Combat Air Strategy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. May I pay tribute to the former Defence Procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who was forced to resign last night for supporting the Prime Minister’s position on Brexit?

Our aerospace and defence sectors are truly world leading and are vital to our security and national prosperity. We welcome the publication of the combat air strategy, but might it not have been better to publish an overarching defence industrial strategy to give the wider industry the certainty it requires? If the Secretary of State’s Department will not do that, will it publish a land strategy sometime in the near future?

A key aspect of the combat air strategy is the creation of a project to consider how to deliver next-generation capability. I am not quite sure how the Government adopted the name “Team Tempest”, but it seems apt this week. The Secretary of State has been clear that the future approach hinges on international collaboration, so what discussion has he had with allies about this project? Has he considered the impact that partnering with non-NATO nations could have on our interoperability?

This strategy has been published at a time of great uncertainty in the aerospace industry about the impact of Brexit. Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of the industry, the trade body ADS and Members from across the House that the UK must be in a customs union to guarantee the industry’s future success?

The Secretary of State said that he wants to see the Tempest fly alongside the Typhoons and the F-35s. Will he confirm how many F-35s the Government plan to buy, in what timeframe and which variant they will be?

Rumours abound that the UK’s future airborne warning and control system capability will be gifted to a company without competition, just as the mechanised infantry vehicle was. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would be a hypocritical approach, when his defence industrial policy refresh emphasised the importance of competition? Can he confirm that there will be an open competition for the UK’s future AWACS capability?

Members from across the House, our industrial partners and our allies are all eagerly awaiting the publication of the modernising defence programme. We were told that we would get the headlines before last week’s NATO summit, and then we were told that it would be out before the summer recess. In the light of the Government’s proposed new parliamentary timetable, will it be tomorrow or Thursday?

[Gavin Williamson]

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who served with great distinction as Defence Procurement Minister and was instrumental in securing the order of the future frigates programme from Australia, which benefits many people and adds to the prosperity of this nation.

The hon. Lady proposes a defence industrial strategy. We have looked at a national shipbuilding strategy and at combat air, and we will look at the concept of developing a land strategy. We want to ensure that whatever we do in defence adds to the prosperity of our nation. That is why we welcome the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), which highlights the importance of defence in creating jobs and economic growth.

We should look not just to Europe in forming partnerships with other nations. For far too long, we have been bound by the thought that we can look only to other European Union nations. Now is the time to look to the whole globe, see what other nations we can partner with and build strong new alliances. We have strong military links and deep connections with many nations. We are confident that, because of our world-leading position in combat air, many nations will want to work with us. I do not believe that we should be in the customs union, and that is the Government’s policy. I do not believe for one minute that being outside the customs union will in any way restrict our ability to deliver Tempest.

Finally, on the modernising defence programme, as I said just the other week, we intend to update the House before the recess.

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the important contribution of the defence industry to the UK; calls on the Government to support the UK defence industry by taking into account the economic and employment benefits to the UK when awarding contracts and to publish a full, overarching defence industrial strategy; and further calls on the Government to make the competition for the Fleet Solid Support ships contract a UK-only competition to maximise the return on that contract.

Today could be a significant step forward for things coming home. Of course, I am talking about the contract for the fleet solid support ships. As a proud island nation, the UK shipbuilding industry is vital for our prosperity and defence—a message that workers’ representatives from the shipyards spelled out loudly and clearly to Members yesterday. The industry makes a substantial economic contribution, directly employing some 23,000 people and contributing £1.7 billion a year to the UK economy.

Throughout our history and to the present day, the industry has supplied our Royal Navy with the ships that it requires, thereby playing a crucial role in the defence of these islands. Our ships contribute to many NATO and EU missions, including Operation Atalanta, which combats piracy in the gulf of Aden and off the horn of Africa, and they were vital in the humanitarian relief efforts following last year’s hurricanes in the Caribbean.

In the light of events this week, I will not suggest which ship the Government most closely resemble, but the phrase “rearranging the deckchairs” comes to mind. I know that Members on both sides of the House want the industry to thrive, and the Government have an important role to play in that regard. I was disappointed to hear in Defence questions on Monday that the Government will not publish the conclusions of the modernising defence programme this week, as had long been promised. Instead, we have the Secretary of State’s less than inspiring commitment of “aiming to” introduce the headline findings before the summer recess. We wait with bated breath.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Opposition’s approach. We want a strong Navy and more ships built in Britain. Anything we can do together to achieve that will be greatly welcome, and I trust that the Government will agree.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent intervention.

I hope that the delay will allow Ministers to reflect on the overwhelming case for an active defence industrial strategy that recognises the immense value of building in Britain and takes a longer term view of the orders that the Government will place, giving industry the confidence to invest in the UK and to plan for a steady stream of work.

Long-term planning is vital, not just for the prime contractors but for the supply chain companies and foundation industries such as the steel industry. It gives them the time to gear up to fulfil orders, and the certainty that they need to justify additional investment. A clear strategy needs to balance getting the very best value for the taxpayer—a crucial consideration, especially when the defence budget is under such strain—with the needs of our armed forces and defences. This would allow us to defend sovereign capabilities, support UK manufacturing and continue to develop the highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships that allow us to compete on the global stage. Research and development must be at the heart of any industrial strategy, promoting links with our universities and technical colleges. We should recognise the need to plan for the skill sets we will need in the future, and to inspire our young people, both girls and boys, with the challenge and excitement of pursuing a career in our world industry.

We have had the national shipbuilding strategy and the combat air strategy is being developed, so rather than just the defence industrial refresh it would make perfect sense for the Government to come forward with an overarching and far-reaching defence industrial strategy that would give industry the certainty it requires.

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

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed, but Rolls-Royce is in the market to sell off its industrial marine division—the power generation division. Nobody knows yet who is likely to buy it, but it is likely that once again our defence is going to be manufactured abroad instead of being protected in this country.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the need for certainty and long-term planning, so we can give business the confidence to invest here.

As well as ensuring that our armed forces have the very best equipment, a core objective of our defence industrial strategy should be to promote our national prosperity. We can only do that properly if we factor in the true value of defence contracts to the UK economy. Buying British is not just about the basic fact that a UK-based company will pay UK tax; it is also about the broader economic and social benefits, and the value of the skills and apprenticeships that the industry creates.

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

Is it not the case that if the fleet solid support ships were built in the UK, 20% of that cost could be recovered by the workers working on those ships paying tax and national insurance?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed—at least that amount.

Reports by Oxford Economics highlight that the UK defence industry has an output multiplier of 2.3, meaning that £100 million in UK industry generates some £230 million to the UK economy. Its reports also highlight that each additional job created in the manufacturing element of the defence industry results in a further 1.8 jobs being created in the wider economy.

At present, the Government do not routinely factor in these wider socioeconomic values when making a procurement decision. We on the Labour Benches believe that to be a serious mistake. It is particularly anomalous when companies that bid with the Ministry of Defence are quite used to having to set out the socioeconomic value of contracts when bidding with Governments of other countries. Labour is committed to expanding the definition of good value to include wider employment, industrial or economic factors when making procurement decisions.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am listening very attentively to what the hon. Lady is saying. I am sure she will be aware that in March this year HM Treasury published, after a seven year review, a new definition of managing public money, which specifically allows, under UK procurement rules, for the concept of social value to be taken into account. She is therefore asking the Government to do something they have already decided to.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I congratulate him on his excellent report, which he presented on Monday. I note that in it he recommends that UK prosperity should be taken into account in all major procurement decisions. I welcome that statement.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) raises an interesting point, but the issue is not so much about the policy as about the implementation of it. That is what the Treasury and others have got to start doing.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. When we speak to defence contractors, we find it is a sad fact that they are not being required to put those details into the bids they make. We very much hope to see that change. I hope that this is an urgent step on that way. The approach has been endorsed by the Defence Committee and has received the support of the trade body, ADS, as well as the defence trade unions such as Unite, GMB and Prospect.

The contract for the fleet solid support ships would bring immense value to this country if it were awarded to a UK bidder. Our carriers, frigates and destroyers will, of course, always be built in the UK, but with ships such as the fleet solid support vessels, the Government have a choice to make, and Labour Members believe that they are making the wrong one by choosing to put this order out to international competition. I know that some in the Conservative party like to blame everything on the European Union, but the fact is that the Government would be able to procure these ships in the UK under existing EU law, and there are compelling reasons for doing so. The GMB trade union has estimated that the ships would support 6,700 jobs if they were built in UK yards and up to £285 million of the £800 million potential UK spend would be returned to the Treasury through taxation.

The case for buying British is clear, and it would be a betrayal of our UK workers if this contract were allowed to go overseas, so we need to question what is really driving Ministers to put this out to overseas bidders. Perhaps it is the view that there will be a lower price tag for the MOD. We all want to get the best value for money, and we are aware of the difficulties that the MOD is having in balancing its budget, but this short-sighted, narrow, silo mentality about what might look good on the MOD’s balance sheet ignores both the benefits to the UK economy of building the ships in Britain and the costs of not doing so. We as taxpayers all want to see value for our money, and taxpayers up and down the country would far rather see that money spent on supporting skilled jobs for workers here in the UK than see it spent abroad, knowing that some 30% of the money spent on wages will come back directly to the Treasury as taxation, and that the spending power of those workers and their families will sustain local businesses in their communities.

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

I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Lady is making, but the consequence of going down the route that she recommends, and which I am inclined to support, is that the black hole in the defence equipment budget will become even greater. If we accept that there needs to be an uplift in the defence budget to be able to make this sort of investment and get the long-term gains that she describes, will she confirm that her party’s policy is to support an increase in the defence budget?

[Nia Griffith]

As I just outlined, it is extremely important that we take into account the way that the money can be brought back into the Treasury, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s message will be well understood by Government Front Benchers.

I will make a bit of progress. As taxpayers, we all want to see value for our money, but we recognise the consequences if we do not spend the money in the UK—the immediate impact on workers and their families, with workers unemployed or able only to find much lower-paid work, leaving them and their families much more reliant on social security payments and tax credits. All that is a cost to the taxpayer and, sadly, there are all too often the hidden costs of the increased risk of mental health problems and family break-up. While workers and their families will take the hardest hit, the wider consequences will be far-reaching and long term. Shipyards will close. We will lose a skilled workforce and a generation of apprentices.

If UK companies do not win these contracts, they will have less money to spend on research and development, and that bodes ill for the future. We have to stay ahead in this game to stay in the game. We know that UK-based companies are interested in putting in a bid, but they will be less inclined to if they think that this order will simply be handed overseas, as happened with the MARS—Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability—tankers. Bidding is a lengthy and expensive process, and companies understandably do not want to take that risk if there is no chance that they will succeed. Awarding this contract to an overseas manufacturer would be particularly galling when we note the subsidies, both direct and indirect, that benefit many foreign yards.

To those who argue that UK companies should simply compete on a level playing field with international bidders, I say that the point is that currently the field is simply not level. For example, the South Korean shipbuilding industry has been the subject of a great deal of criticism for the level of state aid it receives. Shipbuilding is a significant element of the country’s economy, and state-run lenders have injected billions of dollars into the industry. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has found that German yards benefit from targeted research and development, from funds for redeveloping and upgrading yards and from regional development funding, while significant potential bidders in Italy, France and Spain are owned in whole or part by their respective Governments. Rather than allowing this valuable contract to disappear overseas, the Government should do the right thing and put UK yards and workers first.

Of course, in this global marketplace, I recognise that not every contract can or should be delivered in the UK, and where we buy from abroad or work in collaboration with allies to develop assets, we should prioritise work-share agreements to create jobs and boost growth in the UK.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a poor track record in doing what she suggests? Under the P-8 and Apache contracts with Boeing, for example, there is very little work share and very few jobs coming back into the UK.

[Nia Griffith]

Yes, indeed; as my hon. Friend says, the Government have a poor track record. It is a great shame that so many opportunities have been wasted.

[Mr Dunne]

I cannot allow that to stand. I was in post when the P-8 Poseidon contract was placed, and an integral part of the relationship with Boeing was an understanding, now being fulfilled through contracts, that it would make a significant investment in RAF Lossiemouth. As a result, £400 million is now going into that base, in part to support and maintain those aircraft and other aircraft operated by our allies. Those aircraft will be coming here to the UK to be maintained and serviced. That means UK jobs and UK investment.

[Nia Griffith]

It is incumbent on the Government, though, to look again and strain every muscle to get the very best work-share agreements wherever they exist.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The argument from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), whom I congratulate on his report, does not hold water. Of course, if we are buying these planes, we will need maintenance facilities, and if that is being done by industry, industry will provide those facilities, but they are service facilities for the RAF, and there might even be work from abroad. Where, though, are these planes being manufactured? They are being manufactured in the United States, with very little return of work coming to the UK. They have been allowed to get away with a very cheap deal.

[Nia Griffith]

On that note, I shall make progress.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nia Griffith]

One more time.

[Douglas Ross]

As the Member of Parliament for Moray, which is home to RAF Lossiemouth, I have to take exception to the points made from the Labour Benches. This is a major investment—£400 million and hundreds of new jobs—in Moray and Scotland and is welcomed locally by every man, woman and child. They will look very poorly at the Labour party today trying to say it is not good enough for the area.

[Nia Griffith]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) clearly explained, a much better deal could have been done.

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

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talks about the benefits to his constituency, but what about the people who live near Woodford, the BAE Systems site in Manchester, who in 2010 watched as the Nimrod MRA4 programme, 94% complete, was smashed up by JCBs and Britain’s capacity to build large fixed-wing aircraft permanently destroyed? Was that not the total destruction of British industrial capability—something we are trying to avoid in this debate today?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and now I shall conclude, as I am sure that hon. Members are thinking about what they will be watching later this evening.

When I was very young, I remember not only the excitement of England winning the World cup in 1966, but the I’m Backing Britain campaign. Before they go off to support the English football team this evening, I urge Members from across the House to recognise that the order for the fleet solid support ships represents a prime example of one that can and should be awarded here. I urge Members to back British industry and to vote to build them in Britain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The question is as on the Order Paper. Tobias Ellwood!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I have hinted that I will come to that in a second, but there is a distinction between fleet support ships that employ civilians and Royal Navy ships that employ Royal Navy personnel. There is a distinction between the two from a security perspective.

Going back to the point about value for money for the taxpayer, the Defence Secretary, the Procurement Minister and I all want to ensure that we are able to utilise the advanced skill sets in our defence industry across the UK, but the bottom line has to be value for money. Let us take as an example the ships that were recently purchased in Korea. The price was half the British value. Is the hon. Member for Llanelli saying that she would pay double the price for the same auxiliary support ships?

[Nia Griffith]

The Minister needs to take into consideration the fact that something like 36% of that spend would immediately come back to the Treasury in taxation. There would also be a knock-on effect for all the small businesses that would benefit from that money being spent out into the local economy. We would also have to take into account the cost of social security if those people were unemployed, as well as the disastrous cost of losing our shipbuilding industry altogether. Does he recognise that if we do not invest now to create a drum beat of orders, we could see the shipbuilding industry going the same way that the Tories let the coalmining industry go?

[Mr Ellwood]

Now we really are seeing the difference between us, if the hon. Lady is comparing this situation with the coalmining industry. Is that where this debate is going? I certainly hope not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because other Members wish to speak. Let me make some progress and I will give way shortly.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister recognise that the Parker report very clearly mentions having a “drumbeat” of orders? That is vital to the industry so that we do not lose skills, so that we do not fall behind on R&D and so that we can remain in the game. Does he agree that that is important and that these ships could contribute to that drumbeat of orders?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not disagree. I try to be less partisan than others who jump up at the Dispatch Box, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that drumbeat of orders, but it should not come at any price. We need to make sure it blends with what is built for the Royal Navy and for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. We have accepted every single recommendation made by John Parker, and we thank him for his very wise report.

Afghanistan

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it and join him in paying tribute to all the servicemen and women who have served and are serving in Afghanistan. We remember the 456 men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice there and those who continue to live with injuries sustained during the conflict. We commend the courage shown by our Afghan partners who work under the constant threat posed by insurgents.

As alliance leaders gather in Brussels today, we reaffirm our commitment to NATO and to the range of operations that it supports around the world. The UK has always played its full part in contributing to NATO missions, and we currently have personnel deployed in Kosovo and in Somalia, as well as on the Resolute Support mission. It is right that the skills and professionalism of our armed forces can be used to benefit our partners in Afghanistan by training Afghan forces to the same high standards.

May I ask the Secretary of State for some further detail on today’s announcement? Will he outline the planned timetable for our troops to remain in Afghanistan? Our armed forces have a range of technical skills, so will he say more about the specific work that they will be undertaking? Will the training offered to our Afghan partners focus on specialist activities or continue to be more general? As the Secretary of State will be aware, there has been some recent concern about the eligibility rules for operational allowances, so will he confirm that troops will continue to receive the allowance for their work in Afghanistan? The Resolute Support mission currently comprises some 16,000 personnel from 39 NATO member states and partners, so will the Secretary of State set out what discussions he has had with NATO allies about upping their commitment to the mission?

The work of the armed forces in Afghanistan must of course form part of a wider strategy to promote good governance there, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how it and the Ministry of Defence can support one another? We welcome the U-turn in Government policy on locally employed staff, such as interpreters or drivers, whose work in Afghanistan has been vital to the UK and NATO’s efforts in the country, so will he update the House on the progress that his Department has made on that issue?

Members across the House support the important work of our personnel in Afghanistan, recognising it as part of the process towards reaching a lasting peace settlement, but we must also be clear that the work is quite distinct from the combat operations that ended in 2014. So, finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional troops will be there for training, not in a combat role?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady raises several important points. We want to be in Afghanistan to ensure that we get the right outcomes for the peace process, and it is not possible to put a date on when that will be concluded. However, we continue to work closely with all our allies in the NATO coalition and, most importantly, with the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to try to promote the peace process and bring it forward as rapidly as possible. Work will be undertaken with the Kabul security force, which we have been leading. There is a rapid reaction force element that will support Afghan forces if there are incidents. We have a force there, but it is very much there to support Afghan forces.

All personnel will be in receipt of operational allowance, which is important when we ask service personnel to put themselves in harm’s way. They do such an important and valuable job. I re-emphasise that our work not just with the FCO but with the Department for International Development and other organisations across the international sphere is pivotal in bringing a peaceful resolution to Afghanistan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

That is absolutely correct. We need to stand together with our allies, and we have had an unprecedented amount of support from countries right across the NATO alliance saying that the behaviour of Russia is completely and utterly unacceptable and is taking that country down the route of pariah status.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the conclusions of the modernising defence programme will be published in time for the NATO summit. I would never suggest that the Government are in the grip of complete chaos and, even if all those around him were to lose their head, I know the Defence Secretary, of all people, will keep his. Can he now assure the House that the promise to publish before Wednesday’s summit still stands?

[Gavin Williamson]

What we are aiming to do is introduce the headline findings of the modernising defence programme before the summer recess.

[Nia Griffith]

It is very troubling indeed that the UK risks going to this NATO summit without being able to offer certainty to allies about our future defence capabilities. The past few months have seen unprecedented leaks from the MDP, speculation about cuts, outlandish briefings to the media and even a reported threat to bring down the Prime Minister, although I gather the Defence Secretary may now have to join a queue for that. The MDP review will ultimately be a futile exercise, however, unless it is properly funded. Can he tell us what assurances he has had from the Chancellor that the Treasury will provide additional funds, as required?

[Gavin Williamson]

What we see is a Conservative Government who this year committed an extra £800 million over the budget that was going to go to the Ministry of Defence to support our armed forces. We are undertaking the modernising defence programme to look at the threats this nation faces and to make sure we have the best equipped and best trained armed forces to deal with those threats. The Government have committed money to our armed forces; we have a rising defence budget. We are a very proud nation in the sense that we can see we have been hitting 2% in the past and will continue to do so going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

Britain always has been and always will be a tier 1 nation. SDSR ’15 set out clearly what we would expect from a tier 1 nation. We are very much looking at the evolving threats to this country to ensure we are best placed to deal with them.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Capita’s recruiting partnership project is failing on every measure. It has missed the MOD target for savings by more than £100 million in the past six years and the latest figures show that the number of personnel in the Army has fallen yet again. Does the Minister agree with Labour that it is time to take this failing contract back in-house?

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

No, I absolutely do not. The hon. Lady’s comments are slightly short-sighted. There have been challenges for the defence recruiting system in recent months, but I am confident that, because of some of the hypercare measures, we are firmly on the up.

[Nia Griffith]

After Capita’s abysmal failure to deliver the recruitment project, many people would question its capacity to carry out any major MOD contracts, but the Government’s decision to outsource the Defence Fire and Rescue Service to Capita when the MOD has scored the company as 10 out of 10 for risk simply beggars belief. The Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) suggested that the Government are ideologically obsessed with privatising key services without considering the consequences. Is it not surely time for an urgent rethink of this dangerously short-sighted policy?

Counter-Daesh Update

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.

The Opposition welcome the extraordinary progress that has been made in the campaign against Daesh. This evil organisation and its poisonous ideology must be defeated wherever they emerge. We pay tribute to our UK servicemen and women, whose courage and commitment is hastening the demise of Daesh, and we pay tribute to our allies and partners on the ground, who have sustained such heavy losses while liberating their peoples from the scourge of this terrorist group.

Following the success of the operation to liberate Mosul and much of Anbar province, the Iraqi Government are now focused on securing the border with Syria to ensure that fighters cannot return. Will the Secretary of State outline in greater detail the support that the UK is providing to that effort?

The campaign against Daesh has inevitably caused very substantial damage to infrastructure in Iraq and Syria. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed, as has much of the fabric of governance. The World Bank has estimated that the overall cost of reconstruction and recovery in Iraq alone is more than $88 billion. Will the Secretary of State say more about the UK’s role in not only the reconstruction but the stabilisation of the areas affected?

Daesh fighters have carried out crimes of unspeakable barbarity. Many have been captured and are now in the custody of the Iraqi Government and other authorities in the region. Will the Secretary of State outline what action is being taken to prosecute them for their crimes and what monitoring there is of fighters and their families who may seek to return to the UK?

The global coalition against Daesh is engaged in degrading and defeating the organisation by tackling its finances. That is key to ensuring that Daesh does not simply reappear elsewhere or in another form. The loss of territory in the region has also precipitated a loss of assets and oil revenue, but what further steps is the UK taking to combat the funding of Daesh? As the organisation becomes vastly diminished as a territorial force, what work is being done, alongside internet companies and social media providers, to combat the online spread of Daesh’s vile propaganda?

As the civil war in Syria has entered its eighth year, will the Secretary of State say what steps are being taken to achieve a ceasefire and a lasting political solution? As the UN-sponsored Geneva peace process has stalled, what effort is being made to co-ordinate that process with the discussions in Sochi and Astana?

The campaign to defeat Daesh has made significant progress in liberating territory, but we know that operations continue on a daily basis, as does the vital training that we provide to forces on the ground. That is down to the extraordinary commitment of our personnel and that of our allies. No one who serves in our armed forces does so for medals or acclaim but, particularly in the RAF’s centenary year, I know that the whole House wants to see our personnel being commended for their bravery. The Ministry of Defence has been examining the criteria for awarding a medal to those serving on Operation Shader. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on that work so that we can ensure that the bravery and dedication of our personnel is recognised properly and without delay?

[Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her continued support for our armed forces as they continue to be involved in this important operation.

Our commitment in respect of a training mission to Iraq and the need to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure stability in the region was underlined by our recent visits to Iraq and meetings with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Defence Minister. We will continue to do everything that we can to train Iraqi forces to ensure that Iraq’s border forces are in the very best position to deal with some of the threats and challenges. We are also looking into how we can do more with Jordanian forces. On top of that, we have committed to providing more than £30 million of support for UN stabilisation efforts. That makes it clear that Britain is a long-term ally of our Iraqi friends.

We are the second largest bilateral donor in Syria. We have consistently been the country leading the way in making sure that humanitarian support gets through, and we will continue to do that on top of the funding and support that we have been giving to Iraq.

The hon. Lady made an important point about the funding of Daesh, which the Government take exceptionally seriously. We talk about the dispersal of Daesh in Iraq and Syria, but the challenge is actually much wider, with Daesh dispersing much more globally. We need to look carefully at the financial flows that follow these people and that provide support for the acts of violence they wish to perpetrate in the countries to which they go.

The hon. Lady’s point about countering propaganda is vital. For the first time, the United Kingdom has been incredibly active with an offensive cyber-capacity to deal with, correct and address that propaganda. We have seen a 70% reduction in the amount of propaganda coming out of Daesh, so our work is really showing results. We cannot rest on our laurels, however, and we will continue to look at the issue and drive down that propaganda, because we do not want to see any of Daesh’s vile hatred on the internet at all.

On the hon. Lady’s final point about a medal for those who have served in Op Shader, I have been incredibly touched by the commitment and dedication that all our service personnel have shown in the operation, and by the sacrifices that they have made to keep Britain safe—I know that the hon. Lady has, too. We are looking closely at medallic recognition. Ultimately, we hope to try to find a solution that ensures that all service personnel who have been involved in the campaign get the recognition that they deserve. As the hon. Lady knows, we are looking to try to land the support of all members of the cross-Government Committee.

NATO

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to debate the role of NATO. The timing is particularly appropriate, with the debate coming ahead of the NATO summit next month. The alliance is the cornerstone of our defence and our collective security, and Labour Members are proud of the role our party played in its founding. The leadership of Clement Attlee and his Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was so instrumental in setting up the alliance in 1949. Bevin moved the motion

“That this House approves the North Atlantic Treaty”.

That established NATO. He spoke in that debate of the backdrop of growing global instability and the shared determination of the 12 founding members to avoid any return to conflict. The increasingly aggressive actions of the Soviet Union drove the Government to consider, as he put it,

“how like-minded, neighbourly peoples, whose institutions had been marked down for destruction, could get together, not for the purpose of attack, but in sheer self-defence.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2011-2013.]

Bevin was clear that the creation of the alliance was not an aggressive act but was instead about deterrence, a fundamental principle of NATO to this day. The Atlantic treaty was to send a message to potential adversaries that NATO’s members were not a number of weak, divided nations, but rather a united front bound together in the common cause of collective self-defence.

[James Heappey]

Last year, the Labour party leader was asked about article 5 of the NATO treaty and he responded:

“That doesn’t necessarily mean sending troops. It means diplomatic, it means economic, it means sanctions, it means a whole range of things.”

Will the hon. Lady clarify from the Dispatch Box now that, if one of our NATO allies were attacked militarily and he were Prime Minister, he would respond with military action?

[Nia Griffith]

I will confirm that Labour 100% supports NATO and, as the Leader of the Opposition has made absolutely clear, we want to work within it to promote democracy and to project stability. That is exactly what we would do if we were in government.

[Dr Murrison]

Nobody doubts the hon. Lady’s commitment to our armed forces and to NATO, but her leader has one signal virtue, consistency—it is a virtue in a politician. He has not changed his mind on anything since the 1970s. What then are we to make of an individual who only six years ago said that NATO was a “danger to world peace” and that it was “a major problem”?

[Nia Griffith]

As I have just explained, our leader has been very clear about the position we hold, and he does see that working within NATO is very important for projecting stability and promoting democracy. Let me make some progress now, if I may.

NATO’s founding was not meant in any way to undermine or detract from the primacy of the United Nations; rather, it was to work alongside the UN, in full conformity with the principles of the UN charter. The generation that established NATO, the one that endured the horror and destruction of two world wars, were keenly aware of the overriding need to achieve peace and stability wherever possible. When he outlined article 5’s implications and its guarantee of collective security, Bevin told the House:

“This does not mean that every time we consult there will be military action. We hope to forestall attack…We have to seek to promote a peaceful settlement.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2020-2021.]

Indeed, the principle of settling disputes by peaceful means is articulated clearly in article 1 of the NATO treaty.

Today, the alliance has grown to 29 members and, as well as its central role of ensuring the security of the north Atlantic area, NATO supports global security by working with partners around the world. NATO supported the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Sudan and has worked alongside the European Union’s Operation Atalanta to combat piracy in the gulf of Aden off the horn of Africa. NATO offers training, advice and assistance to the Afghan national security forces through the Resolute Support mission. In addition, the NATO training mission in Iraq provides support and mentoring to Iraq’s armed forces personnel. The alliance has also assisted with humanitarian relief efforts, including those in Pakistan after the devastating 2005 earthquake and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Russia’s recent actions, including its disgraceful and illegal annexation of Crimea and the Donbass in 2014, have led to renewed focus on the immediate security of the alliance area and, indeed, the need to secure NATO’s eastern border. At the 2016 Warsaw summit, the allies resolved to establish an enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states and Poland as a means of providing reassurance to those NATO members and a credible deterrent to potential adversaries. The tailored forward presence in the Black sea region makes an important contribution to regional security there.

I have had the privilege of visiting Estonia twice, and I have met our personnel serving there as part of Operation Cabrit. It was clear from our conversations with the Estonians that they truly value our presence there, particularly as they have worked so closely with our personnel in Afghanistan. The Estonians themselves have offered to help another NATO ally, France, with its mission in west Africa. For them, that is about offering reciprocity for the security that NATO allies give them to maintain their freedom in Estonia. They know that the collective protection of NATO is what makes them different from Ukraine.

Although the provision of deterrence through conventional means in Estonia, Poland and Romania is of great importance, we must also be alive to the risk that adversaries, including non-state actors, will increasingly deploy hybrid and cyber-warfare and use destabilising tactics specifically designed not to trigger article 5. We have all heard the reports of how Russia has used cyber-warfare; indeed, when I visited the cyber centre in Estonia, I heard about how Estonia has had direct experience of a cyber-attack that affected major computer networks throughout the country, and about what the staff there did to combat it. That was a reminder that when we reflect on the state of our own defences—as the Government are currently doing with the modernising defence programme—we must bear in mind the need to invest in the whole range of conventional and cyber-capabilities, and not to view it as an either/or situation.

The Warsaw summit communiqué, which set out plans for the enhanced forward presence, also stated that

“deterrence has to be complemented by meaningful dialogue and engagement with Russia, to seek reciprocal transparency and risk reduction.”

Of course, Russia’s aggressive stance, and her repeated assaults on our rules-based international system, have made any productive engagement nigh on impossible. The response to the recent poisonings in Salisbury, for which we hold Russia responsible, demonstrated the strength of the alliance in the face of Russian aggression, with a great number of our allies, and NATO itself, joining us in the expulsion of diplomats. It is none the less positive that the NATO-Russia Council has met recently, because we need to use any and all opportunities for dialogue. What is perhaps most worrying about the current state of affairs is that even at the height of the cold war we maintained lines of communication, which are essential to avoid misunderstandings that can lead to very rapid escalations. There is currently far less engagement.

Our co-operation with allies in Estonia and Poland highlights the importance of the interoperability of our equipment in enabling us to work closely with other NATO members in a variety of settings. That is something that was raised with me when I visited NATO headquarters in Brussels shortly after I took up my post. It was clear that NATO wishes to see greater harmonisation in equipment. Although I recognise that decisions about defence procurement must of course be taken freely by sovereign states, it clearly does make sense to maximise the opportunities to work together and to avoid unnecessary duplication, wherever possible.

Of course the need to invest in the equipment necessary for NATO missions merely adds to the case for proper levels of defence spending. NATO allies are committed to the guideline of spending a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence, with 20% of that total to be spent on major equipment, including research and development. Only a relatively small number of NATO members can even claim to be hitting the 2% figure at present, and it is right that we encourage all allies to meet the NATO guidelines, as the 2014 Wales summit communiqué made clear.

We must lead by example. The simple fact is that the UK is barely scraping over the line when it comes to our own levels of defence spending. The latest Treasury figures for the year 2015-16 show that the Government spent 1.9% of GDP on defence. The International Institute for Strategic Studies has also concluded that UK defence spending is not reaching 2% of GDP.

The reality is that the UK only appears to meet the 2% in its NATO return because it includes items such as pensions that do not contribute to our defence capabilities, which Labour did not include when we were in government. Whichever way we look at it, the truth is that the deep cuts that were imposed in 2010 and the implementation by the Conservative party of those cuts in the years following mean that the defence budget is now worth far less than it was when Labour left office. Defence spending was cut by nearly £10 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2017, and our purchasing power has been cut dramatically owing to the sharp fall in the value of the pound.

I note that the Minister for defence people, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is no longer in his place, has said recently that he would like to see defence spending rise north of 2.5%. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify whether this is, in fact, now Government policy, or whether it is simply another plea, which will, doubtless, be rebuffed by the Chancellor.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all she does in the defence world. I entirely agree with her about pressing the Government to increase our spending to 2.5%, or, as I have often said, to 3%. Will she take this opportunity to commit an incoming Labour Government to doing the same thing?

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman simply needs to look at our record. We consistently spent well over 2% when we were in government. We do have a good record on spending.

I know that there is concern across the House about current levels of defence spending, as the hon. Gentleman has just indicated. The recent findings of the National Audit Office that the equipment plan is simply not affordable, with a funding gap of up to £20.8 billion, will have done nothing to assuage this. As I have said many times, the Government will have support from Labour Members if the modernising defence programme results in proper investment for our defences and our armed forces, but there will be deep disquiet if the review merely results in yet more cuts of the kind that have been briefed in the press in recent months.

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union means that our NATO membership is more important than ever. Although we have always recognised NATO as the sole organisation for the collective defence of Europe, and defence has always been the sovereign responsibility of each EU member state, it is none the less the case that from March 2019 we will lose our voice and our vote in the EU Foreign Affairs Council and in many other important committees. We must therefore look at other ways of co-ordinating action with European partners where it is in our interests to do so—for example, in defending the Iran nuclear deal, which was so painstakingly negotiated and risks beings completely trashed by President Trump.

It is also very important that we retain the position of Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe once we have left the EU and that we resist any attempts to allocate that role to another European state. Ultimately, Labour believes very firmly that Brexit must not be an opportunity for the UK to turn inwards, or to shirk our international obligations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Speaking personally as someone who has worked for the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and been chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I cannot see in any way how anyone could suggest that the Deputy SACEUR could be anything but British as things stands. It has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to let the hon. Gentleman intervene. We absolutely agree with what he says.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

May I pick up the hon. Lady on the point that she has just made? Like me, does she see the future of our role in Europe as being twofold: first, on defence, with NATO; and secondly, on civil affairs, with the Council of Europe? They were both formed at the same time. They both have similar membership and they both try to do the same thing.

[Nia Griffith]

The Labour party wants absolute, full co-operation with European partners. We recognise that we are leaving the EU, but in every other respect we want to be fully European. We want to have full co-operation within NATO and the Council of Europe.

We are living in an increasingly unpredictable world, with a very unpredictable—and, at times, isolationist—United States Administration, so it is all the more important that the UK uses its voice.

[Mr Francois]

I do not know whether the House is aware, but I was born in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so I ask the hon. Lady: if the right hon. Gentleman were to become Prime Minister, would it be his intention to declare our nuclear deterrent to NATO as it is currently declared?

[Nia Griffith]

We have made our position on the nuclear deterrent absolutely clear. We support the nuclear deterrent and we support NATO. That is our party policy.

I think that I had just mentioned the isolationist US Administration.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

On that point, there is a huge danger that we spend our time focusing on the President’s tweets and not looking at what America is actually doing. Certainly at the moment, its financial contributions, its people contributions and its commitment to NATO are higher than they have ever been. The support that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly receives from members of Congress such as Mike Turner, Joe Wilson and Jennifer González-Colón is absolutely 100% towards the NATO alliance. It is dangerous to see the US totally through the prism of the President.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend not only for the work that she does on behalf of this Parliament in respect of NATO, but for making a very valid point and clarifying exactly the position that we do seem to have at the moment with the United States.

It is all the more important for the UK to use our voice, through organisations such as NATO, to be a force for good in this world. It was the same internationalist outlook that inspired Ernest Bevin when he said:

“In co-operation with like-minded peoples, we shall act as custodians of peace and as determined opponents of aggression, and shall combine our great resources and great scientific and organisational ability, and use them to raise the standard of life for the masses of the people all over the world.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2022.]

I sincerely believe that NATO can still be that stabilising influence in an ever-changing world, and a strong and resolute force for the values of democracy and freedom that we cherish.

Galileo Programme

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK’s future participation in the Galileo Public Regulated Service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)]

The Government have been clear that our preference is to contribute fully to Galileo as part of a deep security partnership with the European Union and that negotiations should be allowed to run their course. That includes UK involvement in the design and development of Galileo’s encrypted signal for use by Governments, the Public Regulated Service.

On 13 June at the European Space Agency Council, member states agreed to proceed with the procurement of the next phase of Galileo. UK companies are not eligible to bid for those contracts. By forcing through that vote while excluding UK companies from the contracts on security grounds, the European Commission has put all of this at risk. The Commission also published slides setting out the EU’s response to the UK’s technical note on Galileo published on 24 May, which explained our requirements for future participation in the programme. The EU proposal does not meet UK defence and industrial requirements, and we could not justify future participation in Galileo on that basis.

The UK has explained that without full, fair and open industrial involvement, guaranteed access to the signal and full understanding of the system’s technical characteristics, Galileo would not offer the UK value for money or meet our defence needs, and that we would be obliged to walk away, resulting in delays and additional costs to the programme that will run into the billions. The Government will need to consider the implications of the recent ESA vote, but we are looking at other options, including a UK global navigation satellite system.

[Nia Griffith]

The future of the UK’s relationship with Galileo is extremely important, and yesterday’s release from the Commission reveals the enormous gulf between the UK Government’s position and the Commission’s view. This matter must be dealt with urgently.

The strategic defence and security review highlighted the importance of Galileo for our armed forces, saying:

“we will enhance the resilience of military users and key domestic resilience responders using new technologies incorporating the European Galileo system.”

Having secure access to global positioning and navigation systems is vital for our armed forces, given the increasing threats to GPS integrity from cyber-attacks, jamming and spoofing. Will the Minister tell us what arrangements will be in place for the armed forces if the UK is excluded from the public regulated service, and what implications that will have for their ability to conduct planned operations?

The Commission’s latest release is clear that the UK outside the EU cannot have the same relationship with the programme as we would have as a member state, but it does say that access to the PRS is possible for third countries if a specific agreement is in place. Is that what the Government plan to do, and if so, what urgent steps is the Secretary of State taking to get such an agreement? How many times has the Secretary of State personally met or spoken to Federica Mogherini about the specific issue of Galileo?

We do not simply want to be third-party users of the EU Galileo systems; we want our industry to be at the heart of the design process. However, the Commission is insisting that working on the design and development of security-related and PRS elements is restricted to EU member states only. The UK space industry is worth nearly £15 billion annually to UK plc, with over 40,000 direct employees and 1,400 apprentices. What discussions has the Minister had with industry stakeholders about the impact of the UK dropping out of Galileo?

Finally, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have made repeated reference to a UK alternative to the Galileo system. Will the Minister tell us what steps they have taken to explore such an alternative, and what discussions about it they have had with key non-EU allies? We know that this would be an extremely expensive endeavour to undertake, so what contingency money has been set aside for the project and what advice has he received about a timeframe for delivery? Galileo and the PRS are of major importance to us, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with some concrete answers.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Indeed, it is important that we have a very strong cross-party view on this issue, because all Members of this House would find the idea that the UK is being excluded on security grounds to be completely unacceptable. The merest concept of the UK being considered a security risk should be challenged by all Members of this House, and I am sure the hon. Lady will join me in highlighting our disappointment that such a decision has been taken.

On the questions asked by the hon. Lady, at this point in time the PRS system under Galileo will not be in operation until the mid-2020s, and in the meantime we will be working under the current GPS system. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the Ministry of Defence has made no secret of the fact that we consider the capability we will offer our military from Galileo to be increasingly important and crucial, and it is an issue of real concern that we will have to look at this in very great detail.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Secretary of State and Ministers are looking at this issue and talking to the industry. I assure her that the Secretary of State has had numerous meetings on this issue, and I have personally taken it up with every single counterpart from the European Union whom I have met over the past few months, including with the junior Defence Minister from Poland yesterday. The Department has communicated this very strongly to our counterparts, and we are disappointed that we have not as yet secured the agreement we need.

May I stress that the agreement we need is one that will be good for the security of Europe and for the security of the United Kingdom? I state again that the United Kingdom, in leaving the European Union, has made it very clear that we are not leaving our obligations to the security of Europe. Those obligations are unconditional and, frankly, we find it disappointing that the European Union has not taken those guarantees and assurances in the spirit in which they have been offered.

On discussions with the industry, I applaud the hon. Lady for acknowledging the strength of the UK industrial offer on space. Indeed, only recently when I spoke at the defence space conference, I highlighted the opportunities we see for the future of the space industry in the United Kingdom. We are now having to look extremely carefully at the possibility of developing our own options.

I stress again that this Government would prefer to remain involved with the Galileo project, but given the strength of this industrial sector and the strength of what we can offer the Galileo project, I think it is really a case of the European Union doing damage to itself, while we are in a position to move forward, building on the strength and expertise of the industry in the UK, to ensure that we meet the requirements of UK defence and the wider defence sector. I assure the hon. Lady that we will not allow any flight of expertise from the space sector as a result of the decision taken yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I thought for a moment that we were going to have an apology to the 70% of service personnel who are having to pay extra taxes as a result of the Nat tax that the hon. Gentleman’s party has introduced.

This Government are absolutely committed to shipbuilding. That is why we will be building eight Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and five offshore patrol vessels in Govan. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A recent profile by BuzzFeed revealed that some colleagues have likened the Defence Secretary to Francis Urquhart, although they suggest that the fictional character may be a bit more sophisticated—they might think that; I couldn’t possibly comment. With Ministers arguing in recent weeks that defence funding should rise north of 2.5%, can the Secretary of State tell us what sophisticated tactics he will be using to get the Chancellor to agree?

[Gavin Williamson]

As a Yorkshireman born and bred, I know that we tend to be quite blunt and plain-speaking, so sophistication is not usually something that is attached to us.

[Gavin Williamson]

They are different in West Yorkshire.



What we are doing is taking the time to look at the threat and the challenges this nation faces. Over the past 10 years, we have seen the threat picture change so much. This is not just something we have noticed; from sitting down with our NATO allies, I know we are all seeing exactly the same. The world is getting increasingly dangerous, with state actors playing an ever greater role. It is right that we look at that closely, and make sure our armed forces have the equipment and resources they need to defend this nation against those threats.

[Nia Griffith]

In January, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is the Minister with responsibility for defence people, said that the cap on armed forces pay

“has been lifted…and we look forward to the recommendations that will be made in March.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 597.]

Given that it is now June and that this Government continue to be all words and no deeds, will the Secretary of State tell us when service personnel are going to receive the long overdue real-terms pay rise they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

We do not directly target cadets for recruitment in the armed forces. However, it is a fact that nearly 18% of members of the armed forces were once cadets and 4% of cadets go on to join the armed forces.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Potential recruits may well be concerned about the issue of legal claims against personnel and veterans, especially in the light of the Iraq historic allegations team debacle. It is now more than a year since the Conservatives made a manifesto promise to tackle those claims, and the issue has been raised repeatedly by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Why has nothing been done?

Defence

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence on 23 April 2018.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Taking that as a yes, how is it that more than half a million pounds of LIBOR funds has been spent by the MOD in support of armed forces welfare, when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—the Minister for Defence people—has said categorically that

“LIBOR funding should not be used to fund Departmental core responsibilities”?

Is it not time for the Secretary of State to admit that it was a serious misjudgment to use LIBOR funds in such a scandalous way? When will his Department be paying back that money?

[Gavin Williamson]

I am sure the hon. Lady is very well aware that the Ministry of Defence does not actually administer LIBOR funding—that is the Treasury. So much of the LIBOR funding has made such a difference, not just to those who have ceased to serve in our armed forces but to those who continue to serve. We are very grateful for the positive impact of that funding on so many of our services.

[Official Report, 23 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 601.]

Letter of correction from Gavin Williamson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State cannot be accused of excluding from his answers any consideration that might in any way, at any time, to any degree, be considered material, for which we are immensely grateful. However, there is a premium on time, because we have a lot of questions to get through.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given the increased activity of Russian submarines in our waters and our reliance on allies for maritime patrol support, will the Secretary of State now admit that it was a gross mistake to cut our maritime patrol aircraft in 2010 without a planned replacement, leaving us without that capability for nearly a decade?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is uncaged, and there is much to be said for that.

[Nia Griffith]

I remain concerned that the Government have not learnt the lessons of the past when it comes to cutting capabilities, leaving serious gaps in our defences only to have to replace them further down the line. Will the Secretary of State confirm today that the modernising defence programme will not cut our Albion class amphibious warships before their out-of-service dates of 2033 and 2034?

[Gavin Williamson]

There are many right hon. and hon. Opposition Members who care incredibly passionately about our armed forces and will do all they can to support them: I know that the hon. Lady is very much one of them. But when we talk about the risks and threats that are posed to our armed forces, I sometimes think that we should be worried about the Leader of the Opposition a little more than anything else.

In the modernising defence programme we are looking at all our capabilities and how we ensure that we are able to adapt to the increasing challenges and threats, but I will not prejudge that programme. We will look at the evidence and the information that comes from the public and the wider defence community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

I am afraid that I probably will not be able to give my hon. Friend quite the answer he wants, as we probably will not be looking at that as part of the modernising defence programme but, as part of our combat air strategy, we are looking at how we can develop those alliances. We may have to start looking further afield and not just to our traditional European allies. There is a world market out there—how can we develop new relationships with different countries and develop our future sixth-generation combat aircraft with them?

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the welfare of armed forces personnel and their families is still a core responsibly of his Department?

[Gavin Williamson]

Yes, I can.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Taking that as a yes, how is it that more than half a million pounds of LIBOR funds has been spent by the MOD in support of armed forces welfare, when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—the Minister for defence people—has said categorically that

“LIBOR funding should not be used to fund Departmental core responsibilities”?

Is it not time for the Secretary of State to admit that it was a serious misjudgment to use LIBOR funds in such a scandalous way? When will his Department be paying back that money?

[Gavin Williamson]

I am sure the hon. Lady is very well aware that the Ministry of Defence does not actually administer LIBOR funding—that is the Treasury. So much of the LIBOR funding has made such a difference, not just to those who have ceased to serve in our armed forces but to those who continue to serve. We are very grateful for the positive impact of that funding on so many of our services.[Official Report, 24 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 6MC.]