Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)
Luke Pollard ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Q
Abby Dryden: I can only speak about my organisation’s experience of working with the pre-existing welfare structures. The vast majority of the time those structures work very well, and they work well because of the people who are involved; they care about personnel. In my experience, I have only ever encountered a positive approach from military processes, structures and the chain of command side of things in terms of addressing the issues that we present to them. They are very much interested in the quality of life that personnel enjoy.
In terms of how I see the commissioner supporting that, how it could be different and where there might be gaps, there is always room for improvement. For example, younger people joining the military may have a different expectation of what that structure should represent to them, how they should be able to access services and the proximity that that institution has to their quality of life and the quality of their family’s life. I would say that the commissioner should focus on the changing expectation of new recruits and young people. That might be a positive addition.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
Abby Dryden: Lots of services are very much centred around the serving person. That is not a failing of those services, but I think families can sometimes, but not always, feel peripheral to proceedings. I think—[Interruption.]
Helen Maguire
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I would make two points. There is a community and a family around a particular RAF station, of which there are 24 or 26 in the UK and others elsewhere, but there is increasingly a diaspora of families who live elsewhere, separated from that base. You have individuals who are weekend commuting to a different location where there is not the localised support for a family. It varies.
Generally speaking, historically, the support has always been focused around a serving base for the Royal Air Force. Increasingly, we need to reach out into other areas of the UK, where families have now settled for other reasons. That diaspora is UK-wide, in the UK context. It is a different challenge and there are different needs associated with both.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
Could you give us a flavour of the issues coming forward in the cohort that we are talking about in the Bill to your organisations and how you think shining a spotlight on some of those structural issues might be able to address some of the underlying causes? The purpose of the commissioner is, ideally, to assist in removing some of the barriers, obstacles and challenges that our service people and their families face. I would be interested to get your sense as to whether those structural issues have always been here or whether you have seen changes in recent years that need to be addressed by the commissioner.
Col. Darren Doherty: I would start by saying that much of our work is currently done and our support is currently provided to the veteran and family community. Only about 12% of our grants go to the serving community. That is because we base them on need and, thankfully, many in the serving community do not feel that need until they have left. Of that 12%, much is made up of family support in terms of bereavement and those sorts of things.
I think the situation is changing. In the future, I think we are going to look much more towards causation and prevention, which will be more within the serving community. I would highlight a project that we have recently become involved with, which is funding a training and education mechanism that will look at domestic abuse. That is not just treating or helping to support the victims of domestic abuse through a helpline, although that is part of it. The main part, through a charity called SafeLives, is looking at training and education. Much of that is aimed towards our serving community, through their own welfare officers. That initiative was prompted by the work of our trustees identifying that they thought this might be an issue. We cross-checked that with the Army and they believed it was.
That is an example where a thematic study carried out, or a report by the commissioner, could help identify other areas of need in the serving community where the third sector and in the Army’s case, the Army Benevolent Fund, could intervene and try to get at some of the root causes of these issues. That is where we intend to go in the future, while still providing the same degree of support to meet the need that we do now.
Mandy Harding: We are a commissioning charity in the sense that our grant-making uses commissioning principles based on need. We commission through grants to partners to deliver the outcomes. We do that by identifying need. We are very interested in needs, and any identified needs, because where we can identify the need, that is where we can appropriate the right resources and the right investment. From our point of view, anything that helps with that is very useful.
In terms of what is coming up, we have just commissioned some new work around mental health and wellbeing because of the changes we are seeing. Deployments now are to hostile areas, families have less information and the anxiety is harder for them. You cannot shield children so easily from social media and the news. Families have explained to us that they have tried to shield their children from the news in the home, but that changes the moment they go to school—I think HMS Diamond was probably a very good example of what happened, and the distress that those families felt at seeing that on the news and trying to shield their children from what was going on. There is a change and a shift.
From our charity’s position, we are currently looking at need again. We did a piece of need research of our own in 2019. Professor Walker’s work came in, which was incredibly helpful. With colleagues at Greenwich Hospital and at the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, we are all looking at need. We are working with the RAF and with the RAND research project to try to see what need is there. If a commissioner came in, it follows that we would be supportive of a commissioner who might be able to pull themes together for us, and then we can make the appropriate investments.
The only thought that I would offer from our experience of working with beneficiaries and organisations—particularly when I have done research into need and talked with beneficiaries—is to manage expectations. I think managing families’ expectations of this will be a challenge.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I just have a few points to add. From a Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund perspective, we augment what the service already provides. Much of what we see in the serving community in particular is what the air force has asked us to provide or, indeed, where we have found a specific need that is not being provided for either by the Royal Air Force locally on station or by partner charities.
I would pick up two areas in which we have seen an increase or growth over the last couple of years. The first is in emotional wellbeing support and sub-clinical mental wellbeing. We have a listening and counselling service that is accessed by over 2,000 people a year, of whom 80% are from the serving community. It was originally set up as a veterans’ programme, and it is now dominated by the serving community.
The second area is around children and young people. Increasingly, we have picked up a requirement to support children and young people, not just through after-school clubs or our youth club provision on stations, but through holiday provision as well. Increasingly, we are seeing the need to support serving children. Particularly where both parents are serving—that is increasing—we have picked that up as a requirement, and colleagues from the Royal Air Force Families Federation will be able to help with that.
As far as addressing underlying causes and needs goes, if the commissioner can be part of that solution, as I mentioned earlier, that would be fantastic. Already, it is a multifaceted response, but if the commissioner can come and say, “Here is an issue. This is what we have picked up. Is it being picked up by any other organisations?”—that includes, by the way, local authorities, the NHS and local education authorities—I think that would be of huge benefit.
David Reed
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: I do not know.
Mandy Harding: I am firmly in grants, so I am not the right person to answer that question, I am afraid.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: From what I have seen, it is not clear how that would happen.
Helen Maguire
Q
Maria Lyle: I will not replay what my colleagues have said. Collette articulated a lot of the challenges that RAF families would also face in terms of their mobility. We very much see that. The thing that sums it up for me is the line that says that part of the role is improving public awareness of the welfare issues that serving families and personnel face, which I would wholeheartedly support. My only slight qualm about that is that it works two ways. Having a role that coalesces that understanding and helps us amplify people’s voices could be really powerful.
I would like to put on the record that I think it would be helpful if it is done in a way that supports the role in general, rather than put people off joining our military. Part of the challenge the military has at the moment is the impact of gapping and poor retention. This needs to be a part of bolstering the offer and talking about some of the benefits and challenges of military life. Otherwise we run the risk of making life worse for people because retention falls even lower. I recognise that is straying into a different area, but I would not want an opportunity to become a threat.
Luke Pollard
Q
I am interested to get your perspective on how you think an Armed Forces Commissioner’s office would deal with and seek to build trust with the families, because it is much easier for the commissioner to visit a base. If there is accommodation on site, that might be the case. But we know that not everyone who serves and their families live on bases. We explicitly exclude the commissioner from having a right to inspect someone’s home without notice, for very good and obvious reasons. But how do you think the commissioner should access and seek to get views from and be responsive to the needs of families? I know that will change depending on service and location and the barriers to get there. It is important that we have an understanding about what they are so we can seek to overcome them. Can you expand on that kind of challenge? Shall we go to the Navy first?
Sarah Clewes: That will be the tricky bit—building the trust and giving prompt responses. Doing what the commissioner says he or she is going to do will be really important to build that trust. We know from the covenant, for example, that has been around for 12 years, that if you ask serving personnel and their families, a large percentage of them still do not know what the covenant is, what it does, or how it changes their lives, and that has been around for a long time.
That is just an example of how education is absolutely key, as is building trust and rapport and having really slick processes so that if somebody has been invited to ask a question they get a swift response in plain language. Again, that will be really important when you respond to a serving personnel. You might send them a link to a joint service publication or whatever, but that will not wash with families who probably cannot access the JSP because of the firewall. What good is that? So having those tailored responses and being mindful of the audience that will be new will be absolutely key, and that will be the tricky bit.
Collette Musgrave: I would echo Sarah’s comments. Something that we have grappled with for a long time is how you engage with families. It is really important to understand, as Sarah says, how important trust in the system is. If expectations are not met fairly swiftly, families, on past experience, will simply not engage. But there is a more practical element, which Sarah touched on: access, accessibility and understandability. Too many of the responses that come out of Defence and too much of the communication is in language that is simply not accessible to people who are not wearing uniform. As somebody who used to wear uniform and was an MOD civil servant, I would argue that at times it is not even accessible to me, so it is about making it clear and really easy to access and offering a range of access.
Yes, we are all shifting to digital, and yes, we have seen in our organisations a distinct switch to people wanting to engage with us via email or other digital means, but there is still a large section of families who are not really able or willing to engage with that process. They will need to be able to pick up the phone and speak to somebody, and to have somebody at the other end who understands what they are saying. If I may refer back to the housing issue, the roll-out of the new housing contract and the Pinnacle help desk, one of the biggest issues with that was not having somebody who picked up the phone. When someone did, they had no empathy or sympathy with the issues being raised, let alone an understanding of them. In terms of the physical process of access, that will be absolutely key in ensuring that that works for families, is consistent and delivers what they expect.
Maria Lyle: The only thing I would add is that there is an opportunity to get it right at the beginning. Yes, no one gets everything nailed on the first time—the person in that role needs to develop it—but if the offer is clear at the beginning, it makes it a lot easier. By that, I mean: is this office more strategic or tactical? That is part of the process that we are working out now. By that, I mean that if people are making a series of phone calls to that office, it will have to be staffed to deal with multiple thousands of calls a year. If that is not what the office is set up to do, and if it is more about dealing with and amplifying strategic messaging about what is going wrong, the communications could be based on that. But if families are led to believe, “This is somewhere I can ring and they will get my house sorted,” it is about managing those expectations and nailing those comms.
Therefore, upstream of that, it is about being very clear and coherent about what the office is setting out to do. Is it individual case management for any family who rings up with a problem? That is very different from an office that views the evidence and goes, “The key issues for military families are these three. Here is what my team is going to do about them.” In terms of what you communicate to families, those are quite different beasts. It is really important to get that right.
Pam Cox
Q
“the welfare of persons subject to service law and”—
this is a key phrase—“relevant family members”. That is left deliberately broad. What is your view on how a relevant family member might be defined?
Collette Musgrave: Where to start? This is a problem that we have grappled with for many years. The Army Families Federation is 42 years old, and what a family member looked like back then is very different from what a family member looks like now.
Maintaining that flexibility about what a family member is has been absolutely key for us in being able to properly support families. It may very well be a spouse or civil partner, or it may be a child. It may be a grandparent, if they were involved in caring for or supporting the family in any way. It may be an aunt or uncle. Quite frankly, with many of the people we deal with, some of whom have had quite challenging and difficult upbringings, it may be that they regard their wider friendship network as their family and their support network. It is a real challenge sometimes for us as an organisation to delineate and work this out so that we can best support the individual or the family in question.
Clearly, when it comes to the provision of defence processes and services, there are quite clear rules and regulations about who is in scope. My organisation and I personally might take issue with some of those, but none the less they are quite clearly laid out. One of the key difficulties that families face is often navigating that alongside their expectations, and alongside how wider society and some of the statutory external bodies I referred to earlier regard a family. It is that level of confusion that this process will have to work through quite quickly, referring back to Maria’s point about expectation management.
I note that in the debate and the questions in the House there were quite a lot of comments about bereaved families. There has been a significant amount of work over the last couple of years on identifying and supporting bereaved families, and meeting their actual needs rather than their perceived needs. We would certainly like to see bereaved families being addressed in some way within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner’s activities.
That would probably be something of a challenge, because the needs and requirements of a family when they are initially bereaved can be quite different from those of a bereaved family 10 or 20 years down the line. That would most definitely be something of a challenge for the Armed Forces Commissioner to work through. Nevertheless, we feel quite strongly that bereaved families should be included in the scope of the definition of families. Beyond that, it is not straightforward. We would like to see the broadest possible definition, because that is what service personnel and their families need, and it should be responsive to their needs and not to what happens to be in the relevant JSP.
Maria Lyle: I recognise that in the legislation, there may need to be—I do not know; I am not responsible for passing this Bill—a clause about what is applicable overseas and in the UK regarding families, for example, and how they are defined and dealt with.
I will give a live example of why it is important to keep the definition as broad as possible. At the moment, adult children are no longer defined as “dependents”, but many families talk to us about the needs of their young adult children who cannot access bases because they can no longer get a dependent’s pass, perhaps because they are at university or have left university. These days, of course, it is really hard for a young person to get accommodation, so they often stay at home sharing married quarters in a way that they would not have done 10 or 20 years ago. It is that sort of thing—the changing shape of family—and this Bill is an opportunity to allow some of those issues to be voiced and made relevant to an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Sarah Clewes: A family may also constitute a couple who have chosen not to have children or who cannot have children. We may think of them as a couple, but actually they are a family, because they are a couple. Are they within or without scope? It is important to consider every single differing family dynamic so that people are not excluded.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)
Luke Pollard ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Mariette Hughes: If I am allowed to apply. As the ombudsman, I can do only one term, but obviously this is a new role. If it is decided that I am allowed to put myself forward for the job, I would love to be considered for it. I love what I do, I feel very passionate about it, and these are the powers we have been asking for. It would also provide the opportunity to ensure that the work of SCOAF, which we have got to a really good standard, can continue uninterrupted, while then focusing on, “What does this look like, how can we take it forward, and how can we make this work?”
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
One of the key provisions for the Armed Forces Commissioner is their independence. In my mind, if they are not regarded as independent, it will not work in enabling people to raise concerns and issues with them. Could you talk us through how independence works in your current role, and how you feel an Armed Forces Commissioner independent from Government, Ministers and the chain of command might operate on a day-to-day basis?
Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. The key point is that independence does not mean you are completely isolated, or that you cannot talk to Ministers and work collaboratively. It is about having an unfettered ability to decide how your work is shaped. When I took on the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a key thing we always got asked, particularly on social media or in questions and queries about our services, was, “How are you maintaining independence? You are funded by the Ministry of Defence. You must therefore be in MOD’s pocket and none of your decisions is actually independent.” All ombudsmen face this, because we have to be funded from somewhere and it is usually the sector that we are overseeing. It is not an unusual thing.
One of our key priorities was setting out to the public, in a way that people could understand, how we maintain that independence. We designed a governance framework, which, to be honest, I was quite shocked that we did not have already when I took on the role. That has now been laid out to the House, and it sets out publicly that although the Ministry of Defence will provide my funding, it is not allowed to touch my cases, design my business plan, or tell me what I can and cannot do in pursuing the aims set out within the remit of my role. I would expect something similar with the commissioner, setting out who has the power to do what. It will need to be set out that although they report to the Secretary of State and are funded by Defence, they are entirely independent in the decision making.
Luke Pollard
Q
Mariette Hughes: Currently, we do not assess national security. We are overseeing just the service complaints system, which is about personnel issues—the issues service personnel face in the workplace. We naturally have a few cases where information is redacted because it is sensitive, because of the nature of where that individual works, and we work very well with the services on deciding what should and can be redacted. In a report where we are just talking about someone’s workplace experience, they should probably not be putting in information that needs to be redacted.
Going forward with the commissioner role, if the focus remains on welfare, I do not think it is as much of an issue as it might be. I understand the concern, because the Bill is so wide and gives those powers, but again, I cannot really see a situation in which the commissioner would need to get that involved in those issues, if that makes sense.
Luke Pollard
Q
Mariette Hughes: The framework proposed in this Bill is significantly stronger than what is currently in existence with my office. I have similar provisions in my terms and conditions that if for any reason I am unable to fulfil my functions, the Secretary of State can terminate my employment; equally, I can give notice. What is not in the current legislation or in my terms and conditions is the ability to appoint a deputy or an acting person to fill that role. That is a very real risk and it is a gap.
When I took on the role, there was actually a gap between myself and my predecessor during which nobody in the office could do any work, because there is no power unless it is delegated directly from the ombudsman and there is no power for the Secretary of State to put in an interim. There was a small period when nothing could happen. That is a real risk. At the moment, if I get hit by a bus—touch wood—and cannot come into work, there is nothing in the legislation that allows my staff to continue working unless I am there to delegate that power. The Bill allows for the commissioner to appoint a deputy, to delegate specific functions, and, in the event of incapacity or their being unfit to do the job, to be removed from post and an acting commissioner to be put in place. That gives us a lot more security than what we have currently, and I am in favour of it.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it will allow people who are experiencing an issue that affects a wider group or a demographic to bring forward that complaint as a whole. There is a lot of onus in service complaints on the resolution of individual grievances. You cannot bring a group complaint; it has to be an individual’s complaint with a named respondent. We are doing as much as we can to make sure that that system does not feel onerous, combative or scary, but some people are simply not comfortable putting their name down and saying, “I want to complain about my employer because of this.”
This new role has a wider focus on welfare, so you could form really good links with some of the networks to say, “Okay, when people come to you for advice, what are the things they are worried about? What are the things they are scared about? What policies are affecting them?” If those people are still not comfortable raising individual complaints, we need to ask what issues they are facing and whether we can cast a light on them. I want everyone to feel safe to come forward, but equally, if we know there are problems, it should not take the individual coming forward. If we know there are problems, we should be able to go and shine the light on it for them, so that they do not need to do that.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Ted Arnold: Again, I think that will be difficult to measure. Having an annual review that reports to Parliament, and perhaps the community making observations—not just on thematic reviews, but in the annual report as well, in a similar way as we do as a sector to the covenant—would be an appropriate way of measuring progress.
Angela Kitching: How you measure the impact of the thematic reports is crucial to that. After that annual report, you would then need to think, “Okay, what did we see that changed as a result?”. At that point, I suspect that you will see an impact on morale, with people feeling the difference because there will be something to point to. It is also about the mechanism for the commissioner to follow up on recommendations from previous reports and look at change over time.
There needs to be an adequate capacity in the office for them to have access to data that allows them to track the change over time as a result of it—I note that an amendment has been tabled on this today—particularly for groups whose experience might otherwise be invisible. Those groups are very small percentages of people, such as LGBT personnel, women in particular branches of the armed forces, and the experience of non-UK personnel, but otherwise they would end up being subsumed into the whole. It is important, as in the German reports, that some of those experiences are drawn out in the annual report and we track change over time for particular groups, who otherwise end up being lost in the wider picture.
Luke Pollard
Q
Angela Kitching: What people mentioned to us when we spoke to them in groups was that they needed to understand who the commissioner was. They needed to understand their relationship with the existing welfare services in the individual branches, but also with the wider service complaints process. Knowing exactly what to expect from them was really important, as was their office being seen to be open, both for serving personnel and their family members, so that they could make a direct approach and not feel as though they had to chase through another system to be allowed to approach that person. Also important was that the person was prepared to visit, which obviously is the case for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman.
The digital access is a real issue currently, as you will be aware, on areas of our Defence estate, but also where people are operationally deployed or are struggling to get access to enough technology to allow them to engage with complex digital systems. What they did not want was something where they would have to log in to understand the ongoing process of what was happening. They needed somebody who could be reached via a variety of different sources and, as I have previously mentioned, something that would allow for transparency and a degree of anonymity, if they wanted it, in relation to thematic information, so that they were able to offer what evidence they had, even if they did not want to pursue it as an individual complaint themselves.
Particular attention needs to be given to experiences of bullying, harassment and discrimination. In any other service that we look at that deals with those complaints, people have a significant amount of protection when those are being considered. If, for example, a thematic review were to be opened into an issue that touched on bullying, intimidation or harassment, particular consideration would need to be given to how that evidence was collected, because people understandably feel very vulnerable about offering that evidence. The armed forces is a unique employer in that way, because it is not just a job, it is a life, and the life of your family, and it can potentially control your future career. The level of trust needs to be built because the level of exposure and risk is so high if somebody chooses to step out of line and raise something.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, I think an effort must be made to change the current culture to encourage individuals and people on their behalf to know that they can come to a commissioner. Building on the German model, that is not just to raise issues of grievance, but maybe the spectrum of duty-related issues, and not just those problems, but personal and social problems as well.
Luke Pollard
Q
Angela Kitching: When we have gathered evidence before, particularly on sensitive issues, often we have allowed people to speak openly to us with a very clear and ethical statement about how we are going to use that information, which they previously agreed to. There is certainly the potential for us to be able to pass on that information on behalf of armed forces groups. We did that in relation to the Etherton report when people did not want to give individual evidence and did not want to step forward themselves. We gathered those views and submitted them to the review team on behalf of people who did not want to identify themselves. There is potentially a role for organisations—not just us, but many others—to do that. Thinking about the location of those conversations is really important. They cannot be on bases; they need to be in an environment where people feel comfortable to express themselves.
Overall it is the assurance that the office of the commissioner has a degree of separation from chain of command that is the most important thing. Ensuring that the office has adequate resources to be able to do the kind of work that I have just described will be important, and trying to make sure that that person is able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently independent of the current chain of command, and are really able to bring forward views that will very difficult for chain of command to hear, is important.
Ted Arnold: Also, it is important for chain of command to feel that they are comfortable raising those issues as well, knowing that it is going to the Secretary of State and being considered by Parliament.
That also builds on and adds to the importance of the commissioner drawing upon data and evidence from the veterans’ community, particularly those who have been recently discharged. For some, it takes many years for them to get help and to reach that crisis point—to have those reflections and be able to say what could have been done better during their service. The removal over time—being away from your service and not fearing repercussions, particularly in terms of your career, can add to that. As Angela said, the Etherton review was a great example.
Pam Cox
Q
Angela Kitching: I think it is really important to lay out from the start what the intended change is. When we are asking the commissioner to report, it needs to be a report that looks at the intended impact and then tries to measure against that. It cannot just be a report of activity.
I also think that, as the commissioner opens thematic reviews, they need to make sure that they invite evidence from organisations, academics and others who have depth of experience in some of the best ways to address some of those issues, and looking at the change that could be achieved over time. Many of them are well-trodden paths as research issues either in this country or internationally. They need to be looking at what works and addressing some of the concerns—that evidence is readily available, and we need to make sure that the commissioner is on the front foot in drawing that in.
In terms of Parliament, as soon as reports are laid in Parliament, we obviously do our best to try to make sure that they are well communicated in the community, but it is very difficult to reach into somebody’s service life. They are in the middle of their job, as you will have experienced, and their head is on the job. It is about making sure that they are well networked in the armed forces community. The armed forces champions who were mentioned would be one way of making sure that the wider system understands the changes that are necessary. Armed forces liaison officers, who are Government-appointed in Wales, are a good model for people whose role it is to reach into communities and are additionally resourced to do that, unlike the armed forces roles in local authorities and the NHS, which are usually voluntary. It is about being well networked in the existing armed forces communications structures.
There is also something about the in-service welfare system, which, as Ted mentioned, can be incredibly patchy in the way that it delivers outcomes for people. I think there is probably a duty there that thinks about how better we can require the in-service welfare system to consider changes that come out of the commissioner’s office, perhaps requiring them to write back to say, “This is the impact and this is what has changed as a result of it.”
I am afraid that the way to do it is probably all of those methods at once.
The Chair
May I interrupt you? We are running out of time, so will the Minister ask his questions?
Luke Pollard
Q
Wearing the hats from your previous roles, can I ask you to think about the unannounced visits power in the Bill? One of the bits that I feel strongly about is the ability of the commissioner to visit any base in the UK unannounced to look at general service-welfare matters. First, could you talk us through the effect that the commissioner having that power would have on how our military would address general service welfare matters in the broadest sense? Whether used or not, it would be a power that the commissioner had in their toolbox.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: There are probably two aspects to that. First, if this works well, units should embrace the perception of challenge that comes with an unannounced visit. If you are a unit that is functioning effectively, you should have no worries about it. If you are a unit that is hiding cultural issues, good—you are going to be found out.
If it is an issue about systemic stuff like housing or accommodation, it will be well known. Your ability in the chain of command to address some of these issues is rather circumscribed, but I hope you would welcome the chance to give evidence to the commissioner and say, “Look at the mould on the walls. Look at the living accommodation. It is provided by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which is outwith my control. Please help me to try to make improvements for the young men and women under my command.” I hope people would start to welcome it. The optics of the commissioner coming out to do his or her job are fantastic and will act as a real catalyst for change.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I would support that entirely. If you have something to hide, you should be worried. If you do not have something to hide, you should be proud of your unit, garrison or base and welcome the commissioner coming to look at some of the wider issues.
Luke Pollard
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In SSAFA, we have deliberately chosen not to be a lobbying organisation. We work with officials in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, in the Ministry of Defence. We feel that is our best role. Other charities do a great job in that space—in particular, I commend the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride, of which I am proud to be the patron. There is a debate on Thursday about some of these issues.
We will not change. Thank you for the compliments about SSAFA. We will continue to work to support serving personnel, veterans and their families. We will not change our position.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: We in the sector have two or three ways of interacting with the commissioner. First, during the generation of a report, I suspect that we as a community will build up a relationship with the commissioner, particularly through the serving UK personnel cluster, so charities with an interest in the serving communities will engage in that fashion.
When a report is laid before Parliament, and when we have looked at the annual covenant report, the Committees tend to come back to the charities for a session such as this to ask our opinions. I suspect that that kind of opportunity will again be of use, particularly with charities that have skin in the game and focus on the serving community.
The Chair
I think we have to stop it there; otherwise, we will not finish on time. Thank you very much for your evidence, gentlemen.
Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s Chagos negotiations on the UK-US defence relationship.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond on behalf of the Department.
On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US Departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.
This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The President of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly:
“It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”
Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN Secretary-General and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.
Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous Government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.
For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US Administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship.
Finally, hon. Members can be reassured that the long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout, and this agreement secures its future. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
At a time when we face the most challenging military threats for years, surely our top priority should be to preserve the strongest possible US-UK relations, given that this is so vital to our national security, yet it appears that the Government are seeking to agree a deal surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands before President Trump is formally in post. We know that the new US Administration are concerned about the Government’s deal because presumptive nominee US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal
“poses a serious threat to our national security interests”.
He has also suggested that
“it would provide an opportunity for communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility”.
Let us be clear: our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital strategic asset for the UK in the Indian ocean, and it is critical to our presence and posture in the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, it is an especially important base for the United States, and we believe that anything that damages its defence posture, particularly in relation to China, also undermines our national security. We understand that the new Mauritius Government have now launched a review of the deal.
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government’s policy really is to try to rush through their Chagos deal before President Trump’s inauguration? Does he not see how that would be hugely disrespectful to the new Administration and President Trump’s democratic mandate? Given that we now know it is common for the MOD to state the cost of overseas bases, will he be transparent and finally tell the House how much we will have to pay to rent back the vital military base that we currently own?
Finally, although we would prefer the Government to cancel the whole deal, at the very least will the Minister pause any further ratification until the new US Administration are in place and the Mauritius Government have concluded their review?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his strong focus on this matter. I think he has a bit of amnesia from when the Government he was a part of started these negotiations. They held 11 rounds of negotiations, and it took a Labour Government to conclude them. We have done so in the best interests of our national security, and the national security concerns of our closest allies. It would not have been possible to secure a deal and the support of the United States if all parts of the US security apparatus were not in support of it, and as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that to be true, regardless of the politics he must play today.
The hon. Gentleman asked two quick questions. We intend to continue our dialogue with the new Mauritian Government and our friends in the United States. He will be aware, of course, that it is illegal under US law for us to engage directly with the new Administration until they come into place, but we will continue to have dialogue with our US and Mauritian friends.
I am surprised that as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman is asking about costs. He will know that it is usual for us to declare the operating and running costs of overseas bases, but it would compromise our operational security and long-term relationships if we were to declare the Government-to-Government payment for overseas bases. We have declared the operational running costs of our overseas bases, and we will continue to do so in response to parliamentary questions. Detailing the security payments for Government-to-Government interactions is not something that this Government do, and was not something that his Government did either.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is of great significance for defence and has strategic international significance. Steps must be taken to ensure that its legal status is secure in the future, and of course the voice of the Chagossians must be central in any future arrangement. It has been reported that President-elect Trump has reservations about the proposed treaty, and newly elected Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius has ordered a review into the treaty. What further representations have been made to both our partners to ensure that we have the support of our international partners?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The continuing operation of Diego Garcia is in the interests of UK and US national security, and this deal secures that operation. I congratulate Dr Ramgoolam on his election. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 15 November, he noted his commitment to completing the negotiations, and Jonathan Powell was in Mauritius this week to start that process.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We, and all those who care about the resolution of this issue, are deeply disappointed about the way we have been led to this point, with 11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, and more under the new Government. Just four weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary presented his deal to the House. Now the new President-elect and the new Prime Minister of Mauritius are expressing doubts. Is it not striking and shocking that it has unravelled so quickly? Does the Minister agree that whatever happens next, it is vital that the voices of the Chagossians are finally injected into the process, and that they are able to fulfil their rights of self-determination?
Whatever lies ahead in these talks, the Liberal Democrats have strongly argued that all treaties should come before the House before signing, and I believe that members of the Government, including two who are on the Front Bench today, supported that in the past. Will the Minister commit to allowing meaningful opportunities for parliamentarians to examine the detailed proposals, including the necessary assurances on elements of the deal relating to our national security, before anything is signed?
Luke Pollard
We will follow the normal process for treaty ratification, which is that after signature, the treaty will come before this House, with details given to colleagues and with the ability for full parliamentary scrutiny, as would be expected as part of the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the Chagossians. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sat next to me, has been meeting Chagossian communities in the UK. He will continue to meet those communities. This Government deeply regret how they were treated and removed from the islands originally. It is one reason why we have made the relationship with the Chagossians such an important part of the future of the islands, as the Foreign Secretary has previously outlined to the House.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the operations of the vital UK-US base on Diego Garcia will continue, completely unaffected by the terms of this deal? Separately, will he confirm that our commitment to the Falkland Islands, to Gibraltar and to the rights of the people there to self-determine remain completely unaffected by this deal?
Luke Pollard
As the first Minister from the new Government to visit the Falklands, I was able to say clearly that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they would like to be. The message I gave to the Gibraltarians was that Gibraltar is British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want it to be. I confirm to my hon. Friend that this deal secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. That is something that our US allies have supported.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Which is more important for Britain’s vital security: to have the approval of the outgoing American President, or the approval of the incoming one? What is there to prevent China, with Mauritius’s agreement, putting listening outposts on other islands that could compromise the security of Diego Garcia?
Luke Pollard
There are specific arrangements in the treaty that prevent any foreign power from putting security apparatus or security forces on any of the outgoing islands. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that when the treaty comes before the House. In relation to the support of the United States, we would not have signed an agreement if it was not supported by our US friends. This deal secures the operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. I expect that when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it too.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Chagos belongs to the Chagossians. A quarter of the global population of Chagos lives within my constituency. I am aware of statements made by Ministers that they have met representatives of the Chagossian community; I do not know who those representatives are, but I know of representatives in my constituency who have not yet been consulted. Does the Minister agree that before any further dialogue takes place, the Government should engage fully with the community representatives in my constituency?
Luke Pollard
The Foreign Office Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has met a range of representatives from the Chagossian community and will continue to do so as this process continues. I know that he would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend to make sure that that dialogue is as complete as it can be.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
First, may I ask, what is the rush? Why is the Minister in such a hurry to get this done? May I suggest that it would be to the Government’s advantage, if their case is so strong, to allow this House to debate the agreed text in public before it is signed? May I also suggest that it stretches incredulity for him to tell the House that there have been no discussions at all with the incoming American Administration? Can he at least tell the House what informal dialogue there is with the incoming Administration about what their view really is? Can he report that to the House, please?
Luke Pollard
As a long-standing Member of this House, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with how treaties are debated and agreed by this House. After signature, they come forward for ratification. This process was started a number of years ago by the Government that he supported. Eleven rounds of negotiation have taken place. We have secured a deal that is in support of the UK and US base on Diego Garcia, which will continue to operate well into the next century. When he and others see the detail of the deal, I am sure they will back it.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is hard to imagine anything said from that Dispatch Box over the past five months that has survived contact with reality, and this is no different. In the tripartite relationship between the United States, the United Kingdom and Mauritius, two of those partners now have doubts about this arrangement, so what is the unseemly rush about? In the tension between national security and the human rights of the Chagossians, this Government, as usual, have managed to reconcile neither.
Luke Pollard
I am not certain whether the SNP’s record on national security really gives the hon. Member the platform that he is pretending to have on this one. I recognise, however, that he is trying to make a serious point about the deal. When the deal is signed, it will come before the House in the usual way. That will allow parliamentarians of all parties to look at the detail of the deal and take a judgment, and the House will vote in the usual way, as it will do on other treaties.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is it in particular that the new regime in Mauritius have doubts about? It is that they want more money, isn’t it?
Luke Pollard
I think it is quite normal for any new Government to look again at a deal signed by their immediate predecessor—[Interruption.] The reason I say that is that when they look at the deal, they will see that the detail is convincing; just as it will be for our US friends, because it is a deal backed by the entirety of the US security apparatus that secures the future operation of the UK-US base well into the future and deals with the uncertainty around the base that existed until the deal was made. Hopefully, the right hon. Member will back the deal when the details come before the House—let us see.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The presentation of what the American Administration believe is a fantasy. Joe Biden is going—in fact, many think that he has gone already. I have been contacted by very senior officials and advisers from the incoming Republican Administration, and every single one of them is appalled at this deal. They know that the leasehold agreement will not survive, just as the deal with China over Hong Kong did not survive. Has not the time come for the Government to admit that this is a rotten deal for the UK, a rotten deal for America and an even worse deal for the Chagossians? If the Minister cares so much about the sovereignty of the Falklands being in the hands of the Falkland Islanders, why not have a referendum of the Chagossians and ask them to settle who should have sovereignty over those islands?
Luke Pollard
As someone who has been in the Falklands recently, let me say that whipping up uncertainty about their future is not helpful for the security of the Falkland Islanders. Let us be absolutely clear: the Falklands are British for as long as the people of the Falkland Islands want to be British.
When it comes to this deal, I am certain that when its detail has been put before this House and before our US friends and other allies, they will see that it not only secures the future of the UK-US base—something that is not the case until the deal is signed—but secures it well into the next century, when the hon. Gentleman and I will no longer be in this place but the UK-US base on Diego Garcia will still be operating, securing our national interests.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
We in this House all know how the People’s Republic of China has been able to use commercial vessels, including fishing vessels, to impinge on how we operate. Will the Minister set out how large an exclusion zone there will be around Diego Garcia to ensure that our interests and US interests are properly protected?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his serious question and the way in which he presented it. It is important that we have certainty about the security of the future relationship. That is why the treaty sets out clearly security arrangements for the outer islands that will prevent foreign nations from putting security forces or security apparatus on those islands. The full details will be in the treaty. It is important to note that Mauritius was one of only two African countries that did not join the Chinese belt and road initiative, and maintaining a strong relationship with it—especially in more contested times—is vital. That is what the deal helps to deliver.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister says that the outgoing Biden Administration in the US are keen on the deal, which may or may not be the case, but the British public plainly are not—for good reason—and they see the payment of a dowry to Mauritius as rubbing salt into the wound. If he is not prepared to comment on the quantum that he has in mind, will he at least explain the structure of the costings he is applying to come to the figure that he wishes to give Mauritius for taking on these islands?
Luke Pollard
I thank the former Minister for his question. As he served in the Department that I now serve in, he will know that it is normal to reveal the operating costs for overseas bases, but that we do not—he did not and we do not—reveal the Government-to-Government payments. That was standard procedure for his Government and every Government before, and it remains the policy of this Government. This deal secures the future of the UK-US base, and I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to understand why it secures that for so long, and hopefully he will be able to back it.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister has said that he is not willing to give details of the financial arrangement, although he will be aware that the Mauritian Prime Minister has described the deal as a sell-out. Can he at least give an assurance that the Government will not commit to giving yet more money to get the deal through before the new US Administration arrives in January?
Luke Pollard
We think that this is a good deal. When the details come out, others will be able to make their judgment, but I think they will conclude that it is a good deal. It secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which was the overriding objective when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. The Conservatives set that objective, and we are glad that this deal secures the future of the base well into the next century. That is an important step for UK and US national security.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Will the Minister set out how he intends to implement safeguards against China establishing military capabilities and surveillance capacity in the British Indian ocean territories?
Luke Pollard
That is an important question, and one that I responded to a few answers ago. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that safeguards in the treaty will detail that no foreign security forces will be able to set up on the outer islands, providing that security perimeter around Diego Garcia that we and our US allies have sought. This is a good deal because it secures not only the future operation of the base but the future security around the base. I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to see that for himself.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I return to a question asked but not answered this afternoon. If as a result of the review the Mauritian Government demand more money, will the Government pay up in order to save face?
Luke Pollard
I am confident that this is a good deal. The Mauritian Government will look at the deal that has been signed and see that it is a good one. Our US friends know that it is a good deal, and anyone looking at it in future will see that it is a good deal because it achieves our No. 1 objective of securing the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), alluded to the presumptive nominee Marco Rubio’s comments that the deal represents a serious threat to US national security. Does the Minister agree?
Luke Pollard
All the representatives of the US security apparatus who have seen the detail of the deal back it. It secures the future of the base and it allays US fears around the future of the base. There has been some barking from the Opposition Front Bench about this, so it is important to say that the base on Diego Garcia is not currently secure for the long term. There are questions over its long-term sovereignty, and people are building support against our sovereignty claim. This deal secures the long-term operation of that base well into the next century.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Having been one of many in this House to have vehemently opposed the ceding of the Chagos Islands without consulting the residents, and having stood in solidarity with those who opposed it, I am anxious to ensure that the Americans take control. In turn, we must offer them support and allow those residents who consider themselves British to be a part of the equation. What steps has the FCDO taken to ensure that the US is aware of the strength of opposition to this decision from those from the Chagos Islands?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his serious question. This deal not only settles some of the outer islands for the Chagossian communities but allows visits to Diego Garcia for the Chagossian communities who were removed in a way that this Government so deeply regret. The detail of the deal is good to secure our national security and US national security, and it takes important steps to recognise and remedy the pain suffered by Chagossian communities.
Contingent Liability Continuation: Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I wish to inform the House that I am today laying a departmental minute to advise of an extension to an existing contingent liability associated with the provision of support to the armed forces of Ukraine.
Since the start of the Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, the UK has been at the forefront of international support to Ukraine, providing essential military capability to the armed forces of Ukraine. We have developed capabilities, working with UK industry, to increase the support to the armed forces of Ukraine to defend against the threat from Russia.
The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that the Ministry of Defence will hold, which will provide an indemnity for any sums—including any legal or other associated costs—that UK defence industry might be liable to pay in relation to legal action brought against them by a third party in respect of liabilities arising from any damage to property, injury or loss of life from any unforeseen malfunction of a system operated by the armed forces of Ukraine.
The MOD and other stakeholders are taking all reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of injury and or damage and Defence legal advisers assess the likelihood of any risk arising as low. The maximum contingent liability held against the MOD is unquantifiable and will remain for the full service life of the system.
It is usual to allow a period of 14 sitting days prior to accepting a contingent liability, to provide Members of Parliament an opportunity to raise any objections.
This notification confirms the intention to extend a contingent liability that was initially agreed in July, during the pre-election period when Parliament had been dissolved and the normal process for notification of reportable contingent liabilities could not be followed. Further details are provided in the departmental minute.
[HCWS268]
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Luke Pollard ExcerptsMonday 18th November 2024
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I declare an interest and a huge sense of pride in taking part in this debate: I have cousins who serve in the Army and the Royal Air Force, and a son in the Royal Navy, all of whom are under 30. Hopefully, because of the Bill, they are at the start of long and successful armed forces careers. Also, my constituency of Portsmouth North is the home of the Royal Navy. I am glad that the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is not here to argue about that.
Amanda Martin
I meant the other one—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas). I am proud to be part of a mission-led Government but, as the Secretary of State said earlier, no mission from a Labour Government is complete unless it is our first duty to keep our country safe. Peace and security are hard earned and require constant vigilance and a well-staffed and—dare I aspire to say—a happy armed forces workforce.
This Bill is groundbreaking in its mission, with 183,000 service personnel and their families at its heart. It provides the opportunity and the authority for an independent commissioner to investigate welfare complaints not only from those serving, but from their families. It also gives the commissioner the opportunity and the authority to horizon scan, to highlight trends, to visit our bases and listen to personnel and their families, to launch investigations when needed and, ultimately, to improve the world of work and the lives of those who so often put this country first.
I welcome the stance of the whole House and the cross-party commitment to this Bill. Real change cannot come quickly enough. Attrition rates continue to grow and morale among our service personnel continues to plummet. At the moment, recruitment is outstripped by those leaving, so retention is a real concern. Despite 81% of our service personnel feeling supported by their families and their colleagues, it is upsetting that almost 50% do not feel that their families and their family life are supported by the service. Impact on family and personal life remains the top factor influencing those leaving the services.
It would be remiss of me not to note that in my Portsmouth North constituency the concerns around armed forces housing are very high. With three quarters of our personnel living in service accommodation, it is vital to be able to hear the voice of those serving and their families, and to use that to improve housing, communities, childcare and the lives of our forces and their families. This Government are serious about keeping our country safe and making our armed services a priority. With a pay rise already awarded, with an announcement on childcare provision already made, with a new cyber-route and the cutting of red tape in recruitment, and now with a Bill providing an armed forces champion, with real voices and real experiences at its centre, this is a step to building back that eroded trust and pride. Just as I do when my son returns from sea, we as a Government are putting our arms around service personnel and their families.
This will not be easy, and it will not be quick. Issues will be uncovered that will be uncomfortable and possibly costly. Cultures might need to change, the Secretary of State will be presented with reports and independent investigations, and Parliament will need to address these issues. Success or failure will be measured and voiced, as it should be. Will the Minister assure me that, however difficult the outcomes, the reports and the words that we hear from our service personnel, we will commit to having a truly independent commissioner, so that our armed services feel they have the trust to go to them? In delivering this Bill into law, we will not only say, but show by our actions, how much we value the service and dedication of our armed forces personnel and their families.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate. A number of Members spoke about the importance of this time of year. Last week, I was on the Falkland Islands to represent the Government and Falklands veterans from Plymouth, to lay a wreath at the war memorial that remembers the 255 members of UK armed forces who died in the 1982 conflict, and to lay a further wreath to remember the 49 members of our armed forces who have died subsequently in accidents and other incidents on the Falkland Islands. Remembrance is a special time of year. It is an opportunity for all of us, whatever our walk of life, to thank those who have served, to remember those people who never came home, and to offer our support to those people who came back forever changed. I am grateful to Members across the House for their participation in remembrance events, and the support they have shown to our armed forces and veterans community.
I am grateful to Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. It has been truly heartwarming to listen to speeches from all sides of the House about the passion and respect for, and dignity of, members of the armed forces. I will touch on a few of the questions asked, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Aldershot (Alex Baker). I also thank the Front-Bench spokespersons for their contributions: the hon. Members for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). That is a tour de force of our nations and regions, and we should all be proud of the way our armed forces are held in such regard across our country.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hogsmeade Station—my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby—for her brilliant maiden speech and for her words about Jo Cox. Jo Cox inspired both in life and in death. I hope there will be many more brilliant women who follow in my hon. Friend’s footsteps and join her on these Benches because of the work Jo Cox inspired.
Members from across the House raised a number of issues. I will attempt, in summing up, to deal with a number of them, but if I do not cover them all, I would be grateful if Members could continue this debate, because the Bill is important. It is important that we get this right. It is important that we set the parameters for the Armed Forces Commissioner—the powers and the role they will have—and in particular stressing the impartiality and independence of the role. That is absolutely key.
I was struck by just how many Members began their speeches with an assessment of where we are now. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot described personnel as feeling worn down. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East described the significant shortfalls in recruitment and an exodus of skills and personnel in recent years, and he is correct to do so. A number of Members related that to the evidence the MOD collects in the continuous attitude surveys. The falling morale in the attitudes of our armed forces personnel really stand as a roll call of shame for the previous Government. It is not the fault of armed forces personnel, but a collective failure to address the issues that underpin service life. That is one of the reasons why this Government proposed an Armed Forces Commissioner and why we must get it right to provide a direct contact for our armed forces personnel and their families.
A number of Members spoke about the culture in our armed forces. The vast majority of people who serve our country do so with the right values and the right attitude, but there are far too many examples where that is not the case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for raising the Atherton review. The report by Sarah Atherton in the previous Parliament should be compulsory reading for all Members of Parliament. I say to new Members who have joined us since the 2024 general election that it is well worth a google to understand the experience of so many women in our armed forces—it is worth having on your bedside table.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead spoke very passionately about bringing to justice perpetrators who act against the spirit of our armed forces and diminish the experience of service life for so many other people. He is correct to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar likewise spoke about the importance of lifting our culture. The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner has been specifically designed so that they can investigate issues related to general service welfare matters for those who serve and their families. It is not for me as a Minister, or for the Secretary of State or anyone else on the Government Bench, to set out what the Armed Forces Commissioner should investigate. It is for us to give that person the powers and the ability to get to the heart of the problems.
I am grateful to all Members who very kindly gave the Front Bench words of advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View said it will not be easy reading the commissioner’s reports, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens described the Government as leaving themselves open to scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell spoke about the proof being in the pudding. They are all right to do so. We are deliberately opening ourselves to scrutiny because it will improve the lives of those people who serve and their families. It is a strength of this Government that we feel open to wanting additional scrutiny and I am grateful to Members who encouraged it. I further encourage Members to look at how these powers can be strengthened and scrutinised over the course of the Bill’s passage.
A number of Members spoke about the Bill’s application to veterans. I am grateful to all who spoke about the important contribution of those people who have served our armed forces and served our nations in years past. The Bill is deliberately drawn to focus relentlessly on armed forces personnel serving today and their families. That is not because we wish to discard the experiences of veterans; far from it. It is because we believe—looking at the continuous attitude surveys, the falling morale and more people leaving our armed forces than joining—there is a problem that needs to be addressed for those people who serve our nation.
The powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner are deliberately drawn to focus on those people who serve. It is explicit in the Bill that we are dealing with people who serve in uniform today and their families, and we make no apology for doing so. However, a number of issues have been raised in the debate, and I shall be grateful if those who have raised them continue to take them up with the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is keen for us not only to support veterans but, in particular, to look at the existing programmes and policies to ensure that they are worthwhile.
Jim Shannon
Many soldiers and other service personnel suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and may be reluctant to come forward and seek help, but the people who know them best are their families, who can do so on their behalf. That is the great thing about the Bill: it provides that opportunity.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is right about the important role that families play in supporting not just serving personnel but veterans. I am grateful to him for mentioning families, and to a number of other Members who spoke passionately about that important role that they play and the need for the commissioner to be open to representations from family members. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Slough, who spoke about bereaved families in an intervention during the Secretary of State’s speech. The Bill does not give an exact definition of family members; that will be included in secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and House of Lords stages. I am glad that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about kinship carers, and I should be happy to discuss them with her. We want to get this right, and putting such a definition in the Bill will enable it to be locked in. I want Members on both sides of the House to feel empowered to challenge us and help us to provide that definition, so that the Bill is drafted adequately to help serving personnel and their families to deal with service life—and that must include all the shapes and sizes of families as they exist today.
A number of Members mentioned the spending of 2.5% of GDP on defence, to which the Government are committed. The Bill states explicitly that the Armed Forces Commissioner will deal with general service welfare matters. I think it important for me to put that on record, because the commissioner will be dealing with the lived experience of those who serve and their families. This will not involve looking into “Secret Squirrel” operations or operational deployments, or the spending of 2.5%, 2.4% or any other figure; it will involve looking specifically at the welfare of those who serve. However, I realise that a number of Members want to make points about the 2.5%, and I will continue to encourage them to do so. I hope that they also welcome the extra £3 billion for defence that was announced in the Budget only a few weeks ago.
Several Members spoke about the armed forces covenant and this new Government’s manifesto commitment to putting it fully into law. I reassure them that the determination to do that is strong in the ministerial team. The Defence Secretary himself has made it clear that he wants it to be included in the armed forces Bill, which is the next piece of legislation on which the MOD will be working. I am grateful to the Members who spoke so passionately about the importance of the covenant in their constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Hartlepool in particular, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View, spoke with passion about armed forces champions. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View and I share a brilliant armed forces champion in Councillor Pauline Murphy, and her determination and fierce approach to protecting and supporting the armed forces family are precisely what I hope to see in the Armed Forces Commissioner, because we need someone who will focus relentlessly on improving service life.
Mr Francois
When the Bill goes into Committee next month we shall be able to explore these issues in more detail, but—particularly for the benefit of the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland—will the Minister, before he sits down, update the House on what point we have reached in respect of the national veterans commissioner?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman may have missed my earlier suggestion that Members should take up their points with the Minister for Veterans and People, because this Bill is about serving personnel. However, I recognise the genuine concern felt by the organisations that he has mentioned, and I encourage him to speak to the Veterans Minister, who is currently looking at representation for veterans. I expect the commissioner to have relationships with a host of organisations across the country, and I am happy for that to be picked up.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked serious questions—as I believe did the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—about what will happen with a complaint being processed by the current Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces that is transferred to the Armed Forces Commissioner. If it is a service complaint, and the complaint relates to a period of service and was raised within the time limit, the Armed Forces Commissioner will continue to investigate even if the complainant has left the forces. That is the same as the current SCOAF position. For new Armed Forces Commissioner investigations, it will be at the discretion of the commissioner whether to continue the investigation, bearing in mind that their investigations will be largely thematic, rather than picking up individual cases. I hope that reassures Members that the work will continue and any complaint currently being handled by the SCOAF will be continued.
That gives me a good opportunity to thank our current SCOAF, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work. The Bill is designed deliberately not to adjust the service complaints system. The opportunity to do so in legislation may exist in an armed forces Bill, and I am happy to speak to Members who have concerns about the legislation relating to service complaints so that we can make sure that any edits required are included in the next such Bill.
A number of Members asked who can raise a complaint with the Armed Forces Commissioner. I am pleased to confirm that whether someone is a regular, a reserve, a recruit or a re-joiner, they will be able to raise an issue with the commissioner, as will family members of those people, in relation to the commissioner’s investigation work. That relates to the rank and grade question. We expect everyone, especially within defence, to treat the Armed Forces Commissioner with respect. The Secretary of State will be required by law to assist the commissioner with their investigations, and the appointment process that we are seeking to start will be for a very senior appointment. I reassure colleagues that the commissioner will require security clearance at a high level, because of the visits that they may make to military establishments, and they will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Any investigation and anything they come across on their base visits will be held in the secrecy and at the classification that it deserves.
There were a number of questions about digital access. It will be up to the commissioner to decide how people will be able to raise an issue with them, rather than for us to specify it in the Bill, but I understand the issues that colleagues have raised and I would expect the commissioner to be fully accessible on various platforms, both digital and non-digital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked the devolution question. As this is a reserved matter, it is the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament to deal with it here. However, it is conceivable that the Armed Forces Commissioner may investigate an issue that is the responsibility of the Westminster Government in England but is devolved to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, we anticipate that the Armed Forces Commissioner would engage with devolved Assemblies and Administrations, and I would expect a relationship to be formed between them over time so that any issues could be addressed fully. The legislation will be for the MOD to apply, and reports will ultimately flow through the House of Commons Defence Committee, but I recognise what my hon. Friend said and I hope that, through the operation of the Bill, that will be developed.
I am really grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for joining me in one of my nerdy pursuits in defence legislation and asking why Gibraltar is not covered. As a former Defence Minister, he will know that the reason Gibraltar is often excluded from defence legislation, separate from other overseas territories, is that it has an agreement with the United Kingdom to replicate the Armed Forces Act in its own legislation, but serving personnel and their families stationed in Gibraltar should be in no doubt that they will be able to access the Armed Forces Commissioner. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that clause 6(1) clearly sets out that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, all members of our United Kingdom family of nations.
A number of colleagues mentioned the commissioner’s budget. The budget has been modelled on input from the German model. That is why we are proposing an increase from the current SCOAF budget to £4.5 million to £5.5 million. The shadow Minister wondered why that figure arose a few times in the debate. If he turns to page 12 of the explanatory notes, he will see that it says “£4.5 - £5.5m”. I suspect that is the reason why so many Members raised the figure, but it will be for the commissioner to determine how many staff they wish to employ, in what roles and how the budget is allocated.
The Chair of the Defence Committee asked how the Bill sits with our broader strategy for our armed forces personnel. This is our first step in our work of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. It is exactly right, as was mentioned earlier, that it forms only one part of what we have announced. The wraparound childcare announcement that the Secretary of State made at the weekend is a good example of the direction of travel that people serving in our armed forces should expect from this Government: a clear direction that says we will look not only at the kit, capabilities and doctrine in the strategic defence review, but at the lived experience for each and every one who serves, to see how we can improve it. That relates to the broader strategy about how we can measure success—not only in terms of the lived experience improvements and the additional scrutiny of such issues, but the opportunity for us to do that.
I may disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North on where the home of the Royal Navy is, as I represent Devonport in Plymouth, but I am grateful for all the contributions. Finally, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who summed up the debate very well when she said that armed forces personnel
“just want the basic equipment that they need to be able to do their jobs and a good life for their families…because if they are willing to fight for us, it is the very least that we can do.”
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jeff Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jeff Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
This Government have already begun to modernise and refine our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent in our armed forces. We are delivering for defence, with a 35% pay increase for new recruits and one of the largest pay increases in the last 20 years for existing personnel. We are scrapping over 100 outdated medical policies and setting an ambition to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days and a provisional training start date within 30 days.
Josh Newbury
From cadets to regulars and reservists, it is clear that we must urgently tackle the recruitment and retention crisis presided over by the last Government. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that over 700 applications are now being reconsidered after the removal of unnecessary red tape blocking some sufferers of hay fever and acne from joining?
Luke Pollard
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the announcement by the Ministry of Defence that more than 700 applications have been reconsidered following the removal of 100 outdated medical policies, such as those blocking some sufferers of hay fever, eczema and acne. That is a perfect example of how we are fixing the foundations and delivering for defence.
Mr Holden
I welcome the Government’s commitment in this area. Since 1999, there have been only six years when the regular forces have grown in size, and all three armed forces are currently below target. Does the Minister believe there will be any year between now and 2030 when there will be a net increase in numbers? Does he have a target for the overall increase in those years? Or is it a bit like 2.5% of GDP, and we will just have to wait and see—“Make me good, but not yet”?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for recruitment. The recruitment target was missed in every single year of the last Conservative Government. It will take us time to fix the process, but we have already made announcements about improving retention and recruitment. We will make further such announcements in the months ahead to ensure that we are dealing with the gaps in our capabilities and improving morale, and that we have forces that are able to deter and defeat aggressors, if necessary.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is nice to be back. On recruitment, many who join the armed forces began their military journey as cadets. The previous Conservative Government’s cadet expansion programme successfully established hundreds of new cadet units in state schools. However, this Labour Government have recently withdrawn a critical £1 million-plus grant that supports cadet instructors in many of the very same state schools. Will the Government as a whole urgently review that very unwelcome decision?
Luke Pollard
I welcome my shadow to his place. The Government are committed to cadets. It is a really valuable pastime for young people, which provides skills and opportunities that will last them a lifetime. The Minister for Veterans and People is reviewing the cadet force to ensure that it can continue to play a really important role for young people and support the overall mission of defence.
Mr Francois
I welcome the Minister’s kind welcome. On retention, how can we persuade people to remain in our armed forces if they sense that the new Government do not really have their back? In that context, will the Ministry of Defence start to defend its own veterans within Whitehall, and argue that the perverse plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 should be abandoned as soon as possible?
Luke Pollard
I had such high hopes for the right hon. Gentleman as my shadow. Let me be very clear: the Government are renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve—a contract that had been eroded over 14 years, with black mould in military accommodation, falling morale and gaps in our capabilities. We will not only support retention and recruitment, but through the work that the Defence Secretary does in Cabinet and the work of the Minister for Veterans and People, we will support our veterans as well.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I have heard from a number of young people who have tried to join the military, only to be met with long waits for their medical assessment. I understand the need for applicants to be thoroughly assessed, but we are losing valuable recruits due to the processing time. Many cannot afford to wait around and ultimately choose a different path. How is the Minister ensuring that the medical assessment process runs efficiently?
Luke Pollard
It is a really important part of the application process that we ensure that the people we accept into our armed forces are medically fit. We have already made progress in this area by removing outdated medical processes, and we are working with colleagues across health to ensure that access to applicants’ medical records is smooth and efficient, reducing the delay between someone saying that they want to serve in our armed forces and that person getting through the door of a training base. There is lots of work to be done, and we hope to make further announcements in due course.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a landmark piece of legislation and a major step taken by this Government to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. Second Reading of the Bill will be later today and the commissioner will be a strong independent champion for our armed forces and their families, improving parliamentary oversight and getting to grips with the welfare issues faced by our armed forces.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for all he is doing to improve the lives of our armed forces communities. He will be aware of the deeply distressing accounts of rape and sexual assault from the Defence Committee’s report on women in the armed forces. Will he please revisit our recommendations and those of the Lyons review, so that those serious cases can be heard in civilian, not service courts?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this very serious issue. In opposition we made a commitment that murder, manslaughter and rape cases would be tried in civilian, rather than military courts. I encourage her to keep asking questions as we get closer to the armed forces Bill, which will be an opportunity to put that right.
Mrs Russell
The Listening Out Loud Foundation in my constituency is run by Jill and Andy Dolman and works with those who have recently left the forces, often with complex problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. They can provide an excellent insight into how we can better support current and future armed forces personnel. How does the Minister foresee the Armed Forces Commissioner working with small charities such as the Listening Out Loud Foundation, and will he join me in visiting the organisation in the near future?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this area and for championing the work of that organisation in her constituency. As we get to the point of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner, I expect that they will have new relationships with service charities and organisations for serving members of our forces and the wider armed forces family. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that, and I look forward to visiting her constituency to meet that organisation in person if I can.
Sally Jameson
Will the Minister consider that it is right that the Armed Forces Commissioner be able to challenge Ministers, and increase parliamentary oversight of the issues that face our forces and their families?
Luke Pollard
That was a commitment we made in opposition, but it is also a commitment to increased scrutiny that we are proud to make from the Government Dispatch Box. We want to make the case that, to improve morale and to improve the relationship and the contract between the nation and those who serve, having an independent and impartial figure to champion our armed forces and their families will improve not only the lived experience of those people, but the operational capability of our forces, encouraging more people to recognise that someone is genuinely listening to their concerns and that Ministers are prepared to act on them as well. There is a lot of work to be done to renew the contract, but the Armed Forces Commissioner is a key first step.
Liz Twist
Last month I visited the Northern Hub for Veterans and Military Families Research at Northumbria University to hear about its suicide prevention work. Its research found that many military families bereaved by suicide felt helpless and unsupported as the wellbeing of their loved ones declined. Does the Minister agree that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a vital opportunity to deliver better support for families going through difficult times?
Luke Pollard
Any death by suicide is a tragedy, though it remains fortunately a rare event in the armed forces community. It is positive to hear of the work by Northumbria University in this area. This month we published a refreshed edition of the armed forces suicide prevention strategy and action plan to enhance the MOD’s commitment to reducing suicide and better supporting those affected by it. A future independent commissioner will have the discretion to investigate welfare matters affecting our forces and will be a direct point of contact for bereaved families of our serving personnel, and that would naturally be a matter worthy of their attention.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Will the Armed Forces Commissioner’s powers of investigation extend to being allowed to visit troops deployed on operations, to question them, and to seize documents?
Luke Pollard
The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill includes powers for the Armed Forces Commissioner to visit serving personnel, and for UK visits to be unannounced. Due to the logistics of visiting troops abroad, we would expect that such visits would be co-ordinated with the Department. I expect the commissioner to visit our troops serving abroad, and families deployed abroad, and to hear about the particular challenges that being deployed abroad presents for those in uniform and those who love them. We have lots of work to do, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would raise that issue at the Bill’s Second Reading later today, when I can respond in more detail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the questions. In Northern Ireland recruitment is at record levels—there has never needed to be conscription because there were always volunteers. Ever mindful of that, and of the need to ensure that the independent Armed Forces Commissioner has the same responsibility and power in every place in Northern Ireland, will the Minister please indicate strongly, if he can, that every council will be involved, and every person who needs help in Northern Ireland will get it?
Luke Pollard
The Armed Forces Commissioner will extend to all parts of the United Kingdom and cover the service welfare matters of UK armed forces personnel and their families, including when deployed abroad. We would expect recommendations to be published directly to Parliament, not through the Ministry of Defence, to ensure the impartiality and independence of the role, and to allow Members of Parliament from all parts of the House to scrutinise recommendations and issues raised by the commissioner. That will include every nation within the United Kingdom.
Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I congratulate all those starting their military careers at Sandhurst and across our defence training estate. A career in the armed forces is a good career that supports our national defence, and I encourage more people to look at a good career in the armed forces—whether joining for the first time or rejoining.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On Friday, the UK Defence Journal reported on the activities of the Russian research and intelligence vessel Yantar in the Irish sea, in the vicinity of various cables. This is not new; we had the same thing last year in the North sea and off Shetland. Given the sheer quantity of cables and pipelines now in the seabed, what are the Government doing to ensure that that critical national infrastructure is properly protected?
Luke Pollard
Let the House be in no doubt that the United Kingdom and our armed forces will defend our critical national infrastructure undersea cables. We have a strategy and armed forces protecting our cables, and we are working with our allies to do so. I suspect that that will also feature as a recommendation in the strategic defence review when it is published next year.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
With our domestic air defences under increased scrutiny, will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to strengthen them and give assurances that our Government understand that our forces will need the resources available to secure our skies?
Defence
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
The agreement we have with the Pakistani Government means that anyone who is being assessed as part of the ARAP scheme will not be deported back to Afghanistan, which is really important, but there is still a requirement to make sure that we can relocate eligible individuals and their immediate families to the UK in an appropriate and reasonable way.
[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 618.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard):
Luke Pollard
The agreement we have with the Pakistani Government means that anyone who is confirmed as ARAP-eligible should not be deported back to Afghanistan, which is really important, but there is still a requirement to make sure that we can relocate eligible individuals and their immediate families to the UK in an appropriate and reasonable way.
Army Structural Change: Royal Army Medical Service
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government are committed to ensuring a combat credible Army that is structured to meet its purpose—protecting the nation and helping it prosper by fighting and winning battles from land. I am today announcing the Government’s decision to amalgamate the Army’s current three healthcare corps into a new modern corps called the Royal Army Medical Service.
In 2021, Future Soldier set in motion changes to the Army. The Army has continued to adapt Future Soldier to account for changes in the strategic environment by refining its structures as an evolution of the plan, in response to the changing threat picture and global context.
As part of this Future Soldier modernisation programme, the Army has created a new corps, the Royal Army Medical Service, which is an amalgamation of the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC), the Royal Army Dental Corps (RADC) and the Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps (QARANC). This amalgamation has no impact on workforce numbers.
The amalgamation will ensure that the next generation of the Army will continue to be supported by a modern corps capable of delivering expeditionary healthcare. The underlying ethos of its founding corps will remain.
The Royal Army Medical Service will deliver modernised, multidisciplinary healthcare offering significant scope for institutional optimisation and improved organisational culture with a shift to a unified, inclusive and representative corps. There will no longer be corps-specific limitations, allowing personnel to work across all areas of the Royal Army Medical Service. It seeks to maximise the talents of its people to enhance the Army’s fighting power and build on the successes of its forebears.
The Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) will remain an independent corps outside of the Royal Army Medical Service due to its legal and operational combatant status which differs from the special protected status of the RAMC, RADC and QARANC.
The amalgamation will deliver improvements for those serving, reduce administrative inefficiencies and promote the world-class work of those who serve in the Royal Army Medical Service. On behalf of the Government, can I thank all those who serve in the new Royal Army Medical Service for their professionalism and dedication and the care they offer?
[HCWS131]
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I would like to update the House on the ongoing review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including former members of Commando Force 333 and Afghan Task Force 444, commonly known as the Triples. These Afghans worked alongside UK armed forces in Afghanistan, fighting valiantly, with some dying alongside our troops. It is for this reason I know that former Triples have the support of veterans of the conflict and the British public, as well as Members on both sides of the House.
When we were in opposition, the Defence Secretary and I, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, as well as many sitting and former Members of the House—again, on a cross-party basis—advocated a review of decisions made on ARAP applications from the Triples. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and those former and sitting Members of Parliament. I am keenly aware that an update on the Triples review is long overdue, so I thank colleagues for their patience. Although the review, which should not have been necessary in the first place, has taken longer than initially intended, I can confirm today that key issues have been identified and resolved, and the Government are now making important progress, with eligible former Triples and their families now being invited to relocate to the UK.
The Triples review was announced by the previous Government on 1 February in response to my urgent question, after they accepted that inconsistencies existed in how decisions on ARAP applications from members of the Triples were being made. For clarity, officials are currently reviewing a cohort of ineligible decisions taken on applications that contain credible evidence of links to former Afghan specialist units and in which Ministry of Defence caseworkers previously referred cases to officers in other parts of the MOD, to other Departments and to governmental bodies under category 4 of the ARAP scheme, and which may have been affected by that inconsistent approach. The review is being carried out by staff who have not previously worked on those applications, including independent caseworkers. Approximately 2,000 such applications are within scope of the review, and I can report that more than three quarters have so far been reassessed.
The previous Government committed to conclude the review within 12 weeks of launch, which was at the end of March. The review should have reported before the general election, but clearly it did not. Given the perilous situation in which many former Triples still find themselves, that is a source of deep regret and concern for me that I know many Members will share. I have investigated the reasons for the delay, which include the emergence in Government archives of additional information that officials undertaking the review discovered and which required careful consideration.
The nature of the relationship between the UK Government and the Triples evolved over the almost 20 years of UK military involvement in Afghanistan. That has led to a complex set of historical records held by different Departments. It has taken time to piece that information together to give a fuller and more accurate picture. I am now able to provide a provisional update on what we have learned from the review. Officials have now confirmed that there is evidence of payments from the UK Government to members of Afghan specialist units, including CF333 and ATF444, and that, for some individuals, that demonstrates a direct employment relationship. That evidence goes beyond previously identified top-up payments and reimbursements for operational expenses, which do not in themselves demonstrate such an employment relationship. That, of course, runs contrary to the position reported to Parliament by the previous Government that no evidence of direct employment existed.
My officials have advised that some record analysis, which is to be carried out, should give us a more confident picture of the task at hand. I am satisfied, however, that what has come to light is sufficient to move forward with decision-making without delay under ARAP categories 1 and 2, as well as under category 4 where appropriate for the Triples. The review is still progressing, and each application is considered on its own merits, but given the information that is available at the moment, we are expecting an overturn rate of approximately 25%.
For the benefit of the House, those categories permit ARAP eligibility to persons including those who were directly employed in Afghanistan by a UK Government Department, or those who worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK Government Department—in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting that Department—and who are at risk because of that work. Like me, Members will be understandably anxious about the impact that the delay has had on the pace at which we can move to safety as many as possible of those who are eligible for relocation.
Many Members will have concerns for the welfare of former Triples who might be ARAP eligible and remain at risk. I share their deep frustrations, but I hope that it is of some comfort to colleagues across this House that if a decision is overturned as part of the review, applicants are informed immediately and the relocations process can then start. I have already begun signing eligible decisions to relocate eligible former Triples to the UK, which is why this statement is necessary. Furthermore, once they arrive in Pakistan and are confirmed as ARAP eligible, we can offer them protection from deportation back to Afghanistan thanks to the UK Government’s ongoing and constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan.
Confirming that we have found evidence of direct employment for some of the Triples cohort is the opposite of the previous Government’s position that no such direct employment existed. I would like to state that I have seen no evidence suggesting a conscious effort by the previous Administration or by any Minister to cause delay or indeed to mislead the House or the public on this matter. When Ministers in the previous Government provided statements to the House on the Triples, I believe that they did so in good faith, based upon the known information under consideration at that time. Record keeping in the context of a long multinational operation is notoriously challenging, but that is no excuse. It is of course critical that we understand how and why that error occurred.
A failure to access and share the right digital records and challenges with information flows across departmental lines have all led to this significant body of information being overlooked, with huge real-world implications. Where corporate memory failed, so did processes. As is all too often the case, it was those who needed help the most who suffered. I am clear that this sort of systems failure is not good enough. Under my direction, officials will now review and renew efforts to improve information flows and processes to ensure that this never happens again.
I do not consider there to be malicious intent in this case, but it is an example of the problems that dogged the Afghan resettlement scheme under the previous Government. The Triples review should not have been needed in the first place. It should not have taken this long, and the system in place at the time that the initial decisions were made should have been led with more competence and grip, to ensure that these mistakes were caught and managed more quickly.
It is with some relief that I, as part of this new Government and as someone who championed the case for the Triples when in Opposition, can assure Members that we have unblocked progress and that eligible former Triples and their families will now rightfully receive the sanctuary that their work in support of our troops in Afghanistan deserves. I am confident that we will be able to relocate those eligible to safety and so that they can start a new life here in the UK. I will keep pushing this work forward at pace so that we can close this chapter in our history, knowing that we did right by those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK armed forces in Afghanistan.
I recognise the strong sense of feeling and support across the House on this matter and on Afghan resettlement in general. The Defence Secretary and I will keep the House updated on our approach to Afghan resettlement. Given the seriousness with which we take the Triples review in the MOD, I aim to report to the House when the review is complete.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for its tone. The debt of gratitude that we owe all those who bravely served for, with or alongside our armed forces in support of our mission in Afghanistan is so great that words cannot do it justice. They worked at great personal risk to make Afghanistan a better place, and it is right that we supported them and continue to support them now.
I am proud that, in addition to Operation Pitting, where we evacuated 15,000 people from Afghanistan in 2021, the previous Government established the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocation and assistance policy. I welcome that, as of 30 June, indefinite leave to remain had been granted to 12,874 individuals across both schemes. The House will be aware that many former Afghan specialist unit members have safely relocated to the UK, along with their families, through the ARAP scheme. However, I acknowledge the issues relating to applications from a cohort of members of the Triples.
As the House is aware, a review was announced in February by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the former Member for Wells, my right hon. Friend James Heappey. Rightly, the Ministry of Defence has been reviewing ineligible decisions made against applications from the Triples and other specialist units, with an eye to any inconsistencies. It is important that this work is done thoroughly and with great care. I welcome the Minister’s update to the House today on the work of that review process. I also commend him for his courtesy in coming to the House in person to make his statement.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the new information, including evidence that builds a picture of direct employment by the UK Government of some Triples, and the overturning of decisions, including the rate of overturning. We on the Conservative Benches support this review process, which was initiated by James Heappey, being completed successfully. We want the correct decisions made on these very important and highly sensitive applications as speedily and fairly as possible. We hope to receive further updates from His Majesty’s Government.
What course of action will the Minister take for the applications of Triples where no evidence of employment is found? More broadly, the House would welcome an update on the flow of those potentially eligible for ARAP from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and from Pakistan to the United Kingdom. Could the hon. Gentleman outline what conversations he has had with the Pakistani authorities to ensure that ARAP-eligible Afghan special forces personnel are not evicted from their country?
As ever, we also want the Government to ensure that those who arrive through the scheme receive the support they need, so that they can begin successfully rebuilding their lives in the United Kingdom. What will the impact be of the decision announced today on housing stock for ARAP applicants?
Finally, we reiterate our call for the human rights of all Afghans to be protected, and for the monitoring and documenting of discrimination and abuses committed by the Taliban. We again strongly condemn the Taliban’s attacks on the rights of women and girls. The international community must continue to press the Taliban to reverse course.
Luke Pollard
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the review and for the Triples in general. Those who served alongside our forces are owed a debt of gratitude by all those in the UK. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Triples and for the contribution they made in support of our mission to Afghanistan.
On the shadow Minister’s question, there is an ongoing application process for ARAP, where people can apply and their eligibility is checked. It is entirely possible that someone can qualify while still not having direct employment, but that is subject to the case-by-case process for the individual applicant. The review and the update I am presenting today does not mean that all Triples are eligible, nor does it mean that no Triples are eligible. It means that where a direct employment relationship has been established we will now take forward their applications, whereas previously those applications were refused.
We will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan. We are grateful for their work and support in facilitating the flow of eligible persons from Afghanistan to Pakistan and then onwards to the United Kingdom. It is important that we continue that flow, so people who are currently at risk from the Taliban—it is important that we stress that they are at risk because of the Taliban’s actions—have the ability to get to sanctuary. We are doing so at a reasonable pace to ensure that the entire flow can be delivered properly and sensibly.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for saying what he did on rebuilding lives. There is, I think, enormous support from all parties here for the Afghans who put their lives at risk to support our troops to be settled in the UK and to start a new life. I am grateful to Members from both sides of the House who have supported efforts in their own constituencies to do so. The new Government are working across government, with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. We will make further announcements when we can on transitional accommodation, to make sure the flow is appropriate through the United Kingdom. There will be some Members of Parliament who will have transitional accommodation in their constituencies. I am very happy to speak to them to ensure that the integration and flow is as smooth as possible.
I echo the words of the shadow Minister in relation to the appalling atrocities of the Taliban, not just in their attacks on the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, but in the way that they are pursuing, and in many cases deliberately attacking, those people who served alongside coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is the actions of the Taliban that put at risk those people who tried to rebuild their own country and work for a better Afghanistan alongside our troops. That is why the ARAP scheme is so important, and why it enjoys cross-party support and will continue to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister, who was a staunch advocate for the Triples when in opposition. We should never have needed the review, because those individuals bravely supported us when we needed their assistance for the betterment of Afghanistan. Can he advise whether a member of the Triples whose case was previously rejected under the ARAP scheme will be aware that their case is under review? How will the Department and the Government go about making contact with those individuals?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for ARAP and the Afghans involved. As part of the Afghan Triples review, 2,000 or so cases are under consideration. Where we discover that there has been a negative decision that should be overturned, we are contacting individuals immediately, but that does not mean that all Triples are eligible. Nor does it mean that everyone who served as part of the Afghan national army in support of its mission is eligible for relocation to the UK. Additional routes are available via the Home Office, but in the very particular case of the Triples, we aim to conclude the review at pace, contacting all those who we now deem to be eligible based on the new evidence we have found. There is still some work to be done and a number of the most complex cases are still to be delivered, so he will understand that I cannot put a timetable on when that review will complete. However, we have made sorting out the ARAP scheme one of our early priorities as a Department and we will continue to deliver the changes we need to make to ensure we can have confidence that all the decisions made in relation to the Triples are the right decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The late Paddy Ashdown was one of the first to call on the UK Government to recognise that we have a moral obligation to support Afghan interpreters and others who supported us over a 20-year period by providing them with a route to resettlement in the UK. More than three years on from our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is troubling that those such as the Triples and their families are still waiting for their chance to come to the UK and to safety. Earlier this year, we welcomed the review of those cases, and we thank the Minister for his update today. These brave individuals put their lives on the line in support of our operations, and sadly many now face threats to their lives for that reason. We must get them out and to the UK as quickly as possible.
It was deeply alarming to hear the Minister’s revelations about a direct employment relationship. Tragically, during this period some of those brave Afghans have lost their lives; perhaps they would not have done so had this been uncovered more quickly. Can the Minister provide a figure for the number of Triples estimated to have been killed over the past three years? Given this new evidence, does he remain confident in the decision-making processes for other individuals whose ARAP applications were rejected? Does he or his Department plan to look at those again? Will he update us on what steps he is taking to ensure that these people are not only eligible for ARAP, but able to get to the UK safely? Has he spoken to his counterparts in the region to that end?
Will the Minister also look at the treatment of those who have come to the UK under the ARAP scheme, and will he consider widening the scope of the armed forces covenant to include those who came to our aid during our operations in Afghanistan?
Luke Pollard
I am glad that the hon. Lady raised the issue of Afghan interpreters, who sit outside the Triples in this regard. There are a great many Afghan interpreters in Plymouth. As a constituency MP, I know that their contribution is widely recognised and valued by the public.
It is not possible for me to put a number on those who have lost their lives or those who have been persecuted, or whose families have been persecuted, by the Taliban because of their involvement with coalition forces and allied forces in Afghanistan, but it makes clear the reason why we called for the review. This is not an administrative mess that has no consequence, but a failure to deliver consistent standards that will have significant real-world implications for those who are desperately in need of support and sanctuary.
We are confident that the wider ARAP scheme does not involve the same problems in relation to direct employment as those affecting the Triples, although there are areas that we are improving, as a new Government. Individuals are assessed on the basis of their individual circumstances, and in many instances where there is already an employment relationship with a Government Department, which might have been, for instance, the Department for International Development or the Ministry of Defence, that will already have been evidenced. The difficulty arose because of the specialist nature of the Triples units and the problem of establishing that direct employment relationship.
We continue to engage in dialogue with our friends in the Pakistani Government to ensure that we can go on delivering this programme as we intend. The hon. Lady may want to feed her views into our further work on the armed forces covenant ahead of the armed forces Bill, in which we will seek to put the covenant fully into law.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the tone and intent of his statement, but it was not only the Triples who suffered as a result of the mistakes of the last Government, who capitulated to the Taliban. Will the Department also re-examine cases such as that of Major General Mohammad Dawood Amin, whose case the MOD closed owing to a correspondence error at its end, despite his service to the UK? His brother, Abdul Basir Jaji, and I are still raising his case. He is a constituent of mine, and we are still seeking his safety here in the UK.
Luke Pollard
It is hard for me to talk about individual circumstances and individual cases at the Dispatch Box, but I shall be happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman further.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the announcement by the Minister. It is absolutely the right thing to be doing. I was privileged to see at first hand the amazing work that the 333 and 444 units did, side by side with British forces. Can the Minister assure the House that he will work closely with the Pakistani Government to ensure that none of those individuals is expelled or moved on from Pakistan until we are able to look at their cases? Would the Minister be able to find time to meet me in order to go through some individual cases that are a bit too sensitive to talk about on the Floor of the House?
Luke Pollard
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss any cases. On the conversation with the Pakistani Government, the main concern in relation to the Triples is about moving them out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan in the first place. The agreement we have with the Pakistani Government means that anyone who is being assessed as part of the ARAP scheme will not be deported back to Afghanistan, which is really important, but there is still a requirement to make sure that we can relocate eligible individuals and their immediate families to the UK in an appropriate and reasonable way. We are continuing that work, and we are continuing the dialogue with the Pakistani Government in relation to this issue.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work in this area over many years. My constituency and wider borough have played a key role in relocating a number of Afghans over many years. Can the Minister confirm that he is having conversations across Government, including with local government, to ensure that when people are relocated to the UK, it is done in a joined-up and supportive way?
Luke Pollard
I pay tribute to all those in my hon. Friend’s constituency who are taking steps to support our Afghan friends. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and it is not just about words; we need to make sure that we are living those words. I know that communities, and especially veterans of the conflict, take that responsibility very seriously, and I reassure him that we do too. This new Government have already looked at how we can work across Departments to ensure that we provide better value for money and a more joined-up approach, and further announcements will be made in due course.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for early sight of it, and I also thank him for the attention he has given to this matter. I pay tribute to colleagues across the Chamber for their service in Afghanistan, and to those who have worked on this issue.
I pay particular tribute to the former Member of Parliament for Glasgow South, Stewart McDonald. He received a letter just two weeks before the general election, at which he lost his seat, and he has been unable to take up this matter. The letter said that an error was identified in a response to a parliamentary question on 22 March 2024, which was shocking. It said that there were ineligible decisions and that assessments had been made by the Ministry of Defence—there was a bit of coverage during the election campaign that the Minister probably recalls. Will he please look into that as a matter of urgency?
We recognise the brutality of the Taliban regime. We also the recognise the value that the Afghan refugee community brings to communities across the length and breadth of the UK, including in Glasgow and Dundee. Can the Minister speak to the Home Office about how we treat Afghan refugees? A lot of this goes back to the fact that we have a refugee system with a presumption against, rather than in favour of, those who are fleeing the most brutal regimes.
Luke Pollard
Plymouth is a long way from Scotland, but I enjoyed a cross-party friendship with Stewart McDonald. When it comes to an issue like this, it is important that partisan divides do not affect our collective work, so I am very happy to pick up the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his question.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in thanking our British personnel for the hard work they have done in processing the entitled Afghan personnel—for example, at the Nesscliffe Army camp in my constituency of Shrewsbury?
Luke Pollard
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in doing so. When we look at the Triples in particular, it is apparent that there has been real advocacy from serving and former members in highlighting that there were inconsistencies in the decision making in support of individuals who put their lives on the line in support of our mission. That applies not only to those who served in Afghanistan; I say an enormous thanks to people who are supporting Afghans who relocate to the UK. I know that an awful lot of good work is taking place, including in Shrewsbury.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I recall that when the Minister and the Security Minister were campaigning previously on behalf of the Triples, there was some doubt about the comprehensiveness of the records that show which people had actually served in the way necessary to qualify to come to the United Kingdom. Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that there is no question of any records being withheld—for example, by special forces—that would help identify eligible former members of the Triples?
Luke Pollard
The review has not yet completed, but as part of it we are looking at evidence amassed across different Government Departments—where evidence of a direct employment relationship can be established. This excludes top-up payments and operational payments, which sit outside that. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am unable to comment on special forces on the Floor of the House, but I can say that all parts of His Majesty’s Government that kept records of that are contributing to the review. I have to be cautious about this because of the ongoing Afghanistan inquiry, which is looking at elements of this, but I will happily pick this up separately with him.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the work that my hon. Friend the Minister did in opposition and is now putting to good use with this review. We in this country owe a special obligation to those people who are engaged with our armed forces abroad, wherever they may be, and the failures that are coming to light are really worrying. What lessons does he think we can learn from those failures?
Luke Pollard
I intend, at the conclusion of the Triples review, to be able to publish a full “lessons learned” summary looking at where we need to get to, but there are a number of lessons. One point that has been reinforced in my mind is that there is enormous support for those who served alongside our troops, but we did not see record keeping that matched that type of personal connection and personal thanks for those who served. That is why, as part of this work, we have instructed that there should be changes in processes within the Ministry of Defence—and beyond that, in how we work with other Departments and parts of HMG—to ensure that in future when we have a direct relationship with people, that information is properly stored and accessible.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister talks about the parallel independent inquiry on the deployment of special forces to Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013. Former members of UK special forces told the BBC’s “Panorama” earlier this year that they believed their veto powers on applications by Afghans claiming to have served with the Triples represented a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest might not have arisen had there been good parliamentary oversight of UK special forces. Will the Government consider extending the scrutiny powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has oversight of UK special forces?
Luke Pollard
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to with his question. It is difficult for me to comment on special forces, for reasons that he will appreciate. I am also really keen to see the output of the Afghanistan inquiry and to understand what lessons Lord Haddon-Cave can identify from that. That might be the moment when that conversation is more appropriate, but it is not one that I can have now.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I praise my hon. Friend for his pursuit of justice with regard to the Triples, and not only in opposition but since he has entered power. On lessons learned, one of the tenets behind a number of the Bills that the Government have pursued—in relation to the Hillsborough inquiry, for example—is a duty of candour. Might that be considered as part of the Afghanistan inquiry as a whole?
Luke Pollard
The Government certainly intend to bring forward the Hillsborough Bill, which I hope will enjoy cross-party support, particularly in relation to a duty of candour. What we have discovered with the Triples review—I await the final report—is more a failure to organise and record properly, rather than a deliberate attempt to disrupt and not share information. It is that essential plumbing that failed, but also the grip and leadership of the programme, and we need to learn from this to ensure that it never happens again and that all those people who had an eligible case get the support and sanctuary that they need.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I understand that, as a result of the ARAP programme, there will now be a new temporary centre to receive families at Beckingham camp and training ranges in my constituency. This fairly isolated site, consisting of Nissen huts, is normally used by cadets and personnel practising on the ranges. How long will the individual families be expected to stay in these Nissen huts? What money will be given to local authorities to ensure that people can be properly cared for while they are there? And how long does the Minister anticipate this temporary centre being open before it is returned to military use?
Luke Pollard
I sent a letter to the hon. Lady on this issue, which I am happy to pick up directly outside the Chamber. However, I reassure her that our intention is to use transitional facilities, such as the camp she mentioned, only on a temporary basis. I am happy to go into further detail with her about how long we intend to use the sites, but we will also be working with local authorities to ensure that the correct level of funding is provided to support former Afghan personnel and their families while they are temporarily housed there. It is important to note that, from the feedback we have received from other locations, many communities have welcomed these families and want to support them, in order to thank them for their work in support of our troops. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Having served in the conflict in Afghanistan, I know how vital the work of units such as 333 and 444 was in supporting our troops. Is work currently under way to consider the other specialist units that supported our troops?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her service. It is important that, on both sides of the House, we have voices of Members who have served and understand the serious consequences of our decisions.
At this stage, the Triples review is looking at 333 and 444. However, we hope to get to other specialist units that we believe may have a similar direct employment relationship. I will be able to report back on that once the review has concluded.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A constituent of mine who served with British forces in Kabul came to see me earlier this year about a friend who had appealed his failed ARAP application. This individual is an Afghan national who was contracted by the British military in the early 2000s. He worked as an interpreter, including with the British embassy. I cannot say much more publicly, for fear of putting his safety at risk. He has already been labelled a collaborator, and his father was tortured and murdered by the Taliban. His life and that of his children are at risk. Unfortunately, the Minister’s Conservative predecessor, to whom I wrote in April, did not respond to my request for his personal intervention in the case. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case and to see what he can do?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her approach. This case is a perfect illustration of why it is important to get these decisions right. It is not possible to relocate every single person who supported the UK mission in Afghanistan, but there is an opportunity to appeal rejected applications. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss the case further, and to take it forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the tone and substance of the Minister’s statement. Few of us thought 20 years ago that we would still be mopping up after Operations Telic and Herrick. Does he agree that the long shadow of discretionary warfare, particularly in the civil domain, should act as a powerful incentive for any Government when considering future military conflict?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his work as a Minister in the previous Government.
As part of the new Government’s reset, we have commissioned Lord Robertson to undertake the strategic defence review, which will consider the threats we face. Although it is certainly true that state-on-state threats are more prominent than they have ever been, there are still non-state threats to the United Kingdom, which creates an enormous challenge not only in the military space but in the civil security space. The strategic defence review will try to work out the best shape. We have invited submissions from all parties, as well as from individuals.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister. We discussed this issue last week, and I appreciated the opportunity to have that chat in advance of today’s statement. I also welcome that he said
“we did right by those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK armed forces”.
I, like the shadow Minister and Members on both sides of the House, have always spoken up for these people. With that in mind, I welcome what is happening. A review is important to supporting those who worked tirelessly alongside British forces.
I brought the previous Minister’s attention to a guy I met in Pakistan in September 2022. This man served alongside Afghan forces, and I pursued his application on three occasions. I was very frustrated by where the process ended up, so I am pleased to see that today we can do something to help this gentleman. My constituency can offer him and his family a house, a job and school places for his children. We just need to make sure we have the process and the data to bring him and his family to my Strangford constituency.
Luke Pollard
It would not be a statement without the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I thank him for his kind offer. It is important that, whatever the plumbing, the process sees the relocation of those who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan and gave them so much support. It is important that support is available to them in all nations of the United Kingdom. I know that an enormous amount of work is being done by local authorities and the devolved Administrations to ensure that Afghans have wraparound support after being relocated into their area.
I hope the review will conclude relatively soon, and I will then be in a position to make further announcements. In the meantime, I am grateful for the support from both sides of the House for those who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan. I will report back to the House in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The UK is fully committed to the AUKUS partnership. On 26 September, the Secretary of State hosted the first AUKUS Defence Ministers’ meeting outside the US. During that discussion, he provided direction and guidance to accelerate our taking advantage of the opportunities that this landmark partnership presents to us. I refer Members to the Defence Ministers’ meeting joint communication for more details on progress.
Michelle Scrogham
The Secretary of State already knows how proud we are in Barrow and Furness to be building our Astute and Dreadnought submarines, and to be part of the AUKUS programme. I know from our discussions that this Government understand that we need a cross-departmental approach to support the delivery of the AUKUS deal in Barrow and Furness. Will he comment on the importance of that broad approach, which aims to make Barrow an even better place in which to live, work and raise a family, and will he meet me to discuss that further?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Both the Secretary of State and I have visited Barrow to see not only the incredible innovation in the shipyard there, but the amazing workforce who are putting together the nuclear submarines. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are indeed working across Departments, and with the local council and BAE Systems, to invest heavily not only in the development of the shipyard and the submarine facilities, but in the community that they need. I would be very happy to meet her and colleagues to discuss this issue further.
Chris McDonald
The most recent AUKUS Defence Ministers communiqué outlined an investment in industrial capacity, including £7 billion from this Government, and the Royal United Services Institute has said that the winner in any prolonged war will be the country with the most secure industrial base. Will the Minister expand on his answer to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and describe how this investment in our defence capabilities will strengthen supply chains in places such as Billingham in my constituency?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that armies march on their stomach, and in the event of a larger conflict, it will be the strength of our industrial base that determines the victor. That is why we are working together with industry to deliver a new defence industrial strategy, in particular to strengthen our resilience and innovation and to harness expertise, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how we can make the most of those opportunities.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister will know that our AUKUS partners, the United States and Australia, have recently held bilateral discussions with South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Canada about becoming part of the so-called pillar 2 of AUKUS, and I wonder what bilateral discussions the UK has had on this.
Luke Pollard
There is an opportunity to work with many of our partners internationally on pillar 2 opportunities. Those conversations have been taking place at official level within the Ministry of Defence and at political level, and we are continuing to work to bring those forward because if we want to buy the high-end war-winning kit that we need, the best way of doing that is to work with our partners to ensure not only that we have it but that our allies are able to make the most of it as well.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
In the light of the increasing geopolitical threats that we face, can the Minister give an update on the adequacy and resilience of the computer chip supply chain that backs up the UK military?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is right to highlight the fragility of the international supply chain in that area. It is very important that Governments in the west, and in the NATO alliance in particular, are able to onshore production and to “friendly-shore” production—no matter how awkward that term is—to ensure that we are less exposed to threats. Colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, as well as MOD colleagues, are looking into that. More work is needed in this area, but we are acting on it.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The strategic defence review will consider all aspects of defence so that the United Kingdom is both secure at home and strong abroad. It will ensure that defence is central to both the security and the economic growth and prosperity of our homeland. The SDR will set out a deliverable and affordable plan within the trajectory of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
Chi Onwurah
The Department’s future capability innovation programme accelerates innovation in operational capability. Given its success in delivering rapidly prototyped drones to Ukraine, and in growing the UK drone sector as part of the process, how will the Minister make sure that the lessons learned from the programme are adopted across defence procurement, especially in areas such as cyber-security and artificial intelligence, to ensure that innovation is rapidly operationalised and that a higher proportion of the work goes to British small and medium-sized enterprises?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for championing the country’s tech sectors. She is absolutely right that the experience we are seeing in Ukraine means that we need to innovate faster, have more spiral development and bring more talent into these sectors. We have a good record of doing so, not just on drones but on AI and directed energy systems, where we have our own capabilities. We are now working with NATO, Five Eyes and AUKUS partners to ensure that we learn from that and to make sure that it is not just our big defence primes but the entire supply chain, including small businesses and start-ups, that benefits.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
It was a huge pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Nepalese community centre in Burnt Oak this summer to talk to Gurkha veterans about the issues they face. Does the Minister agree that the Gurkha Regiment has an important role to play in the future of the UK’s defence? Will he outline what steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to address the failures of the previous Government in supporting Gurkha veterans, and will he meet me to discuss these issues?
Luke Pollard
The Government greatly value the contribution that the Gurkhas continue to make in supporting the UK’s security and defence, and we take our responsibility to Gurkha veterans very seriously. The Government remain committed to supporting them and their families during and after their service with the British Army. The Minister for Veterans and People is shortly to meet the ambassador of Nepal and Gurkha veteran representatives to continue that work.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the Minister will know, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary industrial dispute is putting our national security at risk. Does he think it is a betrayal of our defence that Labour puts generous settlements for their rail paymasters over the small number of seafarers who keep us safe?
Luke Pollard
I think the hon. Gentleman can do better than that, to be honest. It is important that we support not only those who serve in all our forces, but those in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Discussions are ongoing to try to resolve the industrial action that started under the last Government, and I want to thank all those who serve in the Royal Navy, in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and in civilian roles. It is the whole team that matters, and they all matter to this Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Many of my constituents work in the defence sector, with RNAS Yeovilton based in Glastonbury and Somerton, Thales operating from Templecombe, and Leonardo based nearby. However, the “Delivering the Defence Workforce of the Future” report revealed that 77% of key decision makers and influencers in the sector believe that a shortage of science, technology, engineering and maths skills will deteriorate the UK’s defence capabilities. What steps will the Minister take to address this shortage and to secure the UK’s defence?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the contribution of south-west defence companies to our national defence. As a south-west MP, I know it is important.
If we are to have sustainable defence, we need not only our armed forces but our supply chain to invest in skills on a sustainable, long-term basis. Short-term contracts do not contribute to that, which is one of the reasons why, as part of our defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, we are looking longer term at how to make sure we have the skills we need for both those who serve and those who support those who serve. There is a lot of work to do in this area.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
As a rifleman, I know the importance of training for military operations; it ensures readiness, lethality and survivability. In addition to the recent announcement that there is no firm timeline for spending 2.5% of GDP, possible cuts to the training budget have been mentioned. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no cuts to the training budget in either this financial year or the next?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; it is a great job being shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, as I know. If I may say so politely, the reason there is severe financial pressure on us is that this Government were left with a £22 billion financial black hole by his party. Let me be clear: supporting our armed forces to train to be the best, to deter aggression and to defeat it if necessary is a priority for this Government. Despite the economic circumstances his party passed on to mine, we are taking steps to ensure that our armed forces have what they need.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Let me be absolutely clear that GCAP is an important programme, as the Prime Minister has stated. That is why the Defence Secretary hosted his Japanese and Italian counterparts within weeks of taking office. Progress continues, alongside the strategic defence review, with more than 3,500 people employed on future combat air.
Jesse Norman
I apologise if I was hypnotised by your gaze, Mr Speaker.
I worry about the Government’s grip on strategy all together. First, they have given away the Chagos islands before the strategic defence review. Now they are putting at risk the global combat air programme by including it within the SDR. Is the Minister aware of the extreme efforts that our partners in Italy and Japan, visited by the Defence Committee in the last Parliament, have made to discharge their side of the bargain—in Japan’s case for the first time since the second world war in international procurement outside the USA? What measures is he taking to reassure them about the centrality and importance of the programme?
Luke Pollard
The Defence Secretary has clear instructions from the manifesto that Britain is to be better defended with a Labour Government. That is why within two weeks of taking office the Prime Minister had commissioned Lord Robertson to conduct the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and I have all made it clear that GCAP is an important programme. Not only do we have an amazing workforce working on it but I am pleased to tell the House that last month the UK ratified the GCAP convention, the international treaty that sets up the GCAP International Government Organisation. We will continue to make progress.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
GCAP will contribute £37 billion to the economy, but the Minister will know that the SDR being under review has led to a number of stories appearing in the press that the programme is about to cancelled. As someone who once represented General Dynamics, which built Ajax, I know that a belief that something will not happen tends to cause problems within the local and national economies. As the SDR goes ahead, will the Minister ensure that this House and the press will be kept up to date on how GCAP is developing?
Luke Pollard
GCAP is an important programme, and there will be further updates in relation to it as the SDR reports in the first half of next year. In the meantime, we continue to progress the project; indeed, work is continuing across a range of necessary and important defence projects, because we do not want the SDR to be an excuse to slow down progress. At a time when our troops and allies are operating in difficult and contested environments, we need to ensure that we invest in the kit that we need. That is what the SDR will set out: the future shape of the UK armed forces.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Defence R&D is critical to maximising the operational advantage of our armed forces. In an increasingly volatile and technology-driven world, the Department remains committed to investing in cutting-edge science, technology and innovation. Just after my appointment to the Department, I was delighted to visit the commando training centre in the hon. Member’s constituency to see the innovative training and capabilities of the future commando force.
David Reed
Frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence are already shaping every domain across the modern battlefield. To stay ahead of our adversaries and keep our service personnel and allies safe, it is imperative that we have the domestic ability to develop these technologies. As supercomputing is essential for the development of advanced AI systems, it was disappointing to see the Labour Government pull the plug on the University of Edinburgh’s £800 million exascale supercomputing project. From listening to the Secretary of State and his team, I know that they understand the need to invest in AI for defence, so will the Minister please inform the House how the Department intends to create these technologies when his party’s demand signal to academia and industry appears to be wavering?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. As a fellow Devon MP, I believe it is important that we have a strong voice on defence, so I am grateful for his question. The new Government have been very clear that we see AI playing a really important role not just in defence, but across a whole range of technologies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading on much of that work in his Department. AI and related technologies are being looked at in relation to the strategic defence review, where we need not only to upscale the innovative work that is already being done by UK technologies, but to provide the skills and the supply chain to ensure that we can continue to deliver, learning the lessons from what we are seeing in Ukraine, in particular.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Ministers repeatedly state their commitment to reaching a spending level of 2.5% of GDP on defence, but they simply will not tell the House when they will do so. It is no surprise that we are already hearing reports of potential cuts to programmes in defence R&D. Will the Minister simply rule out cuts to defence R&D and science spending in this financial year and the next?
Luke Pollard
As a Government, we are committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We have set out clearly that that will be announced at a future fiscal event. I must say that I am a wee bit disappointed, because I would have expected the Opposition Front Benchers to stand up and apologise for the mess that they have left not just the armed forces, but the wider economy. The Government are committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We are committed to investing in our armed forces, and we will continue to do so.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
May I concur with your comments about the late Alex Salmond, Mr Speaker?
The exchange of research and development between Ukraine and the UK is vital to improve the security of both countries. What steps is the Department taking to learn from the innovative technologies from the battlefield to develop shared collaborative capabilities?
Luke Pollard
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment as a shadow spokesperson. I was in Ukraine a few weeks ago leading a trade delegation of British companies looking at precisely the issue of how we can learn from the battlefield experience of Ukraine, making sure that for the new technologies needed there, we can invest in the supply chain—not only in the UK, but in Ukraine—to make it more resilient. A lot of work is ongoing in this area, but we will need to do more. If we are to defeat Putin’s illegal invasion, we will need not only to restock our own supply chain, but to accelerate the provision of innovative tech to Ukraine. That is what this Government are committed to doing.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—she and I have campaigned on many similar issues for quite some time. I would like to make it clear that no licences to trail hunt on Ministry of Defence land have been granted for the 2024-25 hunting season. The Department is considering its position alongside other Government Departments, and we hope to have an update soon, but I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend in the meantime.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the question, because we know that there is a recruitment and retention crisis in the UK armed forces. It is precisely for that reason that the Defence Secretary set out at the Labour party conference a series of changes, including scrapping 100 outdated recruitment policies and creating a new direct entry route for cyber. There is a lot more work to be done in this area, and the Department will be making further announcements in due course.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
In May, I was privileged to join a group called Help99 in driving some pick-up trucks and other military vehicles to Kyiv
for the use of Ukrainian soldiers on the frontline. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make it easier for such groups to deliver vehicles, which are so desperately needed?
Luke Pollard
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and parliamentary colleagues in all parties for the work they are doing in their constituencies to support our friends in Ukraine. I would be very happy to meet him to see what we can do to support their work further, because we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes.