Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Stephen Doughty

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What plans he has for additional UK force deployments to Afghanistan.

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

No decisions have been taken on sending additional UK troops to Afghanistan. The UK makes an important contribution to the non-combat NATO mission in Afghanistan, where our troop commitment is kept under regular review to ensure that it remains suited to the needs of the mission.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister will be aware that, just today, 12 civilians, including women and children, have been killed in a suicide bombing attack outside a Ministry in Kabul. This is part of a string of attacks that have happened despite ceasefire efforts by President Ghani. Does the Minister agree that we very much need to protect the gains that we have made at the expense of blood and treasure in Afghanistan over many, many years, and will he consider looking at whether we need to provide more support to the Afghan security forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. He will understand that, as I spent time in Afghanistan myself in 2006, this subject is very close to my heart. I am determined that we should not, as he says, lose that blood and treasure. Indeed, I raised that issue with Dr Abdullah Abdullah, the Chief Executive of Afghanistan, when I met him last Thursday. We will look at the matter very carefully to see what further support we can offer.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

We are going back—are we not?—to the debate about the annual salary increase and incremental pay. I have always used the example of the private soldier, where we see almost a 20% salary increase over three years.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Lancaster]

I have been generous, but I am going to make progress. I will give way again before I finish my speech.

In other words, when it comes to armed forces pay, context is all, and the decision to award a 1% pay increase in 2017 did not happen in isolation. It followed a recommendation by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body. They were clear that their decision

“broadly maintained pay comparability with the civilian sector”.

Critically, the AFPRB and SSRB are independent organisations that make annual recommendations. Their reports are detailed, comprehensive and take time to compile. For 2016-17, they gathered written and oral evidence from everyone from the Defence Secretary down, including more than 2,300 service personnel and 154 spouses. They held 186 discussion groups before arriving at a decision. Such a thorough, evidence-based approach is precisely why it would be wholly wrong to start introducing ad-hoc in-year reviews, as some people have suggested.

Focusing solely on the pay award also excludes the other reforms we have made to pay—reforms supported by the AFPRB itself. For example, in 2016 we introduced a new pay scheme, more effectively to reward personnel for their skills and simplify an individual’s pay journey. Consequently, people are better able to predict their future career earnings and make better-informed decisions.

At the same time, we recognise that, in an increasingly competitive world, we need to do more to plug skills gaps in parts of the public sector, such as engineering, if we are to continue delivering world-class public services. That is why the Government’s recent announcement that greater flexibility will be available in public sector pay remains key. It means the independent pay review bodies can now make their own judgements on future pay awards to mitigate any potential future impact. So, for 2018-19, the AFPRB will no longer have an across-the-board requirement to keep its recommendations within a total 1% maximum award. But let us not jump the gun. The 2018-19 armed forces pay review is still to come. It will be agreed as part of the budget process and we expect its recommendations early next year.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is extensively quoting the AFPRB, but it is also clear that it says that

“if inflation continues its upward trajectory, we could foresee recruitment becoming more challenging and morale being adversely impacted... we would need to consider very carefully whether a one per cent average limit on base pay was compatible with continued operational effectiveness”.

He knows my concerns about the recruitment figures and that I accept that pay is not the only issue affecting recruitment and retention, but will we see those recruitment figures going up, and will he listen to what the AFPRB is clearly saying?

[Mark Lancaster]

Over the past year, we have seen 8,000 applications to the Army, which is an increase of some 20% on the previous year, but I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view. I was deeply surprised to discover while reading a national newspaper that part of Labour’s plan is to use the money for marketing—some £10 million a year—as one source of income to give soldiers a pay increase. We have approximately 150,000 armed forces personnel, so that would be an increase of about £5.50 a month per member of the armed forces, but it would involve scrapping the one thing that delivers recruiting. So, no marketing budget for a bottom-fed organisation? Does he agree with that? Does he agree with the plan of his Front Benchers to scrap the marketing budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Marketing is obviously a crucial part of the recruitment process, but the Minister needs to be clear. He has given me an answer that makes it clear that every single course—including those at Catterick in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has just left—is under-recruited. Every single course at Sandhurst since 2015 has been under-recruited. It is his Government who are leading us to this recruitment crisis. Pay is one part of that, and a crucial part, but he is the Minister and he is in charge.

[Mark Lancaster]

So we have a crucial marketing budget. Would that be scrapped? I am going to Catterick in two weeks to be the passing-off officer for the latest group of Gurkhas to pass off. That is a fully recruited course; not all courses are, but I am delighted to say that the last Sandhurst course was also fully recruited.

Veterans and Service Personnel

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and reasonable point, and I will ensure that it is conveyed. The more we do to show that veterans are well looked after, the more we will encourage a future generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen and women to come through our doors.

That brings me to the second element of this debate. In the years to come, our armed forces will face an increasing challenge to recruit the people in the face of increased competition from companies that offer more money and more flexible ways of working.

That is why we are determined to transform the MOD into a modern force that does not provide its people only with modern equipment, but with better accommodation, better terms and conditions and even greater flexibility. We fully recognise that the current offer that we make to our servicemen and women is not keeping pace with modern needs, which is why we are committed to changing and improving it better to reflect the realities of today’s society.

[Stephen Doughty]

On that very theme, I was delighted recently to attend the PinkNews awards, where the British Army was awarded the public sector employer of the year award for its work, particularly on the Army LGBT forum. Does the Minister agree that we have a particular issue with older LGBT veterans who were not perhaps treated the way they should have been in the past and that we need to do more to right that wrong and show a good example as we go forward, just as the Army is doing today?

[Mark Lancaster]

That is a very fair point, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman who, as I recall, has been a champion for such people in the past. That work will continue.

The new employment model represents a significant update to the offer, providing support to service personnel who want to buy their own homes; promoting greater domestic stability and lifestyle choice for service personnel and families; and delivering simpler and more transparent systems for pay and accommodation grading—but the challenges placed on defence and the needs of our people continue to evolve. In SDSR 2015, we committed to build on the foundations of the new employment model to ensure that the future offer remains competitive and sustainable. We have grouped this under the armed forces people programme.

For example, we are now looking to see how we can make life easier, where possible, for those struggling to meet their full military commitment. With the flexible engagement system, we will be able to offer service personnel the opportunity to work part-time and, when needed, protect individuals from deployments. This means that we can reduce liability for deployment for a period, so 27-year-old Sergeant Jenkins, for example, can support his pregnant wife and spend more time with his young family in those important early childhood years.

We know that the provision of affordable, good-quality accommodation is also central to our offer to service personnel. Yet again, though, we recognise that the current accommodation model does not always support how service personnel might choose to live, forcing some to opt out of subsidised accommodation or compromise on family life. The future offer will look to provide current service personnel with more choice of housing and help to meet their aspirations for home ownership—regardless of age, rank or relationship status.

That is just a glance at what we are doing. Let me reassure the House that the armed forces people programme will deliver real improvement, developing a future offer that will promote diversity and individual choice, support flexibility and take account of personal circumstances. Above all, it will continue to evolve, reflecting changing needs and aspirations. In short, it will be more effective for our people and more efficient for defence.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Stephen Doughty

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

We have simply decoupled the two issues. We will be dealing with this matter in this Bill and the Department for Transport has made it clear that it intends to deal with the merchant navy aspect as soon as possible. I am delighted to say that we are therefore moving ahead quickly, as we said we would.

This new clause would amend sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which currently contain wording indicating that a homosexual act can constitute grounds for discharging a member of the armed forces. New clause 1 removes this wording, while amendments 1 to 5 make a number of small technical changes to implement this clause. When sections 146 and 147 were enacted, it was Government policy that homosexuality was incompatible with service in the armed forces and, accordingly, members of the armed forces who engaged in homosexual activity were administratively discharged. That policy was rightly abandoned in January 2000, following a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wholeheartedly support the Minister’s efforts on new clause 1. I have received a letter from a constituent who was discharged from the Women’s Royal Air Force in 1968 because she was gay, and there will be a number of similar cases historically. She says that

“there was a witch hunt of proportions you cannot imagine, inevitably ending in ignominious discharge…When I was discharged I was told (as were others) that unlike our male counterparts, we had not broken the law and could not be court martialled and an administrative discharge is not ‘dishonourable’. However, the…regulation is generally understood to cover…theft and similar unsavoury matters”.

She therefore sees this as dishonourable and she says:

“It has certainly influenced the whole of my life.”

Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this? Will he say what he thinks about dealing with historical cases, where people were so dreadfully treated in our armed forces? They served with distinction, but because of their LGBT status and the circumstances in which they left they were affected by what happened for the rest of their lives.

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman highlights precisely why the then Government decided to make the changes they did, and I think we all agree in this House that they are very positive changes. Of course I would be delighted to meet him to see what we can do for his constituent.

Since 2000, the provisions I mentioned have had no practical effect and they are therefore redundant. I would like to thank Professor Paul Johnson and Mr Duncan Lustig-Prean for raising this important issue in their evidence to the Bill’s Select Committee. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for championing the repeal of these provisions through his amendments introduced in Select Committee and in Committee of the whole House. These provisions in no way reflects the position of today’s armed forces. We are proud in the Department of the progress we have made since 2000 to remove policies that discriminated against homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel, so that they can serve openly in the armed forces. All three services now feature in Stonewall’s top 100 employers list, and we continue to benchmark our activities to ensure we are doing as much as we can to support our LGBT staff. This new clause is a practical step which shows that this Government are serious about our commitment to equality in this area.