01/11/2017 House of Commons

Ten minute rule motion. Mr Richard

Benyon. Mr Speaker, I beg leave to

introduce a bill that would create

statutory limitations on court

proceedings against current and

former members of the Armed Forces

for certain alleged offences

committed during military operations

or similar circumstances and for

connected purposes. Everybody in

this House, particularly those of us

who have served in the Armed Forces,

want our Armed Forces want always to

be seen as a most professional in

the world. This means we want them

to abide by the strict codes of

behaviour that we impose on them and

abide by the International rules of

war. In the Balkans, Iraq,

Afghanistan and Northern Ireland,

and elsewhere, we've asked our Armed

Forces to operate in highly complex

scenarios. Almost to a man and a

woman they have behaved in the

finest traditions of the three

services. The reputation of this

country and our Armed Forces have

been enhanced by their

professionalism, restraint,

compassion and courage. However,

there is a problem. Firstly, out of

the Iraq conflict, there has emerged

an industry where lawyers sadly

often just honest -- dishonest

lawyers have used vast amount of

public money to bring cases against

former and current members of the

Armed Forces. If they had been truth

in these cases, that would be fine.

But the difficulty to make these

allegations stick shows how badly

these cases are made. This

organisation processed over 3000

cases, giving an indication of the

level of absurdity of some of these

claims, my understanding was that

just 20 cases than at the time of

the demise of this organisation,

none of which believed to be viable

by prosecutors. Never again would

dreadful individuals be able to line

their pockets Origi pockets of the

legal firms with vast amounts of

public funds was pursuing our

veterans into old age. -- to line

their pockets or the pockets of the.

I would like to make it impossible

to bring a case against any

individual for actions taken whilst

serving on operations. I would

suggest that a period of ten years

would be the right the route on

which to legislate. I fully accept

they would have to be caveats and

exceptions. -- there would have to

be. I will time it means that we

allow for legitimate cases to be

brought forward, it is about the

time when evidential trails run

cold. -- the time chosen means. The

leadership and the subcommittee,

their work has informed the spill.

Mr Speaker, later this month in

Belfast a 70 region ruled -- a 70

eligible man will face charges

including attempted murder. He was

an exemplary soldier ending his

career as a senior warrant officer.

He has a severe heart condition and

has only 11% kidney function. The

allegations relate to an incident in

1974 when a Pro12 he was leading in

Northern Ireland, at a time of

intense terrorist activity, fired on

a -- on an individual that was

killed. At the time, she was told

that no action was going to be taken

against him. What has changed? No

new evidence, less evident in fact.

Two of the three witnesses are dead.

The fire runs, casings, the original

file, have been lost. The Northern

Ireland Director of Public

Prosecutions claimed that new

evidence had come to light. We are

fearing that... There has been a

decision to reignite such

investigations. The Government have

rightly said that there should be no

bias in terms of how we these

investigations are carried out.

Unfortunately, there is already a

price. 90% of the guest during the

troubles were at the hands of

terrorists. -- already a bias. These

are people that went out with the

intention of killing and moving. The

security forces went out with the

intention of saving lives. I spent

most of my time in the fields and

streets of Northern Ireland, most of

my early 20s, protecting the lives

of prison officers, police officers,

from being assassinated in their

homes. Please can we ended argument

that there is some kind of

equivalence between terrorists and

security forces. There is a limit of

two years for any terrorist found

guilty after the Good Friday

Agreement. Many feel that the

letters, part of the Good Friday

Agreement, effectively give

terrorists a statute of locations.

-- of limitations. Thousands of

people served in Ireland in 1969 to

2007. Many of us, myself included

witnessed acts of extraordinary

restraint and professionalism by

young soldiers in the face of

extraordinary provocation. Like most

veterans, I have been moved by the

ability of community leaders and

politicians to bury the enmity is of

the past and enter Government with

those that have killed and more to

the killings of people they knew. --

and ordered the killings of people.

Of course, there are ongoing

tensions in Northern Ireland, we

hope these can be hired out. In the

main, would Northern Ireland have

done is so impressive. They are

moving on from the robber of

killings and many. Terrorists who

would otherwise be in prison what we

are under terms agreement. The

person that slaughtered five members

of my mind is known to the

authorities but not -- of my band is

known to the authorities but not

pursued. But it is soldier is being

pursued. My bill SS nonsense. With

the banner ending, so would the

presale of elderly members -- would

the personal of members of the Armed

Forces. You get a clear message that

United left and right, old and

young, people with and without a

detailed knowledge of military

matters. They want to draw a line

under the troubles. For them,

handing the likes of his soldier and

others until the end of their lives

is abhorrent. For those that agree

that these prosecutions and

investigations are wrong but

disagree that this is the way

forward, they have to answer some

clear understanding questions. --

and resounding questions. What would

they to end this grotesque charade?

Do we put up with it and hope nobody

notices? Can we imagine any other

country in the world doing this to

our veterans? Do we really want to

see people that should be

appreciated for what they did, even

revered, being taken from their

homes, questions and prosecuted for

actions they took on our behalf and

one of the most impossible campaigns

and modern times many decades ago?

-- in modern times. Mr Speaker, it's

time for this House to reflect the

mood of the vast majority of people

in society.

Of the contrary no. I think the

ayings have it. The ayes have it.

Who will prepare and bring in the

bill?

Mr Speaker, Richard Drax,

Emma... Dr Julian Lewis, Mrs

Madeleine Moon. Jim Shannon.

And myself.

Mr Richard Benyon.

Armed Forces statute of limitations

bill.

Second reading what day? June

15th. 2018. Thank you.

Order we come to the first

opposition day motion, on Armed

Forces pay. To move the motion, I

call the Shadow Secretary of State

for Defence.

Thank you very much

indeed Mr Speaker.

Our Armed Forces represent the very

best of what this country stands

for. Across the House, we recognise

their dedication, and their

professionalism, and we honour the

sacrifices they make on our behalf.

Especially at this time of year. Mr

Speaker, when it comes to their pay,

our Armed Forces personnel have not

been treated with the fairness and

decency their service deserves.

Because in every year, since 2010,

the Conservative Party in Government

has made a decision to give our

brave men and women a real terms pay

cut. And so, regardless of rising

rents in service accommodation, and

cuts to tax credits the pay that

service personnel receive has lagged

way behind inflation, in each of the

last seven years. This sorry state

of affairs means that the starting

salary of an army private has been

cut by over £1,000 in real terms

since Labour left office. Mr

Speaker, is it any wonder that the

Government finds itself presiding

over a crisis in recruitment and

retention? I give way.

Of course pay

is very important but does she

accept in a survey conducted among

12,000 members of the Armed Forces

this year, pay did not feature in

any of the top five category, the

Government is doing a huge amount to

ensure terms of employment are right

and good service model for the Armed

Forces.

Thank you. I am not sure

where the honourable lady has been

because certainly in the materials I

have been reading in the 2017 report

it very clearly states that two

thirds of personnel do not find

levels of pay satisfactory, and it

is given as one of the main reasons

why people consider leaving the

forces. I give way to the honourable

gentleman.

Thank you. I don't want

to drone on about it but I have been

in the army 14 years and not once

has someone spoken to me about their

pay. If you look incrementally at

how we are paid, compared to Nato

ally, compared to the US, the

British Armed Forces have a

respectable pay deal that goes up

each year in pay bands with the X

Factor and it is simply din

ingenuous to say there is a military

throughout that is deeply

disaffected with how much they are

paid.

Well, indeed, Mr Speaker it

surprises me to hear the honourable

gentleman saying that, not only do

we have that report but the Pay

Review Body itself has talked about

frustration with levels of pay, has

identified it as a real south source

of concern within the Armed Forces

so I think we are living on

different planets.

I am for raising

this today, perhaps it depends where

you come from, in Wales, I have

plenty of people who complaining to

me about pay issues within the Armed

Forces, people who are struggling to

cope with their bills. Bills. I am

also having people who have rung

think many morning concerned about

press reports about the cutting of

the £29 a day allowance for service

in Iraq. Which they see as a further

cut to their capacity to cope while

remaining in the armed force, I

thank the lady for bringing this

forward today but there is an issue

and I am glad we are hear to debate

it.

I thank my honourable friend

very much indeed for her

intervention, I think she lives very

much in the real world and is very

much aware of the cuts that have

been affecting Armed Forces and the

cut to pay. One more then I will

make some progress.

I am grateful. I

have to say I represent het win

barracks and am very proud of the

great service of the Royal Engineers

in those barracks and I am a former

minister in the Ministry of Defence.

I have to say pay Luz not on the

list, and it is not on the list of

those constituents who served so

well in our armed force, now,

accommodation is another matter but

it is not pay and with great respect

to the honourable lady I think those

listening to this may not be doing a

great service there are other issues

we should be debating but not this

one.

Well Mr Speaker I would agree

it is no the only factor which makes

it difficult to recruit and retain

staff but it is a significant one,

when both the report and the Pay

Review Body listed it as such. I

would like to make some progress if

may.

I find this quite astonishing

from the party opposite. I remember

as a minister being harangued by the

party opposite in opposition arguing

that we did a bad deal for the Armed

Forces even though we accept the

body's representation. It was in

2013 that the Pay Review Body

chairman was sacked because the

Prime Minister at the time, David

Cameron didn't want to recommend

increases in the X Factor.

Well, my honourable friend makes

reference to a shocking situation

and certainly I think it is very

disappointing that the party

opposite is starting this debate on

a negative note.

Now, more and more personnel are in

fact choosing to leave the arms

forces and every one of the services

is falling in size. A recent

Government commissioned report by

the Right Honourable member found

that recruitment to the services was

running to stand still and leading

to the hollowing out of our armed

force, rather than get to grips with

this problem the Conservatives'

record is is a litany of missed

targets and broken promise, their

town 15 manifesto pledged to keep

the size of the army above 82,000.

Hardly an ambitious target

considering it was well over 100,000

when Labour left Government. Miss

the target they did. And the

strength of the army is now just

77600. That figure of 82,000

mysteriously disappeared by the time

of their 2017 manifesto, that

fateful document promised to

maintain the overall size of the

Armed Forces, but question add that

pledge to the rubbish pile along

with the rest of forry manifesto,

since June we have seen a reduction

in the size of the army, a reduction

inst size of the Royal Navy and

marines and in the size of the Royal

Air Force, now we are in the

shameful position where the Defence

Secretary cannot rule out cuts to

the Royal Marines or promise that

army will not shrink further. Mr

Speaker, the Government may well be

complacent about the diminishing

size of our Armed Forces but we are

not. At a time of immense global

uncertainty, we... I will give way.

I am grateful to the honourable lady

for giving way. I was for 15 years

chair of the defence unit and

responsible for the membership in

the Commonwealth graves in

north-west Europe where 80% of the

war dead are buried. I saw first

hand the heroism on the one hand and

their history on the other. Does the

honourable lady agree with me a at

time when our country is facing an

ever more serious threat to our

national security, that it is

absolutely wrong to cut tens of

thousands from the Armed Forces, and

to say those who remain will suffer

a pay cut?

Indeed. My honourable friend makes

the point in a very eloquent way. We

are living in a world of immense

insecurity, OK, one more time and I

must make progress.

Thank you and

think the Right Honourable lady for

letting me intervene, does that mean

the Right Honourable lady is

prepared to commit to have more than

82,000 personnel in our army, if

Labour ever got into power? I would

totally support that.

Well, I think

the honourable gentleman needs to

take recognisance of the fact

everyier we were in office we spent

considerably more than the 2% GDP

commitment to defence. In our last

year in office we spent 2.5% of gpt.

A figure this Government has never

matched. -- GDP.

I am grateful. I am

a former soldier and not a

mathematician, I would suggest she

studies the figures the MoD has

released which describes in 2015,

the annual budget of the MoD was

34.4 billion and it will be in

202039.7 billion. Number is going up

so overall the budget is decreased.

To characterise it as a landscape of

cuts is erroneous.

Well, indeed it needs to go up,

because clearly, it needs to go up

and we have said clearly we would

match that increase, because

obviously costs are escalating but I

have to tell the honourable

gentleman costs are escalating

higher than that figure will

accommodate. I would like to make

some progress if I may. So at this

time of immense global uncertainty

we cannot have a situation where

numbers continue to slide month

after month and all we get from this

Government are warm words and

crippling complacency. Capita is

completely unfit for the job a hand,

we have had warning after warning

that tap has not been fulfilling its

basic obligation, yet as the number

of personnel has continued to fall,

the amount paid to Capita has grown.

We propose taking real action to

begin to address this state of

affair, lift the public sector pay

cap and give forces a fair pay rise,

I recognise this would not be a

silver bullet in the crisis in

recruitment and retention but we

know from personnel themselves that

pay is one of the main reasons why

they choose to leave our Armed

Forces. Satisfaction with basic

rates of pay and pension benefits

are the lowest levels ever recorded.

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has

found and overriding sense of untern

I -- uncertainty and increasing

superb then that the offer will get

worse. Barely a third of service

personnel are satisfied with their

basic pay and 42% of personnel have

said that pay was a push factor for

them in choosing to leave the

forces.

But is it any wonder, when our

service pen add women are had to

shoulder real terms pay cuts, that

have left them badly worse off?

Between 2010 and 2016, the starting

salary of a Corporal fell by nearly

£2,000 in real term, whereas for a

Flight Lieutenant that was £2800. At

the same time as being hit by these

real terms pay cuts, our servicemen

and women have faced rising costs in

forces housing, because changes to

charges for service family

accommodation mean rent increasing

for nearly three-quarters of

occupants. And the Government's

feature accommodation model risks

adding to that pressure, fracturing

forces communities by forcing

service families into private rented

sectors which all the additional

cost that brings to them and the

taxpayer. The Armed Forces Pay

Review Body has warned of a perfect

storm for personnel, who face

increases in rent and National

Insurance contributions at the same

time as their pay is cut, in real

terms.

And Mr Speaker, let us be in no

doubt that the responsibility for

these below inflation rises, lies

firmly with the Government. Since

they lost the majority, at the

general election, Government

ministers have made great play of

the supposed independence of the

Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

They would have us believe that the

Pay Review Body sets the rates and

they merely implement them. As if it

were so coincidence that the body

has not remitted an above inflation

rise since 2010.

But this is little more than a

cynical attempt by ministers to

shirk their responsibility, because

of course, they instruct the Pay

Review Body to work within the

context of the cap. And so despite

all the warm words from the

Secretary of State or the minister,

the Treasury has said that it will

not fund increases above and beyond

the 1% cap. That is a fact.

Would you agree that it's worse than

that because the idea is that the

play review body should be

independent and be able to make a

recommendation for ministers and

Government a look at. But in true

that 13, Alistair Smith, the chair

of the peer-reviewed was sacked.

Because he made a recommendation

that the ministers didn't like. This

is outrageous.

Yes, it's outrageous.

It betrays and appalling attitude by

this Government.

Gratefully for the

honourable lady giving way. I have

every sympathy for the idea of a pay

rise. However, does she appreciate

that within the arms and ranks of

the Armed Forces there is such a

thing as progression? Pay will

progress within particular ranks.

Has she taken into account the

noncontributory pension that applies

to the Armed Forces, despite the

fact that you do that in 15 changes

represented a deterioration in terms

of conditions. -- that the 2015

changes represented. It would be the

envy of the public and private

sectors.

Indeed, Mr Speaker. In any

career, one would hope to have a

career progression. The member

himself refers to the fact that the

pension offer is not as generous as

it once was. The problem is that

people do things that rising storm

of rising costs and pay that is not

keeping up with these costs.

Thank

you very much forgiving way. Would

the honourable member agree with me

that the people on the opposite

benches seemed to be of views

between the idea of a pay rise and a

pay". One of which is entitled to

and the other is a gift of the

Government. -- a pay increment.

Yet,

I agree. The pay review body can

recommend a higher reward for a

specific group of personnel. Then

they would have to introduce

decreases to pavements. --

decreases. They are unable to

recommend a pay rise to do with the

problem given the Treasury's

insistence that it will not provide

the funds. Rather than pass the

buck, is not over the Government to

do the right thing and let the

public sector pay cap across the

board so that Armed Forces and all

public sector workers, firefighters,

nurses, ambulance workers, all the

paid that they deserve? This is a

popular policy that commands support

across the country. More than two

thirds of from? Wants to give the

public sector a pay rise. Including

conservative supporters. -- of a

voters wants to give the public

sector. Whilst we have unions, Armed

Forces do not. It is the more

important that we in this House

speak up on behalf. There is no

point being that you back Armed

Forces personnel if you refuse to

stand off with them when it comes.

There is no point pretending that

you want to see their pay improve if

you will not fall back for it.

Members should listen to what I

service personnel are telling us.

The pay review body is finding this.

Public sector workers are finding

that there is constrained at a time

when things are recovering. -- armed

service workers are finding. These

are men and women who are powerless

to keep us safe. Surely the least

that they deserve as correct

payment. -- these are men and women

who work tirelessly to keep us safe.

Whether it is cutting corners with

short-sighted defence cuts that have

weakened defence capabilities are

imposing public sector pay cap on

brave personnel, this is a

Government that will not stop up the

Cass -- that will not pay when it is

important. I would suggest that they

are prepared to talk the talk but

they are not prepared to walk the

walk. Are they prepared to walk the

walk?

The question is as on the

order paper. I called Minister Mark

Lancaster.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful

to the opposition forgiving me the

opportunity to discuss Armed Forces

pay. This motion reflects a shared

sense on all sides of the House of

the value our Armed Forces bring to

the nation. It reflects an

appreciation for the unparalleled

bravery and an enormous affect all

round the call, whether fighting

Daesh in the Middle East or helping

in Estonia, bringing essential Hema

material aid to those devastated by

hurricanes in the Caribbean. Lastly,

those that put their lives on the

line should receive the reward due.

At the same time, this just shows a

partial picture, this bill. I would

like to provide some of the missing

context. I give way.

Can I thank the

Minister forgiving way. Defence

spend as -- was 2.5% of GDP in 2050.

Can the Minister tell me what it is

now?

Of the top of my head, is just

over 2%. 2.16, I was gunned as

82.14%. Firstly, the broader fiscal

context. We shouldn't forget why pay

restraint was introduced in 2010. It

was the consequence of a large and

Heritage economic deficit. The whole

with the public sector, not just

Armed Forces, was subject to the

same conditions. -- the consequence

of a large and inherited economic.

MoD had an important part to play in

supporting Government efforts to

restore the UK's economic

credibility. After all, a stronger

economy means struggle defence.

Taking these of decisions, we've

seen the economy grow, taxes are no

and employment high. This benefits

us all. The second point... I will

give way.

Thank you. I'm grateful

for being allowed to intervene. Most

of us in this chamber have sat

through the Bill and nobody spoke

against it. Tribute was paid to the

curvature of the service and

sacrifice of our Armed Forces, not

only in Northern Ireland but Iraq.

-- was paid to the courage and the

service and sacrifice. The minister

put this at the beginning of his

response is often. There is a moral

obligation. I don't want to hear

about fiscal reasons. I want this

Government recognised the moral

obligation and duty it has stood the

Armed Forces to lift this break-up.

-- duty it has two the Armed Forces.

I would also, of course, many of us

that the Prime Minister's Questions

and in response to my honourable

friend, I would simply referred to

honourable lady to the purple

argument and response that the Prime

Minister gave to this question on

the very subject that she graces.

The second point this motion ignores

is the impact of paper aggression.

Officers and other ranks are tied to

incremental pay scales. They

routinely and regularly move up the

balance. The honourable lady talked

about privates. The average private

soldier starts on a Sara Lee -- a

salary of £80,770. After one year,

through in griddle play alone,

that's notwithstanding the 1% pay

increase, that has risen to over

£20,000. -- a salary of £18,000.

That is a rise of 2.76% in one year.

After three years, this salary has

risen to Marcos. That is an increase

of 15.8%. -- has risen to Article

two. I give way to the honourable

gentleman.

I've got to say, I think

the honourable gentleman is being

disingenuous.

The right honourable

gentleman mustn't use that word. He

is a person of Felicity 's phrase

and an extensive vocabulary and he

must find another way to express his

irascibility.

Well, he's wrong.

LAUGHTER

The point being is that you get an

increase in any job as your ability

to serve increases. The facts are

that the yearly increases affect the

private's future because it affects

the level of the bands and

percentages. You can't argue that

because somebody gets pay

progression that they shouldn't get

an increase in basic pay, it would

affect their basic pay, of course it

is.

I'm worried about my honourable

friend's abroad. We'd been great

friends in this House for many

years. -- friend's approach. I'm

sure I'll get my revenge at some

point! As somebody that serves after

29 years, when it comes to the Armed

Forces, to accuse me of all people

as being disingenuous is slightly

unfair. I like to think I've done my

bit. However, if you are a private

soldier, on day one, receiving

18,000 £18,673 in your pocket before

tax, then £21,614, I don't think

people will care that much whether

it is paid progression or an annual

increase in their pay. It's money

and pockets. More money. -- money in

their pockets. The honourable

gentleman for North Durham says, and

here we go, maybe this is testament

to mathematics, that £21,614 is less

money than £18,673.

You should not

keep hollering because apart from

anything else that is marginally

discourteous jumpers honourable

friend, who had requested an

intervention and had it granted

before it was ripped away from him

by the unseemly behaviour of the

right honourable gentleman.

Thank

you Minister forgiving -- for giving

way. I was disheartening to see that

the Government is considering

scrapping the £29 deployment talents

to soldiers on the front line on

Iraq. I'd like to hear you

categorically deny this.

I am an

agreeable chap. More speculation

from the Times. No decision has been

made to scrap the operational

allowance. Every year since the

operational allowance was introduced

12 years ago there is a review of

where it should apply and why not,

soldiers have not been thought that

they will not receive it in and I am

deeply proud that it was as

Government that the operational

allowance from £14 to £29. Finally,

to get the last word, with my

honourable friend from Durham, all

of those figures do not take into

account this substantial rise in the

personal tax allowance that this

Government has introduced was in

power. I want give way just to seek

my revenge. Despite fiscal

constraint, Armed Forces salary is

what this period have not stagnated.

Indeed, they have risen on average

by 1.5%. I will make some points but

I will give way. MoD has the option

of introducing targeted payments,

particular issues in recruiting and

retention. These payments can range

from unlimited financial incentives

that recognise particular problems

we face, this brings me to the third

aspect of the pay story that has

been conveniently glossed over.

Joining the Armed Forces comes with

a range of benefits often ignored.

Subsidised accommodation and food,

access to free medical and dental

care, and lovers package, one of

which we just talked on, -- and

allowance package. I give way to the

honourable gentleman.

I thank the

Minister forgiving way. Can the

minister recognise the frustration

felt by the Armed Forces when the

sea rising costs in accommodation

but no real pay rise.

Let's be

clear, this subsidised accommodation

costs that our service personnel are

charged or approximately two thirds

of what they would pay in the

private sector. Two thirds. There

had been a readjustment across a

range because some of the bands were

completely out of date, for instance

accommodation was graded as to her

for a way they were from a public

telephone box. What relevance that

has an 2017 can better access to

broadband. -- as to how far away

they were. Let's not forget, members

of the Armed Forces are paying

considerably less than they would if

they were in the private sector. I

will give way.

The day-to-day hassle and unfairness

they face as a result of their

service, and to that end could he

confirm this Government's commitment

to the Armed Forces covenant and

maybe develop further what is the

Government doing to ensure that

nobody is penalised by their service

in our Armed Forces?

Well, I am

delighted that perhaps we have a

moment of consensus across the

House, when we talk about the

military covenant. It is indeed one

of the success stories of recent

years, indeed my my last role, my

honourable friend for Bournemouth we

have managed to convince the nation

of the value of service and to see

so many companies signing up is a

testament to success and every local

authority as well in England,

Scotland and Wales. I will give way

one more time and I must make

progress. The honourable member for

gedly.

Can I just ask, take the

minister back to his comment about

military salaries rising in real

terms, can he explain to the House

why the Ministry of Defence

publication of 1 September 2017, it

says figure 11 highlights that

growth in military salaries fell

below inflation from the financial

years 2010 and 11 to 2014-15. Can

ministers source where his evidence

is coming from as opposed to the

evidence the rest of us are having

to rely from the MoD website.

We are

going back to the debate about the

annual increase in salary and the

incremental pay. I have used the

example of the private soldier where

you are seeing a 20% increase in the

salary over three year, I am, I have

been generous, I am going to make

some progress, and I will give way

again before I finish my speech. In

other words when it comes to arm

forces pay context is all and the

decision to award a 1% pay increase

in town 17 didn't happen in

isolationlet it followed a

recommendation by the pay body. They

were clear their decision broadly

maintained pay come par built with

the civilian sectors critically the

AF PR B and the SSRB are independent

organisations who make annual

recommendation, their reports are

detailed, comprehensive and take

time to compile. For 2016-17 they

gathered written and oral evidence

from the Defence Secretary down,

including service personnel and

spouse, they held 186 discussion

groups before arriving at a decision

such a thorough evidence based

approach is why it would be wholly

wrong to start introducing ad hoc in

year reviews as some would have

suggested. Focussing solely on the

pay award, excludes the other

reforms we made to pay, reforms

supported by the AF PR B themselves,

for exam

2016 we introduced a new pay scheme

to more effectively reward personnel

for skills and simplify and

individual's pay journey,

consequently, people are better able

to predict their future career

earnings and make better informed

decision, at the same time we

recognise that in a competitive worm

we need to do more to plug skill

gaps in parts of the public sector.

If we are to continue delivering

world class sub pick -- public

service, that is why it will be

available in public sector pay

remains key, it means the

independent Pay Review Bodies can

make their own judgments on future

pay awards to mitigate potential

future impact. So, for 2018/19, the

AF PR B will no longer have a

retirement to keep their

recommendations within a total 1%

maximum award, but that, let us not

jump the gun. The 2018/19 Armed

Forces pay review is still to come.

It will by a degreed as part of the

budget process and we expect the

recommendation early next year.

I

think the minister for giving way,

he is quoting the AF PR B. It is

clear they say if inflation

continues its upward trajectory we

could see recruitment become more

challenging and morale impacted. We

need to consider carefully whether

1% was compatible with ofrational

effectiveness. He knows my concerns

about recruitment. I know pay is not

the only issue affecting it. Will we

see the figures going up and will he

listen to what the AF PR B is

saying?

What I would say is over the

last year we have seen 8,000

applications to army, that is an

increase of 20% on the previous

year. But I will be interesting in

his view, I was deeply surprised to

discover reading in a national

newspaper that Labour's plan or part

of their plan is to use the money

for marketing, some £10 million a

year, as one of the sources is of

income to give soldiers an increase

in pay. Now, with an approximately

150,000 Armed Forces personnel, that

would be an increase of about 5.50 a

month per member of the Armed Forces

but scrapping the one thing that

delivers recruit, so no marketing

budget, for an organisation, does

the honourable gentleman agree with

that, does he agree the front bench

plans to scrap the marketing budget?

Marketing is a crucial part of the

recruitment process but the minister

needs to be clear, he knows the, he

has given me an thans is clear every

single course, including those at

Catterick, is underrecruited. Every

single course at Sandhurst

underrecruited. It is his Government

that is leading to this crisis, pay

is one part of that, and it is a

crucial part of it. He is the

minister, he is in charge.

So we have a crucial marketing

budget that will be scrapped.

Scrapped. I am going to Catterick in

two weeks' time to be the passing

officer for the latest group of

Gurkhas to pass off, that is fully

recruited. Not all courses are. I am

delighted to say the last course for

Sandhurst was eek Liz fully

recruited. I will give way and go

back to making some progress. Madame

Deputy Speaker as the minister

always knows well, newspapers always

don't report things the right way

round but the important point about

this is the point we are making, the

point we are making about the

marketing costs, the point we are

making about the markets costs is

they have rocketed and the question

is, what value for money are they

providing, what value for money is

the contract with Capita providing?

What evaluation has the Government

done over whether that is value for

money, spent on Capita, spent on

marketing for the returns they are

getting, that is that we want to

see.

So I am not sure if we have

seen a U-turn, we haven't. So you

are still scrapping the marketing

budget. Can we have clarity, are you

proposing to scrap it or not?

The

point that I was making was the

massive increase in the marketing

budget for zero returns, in terms of

additional recruitment. That is the

point we are making. It is value for

money? They are running the

contract, they are employing

capital, they need to answer, as to

exactly what sort of value they

think they are getting out of

Capita.

I think I am going to do the House a

favour and move on. As alluded to

earlier for those joining the Armed

Forces pay isn't the

be-all-and-end-all. For whose ho

sign up to challenge themselves and

learn new skills. The reason cited

for leaving is the impact of the

service on family and personal life.

That is why we very dene do all we

can to improve life for our

personnel, 70% of people told a

recent MoD survey they wanted more

flexible working opportunities, so

we are introducing a flexible

working bill. It will enable regular

service personnel to temporarily

change the nature of their service

enabling part-time working to

support an individual personal

circumstances, where business needs

allow. I will but only one more

time. At present a woman considering

starting a family or an individual

with caring commitment faces a

difficult choice to leave when

circumstances change. We don't want

to lose good people for a more

diverse workforce and we shouldn't

have to. By providing a more modern

flexible framework for our people we

will help improve morale, retain and

recruit the best. More than that, we

will also help attract recruits from

a wider cross section, those who

might not have considered a military

careerment pay or flexible working

in and of themselves don't offer a

silver bullet. Highlighted by my

right honourable friend in his

excellent report filling the ranks.

Taken together with our border

programme we believe it will have a

significant impact. I will give way

to honourable lady who asked first.

In terms of the overall package I am

sure many colleagues have touched

on, can we go back to service family

accommodation, the reality

spectacular will I I will be talking

about pay later on but SFA and the

contract are the number one issue we

have raised everyday and as chair of

the Armed Forces covenant it is

becoming a headache for everybody

and it needs resolved as a matter of

urgency. Is

The honourable lady

makes a valid point, in my previous

role I spent a lot of time and I

took the chief executive on a walk

round Woolwich to to see standard of

some the accommodation. I there is

acknowledgement that the situation

has improved but there is more work

dosm we recognise that, we are

determined as press conference

governments have been determined to

try to address this issue, of course

the better defence the state

strategy is part of the key to this

as we begin to consolidate barracks

we will have less mobility of armed

force, be able to dispose of some

sites and that will be re-invested.

I will give way one more time.

This

come downs to credibility. The whole

debate comes down to credibility.

Yes we would want more money, people

will want to be paid, but this is

not the number one issue, generally,

we have a good offer for other our

servicemen and women, we have deep

challenges round vet can care,

mental health but this has to be a

credible debate and to pretend our

men and women have some sort of raw

deal when it comes to pay and

experience, is I am afraid not the

case.

He makes a very powerful point

indeed. It is worth being clear

about what this programme entails.

It will see us offering greater help

to personnel so they can live in

private accommodation and meet their

aspiration for home owner ship. It

will have a new offer for new

joiner, better meeting the

expectation of future recruits and

targeting the people we need most. I

will make it easier for people to

move between the public and private

sectors during the course of their

career, retaining and making the

post of mare skills in areas where

they are most needed. Of course as

the member outlined there is still

more to do, whether recruiting more

people from ethnic minority

community, improving accommodation

or making sure all of our people are

fit mentally as well as physically.

We are now hard at work developing

an action plan to take forward his

recommendations including a planned

medical symposium. Our people will

always be our grautest asset as the

minister I have nothing but respect

and admiration for the achievement

of our armed service personnel. I

believe we are taking a balanced

approach. On the one hand we are

ensuring pay discipline which is

critical to the future afford bill

and the sustainability of

employment. We are doing much to

make sure... It retains a

flexibility so vital in attracting

the best and the brightest. Armed

Forces pay structures and levels are

regularly reviewed an I look forward

to hearing the latest recommend day,

I am personally committed to doing

everything I can to make sure our

talented hard-working men and women

continue to receive the recognition

that is their due.

Can I thank the Shadow Secretary of

State for bringing the motion. In

the short time I have been a defence

spokesperson for my party, it has

become clear that the Secretary of

State who unfortunately is leaving

us at this moment, isn't so much

running a department, but is instead

presiding over a shamble, the fourth

biggest spend I believe in

Whitehall. And you have to hand it

to ministers, Madame Deputy Speaker

because it takes some brass neck to

come to this House, time and time

again, and seek to portray this team

as somehow in command of its ship,

when the reality is that when you

lift that thin veil, the chaos and

haemorrhaging of money is there for

all to see. It is like nothing I

have seen in the two-and-a-half

years I have been a member of this

House. Now on the issue of pay, and

the broader issue of terms and

conditions, I wish to wring the

House's attention to a piece of work

that will be led by my right

honourable friend from Glasgow North

West, a commission set up by my

party to review what we think the

offer should be made, and that will

look in detail at the issue of pay,

pension, at the issue of a trade

union or representative body, as has

been mentioned today and in a

pre-debate earlier this week, and of

course, on issues such as housing,

and how we support veterans and

their families as well.

On the pay cap it should be noted

that the Scottish Government was the

first government anywhere in the UK

to commit to lifting the 1% pay cap,

across the public sector and we

believe it's the very least that

workers in uniform, be they nurse,

police officers or those who protect

us in the armed services deserve.

The pay freeze which as has been

mentioned is a cut to their wages,

is one of the many, many components,

making up the crisis in recruitment,

and in retention, and inflation has

pushed the cost of living up for

everyone. Meaning that their take

home salary is being stretched like

never before, for too many there is

too much month at the end of the

month.

Inflation is sitting at 3%. If your

base pay is £21,000, you receive

£21,210 after your 1% rise. When you

account for inflation, it leads to a

real wage loss of £420. How

ministers and Government

backbenchers can come to this House

and participate in the inevitable

crescendo of backslapping, claiming

to be the party that backs the Armed

Forces, no doubt we have a couple of

hours of that. It's beyond B. I'd be

embarrassed to defend his

Government's record. Having

outlined, I will come to the nuclear

deterrent. I'm glad that the whip

mentions it from a sedentary

position. Having outlined as many

speakers will doubt --, as many

speakers no doubt will, the display

of strength by the Armed Forces, it

would take some nerve to do anything

other than support the opposition

motion before us this afternoon. I

offer the support of these benches

for it. There is a deeper and more

fundamental issue that we can't

ignore. This is how this Government

and previous governments have chosen

to spend money to defend the nation.

There are certainly many arguments

against Trident. I have had very

honest disagreements with those that

support Trident. But cost is

certainly one of them. The dream

that the cost Britain our ability to

defend ourselves is, I believe,

unsustainable. -- the drain. More

and more people in the defence

community realising that themselves.

Let's put the cost into context. The

Government's on figure for Trident

is £31 billion. To take a starter

armourer Officer salary at £26,000,

that equates to hundreds of

thousands of new start-up offices.

Clearly we don't need that many.

When the picture is laid out in

these terms, against a backdrop of a

recruitment crisis, it puts the

training cost of Trident on our

conventional capabilities into

perspective. That's before we get to

the £100 million of efficiency

savings that commanders have been

asked to make in addition to cut

already stretched budgets for

maintenance, travel, accommodation.

To return to these numbers, 82,000

was the commitment made by the

Conservatives in the manifesto, was

their pledge, not mine. It was not

my number... I'd certainly give way.

Just before he leaves Trident behind

concluded, is he aware that the

select committee recently took

evidence from a group of senior

academics who as it would be wrong

to assume now that North Korea is

incapable of reaching the UK with a

thermonuclear warhead? In other

words, they think that they are

actually already there or extremely

close to it. Given the unstable

nature of the North Korean regime,

isn't that a very strong argument

for obtaining our own independent

nuclear deterrent to deter whatever

those in the Pyongyang might think?

No, because given it what he's just

said, it's obviously not a that --

not deterrent anybody.

I would give

my honourable friend some

information about deterrence and

some of the tangible threats we face

in Iraq and Afghanistan, faced by

people like my brother. Not even a

regular member of the Armed Forces,

who some people in this House not.

Investment and people like that is

more important than in Trident

gathering dust and doing nothing. --

investment in people like that.

Sticking to the issue at hand, the

honourable gentleman, who made his

initial intervention," academics, of

course. Just as those on my side of

the debate can quote academics who

are against Trident. Perhaps with a

cabbie and other motion to debate

Trident. -- we can have another

motion to debate Trident. 82,000 was

the commitment made by the size of

the army by the Conservative

manifesto. Not one number under. We

know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that

they have failed to meet this

commitment. It's fallen to 78.010.

As if this wasn't bad enough, just

five months ago, when the numbers at

the conference, the secretary of

state had nothing but obfuscation to

offer in response. Which is of deep

concern and consider how this

prejudice is our ability to field

short losses were -- short notice

war fighting divisions, something

which is seen as critical by our own

allies. On equipment, the Government

doesn't see the issues it has with

its reputation as an employer. They

have increased spending on

advertising by 50%. Yet the numbers

keep thinking. Let's listen... I'd

happily give way.

I was listening

intently to him and I praise the

work that his brother does in the

root servers. We are one army. --

marketeer. One every is where we are

desperately short is in the Scottish

infantry regiments. This is an

unusual event. Has he any idea why

people in Scotland and want to join

the infantry? Is it something to do

with they will be frightened that

they will be dragged out of the

British Army and into a Scottish

army?

That's pathetic.

I have to

say, I'm up from -- and opt for

either Trident or an independence

debate. He is a member that I have

respect for and a pager before her

service. I recall him coming before

our committee. The threat of

independence is not what is putting

off Chris. I will allow him to come

back in. If he stays in for the

debate, there are serious things

that are putting people off. I say

this not to have a bunfight across

the House, I say this because he

would see this sorted. Even if

Scotland was independent tomorrow,

England need a strong army because

that would be in our interests. I'm

not interested in a constitutional

bunfight.

I didn't offend it --

intended display. -- intended

display. The point I was proud to

make is that the English regiment

have been augmented by Scottish

infantry. The corps arsenal of

Scots. But nowadays, the Scottish

infantry is going to be augmented by

English recruits. It's an

interesting analogy. It's not just

about pay, it's about the package. I

will stay for the debate and I will

speak probably for about seven

minutes.

I look forward, as always,

to its contribution and he does

raise an interesting point, so I

look forward to that. To be fair to

the side of the House, don't think

anybody has said it is just about

pay, in fact, earlier this week we

had a debate on flexible working,

where many other issues were also

addressed. I see that his colleague

is agreeing with me on that. I

understand that that is what the

motion is on, he shot from a

sedentary position. Perhaps if he

lets me great progress, he will you

what else I have to say. -- you what

else they have to say. Colonel Cam,

we should remember, good command of

UK forces in Afghanistan in 2030. --

took command. He has criticised the

Government's... And a thousand 12,

took over regular and reservers army

recruitment in a contract that took

in £44 million over ten years. I

said to ministers and the whip, who

seems determined to track me down, I

say to them, why will they not heed

the advice of a report offered by

one of the members, the right

honourable gentleman, member of a

rally and Whitford, any report he

published in July this year, he

suggested that Government should

accelerate work on an alternative to

the gap to contract. This came from

a report part offered by his own

side, a thoughtful contribution. One

that we would support his

recommendation on. I wish to, to

pensions briefly. -- to come to

pensions. It is another area, I see

the former Armed Forces Minister has

left after asking others to talk

about other areas. I want to hear

about the new joiners offer. It's

well-known that the MoD is working

on this. I would be grateful if a

minister could confirm that they are

working on new joiners offer as

arrangements. How does this compare

with the promise a a few years ago

that pension arrangements were safe

for 25 years? Will any new scheme

apply only to those joining after a

particular day or will be cut be

retrospectively applied to those

currently serving?

I think that the

clue is in a title, it is called a

new joiners offer.

And very glad

that he has cleared that up for me.

Coming to a conclusion, when all of

these issues are considered...

Certainly.

The former honourable

friend concludes, there is clearly a

lack of consensus in the House, at

least in Government benches, with

the sides of the benches. With the

UK of -- better be served by

consensus, as we see in Denmark,

where there is members of trade

union members of the Armed Forces,

hey, housing and health are part of

a consensual approach, not just by

Government but by those serving

through their trade union

membership.

He makes a thoughtful

point and I've noted that honourable

members opposite shook their heads

in disagreement as he made it. In

the Netherlands, they don't have one

trade unions but four. I don't see

what the Government would have to

fear by if not aged union then a

body similar to the Police

Federation that could stand up for

the Armed Forces when discussing

these issues? -- a trade union then.

I hope that the test dumping and

backslapping that we normally see

gives way to a deep cushioned, a

sober reflection driving members in

their contributions and in what they

vote for this afternoon. --

decrescendo. Defence, proper

defence, cannot be bought on the

cheap. That is as true about the

billing platforms as it is about the

people we asked to defend us every

single day. A career in the forces

should be something that people are

not only proud to pursue but

something that the Government should

be able to offer with pride. But it

cannot do so seriously if they

continue to preside over cuts and

wages to those that protect us every

day. -- cuts in wages.

Mark Francois

's.

Thank you very much indeed. This

morning, along with about 20 other

MPs and peers, I attended a brief

atom remembrance at the guard tackle

-- a brief act of remembrance. It's

an underappreciated factor that over

30 members of this House have

themselves served in the Armed

Forces. I do in the regulars on the

reserves. Myself included, ended

also including my right honourable

friend the Minister of State with

the Armed Forces and by right

honourable friend the Minister of

State for veterans and people.

Another of those people as my right

honourable friend the member for New

Forest East, the chairman of the

Defence Select Committee, who served

in the Royal Naval reserve and who

was present this morning. However,

he has asked me to offer his

apologies to the House because he

had to unbreakable commitment is

afternoon and could not as usual

contribute to the debate.

As of May 2017, the total strength

of the regular Armed Forces was

138,000 350. Some 5% below their

established strength, although in

specialised trades, the shortages

are actually far worse. In the year

to April 2017, over 2000 people more

people left the regular Armed Forces

than drawing up. As I argued in The

House recently, the combination of

lower retention than expected and

failure to achieve recruiting

targets means the under Manning in

the Armed Forces is worsening. The

Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force

are running at around 10% below the

annual recruiting target, though for

the Army the shortfall is

unfortunately over 30%. This also

threatens to compound the problem by

increasing the pressure on those

personnel who remain. In order to

address these problems, the Ministry

of Defence needs to improve its

recruiting performance, particularly

among lack, Asian and minority

ethnic personnel and female

personnel as well. -- black and

Asian and minority ethnic. To look

at female personnel in particular,

15% of all recruits being female is

the target by 2020. In the year to

the 1st of March 2017, female

personnel represented 10.2% of the

regular Armed Forces, while the

proportion for the reserves was

higher at 14%. The Royal Air Force,

who for some time have had a

programme devoted to nurturing

female talent, have three female

officers of two star rank and there

was also one female officer at two

star rank in the Army, but

unfortunately nominee Navy. I will

give way.

Thank you. As the

honourable member had to inform me

on Monday that while he agreed that

at some point we hope the senior

service, the Royal Navy, we'll catch

up with anybody else, and ensure we

have a leading officer sooner rather

than later. -- the senior service of

the Royal Navy.

Yes, one day I would

like to see the air force carrier

Queen Elizabeth, named after a

woman, to be captained by a woman.

The Ministry of Defence has been

able to make much of female

representation in media terms in

order to show the career progression

that is possible to female officers,

but it would be clearly desirable to

see female candidates reaching three

star rank or above in the relatively

near future. The independent service

complaints ombudsman has three star

rank but it should be remembered

that she is independent of the Armed

Forces. In addition, as a

ministerial example, my right

honourable friend the member for

Portsmouth North, he was Minister of

State for the Armed Forces

2015-2016, was, I believe, the first

female NAF in history. The Ministry

of Defence is now also introducing

women in close combat. They will be

allowed to serve in the Marines,

infantry and the RAF Regiment. Laces

will be made available to female

candidates who can pass the

requisite physical standards. --

places will be made. These will be

the same as for their male

counterparts. In addition, we will

be allowed to apply for posts in

special forces. -- and women will be

allowed. Again, clearly only on

merit. The RAF Regiment was opened

up to suitably qualified female

candidates this September, and women

will be able to take places in the

Royal Army Corps and the Royal

infantry in 20 18. While it will

take time for the absolute number of

women in close combat on ground to

build, I believe it should start at

an early stage to demonstrate that

there are no longer any restrictions

of opportunity for women serving in

the Armed Forces. The flexible

engagement system, which we debated

in the House on Monday evening and

to which several members have

already referred, will positively

affect the ability to attract and

retain a diverse workforce. It is

designed to allow individuals to

decide on the level of commitment,

including opportunities to work both

full-time and part-time. The current

barriers between regulars and

reserves will be reduced. This

flexibility will be particularly

helpful in assisting women in

enjoying full careers in the Armed

Forces over a period of time whilst

reducing concerns female recruits

may have on the longevity of

potential progression of their

careers. Overall, female recruitment

including representation at senior

level, is starting to show real

success and this is one area where

the MoD can afford to be more

ambitious. The 15% recruit target by

2020 seems likely to be met and the

Royal Air Force is already intending

to raise their target to 20% I20 20.

If the Department wants to continue

the momentum being developed in this

area, across the services, I believe

the MoD should set a new stretch

goal of 20% of recruits are being

female by 2025. And in addition,

maximum publicity should be given to

the introduction of women in round

close combat to highlight that all

areas of the Armed Forces are now

open to female talent. Turning out

to reserves, yes, some of them...

Before he gets into his next

substantive point, two years ago,

the Government set up an Armed

Forces credit union to help Armed

Forces personnel and Lope who might

be vulnerable to payday loan

companies charging very high rates

of interest, two years on the three

Armed Forces credit unions are well

established. But they could do with

the Ministry of Defence taking steps

to advertise their services more

widely. Given that 15 years ago, the

honourable member showed a brief

interest in co-operatives at that

point, can I encourage him to join

me in encouraging the minister to

think through what else the Ministry

of Defence might do now to encourage

awareness of that Armed Forces

credit union amongst military

personnel?

His research has clearly

been on the ball. I know that in the

United States, service credit unions

are far more advanced than they are

here. But either one would ask

ministers to look benefits and Lee

on the point he has made.

I am now

feeling guilty for not giving way to

the honourable judgment. But just to

say he makes a reasonable point. I

am pleased with the progress we have

made with the credit unions but

there is always more we can do and I

will look at it. Mr Bowie appeared

to have consensus there. Turning to

reserves

-- we appear to have consensus

there. We envisage an ambitious

revival of Britain's reserve forces.

The roll-out of the programme was

initially complicated by a

combination of excessive

bureaucracy, delays to recruitment

and IT problems. In response, the

three services and in particular the

Army, who had the greatest problem,

committed additional resources to

reinforce the recruiting effort and

several years on this has borne

fruit. As of May 2017, the trained

strength of the Army reserve is

26,730, as against a target of

26,000 700. The Maritime reserves

including the Royal Marine reserve,

stood at 2590 against a target of

2320, and for the RAF reserves

including the Royal auxiliary are

false, the figure was 2140 against a

target of 1860. Recruiting enjoys

support from across the British

industry including the Confederation

for British industry, the

Confederation for small businesses

and the Institute of Directors and

it isn't important part of the Armed

Forces covered. Success has been

achieved by giving recruitment

bonuses to ex-regulars who have left

the services but have then rejoined

the reserves. While there is no room

for complacency, there will need to

be... If the targets are to be met,

it is vitally important that growth

continues and we do not seriously

compromised the momentum that has

been achieved to date. Overall, the

reserve story is now becoming a

successful one, though, and is far

more healthy than it was a few years

ago. Turning to accommodation, and

important aspect of the overall

quality-of-life in the services is

represented by service

accommodation, and this is where, if

it wishes to retain the support of

service personnel and particularly

of their families, that the Ministry

of Defence must do better. Remember

the saying, recruit the service but

retain the family? The UK families

continued attitudes survey,

published in July 2017, shows that

the level of satisfaction with the

maintenance of service families and

accommodation remains low following

a large decrease in 2016. In

particular, and this follows on from

the point made by the honourable

lady the member for Stoke-on-Trent

North, in particular, there are

issues surrounding the delays in the

MoD's housing contractor, responding

to requests for maintenance, and

also the quality of the maintenance

and repair work subsequently

undertaken. Only 34% of those

surveyed said they were satisfied

with the responsiveness of the

contractor. And only 29% were

satisfied with the quality of the

maintenance repair work that they

then undertook. I will give way.

Would the honourable member agree

with me that one of the problems in

the contract is the KPs as they

currently exist turning up the 24

hours, they get a ticking the box,

but it still does not mean the

boiler has been fixed. It can take

another eight days. So although they

are fulfilling the letter of the

contract, they definitely are not

fulfilling the spirit.

The

honourable lady anticipates me. I am

coming onto boilers in just a

minute. But her point about acting

to the spirit of the contract is

well made, and I agree with it. As

the FCas report states, quote,

satisfaction with most part of SFA

-- F S a... There were changes to

the FSA charging method. Moreover,

the Army families Federation,

sometimes affectionately referred to

as the Army freedom fighters, report

that housing continues to be the

biggest concern for Army families.

There is overwhelming anecdotal

evidence about the performance of

the contractor, and put simply, we

are not honouring our people by

providing them with this shoddy

service. We send them halfway around

the world to fight for their country

and we call them a hero, and that is

what they are, but get back at home,

their wife spends weeks trying to

get the boiler fixed because of the

startling ineptitude of the people

we have hired to keep their home

warm. And then we wonder why people

leave. This has gone on for too

long. It is simply unacceptable.

Either the company should

continually raise their game on

behalf of our service personnel

there should be unceremoniously

sacked, and we should find someone

competent to do the work instead. If

housing associations and registered

social landlords around the country

can carry out basic maintenance and

repairs as bread-and-butter work,

which they have been doing for

years, why can't this company?

Turning briefly to pay. There are a

variety of reasons why people are

leaving the Armed Forces at the

moment and pay is one factor, but it

has already been pointed out, as has

already been pointed out, it is not

the predominant one. The Armed

Forces continue as attitudes survey

published in May 2017 points out

that the primary reason for people

wanting to leave the services is the

effect of separation or long hours

on their family life. That, in a

sense, is the greatest challenge

that ministers have to grapple with.

The Armed Forces flexible working

Bill, which we debated in this House

on Monday, should help in this

regard as it will allow service

personnel to vary their commitment

rather than facing an acid test of

only being able to leave the

services in order to reduce pressure

on the family. It may persuade some

to stick rather than twist when

their family are under pressure

because of that commitment to their

country. On the issue of pay it

self, this has now become something

of a challenge, particularly for

retention, as only 35% of personal

are happy with their rate of pay and

only 27% are satisfied with their

pension benefits. Although it should

be pointed out that the Armed Forces

have one of the few remaining

pension schemes anywhere in the

public sector where employers do not

have to pay a contribution of their

own, and I know that is something

that MoD ministers have fought

valiantly to defend. Recommendations

on pay are made by the pay review

body and their recommendations in

January 2017 were essentially for a

1% increase in pay, although certain

personnel would qualify for

additional increments and also for

specialist recruitment and

retention, particularly in certain

areas where the Armed Forces are

struggling to retain specialists.

Any further pay increase for the

Armed Forces will be subject to the

next recommendation early next year,

so we will have to wait and see what

they recommend.

It is likely any increase above 1%

would likely come out of the defence

budget and that could have an impact

on the equipment programme. However,

given that the police have over 1%

pay increase, if they were to

recommend something similar next

year, I think ministers would have

to take that seriously. Yes, I will.

He makes an important point indeed,

but does he agree with me that it

would be quite wrong if the MoD

introduced more equipment to pay for

the pay increase?

I cannot speak for

what the board are going to

recommend and I think in fairness we

will have to allow them to go

through their deliberations and see

what they conclude. But seeing that

the police have been given a pay

increase above 1%, I'm sure there

will be strong views in the Armed

Forces about what should happen to

them. Again, let's await the board.

In conclusion, the Armed Forces on

who we rely so much continue to be

under pressure in the fields of

recruitment and retention. Although

the principal reason for people

leaving the Armed Forces is on fact

pressure on family live, pay is

something which also appears to be

entering into the equation and

ministers in the department are

cognisant of that. But we must do

something about the poor quality of

repairs and maintenance of service

accommodation. I would urge

ministers sitting on the Treasury

bench this afternoon to formally

reviewed the performance of

Carillion Amey and to be prepared if

necessary to re-let the contract

unless they succeed in materially

raising their game. We have to

continue to attract the brightest

and the best to serve as in uniform.

We must continue to provide the

resources to make that prospect a

reality, but we also need to make

sure that these people have homes

fit in which to live.

It will be

obvious to the House that a great

many people want to take part in

this important debate and there is

limited time and I am putting on a

formal time limit of seven minutes,

which is likely to be reduced later

if there are a great many

interventions in everyone's

speeches. To speak without

hesitation now is Kevin Jones.

There

is one thing that this government

is, and that is consistent. It is