11/01/2018

0:00:00 > 0:00:01from.I want to make sure he gets the response he is exciting, I would

0:00:01 > 0:00:06urge more values. That would be an appropriate value to -- forum to air

0:00:06 > 0:00:12his concern.Most grateful to the government wrap, we thank you for

0:00:12 > 0:00:16his sterling service, having to respond to a vast litany of

0:00:16 > 0:00:20different enquiries, he has performed with great dexterity, if I

0:00:20 > 0:00:27may say so. We now come to the select committee statement. The

0:00:27 > 0:00:30chair of the education select committee, the honourable general

0:00:30 > 0:00:34mare gentleman number for Harlow, will speak on this subject for up to

0:00:34 > 0:00:37ten minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the

0:00:37 > 0:00:42conclusion of his statement, I will call, or rather the occupant of the

0:00:42 > 0:00:46chair will call members to put questions on the subject of the

0:00:46 > 0:00:51statement and call Robert Halfon want to respond to these in turn.

0:00:51 > 0:00:56Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be

0:00:56 > 0:01:00questions, and they should be brief, a front bench may take part in

0:01:00 > 0:01:06questions. I call the chair of the education select committee, Robert

0:01:06 > 0:01:08Halfon.

0:01:16 > 0:01:21Social justice is one of the primary executives of our committee. It is

0:01:21 > 0:01:24vital young people in foster care are able to claim the educational

0:01:24 > 0:01:30ladder of opportunity as anyone else. I want to begin by paying

0:01:30 > 0:01:34tribute to previous committee in the 2015 Parliament and particularly to

0:01:34 > 0:01:41its chair, the former member for Stroud. I also want to thank the

0:01:41 > 0:01:43officers of the education committee who have done a huge amount of work

0:01:43 > 0:01:50on this report. In our final session we heard moving testimony from young

0:01:50 > 0:02:01people with experience of foster care some had tears in their eyes.

0:02:01 > 0:02:07We heard from my honourable friend the former Minister of State for

0:02:07 > 0:02:19children, I hugely respect which created an important and unique

0:02:19 > 0:02:25evidence session. In our report we wrote of the importance of valuing

0:02:25 > 0:02:31the three pillars of fostering. Valuing young people. Valuing foster

0:02:31 > 0:02:37carers, valuing the care system itself. The fact is the foster care

0:02:37 > 0:02:40system in England is under significant pressure. This must be

0:02:40 > 0:02:44of national concern when it's often the most vulnerable young people in

0:02:44 > 0:02:49our society who are being failed by a care system which does not meet

0:02:49 > 0:02:57their needs. The number of looked after children has risen by 7% since

0:02:57 > 0:03:012013. I welcome that the government has recognised this pressure and

0:03:01 > 0:03:09commissions its own review of fostering. I understand reviews with

0:03:09 > 0:03:13ministers at the moment will be considered alongside the

0:03:13 > 0:03:15recommendations of our education committee. We begin with valuing

0:03:15 > 0:03:23young people. Foster children face a lottery of care, of frequent

0:03:23 > 0:03:31placements and of the possibility of being separated from her siblings.

0:03:31 > 0:03:35We heard from young people who spoke about the number of placements they

0:03:35 > 0:03:40experienced. One young person in foster care had been through eight

0:03:40 > 0:03:43placements in four years. Another spoke about having moved six times

0:03:43 > 0:03:50in less than no time. Whilst another had lived in 13, 13 different foster

0:03:50 > 0:03:57placements and two children homes in five years this frequency of

0:03:57 > 0:04:00placement can only be damaging to the children's well-being and

0:04:00 > 0:04:04development and future prospects. The government must redouble every

0:04:04 > 0:04:10effort to ensure young people and children don't face the prospect of

0:04:10 > 0:04:14such a dizzying number of placements. What truly shocked every

0:04:14 > 0:04:20member of the committee was that some foster children moved

0:04:20 > 0:04:23placements with short notice, little or no information and often without

0:04:23 > 0:04:29any advocacy rights at all. It is clear the guidelines intended to

0:04:29 > 0:04:34tackle these issues are being applied inconsistently, at best, and

0:04:34 > 0:04:40injure mainly at worst. To give another example we heard about young

0:04:40 > 0:04:47people in foster care are being separated from their siblings, the

0:04:47 > 0:04:50figures suggest 70% of siblings are not placed together when there is

0:04:50 > 0:04:56already one in carer. A 17-year-old who had been moved away from her

0:04:56 > 0:05:02siblings told us, and I quote, "To lose a bond with your own siblings

0:05:02 > 0:05:08is sad because you are by yourself in the world". "You're Siblings are

0:05:08 > 0:05:12practically your best friend and now you're losing them. You've lost your

0:05:12 > 0:05:17parents and then your siblings. It's like your whole world has crashed

0:05:17 > 0:05:22down quite quickly." Young people must be placed with siblings

0:05:22 > 0:05:30wherever possible. Wherever it is appropriate. If not, there has to be

0:05:30 > 0:05:35greater effort by social workers and others to facilitate regular and

0:05:35 > 0:05:40meaningful contact. I urge the new Minister for children to ensure

0:05:40 > 0:05:46there is consistency and guarantees of advocacy for all children, foster

0:05:46 > 0:05:54children, of staid say one in three children do not receive information

0:05:54 > 0:06:00on their placement and that is unacceptable. The second chapter of

0:06:00 > 0:06:04the report focuses on valuing foster carers. Foster carers have a really

0:06:04 > 0:06:10important role in our society. They provide remarkable care in difficult

0:06:10 > 0:06:14circumstances. But they are often underappreciated, undermined and

0:06:14 > 0:06:20undervalued. The foster network is to make a deficit of 7600 foster

0:06:20 > 0:06:27carers. They tend to be disproportionately female and art

0:06:27 > 0:06:33ever ageing. Often they have to wade through a trickle of bureaucracy.

0:06:33 > 0:06:36They are not adequately supported either financially or professionally

0:06:36 > 0:06:43in the vital work they do. They are status is unclear in terms of

0:06:43 > 0:06:46employment and not sadly with the Inland Revenue who treats them as if

0:06:46 > 0:06:51they are employed. In our report we press the government to ensure all

0:06:51 > 0:06:58foster carers are paid the national minimum allowance. The fostering

0:06:58 > 0:07:03network found 12% of local authority fostering services are paying below

0:07:03 > 0:07:09the national minimum allowance for at least one age bracket. 47%

0:07:09 > 0:07:13allowances and five reduced rates compared to 2016 17. Ministers need

0:07:13 > 0:07:18to make sure this allowance matches live in living costs and allows

0:07:18 > 0:07:26carers to meet the needs of those they care for. Carers must also

0:07:26 > 0:07:28benefit from legal protection against increased malicious and

0:07:28 > 0:07:35unfounded allegations. The final section of our report concerns value

0:07:35 > 0:07:39end here. We recommend the Department for Education should

0:07:39 > 0:07:42establish a National college which would work towards improving working

0:07:42 > 0:07:48conditions for carers, provided resource for training and support

0:07:48 > 0:08:00and give them national voice. We do not envisage the building but a

0:08:00 > 0:08:10virtual college.

0:08:10 > 0:08:18We believe a national recruitment and awareness campaign could help

0:08:18 > 0:08:24improve capacity in the system. For too many children and young people

0:08:24 > 0:08:31it's a sense of care which is done to them, not with them. There has to

0:08:31 > 0:08:35be greater involvement from foster children on the placements and

0:08:35 > 0:08:42consistency of practice to ensure all young people can benefit from an

0:08:42 > 0:08:49appropriate and positive experience of foster care. The government

0:08:49 > 0:08:52listens to representations from the education select committee members

0:08:52 > 0:08:57on extending the extra 15 hours a week childcare entitlement to

0:08:57 > 0:08:59children in foster care and I really welcome the move is which have been

0:08:59 > 0:09:10made on that. In this New Year the education committee hopes that

0:09:10 > 0:09:17ministers we truly value foster children and value foster care.

0:09:17 > 0:09:19Thank you madam did the Speaker, I would like to thank my right

0:09:19 > 0:09:24honourable friend for both making this statement and making sure the

0:09:24 > 0:09:29fostering report was finished in this Parliament, I was a member of

0:09:29 > 0:09:33the select committee and I am so glad he shares my views on the

0:09:33 > 0:09:39importance of making sure children in care have a voice. Will he joined

0:09:39 > 0:09:43me and agree with me that during the course of that report one of the

0:09:43 > 0:09:46most powerful points which came across to the committee was the

0:09:46 > 0:09:50importance of stability and permanence in a child's life, I

0:09:50 > 0:09:55child who has expend so much disruption, will you work with me to

0:09:55 > 0:10:01ensure both their voice and that issue continue to be heard of the

0:10:01 > 0:10:06house?First of all can I put on record my huge thanks to my

0:10:06 > 0:10:12honourable friend for her support and is getting this report to the

0:10:12 > 0:10:18house. Also particularly remarkable knowledge of children in care and

0:10:18 > 0:10:22her passion for it. She is absolutely right, stability is one

0:10:22 > 0:10:26of the most important things. It's incredible to me that children are

0:10:26 > 0:10:30moved around from pillar to post often without any knowledge of what

0:10:30 > 0:10:34is going to happen, any choice or access to advocacy and that is

0:10:34 > 0:10:44something which has to be changed.I recommend the honourable member on

0:10:44 > 0:10:48the report and the whole of the committee, I know from my next-door

0:10:48 > 0:10:55neighbours that the phenomenal love and tenderness and care and

0:10:55 > 0:11:01dedication and commitment and in particular often in the face of

0:11:01 > 0:11:04phenomenal bureaucratic obstacles. I just wonder, he will probably know

0:11:04 > 0:11:09the statistics for the number of girls in care who go on to be

0:11:09 > 0:11:14teenage mums is much higher than the rest and in particular for those

0:11:14 > 0:11:20raped as well. What can we do to make sure that those people who are

0:11:20 > 0:11:26the most vulnerable in our society are properly protected?I thank the

0:11:26 > 0:11:31honourable gentleman for the question, my honourable friend talks

0:11:31 > 0:11:40about this, we need, the crucial thing about this is early

0:11:40 > 0:11:47prevention, to avoid the problems, my own view is we need a wider

0:11:47 > 0:11:50review into the whole issue of vulnerable children and children in

0:11:50 > 0:11:56care. He touches on points which will no doubt be discussed in the

0:11:56 > 0:12:03house and in committee.I draw attention to the members register. I

0:12:03 > 0:12:07welcome the support and hope it will be taken seriously by the Department

0:12:07 > 0:12:11in tandem with the report which has been submitted and I entirely

0:12:11 > 0:12:15recognise the problems which is committee has flagged up in terms of

0:12:15 > 0:12:18the sorted of supply of foster carers, too many foster children

0:12:18 > 0:12:23being moved or in too often and too many well out of the area of placing

0:12:23 > 0:12:28authority and too many sibling groups being broken up. On the

0:12:28 > 0:12:31question of foster carers what examples of good practice of

0:12:31 > 0:12:36recruitment and retention by local authorities was his committee able

0:12:36 > 0:12:39to see and what lessons can be learned from some of the work done

0:12:39 > 0:12:48on adoption, encouraging them to come forward, offering the rules

0:12:48 > 0:12:53adoption support services to make the job of those services so much

0:12:53 > 0:12:56easier and make those placements much more sustainable which is still

0:12:56 > 0:13:09not happening to extent for foster children.I thank the honourable

0:13:09 > 0:13:12gentleman for his question and welcome his new look beard. He

0:13:12 > 0:13:23raises important

0:13:24 > 0:13:27issues there is good practice and we need to learn from good practice,

0:13:27 > 0:13:34that is why I was suggesting that the report suggests we have a

0:13:34 > 0:13:37national college for foster carers which shares best practice whether

0:13:37 > 0:13:44it's for adoption as my honourable friend mentioned or whether it is

0:13:44 > 0:13:48from good local authorities. I think we need national improvement

0:13:48 > 0:13:53campaigns in terms of foster carers. I think they need much more of an

0:13:53 > 0:13:58identity. I think there should be much more the professionals that

0:13:58 > 0:14:08they are.We now come to the backbench emotion on defence, Vernon

0:14:08 > 0:14:16Coaker to move.Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start, I

0:14:16 > 0:14:22want to declare an interest in the fact my son-in-law is an active

0:14:22 > 0:14:26member of Her Majesty 's reserves so I just wanted to put that on the

0:14:26 > 0:14:30record and we are all as a family very proud of him as no doubt many

0:14:30 > 0:14:34other honourable members will be proud of individual members of their

0:14:34 > 0:14:41family. I also want to start by thanking the backbench business

0:14:41 > 0:14:44committee for supporting this application and all the members of

0:14:44 > 0:14:49the house who have supported me achieving this debate including the

0:14:49 > 0:14:53chair of the Defence Select Committee and my honourable friend

0:14:53 > 0:14:55of Stoke-on-Trent North, Barnsley Central and the member for

0:14:55 > 0:15:04Strangford. Can I start by saying this, nobody questions the desire of

0:15:04 > 0:15:08any member of this Parliament to defend our country against any

0:15:08 > 0:15:17threat. By saying loudly and clearly that no one either questions

0:15:17 > 0:15:23Parliament's pride or belief in the professionalism and immense

0:15:23 > 0:15:26dedication to duty of our Armed Forces. I think it's a really

0:15:26 > 0:15:30important point to savour those who are watching this debate that there

0:15:30 > 0:15:33will be challenges to the government and this Parliament quite rightly

0:15:33 > 0:15:37will challenge and hold the government to account. All of us,

0:15:37 > 0:15:41whether on that side of the house or this side of the house are united in

0:15:41 > 0:15:46terms of wanting to defend our country and hold with immense pride

0:15:46 > 0:15:49the dedication and professionalism of all of our Armed Forces.

0:15:52 > 0:15:57So, as I say, mud and Deputy Speaker, nobody questions that, but

0:15:57 > 0:16:00I do think that Parliament sometimes as to ask the question, in starting

0:16:00 > 0:16:09those debates, is that enough? We are here today at a time when as a

0:16:09 > 0:16:15country we face real challenges in terms of matching our rhetoric with

0:16:15 > 0:16:22the reality of the threat that we face. The government will know, all

0:16:22 > 0:16:27of us in this house, and what has prompted so many to ask for the

0:16:27 > 0:16:29debate, is the constant media speculation and headlines flashes

0:16:29 > 0:16:35that we have seen about cuts to the capabilities and various

0:16:35 > 0:16:41capabilities of our Armed Forces. And it is vital, as I say, that our

0:16:41 > 0:16:44defence budget, whatever that is, ensures the Armed Forces are

0:16:44 > 0:16:50properly equipped for the challenges we will face in the future. And it

0:16:50 > 0:16:54is certainly abundantly clear that our Armed Forces, and this is one of

0:16:54 > 0:16:59the themes, certainly what I say, but of many other members of the

0:16:59 > 0:17:04house as well, that our Armed Forces, Madame Deputy Speaker, need

0:17:04 > 0:17:10resources that are over and above what is currently planned for,

0:17:10 > 0:17:14particularly in light of the increasing threats we face as a

0:17:14 > 0:17:19country.Can I first of all congratulate him for securing this

0:17:19 > 0:17:23debate and for his commitment to defence, is it also the case, what

0:17:23 > 0:17:28we have not seen from the government is setting out a provision about how

0:17:28 > 0:17:32we as a country meet the threats that we face.That goes to the heart

0:17:32 > 0:17:37of all of the select committees, all the various debates we read, the

0:17:37 > 0:17:41desire of all of those committees, and this Parliament, and all of us

0:17:41 > 0:17:46that take an interest in defence, for us to identify, and I will say a

0:17:46 > 0:17:49bit more about the point made, honourable friend in a minute, for

0:17:49 > 0:17:52us to identify what are the strategic threats we face as a

0:17:52 > 0:17:56country and then mould and adapt Armed Forces and security and

0:17:56 > 0:18:03intelligence services to meet those threats. Only yesterday, general Sir

0:18:03 > 0:18:06Nick Carter, head of the British Army, said on the today programme,

0:18:06 > 0:18:14and I quote, threats have never been greater in my 20 year career. And in

0:18:14 > 0:18:20evidence to the joint committee on the national security strategy, Mark

0:18:20 > 0:18:23Sedwill, the national security adviser, confirmed that in the last

0:18:23 > 0:18:28two years we have seen an intensification of threats we face,

0:18:28 > 0:18:33and indeed, the former Defence Secretary himself talked at another

0:18:33 > 0:18:35evidence session of an intensification of the risks that

0:18:35 > 0:18:44our country faces. We can all named those risks. We have seen the

0:18:44 > 0:18:46various adventures, the various things that Russia has been involved

0:18:46 > 0:18:52with. We have seen China and North Korea, we have seen the terrible

0:18:52 > 0:18:58terrorist incidents that have taken place in our country. We have seen

0:18:58 > 0:19:03the identification of risks around new technologies, around cyber,

0:19:03 > 0:19:09around artificial intelligence and wherever that is going to take us,

0:19:09 > 0:19:15and the undermining of the rules based international order. Now, all

0:19:15 > 0:19:19of those threats, Madame Deputy Speaker, are not threats made up,

0:19:19 > 0:19:25they are very real assessments of what our country faces, along with

0:19:25 > 0:19:29its allies and those that stand with us. And this Parliament has a

0:19:29 > 0:19:35responsibility and a duty to debate how we are going to meet those

0:19:35 > 0:19:40threats, and that is something that I believe the public of this country

0:19:40 > 0:19:45would expect us to do.Hear hear, well said.Whatever the rights or

0:19:45 > 0:19:49wrongs of this, this has all been motivated by Brexit, which has

0:19:49 > 0:19:53caused us as a nation to reflect on our place in the world and what it

0:19:53 > 0:19:58actually is and I believe, and I say this quite strongly, two people in

0:19:58 > 0:20:01this Parliament, looking around, many would agree, this Parliament

0:20:01 > 0:20:06should once again send a clear message to our allies and to the

0:20:06 > 0:20:12rest of the world that as a senior member of Nato, and as a permanent

0:20:12 > 0:20:17member of the United Nations Security Council and the leader of

0:20:17 > 0:20:20the Commonwealth, that we will not turn inwards, and we will not flinch

0:20:20 > 0:20:26from our historic role as a promoter of democracy and a defender of human

0:20:26 > 0:20:34rights, as well as ensuring that our own interests are fully protected.

0:20:34 > 0:20:40Can I thank my honourable friend for giving way, and he mentioned the

0:20:40 > 0:20:44situation in Korea. Is it not the case that the actions of the North

0:20:44 > 0:20:49Korean regime are a massive threat to the international rules based

0:20:49 > 0:20:53order, doesn't that need to have higher priority in the thinking of

0:20:53 > 0:20:57not just our own government but also other allies.My honourable friend

0:20:57 > 0:21:03makes a very good point, and let me say this, I think the broader point

0:21:03 > 0:21:08to make is of course, North Korea and China are threatening some of

0:21:08 > 0:21:11the rules based international law, particularly as my honourable friend

0:21:11 > 0:21:17says North Korea. And, we have two meet that threat and part of that

0:21:17 > 0:21:22debate is how we do that and what we do about it. I would say as well

0:21:22 > 0:21:26though, part of the reason for this debate is this argument must be one

0:21:26 > 0:21:31again with the British public. The British public have to understand,

0:21:31 > 0:21:35or, if you like, be persuaded, or not, because they can say that they

0:21:35 > 0:21:40do not agree with us, but as a parliament we have to make the case

0:21:40 > 0:21:44again for why it is important sometimes for us to be concerned

0:21:44 > 0:21:49about actions that are taking place thousands upon thousands of miles

0:21:49 > 0:21:52away, and why that impacts on our own interests and security here at

0:21:52 > 0:21:58home. It cannot be enough anymore to assert a problem, we have two once

0:21:58 > 0:22:05again make the case as to why these matters, such as North Korea, are

0:22:05 > 0:22:11important. Madame Deputy Speaker, he we are, two years after the

0:22:11 > 0:22:16strategic defence and Security review of 2015, in the midst of

0:22:16 > 0:22:23another review, led by Mark Sedwill. And I would like to say, other

0:22:23 > 0:22:28members have mentioned this, I know the Defence Secretary is trying to

0:22:28 > 0:22:34pull away the defence part of the capability and give it a longer time

0:22:34 > 0:22:38to reflect and I hope he is successful in doing that but as it

0:22:38 > 0:22:42stands, we have a review, a review which I believe is shrouded in

0:22:42 > 0:22:47uncertainty and which we are now told is to be delayed. But let's

0:22:47 > 0:22:50look at one particular theme that was said at that particular

0:22:50 > 0:22:56committee. -- thing. Which I think is completely wrong, as to be

0:22:56 > 0:23:02changed by the government. Mr said well said, and I quote, this

0:23:02 > 0:23:09exercise was commissioned by the council as fiscally neutral. -- Mark

0:23:09 > 0:23:14Sedwill. Fiscally neutral?! How can you come to such a conclusion,

0:23:14 > 0:23:20before all the strands of the review are finished.Here here.Surely this

0:23:20 > 0:23:25is about matching resources to threats, not the other way around.

0:23:25 > 0:23:30So let this be the line in the sand, that ensures that this principle is

0:23:30 > 0:23:35at the heart of the decisions we take as we now move forward. As I

0:23:35 > 0:23:41say, Madame Deputy Speaker, we see story after story appearing,

0:23:41 > 0:23:46speculating as to which capability may or may not be cut. Why does this

0:23:46 > 0:23:51speculation abound? Why aren't their statements to Parliament? Why is

0:23:51 > 0:23:56there no explanation of what is actually going on? To be fair to the

0:23:56 > 0:23:59Minister, I know that he will be concerned about some of this but it

0:23:59 > 0:24:03is not good enough, I don't think, for these potential or possible

0:24:03 > 0:24:09capability cuts to be dismissed by the government as mere speculation.

0:24:09 > 0:24:13We do not comment on leaks... No decisions have been made... I tell

0:24:13 > 0:24:18you what I don't want, I'm sure every single member of this house

0:24:18 > 0:24:22does not want in three months' time a statement to be made to the house

0:24:22 > 0:24:27telling us what is going to be done. Rather than this house having

0:24:27 > 0:24:33debated it and discussed it and come to a view itself as to where we

0:24:33 > 0:24:37should go. As I say, Madame Deputy Speaker, I don't believe this

0:24:37 > 0:24:42Parliament does not want to wait for a set of decisions to be presented

0:24:42 > 0:24:47to us as a fait accompli. That is not good enough. Our country

0:24:47 > 0:24:50deserves better, the public and Parliament need to be properly

0:24:50 > 0:24:56informed. I am certain that colleagues across this house

0:24:56 > 0:25:01believes that it is for this Parliament to debate the issues, to

0:25:01 > 0:25:07inform the decisions, and to play our full part in the choices we make

0:25:07 > 0:25:14as to how to defend the country and its freedoms. According to the

0:25:14 > 0:25:16permanent private secretary, a hearing of the Defence Select

0:25:16 > 0:25:21Committee at the end of last year, it appears, and it is a view our

0:25:21 > 0:25:26sins, but I will ask the Minister to inform us, the Secretary of State as

0:25:26 > 0:25:29yet has given no explicit request for additional funding from the

0:25:29 > 0:25:33Chancellor. Then I specifically asked the minister, if he could

0:25:33 > 0:25:36confirm or tell us where the discussions that have been reported

0:25:36 > 0:25:42in the media have got to, as to what the Defence Secretary is now saying

0:25:42 > 0:25:47to the Chancellor and where it has got to or not. And whether there is

0:25:47 > 0:25:51to be any additional funding, whether he has demanded additional

0:25:51 > 0:25:54funding, and indeed, whether the defence aspect of the capabilities

0:25:54 > 0:26:00review as I mentioned earlier has been delayed or not.I thank the

0:26:00 > 0:26:03right honourable member for giving way, I think he will probably be

0:26:03 > 0:26:10astonished to learn that the national security adviser, Sir Mark

0:26:10 > 0:26:20Sedwill, as he now is, wrote to me on the 23rd of October, and said, "

0:26:20 > 0:26:24because the main decisions on defence were taken through the 2015

0:26:24 > 0:26:30STS are, this review is not defence focused. Defence capability is one

0:26:30 > 0:26:35of several projects within the review." We have a situation where

0:26:35 > 0:26:39we are finding difficulty bringing the national security adviser to the

0:26:39 > 0:26:42defence committee because he says that it is not defence focus. --

0:26:42 > 0:26:46SDSR. And yet the first thing we will know about the review is when

0:26:46 > 0:26:51they tell us what major defence capabilities are going to be cut.I

0:26:51 > 0:26:56could not agree more with the chair of the Defence Select Committee, is

0:26:56 > 0:27:01absolutely right, and right to point out that what is going to happen,

0:27:01 > 0:27:11Mark Sedwill says it is not defence related but he then says to the

0:27:11 > 0:27:14committee, if I remember correctly, or certainly it has been reported as

0:27:14 > 0:27:20being said in the media somewhere that of course, there is a need for

0:27:20 > 0:27:24us to increase spending on cyber intelligence capabilities and

0:27:24 > 0:27:27because it is fiscally neutral, where will that come from, and that

0:27:27 > 0:27:33is why you get speculation about cuts in defence capabilities, to

0:27:33 > 0:27:39which the right honourable gentleman refers, because it is this clinical,

0:27:39 > 0:27:44taking money from that, to pay for that. The thrust of the argument I

0:27:44 > 0:27:49am making, the whole thrust, is to say, if that is a threat, and that

0:27:49 > 0:27:57is a threat, and not rob that to pay for that.

0:27:58 > 0:28:01I agree entirely with what my honourable friend has said there, it

0:28:01 > 0:28:06is also the that many the commitments made in STS are 2015 and

0:28:06 > 0:28:11the amount of money needed to deliver all of those does not match

0:28:11 > 0:28:15up with what has been allocated to defence in the budget statements

0:28:15 > 0:28:21that receive. -- SDSR 2015. A lot of commitments have been promised that

0:28:21 > 0:28:24do not bear a relationship to the amount of money currently allocated

0:28:24 > 0:28:25to defence.

0:28:30 > 0:28:36I agree. That is right, I will talk about affordability in a little

0:28:36 > 0:28:41while.I'm grateful to you for giving way, I congratulate him on

0:28:41 > 0:28:46his debate and on his speech, every single word of which would be agreed

0:28:46 > 0:28:50upon by the house, and the motion before the house is one upon which

0:28:50 > 0:28:53we cannot possibly agree with one exception, I think it is

0:28:53 > 0:28:56exceptionally disappointing that what the honourable gentleman called

0:28:56 > 0:29:02for is offence expenditure to be maintained at current levels,

0:29:02 > 0:29:06actually, it should be increased substantially. I think he has got

0:29:06 > 0:29:11the wording of the motion wrong. Thank you for his advice on that. If

0:29:11 > 0:29:18the honourable member... I'm sure he has read the whole thing, it does

0:29:18 > 0:29:24say at least, at current levels. And this is partly the problem I have,

0:29:24 > 0:29:27trying to be conciliatory, and having something that everybody

0:29:27 > 0:29:29agrees with, I try to put something together that everybody would agree

0:29:29 > 0:29:35with, rather than perhaps I should have been a bit stronger, so I take

0:29:35 > 0:29:41the admonishment, but it does say at least, which hopefully answers some

0:29:41 > 0:29:45of the points. I will, and then I will make some progress.Thank you

0:29:45 > 0:29:49for giving way. The issue of maintaining a fiscally neutral

0:29:49 > 0:29:54position on defence spending but would he recognised that defence

0:29:54 > 0:29:59spending in average has been 3.9%, back then, it was 0.3%, every year

0:29:59 > 0:30:04we see a huge erosion of the defence budget every year, the purchasing

0:30:04 > 0:30:07power, that is changing our capacity.The honourable member will

0:30:07 > 0:30:12know from his own background, in the defence industry, the importance of

0:30:12 > 0:30:16the point he has just made. Not just the headline inflation figure, it is

0:30:16 > 0:30:21the real inflation rate, that people are facing, needs to be addressed in

0:30:21 > 0:30:29any spending decisions, so that is a point well made. If I move on, just

0:30:29 > 0:30:32for another few minutes, we find ourselves in incredibly serious

0:30:32 > 0:30:37situation, a defence minister is reported to have threatened to

0:30:37 > 0:30:41resign if army numbers were to be reduced any further. Will the

0:30:41 > 0:30:45government as part of this reduced role out any further reductions in

0:30:45 > 0:30:50troop numbers below the 82,000 figure. The army is already 4000

0:30:50 > 0:30:54below that figure, recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces as a

0:30:54 > 0:30:58whole is at crisis point, the current deficit against the number

0:30:58 > 0:31:04of service personnel is at 5.6%. I would say to the Minister, I know

0:31:04 > 0:31:07the government have made some noises, lifting the 1% public pay

0:31:07 > 0:31:11cap for the Armed Forces and insuring that something is done

0:31:11 > 0:31:16about that as soon as possible. And what about cuts to training that we

0:31:16 > 0:31:20will read about as well, the government has confirmed a number of

0:31:20 > 0:31:26training exercises have already been Council for 2018, largely due to

0:31:26 > 0:31:29costs, including, according to a Parliamentary question I saw an

0:31:29 > 0:31:36answer, exercise black horse, jungle training as well. Have we now

0:31:36 > 0:31:43abandoned the foolish idea of cutting the Marines by 1000, and

0:31:43 > 0:31:46getting rid of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which would mean we do not

0:31:46 > 0:31:49have the ability to mount beach landings.

0:31:54 > 0:31:57The Government says this is speculation, but the minister has

0:31:57 > 0:32:00the opportunity to rule these things out and say they are speculation and

0:32:00 > 0:32:04they are not going to happen, this Government will not let them happen.

0:32:04 > 0:32:10And of course, following on from my honourable friend's point, all of

0:32:10 > 0:32:13this takes place against the backdrop of continuing financial

0:32:13 > 0:32:20pressures on the MOD's 178 billion equipment plan. The national audit

0:32:20 > 0:32:24of this has said that the risks to the affordability of the MOD

0:32:24 > 0:32:28equipment plan are greater than at any point since reporting began in

0:32:28 > 0:32:362012. Surely they are right. The plan is heavily reliant on

0:32:36 > 0:32:43efficiency plans. The MOD's permanent secretary stated the need

0:32:43 > 0:32:47to save 30 billion over a ten-year period. The plan does have amazing

0:32:47 > 0:32:53new equipment for our Armed Forces, frigates, planes, the Ajax fighting

0:32:53 > 0:32:56vehicle, and our defence companies provide mass of employment

0:32:56 > 0:33:00opportunities, including apprenticeships, and many areas

0:33:00 > 0:33:11depend on this military spending, and businesses such

0:33:12 > 0:33:15as Raytheon needs certainty in their orders to maintain the skill base,

0:33:15 > 0:33:23and the questions relate, crazed by the select committee on efficiency

0:33:23 > 0:33:29savings cannot just be dismissed. The defence industrial strategy must

0:33:29 > 0:33:35be something which makes a tangible difference. Of course.I thank the

0:33:35 > 0:33:39member. I strongly agree with everything that the right honourable

0:33:39 > 0:33:42member has indicated. We must support our great men and women in

0:33:42 > 0:33:47the Armed Forces in every way that we can, particularly to equip them

0:33:47 > 0:33:51in a sufficient way. I know that the honourable member would also agree

0:33:51 > 0:33:55with me that supporting our armed for so is after they leave, and

0:33:55 > 0:34:02properly resourcing that support, is critical. -- Armed Forces. One part

0:34:02 > 0:34:09of the United Kingdom does not have the full and -- full in the

0:34:09 > 0:34:16meditation of the covenant, and that is Northern Ireland, there should be

0:34:16 > 0:34:23full increment Asian in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. --

0:34:23 > 0:34:29implementation.It is crucially important that all of our veterans,

0:34:29 > 0:34:32wherever they are, are supported and that arrangements are put in place

0:34:32 > 0:34:39to do that. Exactly how that is done in Northern Ireland will need to be

0:34:39 > 0:34:42a matter for discussion, but let me say that it is clear that

0:34:42 > 0:34:45arrangements have to be put in place and should be put in place to

0:34:45 > 0:34:52support our veterans. Madam Deputy Speaker, a couple more minutes, I

0:34:52 > 0:34:56just was talking about the equipment plan. Let me put before the house

0:34:56 > 0:35:01something which highlights the problems for them. Let me ask the

0:35:01 > 0:35:05minister if he could be more specific, for example, about the

0:35:05 > 0:35:11cost of the F-35 fighter plane. This is crucial, because we don't know

0:35:11 > 0:35:16how much these are going to cost, what is the impact going to be on

0:35:16 > 0:35:21the other parts of the equipment budget? And the Defence Select

0:35:21 > 0:35:25Committee report, which I thought was brilliant, if I might say to the

0:35:25 > 0:35:28honourable gentleman, and the questioning from others, including

0:35:28 > 0:35:32his honourable friend and many others, but the total estimate, and

0:35:32 > 0:35:36what I find really frustrating is the committee and the members of

0:35:36 > 0:35:41this house use the Government's figures and then told, well... Let

0:35:41 > 0:35:47me say this, the total estimated cost for 2026-7 is 9.1 billion, June

0:35:47 > 0:35:52which time we will purchase 48 aircraft. -- during. The Government

0:35:52 > 0:35:56cannot say how much the aircraft will cost and disputes the 9.1

0:35:56 > 0:35:59billion, says it includes this and that, then get a different figure.

0:35:59 > 0:36:05So what is the figure for them? If you can't divide 9.1 billion by 48,

0:36:05 > 0:36:16which would give 100

0:36:16 > 0:36:19you can't divide 9.1 billion by 48, which would give 100, what is the

0:36:19 > 0:36:22figure that the Government was using to make sure that this adds up? If

0:36:22 > 0:36:27we don't say what is affordable, we won't know what the impacts on other

0:36:27 > 0:36:31capabilities will be. Let me conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, by

0:36:31 > 0:36:37saying this. The stark choices before us, I thought, have been

0:36:37 > 0:36:43recently spoken of quite starkly by three very English former Armed

0:36:43 > 0:36:49Forces commanders who spoke of their concerns and observations about the

0:36:49 > 0:36:56national security capability review. General Sir Richard Dalton next

0:36:56 > 0:37:00barons said, and I quote, if you do not put this money back into defence

0:37:00 > 0:37:04and paid the bridge and four STS are 2015, you will be responsible, and

0:37:04 > 0:37:10this is us, you will be responsible for tipping the Armed Forces into

0:37:10 > 0:37:14institutional failure. That will be a failure of government, not of the

0:37:14 > 0:37:20Armed Forces. The Air Vice-Marshal said the Government needed to fund

0:37:20 > 0:37:28the corrections of 2015, and Admiral Georges ambulance said, I cannot add

0:37:28 > 0:37:34value to the strategic comments of my comments. Madam Deputy Speaker,

0:37:34 > 0:37:37this debate gives this parliament the opportunity to speak for the

0:37:37 > 0:37:43country, to give our Armed Forces there is also a need to meet the

0:37:43 > 0:37:47threat that this country faces. Our Armed Forces deserve it, our country

0:37:47 > 0:37:50deserves it, and our allies are looking for us to provide it as

0:37:50 > 0:38:00well.The question is as on the order paper, octave Julian Lewis. --

0:38:00 > 0:38:04Dr Julian Lewis.Me I pay tribute to the right honourable member, not for

0:38:04 > 0:38:09the first time he has given great service to the cause of defence, an

0:38:09 > 0:38:13outstandingly good Shadow Defence Secretary, and as long as there are

0:38:13 > 0:38:19people like him in the ranks of the Labour Party, the prospects for a

0:38:19 > 0:38:23bipartisan approach to defence remain excellent. And I must extend

0:38:23 > 0:38:31that praise to all the members, all 11 members of the four parties

0:38:31 > 0:38:34represented on the Defence Select Committee, every one of whom is

0:38:34 > 0:38:39strongly committed to the defence of this country. And until recent

0:38:39 > 0:38:45years, little attention has been paid to a possible threat from post

0:38:45 > 0:38:50comment as Russia, because for a long time after 9/11,

0:38:50 > 0:38:52counterinsurgency campaigns in third world countries were thought to be

0:38:52 > 0:39:02the principle role of the Armed Forces. However, now we are spending

0:39:02 > 0:39:05just £400 million on operations of that type out of an annual defence

0:39:05 > 0:39:15budget of about £36 billion. Now, according to the 2015 SDSR, that

0:39:15 > 0:39:21budget should fund, by 2020, 80 2000 soldiers, more than 30,000 sailors

0:39:21 > 0:39:28and marines, and almost 32,000 RAF personnel, plus another 35,000

0:39:28 > 0:39:34reservists. To these must be added some 41,000 civilians, many of whom,

0:39:34 > 0:39:37like those who serve in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, our service

0:39:37 > 0:39:43personnel in all but name. Finally, there are special forces, as well as

0:39:43 > 0:39:48new units that have been created to deal with cyber security and counter

0:39:48 > 0:39:53propaganda. Then there is all the equipment currently comprising over

0:39:53 > 0:39:594000 army vehicles, including tanks and artillery, about 75 Royal Navy

0:39:59 > 0:40:03ships and submarines, including the nuclear deterrent, and over a

0:40:03 > 0:40:09thousand RAF fixed wing and rotary aircraft. And as a portent of things

0:40:09 > 0:40:12to come, the services also operate a mixture of large and small

0:40:12 > 0:40:19surveillance Trojans and ten unmanned hunter killer aerial attack

0:40:19 > 0:40:25vehicles. -- surveillance drones. So all in all, a fairly full spectrum

0:40:25 > 0:40:30of military capability, and in absolute terms, as I am sure we

0:40:30 > 0:40:37would all except, £36 billion a year is a considerable sum. But set in

0:40:37 > 0:40:40historical perspective, this level of investment in defence falls far

0:40:40 > 0:40:46below the efforts that we have traditionally made when confronted

0:40:46 > 0:40:52with danger internationally. Now, the defence committee published its

0:40:52 > 0:40:59own report on defence expenditure in April 2016, entitled Shifting The

0:40:59 > 0:41:05Goalposts, attracting attention for highlighting the inclusion of costly

0:41:05 > 0:41:09items like war pensions and MOD civilian pensions at a time when

0:41:09 > 0:41:16Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne were scrambling

0:41:16 > 0:41:22to meet the 2% of GDP benchmark, which, as we all know, has been set

0:41:22 > 0:41:28by Nato as a minimum - not a target, for all its members. Now, the

0:41:28 > 0:41:33Government was entitled to include such items towards its 2%

0:41:33 > 0:41:36calculation is, but we'd never chosen to do so previously, and so

0:41:36 > 0:41:42it was clear that by resorting to a form of creative accountancy, we

0:41:42 > 0:41:47were no longer strictly come pairing like with like in overall

0:41:47 > 0:41:52expenditure terms. However, our report was especially revealing in

0:41:52 > 0:41:57its tables and graphs, well researched by committee staff,

0:41:57 > 0:42:04showing UK defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP year by year from

0:42:04 > 0:42:09the mid 1950s to the present day, and then comparing this data with

0:42:09 > 0:42:14the corresponding figures for welfare for education and for

0:42:14 > 0:42:22health. Now, what we found, Madam Deputy Speaker, was this - in 1963,

0:42:22 > 0:42:28we spent a similar sums, about 6% of GDP, both on welfare and on defence.

0:42:28 > 0:42:36Now we spend six times on welfare what we spend on defence. In the mid

0:42:36 > 0:42:421980s, the last time we faced a simultaneous threat from an

0:42:42 > 0:42:48assertive Soviet Union, as it then was, and a major terrorist threat in

0:42:48 > 0:42:54Northern Ireland, we spend similar sums, about 5% of GDP, on education,

0:42:54 > 0:43:00on health, and on defence. Now we spend two and a half times on

0:43:00 > 0:43:05education and nearly four times on health and what we spend on defence.

0:43:05 > 0:43:11At the height of the East - West confrontation, in every year from

0:43:11 > 0:43:201981 until 1987, we spend between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence.

0:43:20 > 0:43:25Then, between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the failure of the

0:43:25 > 0:43:31Moscow coup in 1991, the Cold War came to an end. Consequently, and

0:43:31 > 0:43:36predictably, a reduction in defence expenditure followed. This was known

0:43:36 > 0:43:42as the peace dividend. Yet, and this is the key point, even after the

0:43:42 > 0:43:50peace dividend had been taken, indeed as late as the financial year

0:43:50 > 0:43:581995-6, we were still spending not 2% of GDP, the Nato minimum, but

0:43:58 > 0:44:02fully 3% of GDP, and that was without the accounting adjustments

0:44:02 > 0:44:11used to scrape over 2% lines in the past few years. So to sum up, from

0:44:11 > 0:44:171988, when the Cold War began to evaporate, until 2014, when we

0:44:17 > 0:44:20pulled back from Afghanistan, defence spending almost halved as a

0:44:20 > 0:44:26proportion of GDP. Now that we face a newly assertive Russia and a

0:44:26 > 0:44:32global terrorist threat, the decision to set 3% of GDP as our

0:44:32 > 0:44:40defence expenditure target can no longer be delayed. Quite rightly,

0:44:40 > 0:44:44the right panel member, oh, I will give way.I'm very grateful to the

0:44:44 > 0:44:48honourable gentleman for giving way. I have looked at the same statistic

0:44:48 > 0:44:52that he is looking at, and he is absolutely right about the creative

0:44:52 > 0:44:55accounting, but even taking that into account, it seems impossible to

0:44:55 > 0:44:59reach the conclusion that we have ever spent as little as we currently

0:44:59 > 0:45:05are in comparison to GDP on defence. That is absolutely right. I mean, it

0:45:05 > 0:45:11is a measure of how far down with our expectations were managed in the

0:45:11 > 0:45:15course of the reductions in percentage GDP spent on defence and

0:45:15 > 0:45:21both the Blair and Cameron coalition governments that it was regarded as

0:45:21 > 0:45:25a cause for triumph and congratulation when it was finally

0:45:25 > 0:45:29confirmed that we wouldn't be dropping below 2%. It had never been

0:45:29 > 0:45:39a matter to be in any question at all prior to that particular period.

0:45:39 > 0:45:43I thank my right honourable friend forgiving way. It is a pleasure to

0:45:43 > 0:45:48serve under his stout chairmanship of the defence select committee. I

0:45:48 > 0:45:55mean stout in personality! Can I just offer the thought that in some

0:45:55 > 0:46:00ways the situation is even more challenging than he has laid out,

0:46:00 > 0:46:06because he has quite rightly given the figures in terms of GDP. But in

0:46:06 > 0:46:12recent years the MOD, as we heard testimony from the permanent

0:46:12 > 0:46:19undersecretary, was also signed a up to a additional sets of efficiency

0:46:19 > 0:46:24savings, now totalling some £30 billion overtime. And so not only

0:46:24 > 0:46:27does it have a constricted budget, but it is having to find those

0:46:27 > 0:46:33efficiency savings as well, making the situation even more challenging.

0:46:33 > 0:46:37My right honourable friend speaks with great experience as a former

0:46:37 > 0:46:40Armed Forces Minister himself, and made a considerable input to the

0:46:40 > 0:46:45report we just did, which we called gambling on efficiency, making that

0:46:45 > 0:46:52very point. The right honourable member for Gedling emphasised the

0:46:52 > 0:46:56process that is going on at the moment with the National security

0:46:56 > 0:47:03capability review, and he focused on this question of fiscal neutrality,

0:47:03 > 0:47:09which the national Security adviser says he has been told to observe.

0:47:09 > 0:47:15When I challenged him with this on the 18th of December, when he

0:47:15 > 0:47:19appeared before the joint committee on the national Security strategy,

0:47:19 > 0:47:24he said, well it's not as if the defence budget is not growing, its

0:47:24 > 0:47:28fiscal neutrality within a growing budget. He then did something else

0:47:28 > 0:47:34as well, which is indicative of a very worrying trend. He then lumped

0:47:34 > 0:47:40together the 36 billion that we are spending avowedly on defence, with

0:47:40 > 0:47:45all the other money that we spend on everything else that is related to

0:47:45 > 0:47:50security, and started talking about a £56 billion budget. And it is this

0:47:50 > 0:48:00lumping together of money for Security and Intelligence services,

0:48:00 > 0:48:01money for counterterrorism, money for even those relevant aspects of

0:48:01 > 0:48:09policing with the defence budget, which is a form of a slate of hand

0:48:09 > 0:48:13which is causing me concern. This is what I want to address in the second

0:48:13 > 0:48:20half of my remarks. We have got a real problem in this country. The

0:48:20 > 0:48:24problem is that the tried and tested system for a strategic

0:48:24 > 0:48:31decision-making has broken down. In my years as a student, my area of

0:48:31 > 0:48:38study was the way in which Britain planned towards the end of the

0:48:38 > 0:48:42Second World War and in the early years after the Second World War, as

0:48:42 > 0:48:46to what form of strategy we would have to have to deal with future

0:48:46 > 0:48:53threats. And I was struck by the way in which there was a huge argument

0:48:53 > 0:48:59between 1944 and 1946, between clever officials in the Foreign

0:48:59 > 0:49:05Office who wanted to make the Anglo Soviet alliance of 1942 into the

0:49:05 > 0:49:12cornerstone of our post-war foreign policy, and the chiefs of staff who

0:49:12 > 0:49:17wanted to prepare their assessments of what Britain might have to face

0:49:17 > 0:49:21militarily on alternative assumptions that that alliance might

0:49:21 > 0:49:24well continue, in which case all would be well, but that it might

0:49:24 > 0:49:30well break down. There was a tremendous stand-off until 1946,

0:49:30 > 0:49:34when finally, the iron curtain descended and it became clear that

0:49:34 > 0:49:38the chiefs of staff, looking at it in theoretical terms and saying, it

0:49:38 > 0:49:43could work but it might not work, Warren writes to be cautious, and

0:49:43 > 0:49:49the Foreign Office, wanted to put all their eggs in the one basket,

0:49:49 > 0:49:56had been wrong. I was very struck with the very systematic way in

0:49:56 > 0:50:00which these strategic arguments were hammered out. And at the centre of

0:50:00 > 0:50:04it all was the chiefs of staff committee, and the chiefs of staff

0:50:04 > 0:50:09committee, as we all know, is made up of the heads of the three

0:50:09 > 0:50:14services. These shocking thing I have to say to the House today is

0:50:14 > 0:50:18that you can now become chief of Staff of any of the three armed

0:50:18 > 0:50:23services. You can become head of the Royal Navy, you can become head of

0:50:23 > 0:50:30the army, head of the Royal Air Force, and yet have no direct input

0:50:30 > 0:50:36into the strategic planning process. This is all part of this lumping

0:50:36 > 0:50:43together of military strategic planning with national security

0:50:43 > 0:50:48strategies that are vague and amorphous, and above all, primarily,

0:50:48 > 0:50:54in the hands of civil servants. Now if the civil servants themselves

0:50:54 > 0:50:59were steeped, as they used to be, in the subject matter of their

0:50:59 > 0:51:06departments, that would be less of a problem than it is today. But some

0:51:06 > 0:51:12years ago it was decided that the senior levels of the civil service,

0:51:12 > 0:51:18which are peopled by clever and able individuals, that is not in dispute,

0:51:18 > 0:51:23but that those senior civil servants should be able to hop from one

0:51:23 > 0:51:26department to another. So you might be at a senior level in one

0:51:26 > 0:51:30department at over the top job in another department, including, for

0:51:30 > 0:51:34example, the Ministry for defence. What we have a combination were

0:51:34 > 0:51:39formally specialist civil servants have become generalists and the

0:51:39 > 0:51:45professional military advisers have become more like business managers

0:51:45 > 0:51:50who are serving as chief executives with an allocated budget to

0:51:50 > 0:51:54administer to their services. And all their thoughts about strategy,

0:51:54 > 0:52:00they just get fed through one single individual, the Chief of the Defence

0:52:00 > 0:52:03Staff, who then has to represent all their views on the national Security

0:52:03 > 0:52:10Council. And it is this melding together, this mishmash of the

0:52:10 > 0:52:16military, the security and the civilian, which is undermining the

0:52:16 > 0:52:21way that we need to have, which is a clear-headed and systematic approach

0:52:21 > 0:52:28to the strategic challenges facing this country.

0:52:28 > 0:52:31I am most grateful to my honourable friend, who is making an extremely

0:52:31 > 0:52:37important point about the structure. Willie agree that he has not

0:52:37 > 0:52:43mentioned an important part of that, ministers? He hasn't discussed

0:52:43 > 0:52:48ministers' role. When Sir Mark Sedwill appeared in front of the

0:52:48 > 0:52:51joint committee the other day, he let us know that this review is

0:52:51 > 0:52:58currently being undertaken by his department and was commissioned

0:52:58 > 0:53:00during the general election campaign, when presumably ministers

0:53:00 > 0:53:06had their eyes on something else. I don't know who commissioned this

0:53:06 > 0:53:12strategy at that time.My honourable friend is right. He made a useful

0:53:12 > 0:53:17contribution to the questioning of Mark Sedwill. Ministers don't seem

0:53:17 > 0:53:23to be having much of a role in this either. The problem is, and what I

0:53:23 > 0:53:27didn't say because I didn't want to dwell too long on it, was the way

0:53:27 > 0:53:33that stand-off between the chiefs of staff and the Foreign Office in 1944

0:53:33 > 0:53:36was finally resolved, was that went all the way to Churchill, who

0:53:36 > 0:53:40finally gave the chiefs of staff permission to continue doing the

0:53:40 > 0:53:44contingency planning for a possible hostile Soviet Union that the --

0:53:44 > 0:53:48that they wanted to do, that the Foreign Office didn't want them to

0:53:48 > 0:53:54do. The reality is that there has been a loss of focus. There is no

0:53:54 > 0:54:00proper machinery other than this rather woolly concept of a National

0:54:00 > 0:54:04Security Council, served by a secretariat Marana effectively by

0:54:04 > 0:54:11the Cabinet office. And in conclusion, what I really want to

0:54:11 > 0:54:14say is this. Constitutionally we know what is right because

0:54:14 > 0:54:20constitutionally, and this was confirmed when we spoke to the

0:54:20 > 0:54:23former Secretary of State for Defence in the Defence Commitee, and

0:54:23 > 0:54:29he was attended by a senior MoD official, and we asked him, is it

0:54:29 > 0:54:32still the case that the chiefs of staff, the heads of the Armed

0:54:32 > 0:54:38Forces, retain the right to go directly to Number 10 if they think

0:54:38 > 0:54:41the danger to the country is such that they have to make direct

0:54:41 > 0:54:47representations? The answer was, yes it is. But what is the point of them

0:54:47 > 0:54:50having that right if they are not actually allowed to do the job of

0:54:50 > 0:54:57planning the strategies and giving what they used to do as a committee,

0:54:57 > 0:55:04which was serving as military advisers to the government. The

0:55:04 > 0:55:07government ultimately, as my honourable friend says, has always

0:55:07 > 0:55:11got the right to reject or accept such military advice as they get

0:55:11 > 0:55:15from the Service Chiefs. But the Service Chiefs ought to be in a

0:55:15 > 0:55:20position to give that advice. To conclude, I just say that it may

0:55:20 > 0:55:24suit civil servants to sideline the military professionals, to reduce

0:55:24 > 0:55:30the uniformed... Of course.Madam Deputy Speaker, my right honourable

0:55:30 > 0:55:34friend is coming to his conclusion and I did want to, if I may, go back

0:55:34 > 0:55:41to his initial point, if I can bear your patients, Madam Deputy Speaker,

0:55:41 > 0:55:44the important point raised by the Right Honourable gentleman who

0:55:44 > 0:55:47raised this debate... The comparison between health, education and

0:55:47 > 0:55:52defence going back a couple of decades. We have had the demise of

0:55:52 > 0:55:57the Cold War. But I would recommend honourable members read the Prime

0:55:57 > 0:56:00Minister's speech at the Guildhall in November, which talks about what

0:56:00 > 0:56:06is coming around. I put the question that as we try to passionately make

0:56:06 > 0:56:10the case for the necessary funding for the Armed Forces, would it be

0:56:10 > 0:56:13easier for that case to be made if the passion and enthusiasm on the

0:56:13 > 0:56:19doorstep as we go about general elections and so forth, was

0:56:19 > 0:56:23compatible with health and education along with our Armed Forces? I think

0:56:23 > 0:56:28there is a role for all of us to make in confirming what the status

0:56:28 > 0:56:32of the Armed Forces should be in the future.I'm grateful to the Minister

0:56:32 > 0:56:36for making the point in that way. No one could be doing more than he is

0:56:36 > 0:56:41doing within the constraints of his office to try and make the case. We

0:56:41 > 0:56:46all know that. The reality of it is, of course, that defence is always

0:56:46 > 0:56:50difficult to get funded in peace time because it is analogous to

0:56:50 > 0:56:55paying the premiums on an insurance policy. People are always reluctant

0:56:55 > 0:56:59to pay the premiums. They are glad they have paid them when the time

0:56:59 > 0:57:02comes to calling on the policy because something adverts has

0:57:02 > 0:57:08occurred.I will, but I keen to conclude. I thank my right

0:57:08 > 0:57:11honourable friend and chairman of the committee forgiving way. But

0:57:11 > 0:57:21surely this is the role of ministers? It is the role of the

0:57:21 > 0:57:24Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the secretary of defence to provide

0:57:24 > 0:57:27that leadership, setting out the strategic division, and therefore

0:57:27 > 0:57:31the reason for that expenditure. That is where the leadership has to

0:57:31 > 0:57:38come from.I agree but I think it is something more important than that,

0:57:38 > 0:57:43which is to say they have to have a proper strategic planning machine at

0:57:43 > 0:57:46their service. Otherwise they are just a bunch of individuals giving

0:57:46 > 0:57:52their personal opinions. As I was saying, it may suit civil servants

0:57:52 > 0:57:55to sideline the military professionals, to reduce the

0:57:55 > 0:57:59uniformed contribution to strategic planning to the input of one

0:57:59 > 0:58:03individual, the chief of defence staff. It may suit them as well to

0:58:03 > 0:58:09sideline the Ministry of Defence and reduce its contribution to a single

0:58:09 > 0:58:13strand of the simple national security strategy. But it does not

0:58:13 > 0:58:17suit the national interest to have inadequate specialist admitted --

0:58:17 > 0:58:21military push back against politicians, with poor strategic

0:58:21 > 0:58:27grasp and a political be in their bonnet. That is how disastrous on

0:58:27 > 0:58:30goals like the Libya fiasco come to be inflicted upon us despite the

0:58:30 > 0:58:34warnings of the then chief of defence staff against overthrowing

0:58:34 > 0:58:40the Libyan regime. A single military adviser, no matter how capable,

0:58:40 > 0:58:46cannot have the same impact as the combined contribution of a joint

0:58:46 > 0:58:49committee of the heads of the Armed Forces. So it's not enough just to

0:58:49 > 0:58:54set ourselves a 3% target for defence expenditure, as indeed we

0:58:54 > 0:58:59must. It is vital also to recognise that our tried and tested machinery

0:58:59 > 0:59:06for making military strategy has been largely dismantled. The chiefs

0:59:06 > 0:59:11of staff must once again be more than budget managers stuck on the

0:59:11 > 0:59:16sidelines while politicians and officials call the shots and as

0:59:16 > 0:59:19often as not call the shots incorrectly.

0:59:19 > 0:59:27Order. I have given a lot of leeway do the honourable member who

0:59:27 > 0:59:29proposed the motion and to the chairman of the select committee,

0:59:29 > 0:59:34who both took a lot of interventions. That is good for

0:59:34 > 0:59:40rounded debate. But it will be obvious to the house that a great

0:59:40 > 0:59:44many people want to speak this afternoon. We have plenty of time.

0:59:44 > 0:59:48But that time will run out and it would be fair to everyone if

0:59:48 > 0:59:53individual members speak for much more than ten minutes. As an

0:59:53 > 0:59:58advisory amount, ten minutes would be just about right and if people

0:59:58 > 1:00:04speak for much more than that, I will have to impose a time limit,

1:00:04 > 1:00:07which stunts the debate. It is much better if everybody behaves in an

1:00:07 > 1:00:12honourable fashion. Dan Jarvis. Thank you, Madam Deputy

1:00:12 > 1:00:15Speaker. It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate and I

1:00:15 > 1:00:19want to begin by congratulating my honourable friend, the member for

1:00:19 > 1:00:25Gedling, for securing it.

1:00:25 > 1:00:30He has been a tireless champion of our Armed Forces and has done us a

1:00:30 > 1:00:33great service todayby allowing us to debate this most important

1:00:33 > 1:00:38matters, and I will seek to do so in the most constructive way possible,

1:00:38 > 1:00:41because I believe that we all have an absolute responsibility to hold

1:00:41 > 1:00:45the Government to account, and my remarks and my concern is that I

1:00:45 > 1:00:51will express today not about securing any short-term political

1:00:51 > 1:00:56advantage but ensuring that our nation is properly defended. Madam

1:00:56 > 1:00:59Deputy Speaker, throughout my time in the Armed Forces and in this

1:00:59 > 1:01:06place, I have come to believe that every Government's policy on defence

1:01:06 > 1:01:09should be underpinned by two promises. The first is the promised

1:01:09 > 1:01:17to maintain the freedom and integrity of the UK, its overseas

1:01:17 > 1:01:20territories, and its people, and it is rooted in its recognition that

1:01:20 > 1:01:27this is its primary duty. The second is termed the Armed Forces Covenant

1:01:27 > 1:01:32and is a promise from the Cup on behalf of the nation that those who

1:01:32 > 1:01:37serve or have served and their families are treated fairly. For

1:01:37 > 1:01:41reasons of time, I will not talk about the military covenant today,

1:01:41 > 1:01:46but like all honourable members present, I am constantly inspired by

1:01:46 > 1:01:52the incredible level of skill and commitment that our service men and

1:01:52 > 1:01:58women demonstrate. Often in the most difficult of circumstances. It is

1:01:58 > 1:02:02just that today it is the risk to our defensive capability where my

1:02:02 > 1:02:08emphasis will be. When thinking about this speech, I looked at UK

1:02:08 > 1:02:14defence doctrine to see what it says about the role of defence. It says

1:02:14 > 1:02:17that our national security encompasses the safety of our state

1:02:17 > 1:02:24and protecting it from external and internal threats, and requires us to

1:02:24 > 1:02:29endeavour to preserve the security of UK nationals living overseas.

1:02:29 > 1:02:34That same document goes on to talk about the many varied potential

1:02:34 > 1:02:39users of our Armed Forces, from enhancing soft power influence, to

1:02:39 > 1:02:43the evacuation of non-competence, to the application of force, to

1:02:43 > 1:02:48responding to natural disasters. But my concern is that this is not a

1:02:48 > 1:02:54publication that is read very much! At least not by those who seem to be

1:02:54 > 1:02:58making the decisions on the future of our Armed Forces. I am thinking

1:02:58 > 1:03:05particularly of some of those within the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

1:03:05 > 1:03:10Instead, some of them seem to be labouring under the misapprehension

1:03:10 > 1:03:15that, in an age of information conflict, the need for our Armed

1:03:15 > 1:03:19Forces is decreasing. This could not be further from the truth.

1:03:19 > 1:03:26Mitigating threats to our security is not a zero-sum game. Now, in

1:03:26 > 1:03:32recent years and months, the eyes of Westminster and Whitehall have

1:03:32 > 1:03:35become increasingly focused on Russia's activity in the UK's

1:03:35 > 1:03:41information domain, our critical national information and structure,

1:03:41 > 1:03:47and the broader concepts of soft and security. This is commendable, but

1:03:47 > 1:03:56it is worth remembering that in 2015 the SDSR identified four primary

1:03:56 > 1:04:03threats to UK national security. One, the increasing threat posed by

1:04:03 > 1:04:11terrorism, extremism and instability. Two, the resurgence of

1:04:11 > 1:04:17state based threats. Three, the impact of technological change,

1:04:17 > 1:04:21especially cyber threats. And four, the erosion of a rules based

1:04:21 > 1:04:25international order. Threats that our Armed Forces are absolutely

1:04:25 > 1:04:31critical in mitigating. Since then, we have heard some members of the

1:04:31 > 1:04:36Government repeatedly tell us that the threats identified have

1:04:36 > 1:04:39intensified, and that there is a need to strengthen our defences, yet

1:04:39 > 1:04:45the growth in threat has not been matched by a growth in was also is.

1:04:45 > 1:04:50Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Defence told the right

1:04:50 > 1:04:52honourable gentleman's defence committee that the mismatch between

1:04:52 > 1:04:58intensifying threats and the capabilities available was, in fact,

1:04:58 > 1:05:03being exacerbated. As he put it, the challenge of inflation, cost growth

1:05:03 > 1:05:07in some of our more complex programmes, and the ambitious

1:05:07 > 1:05:12efficiency targets, yet the ongoing capability review appears to have no

1:05:12 > 1:05:21intention of addressing this underfunding. Unlike the full SDSR

1:05:21 > 1:05:26in 2015, it is not taking place at the same time as a Spending Review,

1:05:26 > 1:05:31and in the budget for the MOD has been fixed until 2021. So my first

1:05:31 > 1:05:35question to the Minister is, and I know he thinks very carefully about

1:05:35 > 1:05:40these things, what is the purpose of a review that make include there is

1:05:40 > 1:05:45a need for more capability if there is no chance of the Government

1:05:45 > 1:05:50providing it? Surely, such a move will only highlights to our

1:05:50 > 1:05:53adversaries both the paucity of our ambition and the degradation of our

1:05:53 > 1:05:59capabilities. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the past few years have not

1:05:59 > 1:06:05been good ones for defence. Too much influence has been seeded to people

1:06:05 > 1:06:11who do not understand or value our Armed Forces. This has resulted in

1:06:11 > 1:06:16the mismanagement of the defence budget, the delayed delivery of

1:06:16 > 1:06:20crucial equipment, and created holes in both our strategic and

1:06:20 > 1:06:25operational capabilities. Now, as the national security capability

1:06:25 > 1:06:30review runs the risk of channelling funds away from our Armed Forces in

1:06:30 > 1:06:34favour of a focus on cyber security, the Government runs the risk of

1:06:34 > 1:06:41making matters worse. Now, I could speak at length about the capability

1:06:41 > 1:06:45areas damaged and in danger, but today I just want to touch on our

1:06:45 > 1:06:52amphibious capability, joint force 2025, and the importance of training

1:06:52 > 1:06:57to them both. First, our amphibious capability. I have had the privilege

1:06:57 > 1:07:01of serving with Royal Marines, and although I would not necessarily

1:07:01 > 1:07:08have said it to them whilst I was serving alongside them, I know how

1:07:08 > 1:07:10important they and their enabling capabilities really are. It is for

1:07:10 > 1:07:18this reason that I hope that the continued rumours regarding their

1:07:18 > 1:07:25future and specifically the selling off of HMS Ocean, the cutting of HMS

1:07:25 > 1:07:29Bulwark and HMS Albion, and the reduction of the Royal Marines by up

1:07:29 > 1:07:34to 1000 not true. A cyber capability cannot do what they do, and what

1:07:34 > 1:07:41they do remains absolutely crucial, be it at the application of force,

1:07:41 > 1:07:45crisis relief, or the evacuation of noncombatants. Our amphibious

1:07:45 > 1:07:53capability is a critical national asset. In 2005, General Rupert Smith

1:07:53 > 1:07:59said that the future of warfare was war amongst the people. He was

1:07:59 > 1:08:05right, and when you can consider that, presently, over 40% of the

1:08:05 > 1:08:10world's population lives within 100 kilometres off the coast, it is as

1:08:10 > 1:08:13certain that we should even be talking about cuts to our amphibious

1:08:13 > 1:08:20capability or pretend that Queen Elizabeth class or bay class ships

1:08:20 > 1:08:27offer similar functionality. Crossing the littoral foundry is

1:08:27 > 1:08:31essential to our ability to deploy troops in future scenarios but is

1:08:31 > 1:08:35also hugely important to the UK's humanitarian work around the world,

1:08:35 > 1:08:41and cutting it would signal that we are stepping back from both our

1:08:41 > 1:08:44global responsibilities and our responsibilities to UK nationals

1:08:44 > 1:08:47overseas. The real world importance of these capabilities was

1:08:47 > 1:08:57demonstrated By the military response to Hurricane Irma and

1:08:57 > 1:09:01continues to be illustrated by the fact that at the joint force

1:09:01 > 1:09:04headquarters in northward, two of the highest priorities for planning

1:09:04 > 1:09:10are South Korea and Lebanon. As such, we must acknowledge that any

1:09:10 > 1:09:15decision to reduce this capability would not come as part of a wider

1:09:15 > 1:09:20strategy about the UK's role the world, but as a misguided attempt to

1:09:20 > 1:09:25get the budget under control. So I would ask the Minister specifically

1:09:25 > 1:09:31today whether he can confirm that neither Albion nor Bulwark will be

1:09:31 > 1:09:38scrapped as part of the NSCR, and can he also confirmed there will be

1:09:38 > 1:09:42no cuts to our regular manpower for the Royal Marines? Madam Deputy

1:09:42 > 1:09:50Speaker, I am similarly concerned about the current threats to my own

1:09:50 > 1:09:54old service, the Army. We have seen numerous services affecting

1:09:54 > 1:09:58manpower, equipment and the structure of the Army, the most

1:09:58 > 1:10:04recent, Joint Force 2025, was initiated by SDSR 2015 and is

1:10:04 > 1:10:11rightly focused not on equipment and platforms but an output and effect.

1:10:11 > 1:10:14The planned reforms were intended to deliver an Armed Forces that was

1:10:14 > 1:10:20more agile and reactive, and to prepare the Army to deal with

1:10:20 > 1:10:23growing threats from state adversaries. This kind of

1:10:23 > 1:10:28development and evolution is critical to our national defence.

1:10:28 > 1:10:35But modernisation like this is predicated on harnessing emerging

1:10:35 > 1:10:40technologies, and as such requires investment in research and

1:10:40 > 1:10:45development, capital expenditure on new equipment, and the right number

1:10:45 > 1:10:50of well trained personnel. All of this was to be underpinned by

1:10:50 > 1:10:53greater cohesion and cooperation between the regulars and the

1:10:53 > 1:10:58reserves, and paid for by efficiency savings by the MOD. But now I fear

1:10:58 > 1:11:04that neither is happening, and joint force to the 25 is, as a result, and

1:11:04 > 1:11:10the thread. -- Joint Force 2025. I want to ask the Minister three

1:11:10 > 1:11:15further questions. First, is the MOD still on track to deliver Joint

1:11:15 > 1:11:21Force 2025 as planned? Second, how are the MOD ensuring that the

1:11:21 > 1:11:26outcomes of the capability review, in relation to defence, do not

1:11:26 > 1:11:29similarly rest on a false assumptions and overly optimistic

1:11:29 > 1:11:37promises? And third, and I say this slightly ingest, should regular

1:11:37 > 1:11:41reserves, like my parliamentary assistant and myself, and I suspect

1:11:41 > 1:11:45perhaps the Minister as well, really be included in the whole force

1:11:45 > 1:11:50figures? I say that slightly ingest, but it highlights an important point

1:11:50 > 1:11:57- that our Armed Forces, and the land environment in particular,

1:11:57 > 1:12:01capability is not just a question of numbers. Personnel have to be

1:12:01 > 1:12:05correctly equipped, trained and accustomed to operating in

1:12:05 > 1:12:11deployable structures. Too often, training is seen as an overhead

1:12:11 > 1:12:16which can be cut back. This ignores the importance of training in

1:12:16 > 1:12:21ensuring that our armed for so is already to respond and demonstrating

1:12:21 > 1:12:27capability to allies and adversaries alike. -- our Armed Forces. So as

1:12:27 > 1:12:33threats diversify and intensify, our training must adapt. Madam Deputy

1:12:33 > 1:12:38Speaker, I will give way.He has spoken eloquently about training. Is

1:12:38 > 1:12:42it not just as important to look at accommodation for our Armed Forces?

1:12:42 > 1:12:47We have seen the pay gap, but we have seen rents rise, and we have

1:12:47 > 1:12:51had forces being written to, saying that civilians are going to be

1:12:51 > 1:12:57allocated forces accommodation. Capability and training programmes

1:12:57 > 1:13:02aside, isn't it good that we have accommodation at the right brace and

1:13:02 > 1:13:05in good condition?I think my honourable friend makes a very

1:13:05 > 1:13:10important point. For purposes of time today, I have not got into

1:13:10 > 1:13:13discussing the issue of the Armed Forces Covenant, but that is

1:13:13 > 1:13:18critical in terms of ensuring that we have people who continue to wish

1:13:18 > 1:13:22to serve our country and the Armed Forces, and looking further into the

1:13:22 > 1:13:27future, those young people who, in a very competitive job market, will

1:13:27 > 1:13:31enter into our Armed Forces, and being able to demonstrate to them

1:13:31 > 1:13:36that we, as a country, as a government, as a House of Commons,

1:13:36 > 1:13:39are absolutely committed to ensuring that the circumstances under which

1:13:39 > 1:13:43they serve, which includes ensuring they have rewarding professional

1:13:43 > 1:13:50opportunities, which is why training is such an important element of that

1:13:50 > 1:13:52debate, but also, as my honourable friend has said, making sure that

1:13:52 > 1:13:55they will be properly looked that day, as will our families, and

1:13:55 > 1:13:58accommodation is a critically important part of that debate. Madam

1:13:58 > 1:14:04Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I believe that this debate has come at

1:14:04 > 1:14:09a crucial time for our Armed Forces. I think there is no doubt that the

1:14:09 > 1:14:14UK is under a greater level of threat than at any time since the

1:14:14 > 1:14:19Cold War. Yet I fear that, as well as there being serious questions

1:14:19 > 1:14:24about how the 2% target is being spent, our government runs the risk

1:14:24 > 1:14:30of being seen to have no coherent strategy for security and defence.

1:14:30 > 1:14:34And furthermore, the national security capability review risks

1:14:34 > 1:14:39channelling more funds away from our Armed Forces in favour of a focus on

1:14:39 > 1:14:47cyber security. It seems to believe that the emergence of information

1:14:47 > 1:14:50threats have somehow resulted in the decline of conventional threats.

1:14:50 > 1:14:56They haven't, and they won't, and the opening up of new France does

1:14:56 > 1:15:01not mean the closing down of old ones, and the unprecedented

1:15:01 > 1:15:09hollowing out of our Armed Forces must come to an end. -- new fronts.

1:15:09 > 1:15:12Madam Deputy Speaker, rarely in a debate in this chamber in the past

1:15:12 > 1:15:17can any force bigger in a debate, have been faced with such a major

1:15:17 > 1:15:20challenge as following three such well-informed, all-encompassing,

1:15:20 > 1:15:25brilliant speeches as from the honourable gentleman, the right

1:15:25 > 1:15:31honourable gentleman, my right honourable friend, people who know

1:15:31 > 1:15:34what they are talking about, and it is actually quite a challenge to

1:15:34 > 1:15:38think of something new to say after those outstanding speeches! I agree

1:15:38 > 1:15:46with all of them, and I agree very strongly with the motion.

1:15:46 > 1:15:49It would be entirely uncharacteristic nonetheless if I

1:15:49 > 1:15:54was to simply say I agree and then sit down. Can I very much welcome

1:15:54 > 1:16:00the fact that this debate has been called, but regret the fact it had

1:16:00 > 1:16:03to be called under the rules of the backbench business committee. Back

1:16:03 > 1:16:12when I came here we had five debates, including two

1:16:12 > 1:16:21underspending. That was then changed in 1998 to being five to debates,

1:16:21 > 1:16:23five set piece, Major, full-scale government debate in government

1:16:23 > 1:16:29time, entitled under a range of subjects from defence policy,

1:16:29 > 1:16:34personnel and procurement. Those debates were opened by the Secretary

1:16:34 > 1:16:40of State. There were packed -- there was a packed house. A lot of people

1:16:40 > 1:16:47following it. That has now been replaced. For several years there

1:16:47 > 1:16:51were no debates on defence at all under the backbench business

1:16:51 > 1:16:54committee. It has been replaced by to debate a year called by a

1:16:54 > 1:16:57backbencher choosing to do so. I think that is actually wrong. I

1:16:57 > 1:17:02think the government should return to the way we were and say that we

1:17:02 > 1:17:07should expect to see at least five debates on defence during the year

1:17:07 > 1:17:11and they must find time in their programme to do that. Allocating it

1:17:11 > 1:17:16to compete with such important matters as live animals and circuses

1:17:16 > 1:17:21seems to me to be just wrong, and seems to be downplaying defence to

1:17:21 > 1:17:28the nation. It may be symptomatic nonetheless. I think we are

1:17:28 > 1:17:34downplaying defence and downplaying the threat to us. There is a degree

1:17:34 > 1:17:37of war weariness, of course, after Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of

1:17:37 > 1:17:42it. People would like to see our troops coming home and no more wars

1:17:42 > 1:17:45anywhere in the world but that will not happen. The world is an

1:17:45 > 1:17:49extraordinarily dangerous place. I think we are guilty of a degree of

1:17:49 > 1:17:55complacency in this house over the threats to the nation. That

1:17:55 > 1:17:57complacency has spread around the nation. Our voters don't realise

1:17:57 > 1:18:04what a dangerous place we live in. If you ask people should we spend

1:18:04 > 1:18:13the money on defence or other things, defence would come lowdown

1:18:13 > 1:18:16in the priorities. That is why we need to highlight the threat facing

1:18:16 > 1:18:22us today. I won't repeat what other speakers have said about those

1:18:22 > 1:18:27threats. Of course, expansionist Russia, North Korea, the South China

1:18:27 > 1:18:30Sea, terrorism throughout the Middle East. These things are worse than

1:18:30 > 1:18:34they have been before. I personally am extremely concerned about Russian

1:18:34 > 1:18:41ambitions in the high North and the Arctic and the north Atlantic. I'm

1:18:41 > 1:18:45grateful to the honourable lady for Bridgend, who has taken up the

1:18:45 > 1:18:47cudgels of the Defence committee looking into what the Russians are

1:18:47 > 1:18:53planning to do. At the moment Nato are to some degree ignoring it. It

1:18:53 > 1:18:55is right that we should remind people that Russians have spent

1:18:55 > 1:19:02billions of on building a new military stations along the Arctic

1:19:02 > 1:19:05coast. They have substantially increased submarine activity in the

1:19:05 > 1:19:09North Atlantic. They are threatening our lines of supply to the United

1:19:09 > 1:19:12States. All of this is happening under our noses and we're not doing

1:19:12 > 1:19:16anything about it. It is right that we should remind the nation and

1:19:16 > 1:19:19remind our colleagues that these very real threat happening on our

1:19:19 > 1:19:24doorsteps. I think the reason party for that failure to address these

1:19:24 > 1:19:30real threat comes from what might sound like a rather technical

1:19:30 > 1:19:33machinery of government matter, which my right honourable friend for

1:19:33 > 1:19:41New Forest East touched on earlier. In 1998 the last time we had a

1:19:41 > 1:19:45proper defence review, I pay tribute to the then defence Minister. I

1:19:45 > 1:19:49think there is one of them sitting in the back row opposite. It was a

1:19:49 > 1:19:57first-class defence review. It was foreign policy led. Here is what we

1:19:57 > 1:20:05as a Ministry of Defence must do to carry out, to protect the country

1:20:05 > 1:20:09from threats. The whole process has become more modelled and obscured

1:20:09 > 1:20:14and complicated. Nobody now quite understands who it is that decides

1:20:14 > 1:20:19what the threats are to this nation. Nobody quite knows who decides what

1:20:19 > 1:20:23we must do about those threats. And nobody knows where we are going to

1:20:23 > 1:20:28get the money to do that. It used to be for example that the SDR would

1:20:28 > 1:20:31happen at the same time as the national Spending Review. That seems

1:20:31 > 1:20:38extremely important. What is the important if having -- of having a

1:20:38 > 1:20:40defence review if you know that at the end of the matter what you

1:20:40 > 1:20:47conclude, there is no money to change it? If we reach the

1:20:47 > 1:20:52conclusion we had a vast Russian or cyber threat against us and most

1:20:52 > 1:20:55significantly increase our army Air Force, the Treasury would say, I'm

1:20:55 > 1:20:59glad you had that review, very interested to read it, you make some

1:20:59 > 1:21:02important points and we will review the budget two years from now,

1:21:02 > 1:21:05therefore no matter what you said in your review, we can do nothing about

1:21:05 > 1:21:10it. It seems to me to be extremely odd to be mixing this defence review

1:21:10 > 1:21:15with the security review, which leads to some Mark Sedwill, a

1:21:15 > 1:21:21distinguished fellow, saying we need to spend more money on cyber. He is

1:21:21 > 1:21:26right. But every single penny on cyber that we spend comes away from

1:21:26 > 1:21:30other budgets. And if we double our cyber budget, which may be a good

1:21:30 > 1:21:38thing to do, that will mean that things like the cuts might have to

1:21:38 > 1:21:43come about in order to pay for a cyber. If it is any comfort to the

1:21:43 > 1:21:48honourable gentleman, if there were to be any of those cuts, if Ball

1:21:48 > 1:21:53were caught to go, if the word to be a thousand people cuts in the Royal

1:21:53 > 1:21:56Marines, he can be certain that I and I think many people on our side

1:21:56 > 1:22:00of the house would not support a government that proposed to do that.

1:22:00 > 1:22:06Let me make that very plain. We would not go along with that. Having

1:22:06 > 1:22:13many are my friends in the Ministry of Defence probably agree. -- I

1:22:13 > 1:22:15think many of my friends in the Ministry of Defence would probably

1:22:15 > 1:22:34agree. When we identify the risk, ... Those conclusions then go to the

1:22:34 > 1:22:36Ministry of defence. The Ministry of Defence should be the people who

1:22:36 > 1:22:39say, those are the threats to the nation and here's what we are going

1:22:39 > 1:22:43to do about it. Subsequent to that the Treasury should say, fine, here

1:22:43 > 1:22:51is how we will find money. To have a national security review mixed in

1:22:51 > 1:22:54with a national Spending Review at the time that is not contingent with

1:22:54 > 1:23:00the national Spending Review, seems to be absolutely pointless and

1:23:00 > 1:23:03substantially misleading. We are misleading ourselves that somehow we

1:23:03 > 1:23:06are looking at these things properly. I would like to see the

1:23:06 > 1:23:10defence part of the review separated out. It should be happening in the

1:23:10 > 1:23:14autumn of this year, the same time as the budget. If we need more money

1:23:14 > 1:23:18to do at the Foreign Office says we should be doing, that is the time

1:23:18 > 1:23:23that we ought to be doing that. Madine Deputy Speaker, I think that

1:23:23 > 1:23:26is all I really want to add to what the other people have said. I think

1:23:26 > 1:23:32we face incredibly dangerous times, incredibly worrying times. This

1:23:32 > 1:23:36nation is under threat. There are real threats to our people's

1:23:36 > 1:23:39security and safety. If we don't address it strategically and in a

1:23:39 > 1:23:44way that I have described, bringing in the ability to spend more money

1:23:44 > 1:23:47on defence, if we don't find some way of increasing our defence

1:23:47 > 1:23:52spending towards the 3% that many of us believe it should be, I fear that

1:23:52 > 1:23:57we're not doing our duty. Are not doing what are people sent us here

1:23:57 > 1:24:00to do. We're not putting in place the correct way of defending our

1:24:00 > 1:24:08nation. When it comes to defence we have to

1:24:08 > 1:24:15accept that without the personnel, with the right expertise and in

1:24:15 > 1:24:25enough numbers, the military can't function. All the most sophisticated

1:24:25 > 1:24:27technology imaginable is useless if we don't have the skilled

1:24:27 > 1:24:33individuals to operate it. The planes can fly, the ships can sail

1:24:33 > 1:24:38and the vehicles won't move. -- these planes can't fly, the ships

1:24:38 > 1:24:48can't sale. It is the people that we keep cutting. Looking at the Army

1:24:48 > 1:24:54and strategic defence Security review in 2010, there was a

1:24:54 > 1:25:08restructuring of the Army. The plan was then refined in 2015. In essence

1:25:08 > 1:25:13it proposed to reduce the number of regular army, full-time personnel,

1:25:13 > 1:25:23from 100 and, and increase the rebranded reserve forces to 15,000

1:25:23 > 1:25:27-- from 15,000 to 35,000 to make up the shortfall. On paper that looks

1:25:27 > 1:25:36great. In April 2017, the regular army numbered 83,000 560. The Army

1:25:36 > 1:25:44Reserve more than 20 9000. But dig deeper. Reserve soldiers work hard

1:25:44 > 1:25:52as reservists. But they also have full-time jobs. They are required to

1:25:52 > 1:25:57complete a minimum number of commitments of days and training to

1:25:57 > 1:26:02be fully up-to-date, to be able to deploy with the regular army. The

1:26:02 > 1:26:07completion of this training is not mandatory. But those who don't

1:26:07 > 1:26:13completed are not considered qualified. -- qualified to fulfil

1:26:13 > 1:26:18their function during the training year. Those soldiers who complete

1:26:18 > 1:26:25the training are awarded a tax free bounty. This bounty, or bonus, shows

1:26:25 > 1:26:28how many reservists each year are ready and able to deploy quickly to

1:26:28 > 1:26:35support the regular army. Over the last few years the number of Army

1:26:35 > 1:26:42Reserve soldiers has increased dramatically, from 21,000 in April

1:26:42 > 1:26:492015, to 29,000 in April 20 17. These figures are from the Ministry

1:26:49 > 1:27:04of Defence. So we've got an increase of 40 2000. -- sorry, 42%. You would

1:27:04 > 1:27:09expect a proportional increase in those achieving the annual bounty.

1:27:09 > 1:27:13As more and more reserve soldiers achieve their annual training

1:27:13 > 1:27:25targets. But in April 2015, 14 270 achieved their bounty, 67.85%. Where

1:27:25 > 1:27:34on April 2017, 14 930 got the bounty, which was just short of 50%.

1:27:34 > 1:27:42That represents a 17.98% fall in the proportion of Army reserves

1:27:42 > 1:27:48achieving their annual training target. The bounty is broken down

1:27:48 > 1:27:55into five levels. It shows... The next level is paid until they get to

1:27:55 > 1:28:06level five. The bounty is awarded in 2017 were 1980 per year one. 14704

1:28:06 > 1:28:15year too. Years three and four three and 30 four stop and year five, ten

1:28:15 > 1:28:24160. Not what you would expect given the number of increased recruits.

1:28:24 > 1:28:27What the numbers imply is that the number of reserve personnel able to

1:28:27 > 1:28:35complete the training required of them to be considered to be fully

1:28:35 > 1:28:41up-to-date has been pretty stable, but not growing. Despite the 42%

1:28:41 > 1:28:48growth of the number of reserve soldiers able to fulfil the minimum

1:28:48 > 1:28:50commitment to set up with the government is still at the same

1:28:50 > 1:28:55level. In effect, the growth in the Army Reserve is a paper growth, it

1:28:55 > 1:29:00is not a real growth. The expectation the government has is

1:29:00 > 1:29:09that people who can marry up a full-time job but retaining the

1:29:09 > 1:29:12capability to operate at the same level as a full time member of our

1:29:12 > 1:29:20Armed Forces. This is an assumption made as a result of a cost saving

1:29:20 > 1:29:25decision to cut the regular army and it is not simply realistic. So we

1:29:25 > 1:29:32now have a regular army of around 78,000. And an effective reserve of

1:29:32 > 1:29:38roughly 15,000. Both barely able to fulfil their required duties,

1:29:38 > 1:29:44especially when in the past there were more than 100,000. There is a

1:29:44 > 1:29:48further problem with the government approach. We're relying on experts

1:29:48 > 1:29:56to operate a sensible... These are not skills that can be replaced

1:29:56 > 1:30:01overnight. The government's solution was to cut the experts from the

1:30:01 > 1:30:06regular army and attempts to re-recruit them as reservists with a

1:30:06 > 1:30:15£10,000 incentive scheme. As of the 1st of October, 2017, there were

1:30:15 > 1:30:174000 31150 six regular reserve soldiers who had been recruited

1:30:17 > 1:30:26using the bonus incentive scheme. The £10,000 bonus again is broken

1:30:26 > 1:30:32into four instalments, paid out over four years, provided the soldiers

1:30:32 > 1:30:39completed the number of days, training and tests. 4000 trained and

1:30:39 > 1:30:4350 is a good number considering it equates to almost a quarter of those

1:30:43 > 1:30:51cut from the regular army. However, of those entering the scheme, 3320

1:30:51 > 1:31:02made it to key milestone one. Two 370 to key milestone too. Only one

1:31:02 > 1:31:09in 180 made it to three. And just 480 keystone for.

1:31:09 > 1:31:21A dropout rate of 88.97%.So despite the offer of the £10,000 bonus, the

1:31:21 > 1:31:25ex regular soldiers are also not able to meet the requirements of a

1:31:25 > 1:31:30full-time job and being a reservists who is fully trained and capable of

1:31:30 > 1:31:36deployment. We are risking having an and demand reserve force lacking the

1:31:36 > 1:31:39skills and knowledge that comes from experience disorders we made

1:31:39 > 1:31:45redundant. -- undermanned. As well as the reserve force doing its best

1:31:45 > 1:31:48to make up the shortfall, also trying to keep their civilian

1:31:48 > 1:32:00careers going. Once again, the apparent is dumber cost is elusive.

1:32:00 > 1:32:04-- the apparent sea of cost is a loser. Assume that each regular is a

1:32:04 > 1:32:10private on a basic rate of £50 a day. Many earn more, but let's go

1:32:10 > 1:32:15with the basic. The total spend since the inception of the scheme on

1:32:15 > 1:32:25wages and bonus payments is roughly 26.3 million, at a minimum. And the

1:32:25 > 1:32:3626.3 million, an 88.97 dropout rate and only 480 reserve soldiers. This

1:32:36 > 1:32:38is before any consideration of the cost of restructuring both the

1:32:38 > 1:32:46regular army and the reserve army. We are cutting full-time capable

1:32:46 > 1:32:50soldiers and replacing them with people who we are expecting too

1:32:50 > 1:32:56much. The Government has created a personnel problem in our Armed

1:32:56 > 1:33:00Forces which is threatening to spiral out of control. The men and

1:33:00 > 1:33:04women in our Armed Forces, we would all acknowledge in this chamber,

1:33:04 > 1:33:08whether regular or reserves, our dedicated professionals, being asked

1:33:08 > 1:33:15to do a very difficult and demanding job. But their numbers have been

1:33:15 > 1:33:21cuts dangerously low, and we are losing vital expertise. To make up

1:33:21 > 1:33:24the shortfall, we have put in place increased, unrealistic and unfair

1:33:24 > 1:33:33burdens Army Reserve falls as, made up of honest, hard-working people.

1:33:33 > 1:33:41-- burdens on the reserve forces. Isn't the immensely frustrating

1:33:41 > 1:33:45factor that the Ministry of Defence seems to be replicating exactly the

1:33:45 > 1:33:52same mistakes they made in options for change at the end of the Cold

1:33:52 > 1:33:56War, pushing regulars out, creating an atmosphere in which people think

1:33:56 > 1:34:01that the Armed Forces are not recruiting, damaging morale, and

1:34:01 > 1:34:04then spending, over the Christmas period, however much they must have

1:34:04 > 1:34:08been spending blitzing the airwaves, trying to attract people in an

1:34:08 > 1:34:14atmosphere where people are being forced out of the services?My

1:34:14 > 1:34:17honourable friend makes a very important point, there was a

1:34:17 > 1:34:22statistic released today which was that 71% of businesses in the

1:34:22 > 1:34:26service sector are finding it difficult to recruit skilled

1:34:26 > 1:34:30workforce, and the most difficult one is manufacturing at 76%. We are

1:34:30 > 1:34:38operating in a climate where skilled people are at a premium. The Armed

1:34:38 > 1:34:41Forces had skilled people, they sack them. And rightly enough, the

1:34:41 > 1:34:47business community has grabbed them. We tried to them bring them back

1:34:47 > 1:34:52into the Armed Forces, offering them a bonus, and it hasn't worked. We

1:34:52 > 1:34:57only managed to keep 480 of them! This is shocking, it is

1:34:57 > 1:35:04irresponsible, downright dangerous, it is, in an unpredictable world. At

1:35:04 > 1:35:08a time when we cannot afford to play games, and we are not showing our

1:35:08 > 1:35:12friends and allies our willingness to support them and support our own

1:35:12 > 1:35:17interests around the globe if we are not retaining, keeping and training

1:35:17 > 1:35:25our full-time personnel.Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It

1:35:25 > 1:35:29is a pleasure to follow the honourable lady for Bridgend, who

1:35:29 > 1:35:31always speaks knowledgeably on defence matters, as she did again

1:35:31 > 1:35:36this afternoon. I would like, if I may, congratulate the honourable

1:35:36 > 1:35:41member for Gagli on securing this very important debate, and if I may

1:35:41 > 1:35:46say so, for introducing it so ably this afternoon. In my own

1:35:46 > 1:35:49contribution, I wish to focus on the national security capabilities

1:35:49 > 1:35:56review, the NSCR, and in particular its potential effect on the greatest

1:35:56 > 1:36:02asset we possess in defence - namely our people. There is already

1:36:02 > 1:36:05considerable anxiety in the Armed Forces about what this review might

1:36:05 > 1:36:11lead to, and I think it is important to understand the potentially very

1:36:11 > 1:36:15serious damage to defensive those fears are not addressed. The

1:36:15 > 1:36:20position we start from at present is, unfortunately, one where the

1:36:20 > 1:36:26Armed Forces are already hollowing out. As of May 2017, the total

1:36:26 > 1:36:33strength of the regular armed fall says was 138,000, some 5% below

1:36:33 > 1:36:37their established strength as the honourable member intimated,

1:36:37 > 1:36:43although importantly shortages are far worse in highly specialised

1:36:43 > 1:36:51Bridgepoint traits, such as qualified engineers. In the year to

1:36:51 > 1:36:57April 20 12,950 people joined the UK regular Armed Forces, but in the

1:36:57 > 1:37:05same period 14,970 left, a net deficit of 2000 personnel. At

1:37:05 > 1:37:09present, trained personnel are leaving the Armed Forces faster than

1:37:09 > 1:37:12the recruiting organisations, which are already running at a standstill,

1:37:12 > 1:37:18are able to make up for those departing. In particular, the

1:37:18 > 1:37:22regular army are currently around 30% below their annual recruitment

1:37:22 > 1:37:26target, managing only around 7000 new recruits of the 10,000 required

1:37:26 > 1:37:33last year. Moreover, as borne out any most recent Armed Forces

1:37:33 > 1:37:40continuous attitude survey, which was published in May 2017, there are

1:37:40 > 1:37:44also issues of morale, which is not as high across the Armed Forces as

1:37:44 > 1:37:50we would like it to be. Pressure and service life with families is given

1:37:50 > 1:37:55as the greatest reason for leaving. As people leave, that only increases

1:37:55 > 1:38:00pressure on those who remain. There has also been a particular drop-off

1:38:00 > 1:38:04of morale as reported in the Royal Marines, which is disappointing, but

1:38:04 > 1:38:09which may well be linked to some of the speculation about the future of

1:38:09 > 1:38:12our amphibious shipping and potential reductions in the size of

1:38:12 > 1:38:16the Royal Marines as a whole. I too hope that speculation does not prove

1:38:16 > 1:38:23to come to reality. We are therefore dealing, if we're honest, with a

1:38:23 > 1:38:28somewhat fragile situation, even the outcome of the NSCR is known. There

1:38:28 > 1:38:34is clearly much work being undertaken, both in the MOD and the

1:38:34 > 1:38:37Cabinet Office, in relation to this review, but I was particularly

1:38:37 > 1:38:44alarmed when one newspaper, the Sun, reported some weeks ago that at one

1:38:44 > 1:38:48stage the Treasury were arguing for a reduction in the size of the

1:38:48 > 1:38:53regular army from its established strength of 82,500 down to as low as

1:38:53 > 1:38:5950,000. If carried to fruition, this ludicrous proposal would involve

1:38:59 > 1:39:05making redundant well over a third of the serving regular army and

1:39:05 > 1:39:09would constitute perhaps the greatest blow the British Army has

1:39:09 > 1:39:14ever suffered in peacetime. At a time when we face a resurgent

1:39:14 > 1:39:18Russia, which has carried out the annexation of the Crimea, and which

1:39:18 > 1:39:22still has further territorial ambitions in Ukraine, as well as

1:39:22 > 1:39:27placing pressure on the Baltic states, reducing the army in this

1:39:27 > 1:39:31way would send entirely the wrong signals to the Russians about our

1:39:31 > 1:39:35commitments to Nato and our willingness to uphold the

1:39:35 > 1:39:40territorial integrity of our allies. It would be sheer folly. I only have

1:39:40 > 1:39:46to hope that the pinstripe warriors of the Treasury, who live in fear

1:39:46 > 1:39:48that the air conditioning might malfunction, or that the teacher

1:39:48 > 1:39:53Ollie might be late, have since abandoned such a doubt suggestion,

1:39:53 > 1:40:01as there is no way that I, and as my honourable friend for Will Funnell

1:40:01 > 1:40:06intimated, and many of my colleagues on these benches could possibly

1:40:06 > 1:40:09support a reduction of that magnitude in regular manpower. It is

1:40:09 > 1:40:16simply unthinkable. Following on from the 2010 Strategic Defence

1:40:16 > 1:40:20Review, as the minister who was responsible for implementing tranche

1:40:20 > 1:40:25three at Froch four of the army redundancy programme, I can tell the

1:40:25 > 1:40:30house that this was an extremely difficult process. -- tranche three

1:40:30 > 1:40:33and tranche four. It had a detrimental affect on retention as

1:40:33 > 1:40:38well as recruitment. I very much hope that we will not have to

1:40:38 > 1:40:41announce any further rounds of redundancy in the army, because they

1:40:41 > 1:40:45will threaten to make the situation I was describing earlier even worse.

1:40:45 > 1:40:49I believe that many personnel are now watching this review very

1:40:49 > 1:40:56closely indeed, and if it is seen to lead to a further reduction in our

1:40:56 > 1:40:59conventional capabilities, or the strength of our Armed Forces, then I

1:40:59 > 1:41:04believe that many personnel will react by simply voting with their

1:41:04 > 1:41:08feet and opting to leave what they may perceive to be a constantly

1:41:08 > 1:41:14shrinking enterprise. To be clear, I am not suggesting to the House that

1:41:14 > 1:41:21there would be a sudden Rashford the -- rush for the exit. But there

1:41:21 > 1:41:28would be a steady drumbeat of those requesting to leave above and beyond

1:41:28 > 1:41:32the ability of the recruiting organisations to replace them. The

1:41:32 > 1:41:36hollowing out would become worse, and in some particularly sensitive

1:41:36 > 1:41:43areas which the minister will be well aware of, critical. I really

1:41:43 > 1:41:47believe that senior ministers who will take the final decisions

1:41:47 > 1:41:54regarding the NSCR needs to understand this stark reality about

1:41:54 > 1:41:57personnel and what might ultimately influence them to stick or twist and

1:41:57 > 1:42:04change their careers. These personnel don't want sympathy, but

1:42:04 > 1:42:08they do want and deserve our respect, and they deserve our

1:42:08 > 1:42:15empathy too. In the end, as the honourable lady from Bridgend

1:42:15 > 1:42:20intimated, you can buy as much shiny new kit as you like, but unless you

1:42:20 > 1:42:23have the people available sufficiently trained to operate it

1:42:23 > 1:42:27in a hostile environment, the kit is of no use to you and does not

1:42:27 > 1:42:32provide the deterrent effect that you would wish. Too often in defence

1:42:32 > 1:42:38we talk about capability in terms of equipment, whether it be new Ajax

1:42:38 > 1:42:43fighting vehicles for the army, Type 45 destroyers for the Navy, F-35 for

1:42:43 > 1:42:48the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force. However, without the required

1:42:48 > 1:42:53blend of man and machine, or increasingly woman and machine, you

1:42:53 > 1:43:01have no capability at all. And we forget that at our peril. The truth

1:43:01 > 1:43:06is that over the last few decades under governments of both colours,

1:43:06 > 1:43:10our service personnel and indeed the country have witnessed a continuing

1:43:10 > 1:43:14retrenchment in our capabilities, in our numbers of those who served in

1:43:14 > 1:43:22uniform. Together with our nuclear deterrent, they are a national

1:43:22 > 1:43:26insurance policy, as the chairman of the select committee said. They are

1:43:26 > 1:43:30the defenders of our freedom and of our way of life, and we are now at

1:43:30 > 1:43:35real risk of skimping on the premium. As a former minister in the

1:43:35 > 1:43:39department, I can only offer the house might earnest and heartfelt

1:43:39 > 1:43:42advice that we must not take our Armed Forces personnel and their

1:43:42 > 1:43:48families for granted. Our history as a nation shows that when we fail to

1:43:48 > 1:43:54keep up the insurance policy, as we did when we allowed our Armed Forces

1:43:54 > 1:44:00to seriously degrade in the early to mid-19th and, the ultimate result, a

1:44:00 > 1:44:03world war in which some 50 million people died, was utterly

1:44:03 > 1:44:10catastrophic. -- the early to mid 1930s. We in this house, we who were

1:44:10 > 1:44:14sent here by our citizens, whose responsibility it is to protect

1:44:14 > 1:44:23them, we are the guardians of that national insurance policy, and on

1:44:23 > 1:44:28that basis I believe we have to say to our government that the time for

1:44:28 > 1:44:39cuts is over. In fact, it is time for our cover to be increased.Thank

1:44:39 > 1:44:42you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a pleasure to be speaking at the my

1:44:42 > 1:44:47colleague on the committee and others. I also commend the right

1:44:47 > 1:44:52honourable friend therefore bringing this motion forward. As a member of

1:44:52 > 1:44:57a defence family whose nephew just joins the Royal Engineers, we are

1:44:57 > 1:45:02very much aware of his defence of the members of the Armed Forces.

1:45:02 > 1:45:06Madam Deputy Speaker, those of us who take an interest in these things

1:45:06 > 1:45:09know that this government's running of the Ministry of Defence has

1:45:09 > 1:45:14focused more on slick slogans than it has on the huge issues which face

1:45:14 > 1:45:18the department.

1:45:18 > 1:45:22I'm sure it is no surprise that recent media coverage has focused on

1:45:22 > 1:45:27the relative success of the propaganda. Take the year of the

1:45:27 > 1:45:33Navy campaign, which probably couldn't have gone worse. I'm sure

1:45:33 > 1:45:36the air Chief Marshal and the chief of the General Staff wake up in the

1:45:36 > 1:45:45night in a cold sweat. This followed a slightly botched army recruiting

1:45:45 > 1:45:54campaign which saw a refusal to speak to Alistair Bob -- Alistair

1:45:54 > 1:46:02Bunkall of Sky News. As the Conservatives and Unionists struggle

1:46:02 > 1:46:06with their messaging, I thought they would -- I would go back to another

1:46:06 > 1:46:09time when they were divided on Europe to find a slogan that best

1:46:09 > 1:46:14sums up what I'm going to talk about today. Back to basics. As a -- as

1:46:14 > 1:46:17the government bangs on about the vision of a global Britain and the

1:46:17 > 1:46:22Foreign Secretary comes out with absurd assertions on Queen Elizabeth

1:46:22 > 1:46:26been deployed to the South China Sea, they continue to neglect their

1:46:26 > 1:46:33most basic of defence tasks at home, namely the defence of the homeland

1:46:33 > 1:46:38and the North Atlantic. Earlier this year I was delighted to attend the

1:46:38 > 1:46:46launch of the Whitehall paper, facilitated by the Right Honourable

1:46:46 > 1:46:53member who is the chair of the all-party group. He also happens to

1:46:53 > 1:46:58be the Norwegian defence at Pashey in London. It was on the subject of

1:46:58 > 1:47:03revitalising our collective defence in the north Atlantic area. His

1:47:03 > 1:47:06contributions to the booklet, he contributes to the booklet by saying

1:47:06 > 1:47:10that for most of recorded history the cold grey waters of the North

1:47:10 > 1:47:15Atlantic were seen by most, even on these islands, has been the very

1:47:15 > 1:47:20edge of civilisation, a fact that changed rapidly to the affected was

1:47:20 > 1:47:23the crucial link between North America and Europe during the world

1:47:23 > 1:47:27wars and the planned process during the Cold War. The North Atlantic

1:47:27 > 1:47:32gives its name to an alliance which all of us I would hope in this house

1:47:32 > 1:47:38is the bedrock of our defence and security. And during the first

1:47:38 > 1:47:45period of Nato's existence prevented the sea lines of communication

1:47:45 > 1:47:50between the United States, Canada and Europe as a core tasks. The UK

1:47:50 > 1:47:56developed a world leading anti-submarine warfare capability as

1:47:56 > 1:48:00the skills honed hunting U-boats were allied with American technology

1:48:00 > 1:48:02to ensure that Nato held the operational advantage during the

1:48:02 > 1:48:11period. And so at a time when many believe Russian incursions into our

1:48:11 > 1:48:14waters are again at the level of those during the Cold War, we must

1:48:14 > 1:48:20consider if the balance of power is still the same. Madame Deputy

1:48:20 > 1:48:23Speaker, I'm afraid that for me and those of us on these benches, it is

1:48:23 > 1:48:30not. We know that the escort fleet is at an historic low of 17 usable

1:48:30 > 1:48:36frigates and destroyers. None of them were deployed outside UK waters

1:48:36 > 1:48:47for the first time during living memory. The warship base for the

1:48:47 > 1:48:56North is on its southern coast. Yet if you listen to the government, you

1:48:56 > 1:49:02would think all was well at the -- for the defence of the realm. Record

1:49:02 > 1:49:09investment, they say. I was glad that my colleagues in the defence

1:49:09 > 1:49:13select committee endorsed the National Audit Office assertion that

1:49:13 > 1:49:18the affordability of the equipment plan is now at great risk, greater

1:49:18 > 1:49:25risk that -- ban at any time since recording was introduced. They

1:49:25 > 1:49:27released a report into pyjamas last month. At the beginning of the

1:49:27 > 1:49:32report there was a look of the previous committee reports. --

1:49:32 > 1:49:35procurement. It is remarkable to see how little this government has

1:49:35 > 1:49:38learned from previous mistakes. We know that those who do not learn

1:49:38 > 1:49:44from history are doomed to repeat it. The defence cuts the

1:49:44 > 1:49:47Conservative and Unionist, the made in 2010, the decision to reduce the

1:49:47 > 1:49:55escort fleet to its current low number, were meant to have been the

1:49:55 > 1:50:00last week could see for the foreseeable future. And the MOD

1:50:00 > 1:50:03vowed to develop an affordable equipment -- equipment plan. Yet

1:50:03 > 1:50:10forgive my French pronunciation... The deficit which led to the 2012

1:50:10 > 1:50:18cuts was £38 billion. On the upper lipids -- the upper limits now worth

1:50:18 > 1:50:23£30 billion. That means hard decisions will have to be taken. For

1:50:23 > 1:50:28example, can we be certain that the purchase of the at 35s will be

1:50:28 > 1:50:32balanced sensibly against the rest of the defence budget, especially

1:50:32 > 1:50:36now there are more expensive with the depreciation in the value of

1:50:36 > 1:50:45sterling? Those who value defence in the high North will either be

1:50:45 > 1:50:52delayed or decreased in the scope of the current planned purchase of the

1:50:52 > 1:50:57Boeing Poseidon. I need to make progress. Members do want to get in.

1:50:57 > 1:51:01Last month it was no surprise when I received a reply to a Parliamentary

1:51:01 > 1:51:05question which revealed that no fewer than 17 occasions last year

1:51:05 > 1:51:12MPAs from allied nations undertook missions from Lossiemouth. This is

1:51:12 > 1:51:15an unacceptable situation made worse by the fact that by the most

1:51:15 > 1:51:19generous estimate it will now be 2024 until this capability is

1:51:19 > 1:51:27returned. This return to a triangle of North Atlantic patrolling from

1:51:27 > 1:51:32Scotland, Iceland and Norway, will hopefully be accompanied by a

1:51:32 > 1:51:38reinstatement of Nato's Atlantic command. I am glad to say that my

1:51:38 > 1:51:43party has made it clear from the start that Scotland is an obvious

1:51:43 > 1:51:47choice. I can only hope that members of the government party opposite

1:51:47 > 1:51:55will use their renewed leveraged to press the MOD on this. We must only

1:51:55 > 1:51:59hope that this return to the posture can only be accompanied by

1:51:59 > 1:52:03continuing commitment to one of our oldest allies, the kingdom of

1:52:03 > 1:52:06Norway, as represented by the ability to deploy the Royal Marines

1:52:06 > 1:52:16across the North Sea provided by... Scrapping these ships was a much

1:52:16 > 1:52:23anticipated consequence of the security and capability review we

1:52:23 > 1:52:27were waiting for this year but which has been delayed yet again by a

1:52:27 > 1:52:31government that seems quite unable to take hard decisions.

1:52:31 > 1:52:35Unfortunately the hopes for an improvement in not only Scotland,

1:52:35 > 1:52:40but the entire state security, hinges very much on that review. The

1:52:40 > 1:52:47extent of the adjustment, the favoured euphemism, contained within

1:52:47 > 1:52:50it. I am not holding my breath for good news. I fully endorse the

1:52:50 > 1:52:54findings of my committee's report when it said the MOD faces the risk

1:52:54 > 1:53:01that in future it may have to return to a situation where affordability

1:53:01 > 1:53:06of the portfolio is maintained by delaying or reducing the scope of

1:53:06 > 1:53:15projects. Anyone who has read the NA or report, knows that the

1:53:15 > 1:53:26procurement process delays the decision-making such as this does

1:53:26 > 1:53:30nobody any favours. It is an incredible situation, and I can only

1:53:30 > 1:53:36explain by repeating the words of Sir General Richard Barham 's, when

1:53:36 > 1:53:41he gave evidence in front of us and November, the reason we have a

1:53:41 > 1:53:46review only two years after the 2015 defence review, is that at no time

1:53:46 > 1:53:51in the review has the amount of resources provided to defence

1:53:51 > 1:53:57matched the programme. This is a situation which will be exasperated

1:53:57 > 1:54:03by Brexit and the various economic consequences it has presented us

1:54:03 > 1:54:06with. The fact that the only part of the defence budget to be protected

1:54:06 > 1:54:10by the cuts is the one for the deterrent, is one which my party has

1:54:10 > 1:54:14a long-standing disagreement with. I am sure we don't need to go into

1:54:14 > 1:54:24that again today. I am glad to say we are beginning... Let me bring my

1:54:24 > 1:54:34remarks to a close, Madame Deputy Speaker, by urging the government to

1:54:34 > 1:54:38lift the public pay sector gap for Armed Forces personnel, focus on the

1:54:38 > 1:54:45essential tasks of defending not only Scotland but this entire

1:54:45 > 1:54:48political state and critically, the North Atlantic. It will come as no

1:54:48 > 1:54:53surprise I would ask them to take Trident out of the defence budget

1:54:53 > 1:54:57and focus on conventional capability within that budget, which we so

1:54:57 > 1:55:00desperately need. And it will come as no surprise that I would hope

1:55:00 > 1:55:07Scotland, which has suffered underinvestment, will be improved by

1:55:07 > 1:55:12independence. It is the government is challenged to prove us wrong.

1:55:16 > 1:55:20By way of disclosure, I had the privilege to serve in the Afghan and

1:55:20 > 1:55:24Iraq campaigns and I remain a reservist soldier. I thank the right

1:55:24 > 1:55:29honourable gentleman from deadly for bringing this debate. It is a

1:55:29 > 1:55:32pleasure to follow the honourable member for West Dunbartonshire. I

1:55:32 > 1:55:37would like to see defence, talk about defence in the broader sense

1:55:37 > 1:55:41of the word. I think the security of a nation rests on many things, not

1:55:41 > 1:55:45just how many ships and tanks we have. I think at times we can be a

1:55:45 > 1:55:50little fixated on heavy metal warfare. Physical defence is

1:55:50 > 1:55:54important but it should not be seen in isolation, and I think today I

1:55:54 > 1:55:59would like to talk about security and defence in the round. Having

1:55:59 > 1:56:03said that, it is quite clear that we are significantly under resourced

1:56:03 > 1:56:08and underfunded. What concerns me most of all in terms of government

1:56:08 > 1:56:11department, is that the Treasury seems to fail to understand that the

1:56:11 > 1:56:18point of having an armed force, is not to use it. The Treasury seems to

1:56:18 > 1:56:22think Evan Armed Forces and being used, it can be cuts. That is an

1:56:22 > 1:56:27incredibly foolish thing to think. It encourages our generals to look

1:56:27 > 1:56:30for war to justify the existence of the Armed Forces, and starting wars

1:56:30 > 1:56:34and being politically or economically am morning to finish

1:56:34 > 1:56:40them. There is some truth there with regards to Iraq. That is bad

1:56:40 > 1:56:44strategy and potentially disastrous for this nation. I would like to

1:56:44 > 1:56:47talk about strategy and whether we have one. How we can improve

1:56:47 > 1:56:58coherence in policy-making. First on strategy, I think it is ironic we

1:56:58 > 1:57:04have someone in think tanks in this country but we seem to lack one

1:57:04 > 1:57:08sometimes on national strategy. I feel we are losing the capacity and

1:57:08 > 1:57:12confidence to act without clinging on to the coat-tails of the EU or

1:57:12 > 1:57:14the United States. The United States, despite its many great

1:57:14 > 1:57:23benefits as an ally, has compounded the problem. A power which possesses

1:57:23 > 1:57:26overwhelming force has little need of strategy because it has so much

1:57:26 > 1:57:33power. I think that has resulted in thoughtlessness, definitely in Iraq

1:57:33 > 1:57:36and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. We have been somewhat

1:57:36 > 1:57:39corrupted by that thought as well because our strategy seems to be in

1:57:39 > 1:57:43the last 20 years to cobble together just enough kit to take part in a

1:57:43 > 1:57:48meaningful level in a US-led coalition so we can have a political

1:57:48 > 1:57:52voice at the top table. That strategy is now under pressure,

1:57:52 > 1:57:56Madame David is bigger. First, the US has been slowly disengaging,

1:57:56 > 1:58:02regardless of what people think about President Trump. And the

1:58:02 > 1:58:07Russians are now a threat with what they call contemporary military

1:58:07 > 1:58:13conflict, both military tools and non-military tools as well.I think

1:58:13 > 1:58:17in forgiving way. One thing that has been worrying me a great deal is a

1:58:17 > 1:58:21number of people have cited Russia as a growing threat. It would be

1:58:21 > 1:58:25dangerous to ignore the threat from the south. The threat from the South

1:58:25 > 1:58:31still exists. Is it not time that we stopped focusing simply on the

1:58:31 > 1:58:34threat from the east but recognise the threat from the South has not

1:58:34 > 1:58:41gone away?I would like to bring it in a bit later and I am trying to

1:58:41 > 1:58:49finish a thesis on contemporary Russian warfare! The honourable lady

1:58:49 > 1:58:53makes a very valid point. Post Brexit I think it is critical for

1:58:53 > 1:58:58our nation that we have a powerful security and defence policy, one

1:58:58 > 1:59:03that protects our identity, our values, our brand, if you like, but

1:59:03 > 1:59:08also present a balanced and comprehensive security. And part of

1:59:08 > 1:59:13that is to remain a powerful player on the world stage across the

1:59:13 > 1:59:25spectrum of effects. I think we have to be more holistic. There has been

1:59:25 > 1:59:32some important work done looking at national strategy. Our national

1:59:32 > 1:59:37strategy, according to one of these reports, rests on military and

1:59:37 > 1:59:40economic power. I do however wonder if that is not quite subtle enough

1:59:40 > 1:59:46for today's world. In defence one needs to be thinking about

1:59:46 > 1:59:51humanitarian power, governmental power, cyber security, public

1:59:51 > 1:59:56outreach... All these tools are critical because the waters and the

1:59:56 > 1:59:59conflict of the past 30 years, including those we have been engaged

1:59:59 > 2:00:04in, show that populations have become critical information and

2:00:04 > 2:00:09psychological targets. And if you look at the Russian doctrine, the

2:00:09 > 2:00:17three Russian military doctrines since 1999, they all put the

2:00:17 > 2:00:21integration of military and non-military effects in civilian

2:00:21 > 2:00:25populations as a critical characteristic of modern warfare. We

2:00:25 > 2:00:31see that in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Historically, the tools

2:00:31 > 2:00:35of grand strategy have been held at a national level. Military forces

2:00:35 > 2:00:39one level of that defensive strategy. I think we need nowadays,

2:00:39 > 2:00:44especially with Brexit, we have an opportunity to rethink our national

2:00:44 > 2:00:49strategic culture to understand how we can use the past Ahrar

2:00:49 > 2:00:51experiences of strategic culture, to understand the future. Our greatest

2:00:51 > 2:00:58military theorist ever, perhaps, said that we were champions of the

2:00:58 > 2:01:03indirect strategy. A powerful navy, a small standing navy, using money

2:01:03 > 2:01:06to encourage others to fight, using alliances and setting examples by

2:01:06 > 2:01:11behaviour.

2:01:11 > 2:01:16An example, if I may, with the Russian threat in Ukraine. We have

2:01:16 > 2:01:20parked soldiers and kit and about four planes, about half the RAF

2:01:20 > 2:01:24these days, in the Baltic republics. Russia has used force in Ukraine and

2:01:24 > 2:01:29is bellicose against the Baltic republics, and it is right we put

2:01:29 > 2:01:33that kit there, but the most powerful threat to Ukraine is not

2:01:33 > 2:01:38the military threat necessarily, but it is the political and information

2:01:38 > 2:01:40war, the corruption and co-option of its political leadership, the

2:01:40 > 2:01:47trashing of that nation's ability, confidence and statehood. Our key

2:01:47 > 2:01:50weapon here is not the planes, it is not the troops, as important as they

2:01:50 > 2:01:56are. But it is our ability to work with the Canadians, Americans,

2:01:56 > 2:02:02Germans, the EU to provide a martial package for the Ukraine, significant

2:02:02 > 2:02:07sums of money. We spend 13 billion on aid every year, much of it badly

2:02:07 > 2:02:11spent, I apologise for saying, and yet here is a major prize that we

2:02:11 > 2:02:14are not trying to reach. We spend probably 40 million in Ukraine all

2:02:14 > 2:02:25in, including Dfid. The most powerful weapon we can have against

2:02:25 > 2:02:29Russian expansion, a stable Ukraine that looks like Poland and not like

2:02:29 > 2:02:33Russia, we don't seem to be thinking enough about, and this seems to me

2:02:33 > 2:02:37to be an example of a haphazard strategic thinking. So I'd argue

2:02:37 > 2:02:41that we have an unbalanced foreign policy. Dfid burns through money

2:02:41 > 2:02:46like it is going out of fashion, and I remember, my own experience, I've

2:02:46 > 2:02:51had lots of pretty miserable experiences with them, and I run the

2:02:51 > 2:02:55asking of the UK consulate in Basra how many Dfid project there were in

2:02:55 > 2:03:00southern Iraq, and I was staggered that they could not provide an

2:03:00 > 2:03:05answer, and that for me has summed up the profligacy and lack of

2:03:05 > 2:03:08confidence. I know they do great work in some parts of the world, I

2:03:08 > 2:03:14have not seen the best side of it. At the same time, the SO was

2:03:14 > 2:03:17chronically underfunded, defences scraping together savings in areas

2:03:17 > 2:03:21that they should not be looking at making savings. Cyber attacks

2:03:21 > 2:03:27regular in Europe, France, Germany, and the UK, and the BBC, a critical

2:03:27 > 2:03:31part of our soft power infrastructure, is funded from hand

2:03:31 > 2:03:37to mouth. The BBC should be funded, World Service TV and radio, should

2:03:37 > 2:03:43be funded entirely out of Dfid by rejigging and looking at the

2:03:43 > 2:03:46definitions of funding. Looking briefly, I will try to make as much

2:03:46 > 2:03:50progress as possible, I haven't got too much more to say. Looking at

2:03:50 > 2:03:54defence procurement, can we have a level playing field? Let's by kit

2:03:54 > 2:03:59from other people to save money, but countries with closed markets, why

2:03:59 > 2:04:02French companies allowed to bid here when we do not have the same rights

2:04:02 > 2:04:05in those countries? I will be seeking a meeting with the minister

2:04:05 > 2:04:12in the nearest future to secure the McCusker as the need for a complex

2:04:12 > 2:04:16radar technology demonstrator in my constituency, and as the right

2:04:16 > 2:04:20honourable gentleman knows, the red factory produces all the radars for

2:04:20 > 2:04:27carriers and Type 45 destroyers, and if we want our own indigenous radar

2:04:27 > 2:04:35capability, we need that technology demonstrator soon. The right

2:04:35 > 2:04:42honourable member for Bridgend made a series of good points about

2:04:42 > 2:04:48reservists, our reserve unit on the Isle of Wight was saved by the work

2:04:48 > 2:04:54of Captain and Clark and Acting Sergeant Mark Simmonds, with whom I

2:04:54 > 2:05:00feel a certain affinity. It is individuals punching above their

2:05:00 > 2:05:07weight to save units from closure. It is Joe also, a point made by my

2:05:07 > 2:05:10honourable friend from the new Forest and North Welcher, there is

2:05:10 > 2:05:16no redundancy in our system. -- it is true also. There are so few

2:05:16 > 2:05:21surface ships, 17, I think, give any Admiral a drink or two, and they

2:05:21 > 2:05:29will admit they are not protectable by the Royal Navy at its current

2:05:29 > 2:05:33size. In any conflict with the nations, those carriers would have

2:05:33 > 2:05:36to sit in a base because they are not predictable unless they are

2:05:36 > 2:05:42surrounded by the US fleet and have no protection against ship busting

2:05:42 > 2:05:46ballistic missiles. If we keep reducing the Armed Forces in

2:05:46 > 2:05:49personnel and kit, we are encouraging violence against this

2:05:49 > 2:05:54nation, not deterring it. Some brief suggestions. Can the Foreign Affairs

2:05:54 > 2:05:58Select Committee champion thinking about strategy, holding hearings to

2:05:58 > 2:06:01give platforms to leading academics to discussion national strategy and

2:06:01 > 2:06:07national culture? This is a perfect point in our history to look at our

2:06:07 > 2:06:13national strategy with Brexit coming up. Leaving the security review to

2:06:13 > 2:06:16Government to provide answers is that they will come up with the

2:06:16 > 2:06:21answers that it once, not the answers that we all need and want to

2:06:21 > 2:06:27hear. We need to rethink Dfid funding and encourage Dfid to take

2:06:27 > 2:06:30greater responsibility in a more holistic and joined up strategy. And

2:06:30 > 2:06:34we need to think about defence in the round. Summing up, we need all

2:06:34 > 2:06:39forms of power for our security and the protection and projection of our

2:06:39 > 2:06:44values, soft power, hard power, cyber power, but most of all an

2:06:44 > 2:06:47attitude of smart power, integrated power, where we need to study and

2:06:47 > 2:06:53understand how to project that power at a strategic, operational and

2:06:53 > 2:06:58tactical level, and from what I have seen, both on operations and here,

2:06:58 > 2:07:01we still lack that, but it is not an achievable, given ambition from

2:07:01 > 2:07:09government to do so. Thank you. Jamie Stone.Madam Deputy Speaker, I

2:07:09 > 2:07:14rise in this place as defence spokesman for my party, and I want

2:07:14 > 2:07:19to first of all remind the chamber that my daughter is a serving

2:07:19 > 2:07:26officer in the Armed Forces. I shared the honourable member's

2:07:26 > 2:07:31trepidation in speaking after so many highly informed contributions.

2:07:31 > 2:07:36I want to use, first of all, my own constituency as the basis of my

2:07:36 > 2:07:40first point. My constituency is no stranger to the Armed Forces. Very

2:07:40 > 2:07:51near where I live, we have an RAF weapons range, one area is used for

2:07:51 > 2:07:54an annual exercise, and there is a long and close association with the

2:07:54 > 2:08:02Armed Forces going back to the Royal Regiment of Scotland. And if you

2:08:02 > 2:08:06take week in the north of my constituency, tradition the TA has

2:08:06 > 2:08:13always recruited extremely there, and support for the army cadets, RAF

2:08:13 > 2:08:17cadets is very strong indeed, and I applaud and put on record my

2:08:17 > 2:08:21recognition of what they do, and their contribution to the social

2:08:21 > 2:08:28cohesion of the area. My first point is this. I am a great believer in

2:08:28 > 2:08:32the common-sense of the British public, and I think that I know from

2:08:32 > 2:08:36knocking on doors so money times now that if you talk to people about the

2:08:36 > 2:08:40Armed Forces and say, we have to defend ourselves, they say,

2:08:40 > 2:08:45actually, that is exactly right, so the point I made to government is

2:08:45 > 2:08:49this, I hope a decision will be taken to spend more on our Armed

2:08:49 > 2:08:53Forces, but I would say that you can take the British public with you

2:08:53 > 2:08:56because ultimately they recognised the need for this and the

2:08:56 > 2:09:01responsibility of doing it. I might say in passing that I served any

2:09:01 > 2:09:08Territorial Army myself. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot

2:09:08 > 2:09:12compete with the Augusta Rank and record of the members for Isle of

2:09:12 > 2:09:17Wight, North Wiltshire, the minister himself, and indeed Barnsley

2:09:17 > 2:09:21Central. But nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I had to present

2:09:21 > 2:09:25arms, if my ancient frame would allow it, I could still get round to

2:09:25 > 2:09:34doing it! My second point was based on what was the situation that was

2:09:34 > 2:09:36touched on earlier, both my brothers-in-law served in the Ulster

2:09:36 > 2:09:42Defence Regiment, and over a long and happy marriage, I saw the

2:09:42 > 2:09:48situation change from one of the Travels and murder, my wife comes

2:09:48 > 2:09:56from County Armagh, I do know about all this, to what we see today. --

2:09:56 > 2:10:02Troubles. The UDRP, our intelligence, the SAS, they played

2:10:02 > 2:10:04the supreme role in defeating the terrorists on both sides of the

2:10:04 > 2:10:09divide. We should not forget that, but the point is today, God forbid

2:10:09 > 2:10:14that we ever have a situation, either within the UK or close all

2:10:14 > 2:10:17borders where we would have to mobilise that sort of falls, I doubt

2:10:17 > 2:10:22we could do it. And other members hinted at this already - if we had

2:10:22 > 2:10:27to, could we fight the Falklands campaign? No, we couldn't. Enough

2:10:27 > 2:10:32said on that. The point has been made, particularly by the member for

2:10:32 > 2:10:35North Dumbartonshire, that our navy is critically small, and that is

2:10:35 > 2:10:41why, on Monday, I questioned the minister about the point the member

2:10:41 > 2:10:46made about so many of our ships being tied up at that time over

2:10:46 > 2:10:50Christmas and not available for services overseas. I share

2:10:50 > 2:10:53absolutely what the honourable member for North Wiltshire says

2:10:53 > 2:10:59about what he calls the high North. The member for Dumbartonshire and

2:10:59 > 2:11:03said it was our doorstep. Representing Caithness and

2:11:03 > 2:11:09Sutherland, it is my doorstep, if you don't mind me saying so! And it

2:11:09 > 2:11:12is absolutely correct that the Russians are establishing bases

2:11:12 > 2:11:15there. I am not advocating going back to Scapa Flow, but we will have

2:11:15 > 2:11:20to think carefully about the strategic positioning of our forces.

2:11:20 > 2:11:26Cyber security has been talked about today, there was a story in the

2:11:26 > 2:11:30Times, perhaps a scare story, but if you read it, it said that our cyber

2:11:30 > 2:11:35security had been breached to the extent where we could almost be

2:11:35 > 2:11:37fooled into launching a nuclear strike. Whether fact or fiction,

2:11:37 > 2:11:44that shows how incredibly important cyber security is. My final and last

2:11:44 > 2:11:52point...Just to intervene, rest assured that the house should know

2:11:52 > 2:11:56there are robust measures in place to make sure that the event which he

2:11:56 > 2:11:59suggests will not happen.I thank the Minister for that very good

2:11:59 > 2:12:05assurance. It does go to show some of the aspects and the more

2:12:05 > 2:12:08irresponsible reporting, I will give way.The Chatham House report that

2:12:08 > 2:12:13he is right to refer to spoke not about our own missiles, I'm quite

2:12:13 > 2:12:19concerned about the Russians, but they referred to the US as being

2:12:19 > 2:12:22susceptible to cyber attacks. Absolutely correct. My final point

2:12:22 > 2:12:28is this, that the confidence of the members of our Armed Forces in our

2:12:28 > 2:12:31politicians cannot be underestimated, but of course when

2:12:31 > 2:12:35it is eroded, and the members of the Armed Forces feel that we are not

2:12:35 > 2:12:40acting in their best interests, or indeed understand what they do, that

2:12:40 > 2:12:44is incredibly corrosive, and that in turn affects their capability to

2:12:44 > 2:12:50defend this country, God forbid, if that time ever comes. So the point

2:12:50 > 2:12:54has been made about the pay cap, I have to be careful, I have interests

2:12:54 > 2:12:59that I have declared. It is about housing, about recognition of what

2:12:59 > 2:13:06they do. On behalf of my party, I absolutely applaud the tone of this

2:13:06 > 2:13:10debate, and it is my great honour to associate my party with it and the

2:13:10 > 2:13:16fundamental thrust of what has been said today. Thank you.Douglas Ross.

2:13:16 > 2:13:20It is a real pleasure to follow the member for Caithness and Sutherland

2:13:20 > 2:13:25and Easter Ross, and I hope the town does not quickly dropped to soon

2:13:25 > 2:13:28after his very consensual remarks, which I am sure we all agree with.

2:13:28 > 2:13:32Could I also congratulate the right honourable member for securing this

2:13:32 > 2:13:37debate? It is extremely important, I listened very closely to other

2:13:37 > 2:13:39honourable and right honourable members about the number of debates

2:13:39 > 2:13:43that have previously been held in this chamber, and I think we should

2:13:43 > 2:13:47aspire to what was done in the past, rather than just having the odd

2:13:47 > 2:13:53debate or two in this place. I would also say that the motion is very

2:13:53 > 2:13:57wide-ranging, I use that as an opportunity to speak about my local

2:13:57 > 2:14:02bases in the constituency, but also a number of other issues connected

2:14:02 > 2:14:06to the whole military aspect of what we are discussing today, and I was

2:14:06 > 2:14:10very taken by the point made by the honourable member for North

2:14:10 > 2:14:13Wiltshire who says it is very difficult, when you speak after so

2:14:13 > 2:14:20many credible speakers, the chair of the committee, the right honourable

2:14:20 > 2:14:23man himself and others to have served in the Armed Forces, and I

2:14:23 > 2:14:26cannot speak with any intimate knowledge, having served in the

2:14:26 > 2:14:30military. My only connection is an important one to me, however, that

2:14:30 > 2:14:38any Member of Parliament for Moray is intrinsically involved with the

2:14:38 > 2:14:42Armed Forces, and that is why it is such a great pleasure to speak in

2:14:42 > 2:14:47this debate is today. I want to quickly mention both of the bases,

2:14:47 > 2:14:50first of all Kinross, which we have heard mentioned already in this

2:14:50 > 2:14:54debate, which was previously the home of the Nimrod fleet, but after

2:14:54 > 2:15:00that decision in the 2010 SDR, the home of the 39 Engineer Regiment,

2:15:00 > 2:15:09which has been extremely busy in the last year, in South Sudan, in the

2:15:09 > 2:15:16Falkland Islands, in Romania, and in Cyprus in the anti-ayes coalitions.

2:15:16 > 2:15:25There was much fear and concern when RAF Kinloss closed as an airbase.

2:15:25 > 2:15:27The community was concerned, clearly serving personnel were concerned,

2:15:27 > 2:15:30and there was a genuine fear that nothing would be put in its place,

2:15:30 > 2:15:35so to be celebrating the work done by our excellent service personnel

2:15:35 > 2:15:39at an army barracks in place of the airbase, I think that is something

2:15:39 > 2:15:46we are all very happy with and proud of in Moray to see that strong

2:15:46 > 2:16:43military condition continuing there.

2:16:53 > 2:16:57Also based in Cyprus for operations over Iraq and Syria, and in 2018,

2:16:57 > 2:17:05later on this year, deployments in a mania and Roman. -- Romania and

2:17:05 > 2:17:10Oman. And we await with bated breath the arrival of the Poseidon

2:17:10 > 2:17:17aircraft, everyone celebrating this huge investment, £400 million of

2:17:17 > 2:17:20investment at RAF Lossiemouth, 400 additional personnel coming to our

2:17:20 > 2:17:23area. I have informed the honourable member that I will mention him in my

2:17:23 > 2:17:29speech because, unfortunately, he took no interventions, despite us

2:17:29 > 2:17:32having a bit of flexibility, and I won't be so churlish if he chooses

2:17:32 > 2:17:37to intervene on me, but the member for West Dunbartonshire,

2:17:37 > 2:17:42unfortunately, has taken the approach that he will not celebrate

2:17:42 > 2:17:46and welcome this huge investment, investment that is welcomed by

2:17:46 > 2:17:51everyone in Moray. He would rather raise scare stories. Now, I thought,