Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

The sitting is now resumed and may continue until 4.45 pm.

[Johnny Mercer]

To pick up where I left off, we have heard a lot of examples today, and such examples are sometimes helpful and sometimes unhelpful, but I want to focus on broadbrush, strategic views of the military covenant across the service community—not only my own views, but those of a plethora of friends who remain in post. I will be as brief as I can as I try to highlight a couple of key areas.

There is a key problem with the corporate covenant in our large companies, and this was identified in the report, which is great. There is an appetite among our chief executives and business leaders—I have seen this—to support Government efforts to implement the corporate covenant. It is really important that we have that big company buy-in and agreement to what we are trying to do, but getting the information to the shop floor—the interface between our servicemen and women and these bigger companies—where it really matters, so that veterans receive the benefits associated with the military covenant, is, unfortunately, another matter entirely.

As I say, the issue is covered in the report, but I want to add to what the report says, not just repeat it. I want to do that because this issue was raised 12 months ago, but, unfortunately, little change can be seen. The point is really important because if we make a big public show of signing up large companies to the covenant, but the effects are not felt in the armed forces and in the veterans’ community, that can increase the feeling of tokenism that can so often be associated, rightly or wrongly, with such schemes. I will touch on that briefly at the end of my comments.

Another key area that really matters to our servicemen and women and to our veterans’ community is financial disadvantage. That is the subject of an ongoing project in the MOD, but it cannot be right that British Forces Post Office numbers are still not recognised by some companies, meaning that some service overseas personnel do not have three years of continuous residence, for example. That continues to cause them real and significant problems when they access certain financial products in this country.

On another financial issue, I noted with interest in the report the fact that some mobile phone companies are allowing soldiers to pause their contracts while they complete service overseas. I would suggest that that is a very modest step, and not really one to hang our hat on, because I was able to do that as far back as 2007. It is important that we recognise the small steps, but they must be set in perspective, given the challenge of ensuring that we meet the Prime Minister’s commitment to people facing “no disadvantage” due to their military service.

For me, that strikes at the very heart of the challenge of implementing the military covenant. Reading the report, there is no doubt that significant progress has been made. However, while some soldiers are required to look abroad for care and to fund their recovery personally, while some still struggle to access the myriad brilliant veterans’ service providers in the third sector, and while it is only in the last 12 months that we have begun to see a slightly better transition of medical records from the military to civilian GPs, the Government must see this report in context, and set it against the increasing demand and the narrowing timeframe, if they are to get this subject right.

There is no doubt that the military covenant has been a step forward on the part of the Government in how we look after our servicemen and women, and I welcome that. However, it remains without teeth and without enforcement, and we expect servicemen and women and veterans to enforce the spirit and will of it themselves, so it is, unfortunately, felt in some areas of the country to be empty promises.

We are at a critical juncture in how we look after our servicemen and women and our veterans’ community. Some have long spoken of the need to get this issue right, and many of us will remain forever indebted to those noble individuals who have stepped up and delivered veterans’ care in the charity sector simply because that needed to be done. However, if we are to put veterans’ care on a sustainable basis, now is the time to deliver. In five years, it will be too late; the problem will be too large, and the recent conflicts will be forgotten.

How we look after our servicemen and women and their families is a mark of how professional we see them as and how seriously we take our military in these globally unsettling times. Looking after those who have been prepared to sacrifice so much is a crucial and full part of combat operations; indeed, it is of equal importance to the other parts.

When it comes to finance, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have channelled millions into the sector. We owe it to them and to the country to make sure that the existing finance is sweated accordingly. I understand that we live in times of financial restraint, and that is a common objection to reform. I take this opportunity to remind the Government, however, that if we can afford to conduct operations abroad, we can afford to look after our people when they return; if we cannot afford to look after those who do our bidding, we must not send them. This is that important.

Next Tuesday, I will be reacting to an important study by King’s College London into the scale of the problem we face in meeting our veterans’ needs. On the back of that, I will release a report I have written in partnership with others calling for the total reform of the way we look after veterans’ care. Such reform is necessary if we are successfully to meet their needs, as is our duty.

The aims of that reform are bold but simple. It seeks to eradicate gaps in the veterans’ care system. It seeks no fear or favour from any of our brilliant charity sector service providers or, indeed, the Government, who have done more than any before them to get this right. It is simply an objective attempt to reconfigure services around the user and to ensure that the Government play their part in delivering what is a function of operations—looking after those who serve.

The Government’s report is encouraging, and it makes wide reference to what is going into the arena of military support, but, critically, it fails to provide any meaningful statistical reference to the single most important measure of success: what our military community actually got out of this. No one seems to be tracking that against a common, easy-to-grasp metric, and there is no user-focused data on what the beneficiary community think about what is on offer or on their broader views of the military covenant.

I conclude by asking the Government to pay close attention to the report that King’s College London will release on Tuesday. It would be a good idea to work out how many men and women, along with their families, got the fair second chance Theodore Roosevelt referred to when he said:

“A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards.”

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for securing a debate on this important matter.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

We now move to the three Front-Bench winding-up speeches. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed can make a brief reply at the end if she would like.

Maritime Surveillance

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty]

It may not be happening any time soon after my earlier remarks, and I will perhaps leave it to other colleagues—including perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—to address the right hon. Gentleman’s point later in the debate.

The hon. Member for Beckenham made a point about seedcorn. On pages 41 and 42 of the Committee’s report, we very clearly tackled the point about seedcorn and future remuneration. We welcome seedcorn as a principle; we very much welcome the notion that we would use our international allies to provide training and personnel support. However, we are also very clear that we do not believe that that can continue beyond 2019, and we actually say that there is huge scepticism about it continuing until 2030. The more that we have examined the issue—again, the Minister can correct me if he wants to—the more that it looks as though 2030 is the realistic time line now, in light of both our inquiry and of course our recent correspondence with the Minister, before we will get back that full capability. I wonder whether the Minister has absolute confidence that our partners—particularly our Five Eye partners—will be able to continue to provide that support to us for effectively 17 years, or perhaps even longer?

On replacement platforms, I hope that one of the things that the Minister reflects on, particularly given the BAE Systems debacle, is that there are other ways to procure replacement platforms. Of course, he will be aware of the model of Saab aircraft. In effect, an existing, tried and proven airframe is taken and then the software is fitted on to that system. Obviously, that model needs to be considered in the light of our report on Tuesday about the need for a defence industrial strategy. Can the Minister confirm whether or not the MOD is actively considering that model as one of the options?

There has also been mention of what the MOD has now called remotely piloted aircraft, which we know as unmanned aerial vehicles, and their future role. Again, there was talk about joined-up government. When we had the debate before Christmas, with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, the point was made by a number of colleagues that, in relation to maritime surveillance and the role of RPAs, a number of Departments clearly have an interest in maritime surveillance. The Minister might be able to correct me if I miss any on the list, but my note would say that, as well as the MOD, other Departments that have an interest in maritime surveillance include the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has lead responsibility for fishing and ensuring that Icelandic boats or, indeed, those of our European partners do not break the law. The Home Office has a role for maritime surveillance, as has the Foreign Office, with its responsibilities for overseas territories.

I hope that the Minister takes this as genuinely helpful advice: the Committee believes that we need a much more joined-up Government. Perhaps the Minister can clarify, in a way that the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement could not, what proactive steps the Department is taking to bring other Departments together to discuss whether we can have a shared acquisition policy for RPA, rather than having four Departments acting differently.

I think that, up to now, this has been a genuinely consensual debate, but the final issue I want to raise, which we touched on in the report, is slightly contentious with the Department. It is about the wide area maritime underwater search project. My colleagues know more about it than I do, so I will not go into any great detail. The Committee feels that WAMUS is an exercise that should have been carried out before or during the SDSR and not afterwards, while we were undertaking an inquiry. It was only after extensive questioning by the Chairman of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) that we discovered that the RAF and the Ministry of Defence had failed to tell us that the WAMUS project had not only started but had been completed while we were carrying out our SDSR inquiry. Air Vice-Marshal Green and the Minister’s predecessor both accepted that the information should have been shared with the Committee.

I am not suggesting that the RAF, the MOD and the Minister were malicious in withholding information, but I do suggest that there was either arrogance on the part of the Department—not the Minister—or incompetence. I think that it is fair to say that the Chairman of the Committee expressed his disappointment with both the Royal Air Force and the Minister. Mr Brady, I am sure that when the Chairman of the Committee was Chief Whip you never gave him the opportunity to express his disappointment in you. As one of the members of the Committee to whom that has occasionally happened, I can assure you that the Chairman’s disappointment is something that one does not seek to invoke. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will set out how the MOD has learnt the lesson of that mistake and how it is ensuring that the Committee is not let down by the Department again.

I commend the report to the House. This has been an excellent debate, and I look forward to hearing from colleagues.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sir Gerald Howarth, I want to say that I hope the wind-ups will start at or by 4 o’clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Brady. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, is a little over-emotional and will want to withdraw his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

It is always advisable to use temperate language, especially in the Chamber. I am sure that Sir Gerald will wish to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful, Mr Brady. I just feel nothing but contempt for him. That is a personal view, and if it is unparliamentary, I am sorry.