Afghanistan: Call-out Order for Reserves

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Written Statements

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

With the expiry of the call-out order made on 9 November 2016, a new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service in support of United Kingdom operations in Afghanistan.

Under the call-out order made on 9 November 2016, 71 reservists have been called out for operations. We anticipate a continued requirement for reservists, with the right skills and experience, over the period the new order will be in force. This is fully in line with our policy of having more capable, usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces.

The order takes effect from the beginning of 9 November 2017 and ceases to have effect at the end of 8 November 2018.

[HCWS236]

Armed Forces Pay

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sweeney]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Engineering and air crews in particular have urgent issues of undermanning in the service.

It is alarming that the entire Regular Army can be comfortably seated in Wembley stadium now that its numbers have fallen below 82,000 and it is 6% undermanned. In contrast, the Regular Army numbered 103,000 when I joined in 2006 and it could not fit into Wembley stadium.

The defence budget has fallen from 2.5% of GDP to under 2% over the term of this Tory Government. There is a chaotic equipment programme. Whether it is Nimrod or the cats and traps on the carriers, fiasco after fiasco has bled resources out of the armed forces through a lack of efficient management of equipment programmes. It is shocking that armed forces pay should suffer as a result.

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

I just want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to correct what he just said. It was the Labour Government who chose to abandon cats and traps, and who slowed down the building of the aircraft carrier, which cost over £1 billion on top of the original bill. That is what happened to the aircraft carrier under a Labour Government.[Official Report, 20 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 3-4MC.]

[Mr Sweeney]

I have to correct the Minister. That is factually incorrect. I worked at BAE Systems at the time. The project was commissioned as a result of the 2010 strategic defence and security review, and £1 billion was utterly wasted before the project was cancelled.

I will quickly draw my comments to a conclusion. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has highlighted that the 2016-17 pay review was not an increase in real terms at all because of the impact of national insurance increases and the changes to housing cost allowances. From 2010 to present, it actually represents a 5.3% cut in real-terms pay for our armed forces. The reality is borne out by the evidence presented today, and it is comprehensive. We have seen a litany of failure, falling expenditure and stagnating incomes. That leads to a fall in morale. As a result, outflow has exceeded recruitment since 2011. Let us come together in this House today to recognise that there is a vicious cycle of downsizing. We must move towards a virtuous cycle of investment that will stop the continued degradation of our armed forces and ensure that the operational effectiveness of our armed forces is secure for the future in a very dangerous world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the chuntering and the interruptions are indicative of the crass behaviour of the Ministry of Defence, which we are debating this afternoon.

I am not hopeful that Ministers will stand up for the armed forces, which they claim to support, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State for Defence is considering scrapping the special allowance given to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister, in his response—I will give him time to respond—make a commitment not to cut the special service allowance?

As we approach Remembrance Sunday—several Members mentioned it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)—it is surely imperative that the House unites in support of our armed forces. This afternoon, many contributions have strongly supported lifting the pay cap. I very much hope that all of us will support the motion, and call for a fair pay rise for our armed forces. Especially at this time of the year, our armed forces deserve nothing less. [Interruption.]

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister should sit down for a second.

Mr Lancaster, I do not know whether you are deliberately trying to frustrate the Chair—I am sure that is not your intention—but you are going a good way towards doing so. Let me help you. It is up to the Opposition spokesman when he sits down. The Minister has asked for extra time to respond, so you should be thanking Mr David for sitting down to give him that extra time. Let us have less chuntering, and let us hear from Minister Ellwood.

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

It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a passionate and mostly constructive debate. It is a real pleasure to add my support, as expressed on both sides of the House, for our noble, gallant and brave armed forces.

Before I respond to the debate, may I join the Prime Minister and I am sure the whole House in sending our best wishes, thoughts and prayers to those affected by yet another terrorist attack in Manhattan in New York? That place is close to my heart: I was born there, and I have worked there as well. The attack reflects the type of security challenges we continue to face not just in this country, but across the world.

As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, we need to see this debate in the wider context of fiscal responsibility, and that must be the backdrop to any discussion on pay. It is only with a growing economy that we can responsibly make any changes to funding for Departments. Let us not forget that we inherited a deficit of almost £150 billion. That is now down by three quarters, but the annual interest on the nation’s debt continues to be more than £50 billion every year, and we cannot simply take money if it does not exist. Under this Government, the economy is growing, employment is up and it is now possible to lift the 1% pay freeze imposed by the Treasury, which is good news.

This debate has focused primarily on armed forces pay, but that cannot be directly compared with other types of public sector pay, such as in the NHS and so forth—we must look at the other aspects that make wearing the uniform very different. We have to recognise the subsidised accommodation and food; the X factor pay, which many hon. Members mentioned; the pensions package; the free medical and dental care; the allowances, including operational pay; and of course the automatic pay progression, which has also been mentioned. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body considers all those factors before any changes are made.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Specifically on pensions, the MOD’s continuous attitude survey shows that dissatisfaction with the package was at 38% in 2013, but is now at 52%. Why?

[Mr Ellwood]

I take from the continuous attitude survey that, yes, we have to recognise the concerns about pay and indeed about pensions—such concerns are felt on both sides of the House—but the biggest concerns are the long periods of separation and the pressures on family life. That is exactly why we are introducing the armed forces people programme, which will alleviate the pressure on families caused by separation. We are providing a new joiners’ offer and a new accommodation offer, and we are also looking at a new enterprise approach, which will allow highly capable people in the private sector to slide across into the armed forces. There is also the flexible engagement model that we debated in the Chamber on Monday.

As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, and this has been reiterated by Members on both sides of the House, we must recognise how different it is to wear the uniform in today’s context. It is becoming tougher to recruit because we have full employment, and it is becoming difficult to retain because of the challenges and competition we have in public life. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—who perhaps teased my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in denying him the ability to intervene—we recognise those different circumstances, and we are trying to get people to step forward.

The conduct of war itself has changed. What we expect to ask of our brave service personnel is also different. That is the context of the debate, and that is reflected perhaps in the recruitment and retention challenges that have been echoed across the House.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for giving way, particularly as I did not get a chance to ask this question when the debate finished half an hour early the other day. Earlier, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the current commissioning course at Sandhurst was at full capacity, but I looked at the figures for the most recent course: only 210 places were taken up when the capacity was 270. Can the Minister clarify what is going on? Is the course at capacity or not?

[Mr Ellwood]

If I may, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details, but I do not shy away from the challenges that we face. I have just made that clear. It is difficult to recruit and retain in the manner that we would wish because of a number of circumstances, which have been highlighted by the report produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I shall come to that shortly.

[Conor McGinn]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

This will be the last time I give way, if I may.

[Conor McGinn]

The Minister for the Armed Forces was quick to his feet earlier to dispute figures that I gave that show that numbers leaving the Army Reserve increased by 20% between June last year and this year. Furthermore, the intake decreased by 18%. Those are not my figures; they are the Government’s figures. Would the Minister care to acknowledge that?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that, overall, reserve numbers are up, but, again, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail.

To move on—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

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

[Mr Jones]

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

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

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

[Mr Ellwood]

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

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Okay. I will accept “accuracy” but not “truth”. Minister.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure whether I should sit down or stand up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, I tell you what: you’ll sit down. If we are going to play the game, we will start playing it. Now then, Minister: on your feet.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the hon. Gentleman did, and continues to do, in supporting our armed forces, but the numbers are clear. The growth of the deficit since 2000, moving forward, increased, increased and increased; and that is the black hole that I was actually referring to.

I think we have milked this subject enough for the moment, so I will move on. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) spoke about the importance of the covenant. She is in her place. I thank her for the work that she does on this important matter and I would like to meet the Committee at the earliest opportunity.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) spoke of the package of financial support, which is very important. I have touched on that. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said that the reserve numbers are increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke with passion about his constituency. It was a pleasure to visit the event to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Falklands campaign. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about the importance of the Royal British Legion. I am really pleased that the Office for National Statistics has agreed to include a tick—a requirement—for veterans and I am pleased that everyone has worked towards that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about the importance of the equipment that we have—£178 billion is being spent on that. He also said that the total cost of the promises that Labour has made so far under this Government is £500 billion. I do not know where that money will come from.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) spoke about cats and traps. I want to make it clear that the electromagnetic aircraft launch system—EMALS—was being promoted. That simply had not matured in time. There was no way that we were going to buy F-35Cs for the aircraft carrier; they could not have been launched off it because there is no steam.

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way. There is no steam on board the aircraft carriers. They are diesel; they are not powered by atomic energy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) denied being a Government lackey. I can confirm he is certainly not—

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think people will deliver figures in different ways, and the interpretation of those will always be in dispute. Minister.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was just going to mention the animation—the passion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who has done a service to the House with his work to promote the needs and requirements of veterans. I hope that continues.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made an interesting and measured contribution. He was the first to point out that what we need to do is to ask the question, “What do we want our armed forces to do?” Only by asking that question will we determine the size and the equipment we need, and that is why we are undertaking our capability review.

The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke with passion about Remembrance Sunday and the poppy appeal. It was a real honour to visit the Poppy Factory a few months ago to see the work that it is doing with veterans, and the work for Remembrance Sunday itself.

In conclusion, like all Members of the House, the Government want to ensure that our brave armed forces, those exemplary men and women who give their all for our country, continue to get what they deserve. Our forces are currently serving in 25[Official Report, 20 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 4MC.] operations around the world. They are keeping us safe and enhancing our reputation around the world. They are the best of British, and they have the right to expect the best in return. Therefore, although the need for pay discipline will remain a constant in the coming years, we remain committed to ensuring that their overall package of pay, progression and benefits continues to reflect the enormous value that we place on their work. We await the next review’s findings with interest. Members can rest assured that, as a Defence Minister, a former officer and a reservist, I am determined to do everything in my power to ensure that our people get what they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the pay of Armed Forces personnel has been capped at 1 per cent in 2017-18 and that this represents another below inflation pay settlement; further notes that the size of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and Royal Marines is below stated targets; notes that dissatisfaction with pay has been identified by service personnel as a reason for leaving their respective force; and calls on the Government to end the public sector pay cap for the Armed Forces and give Armed Forces personnel a fair pay rise.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

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

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

Despite the time constraints, we have had a welcome, constructive and largely agreeable Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the contributions from both sides of the House, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to some of the points made.

As the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, while we are investing in equipment—in new ships, submarines, aircraft and armoured vehicles—we must also continue to attract and retain the people not only to use that equipment but to learn the skills to leverage its capabilities fully, to ensure that, strategically and tactically, we can continue to meet our defence, security, humanitarian and diplomatic obligations.

Ultimately, this is about people; it is about those in uniform who defend these shores and our security interests abroad. It is about those in uniform whom we call on to respond to new threats and challenges, such as a resurgent Russia, or to provide humanitarian support in the Caribbean. It is those in uniform—their capabilities, their leadership, their courage and their commitment—who truly reflect our operational effectiveness. However, to attract the brightest and the best, we must recognise the modern context in which recruitment and retention take place.

Just as our equipment and tactics advance and modernise, so too must our offering in terms of what it entails to wear the uniform and serve in the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force. As the Secretary of State stated, we are now committed to an ambitious programme to advance our personnel policies, and this Bill is an important step towards a more modern lifestyle for our armed forces.

Under our armed forces people programme, there are four key strands: first, our new joiners’ offer, developing a new employment offer that better meets the expectations of future recruits; secondly, our future accommodation model, advancing the housing options available both to single and to married personnel, including home ownership; thirdly, the enterprise approach, with a better harnessing of the transition between public and private sector, specifically for those with engineering and high-tech skills; and finally, offering greater flexible engagement through this Bill.

There is not enough time to do justice to all the contributions we have heard, but I join the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) in congratulating those who have spoken. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who supported the Bill in general, spoke about some of the challenges that our armed forces face to do with childcare, partner illness and so forth. I am pleased with the general tone that she adopted, which was reflected across the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, almost broke into song; I think that the House is probably grateful that he did not. Other contributions from across the House highlighted the importance of supporting the people who make our armed forces work.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way because of the time, and I would like to make some further comments.

As has been said, this small but important Bill will help to modernise our armed forces, and it forms part of a package of measures to maintain the attraction of serving our country. Without exception, all Members, from the opening speech by the Secretary of State onwards, stressed the respect that our armed forces command both here in the UK and abroad.

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am slightly bemused. Can you confirm whether we have until the moment of interruption for the Minister to continue his remarks?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but there are 33 minutes to go.

[Mr Ellwood]

As I said, without exception, all Members from across the House came to support the people in our armed forces today.

For centuries and across continents, our armed forces have been respected—indeed, revered—for their grit, tenacity and courage. When we define who we are as a nation—our standards, our values, our tolerance, our interests and our aspirations—they are neatly interwoven with the reputation of our armed forces and the role that they play on the nation’s behalf.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way—I have made that clear.

The Secretary of State spoke, as did others, of our armed forces being the best in the world. The professionalism and capability of our personnel remains the exemplar on which other nations, both friend and foe, rate the professionalism of their armed forces.

In this place, we often refer to Britain’s global influence as the world’s leading soft power, with the ability to pursue a transparent agenda to help shape the world around us as a force for good through our influence, commitment, political values and foreign policies. That international respect works only if it is underlined by the recognition that it is backed by the hard power that can be called on to support, to lead, to stabilise, or, where necessary, to intervene. Who do we call on to step forward? It is those who are in uniform. This is not just about attracting the brightest and the best in an ever-competitive domestic environment; in a fast-changing and challenging world, it is about retaining the professionalism of our armed forces that helps us to continue to play a critical role as a force for good on the international stage. It is therefore right that we advance our offering to attract the brightest and the best. That is exactly what this Bill, sitting with the other measures that I have outlined, attempts to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords] (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 14 November.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve satisfaction rates on pay in the armed forces.

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

Following the recession, there has been a requirement for fiscal responsibility to manage the deficit, but today we need to balance protecting jobs in the public sector, being fair to public sector workers and, of course, being fair to taxpayers who pay for it. Armed forces pay rates are recommended by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. We look forward to receiving its next set of recommendations for 2018-19.

[Matt Rodda]

The Government are fond of saying that they value our armed forces personnel, yet back in June every Minister and every Cabinet member, including the Defence Secretary himself, voted against lifting the public sector pay cap for our armed forces. Is this not proof that their commitment to our brave men and women is only skin-deep?

[Mr Ellwood]

The Opposition have a habit of spending money that they do not have. We need to take various things into consideration. Much as we would like to move forward with breaking the 1% pay cap, we have to bear in mind that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes into consideration banded progressive pay, subsidised accommodation, a range of allowances—including the X factor, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware of—and the basic salary, which remains competitive, as well as comparisons with the private sector. It is for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to make its decisions, and we look forward to that.

[Mr Speaker]

Did I hear the Minister banging on about “The X Factor”? This may require some elaboration for some colleagues, I think, but never mind.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

In spite of increases in accommodation costs and cuts to tax credits, the Government have slashed the starting pay of an Army private by over £1,000 in real terms. This is no way to treat our loyal armed forces, and it will do nothing to resolve the crisis in recruitment and retention. Will the Government now change their priorities, stop thinking about the £2.5 billion tax giveaway they are giving to the big companies and the wealthy, and commit to freeing up the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, so that it is not constrained by the 1% pay cap, allowing it to give a proper pay rise to our armed forces personnel?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure where the hon. Lady has been, but there is now that flexibility. There is no longer the pressure to remain within the 1%—it has been removed. I wish that her enthusiasm for the armed forces would rub off on the Leader of the Opposition, who has no support or respect for the armed forces, and no respect for NATO, and wants to get rid of our nuclear deterrent.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

12. What plans he has to improve mental health support for armed forces personnel.

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

We must recognise that historically mental health has not received the same attention as physical wellbeing. I am therefore pleased that in July we published our new mental health and wellbeing strategy, which comprehensively addresses this. I hope that that will lead to a cultural change in challenging the stigma and improving the mental fitness of our armed forces personnel and, indeed, their families.

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. Does he agree that it is important not only that we provide better treatment for our veterans, but that the public appreciate that the vast majority of veterans who leave the armed forces do so all the better for having served, rather than as damaged individuals?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I think that the whole House respects and reveres our armed forces, but we need to bury the myth that someone who joins the armed forces is more likely to have mental health problems, more likely to have post-traumatic stress disorder and more likely to commit suicide than the general population. That is absolutely not the case. We have 2.5 million veterans in this country, and 15,000 leave every single year. Of those, 90% get into jobs or education within six months. Of course some of them, through no fault of their own, require support, and we need to make sure that we provide it.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Veterans have done their duty and we must ensure that we do ours by them. Can the Minister say a few words about what extra steps are being taken by the Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Board to address this critical issue?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am pleased to say that this was a manifesto commitment. We need to recognise that it is not just the MOD that looks after our veterans’ interests; that happens across Whitehall. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be chairing the first meeting of the board on Thursday.

My hon. Friend asks about the covenant, which is very important even though it is in its infancy. It encourages businesses to employ veterans and allow reservists to go on their training, and it provides deals for regular members of the armed forces.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The Veterans Welfare Service is committed to enhancing veterans’ quality of life, and its main objective is the efficient delivery of core services. My constituent, Scott Garthley, has had a very different experience, with his records failing to display his veteran status and with the loss of his national insurance payment records. Will the Minister meet my constituent to discuss these matters?

[Mr Ellwood]

I make it clear that if any hon. Member has such a situation, I would be more than delighted to make sure that we understand what support can be provided. That is the duty of this House, the MOD and the nation. Working out which way to turn can be confusing. There are 450 charities out there, and the Veterans Gateway programme, which was launched this July, provides that support. I would be more than delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Sheerman]

I am very worried about the complacency in the Minister’s answers. Why is it that Crisis and so many other charities that work with homeless people and people who are sleeping rough find that a huge percentage of them are ex-military personnel? What are we doing about it?

[Mr Ellwood]

That is another example of a myth that we need to bust. I pay tribute to the local authorities and the charities that are doing their work. Where we are failing, if we are failing, is in not communicating where the support for our brave veterans is. That is something that we all need to work towards.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

The Ministry of Defence holds personal information on former armed forces personnel for lawful defence and security purposes. Information is held if the individual is receiving an armed forces occupational pension, has made a claim for compensation, or is being provided with welfare assistance. The MOD is determined to ensure that veterans who require help are provided with appropriate support through the Veterans UK helpline and website, the welfare service and the veterans information service.

[Rachael Maskell]

The help has not been available to my constituent Mr Joseph Palmer, who has lived in the UK since he was three. He served our country as a regular in the Army between 2008 and 2014, and served in Afghanistan. The only place that holds his records is the MOD, because the immigration and visa service has lost his details and his documents. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that my constituent can remain in and work in the UK?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this case.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure me that medical records of former personnel are accurately passed to general practitioners? It is a long time ago now, but mine were not, and there was no record of my being badly hurt and spending six months in hospital. My general practitioner was amazed.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that we get these things right. As those who have served in the armed forces depart, we need to make sure that we provide the service that veterans deserve.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

22. One of the ways in which the Minister could ensure better information is stored is through the national census. The Office for National Statistics said last week that former armed forces personnel should be included as a new question on the census. What is his response to the ONS?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am delighted to say that I am very supportive of that. The more information we have to help us understand who veterans are—whether through a veterans identity card; through changing the driving licence so that it has a symbol to show that people are veterans, which we are looking at with the Secretary of State; or, indeed, by showing that on GP records—the more we can support veterans, and that is the direction of travel in which we should go.

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

18. What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on defence spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T2. Will the Secretary of State give us an up-to-date report on the implementation of the armed forces covenant, bearing in mind that it was a Labour Government who introduced it in the first place?

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

As I mentioned earlier, the covenant is very important. It is a bond between the nation and our armed forces; it makes sure that they are looked after and are not disenfranchised. It is in its infancy and we must remember that it has a long way to go. We look at how the United States, for example, looks after its veterans through practical measures. Our reverence and love are no different, but we have a long way to go practically to give our veterans the respect they deserve.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

T7. Do the Government plan to provide mid-life upgrades to the Typhoon and Chinook?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield]

T5. I will try to avoid repetition, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that national insurance records are failing to be handed over to veterans’ groups, so veterans cannot be identified when they are making a benefit application?

[Mr Ellwood]

I was not directly aware of that point. I meet three or four charities every single week. I will raise that issue, which goes back to my point about veterans receiving the support they deserve. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with more detail, I would be grateful to receive his letter.

[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?

[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?

[Mr Ellwood]

As nobody else is getting up, I will jump to my feet. I look forward to presenting the armed forces quinquennial review in the very near future.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Five ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Exeter after Devon’s county capital, the first in 1680. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be entirely appropriate if one of the new frigates continued that great tradition?

Service Complaints Ombudsman Annual Report: MOD Response

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Written Statements

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

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) formal response to the service complaints ombudsman’s (SCO) annual report for 2016 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system has today been placed in the Library of the House.

The ombudsman’s report commented on the operation of the new service complaints system which was implemented on 1 January 2016 and the work of her office in 2016. The response sets out how the MOD proposes to address each of the ombudsman’s new recommendations.

The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the ombudsman brings to the new service complaints process, and remains committed to having a system in which our personnel can have confidence.

[HCWS183]

Defence Capability

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) on securing this debate via the Backbench Business Committee, and I was pleased to be able to support it. It is incumbent on all Members to thank our armed forces for their contribution. They do a heroic job all year round keeping us safe and defending our citizens and allies. As the son of a submariner I know from experience how important the armed forces are, not only for my family who relied on the money brought in to help us when I was growing up but for Plymouth, which is the area to which I will restrict my remarks on the upcoming defence review.

Members will know that since the election in June I have mainly spoken in this Chamber about the paucity of the shipbuilding strategy, the offshoring of our Royal Fleet Auxiliary builds, which should have been done in UK shipyards, and the lack of detail on our Type 31 armaments. My concern is that we will have a lightly armed fishing patrol vessel rather than a fully capable frigate. I am concerned about the loss of HMS Ocean, particularly its helicopter-carrier capability in littoral waters close to the coast. Then there is the issue of wages and veterans and the need to invest more in our frigates and escort carrier fleet. There was a lot of support for that and I am grateful to Members of all parties who encouraged me to continue speaking on these matters.

My concern about the upcoming review is about the potential for hollowing out capabilities, particularly around the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Devonport in my constituency is home not only to half our frigate fleet, but to the deep maintenance facility for frigates, submarines and our amphibious assault ships. We already know that HMS Ocean is due to be scrapped, creating a capability gap in helicopter-carrier capacity in littoral waters, but the rumours and speculation that HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, two world-class capable amphibious assault ships, also face the axe is deeply concerning to those people who have an interest in not only Devonport and Plymouth, but in our national security, which is where I want to focus for a moment.

Having assured access capabilities and the ability to project force and deter our enemies via amphibious assault ships is absolutely a key component of our Royal Navy’s full spectrum capability. As we have the precedent of HMS Ocean, one of our three amphibious assault ships, being cut, I am concerned that we could further erode or scrap altogether our amphibious capabilities. Tying up either Albion or Bulwark alongside in Devonport has reduced our capability in that respect, which is deeply concerning.

Once the amphibious capabilities have been removed, there is a logical step forward threat to the Royal Marines. I note from recent speculation in the media that up to 1,000 Royal Marines also potentially face the axe. We need to be really clear that the amphibious capabilities provided by the Royal Navy and the specialist forces in the Royal Marines are absolutely essential.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks in great detail about what is going on in Plymouth, but I should make it clear, in case other hon. Members pick up on speculation about what may or may not be happening in the review, which I hope to elaborate on, that no decisions have been made at all. I know hon. Members will want to get things off their chest and share their concerns, but no decisions have been made about any of the ships the hon. Gentleman has mentioned so far. Any decisions to be made are quite some distance off.

[Luke Pollard]

I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to rule out cuts to our amphibious forces in that respect, because—

[Mr Ellwood]

No decisions have been made.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Bone. It is a real pleasure to be able to draw some thoughts and conclusions together on this important, interesting and timely debate. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who has shown passion and a detailed understanding not only of what is going on his constituency, but of the wider picture of the defence capability. I congratulate him on bringing this debate to the fore. Looking around the Chamber, I recognise that there is an officers’ mess worth of experience, commitment and understanding of what the armed forces has done and is doing, and of where we want to go. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

I give hon. Members the apologies of the Procurement Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—who would otherwise be here. However, I take a personal interest in these matters, so I grabbed the opportunity to share some insight about what is going on. This has been a wide-ranging discussion and as I have said, if I am not able to answer some questions, I simply will not be, but I will write to hon. Members, as I have before.

All hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, began by paying tribute to our brave and professional armed forces. As a former Regular Army officer, and indeed, a reservist, I stand with all in paying tribute to those who, when there are so many opportunities in the world today, choose to wear a uniform, to step forward and be counted, to stand and defend our country and to do the things we see, whether that is in the Caribbean or in the floods, or by going into harm’s way. We think about what it means to be British, what Britain is and what our reputation is, and that is shown in the professionalism that our armed forces display.

As a nation, we have an aspiration and the ability to shape the world around us and to play a role on the international stage, and that comes about because of what our armed forces can do. We are recognised as the world’s leading soft power because our professional armed forces are respected and revered not just by our allies, but by our adversaries. We follow a transparent agenda and in a changing, challenging world, leadership is needed on the international stage. I think we can all agree that we want our armed forces to continue to play that role in shaping this very challenging world.

We need to face some big questions, many of which have been raised today. I join right hon. and hon. Members in recognising the important economic value of our industrial base—not just in defence and aerospace, but in a wider context—in the economics of this country. However, we face a fiscal reality and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made the situation clear, taking us back in time to the legacy fiscal issues that we have inherited, which are still very real today. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil touched on the important wider duty of care that we have to our armed forces. I include the whole family—the partners, the wives, the husbands, the children, the cadets and the reserves. It is important that we look after them not only when they are in uniform, but further afield, when they finally move back into civilian life as our respected veterans.

Before I come on to the national security capability review, which is the core of our discussion, I will respond to a couple of points. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about the importance of the Type 31e. It is a simple design that is intended to have bespoke changes put on to it. It is designed for export. That is why it seems simplistic compared with the Type 26, the frigates, the destroyers and so on.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who made the future of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark clear. We should not forget the amphibious capabilities in the Bay class, as was illustrated in our response to the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about our commitment to 2%, which I can confirm. I am pleased that other nations are catching up with us to meet that important commitment. We want that to continue and, as many hon. Members have said, we are increasing our budget by 0.5% above inflation. That is very important to recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke about the importance of our footprint across the world. There is not only HMS Juffair, which I am pleased that hon. Members were able to see; we have a footprint right across the Gulf and in other places, including in a transitional or temporary mode. We are operating in and have exercises in 20 locations from Nigeria to the Balkans, to further afield in Poland with a resurgent Russia, to the Caribbean and not least, to the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) asked important questions about helicopters. If I may, I will ask the Procurement Minister to write to him in more detail.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) spoke about the number of platforms, and I agree with him. We have more than a dozen different helicopter platforms, if we count them all up, which is too many given all the procurement lines, software upgrades and training packages. That needs to be simplified.

On the national security capability review, we need to step back and remind ourselves that the SDSR 2015 was the blueprint for our security—for meeting terrorism, the growth of terrorism and extremism, state-based aggression and cyber, and responding to those who undermine the rules of international order—but there have been changes. We have had five terrorist attacks in this country, a resurgent Russia, the activities of North Korea and cyber-attacks on our health service, on companies and on Parliament itself. That is why the capability review is required. As I said, there has been much speculation, but the details will come through in the new year. I am sure that Parliament will be involved in the usual manner, including through the Select Committee.

The review will be Cabinet-led and have 12 strands, of which the defence aspect is simply one part. It is important, however, to recognise that any armed forces must adapt to and evolve with the times. We need to understand what the right balance of scale, readiness and reach is, and what our enablers to provide that support are. Where do we place those assets, not only so they are ready to be used but as a deterrent?

I will leave a minute for my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to conclude, but I am sure that we can all join in saying that we are very proud of our—

[Wayne David]

Before the Minister sits down—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He took far too much time—

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions then.

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have made that clear—

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is not in my good books at the moment. Yelling from a sedentary position is not acceptable.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has successfully eaten into more of my time, so I think he had best remain seated.

To get back to the point, we are all committed—I hope even the hon. Member for Caerphilly—to working hard for our armed forces and ensuring that they have the equipment they need and that we provide support for personnel. Yes, in politically difficult times, that is tough, but we will work hard to ensure that we meet the armed forces’ requirements.

Armed Forces Pay

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to respond to this debate. I declare an interest, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am ex-Army and a lieutenant colonel in the reserves. I pay tribute to the other coastal towns that have been represented in the debate by the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I represent Bournemouth. I think the only Members present who do not represent coastal towns are the spokesmen for the SNP and the Labour party, the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Nevertheless, the debate has been helpful in understanding and sharing concerns about public sector pay specific to the armed forces.

A number of Members have made perhaps a little bit of a political point, asking where the Conservative Members are in this important debate. I could say to the SNP spokesman that there are no SNP Back Benchers here either; he is his party’s sole representative. Many Members who would have been here today are participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That is why they are absent.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South for calling this debate. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, he represents a historical city that has a connection with all services, but specifically the senior service. We need to place the debate in context and against the backdrop of the nation’s finances, which ultimately are the question mark hanging over the size of the coffers that the Treasury has to provide financial support not only to the Ministry of Defence, but to all armed forces. I will not go into the politics of the situation, but when we came into government in 2010 there was a significant deficit. That deficit has been reduced by three quarters and the economy is now growing. The low taxes we are seeing are creating growth in our economy. We have record lows in unemployment, which is a good thing.

However, let us be honest: the election result and the debates during the campaign showed a nation concerned about our public sector and the length of time that the pay freeze has affected them. That concern was shared not only by those individuals affected, but by those who support our teachers, nurses, doctors, fire service, police, ambulance service and armed forces. Our armed forces do not have the voice of the unions, as has been mentioned a number of times. Members will be aware that the Government have been continuing the difficult task of balancing the books, but we must recognise that that ultimately means a period of pay restraint that has affected all public sector workers, including the armed forces.

We are aware, as we bring fiscal discipline back to the public finances, that that restraint has had an impact on the salaries of our people, but looking forward, the Government’s recent announcement of greater flexibility where required in public sector pay means that the independent pay review bodies can now make their own judgments on future pay awards, which will mitigate the impact. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said on Tuesday, our public sector workers, including those in the armed forces, are among the most extraordinarily talented and hard-working people in our society. I would go further: our public services are one of the things that define Britain across the world, by which I mean not just our blue light services, but our armed forces in particular. I echo other contributors by saying that professionalism is what defines us and gives us our reputation across the globe. It is important that we look after the people using equipment in operations. They make their mark and step forward to make a contribution with allies as a force for good in this very difficult and challenging age. They, like everyone else, deserve to have fulfilling jobs that are fairly rewarded. We have to take a balanced approach to public spending, dealing with our debts to keep our economy strong while also ensuring that we invest in our public services.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think there might be enough time for me to do so.

[Wayne David]

The Minister is hinting at something important, but I would like clarification. He talks about greater flexibility for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Is he suggesting that were that greater flexibility to produce a recommendation for a significant increase for the armed forces, the Government would accept that immediately, without question?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not do what the Leader of the Opposition suggested when we came back to office after the general election, which was a knee-jerk removal of the 1% pay freeze. That was suggested in proposed amendments to the Queen’s Speech. I will work extremely hard to ensure that that ambition is fulfilled. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly recognises and reads what is happening this week, there is greater clarity to provide independence, to ensure that Departments are free to reflect what is required in this day and age.

The Government will continue to ensure that the overall package for public sector workers is fair to them and that we can deliver world-class public services that are affordable within the public finances and fair to taxpayers. The last spending review budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards, as has been mentioned a number of times, but that is in addition to progression pay for specific workforces, such as the armed forces, and that must not be forgotten. There will still be a need for pay discipline over the coming years to ensure the affordability of the public services and the sustainability of public sector employment. The Government recognise that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skill shortages—such as with engineers, as has been mentioned—more flexibility may be required to deliver those world-class public services, including in return for improvements to public sector productivity.

The detail of the 2018-19 remit for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body—I stress that they are both independent bodies that provide advice to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State on pay and remuneration for the armed forces—is still under consideration and will be agreed as part of the Budget process. Recommendations from the AFPRB and SSRB are expected in the new year.

The Government, as I have emphasised, fully recognise the invaluable work undertaken by our gallant members of the armed forces, often in dangerous and difficult circumstances. A good example is the response of our personnel to the recent events in the Caribbean and Hurricane Irma. That is a timely example of the professionalism of our armed forces in a crisis. More than 1,100 armed forces personnel have been deployed so far under Operation Ruman, to provide relief to the people of the devastated Caribbean islands. A further 600 are en route on board HMS Ocean, which was mentioned earlier. I am sure all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the valuable work of our armed forces personnel.

The armed forces pay and wider remuneration package is designed to reward their unique service to our country and to support the recruitment and retention of personnel. The Government are of the view that the armed forces receive an attractive package of terms and conditions of service, which have not been mentioned so far and include a competitive salary with incremental pay scales. I stress that there are pay bands for privates, lieutenants and other ranks, such as captain. Each year they move up the band and their salary does not stay still. In fact, across the armed forces, the average individual pay rise has been about 1.5%.

[Wayne David]

As someone with a distinguished service record, does the Minister personally think that remuneration in the armed forces is adequate? What is his personal view?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am going to do everything I can to make sure that we do our best to have the remuneration package that our armed forces deserve, but we have to bear in mind the context and the backdrop, which I have spelled out. There has to be fiscal recognition of the place we are in, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should all work as hard as possible to make the case and ensure that personnel get the salary they deserve and need.

There is also a non-contributory pension scheme, subsidised accommodation and food, and access to free medical and dental care. Service personnel also have access to an allowance package that provides financial assistance towards additional costs incurred as a result of their service. Throughout the pay restraint period, many personnel in the armed forces have received an annual increase in pay of well above 1%.

During the period of pay restraint, armed forces pay has not stood still. In 2016 we introduced a major revision to armed forces pay in the form of the Pay 16 pay model, which was designed to simplify an individual’s pay journey, enabling them more accurately to predict their future career earnings. That has also rebalanced pay to reward armed forces personnel more effectively in line with their skills, while addressing many of the concerns raised by the AFPRB regarding the previous Pay 2000 structure.

We also employ remunerative measures to address issues of recruitment and retention, which have been mentioned, to ensure that our armed forces are manned to the required levels and with the requisite skills. Where there are particular issues in recruiting or retaining personnel, for which career management action by the services has had limited impact, we have the option of introducing targeted payments. Those payments can range from time-limited financial incentives, to longer-term recruitment and retention payments that recognise the particular challenges we face in retaining certain defence specialisms, such as military pilots or submariners.

Armed forces pay is subject to annual review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body, which are independent bodies tasked with providing the Government with recommendations on armed forces pay and charges for all military personnel, including the reserves. Their terms of reference require them to give consideration to the need of the services to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people, taking account of the particular circumstances of service life.

As part of its review, the AFPRB undertakes a detailed and comprehensive programme of work each year, which consists of a package of both written and oral evidence from the Secretary of State for Defence, senior officials and service families federations, representatives of which I had the pleasure of meeting only yesterday. The AFPRB also undertakes a series of visits to military units to hear directly from service personnel about their views on pay. In 2017, the AFPRB met more than 2,300 service personnel and 154 spouses and partners during 186 discussion groups. It visited establishments both in the UK and overseas, including operational theatres and ships.

In addition to the evidence it receives from Government, the AFPRB also commissions its own independent analysis and research, including on the pay comparability of the armed forces within the wider UK economy. A programme of visits has just concluded and the Government look forward to receiving the AFPRB recommendations next year.

Turning to the 2017 report, which the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned, in January this year the AFPRB and SSRB recommended a 1% pay increase for service personnel, taking into account the evidence received and independent pay comparability data. Those recommendations took into account the need to recruit, retain and motivate high-calibre people; the Government’s policies on the public services; inflation targets and the public funds available for Defence. The AFPRB reported that it believed that a 1% increase in base pay would

“broadly maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector.”

We need to bear that in mind, because that is the competing area.

The Government accepted in full the recommendations of the AFPRB and SSRB. I take this opportunity to thank the members of both pay review bodies for their work; it is greatly respected.

Turning to future pay, on which we want to focus, as I stated previously the detail of the 2018-19 pay remit for the pay review bodies is still under consideration and will be agreed as part of the budget process. As the Secretary of State said this week at the Defence and Security Equipment International conference,

“we will have greater flexibility to respond to the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.”

I hope that answers directly the question posed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It is for the AFPRB to make its recommendations for 2018-19, and as I mentioned earlier its remit allows it to consider any specific recruitment and retention issues that may apply to the armed forces. I am sure it will consider some of the issues raised in this debate. Over the coming months, the Chief Secretary will write to all the pay review bodies setting out the Government’s pay policy. The Defence Secretary will submit formal evidence to the AFPRB, setting out any specific recruitment and retention issues.

The armed forces are among the most extraordinarily talented and hard-working people in our society. The Government are committed to ensuring that the overall package that they and other public sector workers receive reflects the value we place on their work. The last spending review budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards, but the Government recognise that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skills shortage, more flexibility may be required, as reflected in this week’s announcement. There does, however, need to be pay discipline over the coming years, to ensure the affordability of the public services and the sustainability of public sector employment.

I make a personal statement that I will do all I can, as Minister for Defence People and Veterans, to make sure that the remuneration package that our gallant armed forces personnel get is what they deserve.

Future of RAF Northolt

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important debate, Mr Howarth; I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing it. I have prepared some remarks in response to where I think he would like me to go, but I will write to him in due course about a number of specific issues that he raised, if I do not cover them in my remarks today.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that transparency is very helpful. If consultations and studies are taking place, they have to go through the course of those actions before any results can come forward. Once those are there, they should absolutely be shared. I will be delighted to meet him and representatives of his council in due course, once he has taken stock of what I have to say today.

I begin, as the hon. Gentleman did, by paying tribute to those who are connected with RAF Northolt—the community around RAF Northolt, who for many years have been so supportive of the aerodrome, and the personnel of RAF Northolt. It is not just an aerodrome, but a vibrant, core military station, with over 1,800 personnel based across 33 diverse units, from all three of the armed services and wider Government. Alongside 32 (The Royal) Squadron undertaking VIP and operational command support flying, there are many other major units at the station in ground roles. An Army bomb disposal squadron, the British forces post office, the Service Prosecution Authority, an aeronautical publication and mapping centre, two RAF bands and an operational RAF regiment unit, which also encompasses the ceremonial Queen’s Colour Squadron, are all based at the aerodrome.

I turn to the aerodrome itself. As the hon. Member for Harrow West has highlighted, it is used and needed by the military every single day. It is true that for a number of decades it has been underutilised in that role. Since the 1980s, RAF Northolt has accepted up to 7,000 business aviation movements per year, but that was done under stringent terms and conditions to utilise the spare capacity. For that very reason, from 2011 to 2013 we conducted an extensive value-for-money evaluation of RAF Northolt’s future utilisation. Wide-ranging options were considered, including selling the aerodrome off as a civilian licensed airport, devising shared civilian and military usage to better maximise revenue, and retaining the aerodrome in military hands—although that would leave an irreducible spare capacity. I impress on the Chamber that those were simply options that were considered.

While the review was going on in 2012, the Ministry of Defence commissioned a series of reports under Project Ark and Project Noah. Those reports were not designed simply to open the floodgates—no pun intended—to civil movements at the station, but rather to analyse the various available options. Other evidence was also analysed. The benefit of spare military capacity at RAF Northolt’s aerodrome was ably demonstrated in 2012, when it played a vital role in the security of the London Olympics. RAF Typhoon and military helicopters were able to seamlessly deploy to the station as part of the multilayered deterrence and defence of Olympic sites. That could not have been achieved at a civilian-operated site.

[Gareth Thomas]

The Minister describes the work that the Ministry of Defence undertook between 2011 and 2013. Does he acknowledge that it was an error not to share that assessment with local residents, and not to involve them in a full consultation process about the decisions that the Ministry was weighing up?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am willing to meet councillors and other residents. I very much want to share the information we have, but we have to allow the Ministry of Defence to conduct its own studies in due course and share them as is deemed pertinent, as decisions and options are considered.

As I said, other evidence was analysed and the benefit of the aerodrome was demonstrated in its use during the Olympics, but military movements will always have priority at RAF Northolt. If necessary, civil business aviation movements can be fully stopped from using the station at any point. Ministers took those final decisions in the value-for-money review in 2013 and decided that the firm benefit was in retaining the aerodrome as a military aerodrome. It is still used by the military every day on vital operational tasks. We also retained the same stringent civilian operating terms and conditions, which exclude schedule airlines.

I make it clear that the whole review had nothing to do with Government options on the future of Heathrow; it was purely about the future of RAF Northolt. Our decision means that the aerodrome, although vital, will remain underutilised by the military for a large proportion of the time, but also that it has capacity to accept military contingency requirements that displace civil movements whenever required for the national benefit.

The review seeks to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used properly, so we still need value for money from that spare capacity when the military are not using the aerodrome. Further consideration was given to one “Project Ark” option that had the potential to increase civil use of the military aerodrome to up to 20,000 movements, to generate additional revenue from the underutilised spare capacity. That, in turn, would benefit taxpayers by offsetting the costs to the taxpaying public of the station’s military operation. However, Ministers took the final decision to increase the self-imposed cap on civil movements to only 12,000 movements per year. That was implemented in April 2013, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I firmly assure hon. Members that there are no plans to revisit that decision.

Following the review decision, the “Project Ark” report and other review documents were archived and the project’s other options remained hypothetical. I assure the hon. Gentleman and residents of the area that no current active planning is looking at any further changes to that 2013 decision about the cap or the operating terms and conditions. The unchanged, stringent terms and conditions that have been in place for civil movements for many years mean that in future we will not attract any aircraft larger than those that we have accepted for decades.

It was against these terms and conditions, which were reaffirmed in 2013, that Flybe made an unsolicited bid in 2015. No meetings about RAF Northolt have been held with any commercial airlines, but in late 2015 and early 2016, Ministers corresponded twice with the chief executive of Flybe to inform him that his bid was not being considered further.

The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no public consultation. In 2013, the decision was for a relatively modest increase; the terms and conditions of use remained unchanged, as I have stressed, and the existing infrastructure had the spare capacity to absorb the increase. No formal regulatory action was therefore required in any form, but the station did undertake extensive community engagement to keep residents informed once the decision had been taken. I will be delighted to continue that process, as the hon. Gentleman requests.

On the aviation regulatory and safety structure, the Military Aviation Authority is the single independent regulatory body for all defence aviation activity, and regulates Government aerodromes. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety regulation oversight of civil aviation activity at Government aerodromes and sets out the requirements for civil operators that wish to use them. The robust oversight relationship between both regulators is formalised in a memorandum of understanding that demonstrates constant dialogue and joint audit and assurance activity where appropriate.

There is close stakeholder engagement with the CAA on changes related to air safety that may have an impact on civil aviation operations at RAF Northolt and on the oversight of published aeronautical information pertaining to it. The memorandum of understanding is reviewed annually to ensure that the MAA and the CAA continue to employ robust oversight and assurance of civil aviation activity at all Government aerodromes.

The runway resurfacing project at RAF Northolt aims to make improvements as required to upgrade existing military runway end safety features and extend the life of the main runway pavement to between 10 and 15 years. This planned life cycle replacement works in line with the safety cases for the military aircraft that operate from the station. I repeat firmly that the aim is not to accept bigger commercial aircraft, but to ensure that the runway has the strength to accept the larger military aircraft that may be required to visit the station in future. Alongside the BAe 146 military airframes based there, a number of European allies operate medium-airliner-sized military aircraft into RAF Northolt on military business. The RAF C-17 and A400M Atlas are the largest types of aircraft that visit the station.

In conclusion, RAF Northolt remains a core station with many diverse units. The aerodrome is needed by the military every day and is valuable for contingency, as we saw during the Olympics and the Ebola outbreak. A decision on its future use was taken in 2013, and we will not revisit that decision. After the military runway works are complete and the runway reopens, nothing will have changed: the same stringent terms and conditions on civil movements that have been in place for many years and that were reaffirmed in 2013 will remain in place. The MAA and the CAA continue to employ robust oversight and assurance of civil aviation activity.

[Gareth Thomas]

Does the Minister recognise that despite his words, there will still be widespread concern about the scale and cost of the runway works, and about what they might mean for the future? Will he commit to consulting residents to explain what that money will achieve?

[Mr Ellwood]

I have only a short time left, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are comparing apples and pears. A runway’s length, thickness and usage and an aircraft’s heaviness all determine the total cost. I will write to him with more details.

Civil operating hours and numbers of passengers will remain limited, the movement cap of 12,000 that was set in 2013 will remain unchanged, and scheduled commercial operations will remain excluded. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and the communities he represents.

Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Pay Review Body Appointments

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that I have invited Brendan Connor JP and Professor Ken Mayhew to continue to serve as members of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a further three-year term of office, commencing on 1 March 2018. I have also invited Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Jon Westbrook to continue to serve as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for an additional one-year term of office, commencing on 1 March 2018. These appointments have been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

[HCWS121]

Combat Compensation

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome this debate, secured by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). He said that it was the graveyard shift: it is the last day of term, and I am already on my feet to respond to a debate that could have lasted an hour and a half. However, the subject is important, and I am grateful for this opportunity to respond as I begin my work in my present portfolio.

The hon. Gentleman made some very kind initial comments about what happened in the Westminster bridge attack. As this is the last sitting day before the recess, I think we are all reflecting on what has been a dramatic and difficult year for Britain, with the terrorist attacks and the Grenfell Tower fire. I feel humbled by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It was a difficult day for me, and not a day goes by when I do not think about PC Keith Palmer. The toughest part of the day for me after that was going home and finding my eight-year-old boy at the top of the stairs, unable to sleep and wanting explanations of what had happened that day. All I could offer was that there are occasionally very bad people who do very bad things, but that there are always very good people who, even more, do good things. That day I was one of a number of people trying to do a good thing.

A lot of detail has arisen in the debate, and many questions have been asked. I shall do my best to answer the questions, but if I miss any details I shall, if I may, do as I customarily do and write to hon. Members. I do not have the excuse of not having enough time to answer; it is just that the portfolio is new to me, and I will say frankly that the issue is complex. However, as a former regular soldier and as a reservist—something that I should declare—I have a personal interest in making sure that when we send our brave soldiers, sailors and air personnel into harm’s way, we give them the equipment that they require.

I am grateful for the opportunity to elaborate on the Government’s proposals for better compensation. Before I turn to the details, it is worth saying something about the consultation paper, but also, in view of what has been said, rehearsing the rationale for the steps proposed for the consultation paper itself. There could hardly be a more important responsibility for the Ministry of Defence than ensuring that our arrangements for providing financial compensation to people who are injured while fighting for their country, and the families of those who are killed in so doing, are not only fair but generous. We owe them nothing less.

There are currently two routes by which service personnel or their families may be paid compensation for deaths or injuries suffered in that way. Virtually any injury, whether fatal or not, that is sustained by a member of the armed forces as a result of service will attract a payment under the armed forces compensation scheme. The scheme applies to deaths and injuries sustained both in combat and in situations such as training, and whether or not the Ministry of Defence was at fault in any way in the incident concerned. In a relatively small number of cases, a second route to seeking compensation would involve suing the Ministry of Defence for negligence in the law courts. That is because, were a court to find that there was negligence, it would award compensation that would be expected to be higher than that under the armed forces compensation scheme. In practice, the MOD would normally settle a case if it believed that it had been totally or partially to blame. It is fair to say that few cases actually go all the way to trial.

In the main, the MOD has no difficulty with the current approach, and we are not proposing any change whatsoever in cases that do not relate to combat. That distinction is important; I do not think the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made the distinction in his opening remarks between cases that are in combat and those that are not. If people believe that they have a case, they may sue the MOD, and the Department will normally settle the case if it believes that it was indeed totally or partially to blame.

The real problem with the court route is when it comes to combat. Combat is inherently dangerous—we are sending people into harm’s way to use organised violence. That was why the courts developed a doctrine known as combat immunity, which means that the Government cannot be sued for negligence when a person is injured or killed as a result of being sent into combat. The Ministry of Defence will continue to do everything practicable to minimise casualties among members of Britain’s armed forces when they are called on to fight, but armed hostilities cannot be treated in the same way as training incidents or accidents in civilian life. I hope hon. Members understand and recognise that distinction, which I think is agreed across all parties.

[Mike Kane]

The Minister will know that the armed forces compensation scheme is limited in scope and does not take into account the rehabilitation costs of members of the armed forces who have been injured. We need to keep the court system so that they can get full compensation for the lifetime’s worth of injuries that they have to face.

[Mr Ellwood]

If I may, I will come on to that in a second. Given that I have some time, it is worth saying that I have just been at a two-day conference with Veterans’ Ministers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, where we discussed that very thing: what support, compensation and packages of measures are available and in place while people are in the service, going through the transition, and once they are veterans. I think that is the point the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, and I will come to that shortly.

The challenge we face is that the scope of the doctrine of combat immunity is complex and unclear. That has resulted in some exceptionally protracted claims alleging that the MOD should not have used certain kinds of equipment or transport or should have trained people in a different way. The strong view of the Government is that decisions about such challenging and sensitive matters should be taken by military commanders with the appropriate expertise, and not—with all respect—by the courts.

Indeed, one of the minority judges in the Supreme Court case I mentioned rightly warned that the decision could lead to “the judicialisation of war”. The result has been a number of long-running cases in which the MOD has been forced to defend its military preparations in the lead-up to combat. Such cases have risked the exposure of sensitive material, which could be useful to our enemies and adversaries. They have also cost large amounts of taxpayers’ money, which could have been spent in better ways. We believe the cases have been highly stressful for the litigants and created much uncertainty for the conduct of future hostilities.

What we cannot have is cases where commanders in a war might be concerned about the manner in which they make decisions for fear of litigation or lawsuits when they come home. Military commanders may come to feel that they will be second-guessed back in Britain by lawyers intent on mounting negligence cases. That could have a chilling effect on decision making and affect our ability to fight and complete actions. Against that background, the proposals we put forward in our consultation paper offered a solution, which we believe will generously meet the needs of any service casualties in future conflicts and their families but also benefit the operational effectiveness of the armed forces.

[Mike Kane]

As I said in my speech, it was my understanding that no court decision has ever second-guessed a military decision in the theatre.

[Mr Ellwood]

I will confirm that is the case. What I am saying is that we would not want any officer, commander or non-commissioned officer to be concerned about such a consideration. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

We have suggested that in future, whenever a member of the armed forces is killed or injured in combat, compensation will be paid at the rate a court would have been likely to award if it had found the MOD to have been negligent, regardless of whether it has indeed been negligent. The amount will be assessed independently —that was a concern the hon. Gentleman had—by an experienced, qualified lawyer. For the claimant, that will mean that there will be no need to spend years engaged in complex legal battles, with no certainty of success, seeking to prove that the MOD has been negligent in law.

[Wayne David]

Rather than excluding claimants in their best interests, would it not be better for there to be a choice on whether to pursue the case through the route suggested, with the MOD, or to take independent legal advice?

[Mr Ellwood]

One of the purposes of the consultation is to simplify the system. We need a robust system that everybody is able to follow and that is clearcut for both sides.

For the Government, the new system will mean increased expenditure on compensation for death or injury sustained in the most challenging conditions. They will be paying higher sums in cases in which the MOD has not been negligent, but that will be offset to a large extent by a reduction in the costs of litigation. The Government would prefer to spend taxpayers’ money directly on compensation for the armed forces rather than on legal fees. I think everyone would agree with that.

[Mike Kane]

I have two points on that. First, to whom would the lawyer be accountable and who would employ them? Secondly, if the MOD had admitted its negligence and settled the Snatch Land Rover vehicle case, it would not have run up so much expenditure on the legal case.

[Mr Ellwood]

It is because of such cases that we are now having to provide this compensation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no court has ever second-guessed a military decision, but the Supreme Court’s judgment opened up the prospect of precisely what is happening and what might happen in future cases.

The corollary to the proposal is that any cases covered by the new, more generous compensation rules can no longer be heard by the courts. That will mean that complex issues of military planning will be decided upon by members of our armed forces with the appropriate experience and not by the courts themselves, as the Government believe is right and proper. The Government therefore believe that our proposals will benefit members of our armed forces involved in future conflicts, their families and the country as a whole, and we launched our consultation paper on that basis last autumn. At the same time as publishing the proposals for future cases, we offered to settle the current cases to which I referred. I am pleased that a number of those offers were accepted.

There were more than 500 responses to the consultation, and it is fair to say that the majority were broadly positive. However, respondents made a number of points that the Government are considering, and in some cases looking at very carefully indeed. For example, some suggested that claimants should be able to choose between the new scheme and the traditional court route. However, as I said earlier, that would be difficult for the Government to accept, because it would perpetuate legal uncertainty and the problem of the judicialisation of war. Some expressed concern about the independence of the assessors, and we are considering how best to demonstrate that they will indeed be totally independent in making their decisions. Some wanted assurance that mental injuries suffered in combat, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder, would be covered as generously as physical injuries. The Government completely agree with that point of view.

[Mike Kane]

Part of the nub of the matter is how those independent assessors will be independent if they are appointed by the Ministry of Defence. Do we not already have an independent assessor system in judges?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think there has to be some faith given to the fact that, when we make those appointments, we choose based on independence. I will look at that process and confirm that. I think we are getting into the weeds a little bit by talking about the confirmation of the independence of those who will make the decisions.

Finally, some suggested that, by removing such combat cases from the courts, an opportunity to prevent any recurrence would be lost. The Government disagree with that argument, because the adversarial nature of litigation makes it an unsatisfactory way of learning lessons. I think we would all agree with that. When a member of the UK armed forces has been killed in combat, a full inquest will always be held. When there has been a non-fatal injury of any significance, there will be a service inquiry. I believe that those non-adversarial inquiries will get to the heart of what happened far more quickly than any civil litigation.

The consultation confirmed the Government’s view that our proposals are fair and just, both for the taxpayer and for those who are killed or injured in combat and their loved ones. However, I must make it clear that we were disappointed that the Labour party’s manifesto expressed itself against the proposal, which, in the current political circumstances, is a matter of some significance.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister take an intervention on that point?

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will be helpful and say that he might be reconsidering.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think that interventions necessarily have to be helpful.

[Wayne David]

I am so pleased you said that, Mr Gapes. I was not going to introduce party politics into the debate, but as the Minister has done so, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Opposition want fairness and transparency, but that we also recognise that we live in a parliamentary democracy in which the rule of law is a cornerstone. I understand the operational necessities of conflict, but it is important that we always bear that in mind.

[Mr Ellwood]

I think it is probably too late to amend the armed forces Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords as we speak, but maybe if the hon. Gentleman and I have a quiet coffee, we will find there is some compromise to be had. I hope he would agree that the thrust of the consultation and the Government’s proposals make sense, but I am happy to discuss them with him in more detail if he is minded to do so. We certainly believe that the arguments for making these changes are compelling, and we will announce how we intend to proceed as soon as possible. Of course, we can do that even earlier if Labour Members are inclined to support the proposals.