Armed Forces Covenant

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Armed Forces Covenant Report 2016.

It is a great privilege to lead this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the opportunity to discuss this most important of national issues in the Chamber.

As the world in which we find ourselves is unsettled and tumultuous, more than ever we must be mindful that some 150,000 men and women stand ready to defend our nation and to take on military challenges with our allies around the world to help to maintain peace, safe seas and safe skies. Standing firmly behind them are their families: silent spouses, children, parents and siblings who give them the strength to take on whatever challenges we ask of them. Our armed forces personnel, their families and our veterans are all citizens who deserve a voice. RAF Boulmer and the Otterburn ranges, the site of the largest Army training area, are in my constituency. I am deeply mindful of the role of MPs in sending troops to war when required. When I was a new MP, it struck me that we needed to do more in the House to talk about the armed forces covenant so that we could better understand what it means in practical terms and how we can help to increase the nation’s commitment to it. I am therefore pleased that we are now able to discuss the 2016 report and the covenant’s impact on those it affects.

In putting myself forward as an advocate for the covenant and finding ways to spread the word, I had not expected that military families who were feeling disfranchised and unable to raise issues of concern by virtue of their service would give me the honour of contacting me to talk about their problems. Those problems include schools admissions, housing maintenance, difficulties with car leasing contracts after deployment at short notice, spousal employment, lack of mental health support and the physical challenges left by past service. Such big and small problems cause great pressure to service personnel and veterans. They create disadvantages that would not arise if those people were civilians and make them question whether to stay or leave.

What shocked me—I had not identified this before—was the sense of disempowerment that many of our military families too often feel. Most importantly, they feel unable to talk to their MP about welfare issues in the way our civilian constituents do all the time. The first issue I would like to raise with the Minister—perhaps this could be the first item in next year’s report as a successful change to help our military families—is a change to the defence infrastructure notice, which sets out the rules and regulations on when serving personnel can or cannot talk to their MP.

In a Public Accounts Committee hearing last summer, Lieutenant General Nugee gave a clear verbal indication that it was fine for personnel and their families to talk to their MP about any non-military matters of concern. We have taken that great news to be an active commitment to the covenant vision of helping to reduce disadvantage for military families. However, the reality is not quite so clear because the notice still does not reflect this sentiment. I ask the Minister to look again at the DIN, which affects all Ministry of Defence employees—military and civilian.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

I do not intend to respond to all questions at the time they are raised throughout the debate, but this is a matter of significant importance. I want to make it absolutely clear that any member of the service family who wishes to approach their Member of Parliament can do so in the way any civilian would. I am not sure that the DIN does need to be changed—I am not sure that it is as ambiguous as my hon. Friend suggests, although I am happy to check—but if it does, I am happy to commit to doing that.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I thank the Minister very much for that intervention. I hope that we can look at that in detail.

The hierarchical and command-based rules that are needed for military discipline in war should never create a barrier whereby military personnel and their families are not free to raise concerns about day-to-day issues that affect them. Those issues, to name but a few, might be: family housing matters, which are subject to the MOD’s oversight; school matters, which come under the purview of the Department for Education; or health matters, which are the responsibility of the Department of Health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Trevelyan]

We will leave that very interesting point with the Minister. We must continually be mindful about war pensions, especially if people are experiencing real hardship and strain. The covenant exists to support not only young men and women coming back from recent wars, but those who have supported and served over many decades. The hon. Gentleman’s question can go on the Minister’s list.

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Oh, the Minister is going to answer the question.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for making his point, which has been raised on a number of occasions. I am very pleased that, in principle, the Government recognised the issue when the correction was made back in 2015. Although, as I think hon. Members will accept, there are questions over retrospection that we must consider carefully because of the precedent that may be set, I reassure the House, as I have reassured individual Members before, that we are looking carefully into the matter.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I commend the Minister and his devoted team of civil servants in the MOD, who are working tirelessly to build on the original direction of the covenant that was set out in the Armed Forces Act 2011. That Act calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to publish an annual report setting out what has been done in the past year—not only by the MOD itself, but by other Government Departments, and wider business and community networks across our nation—to help to reduce disadvantage for our service families and veterans.

This year’s report highlights some of the great work done during 2016 in a number of areas, including: to build up the corporate covenant, and to encourage more private sector businesses to get involved in the practicalities of becoming corporate covenant signatories; to improve regional consistency in the levels of support received by the armed forces, especially through the community covenant; to improve on communicating what the covenant is, what it does and who it supports; and, most critically, to continue to prioritise issues that are known to be creating disadvantage for service families and veterans. I will take a few minutes to discuss each of those areas in the report, beginning with the corporate covenant.

The MOD team that is focused on building up the number of businesses and organisations that sign up to the corporate covenant has been working as hard as ever. More than 1,300 businesses have signed up to make their organisations more military-friendly and understanding, and able to benefit from the great skill sets that service leavers and reservists can bring to business. Last year, our all-party group on the armed forces covenant wrote to the then 850 organisations that had signed up to ask them what they were doing as part of their commitment. From the big boys such as BT, Google and Hewlett Packard, to small companies such as DJ Rees Services in Merthyr Tydfil, those that have signed up are changing the way they do business and seeking staff so that they support the covenant concept.

I mention DJ Rees because its reply was my favourite. This decorating, building and refurbishment business—an SME—decided that, having signed up to the corporate covenant, it would ask its whole supply chain to do so as well. It drafted a covenant on behalf of each supplier, encouraging them to sign up to the bronze employer recognition scheme—the first rung of the scheme’s ladder—and formally asking them to commit to provide one week’s work placement as part of the armed forces employability pathway scheme. In this way, DJ Rees was able to create, with its suppliers, many more work placements in its part of Wales. Just imagine the impact we could have if every large business that has signed up to the corporate covenant drove such a commitment through its supply chain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We should be extremely mindful of the continuing low morale in all services, although the Royal Marines are the noble exception, perhaps because they are very busy on a great number of operations. We should be mindful of the critical point that he raises.

The key concerns in the FAM debate are that, given that the drive towards the universal housing allowance has been clearly set out in documents since 2009, the FAM survey of personnel is just a smokescreen to bring the policy in anyway. No one disputes the aim of providing a way to access good-quality and affordable housing as part of the offer, but we must get that right. Whatever the changes involved in locating the Army and the Air Force in fewer locations, such as by moving submarine activity to Faslane and so on, the reality is that, when deployed, in small numbers or large—we can never predict the future—our military families need to be looked after in decent, well-maintained housing, and to have a framework of real support around them and their children. If we fail in that, we will lose more and more of our personnel at a much earlier stage in their careers to the civilian world. That is not value for money, and it is not good for our capability, or for the morale and corporate memory needed to maintain the unique quality of our armed forces.

[Mark Lancaster]

I do slightly take offence at my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the survey is just a smokescreen to bring in this policy. The purpose of the survey is to inform opinion. Some 27,000 of our service personnel responded to the survey, and it will form the evidence base for how we move this policy forward. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should not have surveyed our armed forces personnel, I entirely disagree with her. However, let me be clear that no firm decisions have yet been made about how this policy will proceed, and to suggest that we should not have surveyed service personnel is fundamentally wrong.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I thank the Minister for his comments. My suggestion about a smokescreen is based on the feeling among military families and personnel that four questions were asked, but that the existing SFA opportunity was not among them. There was an opportunity in a separate, non-mandatory question for military families who thought that SFA was a good thing to indicate why they thought so. The survey contained four questions about the four different choices that military families might want to make, which included living in privately rented accommodation and owning their own home. I simply reflect the voices that have shouted very loudly at me that there is a deep sense of anxiety, as all the families’ federations surveys have indicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) in this debate. I welcome the publication of the annual report on the military covenant, but Members will not be surprised if I raise, as I have done on previous occasions, concerns about the implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland. May I commend the Minister at this stage? I know that he is totally committed to his work as Minister with responsibility for veterans, dealing with the military covenant. We appreciate the interest he has shown in Northern Ireland and look forward to further visits from him in the near future.

May I draw the attention of the House to a letter I received recently pursuant to a case that I had been dealing with on behalf of a constituent, who is a veteran of our armed forces? I had written to the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who is now the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, having replaced the former Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. In her response, she said:

“As you are aware the Armed Forces Covenant is not in place here and ex Military personnel therefore do not have the 13YJ code (the code which identifies someone with a history of military service) added to their clinical records for GP referrals.

The Armed Forces Covenant has been adopted by England, Scotland and Wales”—

note, not Northern Ireland—

“to provide equal access to healthcare where it can be linked to military service, serving personnel, their families and those who leave the Military Forces. The Covenant has not been adopted here as health care arrangements are delivered on an equitable basis to all members of the community.”

That highlights the extent of the problem we are dealing with in Northern Ireland. I do not include the Minister in this, but I have to say that some associated with the Ministry of Defence are in denial about that problem. The reality is that after more than 30 years of Operation Banner, we have literally tens of thousands of veterans living in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I would argue that in our region we probably have a higher proportion of veterans than most other regions of the United Kingdom.

It is worth bearing it in mind that many of those veterans served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service in the communities in which they lived. That brought with it added pressure for them and their families, to the extent that recent reports have indicated that there is a very high incidence of post-conflict trauma among veterans in Northern Ireland.

The University of Ulster is undertaking a study to try to evaluate the level of mental illness among veterans in Northern Ireland, but it is known to be quite high. We are faced with a problem whereby veterans seeking help for their mental illness are being told by the Department of Health, “We are sorry, but if you are a veteran in Northern Ireland, the armed forces covenant does not apply here, so we cannot deal with you on the terms on which you might be dealt with by the health service in England, Scotland or Wales.”

The armed forces covenant does not give preferential treatment to veterans. It merely seeks to ensure that those veterans are not disadvantaged by virtue of their military service. And yet the Minister hides behind the notion that applying the military covenant in Northern Ireland would somehow undermine the basis of equality that is at the heart of the Belfast agreement and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We in this House, and the Department, need to do more to challenge this muddled thinking and this wrong approach.

The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has investigated the matter. In evidence to the Committee, Ministers said that there is not a problem, and that section 75 applies but does not interfere with the implementation of the covenant. But here we have, in black and white, from the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland a clear demonstration of the prevailing attitude that the armed forces covenant does not apply in Northern Ireland, and that it has not been adopted there. Yet my understanding is very clear: the armed forces covenant applies across the United Kingdom and ought to be fully implemented across the UK. It is wrong that veterans in Northern Ireland are suffering from a lack of recognition of the covenant, and we need to do something to put that right.

In evidence to the Defence Committee, the Minister stated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) that it was the view of the Department that the military covenant in Northern Ireland was being implemented to the extent that some 83% or 84% of its provisions applied there. I cannot evaluate that assessment, but, given that access to healthcare is such an enormously important element of the covenant, the only thing I would say to the Minister and the Department is that if the Department of Health in Northern Ireland says, “Sorry, the covenant does not apply”, I am not convinced that the 84% figure for the proportion of the covenant being implemented in Northern Ireland is an accurate reflection of where we really are.

[Mark Lancaster]

Let me be absolutely clear. I will not try to evaluate the 83% or 84% figures, but I have been clear both in my evidence to the Select Committee and in the House that, while progress is being made in Northern Ireland—yes, absolutely, the covenant does apply in Northern Ireland—I fully accept that more work needs to be done to ensure an equitable status for veterans who reside in Northern Ireland and those who reside in the rest of the United Kingdom. I have made trying to achieve that one of my priorities during this year.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I very much appreciate the Minister’s intervention, and we will work with him towards that end. In the end, we are not interested in party politicking about this; we are interested, as he is, in ensuring the best outcome for veterans across the United Kingdom.

I am pleased that I am joined on these Benches by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan). He and I work very closely together on matters relating to the covenant and the welfare of veterans, which is an indication that this issue transcends party politics in Northern Ireland. I suppose he and I must redouble our efforts to ensure that other political parties recognise that this is about an humanitarian approach to the welfare of those who have served our country, and that we should not allow politics to get in the way of ensuring that men and women get the help they need.

On the positive side, I am pleased to report that we now have an appointment to the covenant reference group, which advises the Government on the covenant and looks at how to co-ordinate actions relating to the covenant across the United Kingdom. I am delighted that my colleague Mrs Brenda Hale—she was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, representing the same constituency as me, until it was dissolved—has been appointed to represent Northern Ireland on the covenant reference group. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Antrim and his colleagues for their support on that issue. Brenda’s husband, Captain Mark Hale, was tragically killed on active service in Afghanistan while serving with 2 Rifles, and Brenda knows personally the challenges that are faced by veterans in Northern Ireland. I believe that she will be a very able representative of those veterans on the covenant reference group.

I am also pleased to report that a number of the new councils in Northern Ireland have adopted the community covenant, to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred in her opening remarks. In my constituency, both the councils covering the Lagan Valley area—Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council—have now signed up to the community covenant. I am pleased that they are taking forward initiatives linked to the community covenant, which is positive progress.

One area on which further progress could be made is that of better co-ordinating the very valuable work of all the agencies and veterans’ charities that operate in Northern Ireland. I would like to see the establishment of some type of hub for veterans in Northern Ireland, a one-stop shop that a veteran could contact to receive information about where they can get help, whether with welfare issues, accessing healthcare, pensions or other issues that have an impact on them. We want such a hub to be established in Northern Ireland to draw together and co-ordinate the work of the various organisations and charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

In the six minutes I have to respond to the debate—if I am to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) to wind up—I clearly will not be able to address many of the questions that have been raised. I shall therefore commit to write to Members after the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Her knowledge of this subject, as demonstrated in her speech, is second to none.

Before I outline some of the covenant’s key achievements, it might be useful to provide the House with some context. The notion of a special bond between the state and its armed forces is hardly new. Indeed, I was surprised that as early as 1593 the Elizabethans had introduced a statute ensuring disabled army veterans

“should at their return be relieved and rewarded to the end that they may reap the fruit of their good deservings”.

That is something we should be doing today.

The term military covenant was coined back in 2000, as my hon. Friend said. I remember first hearing the term around about the time I was serving in Kosovo. It was then little more than an informal understanding of the debt of service we owe to those who serve us. However, fears that the covenant was gradually being undermined led to its principles being enshrined in law in the Armed Forces Act 2011. Much of the progress over recent years has been highlighted in the debate, so I shall not dwell on that.

I shall focus in my speech on just three areas in which progress is most pronounced, but before I do so I wish to say a couple of words on the Northern Ireland legacy investigations, which have been raised by so many Members this afternoon. Although the Government firmly believe in upholding the rule of law, we are concerned that investigations into Northern Ireland’s past focus almost entirely on former police offers and soldiers. This is wrong, and does not reflect the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who served did so with great bravery and distinction. That is why the Defence Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary are working together to ensure that veterans are not unfairly treated or disproportionately investigated compared with others, in an effort to create a Stormont House agreement Bill.

We are acutely mindful of the burden that historical investigations can place on veterans and their families. When veterans face allegations arising from actions that they undertook as part of their duties, taxpayer-funded legal advice and representation is available for as long as is necessary. In addition to legal advice, the MOD will provide pastoral support, either directly through regimental associations, through Veterans UK, or in partnership with the veterans charities, depending on the individual needs and circumstances.

As I said, I shall touch briefly on three areas, starting with veterans’ health. It is only right that those who have sustained life-changing injuries in the service of our nation receive the best medical care, so we have worked with the NHS to ensure that recent veterans with complex amputation-related complications can now be referred, when necessary, to a dedicated clinic at the world-class Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre in Headley Court.

We are not just thinking of rehabilitation. The most seriously injured service personnel also need assistance in making the transition to civvy street, and through life, so we are working across the MOD and NHS to develop an integrated personal commissioning for veterans model. This fully joined-up system aims to bring the NHS, the MOD and the charitable sector together to provide services specifically tailored to an individual veteran’s needs. At the same time, NHS England’s new veterans trauma network, launched at the end of last year, offers a safety net for those with lifelong healthcare needs. Increasingly, we recognise that the scars of war are more than just skin deep, so the Government are also channelling £13 million from LIBOR to provide support for mental health in the armed forces community.

I, too, have recently met Sue Freeth, the chief executive of Combat Stress, to explore how we can work more closely with that organisation. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for all the work that he has done, and I am delighted that we have now completed and implemented most of the recommendations in his report. Equally, I wish to focus on the preventive action that we can take with our serving personnel, which is why I am pleased that the trauma risk management system is now fully effective.

Clearly, there was a bone of contention between my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) and I on the matter of housing. I absolutely understand what he is trying to tell me. I feel somewhat at a disadvantage, because it appears almost as if he is sure what format the future accommodation model should take. I simply seize this opportunity to tell him once again, and to reassure him, that the reason we had our survey was to give us the evidence base for how to proceed.

We have yet to make any firm decisions about what format the accommodation model will take. It will evolve. It will be a complex process, and one size will not fit all. I want to dispel one myth: we will not somehow scrap all service family accommodation. I invite anybody who challenges that to come to Ludgershall, where we are about to award a contract to build new service family accommodation in Wiltshire. Off the top of my head, I think that we are talking about some 444 new homes. Why would we be building new service family accommodation if we will not be using it at all in the future?

It is absolutely right that, when we look at the accommodation needs of our service personnel, options should be available. We should recognise that young people, as the survey says, do not necessarily want to live in single-living accommodation. Why is it that more than 9,000 service personnel have now used our service Help to Buy scheme so that they can buy their own home and get into the private sector? It is all about delivering options and ensuring that our service personnel have those options. It is a complex model, and it is a controversial matter. Much of the problem is that we have not had the opportunity to communicate what the options will be in the future, and I am determined to address that.

I recognise that, having focused on that particular issue, I will probably have to conclude. To the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) I say that there is always a debate about where that line should be. I can tell the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) that I am very proud that some 95% of our new entrants are enrolled in apprenticeships. As for the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), I am more than happy to meet him to talk about Dale barracks.

War Pension Scheme Uprating 2017

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2017 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2017 will take place from the week beginning 10 April 2017. Rates for 2017 are increasing by 1% in line with the September 2016 consumer price index.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

2. What support his Department gives to Sea Cadets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The Government and the Royal Navy recognise the benefits of supporting the Sea Cadets and provide support through a grant in aid payment. This is paid to the Marine Society & Sea Cadets through a memorandum of understanding, which also sets out further support with regard to the provision of personnel, accommodation and training.

[Scott Mann]

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Padstow Sea Cadets and their chairman, and fantastic work is done there. The chairman expressed concerns to me about some of their fixed costs, such as some of their utilities, insurance premiums, transport costs and tuition fees. Will the Minister look at this again, and see if he could make a contribution to the fixed costs of the service?

[Mark Lancaster]

The grant in aid payment to the Marine Society & Sea Cadets is currently £10 million. The MOU between the Royal Navy and the MSSC, which is currently under review, will ensure that there continues to be Royal Navy support for the Sea Cadets. I would be more than happy to ensure that discussions on property issues will continue.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

Female sea cadets make up just a third of all such cadets. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to encourage more females to join the Sea Cadets?

[Mark Lancaster]

It must be said that female representation in the Sea Cadets is actually higher than it is in the armed forces, but it is a matter that the Government take very seriously. We have set several targets to ensure that our armed forces are viewed as being open to both men and women, and we will continue to pursue that over the coming years.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

23. You cannot get much further from the sea than Kettering, yet the Kettering Sea Cadets are an example that other Sea Cadet organisations should follow. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sea Cadets, the Air Squadrons and the Army Cadets provide our young people with some of the best examples in life that they could follow?

[Mark Lancaster]

I think Milton Keynes may actually be further from the sea than Kettering, and we also have a thriving Sea Cadet unit. I am a great fan of the cadets. I started my military life in the Air Cadets some 32 years ago. It is something that I valued enormously. That is why I like to think that I am one of the greatest champions for the cadet forces.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on NATO’s 2% GDP spending target.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

T5. Last week, we debated the difficulty and challenge of recruiting new prison officers. May I urge the Ministry of Defence to use its good offices to point personnel who leave the services of their own volition in the direction of the Prison Service? There seems to be a synergy between the two, with the skills and expertise of those in the services much valued by the Prison Service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

Our service leavers have many transferrable skills, and I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Defence is working with the National Offender Management Service to encourage service leavers to join the Prison Service as part of the Government’s recruitment of 2,500 new prison officers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Julie Cooper. Not here.

Armed Forces' Pay Review Body Appointment

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Janet Whitworth as a member of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. Mrs Whitworth will begin her three-year appointment on 1 March 2017. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

[HCWS438]

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary: RAF Police

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

I wish to inform the House that I am laying today the first report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) inspection of the Royal Air Force police (RAFP).

The Armed Forces Act 2011 places a duty on HMIC to inspect and report to the Ministry of Defence on the independence and effectiveness of investigations carried out by each service police force, and this is HMIC’s first statutory inspection report on the RAF police.

I consider this report to be a positive endorsement of the RAFP providing assurance from an independent civilian authority that the RAFP is well led overall. Six recommendations have been made and five areas for improvement have been identified. The Royal Air Force accepts the report’s findings and work is already under way to address the recommendations and areas for improvement.

[HCWS440]

Rifleman Lee Bagley: MOD Duty of Care

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

It is a pleasure to respond, and I start, of course, by congratulating the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on obtaining this debate about his constituent, ex-Rifleman Lee Bagley, and the Ministry of Defence’s duty of care following an injury he sustained during a night out in Brecon on 24 February 2010. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to remind the House of my interest as a member of the Army Reserve.

I should like to begin by offering my personal sympathies to Mr Bagley. The injury he suffered has had a profound and life-changing impact on him. I can only begin to imagine the pain and anguish he has been through.

Let me turn to the specific points raised. The hon. Gentleman will recall our correspondence back in 2015, when he wrote to me about this case. In particular, his constituent raised similar concerns to those that have been raised today, and I advised at the time that, should Mr Bagley feel there were failings in the way his unit treated him, he should consider raising them through a formal service complaint. I advised that although such a complaint would be outside the usually permitted time limit of three months, Mr Bagley was able to make representations about why his complaint was not submitted within the time limit. My officials advise that Mr Bagley has so far not submitted a service complaint—something he is still within his rights to do. I take this opportunity to encourage Mr Bagley to submit a complaint, and I would certainly be pleased if it were admitted, because it would be appropriate to address this issue through the independent service complaints ombudsman.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given that the events in this sequence occurred up to seven years ago, and given the time available to prepare for this debate, it is difficult to piece together without an investigation—something that could be done by the service complaints ombudsman—the detail of every decision and action that was or was not taken by Mr Bagley’s unit. There are a number of factors that make things difficult, not least the changeover of unit staff since 2010. I am not, therefore, in a position to determine during this debate, at relatively short notice, whether the care provided to Mr Bagley by his unit was sufficient or to address the specific questions the hon. Gentleman raised at the end of his speech.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that 2009 and 2010 were particularly tough years in the Afghanistan conflict, and Mr Bagley’s unit, the 2nd Battalion the Rifles, was at the heart of the action. Very sadly, this meant it suffered a significant number of fatalities and casualties during that period. I am not trying to make excuses, but those are the facts as they stand.

What is clear, however, is that the Army has in place specific guidelines, as outlined by the hon. Gentleman, regarding the command and care of wounded, injured and sick personnel. These are set out in Army General Administrative Instruction, volume 3, chapter 99. AGAI 99 has been updated a number of times since 2010, but a brief outline of the timelines within which wounded, injured and sick personnel can expect to be looked after is as follows. Service personnel should be recorded on the wounded, injured and sick management information system on day 14 of their sickness, and a unit recovery officer assigned. On day 21 of sickness, the first visit of the unit recovery officer should have been completed. Personnel should have regular recovery visits thereafter, with no more than 14 days between visits, and a unit care review meeting every 28 days to review the case. If the individual remains sick at the 56-day point, they should be graded as temporarily non-effective. Clearly and unequivocally, it is unacceptable if this policy is not properly followed. If an individual feels that their chain of command is not complying with it, they should raise a complaint.

Mr Bagley was injured at a time when the MOD had acknowledged that it could and should do even more to help not only our wounded, injured and sick personnel, who deserve nothing but the best care, but to ensure that those who were caring for and administering them were appropriately resourced. That is why in 2010 we began developing the defence recovery capability—an MOD-led initiative delivered in partnership with Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion, alongside other service charities and agencies. The defence recovery capability ensures that wounded, injured and sick armed forces personnel have access to the key services and resources they need to help them either return to duty or make a smooth transition into civilian life.

It is only right and proper that where personnel are injured while carrying out their duties, or develop an illness that can be linked to their service in the armed forces, they are properly compensated. Such circumstances are covered by the armed forces compensation scheme, which provides compensation for any injury, illness or death caused by service on or after 6 April 2005. The war pension scheme compensates for incidents up to this date. The rules of the scheme are not prescriptive in terms of when awards can be made—they allow for a variety of circumstances—but the key is whether the injury or illness has been caused by service. Personnel do of course have a right of appeal if their claim under the scheme is turned down or they are unhappy with the level of award made.

Despite the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, I understand that Mr Bagley’s injury was sustained during a night out—in other words, he was off duty. There is no evidence that he was compelled by the service to go out for the evening in question. As a consequence, his claim under the armed forces compensation scheme was rejected, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the first-tier tribunal.

I should stress at this point that when a member of the armed forces has to be medically discharged, as in Lee Bagley’s case, the armed forces compensation scheme is not the only means by which they can receive financial assistance from the Ministry of Defence. Personnel can also receive an ill-health pension under the armed forces pension scheme, irrespective of whether their injury or illness that led to them being medically discharged was attributable to their service. I can confirm that Mr Bagley is in receipt of such a pension.

[Mr Bailey]

It is perfectly true that, parallel to this issue, ex-Rifleman Lee Bagley has been pursuing compensation, but I deliberately focused my comments on the duty of care rather than the legalistic process that surrounds the compensation issue, and that is what I really want brought out today.

[Mark Lancaster]

That is a perfectly reasonable intervention. I hope that I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman how, since 2010, quite a lot has been done through the development of the pathways that we have discussed. The great joy of these debates is that they are an opportunity for the House to discuss, using individual cases, the fact that we do have a duty of care and how the system can be improved.

It would be wrong of me to close without stating that the Ministry of Defence ensures that armed forces personnel can serve safe in the knowledge that when they leave active service they will be well supported to translate their acquired skills, experience and qualifications into the second career they aspire to. Personnel who are medically discharged are entitled to the highest level of resettlement provision through the Career Transition Partnership’s core resettlement programme. The MOD also offers specialised support for wounded, injured and sick personnel, and those with the most complex barriers to employment, to ensure that they receive the most appropriate support within their recovery pathway.

I can confirm that Mr Bagley made full use of the Career Transition Partnership, and that the assistance it provided helped him to secure employment immediately after leaving the British Army. That said, I know that no level of practical help or compensation could ever make up for the distress and turmoil that he has suffered as a result of his injuries. I should like to close by reiterating my sincere sympathy for him.

Question put and agreed to.

Milton Keynes: 50th Anniversary

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I start by congratulating my fellow MP for Milton Keynes, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), on securing this debate at a timely point in the city’s development. I make it clear that I am speaking in this debate on behalf of the Government with the consent of my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and that decisions on matters relating to Milton Keynes will be taken by others. I am, however, delighted to be present today to celebrate our successful new town, as a city, reaching its 50th anniversary.

I underline the praise by paying tribute to my predecessor as an MP, Brian White, who sadly died last year, and to the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), Sir Bill Benyon, who did so much in the early years of the creation of Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes has had some colourful MPs: Aidan Crawley was elected in 1945 as a Labour MP, but subsequently became a Conservative; Frank Markham followed him in 1951, another former Labour MP who became a Conservative; and, following them, the famous Robert Maxwell who, though elected as a Labour MP, did not become a Conservative.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South and I both know, Milton Keynes continues to be one of Britain’s fastest-growing cities. It has produced exceptional talent, including London 2012 Olympic gold medallist Greg Rutherford; it set up the Open University in 1971, making higher education more accessible to everyone, regardless of geography; and it is the centre for transport technology in England, with the first trials of driverless cars taking place on Milton Keynes’s streets, and as the home of the transport Catapult centre.

Fifty years ago, permission was given to transform 8,500 hectares of villages and farmland into a town of 250,000 people, a new town. Milton Keynes has since become one of the most successful new towns in England. It has already reached its original target of 250,000 people, but it will not stop there. Provided we continue to follow Milton Keynes’s motto, “By knowledge, design and understanding”, which my hon. Friend cited, the future is bright.

Milton Keynes’s future will be as exciting as its past has been. In March 2016, the then Chancellor asked the National Infrastructure Commission to lead an inquiry into the potential of the arc from Oxford through Milton Keynes to Cambridge, as highlighted by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith). That corridor would support the already flourishing knowledge-intensive industries that exist in the area. The commission’s interim report was published last autumn, confirming the opportunity for prosperity and a high quality of life in the area.

My hon. Friend mentioned the commission that recently produced “MK Futures 2050”, which was chaired by Sir Peter Gregson. It worked with local partners to shape an ambitious vision and plan for Milton Keynes’s future. The plan seeks to drive growth and prosperity for Milton Keynes’s existing and future residents. The council is reflecting on how to bring the recommendations to life to the advantage of the city and its residents.

I am delighted that Milton Keynes remains a centre for growth. The Government have made it clear that an important part of their intention will be to increase housing supply for the next generation. We absolutely recognise that that needs to be done in a way that works for everyone and with the support of local residents. One of the ways in which the Government are doing that is by making significant changes. For example, planning policy has been radically streamlined and the planning system is now faster and more efficient, and we have given local people a much bigger say over new development in their area. Milton Keynes has a lot to offer in helping us to improve our systems and to ensure effective delivery, and it would not be right for the Government to do things alone.

The Government’s ambition is to work with all players—local authorities, residents and developers—to cement strong partnerships with clear roles and responsibilities in order to deliver more homes. It is important that we look at the lessons of the past. Milton Keynes has developed collaboratively and has a strong community base and mixed architecture to provide a city for the present and the future. We want more co-operation and shared intentions, so that local partners work more strategically with their neighbours to ensure that together they can meet the housing and community needs of their combined areas.

Milton Keynes is perhaps the pre-eminent example of what can be achieved by a development corporation with strong local leadership and a clear sense of purpose. Many students at school and university today will be studying the success of the city. My hon. Friend and I are, rightly, both very proud of that.

The “MK Futures 2050” report proposed six big new projects for Milton Keynes, the first of which was to be the hub of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc, which we have already touched on, and to realise the arc’s full economic potential as a single knowledge-intensive cluster. Secondly, MK:IT, which my hon. Friend also touched on, will provide lifelong learning opportunities at a new university to promote research, teaching and practice, and realistic solutions to the problems facing fast-growing cities everywhere. Thirdly, “Learning 2050” could ensure that the city provides, and is known for providing, world-class education for all its young people. Fourthly, by harnessing the flexibility of the city’s roads, the “Smart, shared, sustainable mobility” project will allow everyone who lives, works, studies or does business in the city to move freely and on demand. Milton Keynes is very much a city built for the car. Fifthly, the “Renaissance” project in central Milton Keynes will recreate a city centre fit for the 21st century. Finally, the “Creative and cultured city” project will harness the energy and motivation of the city’s people.

As well as a growing population, strong economic growth is critical to the future success of our communities. My hon. Friend and I have both consistently argued that “i before e”—or “infrastructure before expansion”—and economic growth should be the drivers for our local growth in Milton Keynes. Just this week, the Prime Minister launched our industrial strategy Green Paper, which sets out our approach to developing a modern industrial strategy that improves living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country. We aim to establish an industrial policy for the long term and provide a policy framework against which major public and private sector investment decisions can be made with confidence, ensuring that our country’s success is accessible to everyone.

Having published our Green Paper, the Government want to hear from every part of the country, every sector of industry, businesses of every size, and the people who work in and use them. Milton Keynes can already celebrate successful businesses, including manufacturers such as the Coca-Cola Company and WD-40. The recipe for the latter is known by only six people. Milton Keynes is also the centre of the motor industry. The headquarters of Mercedes and Volkswagen are there, and much of the motor racing industry, including great racing teams such as Red Bull, is based in the city. There are many other businesses in the area, and long may that continue. I therefore ask everyone, both in Milton Keynes and beyond, to engage in this extremely important debate.

Significant investment is already being made to support growth across the country. More than £200 million of the local growth fund has been prioritised to date to support growth across the south-east midlands, and the Government expect to announce further investment in the area through the local growth fund shortly. Projects such as Bletchley station and the A421 improvements have also been supported by that fund. As a runner for European city of culture 2023—I am sure my hon. Friend and I would both very much like that to happen—the city is working with the local enterprise partnership to extend the wonderful MK Gallery, which he mentioned.

In autumn 2016, the National Infrastructure Commission published its interim report about the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge corridor. Its core finding was that housing supply is the main constraint on maximising the corridor’s growth potential. The Government supported all the recommendations in the report and announced £137 million of additional or accelerated funding to ensure the delivery of the east-west rail project and the Oxford to Cambridge expressway road. The Government are now working with partners across the corridor to ensure that the ambitions in the commission’s report are achieved with the most effective solutions. It is vital that all partners work collaboratively to secure the best future for the area.

In closing, I will touch on some of my hon. Friend’s remarks. Those who are unaware of Milton Keynes probably perceive it as simply a modern city. That is simply not the case. Some 75% of the borough of Milton Keynes is actually rural, and some 30,000 residents live in those rural areas, mainly in my constituency of Milton Keynes North. There is enormous heritage there, not only in the corner towns that my hon. Friend mentioned—Wolverton, Newport Pagnell, Bletchley and Stony Stratford—and my own home town of Olney, which was home to the original pancake race in 1415 and is the former home of William Cowper, the famous poet, and John Newton, the abolitionist and author of “Amazing Grace”, but in other great towns such as Hanslope, where the Church of St James has the tallest spire in Buckinghamshire, Castlethorpe, Emberton Park and Moulsoe, to name just a few. The great county town of Newport Pagnell, which was so key in the civil war, was of course the home of George Walters, one of our great residents, who won his Victoria Cross in the Crimean war.

As we celebrate 50 years of Milton Keynes and look forward to a bright future, it is worth remembering that there is tremendous heritage in the area, too. I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on securing this timely debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Defence Infrastructure Reform

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Friday 13th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

Defence infrastructure is a vital component in enabling the armed forces to train and prepare for operations and for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to deliver its outputs. The MOD spends nearly £5 billion each year operating, maintaining, constructing and disposing of its extensive infrastructure base, which represents 1.8% of the UK land area.

In November, we announced a long-term programme to invest £4 billion over the next decade in an estate that will help deliver strategic defence and security review 2015’s ambitious plan for joint force 2025, enabling savings in running costs of £140 million over 10 years, while releasing 91 of our most expensive sites by 2040. This will help to deliver the MOD’s contribution of land sufficient for 55,000 new homes towards the Government’s housing target.

In parallel, we have reviewed how our estate is managed and infrastructure decisions are approached, taken, and implemented across the whole of defence. This includes the role of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force commands and MOD head office. The aim has been to ensure that every pound we spend on our estate represents optimum value for money.

We have reached two principal conclusions from this review. First, we will achieve improved allocation of available funding if infrastructure decisions that bear on the work of the military commands are taken by them rather than by the DIO. The commands are better placed to balance infrastructure requirements against other enablers of military capability such as equipment and trained personnel for which they already hold the budgets. In line with the defence operating model, we therefore plan to delegate this authority, and the relevant funding, to the commands and to Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) from April 2018, subject to confirmation later this year that all parts of the organisation are ready to support this, and that effective safeguards are in place to ensure that we continue to drive towards a better estate that more efficiently and effectively enables military capability.

Secondly, we will restructure the DIO to operate more effectively in the new delegated environment. This means making it more customer facing at both the strategic and operational level, improving its internal operation so that it can work better with and deliver better value from infrastructure providers, and also strengthening its abilities to act to assure that appropriate standards are being met across the defence estate and to provide Ministers with advice on the long-term affordability of the estate and the strategic implications for the estate of decisions taken by the commands. Since 2014 a strategic business partner contract has been in place with Capita, under which they lead and manage the DIO. Capita have been instrumental in helping us deliver the Better Defence Estate strategy and in sustaining specialist capability. We are reviewing with Capita how their continued support can be adapted to the new infrastructure model we now envisage.

[HCWS410]

Woolwich Barracks

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on obtaining this debate on the future of Woolwich barracks—an MOD site in his constituency. I thank him for his kind remarks about the manner in which I have attempted to engage with him and, indeed, other hon. Members over what I absolutely accept is a pretty emotional process as we move to close a number of sites across the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that I should declare my interest not only as a member of the Army Reserve, but as one who is based at the barracks under discussion. It is my home barracks at the moment—it is where I go to serve. When we are faced with these decisions, they are, of course, personal and emotional, and it is not without considerable thought and effort that I have questioned this potential closure myself.

Let me say from the outset that the Department is ever mindful of the emotive nature of estate rationalisation and that the concerns and feelings of all local communities affected by our plan have been, and will continue to be, considered as part of the decision-making process. Before I address that point in detail, let me start by explaining the imperative behind our plans, which the hon. Gentleman has touched on.

Our defence estate represents almost 2% of the United Kingdom’s land mass. That is equivalent in size to Luxembourg and almost three times the size of Greater London, which is perhaps the comparison we should use in this post-Brexit world. Whatever comparison we choose to use, it remains a fact that our estate is vast and vital to our military capability. It is where our people work, live and train; where advanced equipment is maintained; and where cutting-edge research is undertaken. It is also where major exercises are conducted and major operations launched.

It is, therefore, vast and vital, but it is also inefficient and does not meet the standards that we expect to provide to our people in the modern world. Some 40% of our assets are more than 50 years old. What is more, while the armed forces are 30% smaller than they were at the end of the last century, the estate has reduced by only 9%. That is why the 2015 strategic defence and security review committed to invest in a better built estate that will reduce in size by 30% by 2040 and that will, most crucially, better support the future needs of our armed forces.

Last month we set out how we plan to do that, when the Defence Secretary unveiled our strategy for a better defence estate—the most significant change to defence land since the second world war. The strategy has two strands. The first is to rationalise and consolidate our estate by selling off sites that are surplus to defence needs and bringing people and capabilities into new centres of specialism. Secondly, we will invest by spending £4 billion over the next decade on improving our infrastructure and modernising our accommodation. In short, our vision is to create a world-class estate for our world-class armed forces—one based on their future needs, rather than those of previous generations.

Before I continue, I should say that, given the scale of the strategy and the fact that it will be delivered over 25 years, those plans are subject to revision, but they set out our current intentions. It is a strategy that we must deliver.

Turning to the matter at hand, as part of our strategy we have confirmed the disposal of 91 sites, including Woolwich. The decisions to dispose of those sites were made as the result of a systematic and thorough review of all of our defence assets by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, working closely alongside head office and each of the frontline commands.

When it comes to the rationale behind our decision to dispose of the Woolwich site, the reasons are many, clear and, I hope, compelling. First, selling Woolwich will contribute to our overall aim of consolidating our defence estate into fewer centres of gravity and specialisation, with better support capability. It goes without saying that, given its size and location, the site itself is not suitable to become one of those larger centres. Let me explain further. When it comes to supporting military capability, a barracks in an urban location, such as Woolwich, simply cannot compete with those located in less densely populated areas. At Bulford barracks in Wiltshire, for instance, soldiers live literally on the doorstep of Salisbury plain training area, the largest military training area in the United Kingdom, equivalent in size to the Isle of Wight. They are also located alongside other units with which they live, work and train.

By comparison with Salisbury plain’s 94,000 acres, the entire Woolwich site stands at 252 acres. That includes an outdoor training area, but one that is, as hon. Members might imagine, severely constrained. For instance, if soldiers want to practise live firing or conduct an annual personal weapons test, they must be bused an hour and a half south to Lydd ranges on the Kent coast. What is more, when it comes to working and training, units based in Woolwich do not have the day-to-day access to other units that their colleagues elsewhere enjoy. As such, they miss out on the vital exchange of ideas and tactics that gives an Army its crucial edge.

[Bob Stewart]

I accept everything that the Minister has said; that is logical. What I am concerned about is this: where is a unit such as the Royal Horse Artillery, which needs to be close to central London, going to go? We have had all these facilities built in Woolwich specifically for the Royal Horse Artillery, and now, a few years after producing them, we are going to throw them all away. It does not seem to make sense to me.

[Mark Lancaster]

I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. In many respects, the site for the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery at Woolwich is sub-optimal, because it is away from central London, where the Royal Horse Artillery historically used to be. We are looking, in another project, at how we might be able to relocate the site closer to central London, where the Royal Horse Artillery perform their ceremonial duties. Woolwich is not an ideal site for them; they moved there out of need, because of a lack of equine space elsewhere in central London. I will come back to that in a moment.

Woolwich dates back to the 18th century. The site has a proud heritage, but one that comes with a high price. The grade II-listed barracks were built 240 years ago, and they require care and attention far beyond anything that modern, purpose-built barracks would need. Of more importance is the fact that the technical accommodation on the site—meaning things such as offices, garages and stores—will require extensive investment in the not-too-distant future, and they are not set to support the armed forces going forward. Although the single living accommodation was modernised back in 2010 to ensure a good standard of living for our personnel, by the time we complete the disposal of Woolwich, we will have had 18 years of return from that investment and it will not be too long before further updating is required.

Finally, we must take into account the wider potential of the site itself. It is a key site in a popular London borough, which, with the introduction of Crossrail in 2019, will be a prime location for the construction of new homes for the capital’s workers. That is not the principal driver of the plan, however.

Taking all that into account, would it really be the best use of the defence budget and of taxpayers’ cash to retain the site? Would pumping money into facilities that are constrained by their age and location really offer us value for money? Would it be right to continue investing in a site that is sub-optimal because of the constraints on it? Would it be right to hang on to such a high-worth site when the money raised by its sale would otherwise be reinvested back into the defence estate where it is most needed?

Having examined the facts objectively and in great detail, the conclusion we have come to is: no, it is not right to hang on to the barracks. Having explained how we have come to that conclusion, let me turn to what will happen next. First, let me deal with the question of those living and working at Woolwich barracks. There are currently 1,054 military and 97 civilian staff permanently employed at the site. I recognise that our intention to close the site is unsettling for all those people and for their families. Let me reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that we will do all we can to provide them with the necessary certainty about their future locations as soon as is practicable.

For operational reasons, I cannot go into detail on the re-provision of the Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery any further than I already have following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The re-provision for the other units on site, including the 1st Battalion the Royal Anglians, is yet to be determined. What I can say is that all military personnel, regular or reserve, will be relocated with their unit or re-assigned in accordance with existing career management procedures. Civilian staff will be managed in accordance with normal departmental policy and processes. Formal trade union consultation will occur well in advance of any closure, and where possible we will look at other locations where those staff can be employed. There are also a number of third-party users of the site, and we want to give them the opportunity to find alternative locations with plenty of time.

Secondly, let me deal with the future of the site. My Department has begun the process of assessing the Woolwich site for sale. The findings of that work will better inform the disposal process and ensure that the revenue situation becomes clearer. The MOD, like all Departments, follows a set process for disposing of any site. Once declared surplus to defence requirements, the site is placed on a register of surplus public sector land, which is a database managed by the Cabinet Office that provides an opportunity for other public bodies to express an interest in acquiring such sites before they are placed on the open market.

Subject to planning permission, land at Woolwich might accommodate 3,000 housing units in support of any future Government house building targets, but any decision to use the land in this way would of course need consultation with the local authority, which would seek the views of local residents as part of that process. The local authority would also have to approve planning permission for appropriate housing for the location. The MOD will continue to liaise with the local council and planning authorities to ensure the best possible future use for the site, and the local community will be kept fully informed of all developments.

That leads me to my final point—it goes to the very heart of this debate—which is the impact of this closure on the local community. As I said at the start, the Department is ever mindful of the emotive nature of estate rationalisation—all the more so when the links between the community and the armed forces are as steeped in history as they are in Woolwich. After all, heritage and tradition are things by which the armed forces set great store. This year marks the tercentenary of the Royal Regiment of Artillery—and, indeed, of my own corps, the Corps of Royal Engineers—which was raised in Woolwich in 1716. To this day, Woolwich station remains a thriving and integral part of life in the borough. I witnessed that myself when I attended Armed Forces Day there earlier this year and saw the local people’s great support for the barracks.

The units based at the station enjoy living and working there. Likewise, I know the local community holds these units in great esteem, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. We in the Ministry of Defence are truly grateful for the steadfast support we have received from the people of Woolwich over the centuries, and I appreciate wholeheartedly their concerns and those of the hon. Gentleman, who I must say has conveyed their concerns and expressed their wishes very eloquently in the Chamber this evening. However, modern armed forces must continually evolve and move with the times, and we must ensure our people have an estate that supports them and provides the working and living environment they rightly expect.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to see our decision to sell the Woolwich site for what it is—a well calculated judgment that forms part of a wide-ranging, painstakingly considered and carefully constructed plan. It is a plan to secure the future of our armed forces and the safety and prosperity of our nation for many decades to come, and a plan that benefits the Woolwich community by giving the borough an opportunity to use this great site in a new way. Having said that, as the hon. Gentleman has been so courteous in making the simple request that I look again at the detail of the decision, I make a commitment to do so once we return in the new year.

Winston Churchill, who can always be relied on for an apt quote, once said:

“If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.”

We stand at such a juncture now, so hard as it may be —and despite the commitment I have just made—it is our collective duty to look upwards, outwards and forwards and to work together for a better defence estate.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Medical Expert Group: Triennial Review

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2016 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

I am today announcing the conclusion of the triennial review of the Independent Medical Expert Group. Reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that Non Departmental Public Bodies continue to have regular independent challenge. I am placing copy of the report in the Library of the House and it will be published on the www.gov.uk website.

The review examined whether there is a continuing need for the Independent Medical Expert Group's function and its form, and whether it should continue to exist at arm's length from Government.

The review found that the Independent Medical Expert Group provides valuable, high quality, well-respected medical and scientific advice to Ministers. The function the Independent Medical Expert Group fulfils continues to play an important role in ensuring that the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme relies on credible, up-to-date evidence, and is also perceived to do so by those who apply to it. Retaining the Independent Medical Expert Group as a Non Departmental Public Body remains the most appropriate option.

The review also confirmed that the Independent Medical Expert Group complies with the principles of good corporate governance and with the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees and the Principles of Scientific advice to Government.

The outcome of this review is welcomed and demonstrates the effectiveness of the Independent Medical Expert Group as highly-regarded, independent experts whose function helps to maintain the medical and scientific integrity of the awards made under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

[HCWS371]