Defence

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.

It is a pleasure to seek the support of this House for the order. In doing so, may I immediately begin by paying tribute to those who have worn the uniform and who wear the uniform, both as reservists and as regulars? I also pay tribute to those who support those in uniform; it is those in the armed forces community that we must also pay respect to, and we should be thankful for the sacrifices they make in supporting those who serve in the Army, the Air Force and the Royal Navy.

In Defence questions, we spoke about the duty of care—something that is critical to making sure we continue living up to the standards we have shown over the years. We have an enormous standard of professionalism in our armed forces, as a deterrent. Our allies revere us and want to work with us, and our foes fear us because of who we are.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I entirely support what the Minister says about our recognition of those who support members of our armed forces; the armed forces community is very important. I know the Minister has that community very much in his heart and has their best interests in his mind, and he will be as concerned as I am that satisfaction with pay and pension benefits is the lowest ever recorded. What is being done in armed forces legislation and in the policies of the Government to try to increase morale and satisfaction among the people the Minister paid such warm tribute to?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that important point. I will be honest with the House and say that pay is becoming an issue. It was not before—people signed up because of what lay ahead of them, not because of the money. Today, however, the competition that we have in civilian life is such that when people make the judgment as to whether to step forward or not, pay is becoming an issue. We do not want it to be a deterrent to people joining the armed forces.

We are going through the armed forces pay review process, as we do every year, and I will do my utmost to make sure that we are able to pay our service personnel what they deserve, so that it does not become a reason for people not to step forward. I can say the same about accommodation. The reason I articulate these points is that we are shortly to have the spending review. When we talk about the spending review and the armed forces, the immediate assumption is that we are talking about equipment, training and operations. I do not take away from the fact that they must be invested in, but for my part of the portfolio it is critical that we look after the people, and pay is one aspect of that; accommodation is another. I am not able to build accommodation fast enough because of limits in funding.

As we make the case to the Treasury for further defence spending, I simply say that welfare issues must be considered in addition to the other big-ticket items that are normally discussed. Is the hon. Gentleman content with that answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

It is the first time I have ever been positively encouraged to intervene—it could catch on.

I share the Minister’s views about the wider issues alongside pay. One of the other issues raised with me by members of the armed forces community is the sense of strategic vision on what the Army is for now. I challenged the Minister on this in Defence questions an hour or two ago and he said that there was a strong strategic vision for the Army in 2019. Can he tell us a bit more about what that is, because it is not entirely understood by some people who serve?

[Mr Ellwood]

I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman while he was in a sedentary position.

I will come to defence posture shortly, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am on the record as saying that we need to spend more than 2%, as that is a very arbitrary target. Ultimately, the important thing is whether people turn up for the fight as well. If we take Operation Ellamy, which was in Libya, as an example, many NATO countries did not bother turning up even though they were NATO signatories. I appreciate the 2% and, yes, we want countries to pay, but ultimately they need to be ready to fight as well.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will try to make some progress if I may, after this last intervention.

[Toby Perkins]

I am very grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. I just want to take him back to the comments he was making a moment ago about cyber-warfare and hybrid warfare. Does he consider cyber-warfare to be warfare? If so, who are we at war with?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There are no accepted rules, and post Brexit Britain and the rest of world collectively need to recognise that. From a NATO perspective, article 5 does not apply. If there are no rules, how can we punish anybody? How can we identify who is responsible for what? This is a whole world that we need to address very soon indeed.

That point allows me to move on to a point about having an honest conversation with the public—this touches on the 2% issue. The general public have a huge admiration for our armed forces, who are the most professional in the world. However, I would also say that there is a collective naivety about what we can actually do. We are facing some very real threats that we need to wake up to.

I do not mean to digress too much, but because this place made so much noise about potholes, which was because local government made so much noise about potholes, the Chancellor then provided the money to address the problem of potholes. We are not making enough noise about our capabilities and where we are versus the threats we actually face.

Our main battle tank is 20 years old. It has not been replaced in that period. Meanwhile, France and Russia have upgraded their tanks two or three times over that period. We have some fantastic kit coming on board, but there are other areas where we need investment. We need to tell the public that if they want Britain to be able to step forward when it is required, we need to pay for that. That is the conversation we need to have, as well as talking about the threats we have touched on and have articulated quite adequately today. As I say, ever fewer nations are willing to step forward.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way. I need to make progress because I am getting that look from Madam Deputy Speaker—other hon. Members want to participate as well.

It is important to recognise where we are and to have a more real debate with the public. There is a Russian proverb that says that it is better to be slapped in the face by the truth than kissed with a lie. Without being too provocative, I believe that we are trying to sell a capability of the armed forces, which we are very, very proud of, but that the nation is in denial about the real threats appearing over the horizon. It is our duty as the Executive, as the Government and as parliamentarians to express that to a nation that, if it fully understood the picture, would be more willing to say, “Yes, let’s spend more money.” I hope that message will come through in the spending review.

I turn to the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019. We seek the consent of the House through the annual consideration of the legislation governing the armed forces: the Armed Forces Act 2006. The draft order we are considering this afternoon is to continue in force the 2006 Act for a further year, until 11 May 2020. This reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that a standing Army, and by extension now the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.

I am sure the House will be familiar with the fact that the legislation that provides for the armed forces to exist as disciplined bodies is renewed by Parliament every single year. That is what we are doing here today. The requirement for annual renewal can be traced back to the Bill of Rights 1688. Time prohibits me, Madam Deputy Speaker, from going into detail on that, but I am happy to write to hon. Members if they would like further information on that front.

Every five years, renewal is by an Act of Parliament. The most recent was in 2016 and the next will be in 2021. Between each five-yearly Act, annual renewal is by Order in Council. The draft order that we are considering today is such an order. The Armed Forces Act 2016 provides for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until the end of 11 May 2017 and for further renewal thereafter by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond 2021. If the Armed Forces Act 2006 is not renewed by this Order in Council before the end of 11 May 2019, it will automatically expire. If the 2006 Act expires, the legislation that governs the armed forces and the provisions necessary for their maintenance as disciplined bodies will cease to exist. Discipline is essential. It maintains the order necessary for the armed forces to accomplish their mission to serve our country, whether at home or abroad.

The Act contains nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system of command, discipline and justice for the armed forces. It creates offences and provides for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, the holding in custody and the charging of individuals accused of committing an offence, and for them to be dealt with summarily by their commanding officer or tried in a court martial. Offences under the 2006 Act include any criminal offence under the law of England and Wales and those that are peculiar to service, such as misconduct towards a superior officer and disobedience to lawful commands. We should not forget that the Act applies to members of the armed forces at all times, wherever they are serving in the world.

If the Act were to expire, the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands, and the powers and procedures under which this duty is enforced, would no longer have effect. Commanding officers and the court martial would have no powers of punishment for failure to obey a lawful command or other disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to Her Majesty, but Parliament would have removed the power of enforcement. Service personnel do not have contracts of employment and so have no duties as employees. Their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful commands. The Act also provides for other important matters for the armed forces, such as their enlistment, pay and redress of complaints.

In conclusion, the continuation of the 2006 Act is essential for the maintenance of discipline. Discipline, in every sense, is fundamental to the existence of our armed forces and indeed, to their successes, whether at home in supporting emergency services and local communities and protecting our fishing fleet and our shores; playing their role in counter-terrorism or in combating people and drug smuggling; distributing vital humanitarian aid; saving endangered species; or defeating Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

We owe the brave men and women of our armed forces a sound legal basis for them to continue to afford us their vital protection. I hope that hon. Members will support the draft continuation order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) did. While this is a motion that many might have expected was limited in scope and was likely to be passed without much comment, the Minister, of whom I am a big admirer in the job he does, has broadened its scope and other Members have taken him up on the challenge he posed. He made a remarkable speech; I cannot think of many times where a Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box and been so implicitly critical of the Government they speak on behalf of. I entirely support his call for greater investment in our armed forces and will expand on some of the arguments he made about our investment in equipment.

[Mr Ellwood]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House and say I was somehow not supportive of the Government. I am absolutely, of course, supportive of the Government—a loyal Minister. I am simply encouraging the advancement of policy; I think that is how I would delicately put it.

[Toby Perkins]

People will read the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and make up their own minds on whether he was urging the Government to take action in a different direction, but if he wants the advancement of policy, he is in exactly the right place to do that as a Defence Minister. He was right to say that we absolutely recognise the professionalism of those who serve and to point to the admiration he has—and I have, and Members right across the House have—for people who dedicate their lives to our armed forces, but we must also ask ourselves some serious questions about the way in which we support them, and I will come to those in a moment.

If I was to have an area of disagreement with the Minister, it would be on his challenge to the public about the fact that we need to have an honest conversation with them. It does not seem to me that it is the public who are preventing the Government from spending more on our armed forces or meeting greater than the 2% spending commitment. We had a debate here about having greater spending on our armed forces and there was widespread agreement across the House that that should happen. I have never had a member of the public say to me in my surgeries or when I am out door knocking on a Saturday that they disagree with greater spending on the armed forces. I do not think that we need to convince the public of the need to spend more; in fact, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister who need to be persuaded to spend more money on our armed forces.

The Minister spoke about his commitment to the armed forces community and his disappointment that there was such low morale on pay and pensions. He introduced accommodation as another real bone of contention, and I support him entirely on tackling those issues. He and the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) both said that we should not regard a job in the armed forces as being similar to any other job, and I agree with them. Of course there is a level of commitment required from members of the armed forces that is not present in other jobs, but that does not let the Government off the hook when it comes to pay and pensions and to treating people who serve with the respect that they have the right to expect. When it comes to saying to the loved ones of members of the armed forces that we value their support, pay and pensions and accommodation are among the ways in which we can show that we recognise their commitment. I absolutely recognise that working in the armed forces is not the same as any other job, but that does not let the Government off the hook when it comes to ensuring that the pay for members of our armed forces keeps pace with inflation and that they are no worse off at the end of the year than they were at the start of it. That is a very basic commitment.

Another very basic commitment is that we make the necessary investment in equipment, in training, in deployments and in the commitment that we expect of members of the armed forces. We need to pose some serious questions to the Government about those things as well. The Minister said that we had the most professional armed forces in the world, but it is important that we should not be complacent. As he mentioned, the battle tank is 20 years old. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the privilege of speaking to members of the armed forces, and they absolutely want me to hold the Government to account over investment in equipment. They share many of the reservations that he has. They also share reservations about the level of experience of some of the people in our armed forces. Huge numbers are leaving, many of whom had been through engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq and were absolutely match fit. The people who are now in those roles, while well trained, are much less experienced than the people who would have been in those arenas eight or nine years ago. I absolutely express our admiration for the people in our armed forces, but we must never be complacent about what we actually have on the ground.

I had the pleasure of going over to Kenya as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme to visit the British Army training unit Kenya—BATUK—but I know that many training courses have been cancelled over the past year or so and that that facility is being used a lot less than it was previously. That investment in the training of members of our armed forces to ensure that they are used to the different theatres they might face is incredibly important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned the Tory manifesto pledge for the Army to be 82,000 strong. Will the Minister give us absolute clarity on whether the Government still consider themselves bound to that commitment, or whether, as it was not featured so explicitly in the 2017 manifesto, it is now more of an aspiration than a commitment? Either way, it is a commitment that is not being met. I entirely support the motion, but I also share many of the concerns that have been raised today. I absolutely pledge my support to the Minister in his campaign to persuade the Treasury to give our armed forces the support that they need and deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—one that I will touch upon briefly later in my speech—about the changing nature of conflict and the skills mix that we require from young people coming into the armed forces. We need to ensure that we are able to be a meaningful and relevant set of armed forces in the here and now, rather than think about the conflicts that we have had in the past.

[Toby Perkins]

I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about recruitment, but that is only one side of the picture. The other side is the huge number of people who have left the armed forces in the past few years, and people left because they were kind of encouraged to do so by the Government, who made it absolutely clear that they were looking to reduce the size of the British Army. This is not just about recruitment, but about the skills we have lost.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the loss of skills, and that is particularly true of what may be thought of as legacy skills. We have been very focused on two main conflicts over the past decade or so—Operation Telic and Operation Herrick—but it is important that we are able to be active in a whole range of future potential scenarios or conflicts. This is not necessarily true of the old cold warriors, but we do not want to lose the skills of people who were trained in a more diverse range of potential conflicts. We must ensure that they are able to pass on that knowledge and experience to new generations.

I turn to recruitment. The British Army advert that was rather lazily described as the “snowflake” advert was greeted with a degree of derision. In my experience, that was unfair, and this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan). There was a time in the not too distant past—about a century ago—when there were passionate advocates for the retention of the horse as the main method of conducting conflict, and they fought hard against the mechanisation of the British Army. We have a habit—this has also happened in militaries around the world and throughout history—of fighting the last war, rather than gearing ourselves up to fight the next war.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

Let us be clear that we are committed to maintaining the numbers of our frigates and destroyers. Indeed, later this year we will see the second of our aircraft carriers come out of Rosyth. Equally, it is this Government who have secured shipbuilding jobs in Scotland all the way through to the 2030s. Indeed, there are probably some apprentices who will work on the Type 26 programme who are yet to be born.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the number of armed forces personnel.

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

9. What steps his Department is taking to increase recruitment into the armed forces.

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

We remain committed to maintaining the overall size of the armed forces, and we have a range of measures under way to improve recruitment and retention. The challenge is kept under constant review. Importantly, the services continue to meet all their current commitments, keeping the country and its interests safe.

[Toby Perkins]

Many people may see it as an incompetent accident that the Government continually fail to hit their supposed targets on Army recruitment, but is it not the truth that this is a Government without any sort of strategic vision for what they want our Army to do in 2019, and that their failure to get Army numbers up saves budget for the parts of the MOD that they do have a plan for?

[Mark Lancaster]

I could not disagree more. I think we have a clear vision as to what we want our Army to do in 2019. Equally, the hon. Gentleman should be encouraged by the fact that as of January we have had the highest number of applications to the Army in five years.

RAF Centenary

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know he has a very good relationship with the base there: it is a solid part of the local community in his constituency. I am sure there are many great jokes to be made in future SNP adoption meetings about his being the MP for the balloon corps. I would not be so unkind as to illustrate them on the Floor of the House.

It was of course a tremendous act of foresight by this place—something it does not always get right—to create the Royal Air Force, the only one of the forces created by an Act of Parliament. The RAF went on to play a vital role in securing the security, dignity and freedom of millions not just in this country but across the world. I want to pay particular tribute to the RAF Benevolent Fund, which will be known to many Members, and the excellent work it does to support RAF families and veterans. It was an honour to join it in Edinburgh this year as part of the RAF100 celebrations, with other hon. Members.

To turn to more contemporary matters concerning the RAF, it is true that SNP Members have not always agreed with the decisions made by this and previous Governments on how they have chosen to deploy military force, but for the purpose of this debate, we can sit that to one side. However, we need a serious discussion and all wish to see serious progress on morale among those serving in the forces. The last continuous attitude survey showed that only 41% of those serving in the RAF were satisfied with service life and only 32% reported having high morale. The armed forces charity, SSAFA, found in 2016 that 40% of working-age veterans said that they were suffering from depression, 36% felt that they had a lack of hope or purpose, and 30% said that they had a mental health issue.

Somewhere around the beginning of the debate, it was mentioned that the Government brought forward a debate on the new veterans strategy. It is a good strategy and I sincerely hope that it delivers, but there has to be an acknowledgement of the lack of joined-up working and joined-up thinking on how we can tackle these issues. At Defence questions this afternoon, we heard about the work that is done, for example, by armed forces champions in different local authorities. I am not entirely sure what the make-up is in the rest of the UK, but in Scotland we have 32 armed forces and veterans champions in 32 different local authorities, and in some cases, we can have 32 different people doing 32 different jobs, because the role is not clearly defined. It seems that it is really what the champion chooses to make of it, and I think that those who have served in the RAF and the other forces deserve a bit more than that.

We have to consider these issues when we look at the larger issue of the recruitment crisis. I do not have the exact figures in front of me concerning the RAF, but I know that the House has shown great concern about this in the past.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is raising an important point about morale. Alongside the difficulties that he raises, does he agree that many people in the air force have very transferrable skills that are worth a huge amount of money in the private sector, and that as they get towards the mid-levels of their careers in the air force, the pressure on family life and the alternatives that are available mean that they move on and we end up with a deskilled air force? We still have top-quality people and top-quality equipment, but we are perhaps not as match-fit as we should be in the current climate.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to raise that point. Indeed, the continuous attitude survey even found examples of large numbers of people in not just the air force but the other forces joining up for the purpose of getting a skill to then move out into the private sector. This cannot be a taboo subject that we dance around in such debates; we need to have a serious discussion about this and tackle it head on.

Let me turn to how we make the armed forces a more attractive career and a place that does not have such a movable workforce, with people going in to get a skill to then go into the private sector, as the hon. Gentleman said. The Scottish National party has introduced one proposal in particular that we believe could help to not just resolve some of these issues, but show that there is real political will to make the armed forces an attractive career prospect—it is on the issue of an armed forces representative body. This often causes some Conservative Members in particular to get a bit hot under the collar, but it is an entirely normal practice in several other NATO countries, in many of their armed forces, and it operates in different ways. The model that we suggest as a starting point is based much on that of the Police Federation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—the Minister for defence people and the armed forces—said at Defence questions earlier that the reason we do not need to have a body or a trade union, or whatever we want to call it, is that the armed forces have Members of Parliament to do the bidding for them. Look around you, Mr Deputy Speaker—if this is the backstop for members of the armed forces, then my goodness, we are in much more trouble than some of us suspected. If we go back to video footage of the parliamentary debate on the veterans strategy, we see that we could have fit every MP who was here for that debate on to the Treasury Bench alone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We should be incredibly proud of the leading role that we play; we were the first nation to commit our offensive cyber-capabilities to NATO, we have seen an uplift in troop numbers in NATO’s Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, and we are second only to the United States in supporting NATO and the work it does.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Government’s counting within the 2% that we spend on defence things that would never have been counted under previous Governments undermines our voice when it comes to NATO. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that current spending is simply inadequate if Britain wants to play a global role in the defence of the country?

[Gavin Williamson]

Britain has met and will always meet its NATO commitments, and we undertake to spend the money that is required by NATO guidelines.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend touches on such an important issue: looking after our veterans, in particular those who are homeless or who feel isolated. The Secretary of State moved forward with a 24/7 support helpline and is launching a new veterans strategy, which will be announced in November. It is important that every local council takes responsibility for having an armed forces champion who looks after those who are homeless and identifies what help can be given.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T2. The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme is incredibly important for our Army’s capability and for the UK defence industry, so when will we finally get to the production contract stage?

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

We are at the demonstration phase, with 11 being manufactured. It is currently going through a trials programme and we will report back when that is complete.

Ministry of Defence

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I put it to the Procedure Committee, and it recommended to the Backbench Business Committee, that we take on the role of determining estimates to be debated on estimates days. Scrutiny of the Government’s supply estimates was listed under “unfinished business” at the end of the previous Parliament. It is thanks to the current Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), that this business is no longer unfinished and we have now decided to debate estimates on estimates days. It is quite shocking how little power or influence the House of Commons has over spending in the estimates procedure, with a budget of some £800 billion a year. We have one of the best post-hoc systems in the world, through the Public Accounts Committee. We have one of the weakest systems in the world in terms of parliamentary scrutiny of what we are planning to spend, not of what we have spent.

Estimates days, as they have existed, have borne little relation to the actual content of the departmental estimates. Let me give a little bit of history, which is always interesting. This debate has gone on for quite a long time. In 1911, the then Clerk of the House, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, said:

“The sittings of the committee of supply continue through the greater part of the session, and, under existing standing orders, at least twenty days must be set apart for this purpose” .

Already, estimates days were just being used as a kind of general critique of government rather than actually to deal with what we were going to spend. Another report, in 1981, said:

“By 1966 there was a considerable discrepancy between the theory of supply procedure, under which individual estimates were put down for detailed consideration at regular intervals, and the practice, under which supply days were used by the opposition to discuss topics of their choice”,

which often had little, if anything, to do with the votes concerned. Indeed, the Clerk Assistant told the House that by the 1960s more and more supply day procedures had gone through which were “Little short of farcical”. I am glad that thanks to the Procedure Committee, and all the work that has been done and the debates that we have had, we are now going to talk about money.

However, given that the Government intend this parliamentary Session to last for two years, the already insufficient allocation of days for estimates days is doubly inadequate. Overall, in the past 100 years the House of Commons has delegated its role to the Treasury. We in this Chamber should be doing more. Why should we leave it just to unelected civil servants to debate what we spend and how we allocate spending among Government Departments? This House is asked to approve Executive spending even though we are not given much clarity about what that spending is expected to deliver, nor indeed the means to influence spending levels or priorities. As long ago as 1999, the Procedure Committee said that

“when motions are directed to future plans, motions recommending that ‘in the opinion of the House’ increases in expenditure or transfers between certain budgets are desirable, should be permissible.”

I believe that Select Committees should have stronger powers to investigate and scrutinise public spending. In Australia, Select Committees also sit as estimates committees, with Ministers and departmental body heads appearing before MPs or Senators to justify their spending. In other Commonwealth countries, quite a lot of work has been done on this. For instance, in several other countries with public financial management systems that are based on the British system, estimates include spending information at a programme level, with past spending information for each programme and medium-term estimates of the cost of the programme covering the Budget year and at least two further years. Good estimates help us to understand the link between Government priorities, desired impacts and the contribution of programmes to them.

There is still a lot of work to do. I would have thought that parliamentary scrutiny of the Budget was at the very heart of this body’s raison d’être. We have fought wars on this very subject yet are not particularly bothered by the comparatively little scrutiny we have of Government spending. Debates such as this one will, I hope, encourage broader participation of Members of this House in the formal budgetary process. We have a range of experience and points of view. I hope that this use of the debate to look at the Ministry of Defence estimates might also encourage us to have a more substantial debate on defence in general.

When I saw that at last we were going to get this estimates day debate, I approached my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, because I thought there was no better subject than defence to lead off on in discussing Government spending on an estimates day. That is why we are here, and this is a real opportunity. I will now talk a little bit about defence, although I recognise that there are people who are far more expert than me in this Chamber.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank him for achieving this debate. Is he surprised and disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here to respond? We are very much aware, through the press, that the Secretary of State appears to be pushing for greater budgets for the armed forces. It would have been nice if he had been here today to tell us all about the work he is doing.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, I think it is very nice that we have such an impressive Minister as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), sitting in front of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, I certainly think it should reconsider it. All the old, conventional threats are still very real and require conventional responses. We have to maintain our original capabilities while also expanding and improving them.

On the range of capabilities, last year Hurricane Irma wreaked devastation in the Caribbean, and HMS Ocean was a key element in our response to that tragedy. Now, apparently we have sold HMS Ocean to the Brazilians, but we have a proud humanitarian tradition on these islands and it is our duty to maintain it. This is not just about responding to threats; it is also about our humanitarian duty. We have direct responsibility for our overseas territories and bonds of close friendship with other members of the Commonwealth.

Ministers have so far refused to commit to keeping HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which give our armed forces an amphibious landing capability, as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said in an earlier intervention. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out last month that

“40% of the world’s population live within 100 km of the coast”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 516.]

I voted against the Iraq war, but the fact remains that we made a very effective contribution with our amphibious invasion of the al-Faw peninsula in 2003. I may not always be in favour of using military options, but I want, and the British people demand, that we have as many options on the table as we can and that we maintain our capabilities.

Meanwhile, there are proposals to cut the Royal Marines, some of our most useful, well-trained, high-quality and greatly effective troops. The variety of roles they can undertake underpins the ability of Great Britain to project our military power. As I will mention in a moment, this has led to low morale and a culture of fear for the future in one of the most important and valuable parts of our military.

Then there is the Navy. I received an email—one of many that have been sent to many Members from all sorts of sources—from a former Army major, writing to me through “gritted teeth”:

“the area of defence that has been shockingly neglected is the Royal Navy. Put Trident to one side and disregard the vanity project that is HMS Queen Elizabeth and you have virtually no ships. The Royal Navy has to be the most important service for an outwardly facing island nation.”

I agree with that. In December 2017, all six of our Type 45 destroyers were laid up in Portsmouth, whether for repairs, equipment failures, routine maintenance or manpower shortages. The possibility of a significant crisis requiring a naval deployment catching us not ready is strong—too strong.

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is absolutely right. In December 2017, not only were none of our destroyers out, but, as revealed by an answer to my parliamentary question, for the first time in history not a single Royal Navy frigate or destroyer was deployed overseas. That demonstrates powerfully the scale of the pressure on our Royal Navy and its lack of capability.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good point and that was a worrying incident.

On recruitment and numbers, the Public Accounts Committee “Army 2020” report notes that

“the Army’s recruiting partner, Capita, missed its regular soldier recruitment target by 30% in 2013-14 and it recruited only around 2,000 reserves against a target of 6,000. A huge step-up in performance is required if the Army is to hit its ambitious target of recruiting 9,270 new reserves in 2016-17. The size of the regular Army is reducing faster than originally planned but the size of the trained Army reserve has not increased in the last two years because more people have left the reserve than joined.”

We have shifted from an emphasis on the Regular Army to one that includes a very strong Army reserve. All the same, we still need a Regular Army, but we are not meeting targets for that either. Our force strength numbers are not up to scratch. In April 2016, we were short by 5,750 personnel. A year later, that had increased to over 6,000. By August 2017, it was over 7,000 and the latest statistics available show our armed forces are short of their full strength by 8,160 men. The problem is getting worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

I intend to talk about the reserve bonus scheme in the next part of my speech. I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Part of the problem is that, despite the theory that employers would be willing, and even encouraged, to allow people to take their time to go to, for instance, the annual camp, it is not happening. As people are under pressure to remain in work and to retain their jobs, they are not willing to give those 27 days. They are not able to make that commitment.

Further inefficient costs to the Army reserve can be seen when we look at the “regular to reserve” bonus scheme and its failure to retain personnel. The scheme was introduced in 2013 as a way of enticing former regular soldiers to join the reserves in order to keep their expertise within the military and pass it on to the new reserves who were being recruited. We were retaining capability, and also using the former regulars to train the reserves. The incentive for ex-regulars to join the scheme is, again, financial: a £10,000 bonus is paid in four instalments, provided that they meet the requirements of training and attendance at each stage.

As of October 2017, 4,350 ex-regular soldiers have joined the reserves under the scheme. At first that looks like a good number, but the question is, how many have been retained? In 2017, only 480 of those soldiers achieved all four instalments, which indicates a dropout rate of 89%. I accept that that figure does not take into account the fact that entry into the scheme may be staggered over the preceding four years, but it none the less demonstrates that retention of ex-regular soldiers in the Army reserve is a problem.

I can give an example. An ex-regular soldier who turned up at my house to do a piece of work had signed up for the reserve bonus scheme, and had found that once he had left the military and started work, the pressures of civilian life—being back with his family and getting into the new job—meant that he could not retain the commitment that he had thought he would want to ease his transition out of the military and into the civilian world. These are men and women with vital knowledge and expertise who are used to military life. Their retention is vital, but even with that offer of £10,000, there is not enough to keep them and for them to commit to what is being asked. This further suggests that the current model of the Army reserve just is not working.

The situation looks bad on its own, but if the cost of the scheme is taken into account, it looks a lot worse. Breaking down the entrants to the scheme into their respective ranks and assuming this distribution follows through the key milestone payments, and using these elements and combining wages and bonuses, the scheme so far has cost just over £29 million, with only 480 soldiers reaching all four payments. I am sorry to bat on about this, and I know the figures are boring, but I am deeply concerned. We have a reducing capability in our Army. We have been sold a pup, with a promise that the reserves would fill a gap in the regular forces, but that is not happening.

Defence is an expensive business—there is no getting around that—but it is also a business in which we cannot afford to lose highly skilled and highly able individuals willing to give the time and effort to get through their training so that they are deployable. I know that many Members of this House, including the Minister, are eager to fulfil our commitment to them so that they retain their membership of the reserves and their employability. I honour, and express my gratitude for, the service of all those reservists, but are we getting value for money in a way that allows us as a country to have the forces that we need? It is my concern that we do not, and the MOD’s own figures suggest that the reserves model as it stands cannot provide us with the numbers we need.

The challenges and menaces we face are very real. Many of our platforms are not fit for purpose and the readiness of our forces is just not in place, and we have heard about the disastrous Capita contract. I appreciate that the Minister has apparently suggested that he will resign if the military is cut further, and I hope he does not have to resign, because he is a good Minister, whom we trust, rely on and respect, but we also need the Minister to hear the concerns that we are expressing.

None of us want our Army to be damaged. All of us know that our personnel can, when fully trained and fully committed, be some of the best in the world; that knowledge is shared across our NATO alliance. But we are getting weaker, and that is unacceptable. I call on the Minister to look at how we are spending in terms of the reserve forces.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the numbers, but does she share my concern that a huge amount of experience is being lost from our military? There are people performing roles with a few years’ experience who would have taken 10 or 15 years to reach that position in the past, and the experience of many of them—excellent soldiers and sailors though they are—might come under pressure in the fiercest of circumstances.

[Mrs Moon]

My hon. Friend is right, and this is also making them so much easier to be bought off by companies who seek the expertise and qualifications they achieve in the military. They feel dissatisfaction when they see the forces they joined—particularly the Army—being hollowed out. That is leading many more to consider leaving.

I shall make one final comment. I have spoken to a young man who was working as a full-time reservist when I first met him. He has told me that a lot of his time as a full-time reservist was spent going out and trying to recruit. He said that one of the most frightening things was that so many of the youngsters he spoke to about joining the armed forces had no understanding of military life. They had no idea of what NATO stood for, for example. This is a wider problem that we as a country need to tackle. We need to get the message out about how invaluable our armed forces are and how critical it is that our young people should seek the life, the experience, the skills, the challenge and the satisfaction of a military career, whether as a reservist or full time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

Yes, and I will come to the issue of how we can use the percentage of GDP to track what has been happening to defence in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—a former Defence Minister in the Labour Government, of course, and a very good one—will try to be non-partisan about this for the simple reason that successive Governments are responsible for what has happened.

What actually took place was, as has already been hinted at, something that has been going on over a very long period. Colleagues on both sides of the House have heard me recite this so often that I am afraid they might do that terrible thing and join in, singing the song with me. But I will just run through it again. In 1963, the falling graph of defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP crossed over with the rising graph of expenditure on welfare at 6%. So we were spending the same on welfare and defence—6%—in 1963. In the mid-1980s, as we have heard, we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was the period when we last had an assertive Russia combined with a major terrorist threat—the threat in Northern Ireland. We were spending at that time roughly the same amount on education and health. Nowadays we spend six times on welfare what we spend on defence, we spend four times on health what we spend on defence, and we spend two and a half times on education what we spend on defence.

We have to ask what we mean when we say that defence is the first duty of Government. If it is the first duty of Government, it is a duty that is more important than any other duty, because if we fail to discharge it everything else is put in jeopardy.

[Toby Perkins]

I partly take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, if he is looking back to 1963 and the role of successive Governments from then to now. But it is also true that there was a substantial cut in defence spending in 2010-11, which bears no relationship to what happened in the previous 13 years. If defence spending had carried on increasing in real terms from 2009-10 to the present, £10 billion more would be being spent on defence than is spent under this Government. That is a substantial change from this Government to the previous one.

[Dr Lewis]

I will not defend what happened in 2010. I was a shadow Defence Minister for slightly longer than the duration of the second world war in the years up to 2010, and I was told retrospectively that the reason I never became a real Defence Minister was that it was known that I would not go along with what they were planning to do. So I am not inclined to lay down my life for the Cameron-Lib Dem coalition of those years. I did not do it then, and I will not do it now.

Having said that, it is all part of a bigger trend, and I come back to my projection of the situation. At the end of the cold war, as we have heard, we took the peace dividend. We had the reductions, which were reasonable under the circumstances. But in 1995-96—the middle of the 1990s and several years after we had taken the peace dividend reductions—we were not spending barely 2% of GDP on defence as we do now, but we were spending fully 3% of GDP on defence. From then on it was downhill all the way—

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The scale of the cuts we have experienced in defence are genuinely endangering our ability and the Government’s ability to protect our nation.

I maintain the point that I made earlier. It is tremendously disappointing that the Secretary of State is not here to respond to the debate. I take the Minister’s point about the fact that the Secretary of State is meeting the Prime Minister. I am sure she is a busy woman and he is a busy man, but, given how much we read about how extensively the Secretary of State is supposed to be lobbying for defence spending, it would have been good if he had been here.

I have been in the position of being on the Front Bench and having people complain about the fact that I am the one responding. It is meant as no insult to the Minister. In my opinion, he might make a better Secretary of State than the one we have at the moment, but I do not mean to undermine his career by saying so. I would prefer it even more if my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) was the Secretary of State. I say again, it would have been good if the Secretary of State had been here.

I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): it would be a tremendous shame if the Minister was forced into a position where he felt he had to resign because of the level of cuts to the Ministry of Defence. He would be a loss to the Government. I know how seriously he takes his position and what an agony it would be for him if he had to do so, so I hope he is not placed in that position.

The truth is that this Government have presided over the scale of cuts and over the failure of armed forces recruitment that we have seen. The Government have presided over huge cuts—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State’s arrival shows the power of my speeches. Not only have the Government broken their 2015 manifesto pledge to retain a standing Army of 82,000, but we continue to see more people leaving the Army than joining it, and under this Government military housing is in a disgraceful state.

The Government have announced numerous unfunded spending commitments, which are estimated by the National Audit Office to have left a £21 billion black hole, and they have achieved their commitment to continue spending 2% of GDP on defence by including things that would never previously have been included. I have to say—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who was previously on the Front Bench, would repeat this with feeling—that if any Labour Secretary of State for Defence had presided over such a record, the right-wing press would be demanding their head on a platter in a way that defied anything previously seen in the press.

The moment is arriving when the Government must decide what their story is. We are hearing that the country faces very significant new threats. The scale of the threat from Russia has grown to its greatest extent at any time since the cold war. Brexit means that a not insignificant element of our key partners’ defence response will take place through an institution that we are no longer a part of. There is an urgent need to scale up our cyber and hybrid warfare capabilities. We have observed the extent of Russia’s upscaling of its capabilities, and we need to take action to ensure that we are responding. We are also seeing regular incursions by Russian aircraft and submarines into UK space, and an increasingly aggressive posture by Russia and Putin. If all those things are true—I believe they are, and we have heard from credible sources that they are—it is unconscionable for defence spending to have such a low priority in the apparent strategic approach of the wider Government.

As my hon. Friend has said, the roots of the current defence spending crisis lie in the disastrous 2010 SDSR, and the Government must be held to account for their performance. The real-terms funding cut in the departmental expenditure limit since 2010 is almost £10 billion. As my colleagues have said, this is an extraordinary amount out of a budget that was about £40 billion back in 2010, and this at a time when inflation in defence equipment and skill shortages have grown substantially. It is therefore impossible to take seriously the suggestion that the Prime Minister is presiding over a Government who have our nation’s future safe in their hands.

I have long feared that the announcements made in the 2015 SDSR on future defence procurement bore no relation to the budgets set for it. I thought that the 2015 SDSR was a considerable improvement on what had gone before—that may be setting a low bar, but it was an improvement—and it is important to recognise that. However, if the budgets from the Treasury for the Ministry of Defence do not bear any relationship to what is promised, it is incumbent on all of us to highlight that. The NAO figures showing a £21 billion black hole demonstrate that I was right to be suspicious.

The Government should come clean. I am absolutely calling on the Government to bring forward more money, but if they are not going to do that—if the Treasury is not willing to come up with the amount required to fill the black hole—the Government must be candid with Parliament and with the people about which of the spending commitments made in the SDSR are not going to happen.

The Government will get so far in bridging the gap by putting off decisions and allowing timescales to slide, such as with the commitment on the Type 26s. There is now a commitment—or a theoretical commitment—on Type 31s, but I suspect the actual development of the frigate will continue to be pushed into the long grass. Each of these delays both undermines the ability of our armed forces to respond and increases the demand on the servicemen and women on the existing platforms.

I am immensely proud of the UK’s commitment to the aircraft carriers. They are a piece of collateral that the whole nation should take pride in. It was a really important announcement—initially by the previous Labour Government and subsequently by the coalition Government —to commission and then to build them. However, the scale of the current cuts calls into question the amount of resources required by the aircraft carriers. In 2009-10, when the idea was initially put in place to go forward with the aircraft carriers, the Government were spending, in today’s terms, about £45 billion a year on the armed forces. With a Government who are now spending £35 billion, it is a different decision, and it has to be placed in the context of the scale of subsequent Government spending cuts to the MOD.

The Government appear to have a strategy of not going forward with more Type 26 frigates, but of having a greater number of Type 31s instead. That means we will have less capable ships, but they can be in more different places at the same time. As I have said, this calls into question the amount of resources—both financial resources and personnel—that the aircraft carriers will be consuming. Whether the Government would have commissioned two aircraft carriers if the scale of the subsequent cuts had been known about at the time is an important question.

I asked the Minister for the Armed Forces a parliamentary question about the scale of current recruitment and retention performance, and almost all the major arms of the Army lost more people last year than they recruited. The Royal Regiment of Artillery lost 170 more people than it recruited; the Royal Engineers, 130; the Royal Corps of Signals, 270; the infantry, 750; and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, 100. There was a similar picture for the reserves, which we were told would make up some of the deficit. In the Army future reserves, the Royal Engineers lost 50 more people than it recruited; the Royal Corps of Signals, 20; the Royal Logistic Corps, 200; and REME, 160. Right across the Army, more people have left the service than have been recruited.

This reduction is to an Army that is already significantly under the numbers promised in the Conservative party manifesto of 2015. I believe I am right in saying that a standing Army of 82,000 is no longer the policy of the Government, although they have never officially come out and said that. It is very clear that a significant commitment was made in the 2015 general election—it was a very popular commitment—and they should be held to account for delivering on it.

Soldier numbers in our Army, which were stable throughout the previous Labour Government—they actually went up during the last five years of the Labour Government—have fallen from 98,340 in 2010 to 73,870 now. It is interesting that while there has been a fall of 25% in the number of soldiers, there has been a fall of only 15% in the number of officers. It is an interesting development for a Government who pride themselves—or claim to pride themselves—on defending the frontline that we have seen a bigger decrease in the ranks than in the officer numbers, and that is significant.

There is clearly a significant funding element to the fall in Army numbers, but there are also a number of other reasons why they are in such a distressing state. Morale among members of our armed forces continues to be challenged both by the demands placed on them and by issues such as pay and pensions, the quality of housing and the number of times that they have to go repeatedly on different kinds of deployments because of the shortage in numbers.

There is also real fear among our armed forces regarding this place’s commitment to actually using the Army. Our 2013 debate about airstrikes in Syria, which was referred to a great deal in the response to the urgent question immediately before this debate, called into question this place’s commitment to keeping an Army and being willing to use it. I get a strong sense from my responsibilities on the armed forces parliamentary scheme that there are people in our Army who think it is legitimate to question what we in this place actually see as their role and our willingness to deploy them.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a strong point about the outsourcing partner’s performance on recruitment and demanded that it step up or ship out. He did not quite put it like that—I am paraphrasing—but he was absolutely right. As I have said in previous debates—I do not apologise for saying so again—it would be beneficial if the Government published the number of people in each constituency who are recruited to the armed forces, so that we can take pride in our constituents. That would also enable us to hold to account the outsourcing company for its performance with regard not only to the overall numbers that it recruits, but to where it is recruiting them from and the extent to which it is achieving its aims.

I thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for introducing the debate. I say to the Minister and to the Secretary of State, who popped in but has popped out again—[Interruption.] I apologise: I expected him to be on the Front Bench. He has popped back, not popped out. I say to him that he can be absolutely certain that there is a real commitment among Members to strengthen his arm in his negotiations with the Treasury. We wish him every success and he can be absolutely certain that he will have our support if he is able to get from future spending reviews the resources that our armed forces need and deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. As others have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for securing the debate. I believe the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee were both involved in setting this new precedent for discussing estimates.

It is interesting that this debate was preceded by an urgent question on the situation in Syria. A number of options, ideas and proposals were put forward by Members on both sides of the House, and we should remind ourselves that we are able to make such proposals only because we have the hard power that allows us to stand up in this world. There is a question as to whether we use that hard power, but it does allow us to affect the world around us as a force for good.

In praising our armed forces, it is important that we pay tribute not only to those in uniform but to those who support them: the wives, the partners, the husbands, the children and the entire armed forces community. We, Parliament and the nation, pride ourselves on their incredible professionalism and sense of duty. They are among the best in the world—disciplined, reliable, committed, brave and very well equipped and trained—and we thank them for their incredible service.

The majority of people come out of the armed forces better for it, and our nation is certainly better for their service and for what they do in civilian life once their work is complete. It has been mentioned that we perhaps do not pay tribute to or acknowledge the work that is done across the world. Operations are taking place not just in the obvious—Iraq and Syria—but in Afghanistan and Africa. We are helping to stabilise nations, and we are helping those nations to become strong so that they can make a mark on their own future.

As we have heard today, the MOD budget sits at about £36 billion this year, and it will increase by 0.5% above inflation each year. We have the largest defence budget in Europe and the second largest in NATO, and we should remind ourselves that not all NATO countries are meeting the target. Fifteen out of 29 NATO members spend only 1.5% of their GDP on defence.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister is right in what he says, so what pressure is the UK putting on those other NATO nations, both diplomatically and publicly, to get them up to the 2%? I would like to see a lot more done, when the Prime Minister is stood with other leaders, to put pressure on them to achieve that.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am pleased the Defence Secretary is in his place, because this is very much of concern to him, as it is to all of us in the House, and it gets raised regularly. The last time he was in Brussels he raised it, and our allies in the United States are concerned about it too. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Let us be honest: we know that, for varying reasons, the financial year has been tough. We are grateful to the Treasury for recognising the fiscal pressures the MOD is under and providing an extra £200 million window to allow us to close the books on the financial year 2017-18. I make it clear that this is new money; it is different from the £300 million that has been brought forward to assist with the continuous at-sea deterrence programme.

Looking ahead, there continues to be a lot of debate, as has been expressed today, about the pressures on and size of the armed forces, their annual budget and the 10-year spending plan. I thought it would be helpful to place things into context following the defence and security capability review and the defence modernisation programme, and to flag up some realities that are not for this budget, but which are coming around the corner. The Defence Secretary has spoken of the need to look at outputs, rather than inputs. We must not just set out the number of tanks, ships or personnel that we need; we must first ask ourselves what we actually want to achieve. That leads us to determine the size of our armed forces and the defence posture we wish to show. This should reflect our duties, both domestic and overseas; our ambitions as a force for good; and our international responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and lead member of NATO.

We also need to adapt to the changing circumstances, as the threats we face become complex and intertwined. We must recognise that the world has become more dangerous since the publication of the 2015 SDSR. The risks and threats we face are intensifying and diversifying faster than expected, hence the purpose of the defence modernisation programme. It will allow more time to carefully consider how defence works, as well as what defence needs; it will aim to improve how defence operates; and it will focus on achievable efficiency and create different arrangements with suppliers. This modernisation will allow us to take the necessary long-term decisions about our military capability.

For clarity, let me say that the defence modernisation programme consists of four workstreams: the delivery of a robust MOD operating model, creating a leaner and more efficient MOD; a clear plan for efficiencies and business modernisation; a study of how we improve our commercial and industrial strategy, building on, for example, the shipbuilding strategy and the recently announced combat air strategy; and a focus on our defence policy outputs and our military capability—arguably the most important of the four.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Toby Perkins Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

This highlights more than ever that active steps need to be taken if we are to reach the targets that are in place. The new advertising campaign for the Army is a good example of that. In spite of the negative reaction in some parts of the press, we welcome this new campaign and think that it is quite right that the Army does not limit its recruitment pool, but looks to get the best people from across society.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On the subject of diversity, particularly the number of BAME and African personnel in the Army and the geographical spread among our armed forces, is he as surprised as I was that when I asked a written question about the geographical split in our armed forces—the number from each local authority area and from each constituency—the MOD was unable to provide an answer? Would it not be useful to have those statistics so that each Member of Parliament could take pride in the number of their constituents who were joining our armed forces?

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend highlights my point that we do need absolute clarity and transparency in the figures, not only on diversity, but across the board.

As I have said, diversity is a strength; it minimises the risk of groupthink. As operations take place in varying locations, a diverse force offers different ways to connect with local populations. If the purpose of the Bill is, in part, to increase the number of female personnel in particular, including through greater retention, why do the Government not see the logic in including information about part-time working in the statistics to show how progress is being made in the numbers of female personnel?

I simply cannot see a good reason for the Government not to adopt new clause 1. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), told us in Committee:

“The number of applications…is likely to be low in the early stages, so collating and reporting information on a monthly or biannual basis on the number of regular personnel undertaking new forms of flexible working would not provide significant or beneficial data.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2017; c. 27.]

How long does that remain the case? Is there a plan for the Government to bring in reporting when the number of personnel reaches a certain percentage of all personnel? If so, what would that figure be?

Moreover, even if the number of applications is low initially, if there is a data from the initial implementation of the scheme then we could look at trends over time. Of course, the monthly personnel statistics are now quarterly and the diversity statistics are published only once every six months. It does not seem too difficult an ask to include within these statistics the number of those who are serving under the flexible working scheme. Indeed, the Minister told us in Committee how important monitoring would be, saying that

“it will be crucial to ensure that all cases of flexible working are properly recorded and monitored to provide personnel and commanding officers with a record of all the discussions and agreements, so that they can understand the impact and success of the entire process.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2017; c. 27.]

If there will be a clear record from the outset, why will this not be added to the statistics? It seems that there will be no undue work or additional cost placed on the Department as a result of the new clause. If the Government are confident that this will see a reduction in outflow and even a boost to recruitment, what good reason is there to not include this information?

I hope the Government will see that this new clause is about ensuring transparency and allowing scrutiny and will accept it into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

May I say at the outset that I fully support the thrust of the Bill? It is before us for the very best of reasons, which I think is recognised in all parts of the House.

I would like, in my brief contribution, to comment on the two new clauses. I am attracted very much by the idea of a breakdown of the stats by either local authority or constituency areas. That would be extremely useful to all of us as Members of Parliament and would mean we know where we have a shortfall that we ought to be tackling. That is very attractive.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is correct that it is a changing scene. This is only the start of a story, and we need to evaluate where we have got to. That is a wise suggestion.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)—this sounds a bit like a summing-up speech, which it is not supposed to—displays, as ever, a deep knowledge of the subject, which is to be recognised.

I am sorry to do this again, but I should have reminded the House that my daughter is a serving officer with the armed forces. [Hon. Members Hear, hear!] You are very good to me.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West said, it is a moving situation. Mention has been made of accommodation and what the fall of Carillion means for that. We have work to do on the accommodation front. It is a gripe and a source of unhappiness among our armed forces personnel. I merely put down a marker at this stage that there is unfinished business there, but the Bill is worthy, and I applaud the Government for bringing it forward.

[Toby Perkins]

I support new clause 1, which would allow us to examine how those delivering the recruitment contract will adapt their working practices to promote the new working practices and take advantage of the new recruitment opportunities they present.

It is very important that we hold to account those who are recruiting on behalf of the MOD. There has been significant criticism of the role they have played and their performance so far. There have been a number of amendments to the way they have done that in recent months, which I hope brings about the intended improvements. It would be worth while to examine the way they are delivering on that contract. The intentions behind the Bill are entirely positive and should be supported, as I am glad they are by those on the Labour Front Bench.

I would like to expand on the point that I raised in my intervention about my disappointment and my urging of the Minister to examine how successful we are in recruiting on a geographical basis. Members right across the House take tremendous pride in not only our armed forces generally but their local regiments and the contribution that people in their constituencies make to the armed forces. When I am on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am struck by how Members in Northern Ireland want to meet up with the Irish regiments. It is similar for Members in Scotland and for people like me; I have wanted to meet up with those in the Sherwood Foresters—or the Mercian Regiment, as it is now—to recognise the local contact that we have with the armed forces.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is great to see you back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman —my friend—for his speech. The worry for me is that the more we try to recruit locally, the more we realise we have made a mistake in not actually keeping local regiments local. For example, my hon. Friend—in inverted commas—mentioned the Sherwood Foresters, who are now part of the Mercians, which covers a big area. People I know would much prefer regiments to be much more local, and local normally means good recruiting.

[Toby Perkins]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am too much of a traditionalist to call him an hon. Friend in this place, but he knows I call him a friend elsewhere. I agree entirely with what he says about the importance of locality. We could have a wider debate about whether the Sherwood Foresters should have been put into the Mercian Regiment. When I was on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we talked about our local regiments, and it became clear that the Mercian Regiment is considered to be the local regiment for people over an incredibly diverse geographical split.

All the more reason, therefore, where information about the original home address of all the new recruits clearly exists, for that information to be made available. That would enable MPs to be part of the programme of trying to drive recruitment and to take pride in the level of recruitment in their area. Just imagine, if we had three MPs all within a few recruits of each other as we approached the end of the year, how much we could be driving such a programme. It would be a real force for good.

If geographical challenges were thrown up in relation to communities—religious or race communities—or areas where the Navy or the Air Force particularly recruit, and the figures were available to all of us, it would put positive pressure on the Government to take action on such things. We talk about diversity, and it seems to me that this is one of the ways in which we could drive it. To sum up, I would be very interested if the Minister would consider the idea of making the information that currently exists publicly available.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

As I said in Committee, I broadly welcome the proposals. At the top of the armed forces and obviously at ministerial level, there is a recognition that society is changing and that if we are not only to attract people to the armed forces but to retain them, we need flexibility in the way in which they are employed.

The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) is very clear, and I cannot understand what the objection to it could be. We need to ensure that one of the main aims of flexible working is to attract more women into our armed forces, but without being able to monitor that through the Department producing reports, I am not sure how we can gauge whether it is a success. The Minister may say that we could rely on tabling parliamentary questions, but I have to say that the quality of the answers from the Department recently has not been great, and it takes two or three attempts to elicit any answers. I do not see anything wrong with how the new clause is structured. It is a matter of making sure that we monitor what is going on.

The same applies to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). The other side of this issue is about knowing why part-time or flexible working is refused. In other workplaces, people refused this type of thing have a course of redress. It is important to be able not only to see whether flexible working proposals are being used, but the reasons why they are not being implemented, which could lead to a lot of dissatisfaction. It will be important to have some oversight to ensure that we know if, for example, people leave because at a certain level in the Army or other armed service they decide that they do not like it.

On the broader issue of armed forces recruitment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) raised some interesting points. We are failing on recruitment, and the MOD is now reverting to the usual answer, which is to say, “The reason why we are not attracting people is the economic upturn and we are in a very competitive environment.” That is an old chestnut, and I think I even used it on some occasions when I was a Minister. I am sorry, but that is not the reason. The fundamental issue is that the privatisation model used for recruitment has failed and, as was mentioned earlier, it has also broken the link to local areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) raised the important point that flexible working is part of a bigger package, which is not only about career opportunities for individuals, but about accommodation. In Committee and when we debated the Bill previously, the Minister talked about the future accommodation model. I must say that he is going to have to get on with it, because anyone who reads today’s National Audit Office report on Annington Homes will find that it does not make for very pretty reading. This was one of the worst decisions ever taken by—I have to say—a Conservative Government in 1996, and the legacy it leaves for not just this Government but future Governments is quite frightening.

Ministers think that the future accommodation model is the way out, and I hope it is, but it will have to be done creatively. To look at one statistic alone in the report, if the discount the MOD currently gets is reduced from 58% to 38% when it comes up for renegotiation in 2021, that will cost the MOD and the taxpayer an additional £84 million from a budget that is already very restricted. There will have to be some very creative thinking about how to extract the Government from that contract, but it should not be done at the expense of servicemen and women who rely on accommodation as part of their package. As I said in Committee and the last time we discussed this in the House, I am not opposed to a new accommodation model, but there are two issues: one is that it will take time to introduce; and the other is that it will cost money.

I do not know whether the issue of accommodation will be a priority in the current MOD review, but I ask Ministers to consider it an important part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North rightly said, we concentrate a lot on equipment and it is quite right that we should have the equipment that people need. However, we can have all the equipment in the world, but if we do not have skilled, highly trained personnel behind the equipment—if we do not retain people and keep them, and more importantly their families, happy—we are not going to be successful.

To finish, I would urge that personnel are seen as an important integral part of our defence effort, and nothing should detract from that. The Government have created their own mess with the budget for it. I wish them and the Defence Secretary well in trying to sort this out and in pleading for more money from the Treasury. The current Chancellor was the Defence Secretary when some of these decisions—chickens that are now coming home to roost—were taken. At the end of the day, these are the people we rely on to keep us safe, and the men and women of our armed forces and their families are the ones we should always bear in mind.

National Security Capability Review

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in her analysis of the important role that cadets play. Some 20% of our armed forces served in the cadets. That is why the Government are committed to opening 500 new cadet forces in schools right around this country. Cadets are so incredibly vital for our armed forces, but they also make sure, in communities right across the country, that our armed forces play such an important role in the life of those local communities.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has referred at least twice to the manifesto commitments on numbers that he and all his colleagues were elected on. He has been slightly vague about this, so will he be absolutely specific that it is the Government’s policy, under the manifesto he stood on in 2017, that the British Army will not go below 82,000?

[Gavin Williamson]

Our commitment was to maintain the size of the armed forces, and we absolutely stick by that commitment.

Defence

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

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

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

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

[Vernon Coaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Not for the first time, he has given great service to the cause of defence. He was an outstandingly good shadow Defence Secretary, and as long as there are people like him in the ranks of the Labour party the prospects for a bipartisan approach to defence remain excellent. I must extend that praise to all 11 Members from the four parties represented on the Defence Committee, every one of whom is strongly committed to the defence of this country.

Until recent years, little attention was paid to a possible threat from post-communist Russia, because for a long time after 9/11 counter-insurgency campaigns in third world countries were thought to be the principal role of the armed forces. However, we are now spending just £0.4 billion on operations of that type out of an annual defence budget of about £36 billion. According to the 2015 SDSR, that budget should by 2020 fund 82,000 soldiers, more than 30,000 sailors and marines, and almost 32,000 RAF personnel, plus another 35,000 reservists. To these must be added some 41,000 civilians, many of whom, like those who serve in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, are service personnel in all but name. Finally, there are special forces, as well as new units that have been created to deal with cyber-security and counter-propaganda. Then there is all the equipment, which currently comprises over 4,000 Army vehicles, including tanks and artillery; about 75 Royal Navy ships and submarines, including the nuclear deterrent; and over 1,000 RAF fixed-wing and rotary aircraft. As a portent of things to come, the services also operate a mixture of large and small surveillance drones and 10 unmanned hunter-killer aerial attack vehicles.

All in all, we still have a fairly full spectrum of military capability, and in absolute terms—as I am sure we would all accept—£36 billion a year is a considerable sum. Set in historical perspective, however, that level of defence investment falls far below the efforts that we have traditionally made when confronted by danger internationally.

The Defence Committee published a report on defence expenditure in April 2016. Entitled, “Shifting the Goalposts?”, it attracted attention for highlighting the inclusion of costly items such as war pensions and MOD civilian pensions at a time when Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne were scrambling to meet the 2% of GDP benchmark which, as we know, was set by NATO as a minimum—not as a target—for all its members. The Government were entitled to include such items in their 2% calculations, but they had never chosen to do so previously. It was therefore clear that by resorting to a form of creative accountancy, we were no longer strictly comparing like with like in overall expenditure terms.

Our report was especially revealing in its tables and graphs, which were well researched by Committee staff. They showed UK defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP, year by year, from the mid-1950s to the present day, and compared those data with the corresponding figures for spending on welfare, education and health. We found that in 1963 we spent similar sums—about 6% of GDP—on both welfare and defence. Now we spend six times on welfare what we spend on defence. In the mid-1980s, the last time we faced a simultaneous threat from an assertive Soviet Union, as it then was, and a major terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, we spent similar sums—about 5% of GDP—on education, on health, and on defence. Now we spend two and half times on education, and nearly four times on health, what we spend on defence.

At the height of the east-west confrontation, in every year from 1981 until 1987, we spent between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence. Between the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the failure of the Moscow coup in 1991, the cold war came to an end. Consequently, and predictably, a reduction in defence expenditure followed. That was known as the peace dividend yet—this is the key point—even after it had been taken, and even as late as the financial year 1995-96, we were still spending not 2% of GDP, which is the NATO minimum, but fully 3% of GDP on defence. That was without the accounting adjustments that have been used to scrape over the 2% line in the past few years.

To sum up, from 1988 when the cold war began to evaporate, until 2014 when we pulled back from Afghanistan, defence spending almost halved as a proportion of GDP. Now that we face a newly assertive Russia and a global terrorist threat, the decision to set 3% of GDP as our defence expenditure target can no longer be delayed.

[Toby Perkins]

I have also looked at the statistics mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and he is absolutely right about the creative accounting. Even taking that into account, it seems impossible to reach the conclusion that we have ever spent as little as we currently spend on defence in comparison with our GDP.

[Dr Lewis]

That is absolutely right. It is a measure of how far downwards our expectations were managed during the reductions in percentage GDP spent on defence under the Blair Government and the Cameron coalition Government, that it was regarded as a cause for triumph and congratulation when it was finally confirmed that we would not be dropping expenditure below 2%. The matter had never been questioned at all prior to that period.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Toby Perkins Excerpts

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

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We have the best armed forces in the world. From their service in Afghanistan, and their support to the coalition to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria, to being at the forefront of the humanitarian response to hurricane Irma, their courage and professionalism are renowned the world over. We are investing some £18 billion a year in new ships, submarines, aircraft and armoured vehicles, but it is not enough just to modernise our armed forces with new equipment; we need to ensure that service within the armed forces reflects a modern lifestyle.

We know that one of the main reasons why people choose to leave the armed forces is the impact of service on their family life. At the moment, many regular personnel who are unable to meet their unlimited military commitments for periods of time have no other choice than to leave the service. They lose a good career; we lose their hard-won knowledge, skills and experience.

It is a fact that today people want greater choice over how they run their lives, and when and where they work. If we are to compete for, and retain, the best people, our armed forces need to respond with greater flexibility, making the lives of those who proudly serve our nation easier.

Total and unlimited choice is not, of course, possible in the disciplined environment of the armed forces, where the requirement to serve the needs of the country is paramount. So maintaining operational effectiveness is our absolute red line, but that does not mean that we should not offer our people more choice about how they live and work.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I could not agree more with what the Secretary of State has said so far about both the professionalism of our armed forces and the need for greater flexibility, but does he recognise that one of the reasons why many people have left, and one of the reasons why there has been such an impact on their family life, is the huge reduction in armed forces personnel numbers and the increasing expectation on those people, with all that is going on? That has been one of the causes of their having such poor family lives.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

The armed forces continue to meet what are called the harmony guidelines and we have stabilised the size of the armed forces—the hon. Gentleman referred to reductions—but I also recognise that we are asking ever more of our armed forces each successive year, with the deployments in different parts of the world.

The 2015 strategic defence and security review committed us to an ambitious programme of modernisation of our personnel policies. There are already a range of initiatives in place to support flexible working. Subject to chain of command approval, service personnel have already been able to work compressed hours or vary their start and finish times. They can also take unpaid leave for up to three months and longer-term career breaks to help meet life’s commitments—for example, when a partner is posted overseas—and, in certain circumstances, they are even able to work from home.

We know that these existing initiatives are popular: in the six months to July 2017, 1,400 personnel had taken advantage of them. This Bill will take these initiatives a step further and provide more formal arrangements and certainty, including allowing personnel to work shorter hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but his report also mentions the concern, which Opposition Members share, about the MOD’s recruitment contract with Capita.

The Public Accounts Committee recommended back in 2014 that the MOD

“should ensure that it is able to hold Capita to account for its performance in delivering the Army recruitment contract”.

I would be grateful if the Minister set out how exactly Capita is being held to account for its persistent and inexcusable failure to meet the targets.

Earlier this month we read reports that said that the serving reservists who staff recruitment offices will be replaced by civilian staff from Capita, further weakening the link between those who serve in our forces and the recruitment process. It is clear that intake rates cannot be allowed to continue falling year on year, and I would be grateful if the Minister also set out what specific action he will take to address that.

One important way of beginning to deal with the crisis in recruitment and retention would be to lift the public sector pay cap and give our armed forces the pay award that they deserve. Our personnel serve with courage and distinction and, particularly at this time of year in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday, we remember the sacrifices that they make on our behalf. Yet their pay was frozen for the first two years of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, and it has risen by just 1% a year from 2013. When inflation is factored in, the starting salary of an Army private has been cut by more than £1,000 in real terms since 2010, yet accommodation costs have continued to rise and personnel and their families have lost out due to cuts in social security payments.

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body observed that the “perfect storm” has resulted in few personnel feeling that they get anything resembling a pay rise each year. Indeed, the latest armed forces continuous attitude survey found that satisfaction with basic rates of pay and pension benefits is at the lowest level ever recorded, with only a third of personnel satisfied with their basic pay.

[Toby Perkins]

If a business had huge shortages in certain skills because people with those skills were leaving for competitor organisations, would it not be incredible if that business was simultaneously spending huge amounts of money training new people to replace those who had left while, as part of its recruitment and retention strategy, keeping wages below inflation when all its competitors are increasing wages?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend, with his business experience, makes a valid point.

Of course, our armed forces do not have a trade union to lobby on their behalf, but I know from my conversations with personnel that there is considerable interest in the Government’s policy on pay. That is an area on which we want to work constructively with the Government, and I have already said that if they are prepared to amend the Bill to give a fair pay rise to our forces personnel, or even to allow the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to conduct an in-year review without the cap in place, the Government can certainly count on Labour support.

We welcome the Bill, which has support on both sides of the House. I look forward to working with Members to scrutinise and improve it appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As the Front-Bench speeches have indicated, there is a high degree of cross-party consensus on this initiative. That consensus was also evident in the report of the outgoing Select Committee on Defence published in April 2017, “SDSR 2015 and the Army”. The report concluded:

“We support the Chief of the General Staff’s commitment to changing the culture of the Army through initiatives on employment, talent management and leadership. Successful implementation of these initiatives could provide a structure within which all soldiers can achieve their full potential. However, we recognise that this must not be to the detriment of the Army’s ability to undertake its core role of warfighting. We note the concerns expressed about cultural resistance within the Army to this agenda, particularly in respect of Flexible Engagement.”

In their reply, the Government referred to their

“programme to widen opportunities for all, thereby better reflecting the demands of a modern society. This programme includes promoting a culture of inclusivity in which every Service person is treated with respect and is able to access a range of employment opportunities, including flexible working.

The Flexible Engagement System continues to be considered to be a positive and appropriately contemporary employment system.”

In the opening speeches, we heard reference to a point made by the Chief of the General Staff, Nick Carter, back in February 2015:

“We have a career structure at the moment which is fundamentally a male career structure. It has a number of break points which sadly encourage women to leave rather than encouraging them to stay.”

Although one aspect of the Bill, to do with presentation, was controversial in the upper House—I will come to that in a few moments—it is notable that the people who were concerned about that presentational point are four- square behind the substantive principles of the Bill. For example, Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, stated in the debate on the Queen’s Speech:

“Too many talented people, especially women, are leaving early because the terms of their service are not flexible enough to accommodate their evolving personal circumstances and the associated pressures. We cannot afford such waste: it is expensive in terms of training replacements and it impacts on our operational capability.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2017; Vol. 783, c. 91.]

When considering what my reaction should be to the central proposals in the Bill, I came up with the following five questions. First, will an arrangement be overridden in cases of emergency? The Government have been absolutely clear from the outset that it will be overridden. There is no question that people will not be available to serve in the armed forces in a national crisis, when required, no matter what arrangements they have entered into for flexible working.

The next question I ask is: will skills be diminished? It appears from the scheme’s structure that that is not a significant danger, because the idea of flexible working in this way will involve people doing so only for a finite period after full-time service and before further full-time service. So the range of skills ought not to be diminished, and I believe that that safeguard is sufficient.

Where I am a little more concerned and would welcome further contributions is on my third question: will bureaucratic logjams be caused by appeals? The Government have done well in their briefing material, and it may be that some of it was prepared in response to the advantage of having had this Bill considered in the upper House by senior former heads of the services and even former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. Government briefing material has been very full and they have set out a complex scheme of how appeals will work. I am still in need of reassurance that we will not become bogged down in bureaucratic trials and tribulations, possibly going all the way up to ombudsman level. That is one danger that needs further commentary.

My fourth question is: will this send a positive or a negative signal to—

[Toby Perkins]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am apologetic for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I was waiting for him to take a natural pause, but one did not appear. Am I right in saying that there is a convention in this House that speakers should remain in their place for two speeches before they leave? The Secretary of State has left after only one speech, and the Chair of the Defence Committee is speaking. Have you been notified of any reason why the Secretary of State has had to leave so soon, when many of us would have expected him to want to know what was being said?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Secretary of State went at such speed that he did not even say goodnight or anything, so I am not sure why; he may well be coming back. He may have been taken short, given the speed he went at. It is convention that Members normally hear at least two speeches, and it is normal for Ministers to stay around to hear a bit more. Of course, when we have such a learned Member as the Chair of the Select Committee, we all wish to hear him. I had better bring him back on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Smeeth]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, one thing that has proved to be both a huge honour and a heart-breaking experience is that, as chair of the all-party group, service personnel families contact me on a regular basis to detail their experiences. What goes on is simply not good enough. I have had representations from some of the service personnel charities, even as late as last week, and they are now worried about what happens next. Just as CarillionAmey seems to have woken up to the fact that it has some responsibilities, the charities are now concerned that, if things are put on a regional basis, we will have to start all over again explaining the needs and requirements of our personnel. Therefore, as bad as it is now, we are concerned about what happens next. We in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the MOD understands the concerns and the fact that it is simply not acceptable for a family to have to wait eight days for their boiler to be fixed.

The concerns that we are talking about relate not just to those experiences, but to how much people earn. Members will appreciate, from the trial of flexible working, that there were concerns about how tour bonuses were to be paid and how reduced hours would have a knock-on effect on salaries. These issues are compounded in the current climate by the mini defence review. It has been raised directly with me that serving personnel are concerned about losing their tour bonuses and what will happen to them next. Owing to a lack of communication, they are being told by senior officers that they might lose some of their core terms and conditions. That would mean that flexible working will become just words and will not help to fix the problem.

[Toby Perkins]

Flexible working would be great if it resulted in more people choosing to stay in our armed forces, but what if it makes work more flexible only for those who are already in the armed forces? The impact could be even greater demands on those who are not on flexible working contracts. Does my hon. Friend share my concern?

[Ruth Smeeth]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who spoke knowledgeably and pragmatically on the Bill. I share many of his views about not only the opportunities it presents but the many reasons why there should still be reservations about the recruitment and retention prospects of our armed forces. I am also glad my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) indicated that the Opposition will support the Bill on Second Reading, while outlining areas that are still a cause for concern.

It is fitting that we should be considering this incredibly important aspect of the development of modern working practices in the run-up to the Remembrance Day period, when we will all be in our constituencies reflecting on the contributions made to our armed forces in the recent and the more distant past. In my contribution, I would like to speak a little of the pride that I and the vast majority of my constituents feel for our armed forces and of what more we in this place could do to repay our debt of gratitude. I would also like to reflect more on the pressures affecting our serving personnel and their lives, which I have observed in the considerable number of exchanges I have had with serving personnel, both within and outside the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I have had the pleasure of enrolling in for the last two years. I would also like to outline what more the Government could do to ensure that firms that benefit from the skills of people in our armed forces contribute back. Finally, I would like to say more about the Government’s performance on recruitment to the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about the importance of the public sector pay cap and the impact pay has on armed forces morale, and she was absolutely right to do so. There is no question but that most of the people who serve in our armed forces could earn more money elsewhere. We are not saying that they are merely in it for the money, but it is important that we send a real signal from this place that we value the role these people play. When we all speak so positively about them, it is not unreasonable that they should look at not just our words but our actions, and when they see the public sector pay and the fact that their wages have risen by less than inflation on a like-for-like basis annually under this Government, that is important.

The Government have overseen a monumental reduction in armed forces personnel, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford just said. Let us be absolutely clear that that includes breaking the manifesto promise on which the vast majority of Conservative Members stood in 2015—not to allow the Army to fall below 82,000. However, simultaneously, there have been ever-greater expectations in terms of the role our armed forces will play.

Members on both sides of the House will go out on Remembrance Sunday, and we will lay our wreaths and wear our poppies with pride, but we also need to consider the impact that the choices we make in this place have on morale in the armed forces. I have referred to pay, and pensions have been mentioned, but other important considerations include the ability of members of the armed forces to enjoy a family life; the investment they see in equipment; the extent to which we do what we say we are going to do in terms of our commitment to them; the opportunities for them to progress their careers; and issues such as housing and schooling, which have been mentioned.

I would like to say how impressed I have been with all aspects of our armed forces personnel in the many exchanges that I have had with them. I spent time with those on board HMS Sutherland—a Type 23 frigate under a female captain—which I was able to witness on exercises in southern England last year. Also last year I saw personnel on HMS Dragon preparing for their FOST —flag officer sea training—and I saw the naval training provided on HMS Collingwood. The Army’s 1st (UK) Division recently ran an open day to discuss their persistent engagement work, and many of us were able to watch the war-fighting 3rd (UK) Division performing urban warfare exercises recently. I saw the infantry training regime at Catterick where they are training up new recruits who were incredibly impressive in their commitment and maturity at a tender age very early in their Army careers. Like many other Members, I have taken tremendous pride in the meetings that I have had with local servicemen and women at a variety of important civic engagements that they have undertaken in Chesterfield. I am absolutely certain that the commitment and professionalism shown by our armed forces personnel remain of a very high standard, and Britain is right to have tremendous pride in all those who wear Her Majesty’s uniform.

As we head towards Remembrance Sunday I will give a brief plug for the ceremonies that will be taking place in my constituency, in Staveley on the Sunday morning and in Chesterfield on the Sunday afternoon, as well as the remembrance festival that we hold in Chesterfield for a packed house on the Thursday following Remembrance Sunday, at which all the old war favourites are sung along with a more solemn service. At such events we really get a strong sense of the pride that people across our communities have for the armed forces.

Many of the issues that face our armed forces are societal and issues of skills that would exist outside Government policy, but it is important that in many of the areas that Government are able to influence, they should take their share of responsibility for recruitment and retention. The armed forces are fishing in a very competitive pool when it comes to recruiting personnel. I sense that a great many more people now see their service life as a component of their career, rather than its mainstay. That is different from the past so any steps that can be taken to ensure that the armed forces are, as much as possible, a family-friendly employer where people can continue to develop their career, and are offered a variety of different ways of serving, are absolutely crucial.

Flexible working is not just an issue for women—it is also very much an issue for men. Many of the men I spoke to who are thinking of leaving the armed forces say that it is because of the pressures on their families. When we talk about flexible working, it is important that we do not see it as purely a female issue, about how we get more women into the armed forces. Important as that is, we must also keep men in the armed forces.

It is also important to consider the alternative opportunities for people if they choose to leave the armed forces. Particularly within the Navy, but in all areas of the armed forces, there are huge numbers of people in engineering posts who reach a certain level, then realise that there are many better-paid opportunities outside and that their career progression is stalling, and move on as a result. It is really important to make sure that we do all we can to continue to create new opportunities within all levels of the armed forces.

The Government’s commitment to the reserves is perfectly sensible. It needs to be born, not from a response to austerity as a reason to reduce the regulars, but from a recognition that it makes sense in its own right. It is incredibly important that we encourage all companies, but particularly those that are suppliers to the MOD, to do all they can to encourage their members of staff to join the reserves. They should not just encourage them to join, but they should value the work that their members of staff do in the armed forces and see it as a way for them to progress their careers rather than something that they merely tolerate. MOD suppliers, who recruit a huge number of people from the armed forces, need to recognise that there is a real benefit to them from allowing the armed forces to spend all the money training people up and for them to end up being, in effect, poached by the private sector, which is simultaneously making a lot of money. When recruiting someone from the armed forces there should be much greater recognition of it being a two-way street and of the fact that people have the opportunity, through the reserves, to go back and continue to serve.

This is a very welcome Bill, and I support it. It is not going to solve all the problems, but if the issues that have been raised are addressed, it can play an important part.