01/11/2017

0:00:09 > 0:00:17Ten minute rule motion. Mr Richard Benyon. Mr Speaker, I beg leave to

0:00:17 > 0:00:22introduce a bill that would create statutory limitations on court

0:00:22 > 0:00:25proceedings against current and former members of the Armed Forces

0:00:25 > 0:00:29for certain alleged offences committed during military operations

0:00:29 > 0:00:34or similar circumstances and for connected purposes. Everybody in

0:00:34 > 0:00:39this House, particularly those of us who have served in the Armed Forces,

0:00:39 > 0:00:43want our Armed Forces want always to be seen as a most professional in

0:00:43 > 0:00:48the world. This means we want them to abide by the strict codes of

0:00:48 > 0:00:53behaviour that we impose on them and abide by the International rules of

0:00:53 > 0:01:02war. In the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland,

0:01:02 > 0:01:08and elsewhere, we've asked our Armed Forces to operate in highly complex

0:01:08 > 0:01:14scenarios. Almost to a man and a woman they have behaved in the

0:01:14 > 0:01:18finest traditions of the three services. The reputation of this

0:01:18 > 0:01:21country and our Armed Forces have been enhanced by their

0:01:21 > 0:01:29professionalism, restraint, compassion and courage. However,

0:01:29 > 0:01:33there is a problem. Firstly, out of the Iraq conflict, there has emerged

0:01:33 > 0:01:43an industry where lawyers sadly often just honest -- dishonest

0:01:43 > 0:01:48lawyers have used vast amount of public money to bring cases against

0:01:48 > 0:01:53former and current members of the Armed Forces. If they had been truth

0:01:53 > 0:01:57in these cases, that would be fine. But the difficulty to make these

0:01:57 > 0:02:05allegations stick shows how badly these cases are made. This

0:02:05 > 0:02:09organisation processed over 3000 cases, giving an indication of the

0:02:09 > 0:02:14level of absurdity of some of these claims, my understanding was that

0:02:14 > 0:02:21just 20 cases than at the time of the demise of this organisation,

0:02:21 > 0:02:26none of which believed to be viable by prosecutors. Never again would

0:02:26 > 0:02:32dreadful individuals be able to line their pockets Origi pockets of the

0:02:32 > 0:02:38legal firms with vast amounts of public funds was pursuing our

0:02:38 > 0:02:45veterans into old age. -- to line their pockets or the pockets of the.

0:02:45 > 0:02:54I would like to make it impossible to bring a case against any

0:02:54 > 0:02:58individual for actions taken whilst serving on operations. I would

0:02:58 > 0:03:02suggest that a period of ten years would be the right the route on

0:03:02 > 0:03:06which to legislate. I fully accept they would have to be caveats and

0:03:06 > 0:03:13exceptions. -- there would have to be. I will time it means that we

0:03:13 > 0:03:19allow for legitimate cases to be brought forward, it is about the

0:03:19 > 0:03:27time when evidential trails run cold. -- the time chosen means. The

0:03:27 > 0:03:37leadership and the subcommittee, their work has informed the spill.

0:03:37 > 0:03:43Mr Speaker, later this month in Belfast a 70 region ruled -- a 70

0:03:43 > 0:03:46eligible man will face charges including attempted murder. He was

0:03:46 > 0:03:53an exemplary soldier ending his career as a senior warrant officer.

0:03:53 > 0:03:59He has a severe heart condition and has only 11% kidney function. The

0:03:59 > 0:04:04allegations relate to an incident in 1974 when a Pro12 he was leading in

0:04:04 > 0:04:12Northern Ireland, at a time of intense terrorist activity, fired on

0:04:12 > 0:04:17a -- on an individual that was killed. At the time, she was told

0:04:17 > 0:04:24that no action was going to be taken against him. What has changed? No

0:04:24 > 0:04:30new evidence, less evident in fact. Two of the three witnesses are dead.

0:04:30 > 0:04:37The fire runs, casings, the original file, have been lost. The Northern

0:04:37 > 0:04:38Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions claimed that new

0:04:38 > 0:04:50evidence had come to light. We are fearing that... There has been a

0:04:50 > 0:04:53decision to reignite such investigations. The Government have

0:04:53 > 0:05:00rightly said that there should be no bias in terms of how we these

0:05:00 > 0:05:04investigations are carried out. Unfortunately, there is already a

0:05:04 > 0:05:07price. 90% of the guest during the troubles were at the hands of

0:05:07 > 0:05:13terrorists. -- already a bias. These are people that went out with the

0:05:13 > 0:05:17intention of killing and moving. The security forces went out with the

0:05:17 > 0:05:23intention of saving lives. I spent most of my time in the fields and

0:05:23 > 0:05:28streets of Northern Ireland, most of my early 20s, protecting the lives

0:05:28 > 0:05:32of prison officers, police officers, from being assassinated in their

0:05:32 > 0:05:37homes. Please can we ended argument that there is some kind of

0:05:37 > 0:05:43equivalence between terrorists and security forces. There is a limit of

0:05:43 > 0:05:49two years for any terrorist found guilty after the Good Friday

0:05:49 > 0:05:53Agreement. Many feel that the letters, part of the Good Friday

0:05:53 > 0:06:00Agreement, effectively give terrorists a statute of locations.

0:06:00 > 0:06:11-- of limitations. Thousands of people served in Ireland in 1969 to

0:06:11 > 0:06:162007. Many of us, myself included witnessed acts of extraordinary

0:06:16 > 0:06:20restraint and professionalism by young soldiers in the face of

0:06:20 > 0:06:29extraordinary provocation. Like most veterans, I have been moved by the

0:06:29 > 0:06:34ability of community leaders and politicians to bury the enmity is of

0:06:34 > 0:06:37the past and enter Government with those that have killed and more to

0:06:37 > 0:06:43the killings of people they knew. -- and ordered the killings of people.

0:06:43 > 0:06:47Of course, there are ongoing tensions in Northern Ireland, we

0:06:47 > 0:06:52hope these can be hired out. In the main, would Northern Ireland have

0:06:52 > 0:06:56done is so impressive. They are moving on from the robber of

0:06:56 > 0:07:04killings and many. Terrorists who would otherwise be in prison what we

0:07:04 > 0:07:15are under terms agreement. The person that slaughtered five members

0:07:15 > 0:07:21of my mind is known to the authorities but not -- of my band is

0:07:21 > 0:07:25known to the authorities but not pursued. But it is soldier is being

0:07:25 > 0:07:40pursued. My bill SS nonsense. With the banner ending, so would the

0:07:40 > 0:07:45presale of elderly members -- would the personal of members of the Armed

0:07:45 > 0:07:51Forces. You get a clear message that United left and right, old and

0:07:51 > 0:07:57young, people with and without a detailed knowledge of military

0:07:57 > 0:08:00matters. They want to draw a line under the troubles. For them,

0:08:00 > 0:08:06handing the likes of his soldier and others until the end of their lives

0:08:06 > 0:08:10is abhorrent. For those that agree that these prosecutions and

0:08:10 > 0:08:12investigations are wrong but disagree that this is the way

0:08:12 > 0:08:19forward, they have to answer some clear understanding questions. --

0:08:19 > 0:08:23and resounding questions. What would they to end this grotesque charade?

0:08:23 > 0:08:28Do we put up with it and hope nobody notices? Can we imagine any other

0:08:28 > 0:08:32country in the world doing this to our veterans? Do we really want to

0:08:32 > 0:08:36see people that should be appreciated for what they did, even

0:08:36 > 0:08:40revered, being taken from their homes, questions and prosecuted for

0:08:40 > 0:08:44actions they took on our behalf and one of the most impossible campaigns

0:08:44 > 0:08:51and modern times many decades ago? -- in modern times. Mr Speaker, it's

0:08:51 > 0:08:54time for this House to reflect the mood of the vast majority of people

0:08:54 > 0:08:55in society.

0:09:05 > 0:09:09Of the contrary no. I think the ayings have it. The ayes have it.

0:09:09 > 0:09:19Who will prepare and bring in the bill?Mr Speaker, Richard Drax,

0:09:19 > 0:09:25Emma... Dr Julian Lewis, Mrs Madeleine Moon. Jim Shannon.

0:09:31 > 0:09:35And myself.

0:09:44 > 0:09:49Mr Richard Benyon.

0:09:59 > 0:10:03Armed Forces statute of limitations bill.Second reading what day? June

0:10:03 > 0:10:1215th. 2018. Thank you. Order we come to the first

0:10:12 > 0:10:20opposition day motion, on Armed Forces pay. To move the motion, I

0:10:20 > 0:10:28call the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.Thank you very much

0:10:28 > 0:10:28indeed Mr Speaker.

0:10:30 > 0:10:34Our Armed Forces represent the very best of what this country stands

0:10:34 > 0:10:39for. Across the House, we recognise their dedication, and their

0:10:39 > 0:10:43professionalism, and we honour the sacrifices they make on our behalf.

0:10:43 > 0:10:50Especially at this time of year. Mr Speaker, when it comes to their pay,

0:10:50 > 0:10:54our Armed Forces personnel have not been treated with the fairness and

0:10:54 > 0:11:00decency their service deserves. Because in every year, since 2010,

0:11:00 > 0:11:04the Conservative Party in Government has made a decision to give our

0:11:04 > 0:11:12brave men and women a real terms pay cut. And so, regardless of rising

0:11:12 > 0:11:17rents in service accommodation, and cuts to tax credits the pay that

0:11:17 > 0:11:21service personnel receive has lagged way behind inflation, in each of the

0:11:21 > 0:11:25last seven years. This sorry state of affairs means that the starting

0:11:25 > 0:11:31salary of an army private has been cut by over £1,000 in real terms

0:11:31 > 0:11:35since Labour left office. Mr Speaker, is it any wonder that the

0:11:35 > 0:11:39Government finds itself presiding over a crisis in recruitment and

0:11:39 > 0:11:47retention? I give way.Of course pay is very important but does she

0:11:47 > 0:11:51accept in a survey conducted among 12,000 members of the Armed Forces

0:11:51 > 0:11:55this year, pay did not feature in any of the top five category, the

0:11:55 > 0:12:03Government is doing a huge amount to ensure terms of employment are right

0:12:03 > 0:12:08and good service model for the Armed Forces.Thank you. I am not sure

0:12:08 > 0:12:11where the honourable lady has been because certainly in the materials I

0:12:11 > 0:12:18have been reading in the 2017 report it very clearly states that two

0:12:18 > 0:12:22thirds of personnel do not find levels of pay satisfactory, and it

0:12:22 > 0:12:27is given as one of the main reasons why people consider leaving the

0:12:27 > 0:12:34forces. I give way to the honourable gentleman.Thank you. I don't want

0:12:34 > 0:12:39to drone on about it but I have been in the army 14 years and not once

0:12:39 > 0:12:44has someone spoken to me about their pay. If you look incrementally at

0:12:44 > 0:12:51how we are paid, compared to Nato ally, compared to the US, the

0:12:51 > 0:12:55British Armed Forces have a respectable pay deal that goes up

0:12:55 > 0:12:59each year in pay bands with the X Factor and it is simply din

0:12:59 > 0:13:03ingenuous to say there is a military throughout that is deeply

0:13:03 > 0:13:06disaffected with how much they are paid.

0:13:06 > 0:13:10Well, indeed, Mr Speaker it surprises me to hear the honourable

0:13:10 > 0:13:15gentleman saying that, not only do we have that report but the Pay

0:13:15 > 0:13:21Review Body itself has talked about frustration with levels of pay, has

0:13:21 > 0:13:24identified it as a real south source of concern within the Armed Forces

0:13:24 > 0:13:34so I think we are living on different planets.I am for raising

0:13:34 > 0:13:39this today, perhaps it depends where you come from, in Wales, I have

0:13:39 > 0:13:43plenty of people who complaining to me about pay issues within the Armed

0:13:43 > 0:13:47Forces, people who are struggling to cope with their bills. Bills. I am

0:13:47 > 0:13:51also having people who have rung think many morning concerned about

0:13:51 > 0:13:56press reports about the cutting of the £29 a day allowance for service

0:13:56 > 0:14:03in Iraq. Which they see as a further cut to their capacity to cope while

0:14:03 > 0:14:06remaining in the armed force, I thank the lady for bringing this

0:14:06 > 0:14:10forward today but there is an issue and I am glad we are hear to debate

0:14:10 > 0:14:15it.I thank my honourable friend very much indeed for her

0:14:15 > 0:14:19intervention, I think she lives very much in the real world and is very

0:14:19 > 0:14:24much aware of the cuts that have been affecting Armed Forces and the

0:14:24 > 0:14:30cut to pay. One more then I will make some progress.I am grateful. I

0:14:30 > 0:14:34have to say I represent het win barracks and am very proud of the

0:14:34 > 0:14:39great service of the Royal Engineers in those barracks and I am a former

0:14:39 > 0:14:43minister in the Ministry of Defence. I have to say pay Luz not on the

0:14:43 > 0:14:49list, and it is not on the list of those constituents who served so

0:14:49 > 0:14:53well in our armed force, now, accommodation is another matter but

0:14:53 > 0:14:57it is not pay and with great respect to the honourable lady I think those

0:14:57 > 0:15:03listening to this may not be doing a great service there are other issues

0:15:03 > 0:15:07we should be debating but not this one.Well Mr Speaker I would agree

0:15:07 > 0:15:11it is no the only factor which makes it difficult to recruit and retain

0:15:11 > 0:15:17staff but it is a significant one, when both the report and the Pay

0:15:17 > 0:15:21Review Body listed it as such. I would like to make some progress if

0:15:21 > 0:15:27may.I find this quite astonishing from the party opposite. I remember

0:15:27 > 0:15:31as a minister being harangued by the party opposite in opposition arguing

0:15:31 > 0:15:39that we did a bad deal for the Armed Forces even though we accept the

0:15:39 > 0:15:44body's representation. It was in 2013 that the Pay Review Body

0:15:44 > 0:15:48chairman was sacked because the Prime Minister at the time, David

0:15:48 > 0:15:52Cameron didn't want to recommend increases in the X Factor.

0:15:52 > 0:15:55Well, my honourable friend makes reference to a shocking situation

0:15:55 > 0:15:58and certainly I think it is very disappointing that the party

0:15:58 > 0:16:02opposite is starting this debate on a negative note.

0:16:02 > 0:16:05Now, more and more personnel are in fact choosing to leave the arms

0:16:05 > 0:16:11forces and every one of the services is falling in size. A recent

0:16:11 > 0:16:14Government commissioned report by the Right Honourable member found

0:16:14 > 0:16:19that recruitment to the services was running to stand still and leading

0:16:19 > 0:16:23to the hollowing out of our armed force, rather than get to grips with

0:16:23 > 0:16:28this problem the Conservatives' record is is a litany of missed

0:16:28 > 0:16:32targets and broken promise, their town 15 manifesto pledged to keep

0:16:32 > 0:16:37the size of the army above 82,000. Hardly an ambitious target

0:16:37 > 0:16:42considering it was well over 100,000 when Labour left Government. Miss

0:16:42 > 0:16:47the target they did. And the strength of the army is now just

0:16:47 > 0:16:5477600. That figure of 82,000 mysteriously disappeared by the time

0:16:54 > 0:16:57of their 2017 manifesto, that fateful document promised to

0:16:57 > 0:17:01maintain the overall size of the Armed Forces, but question add that

0:17:01 > 0:17:05pledge to the rubbish pile along with the rest of forry manifesto,

0:17:05 > 0:17:09since June we have seen a reduction in the size of the army, a reduction

0:17:09 > 0:17:13inst size of the Royal Navy and marines and in the size of the Royal

0:17:13 > 0:17:17Air Force, now we are in the shameful position where the Defence

0:17:17 > 0:17:21Secretary cannot rule out cuts to the Royal Marines or promise that

0:17:21 > 0:17:24army will not shrink further. Mr Speaker, the Government may well be

0:17:24 > 0:17:28complacent about the diminishing size of our Armed Forces but we are

0:17:28 > 0:17:33not. At a time of immense global uncertainty, we... I will give way.

0:17:33 > 0:17:38I am grateful to the honourable lady for giving way. I was for 15 years

0:17:38 > 0:17:43chair of the defence unit and responsible for the membership in

0:17:43 > 0:17:46the Commonwealth graves in north-west Europe where 80% of the

0:17:46 > 0:17:51war dead are buried. I saw first hand the heroism on the one hand and

0:17:51 > 0:17:56their history on the other. Does the honourable lady agree with me a at

0:17:56 > 0:18:01time when our country is facing an ever more serious threat to our

0:18:01 > 0:18:04national security, that it is absolutely wrong to cut tens of

0:18:04 > 0:18:07thousands from the Armed Forces, and to say those who remain will suffer

0:18:07 > 0:18:13a pay cut? Indeed. My honourable friend makes

0:18:13 > 0:18:20the point in a very eloquent way. We are living in a world of immense

0:18:20 > 0:18:26insecurity, OK, one more time and I must make progress.Thank you and

0:18:26 > 0:18:30think the Right Honourable lady for letting me intervene, does that mean

0:18:30 > 0:18:36the Right Honourable lady is prepared to commit to have more than

0:18:36 > 0:18:4282,000 personnel in our army, if Labour ever got into power? I would

0:18:42 > 0:18:49totally support that.Well, I think the honourable gentleman needs to

0:18:49 > 0:18:54take recognisance of the fact everyier we were in office we spent

0:18:54 > 0:19:00considerably more than the 2% GDP commitment to defence. In our last

0:19:00 > 0:19:06year in office we spent 2.5% of gpt. A figure this Government has never

0:19:06 > 0:19:13matched. -- GDP.I am grateful. I am a former soldier and not a

0:19:13 > 0:19:18mathematician, I would suggest she studies the figures the MoD has

0:19:18 > 0:19:22released which describes in 2015, the annual budget of the MoD was

0:19:22 > 0:19:3134.4 billion and it will be in 202039.7 billion. Number is going up

0:19:31 > 0:19:37so overall the budget is decreased. To characterise it as a landscape of

0:19:37 > 0:19:42cuts is erroneous. Well, indeed it needs to go up,

0:19:42 > 0:19:46because clearly, it needs to go up and we have said clearly we would

0:19:46 > 0:19:49match that increase, because obviously costs are escalating but I

0:19:49 > 0:19:53have to tell the honourable gentleman costs are escalating

0:19:53 > 0:19:56higher than that figure will accommodate. I would like to make

0:19:56 > 0:20:01some progress if I may. So at this time of immense global uncertainty

0:20:01 > 0:20:04we cannot have a situation where numbers continue to slide month

0:20:04 > 0:20:10after month and all we get from this Government are warm words and

0:20:10 > 0:20:14crippling complacency. Capita is completely unfit for the job a hand,

0:20:14 > 0:20:19we have had warning after warning that tap has not been fulfilling its

0:20:19 > 0:20:24basic obligation, yet as the number of personnel has continued to fall,

0:20:24 > 0:20:28the amount paid to Capita has grown. We propose taking real action to

0:20:28 > 0:20:34begin to address this state of affair, lift the public sector pay

0:20:34 > 0:20:38cap and give forces a fair pay rise, I recognise this would not be a

0:20:38 > 0:20:42silver bullet in the crisis in recruitment and retention but we

0:20:42 > 0:20:45know from personnel themselves that pay is one of the main reasons why

0:20:45 > 0:20:49they choose to leave our Armed Forces. Satisfaction with basic

0:20:49 > 0:20:56rates of pay and pension benefits are the lowest levels ever recorded.

0:20:56 > 0:21:01The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has found and overriding sense of untern

0:21:01 > 0:21:04I -- uncertainty and increasing superb then that the offer will get

0:21:04 > 0:21:10worse. Barely a third of service personnel are satisfied with their

0:21:10 > 0:21:14basic pay and 42% of personnel have said that pay was a push factor for

0:21:14 > 0:21:16them in choosing to leave the forces.

0:21:16 > 0:21:21But is it any wonder, when our service pen add women are had to

0:21:21 > 0:21:27shoulder real terms pay cuts, that have left them badly worse off?

0:21:27 > 0:21:32Between 2010 and 2016, the starting salary of a Corporal fell by nearly

0:21:32 > 0:21:37£2,000 in real term, whereas for a Flight Lieutenant that was £2800. At

0:21:37 > 0:21:42the same time as being hit by these real terms pay cuts, our servicemen

0:21:42 > 0:21:48and women have faced rising costs in forces housing, because changes to

0:21:48 > 0:21:52charges for service family accommodation mean rent increasing

0:21:52 > 0:21:55for nearly three-quarters of occupants. And the Government's

0:21:55 > 0:21:59feature accommodation model risks adding to that pressure, fracturing

0:21:59 > 0:22:02forces communities by forcing service families into private rented

0:22:02 > 0:22:06sectors which all the additional cost that brings to them and the

0:22:06 > 0:22:11taxpayer. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has warned of a perfect

0:22:11 > 0:22:14storm for personnel, who face increases in rent and National

0:22:14 > 0:22:17Insurance contributions at the same time as their pay is cut, in real

0:22:17 > 0:22:21terms. And Mr Speaker, let us be in no

0:22:21 > 0:22:26doubt that the responsibility for these below inflation rises, lies

0:22:26 > 0:22:32firmly with the Government. Since they lost the majority, at the

0:22:32 > 0:22:36general election, Government ministers have made great play of

0:22:36 > 0:22:39the supposed independence of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

0:22:39 > 0:22:44They would have us believe that the Pay Review Body sets the rates and

0:22:44 > 0:22:49they merely implement them. As if it were so coincidence that the body

0:22:49 > 0:22:53has not remitted an above inflation rise since 2010.

0:22:53 > 0:22:58But this is little more than a cynical attempt by ministers to

0:22:58 > 0:23:01shirk their responsibility, because of course, they instruct the Pay

0:23:01 > 0:23:05Review Body to work within the context of the cap. And so despite

0:23:05 > 0:23:09all the warm words from the Secretary of State or the minister,

0:23:09 > 0:23:14the Treasury has said that it will not fund increases above and beyond

0:23:14 > 0:23:23the 1% cap. That is a fact.

0:23:23 > 0:23:28Would you agree that it's worse than that because the idea is that the

0:23:28 > 0:23:31play review body should be independent and be able to make a

0:23:31 > 0:23:35recommendation for ministers and Government a look at. But in true

0:23:35 > 0:23:44that 13, Alistair Smith, the chair of the peer-reviewed was sacked.

0:23:44 > 0:23:49Because he made a recommendation that the ministers didn't like. This

0:23:49 > 0:23:55is outrageous.Yes, it's outrageous. It betrays and appalling attitude by

0:23:55 > 0:24:02this Government.Gratefully for the honourable lady giving way. I have

0:24:02 > 0:24:07every sympathy for the idea of a pay rise. However, does she appreciate

0:24:07 > 0:24:15that within the arms and ranks of the Armed Forces there is such a

0:24:15 > 0:24:19thing as progression? Pay will progress within particular ranks.

0:24:19 > 0:24:22Has she taken into account the noncontributory pension that applies

0:24:22 > 0:24:26to the Armed Forces, despite the fact that you do that in 15 changes

0:24:26 > 0:24:33represented a deterioration in terms of conditions. -- that the 2015

0:24:33 > 0:24:35changes represented. It would be the envy of the public and private

0:24:35 > 0:24:44sectors.Indeed, Mr Speaker. In any career, one would hope to have a

0:24:44 > 0:24:47career progression. The member himself refers to the fact that the

0:24:47 > 0:24:52pension offer is not as generous as it once was. The problem is that

0:24:52 > 0:24:55people do things that rising storm of rising costs and pay that is not

0:24:55 > 0:25:05keeping up with these costs.Thank you very much forgiving way. Would

0:25:05 > 0:25:08the honourable member agree with me that the people on the opposite

0:25:08 > 0:25:14benches seemed to be of views between the idea of a pay rise and a

0:25:14 > 0:25:18pay". One of which is entitled to and the other is a gift of the

0:25:18 > 0:25:26Government. -- a pay increment.Yet, I agree. The pay review body can

0:25:26 > 0:25:31recommend a higher reward for a specific group of personnel. Then

0:25:31 > 0:25:37they would have to introduce decreases to pavements. --

0:25:37 > 0:25:44decreases. They are unable to recommend a pay rise to do with the

0:25:44 > 0:25:48problem given the Treasury's insistence that it will not provide

0:25:48 > 0:25:51the funds. Rather than pass the buck, is not over the Government to

0:25:51 > 0:25:55do the right thing and let the public sector pay cap across the

0:25:55 > 0:26:01board so that Armed Forces and all public sector workers, firefighters,

0:26:01 > 0:26:07nurses, ambulance workers, all the paid that they deserve? This is a

0:26:07 > 0:26:12popular policy that commands support across the country. More than two

0:26:12 > 0:26:19thirds of from? Wants to give the public sector a pay rise. Including

0:26:19 > 0:26:24conservative supporters. -- of a voters wants to give the public

0:26:24 > 0:26:31sector. Whilst we have unions, Armed Forces do not. It is the more

0:26:31 > 0:26:36important that we in this House speak up on behalf. There is no

0:26:36 > 0:26:39point being that you back Armed Forces personnel if you refuse to

0:26:39 > 0:26:42stand off with them when it comes. There is no point pretending that

0:26:42 > 0:26:47you want to see their pay improve if you will not fall back for it.

0:26:47 > 0:26:51Members should listen to what I service personnel are telling us.

0:26:51 > 0:27:01The pay review body is finding this. Public sector workers are finding

0:27:01 > 0:27:11that there is constrained at a time when things are recovering. -- armed

0:27:11 > 0:27:14service workers are finding. These are men and women who are powerless

0:27:14 > 0:27:21to keep us safe. Surely the least that they deserve as correct

0:27:21 > 0:27:28payment. -- these are men and women who work tirelessly to keep us safe.

0:27:28 > 0:27:33Whether it is cutting corners with short-sighted defence cuts that have

0:27:33 > 0:27:37weakened defence capabilities are imposing public sector pay cap on

0:27:37 > 0:27:40brave personnel, this is a Government that will not stop up the

0:27:40 > 0:27:50Cass -- that will not pay when it is important. I would suggest that they

0:27:50 > 0:27:53are prepared to talk the talk but they are not prepared to walk the

0:27:53 > 0:27:59walk. Are they prepared to walk the walk?The question is as on the

0:27:59 > 0:28:04order paper. I called Minister Mark Lancaster.Mr Speaker, I am grateful

0:28:04 > 0:28:08to the opposition forgiving me the opportunity to discuss Armed Forces

0:28:08 > 0:28:15pay. This motion reflects a shared sense on all sides of the House of

0:28:15 > 0:28:18the value our Armed Forces bring to the nation. It reflects an

0:28:18 > 0:28:22appreciation for the unparalleled bravery and an enormous affect all

0:28:22 > 0:28:30round the call, whether fighting Daesh in the Middle East or helping

0:28:30 > 0:28:40in Estonia, bringing essential Hema material aid to those devastated by

0:28:40 > 0:28:43hurricanes in the Caribbean. Lastly, those that put their lives on the

0:28:43 > 0:28:53line should receive the reward due. At the same time, this just shows a

0:28:53 > 0:28:56partial picture, this bill. I would like to provide some of the missing

0:28:56 > 0:29:02context. I give way.Can I thank the Minister forgiving way. Defence

0:29:02 > 0:29:14spend as -- was 2.5% of GDP in 2050. Can the Minister tell me what it is

0:29:14 > 0:29:20now?Of the top of my head, is just over 2%. 2.16, I was gunned as

0:29:20 > 0:29:2982.14%. Firstly, the broader fiscal context. We shouldn't forget why pay

0:29:29 > 0:29:35restraint was introduced in 2010. It was the consequence of a large and

0:29:35 > 0:29:39Heritage economic deficit. The whole with the public sector, not just

0:29:39 > 0:29:48Armed Forces, was subject to the same conditions. -- the consequence

0:29:48 > 0:29:54of a large and inherited economic. MoD had an important part to play in

0:29:54 > 0:29:57supporting Government efforts to restore the UK's economic

0:29:57 > 0:30:00credibility. After all, a stronger economy means struggle defence.

0:30:00 > 0:30:09Taking these of decisions, we've seen the economy grow, taxes are no

0:30:09 > 0:30:13and employment high. This benefits us all. The second point... I will

0:30:13 > 0:30:22give way.Thank you. I'm grateful for being allowed to intervene. Most

0:30:22 > 0:30:27of us in this chamber have sat through the Bill and nobody spoke

0:30:27 > 0:30:35against it. Tribute was paid to the curvature of the service and

0:30:35 > 0:30:40sacrifice of our Armed Forces, not only in Northern Ireland but Iraq.

0:30:40 > 0:30:45-- was paid to the courage and the service and sacrifice. The minister

0:30:45 > 0:30:50put this at the beginning of his response is often. There is a moral

0:30:50 > 0:30:56obligation. I don't want to hear about fiscal reasons. I want this

0:30:56 > 0:30:58Government recognised the moral obligation and duty it has stood the

0:30:58 > 0:31:09Armed Forces to lift this break-up. -- duty it has two the Armed Forces.

0:31:09 > 0:31:14I would also, of course, many of us that the Prime Minister's Questions

0:31:14 > 0:31:19and in response to my honourable friend, I would simply referred to

0:31:19 > 0:31:22honourable lady to the purple argument and response that the Prime

0:31:22 > 0:31:28Minister gave to this question on the very subject that she graces.

0:31:28 > 0:31:32The second point this motion ignores is the impact of paper aggression.

0:31:32 > 0:31:38Officers and other ranks are tied to incremental pay scales. They

0:31:38 > 0:31:41routinely and regularly move up the balance. The honourable lady talked

0:31:41 > 0:31:52about privates. The average private soldier starts on a Sara Lee -- a

0:31:52 > 0:31:58salary of £80,770. After one year, through in griddle play alone,

0:31:58 > 0:32:07that's notwithstanding the 1% pay increase, that has risen to over

0:32:07 > 0:32:14£20,000. -- a salary of £18,000. That is a rise of 2.76% in one year.

0:32:14 > 0:32:24After three years, this salary has risen to Marcos. That is an increase

0:32:24 > 0:32:32of 15.8%. -- has risen to Article two. I give way to the honourable

0:32:32 > 0:32:37gentleman.I've got to say, I think the honourable gentleman is being

0:32:37 > 0:32:44disingenuous.The right honourable gentleman mustn't use that word. He

0:32:44 > 0:32:51is a person of Felicity 's phrase and an extensive vocabulary and he

0:32:51 > 0:33:03must find another way to express his irascibility.Well, he's wrong.

0:33:03 > 0:33:09LAUGHTER The point being is that you get an

0:33:09 > 0:33:13increase in any job as your ability to serve increases. The facts are

0:33:13 > 0:33:20that the yearly increases affect the private's future because it affects

0:33:20 > 0:33:24the level of the bands and percentages. You can't argue that

0:33:24 > 0:33:26because somebody gets pay progression that they shouldn't get

0:33:26 > 0:33:33an increase in basic pay, it would affect their basic pay, of course it

0:33:33 > 0:33:37is.I'm worried about my honourable friend's abroad. We'd been great

0:33:37 > 0:33:42friends in this House for many years. -- friend's approach. I'm

0:33:42 > 0:33:49sure I'll get my revenge at some point! As somebody that serves after

0:33:49 > 0:33:5429 years, when it comes to the Armed Forces, to accuse me of all people

0:33:54 > 0:33:59as being disingenuous is slightly unfair. I like to think I've done my

0:33:59 > 0:34:08bit. However, if you are a private soldier, on day one, receiving

0:34:08 > 0:34:1318,000 £18,673 in your pocket before tax, then £21,614, I don't think

0:34:13 > 0:34:19people will care that much whether it is paid progression or an annual

0:34:19 > 0:34:24increase in their pay. It's money and pockets. More money. -- money in

0:34:24 > 0:34:32their pockets. The honourable gentleman for North Durham says, and

0:34:32 > 0:34:41here we go, maybe this is testament to mathematics, that £21,614 is less

0:34:41 > 0:34:49money than £18,673.You should not keep hollering because apart from

0:34:49 > 0:34:54anything else that is marginally discourteous jumpers honourable

0:34:54 > 0:34:57friend, who had requested an intervention and had it granted

0:34:57 > 0:35:01before it was ripped away from him by the unseemly behaviour of the

0:35:01 > 0:35:08right honourable gentleman.Thank you Minister forgiving -- for giving

0:35:08 > 0:35:12way. I was disheartening to see that the Government is considering

0:35:12 > 0:35:17scrapping the £29 deployment talents to soldiers on the front line on

0:35:17 > 0:35:23Iraq. I'd like to hear you categorically deny this.I am an

0:35:23 > 0:35:28agreeable chap. More speculation from the Times. No decision has been

0:35:28 > 0:35:34made to scrap the operational allowance. Every year since the

0:35:34 > 0:35:38operational allowance was introduced 12 years ago there is a review of

0:35:38 > 0:35:43where it should apply and why not, soldiers have not been thought that

0:35:43 > 0:35:48they will not receive it in and I am deeply proud that it was as

0:35:48 > 0:35:54Government that the operational allowance from £14 to £29. Finally,

0:35:54 > 0:35:59to get the last word, with my honourable friend from Durham, all

0:35:59 > 0:36:04of those figures do not take into account this substantial rise in the

0:36:04 > 0:36:07personal tax allowance that this Government has introduced was in

0:36:07 > 0:36:15power. I want give way just to seek my revenge. Despite fiscal

0:36:15 > 0:36:18constraint, Armed Forces salary is what this period have not stagnated.

0:36:18 > 0:36:25Indeed, they have risen on average by 1.5%. I will make some points but

0:36:25 > 0:36:30I will give way. MoD has the option of introducing targeted payments,

0:36:30 > 0:36:36particular issues in recruiting and retention. These payments can range

0:36:36 > 0:36:43from unlimited financial incentives that recognise particular problems

0:36:43 > 0:36:49we face, this brings me to the third aspect of the pay story that has

0:36:49 > 0:36:56been conveniently glossed over. Joining the Armed Forces comes with

0:36:56 > 0:37:03a range of benefits often ignored. Subsidised accommodation and food,

0:37:03 > 0:37:07access to free medical and dental care, and lovers package, one of

0:37:07 > 0:37:16which we just talked on, -- and allowance package. I give way to the

0:37:16 > 0:37:21honourable gentleman.I thank the Minister forgiving way. Can the

0:37:21 > 0:37:24minister recognise the frustration felt by the Armed Forces when the

0:37:24 > 0:37:31sea rising costs in accommodation but no real pay rise.Let's be

0:37:31 > 0:37:38clear, this subsidised accommodation costs that our service personnel are

0:37:38 > 0:37:43charged or approximately two thirds of what they would pay in the

0:37:43 > 0:37:47private sector. Two thirds. There had been a readjustment across a

0:37:47 > 0:37:52range because some of the bands were completely out of date, for instance

0:37:52 > 0:37:55accommodation was graded as to her for a way they were from a public

0:37:55 > 0:38:02telephone box. What relevance that has an 2017 can better access to

0:38:02 > 0:38:08broadband. -- as to how far away they were. Let's not forget, members

0:38:08 > 0:38:10of the Armed Forces are paying considerably less than they would if

0:38:10 > 0:38:14they were in the private sector. I will give way.

0:38:22 > 0:38:25The day-to-day hassle and unfairness they face as a result of their

0:38:25 > 0:38:29service, and to that end could he confirm this Government's commitment

0:38:29 > 0:38:32to the Armed Forces covenant and maybe develop further what is the

0:38:32 > 0:38:37Government doing to ensure that nobody is penalised by their service

0:38:37 > 0:38:42in our Armed Forces?Well, I am delighted that perhaps we have a

0:38:42 > 0:38:45moment of consensus across the House, when we talk about the

0:38:45 > 0:38:50military covenant. It is indeed one of the success stories of recent

0:38:50 > 0:38:57years, indeed my my last role, my honourable friend for Bournemouth we

0:38:57 > 0:39:02have managed to convince the nation of the value of service and to see

0:39:02 > 0:39:07so many companies signing up is a testament to success and every local

0:39:07 > 0:39:10authority as well in England, Scotland and Wales. I will give way

0:39:10 > 0:39:15one more time and I must make progress. The honourable member for

0:39:15 > 0:39:20gedly.Can I just ask, take the minister back to his comment about

0:39:20 > 0:39:26military salaries rising in real terms, can he explain to the House

0:39:26 > 0:39:31why the Ministry of Defence publication of 1 September 2017, it

0:39:31 > 0:39:35says figure 11 highlights that growth in military salaries fell

0:39:35 > 0:39:41below inflation from the financial years 2010 and 11 to 2014-15. Can

0:39:41 > 0:39:46ministers source where his evidence is coming from as opposed to the

0:39:46 > 0:39:51evidence the rest of us are having to rely from the MoD website.We are

0:39:51 > 0:39:56going back to the debate about the annual increase in salary and the

0:39:56 > 0:40:00incremental pay. I have used the example of the private soldier where

0:40:00 > 0:40:06you are seeing a 20% increase in the salary over three year, I am, I have

0:40:06 > 0:40:10been generous, I am going to make some progress, and I will give way

0:40:10 > 0:40:15again before I finish my speech. In other words when it comes to arm

0:40:15 > 0:40:21forces pay context is all and the decision to award a 1% pay increase

0:40:21 > 0:40:26in town 17 didn't happen in isolationlet it followed a

0:40:26 > 0:40:31recommendation by the pay body. They were clear their decision broadly

0:40:31 > 0:40:35maintained pay come par built with the civilian sectors critically the

0:40:35 > 0:40:42AF PR B and the SSRB are independent organisations who make annual

0:40:42 > 0:40:44recommendation, their reports are detailed, comprehensive and take

0:40:44 > 0:40:53time to compile. For 2016-17 they gathered written and oral evidence

0:40:53 > 0:40:58from the Defence Secretary down, including service personnel and

0:40:58 > 0:41:02spouse, they held 186 discussion groups before arriving at a decision

0:41:02 > 0:41:07such a thorough evidence based approach is why it would be wholly

0:41:07 > 0:41:11wrong to start introducing ad hoc in year reviews as some would have

0:41:11 > 0:41:15suggested. Focussing solely on the pay award, excludes the other

0:41:15 > 0:41:20reforms we made to pay, reforms supported by the AF PR B themselves,

0:41:20 > 0:41:24for exam 2016 we introduced a new pay scheme

0:41:24 > 0:41:28to more effectively reward personnel for skills and simplify and

0:41:28 > 0:41:32individual's pay journey, consequently, people are better able

0:41:32 > 0:41:35to predict their future career earnings and make better informed

0:41:35 > 0:41:39decision, at the same time we recognise that in a competitive worm

0:41:39 > 0:41:45we need to do more to plug skill gaps in parts of the public sector.

0:41:45 > 0:41:51If we are to continue delivering world class sub pick -- public

0:41:51 > 0:41:54service, that is why it will be available in public sector pay

0:41:54 > 0:41:58remains key, it means the independent Pay Review Bodies can

0:41:58 > 0:42:02make their own judgments on future pay awards to mitigate potential

0:42:02 > 0:42:10future impact. So, for 2018/19, the AF PR B will no longer have a

0:42:10 > 0:42:14retirement to keep their recommendations within a total 1%

0:42:14 > 0:42:19maximum award, but that, let us not jump the gun. The 2018/19 Armed

0:42:19 > 0:42:24Forces pay review is still to come. It will by a degreed as part of the

0:42:24 > 0:42:28budget process and we expect the recommendation early next year.I

0:42:28 > 0:42:33think the minister for giving way, he is quoting the AF PR B. It is

0:42:33 > 0:42:37clear they say if inflation continues its upward trajectory we

0:42:37 > 0:42:43could see recruitment become more challenging and morale impacted. We

0:42:43 > 0:42:48need to consider carefully whether 1% was compatible with ofrational

0:42:48 > 0:42:54effectiveness. He knows my concerns about recruitment. I know pay is not

0:42:54 > 0:42:59the only issue affecting it. Will we see the figures going up and will he

0:42:59 > 0:43:03listen to what the AF PR B is saying?What I would say is over the

0:43:03 > 0:43:07last year we have seen 8,000 applications to army, that is an

0:43:07 > 0:43:11increase of 20% on the previous year. But I will be interesting in

0:43:11 > 0:43:16his view, I was deeply surprised to discover reading in a national

0:43:16 > 0:43:20newspaper that Labour's plan or part of their plan is to use the money

0:43:20 > 0:43:24for marketing, some £10 million a year, as one of the sources is of

0:43:24 > 0:43:29income to give soldiers an increase in pay. Now, with an approximately

0:43:29 > 0:43:36150,000 Armed Forces personnel, that would be an increase of about 5.50 a

0:43:36 > 0:43:41month per member of the Armed Forces but scrapping the one thing that

0:43:41 > 0:43:48delivers recruit, so no marketing budget, for an organisation, does

0:43:48 > 0:43:51the honourable gentleman agree with that, does he agree the front bench

0:43:51 > 0:43:57plans to scrap the marketing budget? Marketing is a crucial part of the

0:43:57 > 0:44:03recruitment process but the minister needs to be clear, he knows the, he

0:44:03 > 0:44:08has given me an thans is clear every single course, including those at

0:44:08 > 0:44:13Catterick, is underrecruited. Every single course at Sandhurst

0:44:13 > 0:44:16underrecruited. It is his Government that is leading to this crisis, pay

0:44:16 > 0:44:20is one part of that, and it is a crucial part of it. He is the

0:44:20 > 0:44:27minister, he is in charge. So we have a crucial marketing

0:44:27 > 0:44:30budget that will be scrapped. Scrapped. I am going to Catterick in

0:44:30 > 0:44:34two weeks' time to be the passing officer for the latest group of

0:44:34 > 0:44:39Gurkhas to pass off, that is fully recruited. Not all courses are. I am

0:44:39 > 0:44:43delighted to say the last course for Sandhurst was eek Liz fully

0:44:43 > 0:44:49recruited. I will give way and go back to making some progress. Madame

0:44:49 > 0:44:53Deputy Speaker as the minister always knows well, newspapers always

0:44:53 > 0:44:56don't report things the right way round but the important point about

0:44:56 > 0:45:00this is the point we are making, the point we are making about the

0:45:00 > 0:45:04marketing costs, the point we are making about the markets costs is

0:45:04 > 0:45:08they have rocketed and the question is, what value for money are they

0:45:08 > 0:45:13providing, what value for money is the contract with Capita providing?

0:45:13 > 0:45:19What evaluation has the Government done over whether that is value for

0:45:19 > 0:45:22money, spent on Capita, spent on marketing for the returns they are

0:45:22 > 0:45:29getting, that is that we want to see.So I am not sure if we have

0:45:29 > 0:45:32seen a U-turn, we haven't. So you are still scrapping the marketing

0:45:32 > 0:45:38budget. Can we have clarity, are you proposing to scrap it or not?The

0:45:38 > 0:45:44point that I was making was the massive increase in the marketing

0:45:44 > 0:45:47budget for zero returns, in terms of additional recruitment. That is the

0:45:47 > 0:45:51point we are making. It is value for money? They are running the

0:45:51 > 0:45:56contract, they are employing capital, they need to answer, as to

0:45:56 > 0:45:59exactly what sort of value they think they are getting out of

0:45:59 > 0:46:05Capita. I think I am going to do the House a

0:46:05 > 0:46:12favour and move on. As alluded to earlier for those joining the Armed

0:46:12 > 0:46:16Forces pay isn't the be-all-and-end-all. For whose ho

0:46:16 > 0:46:21sign up to challenge themselves and learn new skills. The reason cited

0:46:21 > 0:46:25for leaving is the impact of the service on family and personal life.

0:46:25 > 0:46:30That is why we very dene do all we can to improve life for our

0:46:30 > 0:46:35personnel, 70% of people told a recent MoD survey they wanted more

0:46:35 > 0:46:38flexible working opportunities, so we are introducing a flexible

0:46:38 > 0:46:44working bill. It will enable regular service personnel to temporarily

0:46:44 > 0:46:49change the nature of their service enabling part-time working to

0:46:49 > 0:46:51support an individual personal circumstances, where business needs

0:46:51 > 0:46:57allow. I will but only one more time. At present a woman considering

0:46:57 > 0:47:02starting a family or an individual with caring commitment faces a

0:47:02 > 0:47:06difficult choice to leave when circumstances change. We don't want

0:47:06 > 0:47:09to lose good people for a more diverse workforce and we shouldn't

0:47:09 > 0:47:16have to. By providing a more modern flexible framework for our people we

0:47:16 > 0:47:22will help improve morale, retain and recruit the best. More than that, we

0:47:22 > 0:47:26will also help attract recruits from a wider cross section, those who

0:47:26 > 0:47:31might not have considered a military careerment pay or flexible working

0:47:31 > 0:47:38in and of themselves don't offer a silver bullet. Highlighted by my

0:47:38 > 0:47:44right honourable friend in his excellent report filling the ranks.

0:47:44 > 0:47:47Taken together with our border programme we believe it will have a

0:47:47 > 0:47:53significant impact. I will give way to honourable lady who asked first.

0:47:53 > 0:47:57In terms of the overall package I am sure many colleagues have touched

0:47:57 > 0:48:02on, can we go back to service family accommodation, the reality

0:48:02 > 0:48:08spectacular will I I will be talking about pay later on but SFA and the

0:48:08 > 0:48:14contract are the number one issue we have raised everyday and as chair of

0:48:14 > 0:48:17the Armed Forces covenant it is becoming a headache for everybody

0:48:17 > 0:48:23and it needs resolved as a matter of urgency. IsThe honourable lady

0:48:23 > 0:48:28makes a valid point, in my previous role I spent a lot of time and I

0:48:28 > 0:48:33took the chief executive on a walk round Woolwich to to see standard of

0:48:33 > 0:48:39some the accommodation. I there is acknowledgement that the situation

0:48:39 > 0:48:42has improved but there is more work dosm we recognise that, we are

0:48:42 > 0:48:44determined as press conference governments have been determined to

0:48:44 > 0:48:49try to address this issue, of course the better defence the state

0:48:49 > 0:48:54strategy is part of the key to this as we begin to consolidate barracks

0:48:54 > 0:49:00we will have less mobility of armed force, be able to dispose of some

0:49:00 > 0:49:09sites and that will be re-invested. I will give way one more time.This

0:49:09 > 0:49:13come downs to credibility. The whole debate comes down to credibility.

0:49:13 > 0:49:17Yes we would want more money, people will want to be paid, but this is

0:49:17 > 0:49:22not the number one issue, generally, we have a good offer for other our

0:49:22 > 0:49:25servicemen and women, we have deep challenges round vet can care,

0:49:25 > 0:49:29mental health but this has to be a credible debate and to pretend our

0:49:29 > 0:49:34men and women have some sort of raw deal when it comes to pay and

0:49:34 > 0:49:39experience, is I am afraid not the case.

0:49:39 > 0:49:42He makes a very powerful point indeed. It is worth being clear

0:49:42 > 0:49:46about what this programme entails. It will see us offering greater help

0:49:46 > 0:49:51to personnel so they can live in private accommodation and meet their

0:49:51 > 0:49:57aspiration for home owner ship. It will have a new offer for new

0:49:57 > 0:50:01joiner, better meeting the expectation of future recruits and

0:50:01 > 0:50:04targeting the people we need most. I will make it easier for people to

0:50:04 > 0:50:08move between the public and private sectors during the course of their

0:50:08 > 0:50:11career, retaining and making the post of mare skills in areas where

0:50:11 > 0:50:16they are most needed. Of course as the member outlined there is still

0:50:16 > 0:50:20more to do, whether recruiting more people from ethnic minority

0:50:20 > 0:50:24community, improving accommodation or making sure all of our people are

0:50:24 > 0:50:28fit mentally as well as physically. We are now hard at work developing

0:50:28 > 0:50:33an action plan to take forward his recommendations including a planned

0:50:33 > 0:50:40medical symposium. Our people will always be our grautest asset as the

0:50:40 > 0:50:46minister I have nothing but respect and admiration for the achievement

0:50:46 > 0:50:49of our armed service personnel. I believe we are taking a balanced

0:50:49 > 0:50:54approach. On the one hand we are ensuring pay discipline which is

0:50:54 > 0:50:59critical to the future afford bill and the sustainability of

0:50:59 > 0:51:07employment. We are doing much to make sure... It retains a

0:51:07 > 0:51:12flexibility so vital in attracting the best and the brightest. Armed

0:51:12 > 0:51:17Forces pay structures and levels are regularly reviewed an I look forward

0:51:17 > 0:51:22to hearing the latest recommend day, I am personally committed to doing

0:51:22 > 0:51:25everything I can to make sure our talented hard-working men and women

0:51:25 > 0:51:29continue to receive the recognition that is their due.

0:51:37 > 0:51:41Can I thank the Shadow Secretary of State for bringing the motion. In

0:51:41 > 0:51:46the short time I have been a defence spokesperson for my party, it has

0:51:46 > 0:51:49become clear that the Secretary of State who unfortunately is leaving

0:51:49 > 0:51:55us at this moment, isn't so much running a department, but is instead

0:51:55 > 0:51:59presiding over a shamble, the fourth biggest spend I believe in

0:51:59 > 0:52:04Whitehall. And you have to hand it to ministers, Madame Deputy Speaker

0:52:04 > 0:52:10because it takes some brass neck to come to this House, time and time

0:52:10 > 0:52:15again, and seek to portray this team as somehow in command of its ship,

0:52:15 > 0:52:21when the reality is that when you lift that thin veil, the chaos and

0:52:21 > 0:52:25haemorrhaging of money is there for all to see. It is like nothing I

0:52:25 > 0:52:29have seen in the two-and-a-half years I have been a member of this

0:52:29 > 0:52:35House. Now on the issue of pay, and the broader issue of terms and

0:52:35 > 0:52:38conditions, I wish to wring the House's attention to a piece of work

0:52:38 > 0:52:44that will be led by my right honourable friend from Glasgow North

0:52:44 > 0:52:48West, a commission set up by my party to review what we think the

0:52:48 > 0:52:53offer should be made, and that will look in detail at the issue of pay,

0:52:53 > 0:52:57pension, at the issue of a trade union or representative body, as has

0:52:57 > 0:53:01been mentioned today and in a pre-debate earlier this week, and of

0:53:01 > 0:53:05course, on issues such as housing, and how we support veterans and

0:53:05 > 0:53:09their families as well. On the pay cap it should be noted

0:53:09 > 0:53:12that the Scottish Government was the first government anywhere in the UK

0:53:12 > 0:53:18to commit to lifting the 1% pay cap, across the public sector and we

0:53:18 > 0:53:22believe it's the very least that workers in uniform, be they nurse,

0:53:22 > 0:53:28police officers or those who protect us in the armed services deserve.

0:53:28 > 0:53:33The pay freeze which as has been mentioned is a cut to their wages,

0:53:33 > 0:53:39is one of the many, many components, making up the crisis in recruitment,

0:53:39 > 0:53:44and in retention, and inflation has pushed the cost of living up for

0:53:44 > 0:53:50everyone. Meaning that their take home salary is being stretched like

0:53:50 > 0:53:54never before, for too many there is too much month at the end of the

0:53:54 > 0:53:58month.

0:53:58 > 0:54:07Inflation is sitting at 3%. If your base pay is £21,000, you receive

0:54:07 > 0:54:13£21,210 after your 1% rise. When you account for inflation, it leads to a

0:54:13 > 0:54:22real wage loss of £420. How ministers and Government

0:54:22 > 0:54:27backbenchers can come to this House and participate in the inevitable

0:54:27 > 0:54:32crescendo of backslapping, claiming to be the party that backs the Armed

0:54:32 > 0:54:37Forces, no doubt we have a couple of hours of that. It's beyond B. I'd be

0:54:37 > 0:54:45embarrassed to defend his Government's record. Having

0:54:45 > 0:54:50outlined, I will come to the nuclear deterrent. I'm glad that the whip

0:54:50 > 0:54:53mentions it from a sedentary position. Having outlined as many

0:54:53 > 0:55:02speakers will doubt --, as many speakers no doubt will, the display

0:55:02 > 0:55:06of strength by the Armed Forces, it would take some nerve to do anything

0:55:06 > 0:55:10other than support the opposition motion before us this afternoon. I

0:55:10 > 0:55:15offer the support of these benches for it. There is a deeper and more

0:55:15 > 0:55:19fundamental issue that we can't ignore. This is how this Government

0:55:19 > 0:55:26and previous governments have chosen to spend money to defend the nation.

0:55:26 > 0:55:30There are certainly many arguments against Trident. I have had very

0:55:30 > 0:55:35honest disagreements with those that support Trident. But cost is

0:55:35 > 0:55:40certainly one of them. The dream that the cost Britain our ability to

0:55:40 > 0:55:47defend ourselves is, I believe, unsustainable. -- the drain. More

0:55:47 > 0:55:51and more people in the defence community realising that themselves.

0:55:51 > 0:55:57Let's put the cost into context. The Government's on figure for Trident

0:55:57 > 0:56:02is £31 billion. To take a starter armourer Officer salary at £26,000,

0:56:02 > 0:56:10that equates to hundreds of thousands of new start-up offices.

0:56:10 > 0:56:15Clearly we don't need that many. When the picture is laid out in

0:56:15 > 0:56:28these terms, against a backdrop of a recruitment crisis, it puts the

0:56:28 > 0:56:36training cost of Trident on our conventional capabilities into

0:56:36 > 0:56:41perspective. That's before we get to the £100 million of efficiency

0:56:41 > 0:56:44savings that commanders have been asked to make in addition to cut

0:56:44 > 0:56:51already stretched budgets for maintenance, travel, accommodation.

0:56:51 > 0:56:57To return to these numbers, 82,000 was the commitment made by the

0:56:57 > 0:57:04Conservatives in the manifesto, was their pledge, not mine. It was not

0:57:04 > 0:57:09my number... I'd certainly give way. Just before he leaves Trident behind

0:57:09 > 0:57:15concluded, is he aware that the select committee recently took

0:57:15 > 0:57:17evidence from a group of senior academics who as it would be wrong

0:57:17 > 0:57:25to assume now that North Korea is incapable of reaching the UK with a

0:57:25 > 0:57:29thermonuclear warhead? In other words, they think that they are

0:57:29 > 0:57:33actually already there or extremely close to it. Given the unstable

0:57:33 > 0:57:39nature of the North Korean regime, isn't that a very strong argument

0:57:39 > 0:57:44for obtaining our own independent nuclear deterrent to deter whatever

0:57:44 > 0:57:50those in the Pyongyang might think? No, because given it what he's just

0:57:50 > 0:57:58said, it's obviously not a that -- not deterrent anybody.I would give

0:57:58 > 0:58:00my honourable friend some information about deterrence and

0:58:00 > 0:58:06some of the tangible threats we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, faced by

0:58:06 > 0:58:11people like my brother. Not even a regular member of the Armed Forces,

0:58:11 > 0:58:18who some people in this House not. Investment and people like that is

0:58:18 > 0:58:26more important than in Trident gathering dust and doing nothing. --

0:58:26 > 0:58:30investment in people like that. Sticking to the issue at hand, the

0:58:30 > 0:58:35honourable gentleman, who made his initial intervention," academics, of

0:58:35 > 0:58:42course. Just as those on my side of the debate can quote academics who

0:58:42 > 0:58:46are against Trident. Perhaps with a cabbie and other motion to debate

0:58:46 > 0:58:54Trident. -- we can have another motion to debate Trident. 82,000 was

0:58:54 > 0:58:58the commitment made by the size of the army by the Conservative

0:58:58 > 0:59:03manifesto. Not one number under. We know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that

0:59:03 > 0:59:11they have failed to meet this commitment. It's fallen to 78.010.

0:59:11 > 0:59:18As if this wasn't bad enough, just five months ago, when the numbers at

0:59:18 > 0:59:24the conference, the secretary of state had nothing but obfuscation to

0:59:24 > 0:59:26offer in response. Which is of deep concern and consider how this

0:59:26 > 0:59:35prejudice is our ability to field short losses were -- short notice

0:59:35 > 0:59:39war fighting divisions, something which is seen as critical by our own

0:59:39 > 0:59:43allies. On equipment, the Government doesn't see the issues it has with

0:59:43 > 0:59:50its reputation as an employer. They have increased spending on

0:59:50 > 0:59:57advertising by 50%. Yet the numbers keep thinking. Let's listen... I'd

0:59:57 > 1:00:00happily give way.I was listening intently to him and I praise the

1:00:00 > 1:00:10work that his brother does in the root servers. We are one army. --

1:00:10 > 1:00:18marketeer. One every is where we are desperately short is in the Scottish

1:00:18 > 1:00:24infantry regiments. This is an unusual event. Has he any idea why

1:00:24 > 1:00:28people in Scotland and want to join the infantry? Is it something to do

1:00:28 > 1:00:31with they will be frightened that they will be dragged out of the

1:00:31 > 1:00:36British Army and into a Scottish army?That's pathetic.I have to

1:00:36 > 1:00:45say, I'm up from -- and opt for either Trident or an independence

1:00:45 > 1:00:51debate. He is a member that I have respect for and a pager before her

1:00:51 > 1:01:00service. I recall him coming before our committee. The threat of

1:01:00 > 1:01:05independence is not what is putting off Chris. I will allow him to come

1:01:05 > 1:01:11back in. If he stays in for the debate, there are serious things

1:01:11 > 1:01:16that are putting people off. I say this not to have a bunfight across

1:01:16 > 1:01:21the House, I say this because he would see this sorted. Even if

1:01:21 > 1:01:24Scotland was independent tomorrow, England need a strong army because

1:01:24 > 1:01:30that would be in our interests. I'm not interested in a constitutional

1:01:30 > 1:01:37bunfight.I didn't offend it -- intended display. -- intended

1:01:37 > 1:01:47display. The point I was proud to make is that the English regiment

1:01:47 > 1:02:00have been augmented by Scottish infantry. The corps arsenal of

1:02:00 > 1:02:06Scots. But nowadays, the Scottish infantry is going to be augmented by

1:02:06 > 1:02:10English recruits. It's an interesting analogy. It's not just

1:02:10 > 1:02:14about pay, it's about the package. I will stay for the debate and I will

1:02:14 > 1:02:20speak probably for about seven minutes.I look forward, as always,

1:02:20 > 1:02:22to its contribution and he does raise an interesting point, so I

1:02:22 > 1:02:29look forward to that. To be fair to the side of the House, don't think

1:02:29 > 1:02:33anybody has said it is just about pay, in fact, earlier this week we

1:02:33 > 1:02:38had a debate on flexible working, where many other issues were also

1:02:38 > 1:02:43addressed. I see that his colleague is agreeing with me on that. I

1:02:43 > 1:02:49understand that that is what the motion is on, he shot from a

1:02:49 > 1:02:54sedentary position. Perhaps if he lets me great progress, he will you

1:02:54 > 1:03:03what else I have to say. -- you what else they have to say. Colonel Cam,

1:03:03 > 1:03:09we should remember, good command of UK forces in Afghanistan in 2030. --

1:03:09 > 1:03:18took command. He has criticised the Government's... And a thousand 12,

1:03:18 > 1:03:27took over regular and reservers army recruitment in a contract that took

1:03:27 > 1:03:31in £44 million over ten years. I said to ministers and the whip, who

1:03:31 > 1:03:38seems determined to track me down, I say to them, why will they not heed

1:03:38 > 1:03:42the advice of a report offered by one of the members, the right

1:03:42 > 1:03:49honourable gentleman, member of a rally and Whitford, any report he

1:03:49 > 1:03:52published in July this year, he suggested that Government should

1:03:52 > 1:03:59accelerate work on an alternative to the gap to contract. This came from

1:03:59 > 1:04:05a report part offered by his own side, a thoughtful contribution. One

1:04:05 > 1:04:11that we would support his recommendation on. I wish to, to

1:04:11 > 1:04:18pensions briefly. -- to come to pensions. It is another area, I see

1:04:18 > 1:04:22the former Armed Forces Minister has left after asking others to talk

1:04:22 > 1:04:27about other areas. I want to hear about the new joiners offer. It's

1:04:27 > 1:04:33well-known that the MoD is working on this. I would be grateful if a

1:04:33 > 1:04:39minister could confirm that they are working on new joiners offer as

1:04:39 > 1:04:43arrangements. How does this compare with the promise a a few years ago

1:04:43 > 1:04:48that pension arrangements were safe for 25 years? Will any new scheme

1:04:48 > 1:04:53apply only to those joining after a particular day or will be cut be

1:04:53 > 1:04:57retrospectively applied to those currently serving?I think that the

1:04:57 > 1:05:03clue is in a title, it is called a new joiners offer.And very glad

1:05:03 > 1:05:09that he has cleared that up for me. Coming to a conclusion, when all of

1:05:09 > 1:05:14these issues are considered... Certainly.The former honourable

1:05:14 > 1:05:19friend concludes, there is clearly a lack of consensus in the House, at

1:05:19 > 1:05:22least in Government benches, with the sides of the benches. With the

1:05:22 > 1:05:32UK of -- better be served by consensus, as we see in Denmark,

1:05:32 > 1:05:37where there is members of trade union members of the Armed Forces,

1:05:37 > 1:05:41hey, housing and health are part of a consensual approach, not just by

1:05:41 > 1:05:45Government but by those serving through their trade union

1:05:45 > 1:05:48membership.He makes a thoughtful point and I've noted that honourable

1:05:48 > 1:05:57members opposite shook their heads in disagreement as he made it. In

1:05:57 > 1:06:01the Netherlands, they don't have one trade unions but four. I don't see

1:06:01 > 1:06:07what the Government would have to fear by if not aged union then a

1:06:07 > 1:06:11body similar to the Police Federation that could stand up for

1:06:11 > 1:06:18the Armed Forces when discussing these issues? -- a trade union then.

1:06:18 > 1:06:24I hope that the test dumping and backslapping that we normally see

1:06:24 > 1:06:34gives way to a deep cushioned, a sober reflection driving members in

1:06:34 > 1:06:40their contributions and in what they vote for this afternoon. --

1:06:40 > 1:06:48decrescendo. Defence, proper defence, cannot be bought on the

1:06:48 > 1:06:53cheap. That is as true about the billing platforms as it is about the

1:06:53 > 1:06:57people we asked to defend us every single day. A career in the forces

1:06:57 > 1:07:01should be something that people are not only proud to pursue but

1:07:01 > 1:07:06something that the Government should be able to offer with pride. But it

1:07:06 > 1:07:11cannot do so seriously if they continue to preside over cuts and

1:07:11 > 1:07:16wages to those that protect us every day. -- cuts in wages.Mark Francois

1:07:16 > 1:07:25's.Thank you very much indeed. This morning, along with about 20 other

1:07:25 > 1:07:31MPs and peers, I attended a brief atom remembrance at the guard tackle

1:07:31 > 1:07:36-- a brief act of remembrance. It's an underappreciated factor that over

1:07:36 > 1:07:4230 members of this House have themselves served in the Armed

1:07:42 > 1:07:48Forces. I do in the regulars on the reserves. Myself included, ended

1:07:48 > 1:07:52also including my right honourable friend the Minister of State with

1:07:52 > 1:07:55the Armed Forces and by right honourable friend the Minister of

1:07:55 > 1:08:00State for veterans and people. Another of those people as my right

1:08:00 > 1:08:05honourable friend the member for New Forest East, the chairman of the

1:08:05 > 1:08:08Defence Select Committee, who served in the Royal Naval reserve and who

1:08:08 > 1:08:13was present this morning. However, he has asked me to offer his

1:08:13 > 1:08:19apologies to the House because he had to unbreakable commitment is

1:08:19 > 1:08:24afternoon and could not as usual contribute to the debate.

1:08:31 > 1:08:35As of May 2017, the total strength of the regular Armed Forces was

1:08:35 > 1:08:44138,000 350. Some 5% below their established strength, although in

1:08:44 > 1:08:50specialised trades, the shortages are actually far worse. In the year

1:08:50 > 1:08:54to April 2017, over 2000 people more people left the regular Armed Forces

1:08:54 > 1:09:01than drawing up. As I argued in The House recently, the combination of

1:09:01 > 1:09:05lower retention than expected and failure to achieve recruiting

1:09:05 > 1:09:10targets means the under Manning in the Armed Forces is worsening. The

1:09:10 > 1:09:14Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are running at around 10% below the

1:09:14 > 1:09:21annual recruiting target, though for the Army the shortfall is

1:09:21 > 1:09:27unfortunately over 30%. This also threatens to compound the problem by

1:09:27 > 1:09:32increasing the pressure on those personnel who remain. In order to

1:09:32 > 1:09:36address these problems, the Ministry of Defence needs to improve its

1:09:36 > 1:09:40recruiting performance, particularly among lack, Asian and minority

1:09:40 > 1:09:45ethnic personnel and female personnel as well. -- black and

1:09:45 > 1:09:52Asian and minority ethnic. To look at female personnel in particular,

1:09:52 > 1:10:0115% of all recruits being female is the target by 2020. In the year to

1:10:01 > 1:10:07the 1st of March 2017, female personnel represented 10.2% of the

1:10:07 > 1:10:12regular Armed Forces, while the proportion for the reserves was

1:10:12 > 1:10:17higher at 14%. The Royal Air Force, who for some time have had a

1:10:17 > 1:10:21programme devoted to nurturing female talent, have three female

1:10:21 > 1:10:27officers of two star rank and there was also one female officer at two

1:10:27 > 1:10:32star rank in the Army, but unfortunately nominee Navy. I will

1:10:32 > 1:10:38give way.Thank you. As the honourable member had to inform me

1:10:38 > 1:10:42on Monday that while he agreed that at some point we hope the senior

1:10:42 > 1:10:45service, the Royal Navy, we'll catch up with anybody else, and ensure we

1:10:45 > 1:10:51have a leading officer sooner rather than later. -- the senior service of

1:10:51 > 1:10:56the Royal Navy.Yes, one day I would like to see the air force carrier

1:10:56 > 1:11:01Queen Elizabeth, named after a woman, to be captained by a woman.

1:11:01 > 1:11:05The Ministry of Defence has been able to make much of female

1:11:05 > 1:11:08representation in media terms in order to show the career progression

1:11:08 > 1:11:13that is possible to female officers, but it would be clearly desirable to

1:11:13 > 1:11:18see female candidates reaching three star rank or above in the relatively

1:11:18 > 1:11:23near future. The independent service complaints ombudsman has three star

1:11:23 > 1:11:26rank but it should be remembered that she is independent of the Armed

1:11:26 > 1:11:30Forces. In addition, as a ministerial example, my right

1:11:30 > 1:11:34honourable friend the member for Portsmouth North, he was Minister of

1:11:34 > 1:11:44State for the Armed Forces 2015-2016, was, I believe, the first

1:11:44 > 1:11:49female NAF in history. The Ministry of Defence is now also introducing

1:11:49 > 1:11:52women in close combat. They will be allowed to serve in the Marines,

1:11:52 > 1:11:57infantry and the RAF Regiment. Laces will be made available to female

1:11:57 > 1:12:03candidates who can pass the requisite physical standards. --

1:12:03 > 1:12:09places will be made. These will be the same as for their male

1:12:09 > 1:12:14counterparts. In addition, we will be allowed to apply for posts in

1:12:14 > 1:12:19special forces. -- and women will be allowed. Again, clearly only on

1:12:19 > 1:12:27merit. The RAF Regiment was opened up to suitably qualified female

1:12:27 > 1:12:32candidates this September, and women will be able to take places in the

1:12:32 > 1:12:38Royal Army Corps and the Royal infantry in 20 18. While it will

1:12:38 > 1:12:44take time for the absolute number of women in close combat on ground to

1:12:44 > 1:12:48build, I believe it should start at an early stage to demonstrate that

1:12:48 > 1:12:51there are no longer any restrictions of opportunity for women serving in

1:12:51 > 1:12:55the Armed Forces. The flexible engagement system, which we debated

1:12:55 > 1:12:59in the House on Monday evening and to which several members have

1:12:59 > 1:13:03already referred, will positively affect the ability to attract and

1:13:03 > 1:13:09retain a diverse workforce. It is designed to allow individuals to

1:13:09 > 1:13:13decide on the level of commitment, including opportunities to work both

1:13:13 > 1:13:17full-time and part-time. The current barriers between regulars and

1:13:17 > 1:13:20reserves will be reduced. This flexibility will be particularly

1:13:20 > 1:13:23helpful in assisting women in enjoying full careers in the Armed

1:13:23 > 1:13:27Forces over a period of time whilst reducing concerns female recruits

1:13:27 > 1:13:32may have on the longevity of potential progression of their

1:13:32 > 1:13:38careers. Overall, female recruitment including representation at senior

1:13:38 > 1:13:41level, is starting to show real success and this is one area where

1:13:41 > 1:13:47the MoD can afford to be more ambitious. The 15% recruit target by

1:13:47 > 1:13:512020 seems likely to be met and the Royal Air Force is already intending

1:13:51 > 1:13:57to raise their target to 20% I20 20. If the Department wants to continue

1:13:57 > 1:14:03the momentum being developed in this area, across the services, I believe

1:14:03 > 1:14:10the MoD should set a new stretch goal of 20% of recruits are being

1:14:10 > 1:14:14female by 2025. And in addition, maximum publicity should be given to

1:14:14 > 1:14:18the introduction of women in round close combat to highlight that all

1:14:18 > 1:14:22areas of the Armed Forces are now open to female talent. Turning out

1:14:22 > 1:14:29to reserves, yes, some of them... Before he gets into his next

1:14:29 > 1:14:36substantive point, two years ago, the Government set up an Armed

1:14:36 > 1:14:40Forces credit union to help Armed Forces personnel and Lope who might

1:14:40 > 1:14:46be vulnerable to payday loan companies charging very high rates

1:14:46 > 1:14:50of interest, two years on the three Armed Forces credit unions are well

1:14:50 > 1:14:54established. But they could do with the Ministry of Defence taking steps

1:14:54 > 1:15:00to advertise their services more widely. Given that 15 years ago, the

1:15:00 > 1:15:03honourable member showed a brief interest in co-operatives at that

1:15:03 > 1:15:08point, can I encourage him to join me in encouraging the minister to

1:15:08 > 1:15:12think through what else the Ministry of Defence might do now to encourage

1:15:12 > 1:15:17awareness of that Armed Forces credit union amongst military

1:15:17 > 1:15:21personnel?His research has clearly been on the ball. I know that in the

1:15:21 > 1:15:26United States, service credit unions are far more advanced than they are

1:15:26 > 1:15:29here. But either one would ask ministers to look benefits and Lee

1:15:29 > 1:15:37on the point he has made.I am now feeling guilty for not giving way to

1:15:37 > 1:15:41the honourable judgment. But just to say he makes a reasonable point. I

1:15:41 > 1:15:46am pleased with the progress we have made with the credit unions but

1:15:46 > 1:15:49there is always more we can do and I will look at it. Mr Bowie appeared

1:15:49 > 1:15:55to have consensus there. Turning to reserves

1:15:55 > 1:16:07-- we appear to have consensus there. We envisage an ambitious

1:16:07 > 1:16:13revival of Britain's reserve forces. The roll-out of the programme was

1:16:13 > 1:16:17initially complicated by a combination of excessive

1:16:17 > 1:16:23bureaucracy, delays to recruitment and IT problems. In response, the

1:16:23 > 1:16:28three services and in particular the Army, who had the greatest problem,

1:16:28 > 1:16:30committed additional resources to reinforce the recruiting effort and

1:16:30 > 1:16:37several years on this has borne fruit. As of May 2017, the trained

1:16:37 > 1:16:42strength of the Army reserve is 26,730, as against a target of

1:16:42 > 1:16:5126,000 700. The Maritime reserves including the Royal Marine reserve,

1:16:51 > 1:16:57stood at 2590 against a target of 2320, and for the RAF reserves

1:16:57 > 1:17:04including the Royal auxiliary are false, the figure was 2140 against a

1:17:04 > 1:17:09target of 1860. Recruiting enjoys support from across the British

1:17:09 > 1:17:14industry including the Confederation for British industry, the

1:17:14 > 1:17:16Confederation for small businesses and the Institute of Directors and

1:17:16 > 1:17:24it isn't important part of the Armed Forces covered. Success has been

1:17:24 > 1:17:27achieved by giving recruitment bonuses to ex-regulars who have left

1:17:27 > 1:17:33the services but have then rejoined the reserves. While there is no room

1:17:33 > 1:17:41for complacency, there will need to be... If the targets are to be met,

1:17:41 > 1:17:51it is vitally important that growth continues and we do not seriously

1:17:51 > 1:17:55compromised the momentum that has been achieved to date. Overall, the

1:17:55 > 1:17:59reserve story is now becoming a successful one, though, and is far

1:17:59 > 1:18:08more healthy than it was a few years ago. Turning to accommodation, and

1:18:08 > 1:18:14important aspect of the overall quality-of-life in the services is

1:18:14 > 1:18:17represented by service accommodation, and this is where, if

1:18:17 > 1:18:20it wishes to retain the support of service personnel and particularly

1:18:20 > 1:18:27of their families, that the Ministry of Defence must do better. Remember

1:18:27 > 1:18:38the saying, recruit the service but retain the family? The UK families

1:18:38 > 1:18:42continued attitudes survey, published in July 2017, shows that

1:18:42 > 1:18:47the level of satisfaction with the maintenance of service families and

1:18:47 > 1:18:51accommodation remains low following a large decrease in 2016. In

1:18:51 > 1:18:56particular, and this follows on from the point made by the honourable

1:18:56 > 1:18:59lady the member for Stoke-on-Trent North, in particular, there are

1:18:59 > 1:19:06issues surrounding the delays in the MoD's housing contractor, responding

1:19:06 > 1:19:09to requests for maintenance, and also the quality of the maintenance

1:19:09 > 1:19:15and repair work subsequently undertaken. Only 34% of those

1:19:15 > 1:19:19surveyed said they were satisfied with the responsiveness of the

1:19:19 > 1:19:23contractor. And only 29% were satisfied with the quality of the

1:19:23 > 1:19:30maintenance repair work that they then undertook. I will give way.

1:19:30 > 1:19:32Would the honourable member agree with me that one of the problems in

1:19:32 > 1:19:38the contract is the KPs as they currently exist turning up the 24

1:19:38 > 1:19:41hours, they get a ticking the box, but it still does not mean the

1:19:41 > 1:19:46boiler has been fixed. It can take another eight days. So although they

1:19:46 > 1:19:50are fulfilling the letter of the contract, they definitely are not

1:19:50 > 1:19:54fulfilling the spirit.The honourable lady anticipates me. I am

1:19:54 > 1:20:00coming onto boilers in just a minute. But her point about acting

1:20:00 > 1:20:08to the spirit of the contract is well made, and I agree with it. As

1:20:08 > 1:20:17the FCas report states, quote, satisfaction with most part of SFA

1:20:17 > 1:20:26-- F S a... There were changes to the FSA charging method. Moreover,

1:20:26 > 1:20:33the Army families Federation, sometimes affectionately referred to

1:20:33 > 1:20:37as the Army freedom fighters, report that housing continues to be the

1:20:37 > 1:20:44biggest concern for Army families. There is overwhelming anecdotal

1:20:44 > 1:20:48evidence about the performance of the contractor, and put simply, we

1:20:48 > 1:20:51are not honouring our people by providing them with this shoddy

1:20:51 > 1:20:58service. We send them halfway around the world to fight for their country

1:20:58 > 1:21:04and we call them a hero, and that is what they are, but get back at home,

1:21:04 > 1:21:08their wife spends weeks trying to get the boiler fixed because of the

1:21:08 > 1:21:13startling ineptitude of the people we have hired to keep their home

1:21:13 > 1:21:19warm. And then we wonder why people leave. This has gone on for too

1:21:19 > 1:21:28long. It is simply unacceptable. Either the company should

1:21:28 > 1:21:30continually raise their game on behalf of our service personnel

1:21:30 > 1:21:37there should be unceremoniously sacked, and we should find someone

1:21:37 > 1:21:41competent to do the work instead. If housing associations and registered

1:21:41 > 1:21:45social landlords around the country can carry out basic maintenance and

1:21:45 > 1:21:47repairs as bread-and-butter work, which they have been doing for

1:21:47 > 1:21:54years, why can't this company? Turning briefly to pay. There are a

1:21:54 > 1:21:58variety of reasons why people are leaving the Armed Forces at the

1:21:58 > 1:22:05moment and pay is one factor, but it has already been pointed out, as has

1:22:05 > 1:22:08already been pointed out, it is not the predominant one. The Armed

1:22:08 > 1:22:13Forces continue as attitudes survey published in May 2017 points out

1:22:13 > 1:22:18that the primary reason for people wanting to leave the services is the

1:22:18 > 1:22:25effect of separation or long hours on their family life. That, in a

1:22:25 > 1:22:29sense, is the greatest challenge that ministers have to grapple with.

1:22:29 > 1:22:34The Armed Forces flexible working Bill, which we debated in this House

1:22:34 > 1:22:40on Monday, should help in this regard as it will allow service

1:22:40 > 1:22:43personnel to vary their commitment rather than facing an acid test of

1:22:43 > 1:22:47only being able to leave the services in order to reduce pressure

1:22:47 > 1:22:51on the family. It may persuade some to stick rather than twist when

1:22:51 > 1:22:55their family are under pressure because of that commitment to their

1:22:55 > 1:22:59country. On the issue of pay it self, this has now become something

1:22:59 > 1:23:08of a challenge, particularly for retention, as only 35% of personal

1:23:08 > 1:23:12are happy with their rate of pay and only 27% are satisfied with their

1:23:12 > 1:23:17pension benefits. Although it should be pointed out that the Armed Forces

1:23:17 > 1:23:20have one of the few remaining pension schemes anywhere in the

1:23:20 > 1:23:24public sector where employers do not have to pay a contribution of their

1:23:24 > 1:23:29own, and I know that is something that MoD ministers have fought

1:23:29 > 1:23:34valiantly to defend. Recommendations on pay are made by the pay review

1:23:34 > 1:23:37body and their recommendations in January 2017 were essentially for a

1:23:37 > 1:23:421% increase in pay, although certain personnel would qualify for

1:23:42 > 1:23:48additional increments and also for specialist recruitment and

1:23:48 > 1:23:52retention, particularly in certain areas where the Armed Forces are

1:23:52 > 1:23:55struggling to retain specialists. Any further pay increase for the

1:23:55 > 1:24:00Armed Forces will be subject to the next recommendation early next year,

1:24:00 > 1:24:08so we will have to wait and see what they recommend.

1:24:08 > 1:24:12It is likely any increase above 1% would likely come out of the defence

1:24:12 > 1:24:17budget and that could have an impact on the equipment programme. However,

1:24:17 > 1:24:23given that the police have over 1% pay increase, if they were to

1:24:23 > 1:24:26recommend something similar next year, I think ministers would have

1:24:26 > 1:24:34to take that seriously. Yes, I will. He makes an important point indeed,

1:24:34 > 1:24:40but does he agree with me that it would be quite wrong if the MoD

1:24:40 > 1:24:47introduced more equipment to pay for the pay increase?I cannot speak for

1:24:47 > 1:24:50what the board are going to recommend and I think in fairness we

1:24:50 > 1:24:53will have to allow them to go through their deliberations and see

1:24:53 > 1:24:59what they conclude. But seeing that the police have been given a pay

1:24:59 > 1:25:03increase above 1%, I'm sure there will be strong views in the Armed

1:25:03 > 1:25:10Forces about what should happen to them. Again, let's await the board.

1:25:10 > 1:25:14In conclusion, the Armed Forces on who we rely so much continue to be

1:25:14 > 1:25:18under pressure in the fields of recruitment and retention. Although

1:25:18 > 1:25:23the principal reason for people leaving the Armed Forces is on fact

1:25:23 > 1:25:26pressure on family live, pay is something which also appears to be

1:25:26 > 1:25:30entering into the equation and ministers in the department are

1:25:30 > 1:25:36cognisant of that. But we must do something about the poor quality of

1:25:36 > 1:25:41repairs and maintenance of service accommodation. I would urge

1:25:41 > 1:25:47ministers sitting on the Treasury bench this afternoon to formally

1:25:47 > 1:25:51reviewed the performance of Carillion Amey and to be prepared if

1:25:51 > 1:25:53necessary to re-let the contract unless they succeed in materially

1:25:53 > 1:26:00raising their game. We have to continue to attract the brightest

1:26:00 > 1:26:05and the best to serve as in uniform. We must continue to provide the

1:26:05 > 1:26:10resources to make that prospect a reality, but we also need to make

1:26:10 > 1:26:15sure that these people have homes fit in which to live.It will be

1:26:15 > 1:26:20obvious to the House that a great many people want to take part in

1:26:20 > 1:26:23this important debate and there is limited time and I am putting on a

1:26:23 > 1:26:29formal time limit of seven minutes, which is likely to be reduced later

1:26:29 > 1:26:31if there are a great many interventions in everyone's

1:26:31 > 1:26:40speeches. To speak without hesitation now is Kevin Jones.There

1:26:40 > 1:26:45is one thing that this government is, and that is consistent. It is

1:26:45 > 1:26:49consistent in the history of all conservative governments that what

1:26:49 > 1:26:55you do in opposition is you call for more expenditure on the Armed

1:26:55 > 1:26:59Forces, UIQ that you are a proud supporter of our Armed Forces and

1:26:59 > 1:27:05when you get into power in the first thing you do is cut the defence

1:27:05 > 1:27:09budget and do not respect the men and women of our Armed Forces in

1:27:09 > 1:27:16terms of the pay and conditions which they are given. Today when we

1:27:16 > 1:27:21heard the Conservative backbench, including the honourable member for

1:27:21 > 1:27:26Plymouth, who must have quite a few members of the Armed Forces in his

1:27:26 > 1:27:31seat, suggest that pay is important. I am sure that is news to them that

1:27:31 > 1:27:37they will get that message.My right honourable friend knows full well

1:27:37 > 1:27:44that what I said was it is not the number one issue around service. It

1:27:44 > 1:27:48is disingenuous to suggest this. There are a number of reasons people

1:27:48 > 1:27:52served and there is a great experience on offer in this country

1:27:52 > 1:27:56of people who serve. Pay is important, but it is not as

1:27:56 > 1:28:02important as this debate suggests.I find it is remarkable he is letting

1:28:02 > 1:28:07down his constituents by not arguing for a fair deal of pay for our Armed

1:28:07 > 1:28:12Forces. If I was in his shoes, I would be making sure I did that. In

1:28:12 > 1:28:19terms of the pay review body, and I served in the Ministry of Defence in

1:28:19 > 1:28:24the last government, and there was an acceptance of the recommendation

1:28:24 > 1:28:33of the pay review body for every single year. 2001 it was 2.7%, 2003,

1:28:33 > 1:28:423.6%, and it goes on up to 2010, 2%. What this government was Dan is

1:28:42 > 1:28:45artificially put that cat in and ignore what the pay review body

1:28:45 > 1:28:50says. We have a remarkable thing from the Minister that somehow this

1:28:50 > 1:28:57does not matter because people get increments. It might be my trade

1:28:57 > 1:29:00union official coming out, but it is where you start that affects where

1:29:00 > 1:29:09you end up. A 2% increase in terms of an increment might be an increase

1:29:09 > 1:29:15in pay, but it is bigger if you got 2% increase on the basic level. We

1:29:15 > 1:29:19need to recognise that. The other point that is being made which

1:29:19 > 1:29:23cannot be forgotten is the idea that Armed Forces pensions are

1:29:23 > 1:29:28gold-plated and generous. Yes, but what people are not recognising is

1:29:28 > 1:29:34that that is taken into account by the pay review body in terms of

1:29:34 > 1:29:45coming up with the issue. I want to remind the party opposite, because

1:29:45 > 1:29:48it some Armed Forces personnel were made redundant, some of whom were

1:29:48 > 1:29:52weeks away from their retirement date, if I did that I would be

1:29:52 > 1:29:56rightly condemned. It is an example of the Conservative government

1:29:56 > 1:30:01saying one thing and doing another. To make them compulsory redundant

1:30:01 > 1:30:08was astounding. The other point is the independence of the review body.

1:30:08 > 1:30:10This government has completely ignored the recommendations, but it

1:30:10 > 1:30:18is worse than that because in terms of the last Prime Minister David

1:30:18 > 1:30:22Cameron, he actually sacked the head of the independent body because he

1:30:22 > 1:30:30did not like what he said about the X Factor and pay increases. We are

1:30:30 > 1:30:35seeing them interfering in the way we get to that independent process.

1:30:35 > 1:30:41It might be fine people saying pay is not important, but I am yet to

1:30:41 > 1:30:46meet anyone in life who does not think getting paid a decent reward

1:30:46 > 1:30:52for their efforts is not something that is important to them. Alongside

1:30:52 > 1:30:59that we have seen the morale in the Armed Forces going down and again

1:30:59 > 1:31:05one of the things they say is, we stand up for the Armed Forces, but

1:31:05 > 1:31:17in 2010 they had 190,000 personnel and that is now down. What we have

1:31:17 > 1:31:21also got an individual services, including the Navy, are artificial

1:31:21 > 1:31:27caps on numbers, which is leading to real problems in terms of deploy

1:31:27 > 1:31:31ability and that is why we have got ships that are not sailing at the

1:31:31 > 1:31:38moment because they have not got the crews to do it. I would say to the

1:31:38 > 1:31:45House that when the Conservatives say they stand up for the Armed

1:31:45 > 1:31:49Forces, if they really want a genuinely stand up for the Armed

1:31:49 > 1:31:55Forces, let's pay them, let's recognise the efforts and the

1:31:55 > 1:32:00sacrifices those individuals make on our behalf. Because empty words are

1:32:00 > 1:32:05fine, actions in government are different. I am proud the Labour

1:32:05 > 1:32:09Party, throughout history, has always stood up for the Armed Forces

1:32:09 > 1:32:13both in terms of supporting personnel, but also in terms of

1:32:13 > 1:32:20making sure that our country is defended... Certainly.I am very

1:32:20 > 1:32:25grateful to the honourable member for giving way, but that last Labour

1:32:25 > 1:32:29government, which he has some responsibility for, left a £38

1:32:29 > 1:32:33billion black hole in the defence budget and this is a government

1:32:33 > 1:32:39which by contrast is increasing defence spending. Would he not

1:32:39 > 1:32:41accept the responsibility he had and it is the Conservatives who stand up

1:32:41 > 1:32:49for the Armed Forces.Hammer and Kool-Aid had been dispensed with. In

1:32:49 > 1:32:53that figure which was plucked out of thin air, and can I recommend that

1:32:53 > 1:32:58he looks at the report from 2010 which said there would be a £6

1:32:58 > 1:33:07billion black hole Mac over the next ten years over a 10-year period.

1:33:07 > 1:33:11What his government very dishonestly tried to do in 2010 is give the

1:33:11 > 1:33:18impression there was a £38 billion black hole to be met. Why it was not

1:33:18 > 1:33:21there was because both the honourable member for Somerset North

1:33:21 > 1:33:26and his predecessor, the Chancellor, do not ask me how they did it, but

1:33:26 > 1:33:32within 18 months we got rid of it. If they can get rid of a £38 billion

1:33:32 > 1:33:39black hole in less than 18 months, they are in the wrong job. It is

1:33:39 > 1:33:42complete nonsense. Do not keep repeating things that are not true

1:33:42 > 1:33:47because they are not. The Conservative research party did a

1:33:47 > 1:33:54great job of getting rid of the narrative in that way. No, because I

1:33:54 > 1:33:58was about to finish when he intervened. What I would suggest

1:33:58 > 1:34:03that he looks at is the black hole that now exists in terms of the

1:34:03 > 1:34:10current government's procurement. I am not suggesting that it is in one

1:34:10 > 1:34:15year, it is over ten years. You might want to look at an excellent

1:34:15 > 1:34:20report out today in terms of the way in which the government are

1:34:20 > 1:34:24cannibalising equipment to actually ensure that things look so. Can I

1:34:24 > 1:34:34finish by saying that we all, and I am not making a party political

1:34:34 > 1:34:38point, we all recognise the dedication of our Armed Forces. They

1:34:38 > 1:34:46do deserve that recognition quite rightly and in a few weeks' time we

1:34:46 > 1:34:50will remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The consensus

1:34:50 > 1:34:55across the House is we support them, but all I will say is they need to

1:34:55 > 1:35:02be paid and resourced to the level that is acceptable.Thank you very

1:35:02 > 1:35:06much, Madame Deputy Speaker. In about two Weeks' time in this

1:35:06 > 1:35:12country and around the Commonwealth, millions of people will pause for

1:35:12 > 1:35:17various public, private, some simple and some not so simple act of

1:35:17 > 1:35:21remembrance to remember those who gave their tomorrow so that we could

1:35:21 > 1:35:27have our today. My great uncle, Samuel Coyle, aged 19 fell at

1:35:27 > 1:35:32Gallipoli and now lies alongside 600 other British and Commonwealth

1:35:32 > 1:35:37soldiers at a cemetery in Turkey. Over the past 12 years I have been

1:35:37 > 1:35:43lucky enough to attend many moving remembrance services. In 2008 I

1:35:43 > 1:35:48found myself along the road at the Cenotaph, part of the team that

1:35:48 > 1:35:52organised the 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War. It was

1:35:52 > 1:35:56humble as a young sublieutenant fresh out of Dartmouth to meet Harry

1:35:56 > 1:36:01patch and Bill Stone on that day, the remaining veterans from that

1:36:01 > 1:36:06incredible generation that had endured so much. In 2015 I found

1:36:06 > 1:36:10myself standing with other colleagues from the European

1:36:10 > 1:36:13Parliament in northern France, taking part in a very simple but

1:36:13 > 1:36:20solemn act of remembrance with the local Mayor and townspeople as we

1:36:20 > 1:36:25looked across the gleaming white headstones, remembering 20,000

1:36:25 > 1:36:30officers and men who fell in that battle. 600 of them were from the

1:36:30 > 1:36:36Gordon Highlanders in the North East of Scotland. But in the Falkland

1:36:36 > 1:36:40islands at the San Carlos cemetery I was there in 2007 on my first

1:36:40 > 1:36:46deployment and it was in June and we were commemorating the 25th

1:36:46 > 1:36:50anniversary of the conflict standing there in subzero temperatures with

1:36:50 > 1:36:55freezing rain swirling around us, surrounded by veterans of that war

1:36:55 > 1:36:59who, less than a quarter of a century before, had been storming

1:36:59 > 1:37:03through that rough terrain surrounded by the islanders and

1:37:03 > 1:37:09shoulder to shoulder with the sailors of the Ardent, standing

1:37:09 > 1:37:13there are thousands of miles from the UK it brought home for the first

1:37:13 > 1:37:18time how much we truly owe those who are and were prepared to give the

1:37:18 > 1:37:23ultimate sacrifice to defend us, our country and way of life.I am very

1:37:23 > 1:37:31grateful and this debate is about also an issue of government funding

1:37:31 > 1:37:37and duty of care towards Armed Forces veterans. At one combat

1:37:37 > 1:37:43stress facility many veterans suffering from PTSD will no longer

1:37:43 > 1:37:46have access to residential care and I hope he will join with me in

1:37:46 > 1:37:50pressing the government to make sure that veterans have the kind of

1:37:50 > 1:37:56access to the sort of care they need in the future.I would be very happy

1:37:56 > 1:37:59to join the honourable member in demanding that the veterans are

1:37:59 > 1:38:03given the due care and attention they deserve having given so much

1:38:03 > 1:38:08for this country. To enable people to do their job effectively it is

1:38:08 > 1:38:12essential the Armed Forces are properly funded, resourced and have

1:38:12 > 1:38:17the tools with which to do the job. I am sure the old adage that the

1:38:17 > 1:38:22three enemies of the Royal Navy are the enemy of the day, the French and

1:38:22 > 1:38:26Whitehall is one that find sympathy in many ward rooms around the fleet.

1:38:26 > 1:38:30But this party and this government remains steadfast in its support for

1:38:30 > 1:38:36the Armed Forces. It has not just been shown in words, but in actions

1:38:36 > 1:38:45and this government cannot be accused of found wanting.

1:38:45 > 1:38:48Ensuring that we remain the country with the second-highest defence

1:38:48 > 1:38:52budget in Nato, the largest in the EU and the largest in the world.

1:38:52 > 1:38:59Seven submarines in the UK being built right now. £178 billion on

1:38:59 > 1:39:06equipment for all armed services, including helicopters and aircraft.

1:39:06 > 1:39:14The introduction of the Armed Forces Flexible Working Bill which will

1:39:14 > 1:39:21bring Armed Forces hours into the 21st century. This is a Government

1:39:21 > 1:39:24committed to national security and to the serving members of Armed

1:39:24 > 1:39:30Forces. But it is right that we debate pay for personnel. When this

1:39:30 > 1:39:33Government came into office, tough decisions have to be taken to

1:39:33 > 1:39:37introduce regular balance between the need to recruit, retrain and

1:39:37 > 1:39:40motivate suitably able and qualified people, and maintaining qualified

1:39:40 > 1:39:45pay for the sector. That is why the Government to be tough decision to

1:39:45 > 1:39:49budget for a 1% pay rise across the public sector including the Armed

1:39:49 > 1:39:55Forces. This year the Armed Forces pay review body recommended a 1% pay

1:39:55 > 1:39:58increase. However, it is right that in this place we do hear the

1:39:58 > 1:40:03concerns of those who think the 1% pay cap could be a factor in issues

1:40:03 > 1:40:08around recruitment and detention. I am persuaded that flexibility could

1:40:08 > 1:40:15be required in order to ensure that our armed services continue to

1:40:15 > 1:40:20operate at the high level bakery do. But I do not recognise it as a

1:40:20 > 1:40:28priority among other things. -- continue to operate at the high

1:40:28 > 1:40:34level that they do.There is a danger in the way this debate has

1:40:34 > 1:40:40been approached, simplistically. There are other issues. In my

1:40:40 > 1:40:43constituency, there are other things that need attention. But also family

1:40:43 > 1:40:49life. That may be more that may be more important than pay alone.Yes,

1:40:49 > 1:40:59friends of mine do on a daily basis remind me of that reason. The

1:40:59 > 1:41:03Treasury has said they will be more flexible as you next year in terms

1:41:03 > 1:41:09of public pay and I look forward to seeing how that will impact on Armed

1:41:09 > 1:41:17Forces. This Government values are Armed Forces. We have invested

1:41:17 > 1:41:23record amounts in agreement, raised our defence budget to build terms,

1:41:23 > 1:41:26introduced the flexible working Bill for the Armed Forces and ensuring

1:41:26 > 1:41:29greater flexible at it across the board. These are actions of a

1:41:29 > 1:41:35Government committed to...I hear what the onboard member says about

1:41:35 > 1:41:42how the Government supports the Armed Forces so wholeheartedly. How

1:41:42 > 1:41:50would he respond to fact that the very precinct surveys are showing a

1:41:50 > 1:41:53consistent drop in morale, consistent anxieties around the

1:41:53 > 1:41:58level of pay, and consistent concerns about the direction of

1:41:58 > 1:42:06travel?He raises some very pertinent points but as has been

1:42:06 > 1:42:10said already in this debate, there are various reasons for leaving the

1:42:10 > 1:42:16Armed Forces or not recruiting, and pay is not alone in being the sole

1:42:16 > 1:42:20reason for those concerns or for the drop in morale, and that is what we

1:42:20 > 1:42:23are debating this afternoon in this place. The actions of this

1:42:23 > 1:42:27Government are the actions of a Government committed to the defence

1:42:27 > 1:42:31that our country and to those men and women who join the country to do

1:42:31 > 1:42:38that.I must begin by paying to beat to the contributions of honourable

1:42:38 > 1:42:42members from across the House in this debate so far. They have spoken

1:42:42 > 1:42:46with insight and conviction on the importance of ensuring fair pay for

1:42:46 > 1:42:53our armed versus personal, not just on point of principle but as an

1:42:53 > 1:42:56essential gallantry for future recruitment and retention across all

1:42:56 > 1:43:01three services which ensures we have the right people in the right place

1:43:01 > 1:43:05in the right numbers to keep us safe, and that is why we are here

1:43:05 > 1:43:14today. -- but as an essential component. Our forces make

1:43:14 > 1:43:17sacrifices daily two defenders and it is right that we do our duty and

1:43:17 > 1:43:30look after them. I tabled an EDM earlier this year on the need to

1:43:30 > 1:43:35enhance salary levels for our Armed Forces personnel. I am privileged to

1:43:35 > 1:43:39be chair of the APPG for the Armed Forces covenant in this House and it

1:43:39 > 1:43:44is in that role but I wish to contribute today. At a time when we

1:43:44 > 1:43:51and our allies face renewed threats from Russia, when the global order

1:43:51 > 1:43:55is facing unprecedented realignment and we see global terror attacks on

1:43:55 > 1:44:01a weekly basis, not lest the horrendous scenes in Manhattan last

1:44:01 > 1:44:05night, we find ourselves with a Government that seems to be missing

1:44:05 > 1:44:08the point. It is our service personnel but keepers safe and we

1:44:08 > 1:44:12need to ensure that their overall terms and conditions are good enough

1:44:12 > 1:44:16to recruit and retain in the post. And let us be clear of the current

1:44:16 > 1:44:20challenge. We find ourselves faced as other honourable members have

1:44:20 > 1:44:29said, with a deficit of personnel of 5%. And with no fewer than 38

1:44:29 > 1:44:33operational pinch points across the three services, gaps which

1:44:33 > 1:44:37threatened to have a detrimental impact on our plans and contingency

1:44:37 > 1:44:41operations. So we need to ask ourselves why. We expect our Armed

1:44:41 > 1:44:48Forces personnel to every day do the extraordinary. Challenging, all too

1:44:48 > 1:44:52often life-threatening work. We ask them to make incredible sacrifices

1:44:52 > 1:44:56and to cope with intense physical, mental and emotional challenges in

1:44:56 > 1:45:03the line of duty. From engineers to infantry soldiers, Don disposal

1:45:03 > 1:45:10experts to caterers, pilots to Samaritans. -- bomb disposal

1:45:10 > 1:45:15experts. All of our personnel are exceptionally skilled and dedicated

1:45:15 > 1:45:19men and women. They do not do this job for the money. We should be in

1:45:19 > 1:45:24no doubt that people of their calibre might well be able to earn

1:45:24 > 1:45:27more in other fields. But they do need to pay their bills, as we all

1:45:27 > 1:45:33do. They deserve recognition, including financial recognition for

1:45:33 > 1:45:38their service. It is unacceptable to me that anyone who makes sacrifices

1:45:38 > 1:45:44to keep us all safe should be in a position where they are struggling

1:45:44 > 1:45:53to support their family. Let me be clear, both service men and women

1:45:53 > 1:45:59and as importantly their families, where they are earning less and real

1:45:59 > 1:46:05terms than they were seven years ago, we have a problem that we need

1:46:05 > 1:46:09to recognise. The pay cut has meant real hardship for many in service

1:46:09 > 1:46:13and it is undoubtedly one obstacle to recruitment and actually more to

1:46:13 > 1:46:18retention. But not only that, the pay cap is symbolic of how much, or

1:46:18 > 1:46:23should I say how little, the men and women of our Armed Forces mean to

1:46:23 > 1:46:28the country that they serve. Its removal would be, too. The

1:46:28 > 1:46:31Government are now backpedalling on the continuation of the 1% take-up

1:46:31 > 1:46:40for Armed Forces personnel and I welcome that. -- 1% pay cap. Our

1:46:40 > 1:46:44personnel deserve better to what they have been subjected to the

1:46:44 > 1:46:47seven years. But I am sure I speak for many on both sides of the House

1:46:47 > 1:46:53when I asked the minister, what took so long? My fear, however, is not

1:46:53 > 1:46:57just the pay gap, as many others have raised today. We need to look

1:46:57 > 1:47:01at terms and conditions of our service personnel in the round. Too

1:47:01 > 1:47:06many servicemen and women have contacted me with concerns about

1:47:06 > 1:47:10potential cuts to their tour allowances and bonuses for me not to

1:47:10 > 1:47:14be worried that the Government is running on robbing Peter to pay Paul

1:47:14 > 1:47:22in order to fund pay rises. This may all well prove to be smoke and

1:47:22 > 1:47:25mirrors and are proud service men and women may end up no better off

1:47:25 > 1:47:36next year...Which she agree with me that because of the pay freeze,

1:47:36 > 1:47:42sorry, the cut, in the last seven years, it has an ongoing effect on

1:47:42 > 1:47:46those individuals through their lives, including what their final

1:47:46 > 1:47:51pensions will be.I couldn't agree more. Let's be clear about the

1:47:51 > 1:47:55realities. If your base salary isn't increased, then the pension that

1:47:55 > 1:48:00your salary is based on his also affected. So this affects everybody.

1:48:00 > 1:48:04And this brings me onto my next point. There is no trade union that

1:48:04 > 1:48:08can advocate for our Armed Forces. There is no staff association that

1:48:08 > 1:48:11can stand up to the Government for them. It is therefore down to us in

1:48:11 > 1:48:15this House to ensure they are well paid and it is down to us to fight

1:48:15 > 1:48:19their corner, because no one else is going to do it for them. They follow

1:48:19 > 1:48:24orders. It is what we pay them to do. It is what we train them to do.

1:48:24 > 1:48:29Therefore, they are never going to challenge us, so will they do their

1:48:29 > 1:48:32duty protecting our national security at home and abroad -- so

1:48:32 > 1:48:37while they do that, we must do our duty and book after them and their

1:48:37 > 1:48:41families. Next week is Remembrance Sunday and whilst our service men

1:48:41 > 1:48:48and women don't consider themselves here is, we should. But as humans,

1:48:48 > 1:48:52they don't want hand-outs. They just want a fair deal. It is the least

1:48:52 > 1:48:58they deserve.Order. Given the number of speakers I will have to

1:48:58 > 1:49:04reduce the time limit to five minutes. And just to remind

1:49:04 > 1:49:06honourable members that interventions to take away from the

1:49:06 > 1:49:17time available to others. Sir Mike Penny.Can I say, from the outset,

1:49:17 > 1:49:20from a young soldier that joined the Army in 1974, pages important.

1:49:20 > 1:49:27Absolutely. It is what actually makes the job worthwhile. -- pay is

1:49:27 > 1:49:33important. But for me it was not the reason I joined and it is not the

1:49:33 > 1:49:36reason most people stay in the Armed Forces they stay in for a myriad of

1:49:36 > 1:49:41different reasons and we must be conscious of the fact that while pay

1:49:41 > 1:49:45isn't the most important thing, we must not take it for granted. Across

1:49:45 > 1:49:49the House today, I think we would agree with that. There would be no

1:49:49 > 1:49:56argument at all, I think, that pay is important, but I can honestly say

1:49:56 > 1:50:01that the reports that used to sit on my desk and it was the leaders'

1:50:01 > 1:50:15surveys that I saw, -- the levers' surveys. It was interesting because

1:50:15 > 1:50:20they are leaving so they have no reason to lie or to try to gain

1:50:20 > 1:50:27favour. I can say to the front bench that pay was not in the top ten.

1:50:27 > 1:50:31There were lots of other things apart from pay. Where they were

1:50:31 > 1:50:38going to go during their career. They always had aspirations. Even

1:50:38 > 1:50:42young guardsmen like me who knew I would not get past Acting

1:50:42 > 1:50:46Corporal... As the honourable gentleman for north and said, you

1:50:46 > 1:50:52start at the bottom and you want to work up, and I became minister for

1:50:52 > 1:51:02the Armed Forces. For me, I was the first one from a junior rank. That

1:51:02 > 1:51:07to me... But for many of them, there are many other challenges that they

1:51:07 > 1:51:11have. They came out in the surveys that I saw and on my first day in

1:51:11 > 1:51:19the department, in the Ministry of Defence, I said, is pay the biggest

1:51:19 > 1:51:26issue? Why are we losing so many servicemen? As well as Krugman,

1:51:26 > 1:51:30retention is massively important. -- as well as recruitment. In my

1:51:30 > 1:51:35opinion it is more important because those people who are in our best

1:51:35 > 1:51:39recruiters. They go home to their families and talk about their

1:51:39 > 1:51:43experiences in the Armed Forces. They are by far our best recruiters.

1:51:43 > 1:51:47We trained them and we spend huge amounts of money on them and they

1:51:47 > 1:51:51dedicate themselves to us, so we want to keep them in. If they are

1:51:51 > 1:51:56upset with the unit they are in and have started the process to leave,

1:51:56 > 1:51:59let's try to pause them for a fraction, to get someone to talk to

1:51:59 > 1:52:05them so they might stay, in perhaps different unit, a different part of

1:52:05 > 1:52:10the Armed Forces. At the moment, someone from their own unit is

1:52:10 > 1:52:14usually used to try to convince them to stay. That person may well be the

1:52:14 > 1:52:19problem they have already had. Trying to keep them in the Armed

1:52:19 > 1:52:22Forces is massively important. And no young soldier or are forced man

1:52:22 > 1:52:26is going to turn around and say, don't give me any more money. What

1:52:26 > 1:52:33they did say to me when I went to Catterick barracks recently, and I

1:52:33 > 1:52:35wouldn't have actually put my dog into some of the accommodation they

1:52:35 > 1:52:40were having to live in, and I came back and went absolutely certain...

1:52:40 > 1:52:44It should not be for the minister to turn up and see that. It should

1:52:44 > 1:52:55actually be there and done. I had the pleasure of sacking one other

1:52:55 > 1:53:00company who was responsible for the accommodation. We should do the same

1:53:00 > 1:53:08to other companies that letters down. -- that let us down. The

1:53:08 > 1:53:12opposition missed an opportunity for us to be able to debate openly about

1:53:12 > 1:53:22the package that our Armed Forces need.

1:53:22 > 1:53:27Would my right honourable friend agree that if we were to open this

1:53:27 > 1:53:30debate, the opposition would find white support for challenging a lot

1:53:30 > 1:53:39of the pertinent issues in the debate.By focusing on this, it

1:53:39 > 1:53:46makes us focus on the arguments. My honourable friend has hit the nail

1:53:46 > 1:53:50on the head. No one in this house does not have respect for the Armed

1:53:50 > 1:53:55Forces, but where does the money come from? The honourable gentleman

1:53:55 > 1:53:59from North Durham from a sedentary position says we should pay them

1:53:59 > 1:54:05more. When he was the defence Minister he should have been paid a

1:54:05 > 1:54:12lot more for what he was doing. We have bandied this around for many

1:54:12 > 1:54:22years. The situation for me is where would the money come from? I am one

1:54:22 > 1:54:26of the people on this side of the House who wrote to the Chancellor

1:54:26 > 1:54:33months ago to say that we need to phase the cat out. I was the police

1:54:33 > 1:54:37minister, I cannot be disingenuous, I cannot pretend that I did not push

1:54:37 > 1:54:44for it to be removed for the police. I was the fire leader, the same.

1:54:44 > 1:54:48Where will that money come from? It should not come from expenditure on

1:54:48 > 1:54:53equipment, I could not agree more, but where does it come from? We

1:54:53 > 1:54:58cannot make promises that we cannot deliver because that is the worst

1:54:58 > 1:55:02thing for morale in the Armed Forces, making promises you cannot

1:55:02 > 1:55:05fulfil. If I went through the lobby on this tonight not knowing where

1:55:05 > 1:55:10that money would come from, I would be ashamed of myself because I

1:55:10 > 1:55:14cannot do that. Do I want them to get more pay? In the short-term,

1:55:14 > 1:55:18yes, but I want them to have the right equipment, accommodation and

1:55:18 > 1:55:25the right package and then we can say we them properly.I want to

1:55:25 > 1:55:31start by joining with other members and honourable members in

1:55:31 > 1:55:35acknowledging the armed forces and the work they do in protecting

1:55:35 > 1:55:39Britain at home and overseas in difficult circumstances. If I could

1:55:39 > 1:55:43specify in particular the erstwhile member for Middlesbrough, south and

1:55:43 > 1:55:49East Cleveland, or as he is known as Private Tom Blenkinsop, after

1:55:49 > 1:55:56passing out at the weekend, first Regiment of the Royal military

1:55:56 > 1:55:59police, he may no longer be an honourable member in the parlance of

1:55:59 > 1:56:03this place, but we can agree he is an honourable man and a good friend

1:56:03 > 1:56:10to many of us. The second is Corporal Andy Reid from Rainford in

1:56:10 > 1:56:14my constituency and he lost both his legs and right arm in an IED in

1:56:14 > 1:56:21Afghanistan. This year he and warrant Officer Glenn Hughes cycled

1:56:21 > 1:56:28400 miles, kayak 170 miles and descended 7500 feet to raise funds

1:56:28 > 1:56:34for veterans and I was very honoured along with the Minister to host an

1:56:34 > 1:56:39event for him. The reason I use those two cases is to illustrate

1:56:39 > 1:56:43money is not the motivation for people to join the armed Forces and

1:56:43 > 1:56:48no one is saying that for a minute, but we do have a duty to treat

1:56:48 > 1:56:52people and pay people properly. I do not think the government is doing

1:56:52 > 1:56:56that and this is causing difficulties both for serving

1:56:56 > 1:57:01personnel and is causing a real crisis in recruitment. The

1:57:01 > 1:57:05government has got to address and get to terms with the chronic under

1:57:05 > 1:57:09recruitment affecting the army and it has been in denial for the last

1:57:09 > 1:57:16seven years about this. In 2013 when I was adviser to the Shadow Defence

1:57:16 > 1:57:19Secretary, the shadow defence Minister and the right honourable

1:57:19 > 1:57:23member for North Durham, we opposed the government plan to cut the

1:57:23 > 1:57:30regular army and said of our deep concerns about lack of equipment. At

1:57:30 > 1:57:35that time the Chancellor said to seek to reverse it at this stage

1:57:35 > 1:57:39would cause confusion in the ranks. If the government continues on its

1:57:39 > 1:57:45current path, there will not be any ranks left to confuse.I am grateful

1:57:45 > 1:57:51to the honourable member. Can I take him to the Armed Forces Covenant.

1:57:51 > 1:57:55The minister gave the impression earlier that the Armed Forces

1:57:55 > 1:57:58Covenant was working very well across the country. If that were the

1:57:58 > 1:58:04case, and I am huge supporter of the implementation of the covenant, but

1:58:04 > 1:58:09if it were the case that it is going swimmingly everywhere, why is it

1:58:09 > 1:58:12written into the deal between the Conservative Party and the

1:58:12 > 1:58:17Democratic Unionist Party?I think the honourable lady makes an

1:58:17 > 1:58:22important and interesting point. We have tried very hard in my own

1:58:22 > 1:58:24constituency in the borough of Sehgal is to implement the Armed

1:58:24 > 1:58:33Forces Covenant, but I know that there are issues around it. We wish

1:58:33 > 1:58:39to see it resolved and implemented in the rest of the UK. Despite the

1:58:39 > 1:58:44target of 82,000 full-time, fully trained troops set out in the

1:58:44 > 1:58:47government's strategic defence and Security review, in April this year

1:58:47 > 1:58:52just 78,000 soldiers are in the Army. This is an abject failure on

1:58:52 > 1:58:57the government's watch by any measure and is being identified as a

1:58:57 > 1:59:00key problem by the former commander of the joint forces. The recent

1:59:00 > 1:59:08report by the right honourable gentleman for Wickford confirmed the

1:59:08 > 1:59:12regular army needs to recruit 10,000 people a year to maintain its

1:59:12 > 1:59:16strength, but only attracted 7000 entrants last year. Alongside that,

1:59:16 > 1:59:20figures show the numbers leaving the part-time Army reserve, which we

1:59:20 > 1:59:25were told would be increased and complement the decline in the

1:59:25 > 1:59:31regular army, the numbers leaving the reserve increased by 20% between

1:59:31 > 1:59:37the 1st of June 2016 and the 1st of June 2000 and 17. In the last

1:59:37 > 1:59:42financial year, intake into the reserve failed by 18%. The

1:59:42 > 1:59:46government does not have a strategy to turn the falling numbers around.

1:59:46 > 1:59:54There are only solution so far has been to sack another 120 members of

1:59:54 > 1:59:55the armed forces personnel, recruiters, and then replace them

1:59:55 > 2:00:03with civilians from capita. I said earlier that he has the cheek on him

2:00:03 > 2:00:07criticising our plans in terms of Krugman when he is taking money out

2:00:07 > 2:00:14of the pockets of Armed Forces personnel and giving it to a private

2:00:14 > 2:00:19company.Just to be clear, of course in the armed forces people join and

2:00:19 > 2:00:24people leave, that is the nature of any job and of the Armed Forces. But

2:00:24 > 2:00:28to be clear over the last three years the numbers in the reserves

2:00:28 > 2:00:33has increased, not decrease.I do not wish to contributing the rules

2:00:33 > 2:00:38of the House and get into a debate with the Minister, that I am not

2:00:38 > 2:00:49sure the Minister can say that the figure of 30,000 reserve recruits

2:00:49 > 2:00:54can be met. We will continue to monitor progress on that

2:00:54 > 2:01:02specifically and particularly. I am not a mathematician either as the

2:01:02 > 2:01:08honourable gentleman said earlier, but I know if you need to recruit

2:01:08 > 2:01:1310,000 and you are only attracting 7000 to the regular army, you have

2:01:13 > 2:01:21not met your own defined quota to meet the needs of national security

2:01:21 > 2:01:24and recruitment in the reserves will not add up and it will not add up

2:01:24 > 2:01:32for the British public either. I will very briefly.I gave figures in

2:01:32 > 2:01:36my speech about recruiting targets for the reserves and where we are

2:01:36 > 2:01:44and I did point out that we are ahead of target.I think there is a

2:01:44 > 2:01:47huge issue firstly around the figures and there is another issue

2:01:47 > 2:01:52around thinking you can replace regular with reserves. The truth is

2:01:52 > 2:01:57this government has cut the army, it has cut it below its own target

2:01:57 > 2:02:02which was 20,000 below what it was when we left office. There is a

2:02:02 > 2:02:06worry about recruitment and there is a worry about capability and further

2:02:06 > 2:02:11proposed cuts mean there is a real danger that in a very dangerous and

2:02:11 > 2:02:16uncertain global context Britain's defence is undermined and

2:02:16 > 2:02:24compromise. I am sorry to say the Armed Forces have been cut, their

2:02:24 > 2:02:28pay is down, key capabilities are being hollowed out and our leading

2:02:28 > 2:02:33defence industry is being left behind, perhaps something we could

2:02:33 > 2:02:37debate on another occasion. I will finish by saying the Armed Forces

2:02:37 > 2:02:44and the British public deserve far better.Leo Docherty.I am pleased

2:02:44 > 2:02:48to speak in this debate this afternoon. First, it is important

2:02:48 > 2:02:53that this debate is based on fact. On that note, we have got to

2:02:53 > 2:02:59recognise that when it comes to the Armed Forces' pay, 1% increase was

2:02:59 > 2:03:07recommended by the pay review in January this year, 2017, which the

2:03:07 > 2:03:12government accepted. The government declared it was moving away from a

2:03:12 > 2:03:15blanket 1% cap on public sector pay and we anticipate the Armed Forces

2:03:15 > 2:03:19pay review board will make suggestions in the future that the

2:03:19 > 2:03:23government will accept. There is good news on this which we have got

2:03:23 > 2:03:28to bear in mind when discussing it. We have also got to bear in mind

2:03:28 > 2:03:32that in addition to increases in basic salary, armed forces personnel

2:03:32 > 2:03:40will enjoy...It is wrong. Over the last six years they have completely

2:03:40 > 2:03:45ignored the pay review body and I do not know where he gets it from, I

2:03:45 > 2:03:48have missed it, in future the government will accept the

2:03:48 > 2:03:51recommendations of the pay review body because I am not aware of that

2:03:51 > 2:03:56announcement.If the honourable gentleman was paying attention in

2:03:56 > 2:04:00September he will have noticed that the government indicated there would

2:04:00 > 2:04:06be a move away from a 1% blanket public pay cap. It is likely in the

2:04:06 > 2:04:10future that the army pay review board makes a recommendation to the

2:04:10 > 2:04:16government. Pay attention! It is very likely that the government will

2:04:16 > 2:04:23accept that. To say that the pay of the Armed Forces is being cut is

2:04:23 > 2:04:31erroneous. We have to recognise that broadly the offer is good and armed

2:04:31 > 2:04:33forces personnel enjoy subsidised housing and noncontributory

2:04:33 > 2:04:38pensions. That is important, we have to recognise that. Of course there

2:04:38 > 2:04:43are concerns and we must be vigilant in safeguarding and improving the

2:04:43 > 2:04:47experience of the Armed Forces personnel, but I believe the offer

2:04:47 > 2:04:54is good. I hear from my constituents concerns about kit and equipment and

2:04:54 > 2:04:57opportunities for training and deployment. I do not think this

2:04:57 > 2:05:01should be a political football to be kicked around by members of the

2:05:01 > 2:05:06opposition if I may say that. There is a good story to tell and we

2:05:06 > 2:05:11should be very positive about the broad offer that the Armed Forces

2:05:11 > 2:05:24present to young people. Sadly, the opposition are talking this down. To

2:05:24 > 2:05:29demonstrate this, I will quote from the Leader of the Opposition. I will

2:05:29 > 2:05:34make some progress. He said, I would like us to live in a world where we

2:05:34 > 2:05:40spend a lot less on defence. A couple of years later, why do we

2:05:40 > 2:05:44have to have planes, transport aircraft and aircraft carriers to

2:05:44 > 2:05:50get anywhere in the world? That was in 2015. Not long after that he

2:05:50 > 2:05:54said, would it not be wonderful if every politician around the world

2:05:54 > 2:05:58instead of taking pride in the size of their Armed Forces did what the

2:05:58 > 2:06:02people of Costa Rica had Stan and abolish their army? What a

2:06:02 > 2:06:07disgraceful indictment of the attitude of the Leader of the

2:06:07 > 2:06:19Opposition. Madame Deputy Speaker, I would be very pleased to give way.

2:06:19 > 2:06:22Perhaps the honourable gentleman would like to do what the Leader of

2:06:22 > 2:06:26the Opposition is going to do this evening which is vote for this

2:06:26 > 2:06:29motion and show the unequivocal support for our Armed Forces.I will

2:06:29 > 2:06:34look forward to every single opportunity in this place to

2:06:34 > 2:06:38demonstrate my commitment to the Armed Forces, but playing the games

2:06:38 > 2:06:44of the opposition will not be included in my repertoire if I may.

2:06:44 > 2:06:51Speak for Costa Rica! I was pleased earlier on today to extend a very

2:06:51 > 2:06:54warm invitation to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

2:06:54 > 2:06:58to visit my constituency of Aldershot, the home of the British

2:06:58 > 2:07:03Army and the Aldershot Garrison. I would like to extend that invitation

2:07:03 > 2:07:07to the Leader of the Opposition because I think if he made time in

2:07:07 > 2:07:12his diary to spend time with some of the regiments we have in the

2:07:12 > 2:07:19Garrison, including the Grenadier Guards, the Scots Guards, the Queen

2:07:19 > 2:07:24's own guys, the Logistics Regiment, it would not only improve his

2:07:24 > 2:07:29turnout, but it would generate a greater degree of sympathy for the

2:07:29 > 2:07:34Armed Forces that it would do very well for him to express in future.

2:07:34 > 2:07:43To conclude on a slightly more serious point, I think we have got

2:07:43 > 2:07:48to be positive and upbeat about the message we send to our young men and

2:07:48 > 2:07:53women who are considering careers in the Armed Forces. We live in a time

2:07:53 > 2:07:57of unparalleled global instability. The Middle East is in flames, Nato

2:07:57 > 2:08:02is being challenged by Russia, there is a potential nuclear convocation

2:08:02 > 2:08:10in North Korea, so we have huge global threats and challenges. But I

2:08:10 > 2:08:13am sure the British Armed Forces will be able to deliver on a global

2:08:13 > 2:08:17scale both hard and soft power in the coming years. If you are a young

2:08:17 > 2:08:23man and women considering serving in the Armed Forces, the future is

2:08:23 > 2:08:27bright and we should make that clear. If there are any young people

2:08:27 > 2:08:30watching this debate they should know there are tremendous careers

2:08:30 > 2:08:34are available in the Armed Forces and if they do join up, they would

2:08:34 > 2:08:38be doing their country proud.

2:08:38 > 2:08:47Thank you. It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate today. And

2:08:47 > 2:08:52a great pleasure of course to speak after the honourable member for

2:08:52 > 2:08:58Aldershot, not least because it means his speech has come to an end.

2:08:58 > 2:09:06However, I'm more serious notes, in 11 days' time all of us will be

2:09:06 > 2:09:12sending around our local cenotaph. One thing that has moved me greatly

2:09:12 > 2:09:16is the range of the families of military and former military

2:09:16 > 2:09:22personnel that we meet around those cenotaphs and the issues that they

2:09:22 > 2:09:28raise with us. One of which will be and has been below inflation pay

2:09:28 > 2:09:35settlements. Another issue is relating to accommodation and how

2:09:35 > 2:09:39rises are not met by this pay settlements, as the member for

2:09:39 > 2:09:44Portsmouth said. Other issues relate to... I no mention was made earlier

2:09:44 > 2:09:51about the credit unions that were set up, an excellent initiative, but

2:09:51 > 2:09:55let's not forget they were set up as a result of research showing the

2:09:55 > 2:10:0020,000 young personnel in the military and former military

2:10:00 > 2:10:05personnel were relying on payday loans. That of course is the reality

2:10:05 > 2:10:12of the situation. I pay tribute to the Government in that they listened

2:10:12 > 2:10:16to the Royal British Legion on that campaign, and I think those credit

2:10:16 > 2:10:20unions were an excellent initiative. I would like to use this debate

2:10:20 > 2:10:24today in the hope that they will listen to the Royal British Legion

2:10:24 > 2:10:32on another of their campaigns and that is the Count Them In campaign.

2:10:32 > 2:10:36That request for a designated question or questions in the census,

2:10:36 > 2:10:41so that more information can be provided on who are military and

2:10:41 > 2:10:46former military personnel are, so that they can be better served in

2:10:46 > 2:10:53our communities. I know ministers will be very aware and I hope will

2:10:53 > 2:10:57welcome that the Office of National Statistics is remaining ferret --

2:10:57 > 2:11:03made a very positive report on this subject, making the point that our

2:11:03 > 2:11:07understanding of the user need for information of those who have served

2:11:07 > 2:11:15us, to quote the ONS, and now left the UK and Armed Forces, has grown.

2:11:15 > 2:11:20The ONS has noted that linked data only partially meets the user's

2:11:20 > 2:11:30needs. We now know also that 88% of people surveyed by the ONS thinks it

2:11:30 > 2:11:36is acceptable to ask these designated questions. The ONS

2:11:36 > 2:11:41further comments that based on the testing so far, the ONS has

2:11:41 > 2:11:45concluded that it will be possible to finalise a question that works

2:11:45 > 2:11:52and is broadly acceptable. I really hope at this time of year and at

2:11:52 > 2:11:59this time before the next census is prepared that Government on the

2:11:59 > 2:12:04campaign by the Royal British Legion, they know what is being

2:12:04 > 2:12:10requested by many military families around our country, they listened to

2:12:10 > 2:12:15the very thoughtful words of the ONS, and that they fully support the

2:12:15 > 2:12:20Count Them In campaign, so that we as a country can better serve those

2:12:20 > 2:12:26people who have served and are serving us. Thank you, Madam Deputy

2:12:26 > 2:12:31is bigger.I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. When

2:12:31 > 2:12:37I read that this was the topic chosen by the opposition, I was a

2:12:37 > 2:12:41little surprised, given that it was the Leader of the Opposition when

2:12:41 > 2:12:48faced with the option on Armed Forces Day whether to honour the

2:12:48 > 2:12:52Armed Forces, instead decided to go and stand in a field in Glastonbury

2:12:52 > 2:12:58in honour of dismantling Britain's nuclear deterrent. The allegation

2:12:58 > 2:13:02being made is that this Government is not supporting the Armed Forces.

2:13:02 > 2:13:06Let's take a look at a bit of that context. The British Government has

2:13:06 > 2:13:14the second largest budget in Nato. It is the largest in the EU. We are

2:13:14 > 2:13:18meeting the 2% target, which Germany isn't, Italy isn't, Spain isn't, by

2:13:18 > 2:13:26the way. And second, spending is forecast to increase. We will

2:13:26 > 2:13:35building seven ships and submarines. A kit projection of £178 billion to

2:13:35 > 2:13:422026, and that translates into jobs in my constituency, for example the

2:13:42 > 2:13:46seniors defence support, supporting that investment. And also

2:13:46 > 2:13:53importantly, something not mentioned thus far, £1.9 billion to be

2:13:53 > 2:13:56invested into intelligence spending. GCHQ in my constituency will

2:13:56 > 2:14:01therefore be able to expand and keep us safe, and it is of concern that

2:14:01 > 2:14:071.9 billion seems to be somehow forgotten. That is about half the

2:14:07 > 2:14:14total mint with bent on prisons. -- the total amount. That spending does

2:14:14 > 2:14:22not just support the valiant and skilful men and women involved, but

2:14:22 > 2:14:28the local economy, too. We have a cyber centre in Cheltenham with the

2:14:28 > 2:14:36finest minds, nurturing small businesses. On the issue of pay, of

2:14:36 > 2:14:40course this is an important issue but might honourable and gallant

2:14:40 > 2:14:44friends have made the point that it is part of a basket of issues. It is

2:14:44 > 2:14:48not for me to advise the loyal opposition on what to talk about but

2:14:48 > 2:14:53it might have been more judicious to broaden the scope. There are some

2:14:53 > 2:14:58issues clearly important, clearly accommodation, but to focus purely

2:14:58 > 2:15:11on pay, I say respectfully, is ill-advised.In 28 years, I can't

2:15:11 > 2:15:18recall a soldier complaining about pay. However, they often complained

2:15:18 > 2:15:23about allowances. And particularly changing from one theatre to another

2:15:23 > 2:15:29on operations and losing their local overseas allowance. That is correct.

2:15:29 > 2:15:33They do complain about that and it is something we should look at

2:15:33 > 2:15:38because particularly junior ranks find it very difficult.That is

2:15:38 > 2:15:41exactly the kind of sophistication that ought to be brought to this

2:15:41 > 2:15:47debate, to look at specific issues which can make the lives of serving

2:15:47 > 2:15:51service personnel better. But really the principles we should apply are

2:15:51 > 2:15:56tolerably simple. First, listen to independent experts, at pay review

2:15:56 > 2:15:59bodies and second we should build inflexible to where there is a

2:15:59 > 2:16:05skills shortage. I will return to that in a moment. It is right, as

2:16:05 > 2:16:09the Prime Minister indicated in PMQs today, to look at the context of the

2:16:09 > 2:16:14public finances. She said that we are spending £50 billion a year on

2:16:14 > 2:16:18debt interest alone. This raises a really important moral argument

2:16:18 > 2:16:23because when we talk about the future of our Armed Forces, we don't

2:16:23 > 2:16:27just want Armed Forces for today or tomorrow or next week, we want our

2:16:27 > 2:16:30children to be able to enjoy the protection of the Armed Forces as

2:16:30 > 2:16:36well. And what is Labour's suggested solution to this? Notwithstanding

2:16:36 > 2:16:42that we have public borrowing of about £58 million each year,

2:16:42 > 2:16:46notwithstanding that we have a national debt of £1.7 trillion,

2:16:46 > 2:16:52their remedy is more borrowing, more debt, more tax. Where does that

2:16:52 > 2:16:58leaders a country? If we were to borrow tomorrow and additional £500

2:16:58 > 2:17:02billion as has been suggested, that means our national debt goes from

2:17:02 > 2:17:111.7 trillion to £2.2 trillion. So we will basically be spending before we

2:17:11 > 2:17:17pay for a single soldier, a single police officer, a single nurse, £62

2:17:17 > 2:17:23billion a year. The entire defence budget is £36 billion. So there will

2:17:23 > 2:17:27be people born today and our country who in 30 years' time to know. Their

2:17:27 > 2:17:34own, will either knock on the door of the welfare state because they'd

2:17:34 > 2:17:42need assistance, or we'll want protection of our Armed Forces but

2:17:42 > 2:17:48the risk increases if the opposition are able to achieve what they want.

2:17:48 > 2:18:01Oh, sorry.I thought that the Tory party scripted change. He has not,

2:18:01 > 2:18:10obviously, got the new script. You can sit down. Can he explain that if

2:18:10 > 2:18:16the Government can find £1 billion out of fresh air, to keep in power

2:18:16 > 2:18:22through the DUP in Northern Ireland, why can't they fund the pay of our

2:18:22 > 2:18:28Armed Forces?That is an argument that has been made with,

2:18:28 > 2:18:30respectfully, tedious regularity, and what it betrays is a complete

2:18:30 > 2:18:35lack of understanding of the public finances. We borrow as a country

2:18:35 > 2:18:41every single year £58 billion. We spent as a nation £803 billion a

2:18:41 > 2:18:47year and yet what Labour want to do is borrow £500 billion, which in

2:18:47 > 2:18:52turn would increase our annual payment in the order of £12 billion.

2:18:52 > 2:18:57That would be monstrous. It would be disastrous for the UK economy and

2:18:57 > 2:19:00for future generations. And there is an issue of generational justice

2:19:00 > 2:19:05here and it is a message that Labour have not learnt. And so it is

2:19:05 > 2:19:10important when we consider these matters...Could he tell us whether

2:19:10 > 2:19:17he thinks it is better to get the deficit of this country down by

2:19:17 > 2:19:20asking the wealthy and the big corporations to pay a little bit

2:19:20 > 2:19:27more, or does he want it to come off the backs of our hard-working Armed

2:19:27 > 2:19:34Forces?Again, with respect, it is complete financial illiteracy. The

2:19:34 > 2:19:39top 1% in country are paying 28% of total spending. That is a higher