(1 day, 18 hours ago)
General CommitteesI beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. The first duty of Government is to keep the country safe. National security is the underpinning of the Government’s plan for change. As the Secretary of State has made clear, the threat to the UK is increasing, with growing instability around the globe and growing Russian aggression. Missile defence is a critical thread in our tapestry of national security.
We test and train regularly with our allies, and our next missile defence testing and training exercise, code-named Exercise Formidable Shield, is in May 2025. Formidable Shield is a US-led exercise and will be hosted by the UK Government at the Ministry of Defence’s Outer Hebrides air weapon range on behalf of NATO and our defence partners. It is one of the most advanced and comprehensive missile defence training exercises in the world. It involves the UK and allied forces conducting live fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world, scenario-based training.
These activities are critical to the defence and security of the UK and the strength of our military alliances. First, they enhance interoperability. Exercise Formidable Shield will bring together 10 nations, each with distinct systems, targets and technologies. It will allow us to align these different systems and work in concert effectively in real-world operations, so the UK and our allies can respond quickly and cohesively to any threats.
Secondly, Formidable Shield improves our collective missile defence capabilities and our ability to adapt to evolving ballistic missile and other threats. With global tensions rising and missile technology advancing, it is essential to refine and improve our strategies continually to protect the nation. This is why the live fire element of Exercise Formidable Shield is particularly valuable.
Thirdly, Exercise Formidable Shield reinforces strategic deterrence, which is vital in maintaining stability and preventing conflicts from escalating. The exercise sends a strong message to our adversaries that the UK and NATO and its allies are prepared to defend ourselves and our territories against any form of aggression.
To replicate operational conditions for these exercises, the UK and allied nations need to operate ever-more sophisticated defensive missile systems capable of climbing above the stratosphere. That would bring them within the scope of the licensing regime in the Space Industry Act 2018 and its associated secondary legislation. The 2018 Act was never intended to regulate military activity. It was passed into law to ensure the safety and appropriate governance of the commercial spaceflight industry, and is regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Government seek a licensing exemption under the 2018 Act and its associated secondary legislation for allied armed forces activities. This exemption is very narrow. It only allows allied armed forces, their operatives and international military organisations such as NATO to fire sub-orbital—in other words, non-orbiting—uncrewed rockets from MOD sites or platforms with MOD permission and under the control of the MOD’s regulator.
The exemption will bring multinational exercises in line with sovereign ones. Similar stratospheric tests conducted solely by the MOD are not affected by the 2018 Act and its accompanying licensing regime on the basis that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Act does not bind the Crown.
Exercises above the stratosphere that are exempt under this instrument will be under the expert supervision of the defence regulator that has monitored military activities for decades, including MOD rocket launches above the stratosphere. Unlike the civilian authorities, the defence regulator has the infrastructure and expertise to oversee the safety of these exercises properly. The regulations will therefore avoid putting increased bureaucracy or a new burden on the civil authorities.
This instrument will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is subject to the affirmative procedure as set out under section 68(6) of the 2018 Act.
The UK’s missile defence capability is a critical component of national and global security, but as with all defence capabilities, to be effective, it must be constantly maintained, updated, exercised and tested. Exercise Formidable Shield, which is planned for May 2025, is the next essential opportunity to conduct live fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world, scenario-based training.
An enormous amount of military planning has gone into the exercise from all nations involved, and the Government seek appropriate regulatory certainty by the end of February to get the maximum value from it. Approving this exemption in a timely manner will send a clear signal that the UK Parliament is united in defence of our national security, united against our adversaries and united in its support for NATO.
I thank the Committee for its thoughtful considerations of these regulations. It is worth covering some of the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and keeping track of the Westcott space cluster in his constituency.
Safety, safety, safety—that is the line to take on this issue. The Military Aviation Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority have long been in discussion about it, and have actually conducted a complete review of how their two systems differ. They have come together to say that it will not bring any increase in risk from a safety perspective. We will continue to work with both organisations to ensure that continues in the medium and longer term.
My overarching view is that these regulations bring to a close the unnecessary burden on our allies for testing and trialling the advanced missile systems that need to be integrated into our wider defence ecosystem as a whole. Allowing this exemption will brings allies on board, so we can have a collective defence of our homeland, airspace and waters. I will come back to the hon. Member on how the future risks have been interpreted and make sure that he is made aware of them.
These regulations are a great thing for defence. They will enable our defences to outpace the malign ambition of our adversaries. I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting the regulations as we move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
(6 days, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome this debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing it. I also thank him for inviting me to his constituency, where I met his cadet force. The questions I was asked by the cadets were as difficult to answer to those we get from the Opposition. It was inspiring to see such young people, who were full of life of life and energy, holding me to account when I went down to visit. I thought it was absolutely superb.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) that there are a couple of statistics that are really useful at outlining the social benefits of cadets to the UK and the youth of the nation. If the cadet experience helps to change the life outcomes of just 1% of cadets a year, so that they are in employment, education or training, the annual costs of the cadet forces would be covered. That is a fantastic statistic, which shows that this is a spend-to-save model.
In terms of health and wellbeing alone, participation in cadet forces produces an average annual return of between £90 million and £120 million each year. Each year, it is estimated that the lifetime value of vocational qualifications gained by the most disadvantaged cadets is well over £130 million. When we start racking and stacking those costs, the benefits of cadets far outweigh some of the effort and energy to get it moving in the first place. Finally, adult volunteers, who the cadets rely on so heavily, benefit from being in the cadet force and can gain qualifications that can generate a total increase in potential lifetime earnings of around £50 million. When we pool all that together, the impact and benefits of cadets are definitely not lost on me or the Government.
As one of the largest voluntary uniformed youth organisations, with roughly 130,000 people across the country, the cadet forces have two particular compelling benefits. First and most importantly, they transform young people’s sense of purpose and—I agree—boost their life chances. Secondly, cadets play a vital role connecting defence to society, at a time when there is perhaps more distance between the two than there has ever been in the past. That is crucial at a time of rising threats to Britain’s security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell mentioned, we must really understand what service means.
Let us consider the first of those two points. Independent research has shown that cadets benefit in multiple ways from membership. Not only do they find it engaging, challenging and fun, but taking part in activities and gaining new experiences can be life changing. I recently went to see the Sea Cadets in my constituency with the professor from the university, and we talked through some of the benefits and really got into the weeds. I was encouraged not only by the individuals and children I saw going through that process, but by the amazing instructors. When we combine the two, the magic happens. That is the fundamental principle of the cadets.
Taking part in the activities and gaining new experiences can also be life changing for many. They improve, for example, their mental and physical wellbeing—an area where we know there is an increasing need across society. Cadets develop the self-confidence to achieve things they would otherwise never have attempted, or never had the opportunity to attempt. Perhaps even more valuably, if they do not achieve their objectives immediately, they develop the resilience to keep on going despite that. In the process, they might discover individual talents and attributes that may otherwise remain dormant.
For some, particularly those who may be struggled at school, participating in cadet forces improves their educational chances of success. School attendance and behaviour tend to improve among cadets, and they are far less likely to be excluded from school. Those who come from economically disadvantaged families are among the greatest beneficiaries.
Let us not forget those who step forward as the adult volunteers, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They are dedicated people who are the inspiration behind the cadet forces’ success. The volunteers, too, gain from the experience and learn new skills that can benefit their careers.
As I have said, cadets play a vital role in connecting defence with society. The membership of the cadets is significantly more diverse and geographically spread out than that of our armed forces. Young people become more aware of career options at an early age, and because cadets are more likely to have a wider spread of skills tested, they are better positioned to choose their future direction as they move forward. The cadet experience plays an important part in boosting awareness of the armed forces in both communities and schools, and this often encourages individuals to pursue a career in the military—although I restate that it is definitely not a recruitment tool. It broadens their experience, opportunities and options.
More than one third of service personnel spent time in the cadet forces, interestingly enough, and they are more likely to go on to lead, and to serve longer than other recruits. A large proportion of the regimental sergeant majors in the Army were cadets or came through Harrogate. The cadet forces give young people and adult volunteers a sense of service, a feeling of belonging, and pride in our country and national institutions, which is really important.
The Minister, like all of us here, is a great advocate for the cadet forces. On that basis, will he continue to make sure that they receive the funding that they need to keep the units alive and kicking and up and running?
I thank the right hon. Member for that comment. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the funding for cadets continues, but also that funding is broadened out and going not just to certain schools, but to state schools and the more disadvantaged across society. Interestingly, I went to a state school and always wanted to join the cadets, but there was no cadet force available for me to join, so we have to spread the opportunity as well as possible. Interestingly, because of covid, and indeed a variety of other reasons, cadet funding went down from 2019 to 2024. It has stabilised now. We are doing a review of the cadets, which will be wrapped into the strategic defence review when it comes out. There will be more to follow in that case.
That is probably a good segue into some of the challenges. Establishing and running a cadet unit, either in the community or in a school setting, is not always easy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell mentioned. There are issues with funding and human resources. With cadet numbers growing, attracting and retaining enough capable and motivated individuals to deliver the cadet experience is an ongoing challenge. We continue to work to encourage adults to join the cadets. We have recently made it an essential criterion for those companies that wish to achieve the gold standard of the employer recognition scheme that they show support to cadets and cadet force volunteers. Similarly, through the Cadet Vocational College, there is a range of opportunities for adult volunteers to gain nationally accredited vocational qualifications.
I would like to come to some of the questions posed by my hon. Friend. The role of adult volunteers, in addition to the other commitments that they have, piles a lot of pressure on some adult volunteers, but it is offset in some cases by the qualifications and benefits they can get. However, we need to do much more work to attract more people into the system. I was really interested and proud to see many of those volunteers receive MBEs in the last set of honours. All the uniformed adult volunteers are eligible for award of the Cadet Forces Medal after 12 years of service, and I saw many people wearing it with pride when I went to see the Sea Cadets in my constituency.
We are looking at whether there are sufficient numbers of volunteers, and I would like to see a process whereby we make it more attractive to be a volunteer. How can we ease that burden? How can we help them to balance their personal or professional life and their volunteer service? We will work on that in the future—it is coming out in the review. This is an issue that came out really strongly from the Army Cadets, the RAF and the Navy. How do we make it more attractive and how do we get more veterans, for example, to support the cadet services?
We are talking about the funding of cadet forces, and I mentioned broadening it out from private schools to state schools and the more disadvantaged areas and making it slightly more targeted to ensure better social mobility, and, importantly, looking at more innovative ways to support the funding and linkages to local units and support organisations that are close by. My hon. Friend also mentioned the cuts to CCF as a whole. I would reflect on the overall spending, which has stabilised —it has gone down over £11 million since 2019. We are looking at ways to ensure that there are more cadets and more opportunities for those who take part, but that will come out in the strategic defence review in due course. If my hon. Friend is content, I will move on to my closing remarks.
This Government are convinced—and I am convinced by what I have seen when visiting cadets all over the country, with Members from both sides of the House—that the benefits of the cadets are absolutely non-debatable. The benefits—not only for the young people who participate, but for the volunteers and society as a whole —and the statistics show that it is a spend-to-save programme.
The cadet forces represent excellent value for money. The research has found that defence expenditure on them results in a significant return on investment, not only in monetary terms but through the broader societal benefits. Although they are sometimes difficult to gauge, the analysis suggests that those benefits—for society, defence, and the young people and adult volunteers involved—are absolutely unequivocal. Therefore, while maintaining our current ambition to increase the number of cadets in schools, we are also looking to significantly grow the number of community cadets and broaden the programme to support youngsters throughout the UK to enrich their lives by choosing to join the cadets.
In November last year, the Department for Education announced that it would end its £1.1 million grant for the expansion of cadet forces. Will the Ministry of Defence backfill, or make good on, the £1.1 million that the DFE intends to cut?
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I have had multiple discussions with the DFE about how, when the SDR comes out, we can ensure that there are opportunities for cadet forces across all schools, or as many as possible. That is definitely at the forefront of my mind, and it is included in the broader wrap of defence spending that will be pushed out in due course, after the strategic defence review.
To summarise, by providing as many opportunities as possible, we can support youngsters throughout the UK whose lives are enriched by choosing to join the cadets. It is a spend-to-save model, which, at a time of societal and geopolitical uncertainty, helps us to do our part by building community coherence and reconnecting Britain with its armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 week ago)
General CommitteesI beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024.
It is a great honour to be here under your chairmanship today, Mr Efford, so thank you very much. This draft statutory instrument amends the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 by changing the rank requirements for the president of the court martial board, where the defendant is a very senior officer.
Before I set out the changes that the SI will make, it may be useful for me to provide some context regarding the role of the court martial board in the service justice system. The UK’s separate system of military justice dates back to the Bill of Rights 1689. Having a separate service justice system enables the comprehensive system of command and discipline, on which operational effectiveness is based, to be enforced swiftly and efficiently. The service justice system reflects the need to maintain discipline through sentences, which can be imposed by the commanding officer at summary hearings, or in the court martial for more serious offences.
The constitution of the court martial for trial proceedings comprises the judge advocate and a board of lay members. Depending on the offence or offences being tried, the board will consist of three to six lay members. Their role is similar, but not identical, to that of a jury in the Crown court in England and Wales, as they are solely responsible for deciding the guilt or innocence of a defendant at contested trial proceedings, based on the evidence that is presented to them.
The constitution of a court martial board depends on whether the defendant is a service person or a civilian. When some or all the members of the court martial board are service personnel, the president of the board is the senior officer. The role of the president includes that of the foreperson of a jury. They will chair the discussions during deliberations on the verdict and will ensure that all the members have an equal voice and vote.
An overriding principle is that the constitution of the court should be fair, with lay members drawn at random from the widest potential pool. Crucially, that includes a deconfliction process to identify whether any member knows another member, a defendant or a witness, or whether they have served in the same unit as the defendant since the date of the alleged offence.
A recent case highlighted a risk to this overriding principle of fairness: the court administration unit initially encountered difficulties in finding a president and a board to try a case where the defendant was a senior officer, or a major general. As a senior officer, he was well known—he was connected to the system and had gone through the same career courses as many of those who were to be put on the board. His potential character witnesses included serving and retired OF-9s—so all the way to the senior levels of the military—who were also known to the pool of potential board members. It was exceptionally difficult to find and select that board/jury. By the time of the trial, however, the defendant had left the Army, so the use of civilians as members of the board was permitted. Nevertheless, that would not have been possible in law had the defendant still been serving.
Although cases involving defendants who are senior officers is rare in the UK, it is sensible to close this loophole so that the service justice system is ready and able to deal with those cases if and when they occur. The draft statutory instrument addresses this issue by amending rule 34 of the 2009 court martial rules, which sets out the requirements for the president of the board. Currently, rule 34 requires that where the defendant is rank OF-6—that is, a commodore, a brigadier or an air commodore—or above, the president of the board must be of a superior rank to the defendant. That can include the president holding the same rank as the defendant, if the president is more senior to the defendant within that rank.
The SI before us changes this requirement. Where possible, the president of the board will always be the highest appropriate ranking officer available. However, to close the loophole, if it is too difficult to find an officer of a superior rank due to a lack of impartiality, in particular, or availability, this change allows the military to broaden the pool of potential presidents. In the rarest of occasions where the defendant is the rank of OF-6—so, a brigadier—or above, we will prevent a conflict of interest by selecting a suitably qualified but completely disconnected officer with a minimum rank of OF-6. This will allow them to impartially act as the president of the board, chair the discussions during deliberations on the verdict, and ensure that all the members have an equal voice and vote—importantly, with no conflict of interest.
Every effort will still be made to find the most senior ranking and impartial president of the board. While only likely to be used in exceptional circumstances, this amendment ensures that where the defendant in the court martial is a very senior officer, it will always be possible to select a president of the board with the appropriate seniority for the important duties and functions of the role, eliminating the risk of a legal case being overturned.
I believe that our armed forces personnel should all be held to the highest possible standards, whether they are starting out or at the end of their military careers, and no one should be able to time the system out. I believe in the fairness and rigour of our service justice system: no individual, irrespective of rank, should get off on a technicality. A high-functioning service justice system underpins the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.
I will address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble made first. In my view, the SI addresses a loophole that has allowed—albeit not nefariously—senior officers potentially to time the system out because of our inability to select what we call the military jury. Broadening this out will really speed the process up and will bring people to justice in the fastest, most effective and most efficient way.
Let me address some of the questions from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. The previous Minister under the Conservative Government pushed this in 2023. It has taken time, within the bureaucracy of defence, to pull this through. It was raised with me when I sat down with the service justice system and I agreed to it almost immediately, because it made complete sense. We have cross-party agreement on that.
From a sentencing condition perspective, the change is primarily about the make-up of the board. It does not affect sentencing as a whole. That system will stay in place. As for whether this is linked to broader armed forces legislation, that will come out in the armed forces Bill in the next 12 to 24 months, when we will have a far greater opportunity to ensure that the correct legislation is in place to enable us in relation to everything from recruitment and retention all the way through to improvements in the service justice system as a whole.
I am grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and the Opposition spokesperson. On the rarest of occasions, and where the service justice system is investigating a senior military person, it can prove difficult to find suitably disconnected and impartial senior officers. I believe that the change will ensure that we open the aperture to select and allocate senior officers to deliver service justice in a timely and effective manner, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the service justice system, and in doing so, maintaining the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberThank you, Mr Speaker.
This Government have already taken swift action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans’ housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England, and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We have launched a £75 million LGBT financial redress scheme; Op Fortitude, Op Courage and Op Restore are all progressing at pace; and we are currently reviewing how we can make veterans’ support more institutionally resilient. This demonstrates that we have a bias for action, and this Government are delivering for defence.
Last year, I had the pleasure of meeting Tim Latter, a Royal Navy veteran and owner of Grindhouse gym in Tatenhill. After facing his own mental health challenges, Tim set up that gym and launched Project I Got Your Six, which is an inspiring fitness coaching programme designed for the military, but also a way for people to talk openly about their mental health. What steps are this Government taking to support veterans with their mental health after their service? Perhaps the Minister would like to meet Tim with me, to see the amazing work he does.
I thank my hon. Friend for a really relevant question. It is essential that we cater for both the physical and psychological impacts of service on those who have served. Op Courage has already had 35,000 referrals. I congratulate Tim Latter on the work he has done, and I would be glad to visit his gym—and perhaps do a little phys with him—to see how it helps veterans’ mental progression in due course.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new armed forces covenant. Will the provisions apply to local councils, so that we see Conservative Hillingdon council end its unfair parking charges on military personnel and their families in service accommodation—an issue that was raised with me recently when the Secretary of State visited to announce the welcome investment in military housing—and we can finally say that Hillingdon puts our heroes first?
I thank my hon. Friend for what, again, is a very important question. I ask him to write to me on the specific issue of Hillingdon council and parking. The important underlying fact is that we have to put the covenant into law—we have made that commitment, and it will happen within the next two years. We will deliver it, and hopefully we will eradicate the postcode lottery in support to veterans across the country.
I welcome this Government’s quick action to deliver on our promise to veterans of making veteran ID cards an accepted form of voter ID, which rightly ensures access to elections for those who have served to protect our freedoms. Will the Minister work with colleagues across government to ensure that veterans are made aware of that very important change?
It took us four months from starting the process to getting the veteran ID card recognised as voter ID, which is superb. We will move this matter forward, and I would love to discuss it in more detail. I highlight that it is not only a physical ID card: we now also have a digital card, which is increasing veterans’ ability to register with all the different services available.
Will the Minister join me in congratulating East Riding of Yorkshire council on achieving the armed forces covenant employer recognition scheme gold award, and pay tribute to both the council leader Anne Handley and our armed forces champion Councillor Liam Dealtry for their roles in achieving that? Could he also tell the House what he is doing to encourage more organisations to achieve this highest standard in veterans’ support?
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, and congratulate the people he has mentioned on signing up to the covenant duty, which is superb. They join about 12,400 others who have given their signatures, which is a fantastic example of British society standing up to support veterans. In due course, I would like to visit and meet them when we get a chance.
In Shipley constituency, there are over 3,000 veterans. I have enjoyed meeting local veterans recently, and I invite my hon. Friend to join me in thanking them for their service. However, with the number of homeless veteran households in England reaching 2,270 in the year 2023-24, will the Minister assure me that veterans in Shipley constituency will receive the housing support they need?
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the veterans of Shipley. It is essential, especially over the Christmas period and the next three or four months, that anyone who needs a roof over their head has one. That is why Op Fortitude is really moving at pace: we have had just under 3,000 referrals, and over 800 veterans have been put into housing. I would say that if anyone has any veterans in their constituency, please get them to go on to gov.uk and look at the services available. There are plenty of services out there to get those individuals into housing as fast as possible.
It is welcome in Falkirk that this Government are determined to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served and their families. Can the Minister assure veterans in Falkirk that this Government’s work to strengthen the reach and practical application of the armed forces covenant will be a major focus for his Department in 2025?
Absolutely. As a fellow Scot, I take that very seriously, and I will be visiting there at the end of this week. I have already met the Scottish Veterans Minister, and I want to champion best practice and mutual understanding between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that we can all learn off each other and deliver the most and best services for veterans in due course.
As a former councillor, I know that many veterans can find themselves at a disadvantage when trying to access services, including social housing. Veterans face housing challenges not only in Bathgate and Linlithgow, but across the country. With many Scottish councils and indeed the Scottish Government having declared a housing emergency, will the Minister advise the House what engagement he has had with the Scottish Government to ensure that the housing needs of veterans are prioritised?
My hon. Friend highlights a pretty important point. The Government as a whole are pushing forward to deliver houses at a faster rate over the next five years than, I hope, ever before. Veterans will be included in that, and when I come to Scotland at the end of the week these are exactly the issues I will be talking to the Scottish Veterans Minister about.
Operation Prosper was launched in April 2024 to support veterans into work after they leave the armed forces. Does the Minister expect to continue the funding for Operation Prosper after the conclusion of the spending review?
As we move forward, we will be involved in the SDR and looking at supporting veterans into transition and employment in due course. A large proportion of veterans who leave services go into employment. We want to continue that and increase the percentage over time.
Service Dogs UK is a charity dedicated to supporting armed forces and emergency services veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Since opening its south-west hub in Somerton in 2020, it has matched rescue dogs with veterans across Somerset and the wider south-west, giving veterans an opportunity to manage their PTSD and move on with their lives. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the charity, and will the Government support such charities to expand their crucial work?
The charity has my full congratulations on the work it is doing. Having pets such as a dog provides psychological comfort and friends, especially for people healing from some of the psychological impacts of service or indeed combat, and I fully support it. If the hon. Member would like to discuss at a later date how we could push that forward, she should please reach out to me.
Just before Christmas, we had the welcome announcement of a new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland, Mr David Johnstone. Although I am sure the Minister will join me in wishing him well in his new post, it is a part-time post, it has only two seconded staff and it is not on a statutory basis like elsewhere. Will the Government put that post on a statutory basis so that the many veterans in Northern Ireland can have the service they deserve?
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his important question. First, we must get the armed forces covenant into law, which should cover a large proportion of the veteran support mechanism. I congratulate David Johnstone on taking up his post; I phoned him just before the Christmas recess. I am excited and looking forward to working with him and ensuring that the unique attributes of veterans in Northern Ireland are accounted for and represented in the correct manner.
Maggie Haynes is the founder of Tuppenny Barn, a horticultural therapy charity in my constituency, and she is a veteran herself. She established a female veterans course after observing that the challenges faced by women leaving the armed forces combined with poor communication from the MOD was leaving them unaware of the services available to them. What is the Minister doing to improve support for female veterans?
We are working on our armed forces strategy, part of which will be a specific section for female veterans. We understand the nuances and difficulties of female veterans leaving service and trying to find employment or linking employment with family life and so forth, so we are pushing that forward really hard. Again, I would be very pleased to discuss that with the hon. Member in due course.
I thank the veterans Minister for his answer. In previous questions in this Chamber I have suggested to the Minister that he might wish to visit Beyond the Battlefield, a charity in my constituency that gives the only care for soldiers whenever they have fallen on bad times. Will the Minister make time available to come and see what we do with that charity in Portavogie and Strangford as an example for everyone else?
Later this week I am going to Scotland, and we will do Wales and then Northern Ireland in due course, and when I visit I would be honoured to come to see the good work the charity is doing.
I thank my hon. Friends for raising an exceptionally important matter. The deal to sell off most of our service family accommodation in 1996, then rent it back and upgrade it, is probably one of the worst deals I can think of. The recent Annington homes deal, supported by those on both sides of the House, was delivered at speed by this Government, and it saves this country and the taxpayer £600,000 a day, or £230 million a year. It puts us back in the driving seat of owning all our family accommodation. It allows us to renovate or rebuild as required over the next five to 10 years and long into the future. In the medium to long term, we have a once-in-a-generation, lifetime opportunity to rebuild all our accommodation.
May I wish a happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, to Members and to constituents in North Somerset?
Morale in our military hit record lows under the last Government, and I am proud that this Government have already delivered the largest pay rise for the forces in more than 20 years. Does the Minister agree that this housing deal is the next practical step in the action that this Government are delivering to improve service lives for dedicated personnel?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have lived in some of the accommodation and I have seen how bad it is, and this deal will allow us to change that. Over time we will have a chance, saving £230 million a year, to give the people who serve this country the deal they deserve when it comes to housing.
During my service in the late ’80s, through the ’90s and into the early 2000s, I had the pleasure of having to live in military accommodation. Its poor condition was discussed almost weekly. Roll forward 20 years, and we are still having the same discussion. Can Ministers please assure me that they will now seriously get a grip of that and, through the strategic defence review, give some clear programme delivery dates for when we will deliver for our forces?
Absolutely. As part of the SDR, we will set out our new defence housing strategy. We will look at how we take Annington, build on it and improve the housing available for those who serve in our armed forces.
As a member of a forces family, I welcome the Government’s landmark decision to renationalise service housing. For too long, military families have been living in substandard accommodation. How will the Minister ensure that this investment leads to tangible improvements? In what timescales can our servicemen and servicewomen expect to see those improvements start?
We are buying back, we are breaking it down and we will build back up. That will be part of a comprehensive plan across the country and across 36,000 homes over time. It will look to deliver housing that is fit for those who serve and the family members who are often left behind when those individuals deploy. I have absolute confidence that we will deliver that, in conjunction with independent bodies as well as those in defence.
The Minister has already referred to his successful £6 billion deal to repurchase the MOD housing estate from Annington. It will give members of our armed forces the opportunity to have their homes refurbished, which they have longed for, for a very long time. Has he managed to persuade the Treasury that he will need to provide further funds to pump-prime these improvements? If so, how will he strengthen the hitherto very poor management of our military housing estate?
As part of our new defence housing strategy, we will look at how we will manage that estate as a whole and whether we will do it completely differently. As part of the SDR, we will look at how we will pump-prime some of that to get building back across the whole defence estate, bearing in mind that there are 36,000 houses and some of them have been in situ for about 50 years and will need to be knocked down and rebuilt.
Under the previous arrangement between the Ministry of Defence and Annington, £100 million was released for accommodation upgrades in the first seven years of that arrangement. What due diligence was carried out ahead of the sale? What additional investment will be made in the married quarters that the Government have brought back into the MOD’s ownership?
This is one of the best deals that defence has done in a long time. It has bought back 36,000 homes, saving the taxpayer £600,000 a day or £230 million over a year. We are in discussions with the Treasury now about where that money goes and how it will be used in the future, but I assure the hon. Member that the rebuild plan will be within the defence housing strategy as part of the SDR.
Since October 2023, more than 5,000 Afghans eligible for support via the Afghan relocations and assistance policy have been moved into Ministry of Defence service families accommodation—both transitional and then settled service families accommodation—under Operation Lazurite. How many SFA houses in the defence estate are currently being used to house Afghan families? What is the plan for their onward movement once their three-year eligibility for settled service families accommodation has elapsed?
I thank the hon. Member for that really important question. We have a duty of care to those from Afghanistan who are now living in the UK and we are absolutely committed to delivering on that. I will write to him in due course on the specifics of his question.
In 2023, there were over 5,000 reports of damp and mould in service accommodation. Members of the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line to support the freedoms that we take for granted, so it is inconceivable that they and their families are forced to live in homes filled with damp and mould. Now that the MOD has agreed to buy back thousands of these family homes, will the Government commit to ensuring that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards for social housing as set out in the decent homes standard?
We already do that. The reality is that a large proportion of these houses were built 50 to 60 years ago, so the thick insulation and double-skinned walls that we would see as commonplace just do not exist. The Annington deal is therefore such a good one, as it allows us to refurbish or rebuild as required.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that ensuring that veterans and their families can access support—including for housing—is a priority; he mentioned that in his speech at party conference. He has also announced that veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England, and committed an additional £3.5 million to continuing the reducing veteran homelessness programme, including Op Fortitude.
The transition from military to civilian life is a critical moment for many veterans, but too often, those with complex mental health issues fall through the cracks, especially when it comes to accessing housing. The armed forces covenant is an excellent positive step forward, but its voluntary nature means that not all veterans will benefit equally. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the transition process, and particularly mental health services provision, to ensure that all veterans receive more comprehensive and tailored support?
The career transition pathway that has just been set up is a great example of how we are helping those leaving the services to transition into civilian life. Op Courage, in particular, has had more than 35,000 referrals; it is for anybody with mental health issues caused by their service. I recommend going on to gov.uk and looking at the services available, as they are pretty ample.
The defence sector provides well paid jobs across my city and constituency, and across the country. With 10,000 adults in the constituency on the minimum wage, will the Minister help me to work with the Department for Education to ensure that kids in my city get opportunities to work in this brilliant sector?
I thank my hon. Friend for a very important question. I would like to talk further about this. We have been working with the Department for Education—
Is the Minister happy to answer the question? I do not quite see how it links to the subject, but if he is happy—
We owe a debt to our nuclear test veterans, who delivered their service in a courageous and honourable way. I have already committed to looking into the records issue in detail, and to continuous engagement with all the charities and nuclear test veteran groups.
I absolutely agree. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change housing for our service families. It will save taxpayers £600,000 a day, and £230 million over the year. It gives us an opportunity to build back over the medium to longer term, and to deliver the deal that those families deserve.
The essential role played by women throughout both major wars in delivering an industrial powerhouse to support our armed forces is not lost on the Government. I am happy to take this matter offline and discuss it in due course.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The defence housing strategy will be a medium to long-term strategy and will be published, in line with the SDR, in the spring.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Given the Secretary of State for Defence’s previous remarks, can he set out for the House exactly what discussions there have been between Ministers and the incoming Trump Administration on the future of the Diego Garcia base?
The Veterans Minister and I recently visited Bournemouth War Memorial Homes, a specialist social housing provider for veterans in my constituency. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to support housing providers to buy or build homes for heroes across our country?
I thank my hon. Friend for the visit to Bournemouth to see that exemplar of how to house veterans. The Prime Minister has just announced £3.7 million of funding towards veterans’ housing and there will be more to come in due course.
There were reports over the weekend of NATO worries that the UK is not contributing enough to the European defensive shield. That leaves us vulnerable to a missile attack. I hear what the Minister has said about the strategic defence review, but what assurance can he provide that he will look at our defence spending commitments with sufficient speed to provide good enough defence for our country?
Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the figures for the incidence of blood cancers and sarcomas in veterans and current service personnel who have crewed particular military helicopters?
Given the concerns around exposure to exhaust fumes and the importance that we place on safety, the MOD is this month initiating the testing of the exhaust emissions of in-service helicopters to ensure that we are meeting our duty of care for personnel. Nevertheless, I would also like to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.
Following the Christmas day attack on Finnish sea cables, what assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the threat to British interconnectors? Which individual Minister is ultimately responsible for their security?
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsLed by Major General (Retired) Simon Lalor, the reserve forces and cadets associations external scrutiny team provides an independent assessment on the health of the reserve forces on behalf of the Department. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the 2024 report, along with a copy of my response to this report. I am most grateful to the team for their work.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2024-12-17/HCWS326/
[HCWS326]
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsThis Government acknowledge the historic policy prohibiting homosexuality in the armed forces was regrettable, wrong and completely unacceptable. Following the publication of Lord Etherton’s review into the experience of LGBT veterans between 1967 and 2000, the intent behind all 49 recommendations were accepted by the previous Government and now backed by this Government. In the coming days, 42 of these 49 recommendations will have been delivered and the commitment remains to implement the remaining recommendations.
Recommendations 28 and 29 of Lord Etherton’s review referred to a financial award, an important tangible recognition to those affected under the ban between 1967 and 2000 and a way to show this Government’s commitment to accountability and rectification of systemic inequalities. That is why I am pleased today to announce that the LGBT financial recognition scheme will launch on 13 December, one year after the recommendation was formally accepted by the previous Government, with a budget of £75 million, 50% higher than the cap recommended in the Etherton report. The scheme intends to provide recognition to those impacted by the ban, and to express Defence’s regret of the policy it upheld between 1967 and 2000, not to compensate for loss of earnings.
The financial recognition scheme will include two types of payments, the first for those who were dismissed or discharged and the second for those who were impacted in other ways. This will acknowledge the suffering caused by the historic policy with payment levels being proportionate to the experiences of individuals.
The “LGBT dismissed or discharged payment” will be available to veterans who were dismissed or administratively discharged, including officers who were instructed to resign, based solely on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity under the ban. Eligible applicants for this payment will receive a flat rate of £50,000 and may be eligible to apply for a further LGBT impact payment.
The “LGBT impact payment” will be available to those who experienced pain and suffering which was directly related to the ban, including harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. There will be 3 tariff levels with payments varying from £1,000 to £20,000 and this payment will be decided by an independent panel, separate from and independent of the Ministry of Defence.
The scheme will remain open for two years and all payments will be exempt from income tax and will not affect any means-tested benefits that an applicant receives. The Government recognise that some veterans impacted by the ban are seriously unwell, and the applications of terminally ill veterans will be prioritised.
Whilst the financial recognition scheme cannot undo the damage of the historic policy, it represents a meaningful effort to honour those impacted and provide a sense of closure.
In addition to the financial recognition scheme, I would like to also announce today, the implementation of two further restorative measures. Firstly, veterans who were administratively discharged during the ban, based solely on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, will now be able to apply to have this discharge qualified to set right their records, removing any blame or dishonour from those who served. Secondly, veterans who were reduced in rank as part of their dismissal or discharge can apply to have their rank restored, intending to recognise the achievements made during their service.
Finally, whilst not within the scope of Lord Etherton’s review which looked into experiences under the ban between 1967-2000, when HM armed forces policy differed from criminal law, this Government acknowledge that LGBT veterans serving before 1967 may have had similar experiences. That is why today, I would like to extend four non-financial restorative measures to this cohort. These veterans can now apply to have administrative discharges qualified, reduced rank restored and certificates of service re-issued, and former officers may apply to have their service details published in the Gazette, as part of the official record.
[HCWS306]
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWhat a debate we have had today. We have heard some exceptionally harrowing and, indeed, inconceivable stories of events that have taken place in our lifetime. On that note, and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I wish to apologise to all those affected by the ban. The way in which the MOD mistreated LGBT personnel between 1967 and 2000 is a flaming injustice that has burned for more than five decades. It is an injustice that was acknowledged by Lord Etherton’s excellent report last year, and, as I said during our debate six weeks ago, it is an injustice that put the MOD on the wrong side of history. It is an injustice that the last Government worked to heal, with the support of Members in all parts of the House, and for that we thank them. When the scheme opens tomorrow at 09:00 hours and we finally begin the important process of offering financial recognition of the pain caused, we will turn a page and start a new chapter in defence history.
This Government have taken the decision to increase the amount that can be disbursed by the scheme by 50% more than the plans that we inherited. Not only will those dismissed or discharged from service receive a payment; those who were impacted more broadly by the ban will do so too. However, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that no amount of money can undo the hurt and pain caused, and no process can genuinely quantify the impact on earnings. This is a financial acknowledgment of wrongdoing and regret by the state, and while I know that it will not fully satisfy all, I hope that it will help to bring affirmation, and some closure, to those affected. The scheme will also address two more of Lord Etherton’s 49 recommendations—including rank restoration and rewriting those records—leaving just seven to be completed, which remains a major priority. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their comments and the harrowing stories that they related, and I will now try to address some of their specific questions.
Let me say first to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) that we are working exceptionally hard with Fighting With Pride and 10 other charities to ensure that we advertise this scheme as broadly as possible across the community. Indeed, this debate itself is one way to get that message out. We have 24 months of the recognition scheme, primarily because of the prerogative powers but also following the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s report. We have allocated £90,000 to help charities to assist the veterans with their applications, because we acknowledge that some of the processes may not be as simple as others. We are also asking for a reverse burden of proof on the access of the £25 million financial total. Predicting the number of cases that will come forward will be exceptionally difficult: experiences will differ, time served will differ, and therefore the amount of recognition will differ as well.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), facing the Treasury is perhaps much safer than facing the enemy. Nevertheless, I thank those in the Treasury, and the broader team in the Ministry of Defence, for working so hard—championed by the Secretary of State for Defence—to deliver the extra £25 million, a 58% increase on what we had previously. Speed of delivery is essential, and we have gone for both speed and breadth: the speed to deliver the scheme as fast as feasibly possible, and the breadth to ensure that compensation is delivered to all those affected by the ban, both dismissed and discharged. Those who may have been impacted by the ban, but not necessarily recorded—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—will also be able to apply for these resources.
We appreciate the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as well as his work prior to our coming into government. I hope that LGBT veterans now feel, more than ever before, part of the veterans family, thanks primarily to the restorative measures in Lord Etherton’s report, which have gone so far to delivering that. We have now implemented 42 of those 49 recommendations, and I think we will close them out by 2027. Responsibility for some of them does not sit with the Government, but we are working hard with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and other Government Departments to close them out as quickly as possible.
I will cover two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven now, but will address others later. Overseas applicants can apply; the scheme is open to everyone. We will have a look at the geographical spread of charitable support. Although we do not have a huge amount of control over it, we will ensure that it is balanced and will work with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to deliver it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) mentioned the important subject of HIV. I can confirm that we are on the case. Although there is no blanket ban on HIV-positive personnel flying in the armed forces, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that our policies that impact on people with HIV are regularly reviewed. I and the Minister for the Armed Forces in particular are closely considering HIV policies relating to aircrew, and we will get back to my hon. Friend in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), and the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Aberdeen North and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) mentioned a concern about the cap. The financial recognition scheme is a response to a gross injustice—we acknowledge that. It was designed to be a tangible acknowledgment of wrongdoing and regret, and was never intended to compensate for loss of earnings, but I accept that there will always be people who feel, for good reason, that we have not gone far enough.
A North Cornwall constituent of mine was attending the debate from the Public Gallery but has had to leave because of the outrage that he feels. Does the Minister agree that greater financial compensation should be given to veterans such as my constituent, who suffered such enormous harm, including gang rape and severe physical assault that resulted in lifetime disabilities?
I thank the hon. Member for that question. We have tried to balance demands for individual circumstances to be fully recognised on a case-by-case basis with the demand for speedy resolution. We have arrived at amounts that reflect the practice of relevant employment tribunals, and payments made for harm and suffering in the service complaints process, which also align with similarly sized payments awarded by the scheme in Canada. Although Government schemes of this type will always cause debate—I acknowledge that— we have done our best to be fair and balanced, using figures based on relevant precedents and a process that will reflect individual circumstances within a framework designed to avoid delay and ensure fairness across that cohort. It is probably worthwhile to dig into that in a little more detail to provide the House with answers.
The LGBT dismissed or discharged payment for veterans who were dismissed or discharged based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity under the ban will be a flat rate of £50,000. The LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced any pain and suffering directly related to the ban, including bullying and harassment, invasive investigation and, of course, imprisonment. Those who were dismissed and discharged can also apply for that payment. The LGBT impact payments will be assessed by an independent panel against three tariffs—£1,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000 and £10,000 to £20,000—up to a maximum of £20,000, to ensure that awards are proportionate to the level of impact.
We heard several questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), about why the measures have taken so long. Today has been more than 50 years in the making. I totally agree that veterans have waited far too long for this recognition of historical injustice. However, since coming into government, we have moved exceptionally fast. This Government have a bias for action. We came into Government in July, listened to Fighting With Pride and the LGBT veterans, informed and updated the House and colleagues last month, and designed a broad and rapid payments scheme, and at 0900 tomorrow, that scheme will open and deliver.
We also had some questions about the impact of loss of earnings, particularly to do with pensions. It is worth noting that this is not a compensation scheme and has not been designed as such. With such a variety of experiences and personal circumstances within the affected community, and with limited evidence available, it is difficult to estimate how long each veteran would have served if not for the ban and what rank they might have reached.
Finally, on the question about Lord Etherton’s recommendations: two are for the Ministry of Defence to implement and five are for the national health service to address. My team is in touch with the Department of Health and Social Care as we move that forward.
As various Members mentioned, it is worth noting the broader non-financial restorative measures that are taking place. There are 719 applications already, which is fantastic. In practice, this means everything from apology letters sent directly to individuals from the chiefs of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Air Force, through to medals and berets, ensuring that these veterans feel included as part of the veterans community.
When I joined the Royal Marines in 1999, this abhorrent ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was still in place. Today, a quarter of a century later, we turn a page on that shameful chapter in our national story. The financial recognition scheme is an acknowledgment by the state that it was wrong. While I accept that many veterans will continue to feel that it does not go far enough, the scheme is another vindication of the harm and pain they have suffered, and vindication for all those who stood against the ban.
I urge everyone affected by these past failings to access the financial recognition scheme and other restorative measures by visiting the LGBT veterans support page on the gov.uk website. On this page, they will find a simple guide explaining how to apply for financial recognition payments, which includes details of the scheme, eligibility and the supporting documents required. There are simple screenshots of what to expect when applying, and the application form has been streamlined to make the process straightforward and user-friendly to ensure that veterans can apply with as much ease as possible.
I thank Lord Etherton for his outstanding work on this report. I also thank the LGBT community and the charities that supported it, particularly Fighting With Pride, for their courage and continued efforts to bring this to a resolution. They have engaged comprehensively throughout the programme, with both the MOD team and me.
I have an old saying from combat: “Courage is a decision, not a reaction.” Few have been so courageous as those watching this debate today. To stand up, to struggle to your feet when everyone is trying to push you down, and to shout when everyone is trying to silence you—that is an active decision, and perhaps the most courageous decision of all. They should stand proud from here on out.
The debate today and the speed at which we have worked—the fact that from tomorrow at 0900 the scheme will open—is a credit to all those who have worked on the team. It also reaffirms that this Government are a Government of action. Indeed, we have a bias for action, and the Defence Secretary and I will continue to drive this forward until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented to right the wrongs of the past.
To the individuals affected—Victoria, Craig, Danny, Claire, Andrew and Janice, to name but a few—we apologise. We hope that this will go some way through the healing process. In line with Claire Ashton and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, we want to ensure that every veteran who has helped to keep Britain secure receives the respect and support they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I would like to start with four thank yous. I thank you, Mr Dowd, for your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this exceptionally important debate. I thank all the hon. and gallant Members who have spoken today. Most importantly, I thank the individuals in the Chamber who have taken part in explosive ordnance disposal. Their bravery, courage and sacrifice at the very front of the line have been demonstrated to us all over the last several decades.
First, it is worth our while to talk about capability. There are about 700 EOD service personnel drawn from the British Army and the Royal Navy, as well as those transferred in from the Royal Air Force. There is also a highly trained unit at the Metropolitan police, staffed in particular by former members of the Army. These people operate in a state of exceptionally high readiness, 365 days a year. On average, they deal with a staggering 2,300 EOD incidents across the UK each year, not to mention their overseas operations. They deal with anything from legacy world war two munitions to the criminals’ and terrorists’ improvised explosive devices mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Our EOD operators are highly trained and world renowned. They are equipped to deal with a full range of explosive threats, including devices with chemical, biological, radiological or indeed nuclear payloads, all the way through to supporting allies across NATO and beyond. From my perspective, and that of all of us here today, they deserve absolute appreciation and thanks—from the Government, Parliament and the entire country.
Let me turn to the domestic impact. Over the years, our explosive ordnance disposal teams have dealt with countless potential lethal devices and incidents—from pipe bombs, car bombs and improvised mortars during the troubles in Northern Ireland, to devices produced by domestic extremists, all the way through to 500 kg to 1,000 kg bombs such as the one removed in February from the back garden of a residential property in the constituency of the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Other high-profile world war two bombs have also been discovered in recent months: in Newtownards in Northern Ireland in August, in Tilbury in November, and in Southsea just last week.
Explosive ordnance disposal capability is absolutely vital to warfare—to how we fight, to our troops and to protecting the civilian population. EOD experts were critical to, but not limited to, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—they also worked in Northern Ireland, the middle east and Africa. There are EOD operators from other countries across the globe and in every continent.
I remember my own personal experience of being sat in many a ditch in Afghanistan during extremely heavy firefights. The only individual who moved forward was the one in the bomb disposal suit, usually on his belly or with a dog, crawling forward towards the threat. That underlines a critical point: courage is not necessarily a reaction; courage is a decision. The EOD operators who I have worked with have to make that decision, and never once did they falter. That is deeply impressive.
At my Birmingham constituency surgery just this week, I had the privilege of talking to someone one of whose family members was killed in the Birmingham pub bombings. That really brought home the fact that the impact of the troubles was felt not just in Northern Ireland; it regularly spread all the way through the UK. That fact is often forgotten in today’s society.
I also thank the EOD operators I worked with in the maritime domain. Defusing an improvised explosive device or a mine on land is difficult; doing it sub-surface in the dark is exceptionally difficult. It is worth taking a moment to think about how difficult that would be, and about the courage required to do that while on a dive set underneath the surface of the ocean.
Let me move on to industry and economic growth. In addition to keeping us and our troops safe, our EOD capability also has an important economic legacy. It feeds our scientific and industrial base, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, and helps sustain cutting-edge design, particularly in robotics and detection technologies. The MOD is working with the Department for Business and Trade to unlock export opportunities for British companies and grow our economy. I would like to discuss that in due course to see how we can move it forward faster.
As the threat to the UK and our NATO allies from grey zone Russian attacks and sabotage increases, so does the importance of our EOD capabilities. They need to evolve to contend with the evolution of warfare—the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the drones and battery technology used for delivering explosives. Globally, EOD operations are becoming increasingly complex. States and violent extremist organisations use a mixture of conventional and improvised explosive devices: fuses, switches, sensors and metal-less IEDs are becoming more intricate and advanced.
In Ukraine, whose EOD and search operations have received UK training, we have seen an increasing use of airdropped and improvised munitions from commercial drones. That illustrates how future conflicts will be characterised by a huge variety of explosive threats that will often blur the line between conventional munitions and improvised explosive devices. We should expect such weapons to be deployed in ever more diverse ways in the future of conflict, against troops, airfields, maritime assets and indeed civilians. The capabilities we need in order to respond will have to keep pace, which again talks to innovation and moving forward as fast as we can.
EOD capabilities will remain essential to freedom of movement on the battlefield and to combat effectiveness, and will reduce the loss of life. From a procurement perspective, it is important to ensure that EOD personnel have exactly what they need, when they need it, including the best technology. Members have my word that the MOD will continue to ensure that that happens.
From a policy perspective, our strategic defence review will make recommendations on the roles, capabilities and reforms we require in Defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities we face. The Government will review EOD policy and operational capabilities to ensure they remain fit for the future.
Let me turn to the questions I was asked, particularly by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I agree that our EOD capability can be used as a diplomatic tool. De-mining expertise primarily saves lives, and that must be the ultimate principle, but it also supports economic growth and reconstruction. People can reuse the land. Huge swathes of terrain across the world are rendered ineffective—I will not say “useless”—by mines or contamination. It also opens up urban areas and, importantly, reduces the impact to international shipping, which is often overlooked. That impact can translate into billions of pounds of lost trade. This work is best done collaboratively, and it is exceptionally difficult to do it unless we have a cessation of violence, so we must move towards that first.
We have some of the best medical research in the world on blast injuries, both physical and psychological. We are working with our Ukrainian allies and others to ensure that those lessons are learned and translated to our allies and partners. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell if she has found licensing issues that we can progress faster.
To the hon. Member for Strangford, I say that this issue can often be branded as new, but the UK and Northern Ireland have dealt with it for the last 50 years and some. I recognise that the citizens of the UK and Northern Ireland, and the security services, have dealt with EOD issues over a huge amount of time. We owe a debt of gratitude to the individuals who have gone through that process and dealt with the very early stages of EOD and IED development and defusing.
The hon. Gentleman also put the problem in context by talking about Ukraine. It is worth noting that in the counter-offensive last year alone, Ukraine faced over 60,000 anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel mines, sometimes triple-stacked, and that 10% of all munitions fired in Ukraine, specifically Russian munitions, do not detonate. To put that in scale, when 10,000 to 16,000 artillery rounds are being fired each day, we are talking world war two statistics. This is not a problem that will go away today; it will last a generation. Investing in our EOD capabilities and championing the charities that do that work is absolutely front and centre.
How can we further help Ukraine? There is a relationship to share lessons learned as well as best practice in physical and psychological issues. Of course, we champion our veterans, specifically those that have been injured or are on a journey through recovery, through the Invictus games. The games are in Canada next year and are coming to Birmingham the year after, which is absolutely superb. I would encourage anyone in the House to support that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made a pertinent point and highlighted that not just British casualties are injured by EOD or improvised explosive devices. A very close friend who I was in training with lost three of his limbs. A hospital just outside my constituency of Birmingham Selly Oak treated an Afghan casualty who had lost three limbs. The amazing work of the surgeons there kept him alive and now he is thriving in the UK, which is truly remarkable. It is also important to champion the charities and encourage both financial and physical support to those organisations, where possible, whether that is the HALO Trust or others. Again, I support my hon. Friend’s views on cadets and reserves, both from a social mobility perspective and, of course, on mobilisation.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) told the heart-moving story of an EOD operator with an unprecedented record of defusing capabilities—think how many lives he saved by doing that. I thank the hon. Member for bringing that to light.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) reinforced the impact of his father’s contribution in the second world war. It is often forgotten that mine clearing, as it was called then, was essential to the D-day landings, the Arctic convoys and our trade and war supplies from America and across the Empire. It was truly remarkable. I would say that, because in my last job as chief of staff to the carrier strike force, mine-hunting capabilities were integral to that strike force.
It is worth noting that mine laying at sea—there are huge maritime mine stocks across the world—can have a demonstrable impact on the world’s economy. Our economy is primarily based on overseas trade, so it is worth thinking about that. There are huge stocks with very sophisticated capabilities, so it is really important.
I have been clear throughout every debate in which I have spoken and every question I have answered that Members have my word that I will give Northern Ireland veterans legal and welfare support. I am a Northern Ireland veteran myself: I did six months there under Op Banner. I recognise the issues. Members have my word that, as the Veterans Minister, I will support veterans with everything I can.
We will continue to invest in mine disposal capabilities, from EOD all the way through to the more bigger capabilities such as a plough at the front of an armoured column in a division that digs the mines up with an armoured thrust or armoured movement. The details of that will come out in the SDR. I will not go into the exact details of the budget because we do not know, but as we move forward the SDR will produce that, and that will be delivered next year. Details will follow in due course.
In conclusion, from the early forms of bomb disposal—even following the gunpowder plot in 1605—to the 1,000 kg world war two bomb destroyed by the Royal Navy clearance divers in Portsmouth last week, our history has shown us that explosive ordnance disposal is vital to security at home and abroad. Although I cannot pre-empt the strategic defence review or the recommendations and capabilities that will flow from it, hon. Members should be in absolutely no doubt about the high esteem in which the Government hold our EOD professionals, our appreciation of the vital safety blanket that they provide over the whole country, and our appreciation of the need to bolster their capabilities in the face of morphing and multiplying threats.
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberFollowing on from our recent discussion, I would like to reiterate that the service and sacrifice made by those on board Sir Galahad will never be forgotten. After any incident that results in loss of life, people will always ask themselves, “What if something different had happened?” However, the losses on Sir Galahad were the result of enemy action, and enemy action alone. Under the Public Records Act 1958 we protect personal data and information, but we have recently reviewed further files and I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend this month to discuss the issue further.
Falklands veterans from the Welsh Guards, including my constituent Mike Hermanis, continue to campaign to uncover the truth behind the attack on the Sir Galahad in June 1982. I know that the Minister is already working on this, but with time marching on, will he agree to meet not only me, but colleagues and, crucially, veterans from the campaign to discuss releasing the remaining documents from the board of inquiry so that those veterans and the families of those who died can finally get to the truth?
I would welcome a discussion with my hon. Friend about engaging with the veterans community from Sir Galahad, and I look forward to our meeting later this month.
I have many friends who served out there, and the after-effects of that disaster—death, burnt human beings—still bang on and resonate with them today. All they want is to know why they were there at the wrong time. Who gave the orders? The report is critical. It is not just a case of them being damaged or killed by enemy action; it is about the incompetence of those who put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, leaving them open to that simple, terrible attack.
There is much chaos in conflict, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the Ministry of Defence in no way blames the Welsh Guards for the events of that tragic day. My officials have been reviewing further files, and two extracts from the board of inquiry have been reviewed and are now within the open records at the National Archives.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for her sustained campaign for transparency. My constituent Oliver Richardson, the mayor of Deal, was just 21 when he survived the sinking. I welcome the Minister’s offer of a meeting, and I ask to be included, please.
I emphasise how mystifying it is that these documents have not already been released, 40 years after the conflict. It is not about identifying blame or who was responsible. In my view, it is about making sure that lessons are transparently learned for future operations about command chains and accountability during conflict. What is the reason for withholding these documents? Will the Minister show compassion for those who still live with this, whether as bereaved relatives or as people bearing the scars and injuries of this dreadful event?
First of all, I have compassion for those injured or wounded in combat, after seeing many throughout my career. I assure the House that the individual lessons learned from this conflict have been spread throughout the Department and into the single services. Five files, comprising 308 witness statements, are closed and, under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958, these witness statements will remain closed until 2065. However, we will look at reviewing some of these statements, and we will provide a view in due course.
This is a Government of service who will always stand up for those who serve our country, and I am steadfast in my commitment to deliver improved services for veterans nationwide, including in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am working to ensure a dedicated structure and support mechanism for veterans that is more institutionally resilient, through working across Government and with devolved Administrations.
Our veterans are on the frontline as they defend our country, and when seeking meaningful support to get on with their lives when they get home. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme, led by chairman Geoff Harriman, for all the work it does? Will he come to visit the centre, meet our veterans, and show them the support that they deserve?
I would be delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s offer to visit Newcastle-under-Lyme and reopen the tri-service centre. I look forward to meeting veterans in the constituency and learning more about the fantastic work they are doing.
I recently met Got Your Six in Wincanton, which provides crucial therapeutic support for veterans and serving personnel. One veteran told me that its support had been invaluable at a point in his life when he could not see a future. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Got Your Six, and will the Government support such groups to expand their crucial work?
I congratulate Got Your Six and all the charitable sector on the amazing voluntary work that goes on across the country. I, too, have seen the amazing work that Got Your Six does and would like to meet its representatives in due course if they come down to Westminster.
I have visited various cadet units, and I am constantly in awe of their work not only to increase social mobility, but to improve the health and wellbeing of various young people across the country. They produce an annual return on investment in the region of £95 million. We are committed to sustaining cadet forces across the UK, and we continue to invest in cadet expansion in schools so that even more young people, particularly in the state sector, can benefit from being in the cadets.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister about the benefits of the cadets, so why have the Government cut support to cadets, even as they were launching a national youth strategy? His colleague said earlier that the Government would have a review. The question is: can that gap in support be plugged and the school staff instructor grant be restored so that more children—hopefully, many more children—in state schools can benefit from joining the cadets?
I am conducting a review into cadets and reserves. The cadet expansion programme will still receive £3.6 million in Government funding through the Ministry of Defence, and I can reassure the right hon. Member that we are fully committed to supporting the cadet expansion programme. I will speak to him about our review in due course, once it is complete.
I would love to come and visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to talk through that and reaffirm that the covenant will go into law in the next two to three years. That work is progressing as I speak.
I will not comment on other parts of the Government’s funding priorities; what I would suggest is that the MOD absolutely supports the cadet forces. We have over 140,000 cadets and 26,000 adult volunteers, and we will review the cadets process and make sure it is fit for purpose as we move forward.
I thank my hon. Friend for his really important question. For the past 14 years, we have kicked the can down the road on housing, and I will take it upon myself to put in place a medium and long-term plan that will solve those housing problems as we move forward. There are over 47,000 MOD properties, and we will make sure people get the deal they deserve.
Absolutely, and I congratulate Light Project on its work. Op Fortitude has also referred over 2,000 veterans, and has already put 800 into housing.
The Secretary of State said a moment ago that the UK is working on a potential UK-EU security agreement. Might that include involvement in the European Peace Facility, which procures ammunition jointly?
Due to a lack of funding, many reservists in my constituency are not getting the training days they need and are therefore not receiving the salary that they had anticipated. That means that many highly trained and committed reservists have no choice but to leave and join another career. Will the Minister outline what the Labour Government will do to support our reservists, including those who live in my constituency, all of whom are a vital part of our armed forces?
As an individual who signed up in just the past two weeks to be a reserve, this matter is close to my heart. We are doing a review into reservists over the next couple of weeks, which will be linked to the strategic defence review, to find out how we can simplify the process and make it easier for people to join and serve the armed forces in a way that is befitting to them.
Labour’s manifesto made it clear that it was committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served this country for four or more years, as well as their dependants—a pledge I wholeheartedly support and have campaigned on. The Veterans Minister previously stated that the MOD has started to work with the Home Office, so what is the timetable for delivering that manifesto pledge?
We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.
We were delighted to host the Veterans Minister in Telford recently. In a survey of the veterans community in Telford, access to healthcare was the top priority. What work is the Department doing with health Ministers to improve access for veterans to healthcare, in particular mental health care?
I thank my hon. Friend for hosting that visit. The two key programmes are Op Courage, which has had 30,000 referrals already, and Op Restore, to help veterans with muscular and skeletal problems. I point any veteran to the gov.uk page that describes all the support that they can get via the NHS and others.
Small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency tell me that research and development funding has dried up since last December. What hope can the Minister offer to ensure that SMEs continue their vital innovation to keep the UK safe, and to help them turn their swords into ploughshares?
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal British Legion for another highly successful poppy appeal, and the Redditch and Astwood Bank Royal British Legion for another record-breaking year?
I completely concur. I am sure the whole House will agree that the Royal British Legion did a fantastic job in this year’s remembrance parade. I had the privilege of marching with the veterans for the first time since I left the armed forces. It was a fantastic show of respect to all those who have served.
Between 1978 and 1990, in what was an illegal act, 5,700 women were dismissed and discharged from the armed forces on family grounds—for falling pregnant while in service. This is not a question of compensation; they want their berets and cap badges returned to them. Will the Minister please work with me to right an injustice done to all those women who just wanted to keep serving their country, and now want that service recognised?
That is a really important question. We have the utmost respect for all those who have served. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to move that forward.
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) for initiating this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) for lending his support, and for his fantastic support for cadets, which is absolutely super. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) for sharing a harrowing story that is all too familiar across the system. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for his moving story, which really resonates, given what we are discussing today.
Earlier this month, I had the privilege of speaking at the LGBTQ+ defence awards, where I thanked former and serving personnel for their tenacity and courage. I mentioned that anyone can dodge bullets, bombs or artillery fire, but to fight against the tide when everything is bearing down on you, and to continue the struggle and fight for justice, is commendable. A wise man once said to me that courage is a decision, not a reaction. Those fighting for pride, and others who have championed this cause for so long, are truly courageous. Indeed, they are the bravest of the brave.
The abhorrent way in which LGBT service personnel were treated between 1967 and 2000 by the Ministry of Defence was completely unacceptable. The Ministry was on the wrong side of history. Its historical policy of prohibiting homosexuality in the armed forces was simply wrong, which is why the LGBT veterans independent review, conducted by Lord Etherton, has united this Chamber since its report came out in July last year. This Government supported the review in opposition, and we are now supporting its delivery. I trust that colleagues appreciate the importance of this remaining a cross-party issue as we address the remaining recommendations.
I want to personally thank Lord Etherton for all the thoughtful work he has done to address the long- burning injustices, and I am pleased that 33 of his 49 recommendations have been implemented. I can confirm that we have already received 676 applications for non-financial restorative measures through the gov.uk website. In practice, this means that the chiefs of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have sent apology letters directly to the individuals affected by these issues. Medals and berets that should never have been taken away have been reissued, and each of the services has hosted several presentation ceremonies to welcome LGBT veterans back into the service family, where they have always belonged.
Rightly, our focus is now on fully addressing the 16 outstanding recommendations, including the two that relate to financial redress for those dismissed and discharged as a result of the ban, so I very much welcome this opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members. It will help inform the Government’s work to design an appropriate financial redress scheme that enables applications to be considered on a case-by-case basis and timely payments to be made. I can reassure veterans and the whole LGBT community that the needs of potential claimants are being carefully considered at each stage, including the need for a fast lane for applicants in certain circumstances, especially those with terminal illnesses.
I am, of course, aware of speculation, and I have heard some figures in relation to the fund. I trust colleagues will understand that we continue to finalise its modalities, and it is too soon for me to comment on exact figures. However, the Government are fully committed to meeting our inherited target of opening the application window by the end of 2024, and it remaining open for two years.
I am not sure whether it is common procedure for someone intervene in their own debate, but I appreciate the Minister’s time, and I thank him for his comments about the compensation scheme. I know that he is doing the work, and that he sincerely understands the scenario for these people. It would be remiss of me not to mention that although “Steven”, my constituent, felt that yesterday’s Budget was great in lots of ways, particularly the provisions around infected blood and the Post Office scandal, he wanted a compensation scheme to deal with this issue in the same way. I hope that the Minister will look at that, make sure that we do not wait another year, for the next Budget, to talk about what we can do financially and sustainably, and recognise the context that “Steven” references.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. To link that to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven said, I am aware of recent speculation about the size of any fund and redress payments. It is not possible to have certainty about the number of applicants at the moment. It is also premature to estimate the size of the payment awards, but we are working to make sure that the broadest number of individuals receive payments. We acknowledge that along with those who were dismissed and discharged, many who were not were also impacted by the ban.
Of the 16 outstanding recommendations, six are for the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to implement, including the delivery of the memorial at the National Arboretum, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. We are progressing those with the excellent staff from Fighting With Pride, who are here today. Ten of the outstanding recommendations are for the national health service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley mentioned, and my team are in touch with Department of Health and Social Care colleagues to track that process.
My hon. Friend highlighted harrowing stories about the ban, which are tragically all too familiar. The Defence Secretary and I have sat down with a number of veterans affected by the ban, and I have heard about the different and profound ways that it has harmed people’s lives. That is why I am determined that the Government shall address all the outstanding recommendations.
One of the reasons why we are in this position, having made so much progress, is that under the last Labour Government, we made a lot of legal changes, but we also worked to make societal changes, along with progressive colleagues from other parties. There is a lot of hope from the community that, with a new Government, we can pick up that baton and make progress again, so I am pleased to hear what the Minister says. Does he agree that resolving these issues quickly would send the message to the LGBT community that we are taking this seriously, and are keen to get on with making progress on equality again?
I absolutely agree. The quicker that we get this done and get due justice delivered, the better. That is absolutely where we want to go.
When I joined the Royal Marines in 1999, the shameful ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was still in place. Last month, the Defence Secretary and I presented Etherton ribbons to Emma Riley, Stephen Close and Carl Austin-Behan. The ribbon represents the commitment and sacrifices made in service by LGBT veterans, the suffering caused by the cruel ban, and the strength shown by those who stood against it. It is one of numerous steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the armed forces are tolerant and welcoming to all.
Our LGBT+ networks are helping us to improve the experiences of service personnel and civilian staff. I urge everyone affected by past failings to register interest in restorative measures by visiting the LGBT veterans support page on gov.uk. The Defence Secretary and I will drive hard to get this work done, until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented —to right the wrongs of the past and to ensure that every veteran who has helped keep Britain secure receives the respect and support they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.