Armed Forces Personnel

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

May I correct my hon. Friend? Headley Court is not due to close in the near future. We are talking about a development that is still a good many years off. The new facility in the midlands will be ready towards the end of the decade. It will be a much bigger facility, and it will initially offer support to armed forces personnel, although we hope that, in the fullness of time, the campus will allow for a modular approach that will enable veterans and members of the wider society to take advantage of it. Also, the clinical support there will be quite close to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, which will enable an even higher standard of care to be delivered. I am pleased to say that all the relevant stakeholders—the trustees at Headley Court, Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and others—are entirely aware of the scheme and supportive of it, so I see no reason for it to cause any disappointment or grief.

What has been achieved at Headley Court has been nothing short of remarkable, but we have to recognise that a country house in the Surrey countryside is not the ideal location if we are trying to build a modern, state-of-the-art facility. The opportunity afforded by a completely new build in the midlands will allow us to take what is being done at Headley Court on to a greater scale altogether, which will be of help to a greater number of people. I would not want anyone to think that the move was imminent, but the plans are in place and they will be rolled out towards the end of the decade.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Real estate is clearly important, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of the chief advantages of the relocation is the potential for far greater integration with the national health service? That will mean that the excellent service provided at Headley Court will be more likely to be emulated throughout our national health service not only for our service personnel but for everyone.

[Nick Harvey]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that that will be the outcome. I say again that what has been achieved at Headley Court is absolutely remarkable, and everyone involved deserves the highest praise and thanks from all of us for the work that they do. We must, however, take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the new facility to provide a national centre, which will be of lasting benefit. As I said earlier, some of those who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with serious injuries will need support for the rest of their lives, and I am sure that the new national centre will have a part to play in that.

Looking to the future, the strategic defence and security review has set the vision for our people, including the development of a new employment model, which aims to provide an attractive package that better suits the demands of modern life. Those who serve today, and their families, have very different expectations and needs from those of even a generation ago. Moving towards a new employment model will mean looking not only at the terms and conditions of service but at different approaches to basing, accommodation and supporting family life. It is clear that a large number of service personnel and their families would benefit from a more stable lifestyle, involving everything from schooling the children and buying a home to providing better stability for spouses’ careers. It is also clear that the defence budget would benefit from such a proposal, as it would enable us to reduce housing stock and relocation costs. It would also allow us to reduce spending on allowances that would be no longer necessary.

On the other hand, the predictability and stability that someone with a growing family seeks might not be the same thing that motivates a young man or woman to join the armed forces in the first place. Their motivations might include learning a trade, seeking adventure, seeing the world or serving their country. Getting the balance right in recruitment and retention at different points in a career will present different challenges for each of the three services. Succeed we must, however, because military effectiveness is not built simply on getting the right equipment; it is built on people. The men and women of our armed forces are the greatest asset we have, and we must ensure that we provide them with what they need to succeed in the dangerous jobs that they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I do indeed. It worries me that, not only the Royal British Legion and other service charities, but a range of organisations that deal with the bereaved cannot see the logic of the decision. It disturbs me that the cross-party support I saw when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Committee in the last Parliament seems to have been withdrawn.

[Dr Murrison]

On the subject of no disadvantage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly regrettable that the Administration in which he served allowed the MOD to pay for expensive barristers to argue the Department’s corner in coroners’ courts, which are supposed to be non-adversarial situations? That has been represented as a genuine concern in the context of no disadvantage, whereas the office of chief coroner has not.

[Mr Jones]

I disagree. We put in place, with the Royal British Legion, support for bereaved families at military coroners proceedings. That was important, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East was very keen to do it. I simply do not accept that not having a chief coroner will help bereaved families to get the answers they want, and I cannot see why this Government have suddenly changed their position from the one they held when in opposition.

The RBL has said the change in policy is

“a betrayal of bereaved armed forces families”

and that it

“threatens the military covenant.”

The Government’s stated reason for the change in policy is deficit reduction, but the costs of the office are widely disputed and both the RBL and INQUEST are prepared to work with the Government to find a more cost-effective option. It is regrettable that Justice Ministers—not MOD Ministers, I accept—have not listened to the RBL’s well-founded concerns.

It is difficult to understand the Government’s deficit reduction measures, especially when we learn that a firm of consultants, AlixPartners, has been employed by the MOD on a £4,000 a day contract, meaning that it earns more in a week than a front-line soldier in Afghanistan earns in a year. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the RBL’s arguments about the chief coroner.

Substantial numbers of armed forces personnel have been made redundant in recent months. That is, of course, only the start of the service personnel cuts that are to be made over the next four years. When the strategic defence review was published in October 2010, we were told that 17,000 personnel across the three services would have to go. As of July 2011, however, as the Government prepared to issue their latest round of redundancies, we were told that the number had risen to 22,000. When outlining the further reductions, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, failed to offer the armed forces any clarity on what the precise size of the armed forces would be by 2015. We are still waiting for confirmation of exactly how many redundancies there will be on top of those sketched out in the strategic defence and security review, and of whether the new Secretary of State agrees with the statement made by his predecessor. The new Defence Secretary has said that he “regrets” cuts to our armed forces, but it is not yet clear whether he has the courage of his convictions and intends to act on those regrets.

The redundancies issue is not just about numbers, though; it is also about the individuals and the skills that are being lost to all three services. When I hear that some of the individuals I once worked with when I was a Minister are now leaving the services, it makes me concerned about whether our armed forces and this country can afford to lose those capable and well-trained individuals. Greater clarity is the very least our armed forces deserve. If there are to be cuts, we should know where they will fall. Service personnel must be allowed the opportunity to plan for their futures and the futures of their families.

One of the most worrying aspects of the latest round of redundancies last month was that 800 members of the Royal Navy actually volunteered to leave. They were not asked to leave by the MOD, but instead felt that they would be better off outside the service. They made that decision at about the same time as we learned that morale in all three services is in decline. It is essential that today we ask why that is the case. We must ask why 800 members of the Royal Navy believed they had better opportunities elsewhere. It is vital that our forces are able to attract the best talent and retain it, and I am worried that we may be left with skills shortages as a result of the short-term budget changes currently being put in place.

The Conservatives did exactly the same thing when they were last in office in the 1990s, and in the following decade we had to deal with the problems that caused—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Devizes chunters from a sedentary position very often, but does she realise that as a Parliamentary Private Secretary she should be the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, not his mouthpiece? A bit of quiet from the hon. Lady would be a better idea. She might want to take some lessons from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sat in the Chamber quietly while serving very effectively as PPS. May I put on the record my appreciation of the good job he did in that role? I was very sad to see him replaced, especially given what we have experienced today. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is obviously not listening: it does not help Ministers if she sits behind them whingeing and making snide comments. She should seek advice from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who might be able to give her some tips on how to do the job properly.

When he winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say what the MOD is doing to ward against the decline in morale in all three services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I start by declaring my interest as a service pensioner and a current member of the reserve forces.

It is a great pleasure to follow four current and past members of the Defence Committee. I wish to develop a point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) made in his extremely considered contribution, which is about the universality of the military covenant. I share his concern that we may forget that it is not a local covenant, or an English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh one, but a UK covenant. In preparing my report “Fighting Fit”, on veterans’ mental health, and more recently a report on military amputees, I have been extremely aware of the need to ensure that the complexity of the devolved arrangement is worked through. I have been buoyed up by the understanding of that necessity among officials and Ministers throughout the UK. There is a strong understanding that we must ensure that the covenant is applied throughout the UK and in equal part. From my experience of preparing that work, I am confident that it will.

[Mr Havard]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says and congratulate him on behalf of all hon. Members on his work on both those matters. I hope he is correct that a consistent approach will be maintained over time. My concern is that the process needs to endure not just for the next five years or the next comprehensive spending review period, but for a long time into the future.

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree.

Last week, with a number of hon. Members, I rattled a tin for the Royal British Legion in Westminster tube station. That is always an enjoyable occasion and it is particularly pleasurable to importune colleagues as they come through the barriers, and to fix one’s gimlet eyes on precisely what goes into the tin—indeed, it restores one’s faith in politicians. Perhaps I should not name names, but without exception, they were all extremely generous. Such occasions are well appreciated in the House and I recommend that all hon. Members participate in future.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I shall pay my tribute this weekend—in my case at the war memorials in Trowbridge and Warminster. In each of the 10 years that I have been the local MP, I have noticed an increase in the number of people who wish to pay their respects. I was asked this morning on my local radio, which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) knows well, why we should wear a poppy. One point made earlier was that there is an imperative pressure to wear one. The truth is that it is an individual choice—nobody should feel obliged to wear any badge or mark of commemoration. However, purely anecdotally, it seems that more and more people are choosing to wear a poppy, and they are sometimes people whom we would not necessarily expect to do so. They do so not out of a sense of militarism, nationalism or patriotism, but out of a sense that we need to mark the sacrifice and contribution of people who have fought in conflicts. We might or might not agree with those conflicts, but nevertheless, those who fought in them have shown the best of us in their soldierly conduct. That is why people choose to wear a poppy and to be so generous to the poppy appeal and the Royal British Legion.

I look forward to the armed forces covenant interim report later this year. I welcome very much the evolution of the external reference group into the covenant reference group, and particularly Ministers’ insistence that it should be independent. The evolution of the Armed Forces Act 2011 was interesting—as has been said, the Royal British Legion certainly made a big contribution to it. I do not entirely share the perspective of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), but nevertheless, the Royal British Legion’s contribution was an important one. I look forward to seeing both the interim report and the covenant reference group’s response—its independence is extremely important.

I welcome Professor Hew Strachan’s work and the report of his independent taskforce, which was published in December last year. I hope we have an opportunity to discuss progress on the points in the interim report that have been accepted by the Government when it is debated later this year.

[Mrs Grant]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to give tangible meaning to the military covenant, and that the importance of doing small things in military accommodation, such as fixing kitchens and improving bathrooms, must not be underestimated?

[Dr Murrison]

Absolutely. The military covenant is not laid down didactically in the Armed Forces Act. It was debated at great length when the measure went through the House and the other place, and it is absolutely right that it should not be set in stone in those sorts of ways, although clearly we can talk about it. However, the armed forces, which are meant to be the subject of the covenant, will be pretty unimpressed if it is not followed with tangibles. We will always ask for more, particularly those of us who represent military or naval areas, and no doubt we will never be entirely satisfied. However, in difficult circumstances, the Government have continued the best of the work done by the previous Administration in trying to improve the lot of those who serve in our armed forces.

Mention has been made of the chief coroner. The Royal British Legion is an excellent organisation in almost all respects, but I take issue with it on this matter. I have counselled caution on its insistence that we retain a chief coroner. I have a particular interest: many of the military inquests that have been necessary over the past 10 years have taken place in Trowbridge in my constituency. I have visited those inquests, and I have spoken with David Masters, the then coroner. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, and have been so for hundreds of years. In this respect, part of the value of the coronial service has been that it has been prepared to be very outspoken, and there are Ministers who served in the previous Administration who bear the scars on their backs of the coroner’s many interventions, particularly on kit. That is absolutely as it should be. The whole point about the coroner’s contribution in the past 10 years is that he has spoken out, particularly on kit, and I have absolutely no doubt that that policy was changed for the better as a result of the comments of David Masters and Andrew Walker. I would be very cautious about altering a system that has delivered such good effect to the benefit of men and women at the front line.

This week we remember the fallen. Remembrance is an integral part of the covenant between the armed forces and the nation. In 2014, we will commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the great war. In the UK, we have a tradition of commemorating and celebrating the end of conflict, not the beginning, which is a good thing. However, we need to make an exception in this case, because the great war was the seminal event of modern history. Not only did its outbreak herald four years of desperate, terrible carnage, but it set in place the conditions for the second world war. Both those conflicts have shaped and formed how we live today, and it is appropriate that we take the opportunity to reflect on and commemorate the early days of the great war.

There are a number of reasons for that. First, it is not right that the sacrifice of those millions of people between 1914 and 1918 should go unrecognised 100 years on. What sort of people would we be if we did not mark out this anniversary? It is a deeply human thing to wish to commemorate sacrifice on that scale. However, there are also lots of things to be learned from the great war, and there are messages for us today, particularly for children in our schools who, as has been mentioned already, we hope will grow up in a world without conflict of that nature, but who, nevertheless, need to know the full horrors of war, so far as they possibly can, so that we may try to avoid them as best we can.

The UK Government have been criticised for being slow off the mark. That is a little unfair. Next year we will, I hope, have our annus mirabilis, in that we will celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee and the London Olympics. However, we should keep our eye on what is to follow. This week President Sarkozy will unveil the Musée de la Grande Guerre in Meaux, a purpose-built museum for the great war, and it has been suggested that the British Government should do something similar. However, I would ever so gently point out that the British Government did do something similar, in 1917, before the great war was even concluded. I have been extremely impressed by the preparations of the Imperial War museums—plural—to mark the beginning of the great war. If fully carried out, their programme will, in my view, eclipse the Musée de la Grande Guerre in France, and I look forward to seeing it.

As we approach 2014 and decide how we will mark and commemorate the occasion, it is important that we focus heavily on the local and the parochial, the human and the personal. All of us as constituency MPs will have examples of small-scale projects in our areas that celebrate the contribution of local people—I certainly do in my area. I hope very much that all those projects, supported by the lottery fund and others, will come together in a national memorial—co-ordinated, I suspect, by the Imperial War museums—so that we can show a proper mark of respect in 2014 and commemorate the occasion in a way of which we can all be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is correct. However, I am not trying to give exact figures; I am merely trying to draw attention to a trend, and to suggest that our forces are top-heavy.

[Dr Murrison]

Does not part of the difficulty lie in the MOD, whose civil servants, during both my hon. Friend’s service and mine, have been keen to equate themselves with starred officers? I believe that that has driven some of the current inflationary pressure. Does my hon. Friend agree that the first priority for Ministers must be to deal with that management overhead?

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree, and I am sure that the Minister does as well. We must get that under control. Someone told me—again, the Minister probably has the figures at his fingertips—that the Army has some 1,700 lieutenant-colonels. If that is the case, they could man three battalions, and we have only 38 of those.

I will not go into the same details about the Royal Air Force, but the principle is the same: it remains quite top-heavy. I know that the Government intend to have a crack at reducing the problem. What we want in our armed forces are people coming in at the bottom—that is, people who actually do the business, rather than those who are in the background sitting behind desks.