Veterans UK

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the support and services provided by Veterans UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey. I apologise in advance if the hay fever bomb that has followed me throughout London this week disrupts my speech. Please be kind to me.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to all those who have served our country, both past and present, as we spend this week commemorating the armed forces. We, as parliamentarians, have been aware of our obligations to look after and provide for veterans since Elizabethan times. In 1593, our predecessors passed the Act for the Necessary Relief of Soldiers and Mariners, which ordered parishes to make special provisions to help the sick and wounded veterans in their communities. That Act, now over 400 years old, forms the cornerstone of what we now call the armed forces covenant.

The covenant states that, to compensate veterans for their sacrifice,

“British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they…will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.”

I was a councillor in Sheffield when the city council was among the first signatories to the armed forces covenant. I am proud that we enshrined the covenant in our working practices, placing a legal duty on ourselves to encourage integration from service life into civilian life. The covenant is a promise to the approximately 2 million veterans in this country and the 15,000 soldiers who join their ranks every year. Their service can have a profound and wide-ranging effect on them for the rest of their lives. We have an obligation to ensure that those who have served our country receive the best possible treatment, care and opportunities when they return.

There are thousands of voluntary signatories to the covenant, and the Armed Forces Act 2021 requires certain public bodies to pay due regard to the principles of the covenant when carrying out their functions, but—shockingly—Ministers have resisted efforts to apply the covenant to their own Government. Perhaps that is because they know that if the Government were to be bound by the covenant, they would fail to meet their statutory obligations.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs wrote:

“our veterans need to be able to access support that is human, sensitive and that works for them”,

but a significant number of our returning veterans have found the transition from serving soldier to civilian distressing, and that has actively hindered their interactions with Veterans UK. The all-party parliamentary group on veterans has done excellent research on this matter, for which I commend it. The results of its survey on veterans’ experiences with Veterans UK were released several months ago. It received responses from 1,000 veterans: over 75% of respondents to the survey rated their overall experience with Veterans UK as either poor or very poor, and nearly 85% believed that the consideration given to their mental and physical health was poor or very poor.

Those findings are damning, but even more harrowing are the comments left by some of the respondents. One wrote:

“the process had broken me mentally to the point where my choice was walk away or commit suicide.”

Another said:

“My dealings with this organisation would lead me to believe it is set up to cause deliberate harm to veterans—it is a disgrace.”

Even a single soldier who, after years of dedicated service to their country, has been left feeling that desperate and despondent is one too many, but the depth and breadth of the respondents’ issues with Veterans UK led me to fear that the problems with this body are systematic.

I am pleased that, following the report from the APPG on veterans, the Government announced a review of the role and scope of welfare provision for veterans by the Ministry of Defence in its entirety. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has himself admitted that

“for too long veterans services have suffered from under-investment, and been over-reliant on paper records and outdated tech.”

None the less, the Government must not allow this review to overshadow other reports into veterans’ affairs. The armed forces compensation scheme, also administered by Veterans UK, compensates those who have suffered injury, illness or death during UK armed forces service, and undergoes a review every five years to ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose. The headline findings of that review were published in January, with the independent reviewer finding that the current process is

“overly burdensome and even distressing for the claimant due to unreasonable timeframes and a lack of transparency.”

The indifference and, in some cases, outright hostility to the plight of our veterans was highlighted by The Telegraph last year in a report that injured soldiers had been “laughed at” and “belittled” by officials involved in awarding payouts from the medical compensation scheme. Some soldiers highlighted that unqualified medical advisers were challenging their surgeons’ professional assessments, resulting in armed forces personnel being undercompensated for their injuries. Compensation money is a lifeline for many of our veterans wounded in service.

Millions of people are grappling with the ongoing cost of living crisis and extortionate waiting times for medical services, but these issues may have a disproportionate impact on veterans. Analysis of Government figures this week shows that 50% more veterans than last year are relying on universal credit. That is a damning indictment of the Government’s support for veterans. Staggeringly, the number of active personnel claiming universal credit has also risen by more than 50%. Not only are our serving troops forced to rely on benefits to get by, but they are also often subjected to substandard housing plagued by mould and damp. There are even reports that some soldiers are unable to afford the subsidised food in their mess halls, and that a food bank on an RAF base that was established to support local communities is instead being used by service personnel who are struggling to get by. It is little wonder that after 13 years of Conservative rule, in which our forces have been underfunded and underappreciated, satisfaction with service life has plummeted from 60% in 2010 to just 42% today.

I have spoken about the difficulties that soldiers face in claiming compensation for their injuries, but surely they have quick and easy access to the medical evaluations and treatment that they may need. The armed forces covenant and veterans annual report states that:

“Looking after the health needs of Service personnel…especially where military service has caused or exacerbated those needs—is one of the first priorities of the Government when it comes to the wellbeing of the Armed Forces community.”

But on multiple key metrics, this Government are failing. Waiting times for treatment through the transition, intervention and liaison service are up by a week since last year, and waits for appointments in the complex treatment service are missing the Government’s target of 10 working days by more than an entire working week.

Shockingly, the list of systemic failures faced by our veterans continues. Thousands of them were robbed of their career, their pension and their dignity as they were dismissed from the force and, in some cases, tarnished with criminal records. Their crime? Being a member of the LGBT community. Early last year the Government commissioned a report to investigate that historical wrongdoing and accepted in the terms of reference that the policy was wrong. The least the Prime Minister could do is offer a formal apology. Sadly, none has been forthcoming.

The LGBT veterans independent review has reported its findings and recommendations to the Government. As Pride Month draws to an end, I call on the Government to release the report as a matter of urgency, and to implement Lord Etherton’s recommendations so that our LGBT veterans are compensated properly for their service and for the trauma inflicted on them by their own country.

Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs promised that every veteran would receive an ID card by the end of 2023. These cards are meant to ensure that ex-servicemen and women have quicker access to the health, housing and charity services that they need. We should all support this scheme. However, of the 13,000 recorded veterans in Sheffield, only 218 have received their identity card. The Minister pledged several months ago that he would shave off his eyebrows if every veteran had not received their card by the end of 2023. I hope that he can get to grips with the roll-out in record time for the sake of our veterans, but I fear that, at the current rate of progress, he will be wearing a striking new look after the Christmas recess.

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Wrong Minister!

[Gill Furniss]

Sorry, wrong Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. May I first say what an improvement these little lecterns are, particularly for those of us who are increasingly long-sighted? It is the first time that I have appeared in Westminster Hall with one of them in place, and it is a great improvement. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing today’s debate. As we run up to Armed Forces Day, it really is timely.

Regarding hay fever, the hon. Lady has my sympathies; if I may say so, she fared exceptionally well in struggling with that affliction, which somehow seems to get worse the older we get. I also reassure her about my eyebrows. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families are plainly different, I am happy to say. That is important because of the eyebrow issue, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs lives in trepidation. I am happy to say that my eyebrows are safe as I gave no undertaking to shave them off.

The hon. Lady referred to the relief Act of 1593. I am pleased she did because I started my book on the military covenant, which I wrote 10 years ago, and which is sadly out of print, with the same assessment. The reason being is that it is important to take a long and historical perspective on the military covenant, which has become the armed forces covenant.

I am delighted to hear the commitment made in respect of the covenant by the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who speaks for the Opposition, and I am particularly proud that this Government, in their early days, inculcated the covenant into legislation and that organisations are now able to sign up to it. I am especially proud of the guidance that goes with the enjoinder to sign up to the covenant, which is important in explaining to organisations what it means to sign up. I am delighted by the number of local authorities that have done so.

We are eternally grateful for the service of all our veterans, and it is only right, as they give so much to us, that we support them as best we can. The strategy for our veterans and the refreshed “Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan” lay out the Government’s aspiration to make the UK a truly great place to be a veteran. I would, however, like to correct a common misconception about what Veterans UK actually is. It is not the same as the US Veterans Administration, and for very good reasons. It is not a stand-alone agency responsible for providing all Government support for veterans. As veterans are civilians, the majority of their care and support comes from the full range of Departments, notably our NHS, but also from local government or from the devolved Administrations.

Veterans UK is simply the public-facing name given to the services delivered by one Department: the Ministry of Defence. Those services include the administration and payment of armed forces pensions, which are very important. I declare an interest as a service pensioner. The other services are the war pension and armed forces compensation schemes, and the delivery of the Veterans Welfare Service, Defence Transition Services, independent personal commissioning for veterans, and Ilford Park Polish Home.

Only the war pension scheme and the Ilford Park Polish Home are services delivered solely to veterans and their families, as the other services also support serving personnel or those in transition. Some 75% of armed forces compensation claims are received from serving service personnel, and that is quite important in the context of the review that has already been mentioned. If I have time, I might come to discuss exactly why that is.

Let me illustrate the scale and the number of individuals supported by those services: last year, almost 12,000 armed forces compensation scheme and war pension scheme claims were cleared, and more than 97,500 war disablement pensions were in payment to the value of £622.5 million. Under the armed forces compensation scheme, more than 3,500 guaranteed income payments were made to veterans, and £104 million was paid out under the scheme.

In the year ending 31 March 2023, approximately 454,000 armed forces pensions were in payment to a value of almost £5.3 billion annually. In the year ending 31 March 2023, the Veterans Welfare Service interacted with 38,609 people via phone or email. It provides tailored advice according to each person’s specific circumstances. When financial assistance is required, the Veterans Welfare Service helps with benefit checks, completion of application forms and signposting to entitlements, and the support available from the wider public and voluntary sectors.

I have met welfare managers and heard at first hand about the range of issues they have to deal with and the troubled circumstances of many of their customers. The help that they provide is extensive, and I have been struck by how dedicated they are to doing the best they can for the people they serve, who are frequently at a point of crisis in their lives. The workforce is fairly mature; many of them have been doing that work for many years. I assure hon. Members that they are very dedicated to what they do, but all big organisations must strive to do better. In the year ending 31 March, there were 161 formal complaints received about veterans services, compared with 2,014 instances of positive feedback from customers who wanted to give thanks for the service that they had received.

The same organisation that delivers all these services has been issuing veterans recognition cards to all service leavers since 2018. It is developing the new digital verification service that will enable veterans to verify their veteran status online quickly and easily, and apply for their veteran recognition card. That service will begin to be rolled out by the end of the year. The card will enable veterans to prove their veteran status to help them to access specialist support and services, and to maintain a tangible link to their career in the armed forces.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), I was fortunate to visit Veterans UK in Norcross, where many of these services are delivered, fairly recently and early in my tenure. As I said, the staff there were notably enthusiastic about delivering for our veterans. They are clearly committed to doing the best they can and their level of experience is immense and hugely valuable.

That is not to say that the staff and I do not recognise that there is room for improvement. Much of the frustration voiced by veterans with services delivered under the Veterans UK banner relates specifically to the armed forces compensation scheme and the war pension scheme, and particularly to the lengthy process for making claims or making a subsequent appeal. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Luton South, said that the armed forces compensation scheme was created by a Labour Government. I know from her remarks that she accepts that the scheme is not perfect in all regards, and that it needs fairly extensive attention.

The interim findings from the quinquennial review, which have been referred to, give some grounds for encouragement, so the hon. Lady should not be too concerned about the organisation that her party created all those years ago. The review states that

“there are many elements of the AFCS which function well”,

so I think we have to accept that at face value. However, it goes on to say that there are issues that need to be addressed, particularly the length of time it takes for claims to be resolved. We have very little control over some of those issues, and some are common to any such scheme, whether in civilian life or in the armed forces. However, none of that negates the fact that we have to do better. I am convinced that the processes already under way at Norcross will do just that and hopefully improve the less than satisfactory experience of many of our veterans.

One of the major reasons for the delays is that we have to get proper, full, comprehensive medical reports from claimants’ medical practitioners. I can say from personal experience that busy GPs and consultants do not put returning forms very high on their priority list. Part of the reason for delays in concluding claims is beyond the direct control of Defence, but I think it is possible to bring down some of the delays. That has to do, in large part, with digital transformation.

The current process for managing claims is incredibly paper-driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley said. I have witnessed it for myself. The number of paper files crammed into every nook and cranny at Norcross is truly extraordinary. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to visit; they will be immediately struck by the acreage of paper files all over the place, reminiscent of a bygone age. That is why we are investing around £40 million in a transformation programme to digitise existing paper-based processes, introduce automation and create a single user portal for pensions and compensation. That will provide a single electronic view of the claimant with online self-service provision, enabling them to provide and retrieve information electronically and allowing them to secure access details for their entitlement and payments.

Such a complex programme brings together multiple different IT systems. On the current trajectory, the first release of the new system is expected early next year, with further iterations being released through to early 2025. That will underpin the customer portal, which is being developed concurrently. Serving personnel will have external access to the portal from personal devices in late 2024 and veterans will have that in early 2025. Meanwhile, lived experience events with veterans are taking place to enhance understanding of the services provided by the MOD. They are designed as an opportunity to inform areas for improvement and to tell us how the MOD can enhance services, as well as share with our customers the improvements that are in hand.

We are committed to improving the customer experience for our veterans. Claims journeys are detailed on the gov.uk website to better explain the process to them. New bespoke animated presentations on gov.uk help to explain how the process works and how veterans can help to provide the necessary supporting documents with their claims, thus addressing one of the criticisms levelled in the interim findings of the quinquennial review.

In November 2022, a new online digital claims service was launched on gov.uk for those seeking compensation from the armed forces compensation scheme and war pension scheme. The service is now available to all service personnel and veterans. The new service has been well received by those using it and already accounts for more than half of new injury and illness claims made. I monitor key performance indicators for delays in claims being concluded and, a bit like inflation, they are stubbornly flat and have been for the past several months. Since the new way of being able to file claims was introduced in December, I expect it to expedite claims and for those KPIs to be met in the foreseeable future.

The MOD is committed to ensuring that the armed forces compensation scheme delivers for those who make a claim, and there are mechanisms of assessment and accountability in place to ensure that that is the case. For that reason, the scheme is checked using the quinquennial review that I referred to, meaning that, as time passes, the scheme is updated and hopefully becomes fit for purpose. This time around, the review has been taking place alongside the improvement activity that I discussed. The headline findings were published in January and I anticipate publication of the full report before the summer recess.

In addition, and in partnership with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, whose eyebrows are at risk, I have commissioned a review of welfare provision for veterans, which includes, but is not exclusive to, those provided under the Veterans UK banner. The review will build on the positive work already being undertaken across Government under the strategy for our veterans. The review is being led by a senior civil servant, with the independent veterans adviser and other key stakeholders providing advice. Again, I anticipate publication of the report before the summer recess.

To turn briefly to the comments that have been made, I will not be able to do them all justice, but I am more than happy to write to hon. Members. I was struck by the support from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for our armed forces and veterans, though I would expect nothing else. I was pleased that he articulated the support of the SNP and the Scottish Government. It is worth reflecting on the fact that Scotland more than plays its part in the defence of these islands. That is extremely welcome and is of very long standing.

I must, however, raise the point about nuclear test veterans. While I am very pleased that the hon. Member welcomes the medallic recognition, which they are due, we need to be careful about suggesting that that cohort of people have been damaged by their service. We obviously monitor all the evidence, both in this country and overseas, to pick up on anything that is emerging that suggests long-term consequences of service of this nature. So far, that has proved negative, but it is important to keep all the evidence under review, as he would expect, and I certainly commit to doing that.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) was rightly concerned about the cost of living. He will be aware that the MOD has taken action where it can, for example by freezing rents. We are about to have the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body report—he will have to wait for it, I am afraid—but we will see what the recommendations are in the light of the current circumstances. I urge him to be a little patient.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about reserves over the age of 60. I have had some correspondence on the subject, but as an active reservist over the age of 60, all I will say is that I am sympathetic to his point and I look forward to the letter that he promised. I will certainly address it as best I can.

The hon. Gentleman and others were right to mention the treatment meted out to members of the LGBT community between 1967 and 2000. It was truly shocking. I am extremely in the debt of Lord Terence Etherton for his work on this matter. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was at the reception held by Lord Etherton to mark the end of his review a few days ago, but it was a great experience, though a humbling one. Lord Etherton’s report will be published very soon, as will the Government’s response to it.

There is no question but that this group of people were badly managed and badly handled by the armed forces. It was truly shocking on occasion, and I am deeply grateful to Lord Etherton and his team for producing a very fine report that touches on actions that will span right across Government. We will never make full amends for what happened—that is not possible. People have been deeply hurt, but it is important that the Government properly recognise what happened between 1967 and 2000 and, where we can, try to bring some comfort and restoration to that group of people. I certainly give an undertaking that that will happen.

I will just highlight the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley, who takes a deep interest in these matters, for which I am profoundly grateful. In particular, she clearly has informed herself exceptionally well by taking the trouble to go to Norcross to see the problems there. I know from her remarks how shocked she has been at the 19th century way in which many of the claims are handled.

[Mrs Drummond]

The Minister talked about the delay with GPs and consultants. Would it be possible to, as I mentioned, use either scanned documents or the NHS digital records that nearly every one of us now has to speed up the process?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I think so. Of course, that requires compliance by GPs and consultants. The history of IT in our NHS is not necessarily a very happy one, so it is perhaps easier said than done, but where we can do things digitally, we must. We have to ensure that where it is within our power to change things, particularly in relation to digitisation of applications for compensation and processing within the MOD, we do it. That is at the heart of the transformation process. That, in itself, will bring down the length of time that people have to wait.

I will use this opportunity to pick up another issue that the interim quinquennial review highlights: the perceived adversarial nature of the process. When the Government of the hon. Member for Luton South introduced the scheme, it was never intended to be adversarial, yet that has been the perception of many of our veterans. That is a pity, because that is not what we want. I look forward to the recommendations of the review in relation to how we can make that better. I very much hope and expect that the whole journey for our veterans will be dramatically improved.

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough for introducing this timely debate. I assure her that Defence is absolutely committed—as I am personally—to delivering the best possible services for veterans, both serving and retired.

Armed Forces Incentivisation Review

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation (HRAFI) was an independent review of our service personnel’s terms and conditions, which the Ministry of Defence committed to undertake in the Defence Command Paper of March 2021.

The final report has been delivered and published on time and is available for all those who wish to study its recommendations. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House. These recommendations are wide-ranging. They provide a potential roadmap out to the 2030s aimed at improving the proposition to those who serve now, and those who may consider serving in the future. I note the report’s acknowledgement of the good work already underway across Defence to improve the lived experience of our service personnel and make it more attractive in a modern workforce marketplace.

The MOD is currently studying the review’s recommendations and I will make a formal response in due course, but overall I agree with Rick Haythornthwaite’s analysis and his conclusions.

I would like to place on record my thanks to Rick and his team for their work in producing this ambitious and comprehensive review. It is my intention to invite Rick, at an appropriate point after the report has been published and implementation has started, to take stock of our progress towards achieving the vision for our armed forces highlighted by his review.

Attachments:

1. Haythornthwaite Review

Attachments can be viewed online at:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-06-19/hcws857

[HCWS857]

Service Family Accommodation: Maintenance

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Thank you for the reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a while since I was last in this situation.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her interest in this matter, and for initiating the debate. I represent a garrison town, I am a veteran and an active reservist and two of my children are in the armed forces, so, unsurprisingly, I am determined that we should do everything we reasonably can to give service people the accommodation that they deserve.

Unfortunately, our personnel have not been well served in this area for decades covering numerous Administrations, including one involving Liberal Democrats. Too often our people have had to put up with poorly built housing that has been crudely adapted with the advent of central heating. I have lived it in my service career, and I have seen it professionally. Sadly, in the years after the Annington deal only £100 million of the £1.66 billion in sale proceeds was reinvested in upgrades, with predictable consequences, and the Future Defence Infrastructure Services accommodation contract, which went live on 1 April last year, has yet to live up to its potential. We have heard some examples of failure today, and I have examples of my own.

We should not forget, however, that there are some great examples of service family accommodation. I can say from first-hand experience that some of it is truly exceptional. On 18 May this year, the Ministry of Defence announced a £173 million investment in capital purchase of family homes in the UK for armed forces families, comprising the purchase of 310 brand-new homes and the purchase of the freehold of 113 modern, formerly leasehold, homes. The brand-new homes have been purchased in the last 12 months, and are due to be occupied by the end of this year. All will meet modern energy performance certificate standards, and some will meet the very highest, a grade A rating.

In 2022-23, as part of that purchase, the MOD bought 66 homes to support Imjin Barracks at Innsworth, 58 homes at Brize Norton, and 36 homes at Aldershot. As well as those, we have agreed to purchase an additional 176 homes at Innsworth over this and the next financial year, to be completed by 2025. These homes will be net zero. So investment in accommodation is going up. During the last seven years the MOD has invested more than £936 million in service family accommodation improvements, including about £185 million last year spent on modernising homes, tackling damp and mould, and improving thermal efficiency. This is part of a wider £3 billion FDIS programme that has replaced the old facilities management contracts.

However, customer satisfaction has fallen, especially in relation to damp, mould, heating and maintenance. During the December cold snap, there were reports of personnel being without heating for more than five days. Response times for maintenance and repair works have been slow, although I have to say that conversations I have had recently suggest that families have noticed an improvement in responsiveness. That is anecdotal, but I offer it for what it is worth, and we shall see whether it feeds through into our survey data in due course.

In relation to the hon. Member’s concerns in her constituency, on 9 June, DIO’s regional manager and estate officer for RAF Shawbury met Amey counterparts and a warrant officer representing the station. All parties were also at a families’ surgery that morning. Only two families attended the surgery, a significant reduction on previous surgeries, linking to the point that I made earlier from my experience.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

[Dr Murrison]

I hope that the scale of the challenge and the financial commitment that Defence has made to improving accommodation are clear. They are certainly heartfelt as far as I am concerned, but for context, it is worth pointing out that we are also committed to keeping rents low. The hon. Member for North Shropshire may be interested to know that, on average, our service families in North Shropshire pay £323 a month for a three-bedroom property. I have checked and I found that private renters in the same area can expect to pay an average of £750 a month for the equivalent home.

Defence is responsible for 47,800 military homes across the country. Right now, 97% of all MOD family accommodation nationally meets or exceeds the Government’s decent homes standard, and the figure for occupied service family accommodation in North Shropshire is also 97%. By means of comparison, in Shropshire, 76% of all private rented homes and 79.5% of social housing meet the Government’s decent homes standard. I hope that the hon. Lady has raised that with her local authority.

I should say that the seven occupied properties in the hon. Lady’s constituency that are below the decent housing standard are structurally safe and sound and met the standard when occupants moved in, but have since fallen below. Remedial action on the door and window lintels at fault is expected this summer. I hope that she is reassured by that.

However, when we are dealing with housing, it is inevitable that things will go wrong, as we all know. When they do, the response needs to be first-class, but according to the last armed forces continuous attitude survey, which canvassed service personnel late last year—and was published earlier this month—only 19% of respondents were satisfied with the response that they got. That is not good enough.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being characteristically frank about the problems, as well as the successes, of the policy. Can anything be done to the model of financing for the maintenance of service housing that would perhaps incorporate a financial incentive on the people who have the contracts, so that if they do not arrange for repairs quickly enough, they could conceivably feel it where it hurts, in their bank balance?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The FDIS contract that was introduced early last year does just that. If he will forgive me, I may just come on to describe what that might mean, or has meant, in a few moments.

The day-to-day management and maintenance of service housing has, since early last year, been through FDIS, and it has been contracted out to three separate contractors: Amey in the central and northern regions; VIVO in the south-east and south-west; and Pinnacle, which runs the national service centre and co-ordinates activity.

Any contract transition is fraught with difficulty, and it certainly has been with FDIS. But there is a third issue that challenges delivery to our service families—namely, the underlying issue of poor original build quality, which flowed from decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s and was compounded by historical underinvestment. When combined with a resource-constrained “fix on fail” regime, the resulting effect has led to a maintenance logjam estimated to cost around £960 million.

These are explanations, not excuses. The new contracts introduced a number of improvements: clear customer satisfaction targets, for the first time in MOD housing history; more demanding target response times for most types of reactive maintenance; a higher standard of preparation of homes for families to move into; and financial consequences for contractors that fall short, and incentives to go beyond the minimum standards.

Currently, as a result of some of the poor performance already outlined this evening, the MOD’s contractual rights to withhold payments from suppliers are being exercised and deductions are being made, as appropriate. Withheld profits will be reinvested for the benefit of service families. In addition, a total of £1.14 million in compensation has been paid direct to service personnel by FDIS suppliers, at no cost to the Ministry of Defence, since the FDIS accommodation contracts went live on 1 April 2022.

We are taking further measures to address issues related to damp and mould. We have established a dedicated hotline to address specific concerns, and we have improved the initial triage process to prioritise cases. This is followed by an on-site visit to apply the initial treatment, assess the need for a follow-up and decide whether a professional survey is required. Since early 2022, homes are not being allocated where there is a known damp or mould issue.

Separately, tomorrow we will table a written ministerial statement titled “Defence Infrastructure Update,” which will update the House on the work being undertaken to reduce a backlog in expired gas and electrical safety certificates in MOD properties through an accelerated and targeted renewal process. I am not going to pre-empt that announcement, but suffice it to say that Ministers were made aware in May of an issue relating to a backlog of expired gas certificates that had accrued while families were occupying their properties. That has occurred for a variety of reasons, including residents being unavailable to allow access to their homes for inspections, and supply chain resource and contractor IT issues.

The backlog of electrical certificates is a consequence of changes in regulations in August 2020, which required certificates to be completed every five years instead of every 10. Needless to say, we have acted immediately. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence Procurement have spoken with FDIS contractors personally, stressing that we expect this backlog to be cleared in the next few weeks. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has worked with its suppliers to improve communications to families, to ensure availability for inspections. The MOD’s contractors have also made progress in recruiting additional resource and improving their data management to reduce this unacceptable backlog.

The Government have required all contractors to submit rectification plans. There is no complacency, but those are now showing progress. Pinnacle’s national service centre is answering all calls in an average of 14 seconds, which is significantly better than its 90-second target. Amey and VIVO have brought waiting lists down significantly, with very big improvements in maintenance response times. At the end of last month, the maintenance backlog stood at about 5,000, which is down from a high of 21,100 in December 2022. The number of open complaints is down by about 70%, and most key performance indicators are now at acceptable levels or better across most regions.

We need the final few measures to be brought up to scratch and, crucially, for that performance to be sustained. That is easier said than done, but we are making headway. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation is working with VIVO and Amey to develop a programme of straightforward interventions to address damp and mould. Critically, we also have the means, through FDIS, to hold our contractors to account should they fail to meet their end of the bargain. If required, we can recoup money or refuse to pay it out. We have already used those levers robustly where we can and where it is appropriate to do so, and they have made a difference.

So I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for North Shropshire that we are on the case, and we will most certainly continue to hold our contractors’ feet to the fire. Our new accommodation strategy, published last October, sets out a clear ambition for where we want to be: a situation where all our people have access to good-quality accommodation, in line with modern living standards.

Question put and agreed to.

Defence

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the debate on Global Military Operations on 14 June 2023.

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I cannot do justice to the detailed points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). As a logistician, I expect him to make a number of forensic points, but he is quite right to say that we should not be matching the good against the exquisite. Never let the excellent be the enemy of the good. I think he mentioned a medal for CASD. Of course, all medallic recognition is kept under continual review. I cannot give him a commitment. I would just point out, although I know it is second best, that the deterrent patrol pin was produced in 2009, the 50th anniversary of CASD, which I know a lot of submariners wear with pride.

[Official Report, 14 June 2023, Vol. 734, c. 403.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison):

An error has been identified in the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). The correct response should have been.

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I cannot do justice to the detailed points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). As a logistician, I expect him to make a number of forensic points, but he is quite right to say that we should not be matching the good against the exquisite. Never let the excellent be the enemy of the good. I think he mentioned a medal for CASD. Of course, all medallic recognition is kept under continual review. I cannot give him a commitment. I would just point out, although I know it is second best, that the deterrent patrol pin was produced in 2019, the 50th anniversary of CASD, which I know a lot of submariners wear with pride.

Global Military Operations

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his remarks and for the support he has given to our current operations and the men and women of our armed forces. I am pleased he cited Albion. I have visited Albion twice in the recent past, once in Plymouth and once overseas. He was also right to support the men and women of our Submarine Service; I would expect nothing else from a Devonport MP. They are unsung heroes and do an extraordinary thing. He hinted at the NATO defence model, which is important at the moment as we consider Vilnius and what follows from that.

It is reasonable to say that the UK will remain a trenchant supporter of NATO and what it does, and its ask. It is the cornerstone of our defence, notwithstanding the remarks that were made, quite reasonably, by right hon. and hon. Members about forming alliances wherever it is expedient to do so. Indeed, I was particularly heartened in that respect by the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) about the European Union. We have to be pragmatic about our alliances and where we form them, in order to promote our shared and common interests. The men and women of our armed forces are extraordinary. They do things that the vast majority of our fellow citizens are not called on to do. Particularly as we approach 24 June, Armed Forces Day, it is right that so many Members took the opportunity to pay tribute to them.

This has been a good debate—discursive on occasion, off the point from time to time, but in general a thoughtful contribution to Britain’s place in the world, and specifically to what part defence plays in that. A year after I was born, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who was no fan of the United Kingdom, quipped that Great Britain had

“lost an empire but has not yet found a role.”

If that was true then, I do not think it true now, and recent events have confirmed that.

Put simply, our role today is to safeguard and improve the lives of those whom we represent. Most hon. Members in the Chamber would agree that defence is central to that—we are among friends—but it is right that we are challenged on whether the £50 billion we now spend on it might be better deployed elsewhere. After all, the Almighty provided us with a quite adequate natural defensive position in the form of the channel, which is a bit like the Alps in respect of Switzerland. Why not shelter and cower behind that? Why not announce that the UK will henceforth simply be patrolling its Euro-Atlantic backyard and take a dividend that could be used to give public services a welcome shot in the arm? We are all facing re-election next year, and that would surely be quite appealing, would it not?

Well, first there is Ukraine. Some nations in the global south may try to convince themselves that Russia’s neo-imperialistic war of conquest is no more than a little local difficulty. Less enlightened jurisdictions may even revel in a challenge to a stable democratic and liberal world order. They are wrong. Putin’s behaviour has had global consequentials with the pain falling on ordinary people everywhere through food shortages, the energy crisis, the cost of living and opportunities forgone: their hopes, their dreams and their future. In a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made that point well.

What has happened has real-life consequences, not just for those individuals caught up in the immediacy of that terrible conflict but for people right across the world, and those who are affected the most are the poorest. Meanwhile, China watches and waits, inscrutably. How we respond to Putin today will determine what happens in the Indo-Pacific tomorrow. Get it right in our Euro-Atlantic backyard today and we may yet avoid conflict in the South China sea.

Britain’s global contribution buys us influence that benefits all our constituents. I have seen it myself, serving in the Navy and at the MOD and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Whether it is a carrier visiting the Indo-Pacific, our Air Force evacuating citizens from earthquake-hit Turkey or our Army working with Kenya to strengthen regional security, the signal that we send to a transactional world is that Britain is a serious player; one to be reckoned with and one that can be relied on. Tangible examples of that reliance are AUKUS and the Global Combat Air Programme. The US, Australia, Japan and Italy chose to work with us because they knew that we could deliver. Look at what those partnerships mean for our country: thousands of jobs and the creation of a long-term skills base that will give a generation of young people cutting-edge skills to succeed in the decades ahead.

There is a further reason why the UK should retain its global presence. It is about values and the sense that the UK is a force for good in the world. We have seen in recent times that whenever adversaries detect liberal democracies weakening, they move to fill the gap. The UK, as the world’s oldest democracy, a member of the UN Security Council and a nation with global reach, has a responsibility to show leadership, stand up for values that make chaos and conflict less likely and promote peace and prosperity.

In the time available, I will attempt to do some justice to the points raised. First, I turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because the first shall be last, and the last shall be first—that is Luke 13:30. I agree with him that continuous at sea-deterrence is a necessary evil. I wish that we did not need it, but we do, and we will. In the spring statement, £3 billion was announced for the nuclear enterprise. That is a big commitment and a vote of confidence in those who undertake this vital task. I thank him for his invite to Northern Ireland and will very much take him up on that in the near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is always thoughtful and, as always, I agreed with much of what he had to say. He is right to point out that, in this country, our military workforce has always expanded and contracted. That has been in the nature of how we have done defence for all time. That is perhaps by virtue of the fact that we are blessed with quite a lot of water between ourselves and those who have historically been our adversaries, but the crucial thing is that we need to be able to scale up quickly when the time demands it. He was also right to point out that we need agility—particularly in relation to equipment—and sovereign capability. That is one of the lessons of the recent past.

Of course, none of this defence is cost-free. If I may be ever so generically critical of the debate, very few of us have really bent our minds to what it costs, although I have hinted at it in suggesting somewhat rhetorically that there is an opportunity cost to it all: we could spend more on defence, but we would have to find that from somewhere else. I can assure the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) that there is an active dialogue with all those supporting Ukraine right now. I am very pleased to say that at all levels—politicians, officials and members of the military—the United Kingdom is taking a lead. I think the facts bear that out. He should be proud of the leadership role we are taking, and I say that to him in all sincerity.

I cannot do justice to the detailed points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). As a logistician, I expect him to make a number of forensic points, but he is quite right to say that we should not be matching the good against the exquisite. Never let the excellent be the enemy of the good. I think he mentioned a medal for CASD. Of course, all medallic recognition is kept under continual review. I cannot give him a commitment. I would just point out, although I know it is second best, that the deterrent patrol pin was produced in 2009, the 50th anniversary of CASD, which I know a lot of submariners wear with pride.

I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for her support in backing the UK’s efforts to support Ukraine. That is much appreciated. She spoke about digital and cyber. However, she did seem to be committing her party to more defence spending. I will come on to that in a minute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) understandably focused on the Royal Air Force. I look forward to being in his constituency very soon indeed. He made a point about dispersal, which took me back to world war two. From my memory of a number of films from that time, dispersal is very much an RAF thing. I agree with him, but there is, again, a cost in terms of money and, probably, efficiency and delivering effect, but the point is extremely well made. He also made a point about the importance of logistics, which is not glamorous.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North spoke about Estonia, which was music to my ears. I have been there on a number of occasions, including very recently. I agree with her that our enhanced forward presence there is impressive. I visited Tapa Camp and the headquarters in Tallinn, and saw our RAF in action at Amari. I am particularly pleased that it is an amalgam of all three of our armed forces working together. She was also right to cite Exercise Spring Storm, which I witnessed while I was there.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), a trenchant advocate of all things to do with the armed forces, argued for an uplift. There’s a funny old thing; I have never heard him do that before. He called the 2% pitiful. Well, okay, but—I am sure he would agree with me—as we aspire to do better than that, we must take others with us, too. That is vital. Our efforts on their own will not be sufficient in facing down some of the threats we face. I was interested in the 5% figure he cited. I think we joined up more or less at the same time. I have to say, though, that the effect we are able to project these days is way greater than what he and I would have been used to at that time. Our kit today is in a completely different league. To compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned, in a thoughtful speech, the central Asian republics—the Stans—where, interestingly, Russia’s influence is on the wane. It is axiomatic to say that Russia is extending its influence pretty much everywhere, but we have to understand that in some parts of the world, particularly in Russia’s backyard, that is not necessarily the case. The current war and Putin’s behaviour has turned off almost as many as it has enlisted to his particularly unpleasant cause. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned defence engagement. I am very pleased he mentioned that, because when I was in Defence previously I had some hand in increasing the defence engagement activities we undertake. We have recently recruited six new Defence attachés.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) made spending commitments on behalf of his party. I have noted those.

I really must come back at the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I mean, to say that the Royal Australian Navy does not patrol off Scotland is clearly not right. I am afraid he was not listening to the previous exchange on the Navy’s most lethal platforms and I know the Submarine Service will be upset with his comments.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) worried about headcount and equipment. He is right, but I gently point out to all contributors today that we spend at 2% consistently. We have done for many years and we will continue to do so, hopefully with an uplift to 2.5%.

I am sorry that I have not left sufficient time to deal with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). May I, however, address his point about a plan? Plans are great, but President Zelensky is not too troubled, apparently, because he said:

“If everyone in the world—or at least the vast majority—were steadfast and courageous leaders…as Britain, I am sure we would have already ended this war and restored peace throughout our liberated territory for all our people.”

That, I have to say, is the best endorsement for our armed forces that I can possibly find.

War Widows Ex-gratia Payment Scheme

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The armed forces covenant is a unique commitment by the nation in recognition of the sacrifices that members of our armed forces and their families make for our security. A key principle of the covenant is that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved. Under old rules in several armed forces schemes, a cohort of bereaved armed forces spouses, civil partners and eligible partners, whose bereavement was attributable to service, forfeited their pensions if they remarried or cohabited before the rules were changed in 2015. It is not possible to restore those pensions, but the MOD and HM Treasury are deeply conscious of the sacrifice these bereaved individuals have made. The Government are therefore pleased to announce today that it is establishing a scheme to make one-off payments to members of this group, in recognition of their sacrifice.



The Government will pay £87,500 to each eligible widow/er. The scheme is scheduled to be ready to receive applications from winter 2023.



We hope that this payment will offer some acknowledgement and gratitude to those who were affected and encourage all those eligible to apply.

[HCWS777]

Service Complaints Ombudsman: Annual Report 2022

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s annual report for 2022 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.



This report is published by Mariette Hughes and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the work of her office in her second year as Service Complaints Ombudsman for the armed forces.



The findings of the report and the recommendations made will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the ombudsman will follow once that work is complete.

[HCWS759]

Ukraine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Defence Secretary to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the question. On Friday, the Defence Secretary met his counterparts at Ramstein air base for the 11th meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group. The focus was on accelerating the delivery of military aid packages for Ukraine as they plan to expel Russian forces from illegally occupied Ukrainian territory. The message from Ramstein was clear: international support for Ukraine is growing. More countries than ever are attending; donations are increasing, and their delivery is accelerating.

We are one of the leading providers of military support for Ukraine and were the first country to donate modern main battle tanks. We have now completed delivery of this matériel and training package, which included a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks, along with their ammunition, spares, and armoured recovery vehicles; AS-90 self-propelled guns, sufficient to support two brigades with close support artillery; more than 150 armoured and protected vehicles; and hundreds more of the most urgently needed missiles, including for air defence.

The UK-led international fund for Ukraine encourages donations from around the world and stimulates industrial supply of cutting-edge technologies for Ukraine’s most vital battlefield requirements. The first bidding round raised £520 million-worth of donations, receiving 1,500 expressions of interest from suppliers across 40 countries. The second bidding round opened on 11 April, and the UK is calling for further national donations and is calling on industry to provide its most innovative technologies, especially for air defence.

A total of 14,000 Ukrainian recruits have now returned from the UK to defend their homeland, trained and equipped for operations, including trench clearance, battlefield first aid, crucial law of armed conflict awareness, patrol tactics and rural environment training. In all its dimensions, the higher quality of training for Ukrainian soldiers provided by the UK armed forces and their counterparts from nine other nations has proven battle-winning against Russian forces. The UK will develop the training provided according to Ukraine’s requirements, including the extension to pilots, sailors and marines. It is now expected to reach 20,000 trained recruits this year.

[Mr Speaker]

Ahem.

[Dr Murrison]

The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and will spend another £2.3 billion on military support for Ukraine this year. By making that commitment, we will strengthen Ukraine’s position in negotiations, guard its long-term sovereignty and enable Ukraine to deter by denial. The UK people can be proud of their support. We are leading in Europe in providing brave Ukrainians with the training, equipment and ammunition urgently needed to ensure that they prevail.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent. I do not have a bad chest; if we can stick to three minutes, that is always helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

All eyes are on Sudan. We want British nationals to get out during the ceasefire while they can. We pay tribute to the UK armed forces and to Foreign Office and Border Force staff for leading the evacuation. That is why this urgent question is so important: the Government have to be able to do more than one thing at once. The Defence Secretary has 60,000 MOD staff, but I am concerned that the momentum behind our military help is faltering and that our UK commitment to Ukraine is flagging.

The Defence Secretary has made no statements on Ukraine since January. No new weapons have been pledged to Ukraine since February. There has been no 2023 action plan for Ukraine, which was first promised last August. No priorities have been set for the Ukraine recovery conference in London in June. The Prime Minister said in February that:

“The United Kingdom will be the first country to provide Ukraine with longer-range weapons.”

What and when? Like the Minister, the Defence Secretary said on Friday that military aid “delivery is accelerating”. How and what? The UK-led international fund for Ukraine, which the Minister mentioned, was launched last August, but only one contract has been signed so far. Why? The International Criminal Court has put out an arrest warrant for Putin. Where is the UK support for the special tribunal? Some 5,000 Ukrainians were registered homeless last month. Who is sorting this out?

The Minister knows that the Government have had and will continue to have Labour’s fullest support for military aid to Ukraine and for reinforcing NATO allies. We welcomed the £2 billion in the spring Budget for stockpiles, but with no new money for anything else except nuclear, how will the defence Command Paper in June deal with inflation, fill capacity gaps and respond to the increasing threats? Finally, the British public are strongly behind Ukraine. They want to know that the Government are not weakening in their resolve to support Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.

[Dr Murrison]

I will do my best to take note of your bad throat, Mr Speaker, and to keep my remarks brief.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being just a little unfair. I am sure that President Zelensky would feel the same way—he certainly did when he came here in February to sign the London accord. It is pretty clear that the UK is leading in Europe. As I said in my opening remarks, the Ukraine recovery conference in June proves that. The UK has been instrumental in this process. We led the instigation of the international fund for Ukraine, and £520 million, of which £300 million has been expended, is really quite an achievement. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he is smiling at me, that the UK has been in the van of this. I am proud of the UK people in supporting brave and courageous Ukrainians in their fight against Putin’s aggression.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about war crimes and he is right to do so. He will know that the atrocity crimes advisory group, which again is heavily influenced by the UK, includes input from, for example, the Metropolitan police’s war crimes unit. In every dimension in this country, we are taking a lead. I appreciate his need to attack the Government in this and other areas, but in the specifics of this—in our leadership in Europe and in Ukraine—the UK is more than playing its part. We are leaders. I am really proud of that, and the British people should be too.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What estimate has the Minister made of the continuing ability of Ukraine to deny air superiority to Russia?

[Dr Murrison]

Ukraine continues to prevail in all dimensions of this conflict. My right hon. Friend will be aware that we have been active, and the international fund that I just referred to is certainly active, in providing air defence. That is crucial in winning this for Ukraine, and we will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokes- person.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The current situation in Bakhmut is dire, with Russian forces pounding the town with rockets, mortars, attack drones and phosphorous incendiary bombs, which are banned under the Geneva convention. Russian forces have occupied the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant since last month, and they are now taking up positions on the roofs of reactor buildings. That raises the concern of damage in future fighting and the threat to the population should that occur. The Wagner mercenary group has admitted to killing hundreds of people who were sheltering in a basement, including 40 children.

What are the UK Government doing to get defensive weapons, in particular ammunition, to Bakhmut as soon as possible? Are the UK Government co-ordinating with producers and European allies with regard to the provision of iodine tablets and radiation treatment? Will the Government step up further the sanctions against the despicable Wagner mercenary group?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I share her sentiments entirely. There is no excuse for nuclear blackmail at Zaporizhzhia or anywhere else. I am appalled by the war of attrition in Bakhmut. It is a most appalling slur on the continent that we call home, and it will be an enduring slur on Putin’s Russia. In terms of protection, I am pleased to say that the International Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring the situation in Ukraine, and the UK obviously stands ready to be of assistance in any way that it can be.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

I, too, am surprised at the tone taken by the shadow Secretary of State in this urgent question. The support we have continued to give Ukraine is a great source of pride. Will the Minister say what efforts we are making to replenish our own stocks of weapons? Our generosity has come at a cost, and it is important that Britain continues to keep its own arms ready for any eventuality.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely correct. He will have noted the £5 billion in the integrated review refresh and the spring Budget, some of which will be used for the purpose he has described. However, let us be clear: the munitions we are expending in Ukraine are doing what munitions are meant to do, which is to defend a democratic country that has been the subject of the most appalling aggression against its territorial integrity, against international humanitarian law and every recognisable tenet of international law. I make no apology for using our munitions in that way.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right that it is unacceptable that we have not had a statement since January. In order to hold the Government to account, which is our job, we need to have statements on a regular basis. This is not critical of the Government, in the sense that they have been doing quite a lot to support Ukraine, and this Parliament has been very strong in its support for that. However, we are here to hold the Government to account.

My specific question to the Minister concerns munitions. What is the current situation in terms of stockpiles? I know he will not be able to give actual figures—I get that—but, having identified problems earlier this year, where are we now in being able to build up the stockpiles of munitions not only to supply Ukraine, but to keep our own stockpiles?

[Dr Murrison]

Plainly, we have to concentrate on the conflict before us, and that is what we are doing in providing munitions to assist Ukraine. The hon. Gentleman will have noted in my comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) the reference to the IRR and the spring Budget, which provided a substantial uplift to Treasury funding to enable the UK to replenish what has been expended. However, I do not think that should diminish in any way our support and donations to Ukraine. That would be very foolish and against our interests, not to mention the interests of our brave Ukrainian friends.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House an update on the position in Ukraine. Clearly, we are going to be involved in providing more and more sophisticated weaponry and support to the Ukrainians. What role will our armed forces play in both this country and Ukraine in delivering those munitions and armaments, and will we get involved in an escalation of the war with Russia?

[Dr Murrison]

I hope there will not be an escalation in the war between Ukraine and Russia. The whole point is that ultimately we have to come to a diplomatic settlement, and I would urge all parties to dial this down. However, it is about not just munitions and armaments, but training. I have seen for myself our training efforts. Those are vital, as I referred to in my remarks, and will be ongoing. We will have trained 20,000 Ukrainians by the end of this year—a quite extraordinary effort. There is no point in having matériel without the training that goes with it.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It will take at least a decade to replenish our depleted ammunition stockpiles, so, besides the £2 billion, what actual action has come from the stockpile review ordered by the Prime Minister back in February, and where on earth is the action plan to grow our defence industrial capacity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Negotiations with our defence partners are ongoing. This conflict is—what?—14 months old. The industry can move at pace, and I pay tribute to the rapidity with which it has provided armaments through the co-ordination cell in Poland and the UK-led international fund. I think the hon. Lady should reflect on how fast that has been put together and its effectiveness in delivering what Ukraine wants to have. This is a Ukraine-led process. We need to provide Ukraine with what it thinks it needs to prosecute this conflict.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I, too, am proud of our nation’s history of defending against despots across the world, and of the way we are taking the lead in this horrific war. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will maintain our UK military presence inside Ukraine to look after our diplomatic missions there?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Clearly, diplomacy is what will deal with this situation eventually. For that to happen, we need to ensure that those engaged in that diplomacy are properly protected, which is what our troops, such as they are in Ukraine, will be endeavouring to do.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I absolutely believe that what happened to the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic is connected with the situation in Ukraine. Yesterday, I raised by point of order the fact that the Admiral Vladimirsky Russian spy ship has been sailing round the Beatrice wind farm, the electrical interconnector to my constituency and other North sea assets that are vital to the UK. What assurance can I have that the UK is doing everything to protect these vital assets?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; it is an issue that probably exercises the minds of policy makers right across northern Europe. He will be aware of an investigation by Sweden, Denmark and Germany on the Nord Stream interdiction. It would be wrong to speculate further on attribution for that at this particular point, but I think we can make some informed guesses about who might be responsible. He is correct about the issue of subsea surveillance; critical national infrastructure needs to be protected. I am more than happy to talk to him at length about where we think this matter is going and what further measures we will take to ensure that there is no maritime interdiction that will attack our critical national infrastructure, particularly that which is subsea.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

With the much-rumoured spring offensive that is likely to come quite soon, we will see an escalation in the conflict and fighting. What consideration has the Minister given to further humanitarian support, particularly through ambulances and 4x4s? From my trips to Ukraine, I know that they are in desperately short supply and are needed.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a short-term humanitarian imperative. There is also the task of rebuilding Ukraine for the longer term, and we are engaged with both those things. He is right about the need for ambulances; I would say armoured ambulances, which have been a big ask from the Ukrainians. We have provided a fleet of CVR(T)—combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—Saracen ambulances in particular, which are doing good work in Ukraine. We will continue to provide those, and to note and take action on all requests we get from the Ukrainian surgeon general.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The courage and determination of the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin’s aggression is an inspiration to us all, but it is also a challenge to us to ensure that if we cannot match it, we at least reflect it in the level and consistency of our military and humanitarian support. We cannot do that unless we replenish and backfill our military stockpiles, so can I ask the Minister for a plan or some indication of how our defence procurement is changing or adapting to ensure that our military stockpiles are at the levels that are needed?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The imperative at the moment is to get to Ukraine the munitions that it needs to prosecute what it needs to do, but in the longer term we need a more agile way of ensuring that we can replenish munitions and that the industry can provide us with what we need more quickly. That work is ongoing, but I refer her again to the announcement made in the Budget, which she should welcome, of an uplift of about £5 billion to deal with our nuclear endeavour and with stockpiles. But that is not enough, because we—and all nations—need to be more agile in our provision for conflicts of this sort, and to ensure that in doing this we do not leave ourselves vulnerable. The point is well made. We are all moving at pace to ensure that we can replenish munitions much quicker than we have been able to previously.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

We are all incredibly proud of the support that we have given to Ukraine in terms of kit and training. The key enabler of success in modern warfare is interoperability. Will my right hon. Friend update us on what measures we are taking ahead of the NATO summit in July to enhance and strengthen Ukrainian interoperability with NATO forces?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is right, and he can be assured that we are working with the Ukrainians to ensure that that interoperability is there. I have to say that historically, even among NATO members, it has often been very difficult to get one system or one country to work with another. That has been a long-standing theme throughout the whole of NATO’s history, so it should not be underestimated. Vilnius will deal with it in some considerable depth and detail, and I hope that in future—as we anticipate the defence of Ukraine for the long term—that interoperability will be greatly enhanced.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his earlier response, but can he say what longer-range weapons the UK will provide to Ukraine and when they will be supplied?

[Dr Murrison]

The AS-90 is a good artillery piece, and Ukraine will certainly find it a great benefit in doing what it has to do. The aim of our support to Ukraine is to enable it to defend itself; it most certainly is not to go beyond that. It is defensive, which is why ground-to-air is so important. It is also important to consider the UK’s position going forward in terms of the artillery provided to our own military. That piece of work is going on at pace so that we can find a replacement for the AS-90 that is fit to face down the threat we may have from Russia and others in future.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

May I put on record my thanks to the British Government and public for their ongoing support for the people of Ukraine? We are proud to have a number of Ukrainians living in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the package of kit and equipment announced by the Secretary of State in January, which included the Challenger 2 tanks and the AS-90s, has now been delivered to Ukraine?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister say when the Defence Secretary last spoke to the NATO Secretary-General about the announcement he has made today and about the Chinese negotiations?

[Dr Murrison]

I cannot give the right hon. Lady an answer to that, but I am more than happy to write to her.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to match or exceed the £2.3 billion in aid funding to Ukraine this year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that funding will not come out of the core Defence budget, so that we can keep our troops at home, safe and well equipped, while continuing to support efforts in Ukraine.

[Dr Murrison]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

As we have already heard this morning, the Wagner Group has admitted killing 40 children, and hundreds of civilian adults sheltering them, in a basement in Bakhmut. It is also implicated in destabilising the situation in Sudan. Why are the UK Government dragging their feet on declaring that organisation a trans-national terror organisation?

[Dr Murrison]

Sanctions have been placed on 1,500 people and 120 entities in connection with this conflict, including the Wagner Group and Yevgeny Progozhin.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I think the Minister was slightly unfair to the shadow Secretary of State in saying that he welcomed and understood his attacking: my hon. Friend was not attacking but doing his proper and constitutional job, as a spokesperson for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, of holding the Government to account. If this war is to drag on for some time, as it seems it will, maintaining the focus of the British Government will be essential. What can the Minister say to us about ensuring that that focus is not lost in Government as we move forward?

[Dr Murrison]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not lost. I probably would not trust a member of the Government to make that assertion, but President Zelensky himself has made it plain in his remarks that the UK has played a formidable leadership role in ensuring that his country can repel Putin’s barbarism and the atrocity committed upon the state of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am proud that the UK has taken a lead on Ukraine and has brought together allies from across the world to play their part. One of the ways that we have done that is through the British armed forces training programme, bringing those Ukrainian armed forces personnel up to speed with the latest fighting techniques. Given that the winter lull is now ending on the ground in Ukraine and we are anticipating a major increase in fighting, what are the Government doing with our allies to speed up that programme of training Ukrainian forces once again?

[Dr Murrison]

I visited the Ukrainians training in the UK and spoke with them and their trainers. They are an extraordinary bunch of people. I am truly humbled to be able to share some of their accounts. By the end of the year we will have trained 20,000 of them. The quality of our training is peerless, right across the domains that one would expect. It is materially contributing to Ukraine’s fighting effectiveness. Importantly, it inculcates the sorts of standards and practices that one would expect of a responsible, civilised country, in stark contrast to Putin’s Russia.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Given the seriousness of the situation, why are Ministers pressing ahead with further cuts to the British Army, with troop numbers estimated to fall by a further 10,000?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady should be careful about what she reads in the press. We have been consistent in our support for the armed forces. I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s support for what the Government are trying to achieve in Ukraine, but it is a pity that Opposition Members are sometimes not similarly supportive of the men and women of our armed forces and defence in the UK.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

What estimate has the Minister made of the number of Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russian forces? What support has been offered to Ukrainian forces to return those children to their parents?

[Dr Murrison]

The removal of children from Ukraine to Russia is truly shocking and heartrending. The best we can hope for is that Putin sees the reputational damage that it delivers to him and his country and reverses his policy. We have seen some indication in recent times of some children being returned to their parents. It is a truly shocking element of a truly horrendous conflict, and we know precisely who to blame for it.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all want the Ukrainian counter-offensive to be successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was right to challenge the Government on whether they are adhering to their commitments. On the point about long-range missiles, which my right hon. Friend and others have pressed the Minister on, can he tell us whether the MOD is now walking back from the Prime Minister’s commitment to offer further long-range missiles? If it is, when will we hear more detail and clarity on how many more long-range missiles, and what sort, will be issued to Ukrainian forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Our provision of munitions, in concert with others, is driven by the Ukrainian ask and our ability to deliver them. That was discussed at Ramstein and will be discussed further at Vilnius, subject to the second round of the international fund call that opened on 11 April. It is important to understand that a lot of that will be driven by the international fund’s executive panel. Obviously, it will listen closely to what President Zelensky and his advisers feel they need to repel this most awful invasion of his country. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to understand the true extent of what the UK has done. Not only has it led Europe in providing munitions and training, but it has provided the bulk of the £520 million that populates the UK-led international fund for Ukraine. That is a substantial achievement.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

In the face of a Russian invasion, we must continue to support and stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. But this war has exposed how the Conservative Government have underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over the last 13 years. Six months ago, we were told that we had 227 Challenger 2 tanks. Now the Minister for Armed Forces advises us that, with 14 in Ukraine, we have 157 deployable or deployed tanks. What has happened to the other 56?

[Dr Murrison]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, we committed to 148 Challenger 3 upgrades in the integrated review refresh. That remains our position. But if he is going to make a defence spending commitment on behalf of his party, I will be delighted to hear it—in particular how much more he would spend beyond what was announced in the spring Budget.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Minister said that we must give to Ukraine what Ukraine tells us it needs. All of us here will have been in Westminster Hall to hear President Zelensky’s impassioned speech. Several weeks later, I and many others had the privilege of listening to the Ukrainian ambassador and the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, who reiterated their needs and demands, which were very clear: they asked for planes and munitions. Can the Minister update us?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I can. Ukraine has had munitions from the international community, and in particular from the United Kingdom. I have just said that the UK is in the lead when it comes to donations to Ukraine. The hon. Gentleman is right to press me about planes. We plan to train pilots to operate jets. That will take a long time—it will not happen overnight—and it is no good in the acute war-fighting phase of this particular conflict. But that training is important to guarantee the long-term integrity of Ukraine, and we remain committed to that.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

The demand for prosthetic limbs in Ukraine continues to climb owing to the conflict. The director of the Without Limits mechanical prosthetics clinic in Kyiv has stated that the best prosthetics come from the UK. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that we continue to support Ukraine in meeting that demand?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that point. Recently, I was pleased to visit the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall, which is recognised internationally as a centre of excellence. Its expertise will undoubtedly influence how Ukraine develops its capacity in prosthetics. I am giving every encouragement to that process. I have also spoken to the Ukrainian surgeon-general about what she feels will be required as we go forward. The hon. Lady is right to point out that we do prosthetics very well, and I am pleased to have been involved with that in the past. I am pleased that, going forward—it will take a long time—the UK will be right at the forefront of the efforts to ensure that those who, sadly, have been injured in this terrible conflict are provided with the prosthetics and rehabilitation that they require.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is up to the Minister if he wishes to respond to it; if he does not, I am sure he will consider the points she has made.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for articulating her support to the men and women of our armed forces. I am very pleased she has said that and put it on the record, and I am sure they will be extremely grateful to her.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We will leave it at that.

Draft Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023.

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We last met to discuss this sort of matter in November, in connection with the defence serious crime unit. I hope it will be evident to those who were involved in that Committee that there is a common theme running through this package of measures, which has to do with trying, as far as we can in the service context, to replicate in the military practice relating to justice in the civilian world. I hope also that hon. Members see in this measure the effects of the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Armed Forces Act 2006, and more pertinently, given time elapsed, the consequences of the various reviews of service policing and service justice, in particular those attributed to Lyons, Murphy and Henriques.

The draft regulations bring the process pretty much full circle. Hon. Members will be aware of the appointment of Margaret Obi, whom I met last week, as the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. Her appointment will allow servicemen, servicewomen and members of the public to have the same facility in relation to service justice as they do in that dispensed by Home Office police. The statutory instrument contains the regulations that are required to establish the service police complaints system, which will be overseen by the newly appointed Service Police Complaints Commissioner. It also contains the regulations required to establish the super-complaints regime for the service police.

The establishment of the independent commissioner with these regulations implements recommendation 44 of the service justice system review—the Lyons review—relating to complaints. Lyons found that a degree of independent oversight was missing in comparison with civilian police forces, which have statutory complaints systems, and recommended that a new niche defence body be created to deliver this. The review considered the options for establishing independent oversight, which helped to inform the approach taken by the Ministry of Defence.

The review suggested a small niche unit led by an appointed individual, possibly from a judicial background, operating to the same remit as the Independent Office for Police Conduct and its director general. As such, during 2022, the MoD ran a recruitment campaign for the Service Police Complaints Commissioner in accordance with the 2016 public appointments governance code. Ms Margaret Obi was appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and her appointment was publicly announced in February. Ms Obi brings a wealth of experience and enthusiasm to this role, and her appointment ensures that there will be a more robust, independent process for service police complaints.

In line with the Lyons review recommendation, the commissioner will have functions similar to those conferred on the director general of the IOPC. The main responsibilities of the commission will be: to secure the confidence of persons subject to service law and service discipline, as well as the wider public, in the service police complaints system; to secure, maintain and review arrangements in respect of the procedures that deal with complaints, conduct, and death or serious injury matters; and to make recommendations and provide advice on those arrangements—for example, training or procedures where the commissioner believes that these may improve policing practice. The commissioner will independently investigate the most serious and sensitive cases and act as the review body for certain cases specified in regulations. She will report annually to Parliament via the Secretary of State for Defence on the delivery of the commissioner’s functions.

Also in line with the review, the commissioner will be responsible for deciding how the more serious complaints and other matters should be investigated—whether they should be referred back to the service police for a local investigation, or whether there should be a directed or independent investigation. Independent investigations are carried out by the commissioner into the most serious complaints and other matters. The commissioner will be able to call on a pool of experienced investigators to lead those investigations. The investigators will be able to exercise service police powers, similar to the way investigators appointed by the director general of the IOPC exercise police powers. These investigations will be independent of the service police and of the Ministry of Defence.

The review recognised that probably very few independent investigations would be required, and our analysis confirms this. Based on service police data for the 2018 to 2022 period, we estimate an average of 62 formal complaints annually, with 18 cases referred to the commissioner under the mandatory criteria for referral, although not all referrals would lead to an independent investigation. By way of comparison, over 36,000 formal complaints were recorded in the year 2020-21 by civilian police forces across England and Wales.

The draft regulations are quite technical and complex, and run to over 80 pages. As they largely mirror the legislation already in place for the IOPC and civilian police, I do not intend to go through each one in turn. Instead, I shall set out the main differences between this system and the civilian police complaints system, which I have interrogated. Secondly, I will touch on the responsibilities of the commissioner in relation to determining the appropriate type of investigation to be conducted.

As indicated in the explanatory memorandum to the regulations, there are some minor differences between the systems, to reflect the service context. In relation to complaints, the commissioner will only be able to make a recommendation on whether administrative action procedures should be initiated against someone in the service police, whereas the director general, who has a formal role in the equivalent police disciplinary procedure, can also direct that these procedures should be brought.

The College of Policing has no functions in relation to the service police, so has no role in relation to the super-complaints procedure. We have yet to designate any super-complaints bodies, as we need to set up the statutory criteria for designation before any decision can be made. The criteria broadly mirror those set out in the Police Super-complaints (Criteria for the Making and Revocation of Designations) Regulations 2018, with only minor modifications. Under both regimes, the decision whether a body meets the designation criteria is for the Secretary of State to make; we therefore decided that it was unnecessary for the Secretary of State to make further regulations formally to designate bodies, unlike in the civilian system. To ensure the public know which bodies have been designated, we have included a new duty on the MOD to publish this information.

The new complaints regime will apply only to matters relating to the service police that occur on or after the date on which these regulations come into force; that is, the service police complaints system will not, initially at least, deal with historical matters. The regulations recognise that, unlike civilian police, members of the service police are also members of the armed forces and can be deployed in another capacity. The complaints system is not designed to deal with non-police matters; as such, it will not be possible to make a complaint about service police personnel when they are performing duties in another capacity, although the regime will apply when they are off-duty, as the IOPC regime does to civilian police.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I note that paragraph 4.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that Gibraltar is excluded from the territorial extent of the instrument. Will the Minister explain why that is, given that a constituent of mine may go to Gibraltar and experience a problem with service police? The regulations would not cover such a case.

[Dr Murrison]

I think we covered this last time. I know that hon. Members are interested in the status of Gibraltar. The difficulty is that the draft SI is made under primary legislation, notably the Armed Forces Act 2006, which covers Gibraltar in a different way. Therefore, we cannot easily include Gibraltar in the scope of this statutory instrument. I am sorry if that is a slightly unsatisfactory response for the hon. Lady, but the 2006 Act passed under the last Government dealt with the matter in that way. Of course, service personnel still have the ability to go through the existing system. Such matters will be kept under review, not least in the quinquennial reviews. It could be that at some future date and with the benefit of a future Armed Forces Bill, we might be able to amend the matter. I hope that is satisfactory to her.

The different options for investigation by the Service Police Complaints Commissioner are pretty much identical to those in the civilian system. I will briefly run through those options. First, there is the possibility of a local investigation, where the service police force do the investigation themselves. Secondly, there can be a directed investigation, where a member of a service police force is appointed as the investigator, but the investigation is under the direction of the commissioner. Finally, there can be an independent investigation, where the commissioner carries out an investigation personally or designates an investigating officer to carry it out.

As well as complaints, the new system will cover conduct matters and death or serious injury matters. In layman’s terms, those are cases where no complaint has been made, but misconduct is suspected or a death or serious injury has occurred after contact with the service police. Again, we expect only a small number of conduct matters to be referred to the commissioner that would require investigation, and DSI matters are even more rare. Between 2018 and 2022, no DSI-type matters were recorded.

We expect relatively few independent investigations, but an effective independent service police complaints system is vital. The way in which complaints, conduct matters and DSI matters are dealt with has a huge impact on confidence in the service police. Where matters are dealt with badly, confidence in the service police and the wider service justice system can be damaged. Where matters are dealt with in a way that is efficient and effective, and is seen to be independent, trust can be restored and bring about improvements in policing.

Most important, the new system will help to ensure that when something goes wrong, the circumstances are thoroughly investigated, appropriate action is taken and lessons are not just identified, but learned. I am conscious that today of all days is a time to reflect on how we can increase the effectiveness and transparency of all police services, and I certainly include service police. I commend the draft regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his typically incisive and comprehensive list of questions, which I will do my best to answer.

On resourcing, I absolutely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In giving him an indication of the scale of dedicated resources, I come back to my point about our anticipated level of demand; set against the context of Home Office policing, it is really very small indeed. Margaret Obi will be employed for 2.5 days a week. She is a deputy High Court judge, so this is a part-time job for her, although this is pretty much maximum part time, and clearly, that will be reviewed. I will be interested to see what her annual report to the Secretary of State and Parliament says about the amount of work she feels she has, and whether it increases over time as service personnel develop confidence in the system, and potentially increase the demands on her and her staff. She will have three members of staff—the costs will be borne internally by the Ministry of Defence—and £250,000 has been identified annually for independent investigators.

It is likely that the investigators will mainly be ex-policemen, and their qualifications will be determined by the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of an organisation that acts as an agency for those kinds of people—indeed, I think we have discussed that in the past in Committee—so there is a way of recruiting people with sufficient experience to do this work. Again, I expect the commissioner to be able to feed back on that when she delivers her report, and I certainly expect us to review it at the quinquennial review, which we will conduct as a matter of course.

Moving on to the DSCU, which obviously has the expertise, it will continue to do its work under the direction of the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. However, it is possible, given that she will be hiring independent investigators, that some of the demands on the unit will be moderated. These are quite complicated matters and they suck up quite a lot of officer time, so I expect there to be a gain, as it were, for service justice as a result of what we are discussing today.

I can confirm that the date given in regulation 1(1) is correct. Although the vesting date is in June, I have already met Margaret Obi to discuss her appointment, and she pretty much has things up and running.

On training, the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. The independent investigators will be trained and experienced police officers, but I take the point about the importance of training. I expect the commissioner to undertake a training role herself in respect of police conduct, and I would expect that to become a significant part of her role over time.

Turning to the super-complaints mechanism, I wrote to my own chief constable this morning following Louise Casey’s review because, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the issues are not confined to the Metropolitan police. This is a good point in time for all constabularies to examine themselves, their procedures and their attitudes, and to take restorative action where appropriate. That includes service police. The setting up of a super-complaints procedure is an important part of this SI. In other words, were an issue such as stop and search—the most obvious example—to arise in a service context, I would expect the Service Police Complaints Commissioner to pick that up and run with it, as has been the case in the civilian context.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the withdrawal of complaints. I hope that Margaret Obi will study our proceedings today, as that would be a reasonable thing for her to cover in her annual report. I should emphasise that it is her report, not mine, but if it were not included when the report is presented to Parliament, it would be legitimate to ask questions. On oversight, I hope that parliamentarians will take a close interest, including, of course, those on the House of Commons Defence Committee. It would be perfectly open to that Committee to interrogate the annual report, and I expect the MOD will do its own internal quinquennial review when it comes.

The hon. Gentleman is right about delays. Again, I prayed this in aid the last time we met in a similar forum to justify service justice, because in general the level of delays in the service justice system is enviable compared with that in civilian justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I take the point about bureaucratic language and the need to explain things to laypeople in simple terms. I think that point is very well made indeed.

On the accelerated procedures, I have interrogated my officials because I did not quite understand the explanatory notes. They are, in a rather techie way, part of the police disciplinary procedures that are laid out in statute. That is not what we are dealing with here. We are ultimately dealing with stuff that is laid out in King’s regulations, and in a rather techie way—apropos my previous remark—the two are quite separate. We cannot, therefore, translate directly one from the other in this particular case. I suppose it comes back to the point about Gibraltar, where we are of course tied by previous legislation. In the absence of changes to primary legislation, in this case through an Armed Force Bill, it would be extremely difficult to replicate the situation precisely. I think the intent is the same, however, and I have been insistent that what we do by means of this SI replicates, for practical purposes, what we have in civilian life. I am absolutely attached to that as an important principle.

On historical complaints, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman pulled out the phrase “not initially” because I was also interested in this. The truth of the matter is that we must be realistic about the burden on Margaret Obi. We are going to let this run for a bit; we will review it internally after 18 months, we will have the quinquennial review, and we will have her annual report. As and when it becomes possible to look at historical complaints, the door is open to that, but I am not prepared to commit to it right now, because I want to ensure that complaints are handled contemporaneously. That must be the priority. Others will of course be dealt with through the existing service complaints procedure, but we recognise that this is the gold standard, not that, since this replicates what happens in civilian life. I hope that that is satisfactory for the hon. Gentleman.

I think I have pretty much got through all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I will, as ever, sieve through what he put to me and write to him if I have missed something.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Cttee has considered the draft Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023.

Operation Telic

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I very much welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has provided to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the start of Operation Telic. I want to begin by paying tribute to him, both for his own outstanding service and for his deeply moving tribute to those with whom he served and the veterans he champions.

For me, too, Iraq is personal. Somewhat ironically, having opposed the war here, I was recalled to serve as a battle group medical officer during Telic 2. I have expressed my feelings about the Iraq war on a number of occasions and I will not rehearse them again today. Suffice it to say that lessons learned were dearly bought. Even now, Sir John Chilcot’s landmark inquiry is helping to set the contours for the way we see discretionary, expeditionary warfare. I think it is fair to say that few of us at the time anticipated the long shadows that would be cast by Operations Telic and Herrick.

Whatever one’s views of the wisdom and judgment of those who preceded us, it is unarguable that our brave men and women stepped up to the plate as only soldiers, sailors and aviators can. Despite enormous pressure, they went on to do remarkable things. It is their service and sacrifice that I want to reflect on tonight, as the hon. Gentleman did. As I do so, and as a Wiltshire MP who represents a garrison town, I remember the silence—the silence of Royal Wootton Bassett as the flag-draped coffins rolled by.

Of course, we make decisions in this place that change lives all the time, but the consequences of some are more stark—more vivid—than others. As the hon. Gentleman remarked, Operation Telic involved a vast military effort. It was one of the largest deployments since the end of world war two and involved all three services. Some 46,000 troops were deployed, among them 9,500 reservists. The UK sent 19 warships, 14 Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service vessels, 15,000 vehicles, 115 fixed-wing aircraft and nearly 100 helicopters. They in turn were supported in the United Kingdom and elsewhere by an army of civilians and contractors. Many of those individuals would never have experienced a conflict remotely like this one. Some would have served as peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo. Some would even have taken part in the first Gulf war to liberate Kuwait, yet that conflict was won within 42 days. This one dragged on for years.

Yet, as I recall, in the early days, hopes had been high for a swift resolution thanks to an impressive series of lightning successes. Overcoming stiff resistance, our forces achieved their first objective at the port of Umm Qasr. They then moved on to take Basra, Iraq’s second largest city. Again, the 7th Armoured Brigade, the famous Desert Rats, despite participating in the biggest tank battle by UK forces since the second world war and despite constant harrying from Iraqi regular troops and Fedayeen militia, emerged victorious. Within a month, the UK, alongside its coalition allies, had accomplished nearly all its military goals. The brutal dictator Saddam Hussein had fled. His regime had evaporated. Key infrastructure had been secured. And cheering crowds congregated on Baghdad streets to welcome coalition forces and topple Saddam’s vainglorious statute into the dust. Meanwhile, stringent targeting and unprecedented use of precision weapons had kept UK and Iraqi casualties to a minimum.

But that was the high point. As the late Sir John Chilcot documented in his report, there had been a shocking lack of preparation for regime change. What followed was a bitter and bloody insurgency. Mobs murdered Royal Military police. An RAF Hercules was shot out of the sky. Soldiers were ambushed by snipers. Fighters were attacked with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The improvised explosive device became a staple of the news bulletins. Borne by vehicles, buried in the ground or dumped in piles of rubbish, the notorious IEDs claimed and maimed many lives. By the time the UK left in 2011, thousands had been wounded and 179 British troops had paid the ultimate price. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of all who lost their lives and who suffered life-changing injuries.

[James Sunderland]

Our armed forces bear arms voluntarily through choice and because of the duty they have in doing their job. But it is not just about being told what to do; it is also because they believe in that particular cause. May I ask the Minister, on that very serious point, to confirm to the House that, for all future operations and all future decisions taken to deploy armed forces in possible expeditionary warfare, that rigour will be employed with every decision, we will not take that good will for granted, and there will be a very good reason for the use of force?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course; as a soldier, he knows full well the horrors of war and what war means. No Government would join battle willingly and, as I said in my early remarks, lessons have been learned from this pair of conflicts that we have had in the 21st century. Only a very imprudent Government would embark upon such an initiative or initiatives now, knowing what we now know about the nature and consequences of this kind of operation and the long shadow that it casts—in the case of Iraq, of course, we are living with it still. Some, I am afraid, live with it more than others.

Twenty years on, the Iraq war remains deeply controversial and contested. Whether it was for good or ill, the decisions taken then have continued to shape our attitude to military interventionism. Yet although we can continue to debate the politics, what is not up for discussion is the fact that the soldiers, sailors and aviators of Operation Telic at no point gave less than their all. Those who wear the Iraq campaign medal should do so with pride. It is also worth reflecting that today Iraq and the UK share a close and enduring bond, as well as a determination to defeat Daesh finally and for good, and a desire to enjoy peace and stability.

This afternoon, I had the very great privilege of laying a wreath at the Iraq and Afghanistan memorial that stands just outside the MOD main building. It is a powerful sculpture, carved out of Portland stone—unusual in that it contains no names of the fallen. In fact, only two words are etched on to its smooth surface: “duty” and “service”. The veterans of Operation Telic did their duty. Their service was exemplary. They were, and remain, the very best of us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is right that we commemorate the bravery of our service personnel and the ultimate sacrifice of the 179. I thank you, Mr Jarvis, for bringing this debate to Parliament today. We will remember them. We have today.

Question put and agreed to.