intention, but exactly how we get there is still being carefully considered and debates like today’s are feeding positively into that. To give just one example, the point has been raised with me before that even though we are moving to a system based on need there should be certain appointments that absolutely maintain a property: a commanding officer probably should have a property that goes with the appointment because of the wider needs of his role. We are looking at the various options to ensure that that is possible but, as I have said, at this stage no final decisions have been made. Nothing is set in stone. Ideas and plans will continue to evolve as we assess policy options over the coming months. Towards the end of the year we should be able to give more certainty about what the future policy will look like, but it will be important to continue engaging with service families to get the detail right, and we will eventually test policy in the real world with several pilots towards the end of 2018. I cannot at this stage give the exact details of what shape those pilots will take, but hope to do so shortly.

Crucially, our people will remain at the core of the decision-making process. We are listening, and will continue to listen, to service personnel, their families, family federations and other organisations. For instance, since we last debated FAM in Westminster Hall in October 2016, the FAM survey results have been published, with more than 24,000 servicemen and women responding and giving us their views on the model, indicating their housing preferences and needs. Hon. Members made some criticism of the survey in their contributions, and I shall attempt to address that, but it is interesting that this did not include cases in which the survey produced information that supported their points. None the less, I agree that it was a self-selecting survey and will be subject to response bias, but that has been recognised in our use of the results, which we have combined with many different sources of evidence. It is, after all, only one source of evidence. We tried to find a balance between giving enough information to inform a response and not putting in so much that we made it too complex. Crucially, I can say, as a statistician, that because of the number of responses, the survey gives a 99% degree of confidence that broadly—[Interruption.] I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is itching to intervene. I have provoked him.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

A sample of 24,000 would give an exceptionally high level of confidence but, as I stressed earlier, this is not a sample—it is a self-selected group. I am sorry, but the claim of 99% just does not stand up.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend has made that point twice and I take it firmly on board. I will respond only by saying that the survey is one of several sources of evidence we are using.

It is because of the views of service personnel and suggestions made in this Chamber last October that we have looked in more detail at how personnel should be supported in the private market, at how service families accommodation might be a bigger part of the future model and at how we assess the potential impact on retention and operational effectiveness—matters raised by several hon. Members. Later this year, we will visit garrisons, air stations and naval bases to talk to service personnel about the model, to ensure that they understand what it could mean for them, to inform them of the opportunities that lie ahead and to listen to their feedback.

Much remains fluid as we continue to seek the most expedient solution for all involved but, despite our best intentions, that fluidity has resulted in speculation, concerns and incorrect assumptions that must be quashed, and I turn briefly to those now. First, we are not getting rid of all service family accommodation and single living accommodation. That could not be further from the truth. Single living accommodation enables rapid mobility of personnel, offers good value for money and delivers a unique service not seen anywhere else on the private market, so we will be keeping it. Likewise, we recognise and value the additional support to service personnel that service family accommodation provides. Decisions on the quantity of retained service family accommodation will be based on the local private market, demand, value for money and operational needs. Those factors will be at the forefront of our minds during the decision-making process. I encourage all hon. Members to go and look at the nearly 1,000 homes we are building around the Larkhill area if they want to see for themselves our commitment to service family accommodation.

Secondly—I said this earlier, but it is a point worth repeating—the £400 million effective subsidy that service personnel as a whole receive will not be cut. Thirdly, just as we do now, the MOD will shield our people from variations in rent across the country. From north to south, be it in Catterick, Northolt, or Andover, service personnel will have access to subsidised accommodation, and will make the same contribution for the property regardless of the geographic location and of whether it is service family accommodation or a private rent. In practice, that means that a service person in Yorkshire will contribute the same as one in Wiltshire, with the difference being covered by their allowance. What is changing is that we will move to a model that, for the first time, provides support to service personnel both in and outside of the wire.

We have had a well-informed and useful debate. Whatever our opinions on the finer points at stake, we should not lose sight of the overriding fact that we all share the same fundamental desire to ensure that those who serve us are well provided for. I reassure hon. Members that their views, and those of their constituents, will continue to shape our plans. Working together, I have no doubt that we will engineer a future accommodation model that will provide our people with the greater choice and stability they expect, deserve and need; as I said earlier, something that it is in everyone’s interests to get right.