Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

That’s Virgin Trains for you. But I should not advertise.

On 1 April next year, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Royal Air Force actually coming into existence. It was the threat of war with Germany in the 1930s that resulted in the rapid expansion of the RAF. New stations were built, new aircraft were ordered and the strength of the RAF increased from 31,275 personnel in 1933 to 264,346 by 1939. At the end of the second world war, the strength of the RAF stood at more than one million. By 1948, of course, that had dropped to less than 250,000, and two years later it was less than 200,000. By 1979, the strength of the RAF was just over 86,000 personnel. The end of the cold war and the reconfiguring of the RAF for expeditionary warfare saw a further reduction in manpower.

I will turn to one of the most important points that the hon. Member for Witney made in his opening remarks, which is the battle of Britain. As I said earlier, I am a child of the ’50s and ’60s—and probably one of the older Members in this room—and I remember many of the films of the period, such as “366 Squadron”. We were brought up on those movies. “The Dam Busters” was slightly before my time, being born in ’55, which was the year it was made, so I do not remember it opening.

Sir Henry, if you will permit me for one minute, I will share a couple of personal recollections. “The Dam Busters” was about Operation Chastise, on 16 to 17 May 1943. We all remember that it was Sir Barnes Wallis who invented the bouncing bomb, but how many of us remember some of the other people involved? I am very privileged to have as one of my closest friends the grandson of Sir Benjamin Lockspeiser, who was the co-inventor of the bouncing bomb, and who died just months before his 100th birthday in 1990. He was one of the most influential inventors of the time, and with Barnes Wallis he invented a weapon that brought the war to an earlier close than it might have had. These are the people who are often forgotten.

Benjamin Lockspeiser was honoured after the war for his role, but there are many like him who worked hard to ensure that we could win the war and stop Hitler’s Operation Sealion, which started in July 1940, from invading Britain and therefore removing the last democratic obstacle to his domination of Europe. In order to do that, he had to destroy the RAF’s ability to attack his forces. We should never forget that the RAF was outnumbered 5:1 by the Luftwaffe in both machines and men. It was the first significant strategic defeat suffered by the Nazis during the second world war. Of course, the war was to last another five years.

My late father was at that time a pupil at Brentwood School, in Essex. It was a boarding school; he had come to the country as a 12-year-old from continental Europe to escape the fascist persecution of the Jews. He was on fire duty one night in 1940 as the battle of Britain was taking place over Brentwood. Hon. Members present probably do not know that area of Essex; Brentwood School is on hill, and Warley barracks is on the next hill. The Luftwaffe used to bomb Warley barracks regularly, but sometimes it got confused and bombed the school instead. When they dropped a bomb on the cricket pavilion, the deputy headmaster said to my father, who was on duty at the time, “Let it burn; we need a new pavilion.” That was one of the stories I best remember from my father’s wartime exploits. He ended up in the RAF himself in 1945. He never told me exactly what his duties were, but I know that at one stage, after having volunteered, he was parachuted into occupied France. That is a direct, personal connection.

Many of us who are children of that era remember building the Airfix kits. I do not know how many hon. Members in this room remember those Airfix kits— I am looking round to the boys.

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

Sexism, sir!

[Fabian Hamilton]

And the girls. Surely, the hon. Lady is not old enough to remember such things. I remember building the kits of Spitfires, Hurricanes and Mosquitos out of balsa wood. I think the real aircraft were built out of balsa wood as well—those Mosquitos were very flammable, but they were extremely fast. The technologies of that time enabled the RAF to be so superior, in spite of the fact that it had fewer personnel and fewer machines —the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine was the engine that powered the Spitfire. Indeed, when the film the “Battle of Britain” was made in 1968, I think, they re-enacted with original Spitfires and Hurricanes the battle over Brentwood School, which I was a pupil at, too, during that period.

The RAF is an important strand in the lives of all of us who grew up after the war in the ’50s and ’60s, and subsequently. The cost of the battle of Britain was very high. Of the nearly 3,000 air crew who fought, 544 lost their lives and of the remainder, a further 814 died before the end of the war. We should remember that not all those fighters were British. Fighter Command was a cosmopolitan mix, and some reference has been made to that this afternoon. There were 141 Poles, 87 Czechs, 24 Belgians and 13 Free French killed, who swelled the ranks of those who died fighting in the RAF as pilots and other crew in the battle of Britain and throughout the second world war.

As of October 2017, the RAF consists of 30,560 full-time, trained personnel, against a 2020 target of 31,750. The RAF as we know it today—reference has been made to this already—is at the centre of the UK’s fight against Daesh. In fact, in March this year I was privileged to visit RAF Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus with the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Akrotiri was the staging point for Operation Shader, the UK’s military campaign against Daesh. We saw just how brilliantly well the RAF works today in spite of the many pressures on it.

Another point I want to make is about equality, which other hon. Members have referred to. The Women’s Royal Air Force was formed in 1918. Although the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force was disbanded in the 1920s, it was reformed in June 1939 as a result of the outbreak of the second world war. On 1 February 1949, the permanent service came into being, under its old name of the Women’s Royal Air Force. The RAF has been at the very forefront, integrating its women’s service in a meaningful way. In 1994, the WRAF ceased to exist as a women’s service when it merged with the RAF and female personnel were fully integrated on the same rates of pay and subject to the same regulations as their male counterparts.

The RAF has been consistently praised as an excellent employer for women and has been named in The Times top 50 list of employers for women on more than one occasion. Not only that, but the RAF has the largest proportion of female officers: 16.9% of regular officers and 22.7% of reserve officers are women. The current target for women in the armed forces is 15% by 2020, but the RAF plans to raise its target to 20% by 2020. The RAF also created the first female two-star military officer. Air Vice-Marshal Elaine West was the first woman since the second world war to become a non-honorary air vice-marshal or equivalent in the British armed forces, and the first to achieve that rank in the regular forces. The RAF currently has three female officers of two-star rank, compared with one in the Army and none in the Royal Navy. In September, the RAF became the first service to accept women in all roles, including close combat roles.

We have had a very good debate, and I wait to hear what the Minister has to say in conclusion. I thank the hon. Member for Witney once again for bringing this important anniversary to public attention. I hope that this is the first of many celebrations.

Future Accommodation Model

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to follow the hon. Members who have spoken. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) for bringing the debate to the House. As colleagues know, this issue is very close to my heart. It has become, unwittingly, something of a passion for me, because military families have regarded me as the person to come to with their issues. It is lovely to hear filtering through to the national consciousness all the work that we did last year through the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office about the problem of accommodation that just is not good enough for those families’ needs.

Looking specifically at the future accommodation model, I come back to the question that I raised with my hon. Friend the Minister before Christmas: is the survey good enough to work up a policy from it? My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) made the point—we raised this issue at the time—that it was a leading survey. It was predicated on driving answers that could only say, “I like one of the four new options.” It did not offer those who are not yet married, those who are married and do not have children and those who are married with children and have served for 20 years plus, who have been through the gamut of the CarillionAmey experience—good and bad, as it often is—the opportunity to say, within the set of four options, “Actually, what we have now is the best option. Although the house is rubbish, the plumbing is rubbish and the windows don’t shut properly, it is still the best option.” That was not in the survey and therefore the Ministry lost the confidence of all the armed forces at that point.

Those who completed the survey did so with a heavy heart. They filled in that blank box, but the Minister has not released the information from that. I will continue to press the Department to release all those data. The excuse given is that that might identify people. Well, we have seen every Department ever remove, with a black pen, things that might identify people. Families who filled in that box would like to see the data published, so that they know that the Department has read and is taking seriously the endless comments—I have seen many of them, because people sent them to me—that said, “But we don’t like any of those four. We would like to stay in service family accommodation, however rubbish it is, on patch, in the community where it is provided.” I will therefore continue to press the Minister to think about how that information could be published in a way that does not put any individual at risk, and to question whether that survey, in its extremely biased and leading form, was a good enough basis on which to set policy.

There are certain key concerns that families continually raise with me. For instance, will the allowance be taxable? Perhaps it will not be initially, but does not the Treasury always end up finding its way around allowances? There is a real sense of anxiety about the lack of clarity. Will the allowance be adequate? As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, the cost of housing changes dramatically depending on where people are posted. I understand that the Department is moving towards looking at FAM in two streams, in terms of both mobility and stability. I am very pleased if that is the case. I hope that the Minister can explain to us whether we are now looking at two different types of FAM package for those who have different needs. Those who are in the RAF and will always be based in one part of the country, where their families like to be, will have a different perspective on how this might work for them.

The deepest anxiety, which families raise continually, is: “If we are expected to rent a house or buy a house”—it will be probably be to rent a house—“what if we then move?” As so many Army wives in particular say to me, “Is it so wrong to want to actually live with my husband? Sorry, but am I supposed to be dumped somewhere in Birmingham while he goes off and does stuff? I want to live with my husband. My kids want to see their dad at the end of the day.”

This is particularly relevant to Army families. Unless those personnel are deployed abroad on long postings, they go off on exercise for a few days or a few weeks at a time. They are fundamentally living on patch and taking part in family life. The situation is not the same for the Royal Navy, whose personnel deploy for six to nine months at a time. There is a real concern, particularly among Army families, that it is not understood that this scheme will not support the family unit, but that is vital. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) said, family life is what keeps soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting abroad for their country. They do so knowing that their family is back here; there is a real purpose to their efforts on our behalf.

Another area of real concern that I would like to raise with the Minister is how the children will cope—or not cope. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has already raised the question of nursery provision and of schooling. We battle on, and the Minister is very supportive in relation to individual cases in which children cannot find a school place when their parents are moved at short notice. That is difficult. Let us say that children are placed, for the purpose of stability, with their non-serving parent somewhere away from where the families are, in a non-military environment. We are seeing already too many cases in which the schools do not know how to support adequately those children whose parents are serving in the military. Quite a few, and I imagine there will be more, now have two serving parents. Those schools need resources, support and understanding.

In my constituency, in the village of Longhoughton, which is next door to RAF Boulmer, we have a primary school that is 80% military children. The headteacher is extraordinary in the way that she adapts the teaching to the children’s needs. She has a direct relationship with the commanding officer of RAF Boulmer so that she knows what is going on. Those children can be well supported, their education can be maintained and stability can be provided even though their parents are doing really difficult jobs. An awful lot of them are coming and going to the Falkland Islands, which is not round the corner—they are off on a long old journey. Teachers who are within the military framework and have lots of military children can provide the stability that those children really need, but if a single child is in a school nowhere near a military establishment we have real problems and see cases of the inability of school teachers to really understand how best to support such children. That is a key area.

Again, our boys and girls will serve our nation and protect us—they love their jobs, are extraordinary people and take incredible risks—but if they feel that their families are not being looked after while they are away serving, they will leave the service earlier than we would wish them to or need them to. We have also invested heavily in their training and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, our numbers are still low. It leads to the question of retention risk and whether the Department has actually done the value-for-money assessment of whether this policy will have a serious impact on retention. All the evidence I see—anecdotal and in more detail from the survey results that have been published—indicates that this is just not robust enough.

We cannot afford the risk of greater loss from that cohort in the middle in particular. They may have filled in the survey and, at the moment, have no kids and quite like the idea of being able to buy their own home—it all sounds relatively rosy in the garden—but if in two or three years’ time they have children and suddenly find that it is really difficult and the framework the Department offers through FAM is not robust enough to support them, we will lose them and that investment. I really challenge the Minister to make sure that we have done the proper value-for-money analysis of whether this is the best way forward in terms of the housing investment we make for those families and future families, so that we do not get this wrong.

On the positive side, because I am hugely supportive of what the Minister does in a very difficult environment, we have seen a move forwards. I was at RAF Boulmer last week catching up with my local team. The move to put into the local rented market houses within service family accommodation that are not presently lived in by service families is interesting. It is starting to happen at RAF Boulmer—the Minister might want to come and talk to them—and is working well and gives flexibility.

The key is to remember that families move. Interestingly, at the moment Boulmer has quite a lot of single young men and two single young women—they are in the mess in the barracks—but if two or three of them were to move and two or three new families to arrive, family housing will suddenly be needed. That continuing fluidity will always be needed. The concern is that if we rent out too much service family accommodation, we will not have the fluidity that we need as individuals move around the country as they are posted. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind, although I support the idea that those houses should have someone in them. That is a good idea because, as all the work we have done with CarillionAmey and its efforts have shown, if a house is left empty, it deteriorates. We need to invest in them, either by putting people in them and making sure that the kitchen functions and the plumbing works, or by making sure that they are lived in and supported with a CarillionAmey contract, which works. It is getting better—I definitely have less casework than I used to have, so that is good news—but we need to continue to watch over that.

I will leave two questions for the Minister. The conversation suggests that three pilots for FAM will start next year. I think we would have greater confidence that the Department is listening and making progress if we were to know early on where those are likely to be—which military groups are likely to be asked to test this out—and how long those pilots are likely to run before anyone else is asked to move under this unknown and anxiety-causing part of the Ministry of Defence’s proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

As I say, it is all about choice. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that survey, he will see that the overwhelming number of young soldiers, sailors and airmen who are yet to be married support the model that we are proposing. We are yet to make any firm decisions. We have reduced the number of options to about seven, on which we are running a business case, but I will keep the House fully informed as we progress.

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

I welcome the Minister’s comments, but 40,000 members of the armed forces have still not been consulted on the future accommodation model. Among those who have, anxieties remain about whether SFA is still a real option for their families.

[Mark Lancaster]

I refer back to my earlier comments. Only recently I visited Salisbury plain, where we are building 1,000 new SFA units of an excellent standard. SFA will remain an option, but it is clear that one size does not fit all and that, depending on where one is serving in the United Kingdom, various options will have to be available.

A Better Defence Estate Strategy

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) for securing the debate and for her kind words earlier.

The Defence Secretary’s announcement that 91 sites across the UK will be disposed of is part of a long overdue defence estates rationalisation strategy. Although I wholeheartedly support the Department’s determination to assess its asset base—nearly 4% of the UK—and to work out what it does and does not need for the 21st century, we need to be very careful how we do this. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I led our hearing a few weeks ago to assess how the review was going. Sadly, so far I am dissatisfied that the detailed and holistic economic cases have not yet been done for each of the sites identified. That risks achieving financial and operational failures rather than gains for both the MOD and the taxpayer.

As one of several MPs taking up reservist roles —I recently applied to join the Royal Navy Reserve—I want to highlight my concerns by using the proposed closure of HMS Sultan and Fort Blockhouse in Gosport, as they are a good example of the concerns that we identified on the Public Accounts Committee. One aim of the better defence estate programme is to release land for house building, but scope for housing in Gosport is severely limited by the local plan and the lack of local demand. Sale to commercial developers is complicated by high onsite maintenance costs. HMS Sultan contains heritage assets and listed buildings—that is an issue with a lot of the sites identified—including two Palmerston forts, a site of nature conservation and land protected as open space, which is also an issue in several of the sites identified.

Fort Blockhouse contains designated nature conservation sites, open space and important heritage assets, as well as a sea wall with an estimated annual maintenance cost of £1 million to £3 million. A local expert estimates that it would cost £10 million to repair the wall fully, which could rise to £100 million if there was a breach. Maintaining the sea wall is essential for the physical integrity of Portsmouth harbour, which will soon be home to our marvellous Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, which the Minister will be pleased to hear I look forward to seeing tomorrow.

At Blockhouse the local authority is optimistic about the significant potential to regenerate the site as part of a mixed-use leisure and maritime allocation, but the MOD’s decision to retain the waterfront part of the site—the most commercially attractive segment—significantly jeopardises the opportunity to generate employment.

The business case for disposing of HMS Sultan remains unclear. Estimated renovation costs are considerably lower than costs associated with relocation. Work to improve Sultan’s accommodation is necessary, but generally the site is fit for purpose, as evidenced by Ofsted’s recent outstanding rating for its training provision. Furthermore, a recent investment of some £850,000, with £470,000 coming from the LIBOR fund, to renovate the warrant officer and senior ratings mess, which serves more than 500 trainees and permanent staff, will be completed next month. It seems a contrary decision to get rid of something that has such a significant investment. Second-order consequences of dismantling an excellent training provision for the Royal Navy are worrying. The Navy is short of engineers, and to undermine an important educational pipeline could have significant operational ramifications. The local population offers an excellent recruitment pool. The density of retired officers also provides a source of teaching professionals.

I have summarised many of the key problems. Releasing the 91 most expensive sites makes surface-level financial sense from the MOD’s perspective, but it ignores the reality that in some cases the sites may be the most difficult to sell to developers. I know that the disposal process is in its early stages across all the sites, and I welcome the MOD’s commitment to explore development opportunities fully with local authorities and development agencies. It is disappointing that analyses of the sites earmarked for disposal are taking place after disposal decisions, but I sincerely hope that a business-minded approach will begin to drive disposal decisions alongside the military requirement.

Armed Forces Recruitment: Under-18s

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for bringing this important debate to the House. The Minister is probably having a moment of fear that, because I am standing up to speak on military matters, I might not be entirely in support of Government policy, but he could be no further from the truth. I am an advocate of the armed forces covenant as a real and engaged process throughout our nation.

Recruitment to and training of our young people in the armed forces from the age of 16 can be a hugely positive experience, as the hon. Lady mentioned, and we do it very well and in a variety of ways. In my constituency, the Military Academy at the Kirkley Hall campus of Northumberland College was set up precisely for those young people whom the hon. Lady was thinking of. They not only were in vulnerable family environments and have not been able to make best use of their previous schooling environments, but were not even capable of living the sort of disciplined and ordinary life that joining the Army might provide. The Military Academy has, however, created a framework in which those young people who wish to participate in society and have an interest in the armed forces can develop those basic skills of discipline, leadership, teamwork, communications and personal self-motivation to understand what decisive thinking and such skills can mean for building them up as individuals.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Lady not share my concern that basic literacy and numeracy skills are what we need to equip young people with for their lives as adults? Functional skills as a curriculum method does not appear to be sufficient. It was described by Professor Wolf as “fundamentally flawed”.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

The reality is that school has failed for some young people, and their literacy and numeracy skills are not where we would like them to be—they have not been able to benefit from such a development.

For example, one of my caseworkers spent 25 years in the Army and is now running my association office in Berwick. He left school at 15 functionally illiterate. He was severely dyslexic and throughout his school career he had been told that he was thick, useless and pretty much not good for anything. He joined the Army and within one week it was clear that he was none of those things, but simply dyslexic. That was some time ago, so I hope we are even better now with young people coming into the Army—perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

That new recruit was given intensive tuition to assist his literacy, which improved dramatically, as so often with dyslexic children who need a different way of learning, and he had a fulfilling career in the Army. He represents one of those anecdotes to which the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd referred. We need to understand that those young people who choose to join the Army early in their lives, after leaving school where they have often had a poor experience, want to be doing something positive. The framework offered by the armed forces provides that opportunity.

The Medact report to which the hon. Lady referred is clear that 16-year-olds are not exactly being press ganged into our armed forces. After they have spent six weeks on the initial training course, young people may step off. After up to six months, they may again step off, if they feel that that career option is not right for them. Also, up to their 18th birthday, they may step off with three months’ notice. That is pretty similar to an employment framework that one might find after taking a job in a supermarket or on the factory floor. The implication that young people are somehow sucked into the armed forces against their will and cannot develop is wholly unfair to the armed forces and the incredible work of the training programme.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am a little surprised that the hon. Lady has not referred to parental consent, which is necessary under the age of 18. Does she share my concern that once parental consent has been given, parents have no right to revoke it?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I am sure the Minister will be able to confirm such details, but a 16-year-old who chooses to leave school and go into employment and training elsewhere is still in charge of their own destiny. I am the mother of an about-to-be-16-year-old and an 18-year-old, and if they choose to step into the workplace, that would be their commitment to take on the responsibilities of adult life. Having supported them to make whatever their choice was, I would be very comfortable with them continuing with their choice. That is what growing up and taking adult decisions is all about.

Those under 18 cannot go out and serve in frontline roles, as was mentioned earlier, but they can participate in what we call national resilience activities. Over the past few years when we have had flooding problems in the north-east, on a number of occasions I have met some really energised and enthusiastic young men and women helping out with the flood defence crises, both in Morpeth in my patch and over in Cumbria. That highlights the many good qualities that joining the armed forces can give to young people—that sense of belonging and of learning to work in a team, which they so often have not had in their own lives.

The report highlights the statistical imbalance in post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems for those who have joined young and come out the other side, but that is a chicken-and-egg argument.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Lady makes quite a compelling case about the benefits of early recruitment for 16 and 17-year-olds themselves, some of whom, as I said, may well have been let down by the system elsewhere. I do not choose to dispute any of her examples of those benefits, but I worry about whether that is the Army’s proper role or, in fact, a distraction from providing a good and efficient security service. If the Army waited until those individuals were 18 and other agencies had had the opportunity to try to improve their lot, it might recruit much better and more able people.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that because some people might join at 16, others would not join at 18. One does not negate the other. The Army in particular offers young men and women who do not want to be in the education system any more because they found that it failed them—perhaps because they had poor teachers or they have dyslexia, or perhaps due to other issues—a framework within which they can really develop and thrive. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that we need to ensure the welfare of those young people and that the covenant supports them as they develop skills in what can be a demanding and stretching environment, but that is part of the challenge, and so many of them really take that up.

I turn to the mental health issues of people who come out of the Army, who so often joined up early. There is a lot of work going on in that field, which I am involved with. Those young people would probably have been unable to find secure long-term employment had they fallen out of school and become NEET; they would have struggled through the system. They had the opportunity to take up an extraordinary career. I have the most enormous respect for anyone who joins the armed forces. It is a choice. To defend our nation and be part of a team of people who will put themselves in harm’s way to protect us and our families is an extraordinary thing to do. We must always bear that in mind.

I was interested in the report by Medact, which promotes disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons more broadly. I know quite a lot about that—my father was the leading journalist and specialist in the area in the 1960s, so it is a subject that I grew up with—but we cannot just wipe everything away and say, “Let’s no longer have armed forces. We want the world to be a happy and peaceful place.” I can think of nothing I would like more, but the reality is that we need robust and resilient armed forces, and we have some of the best in the world. Those young men and women, who join earlier than people who go to university and therefore come out of education at higher levels, do so because that brings them the opportunity to be part of a team that they can be proud of, and we can be proud of them.

Armed Forces Covenant

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs Trevelyan]

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

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

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, although it is one that rather puzzles me. I have spent 20 years in one of the most military constituencies in Britain. I see service people in my surgeries day in, day out, and I deal with all kinds of issues on their behalf. I have never once heard of any kind of restriction on them speaking to me.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

That is very encouraging, but my postbag over the past 18 months—I have received correspondence from not only local people, but service personnel throughout the country—suggests that people often have a real sense of anxiety about coming forward. Sometimes when wives have done so, there have been repercussions for their husbands, who have been challenged about stepping outside the chain of command into the civilian arena of their MP’s office. I hope that we can encourage other soldiers and their families to do what the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) have done.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She is making a powerful contribution. This is about not only those who are currently serving but those who have served. A constituent called Linda McHugh came to me in difficult circumstances after she was denied a war widow’s pension because she had remarried. People who remarried after 2015 have now been protected, but does the hon. Lady agree that it is only right and proper that the Minister look into restoring the pension rights of those who were married to servicemen in the past? For example, Linda was married to a serviceman who lost his life in 1973.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

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

[Mark Lancaster]

rose—

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Oh, the Minister is going to answer the question.

[Mark Lancaster]

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

[Mrs Trevelyan]

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

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

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

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that small and medium-sized businesses in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as European Circuits in my constituency, which has signed up to the corporate covenant, can also play a major part?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am keen that MPs from both sides of the House become more involved in spreading the message about the benefits of businesses in their constituencies signing the corporate covenant.

As MPs, we are perhaps more connected than anyone to our local business community, so we have a great opportunity to evangelise about the importance of businesses committing to the covenant and the life-changing impact that that can have for military families. We have more than 5 million SMEs— businesses employing fewer than 250 people—which make up 99% of all businesses across the UK. We have a long way to go to make every business covenant-friendly. We have 1,300 signed up so far, and they are committed in their small or larger way to supporting our military families. We therefore look forward to working with the MOD and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to increase participation in the corporate covenant scheme exponentially in the year ahead.

A key way in which businesses can benefit themselves and help service families is employing military spouses, who have faced a long-standing challenge to find employment that matches their skills and qualifications because, too often, employers see a military address and decide that even though the potential employee might be the best candidate for the role, they will not be around for more than two years. However, a committed military spouse, who will certainly have a posting for two years, and often longer nowadays, should be as valued as any civilian candidate.

From my conversations with military wives, it seems that the key block to getting the right job is often that an employer sees that the applicant’s address is a military base. Will the Minister therefore consider working with me and his BEIS colleagues to remove the address requirement from job application forms, perhaps in favour of something such as a distance-from-work criterion, to ensure that there is no unconscious bias against military spouses?

Ongoing work at Stanford University shows clearly that gender-neutral applications alter employer choices by removing a marked bias towards male applicants. In the same way, it would be fantastic if, as part of our continuing real commitment to the covenant, BEIS led a trial on removing addresses from job applications to see whether that helps to increase successful employment opportunities for military spouses.

It is great news that every council in England and Scotland has now signed up to the community covenant and that colleagues in Northern Ireland continue to make progress on finding ways to build a framework through Stormont and local councils to improve the commitment to the covenant. The community covenant could have one of the greatest positive impacts for military families—serving and after service—because our local councils deal with housing allocation policy, brief GPs and health professionals about the needs of the armed forces community, set up webpages to help to join up local services, support local charities in the military space, and deal with school admissions policy.

Colleagues will no doubt share with the House more details of the excellent work in their areas, so I will raise just one key area with the Minister: school admissions policy. My ten-minute rule Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, calls on the Department for Education to change admissions policy so that military families moving at short notice can get the right school place at any time. I very much hope that the MOD will support the Bill.

This year’s report refers to the work done to identify educational disadvantage. My postbag led me to bring in my Bill because too many families moving at short notice could not access a school place without ending up in the appeals system, which creates even more stress for parents and children alike. Excellent work from the University of Winchester, which the MOD is supporting, shows a marked impact when it comes to higher education outputs for military children. We must at least reduce the stress of moving schools to help these kids to reach their potential.

Lastly—this is a key part of this year’s report—we must look at the prioritisation of key issues that create stress for serving families if we are to reduce the very real retention risk we are now experiencing. Having brought the numbers in our armed forces down for many years to create a leaner, peacetime force, this is an urgent challenge. We must always remember that, without the human capital, all the ships, submarines, jets, planes, helicopters and tanks in the world are no use to us.

Our people are the most important component of the triumvirate of equipment, estates and personnel that makes up our world-class military resource. We train them to the highest standards in the world, and we must ensure that we do all we can for them because, notwithstanding the moral component—I say this as an accountant—we want to make sure we get the best value for money for our investment. If we lose a pilot for lack of a decent house, or a nuclear engineer for lack of a school place, we have failed to assess the value-for-money implications to the taxpayer and the capability needs of our services, and we are failing to enact the spirit of the covenant in practice.

This year’s report highlights the excellent work done by the Department of Health, and internally by the MOD with Defence Medical Services, to build a more robust infrastructure framework. Substantial work has taken place to tackle hearing loss issues, and that will be an interesting area to follow in the year ahead, because the NHS hearing loss treatment guidelines have recently changed. For those whose hearing has been damaged as a result of service, it is to be hoped that they will get full treatment to restore their hearing.

The launch of the e-learning for healthcare programme to help GPs to gain greater understanding and awareness will be useful but, of course, ensuring that the transfer of all medical records works across the country will be key to helping GPs to know their patient’s history and to work with them when crises arise in the years after service.

The new veterans’ gateway is a great step forward in helping families and local service providers, as well as MPs. We have high hopes for it, although there are concerns that gaps in mental healthcare provision, in particular, will remain a stubborn block to providing real and needed support for military families who are, for instance, supporting post-traumatic stress disorder sufferers who are unable to access the long-term medical interventions that they need to help them recover and lead full lives once again. Perhaps the Minister could give us a little more detail about how suppliers at the other end of the gateway will be supported by relevant Government Departments so that there is capacity to meet this well-identified need.

The report also talks about developing an alternative approach to the provision of accommodation for service personnel and their families. I would be failing in my duty to all our military families if I did not mention the crisis in military housing, which is a real and present danger to the retention of large numbers of our highly trained personnel. I have tackled the problems with CarillionAmey’s maintenance contracts in a number of forums already, and the Minister has been enormously helpful in getting a trial MPs’ hotline set up to help us to sort out practical problems for families in service accommodation. However, the problems are extensive and cause enormous frustration to too many.

I have challenged the Minister on the combined accommodation assessment system rental changes, and not a single family I have spoken to minds that their rent is going up, but if the system is to reflect normal social housing rates under the decent homes plus standard, their homes really do need to be DH plus. Too many are not, and the challenge system has been weighted against families getting a fair and honest appraisal of their home’s categorisation. There is more to do to rebuild the loss of trust we really are facing.

However, the most challenging part of the housing debate is the future accommodation model, which the MOD is working on. According to the report, it is aimed at supporting families

“to live in the private rental market or enabling them to purchase their own home.”

I am grateful to the Minister for publishing the data sets from the survey this week, and we are looking at them closely. I ask him also to publish the additional notes that personnel wrote. He said he would do that, but they do not seem to be in the initial statistical data sets that are online.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I hear what the hon. Lady says about military accommodation and I think that we all genuinely share her concern. Does she agree that it is particularly worrying that the report indicates that satisfaction has actually decreased? Those satisfaction levels are very low indeed.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

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

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

[Mark Lancaster]

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

[Mrs Trevelyan]

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

[Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Much as I respect my hon. Friend the Minister, when we read the questions in the screenshot we can see how they are designed to produce a particular answer. To take just one example, the most common reason why people are in favour of change—two thirds are nominally in favour—is that they want to live in a better house. Nowhere are they told that once they go into the private sector, they will be totally responsible for persuading landlords to do something about the maintenance of their homes—unlike in the very expensive Australian model, in which the Department of Defence has kept that responsibility.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend reflects the deep concerns about the way in which the survey was put together and the framing of the questions, which left a lot of personnel unable to give the answers that they wanted to give. I think the Minister is mindful of that, and I am glad to hear that no formal decisions have yet been made.

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

I do not want to get involved in a dispute between two of my hon. Friends, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) agree that, of all the surveys published in recent times, the one that matters most is the monthly service personnel statistics of 19 January this year? They show, sadly, both reservists and regulars voting with their feet.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Sadly, that is the reality. I talk continually about retention risk. That risk is very real, and we are suffering from it.

I want to take the Minister and the House a little further into the FAM survey. The survey talked about choices, but no one felt that SFA was a choice that the MOD wanted to keep on the table. The Minister and I will continue to discuss the matter, but that is what the personnel who completed the survey felt. Giving service personnel the choice to live where they want is fine, if the option to live with their family when not deployed during the week is real. However, housing costs in too many parts of the country where forces are based are too high, so the likely reality is that families will be spread across the country and unsupported. We cannot plan for a peaceful world when all our troops are at home.

We are undermanned, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) says, our recruitment numbers are a challenge. The offer needs to hold up if recruits are to remain in service once they have families, and a key component is getting the housing offer right. Choice is a great thing, but it simply will not work to drive a policy change that breaks up patch life or creates effective salary drops because of housing market stresses.

The annual report shows the continuous work of the Department’s team to help to reduce disadvantage. That is commendable, but there is so much more to do. Not a single person here would ever want to hear the words that I have heard far too often: “This is just too hard; we are going to leave the service.” The most recent continuous attitude survey shows that there is a stark gap between the 76% of respondents who are proud of their service and the 45% who would suggest that one should join up. That is a gap that we cannot fix.

I hope that in the year ahead we can focus on actively encouraging service families to talk to their MPs when they have problems, so that a strong new constructive dialogue can begin. The covenant is one of the most powerful tools we have to drive through good decisions, to reduce the looming capability risk gap and to increase our servicemen and women’s belief in their value to us. I fervently hope that we can harness such a dialogue across the House in 2017.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I apologise to the House for my inaudibility. I shall attempt by hand signals to explain what I am trying to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I thank all colleagues who have spent their Thursday afternoon here in the Chamber rather than in Stoke-on-Trent or Copeland, and the Minister who has sat patiently listening to all of us as we share our praise and our criticism of the way in which the armed forces covenant is rolling out.

There must be something about Kent, because my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) are both passionate about housing. The fact that it is not just about the bricks is the critical point. I hope very much that the Minister and the Ministry of Defence will hear that message, because that is the families’ message to them. The model needs to be good and it needs to be 21st century, but it is not just about the bricks.

Many colleagues talked about the statute of limitations. I know that the Minister is working on that. If the outstanding work on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team of the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who could not be with us today, can change the Ministry’s mind and drive forward some really good improvements, I hope very much that colleagues who have spoken today can push forward that statute of limitations and find a legal framework that can work.

The key to all matters to do with the covenant—the work that has been done over the past few years is extensive and very positive—is that unless our attempts at recruitment and retention succeed, we will not have the armed forces we need to take up the challenges that the world around us demands. Every decision that the Ministry makes cannot only be on cost-savings grounds. Value for money is about not cost saving, but about getting the right investment for our armed forces to ensure that we look after them and their families as they serve, and then for the rest of their lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, you may recall that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union laid a copy of the White Paper before the House. I have my own copy with me. We have found that at least one chart in the document contains incorrect information. Chart 7.1 states that United Kingdom workers are entitled to 14 weeks of annual holiday, whereas the chart should state that they have 5.6 weeks paid holiday. The mistake has led to another error, as the chart claims that European Union minimum maternity leave entitlement is only 5.6 weeks, when it should be 14 weeks. The Scottish National party has corrected the chart for the United Kingdom Government. Perhaps the Minister would like a copy to save his blushes over what appears to have been only a desktop exercise today. Madam Deputy Speaker, would you please instruct me as to how this House can get the accurate, proper information to inform our already rushed debate on this rather important issue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We all wish the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) well. Knowing what a robust character he is, perhaps I can say that no injury will dare to get him down for long.

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

Question 17.

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Lady should come in on this question, to which her own Question 17 is similar; she should piggy-back on this question.

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

17. There is a thought for a Monday afternoon. What percentage of the Royal Navy is now female? How does that compare with other NATO countries? What is the MOD doing to ensure that women who are joining up can have a long and fulfilling career in our world-class Royal Navy, alongside their family responsibilities?

Trident: Test Firing

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

As I have said, we do not in this House—and nor did any previous Government—give operational details of the demonstration and shakedown operation of one of our submarines conducting a test with one of our Trident missiles.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important conclusion from this particular missile test is that our excellent submariners on HMS Vengeance proved that they can deal with unexpected technical challenges with a ballistic missile system known to be the most reliable in the world, and that that should be of enormous reassurance to the British people?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I congratulate the crew on completing their test and returning, as I have said, to the operational cycle of the submarines that discharge this duty on our behalf, but I say again that I am not going into operational details.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We shall be reviewing progress in Iraq and Syria with the military commanders at the counter-Daesh coalition meeting in London on Thursday, and will map out a road to longer-term peace in Iraq, including potential future deployments in different parts of Iraq that may help to continue the training we have been offering Iraqi forces, and further work on counter-terrorism. We will also discuss the need to control the spread of the return of foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria to the different countries that they came from.

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

At a time when our RAF is at full stretch on operations, the Secretary of State will be as concerned as I was to hear the announcement that RAF Halton is to close, not because the long-term defence estate consolidation is not the right direction of travel, but because the closure seems to have been sprung on the civilian and military personnel in order to meet the local council land bank deadline. Will he reassure personnel about timescale and staff support so that the decision does not create a serious retention risk?

[Mr Speaker]

Notably in relation to operations in Iraq and Syria, to which I am sure the hon. Lady intended to allude but did not quite get round to doing so.

Veterans and Service Personnel

Anne-Marie Trevelyan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this debate, which is so important in this important week. It is a great opportunity to stand up and talk about our exceptional armed forces—the personnel and their families, who quietly support them all. Our forces have the best training in the world. We are renowned; other nations come to Britain to be part of what we do here.

What I find extraordinary in the work that I am doing with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust is the depth of patriotism in every single member of the armed forces as they put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf. Their families quietly support that wish. Members of the armed forces are very happy to go and do exciting and dangerous things too, but fundamentally there is an extraordinary patriotism and belief in our great nation. The Royal British Legion’s work, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted so well, shows a profound respect for the patriotism, effort and risk that these individuals take on our behalf.

The key point is that every member of our serving armed forces will become a veteran; that is a self-evident truth in many ways, although we do not necessarily think about it. The fact that nearly three quarters of a million members of our communities have served in the armed forces since 1991 is extraordinary. Having set up the all-party group on the armed forces covenant when I arrived in the House last year, I am a huge fan of the fact that the former Prime Minister set into law the belief that the covenant should be a total commitment for the nation as a whole to embrace, to ensure that our military family suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service to our nation.

I begin by asking about how we are doing. This is a journey; to go from a standing start to creating a legislative framework, and moving forward in supporting those serving, and their families and veterans of all ages, is a long and complex thing. I pay enormous tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which drove forward the challenge set by the Prime Minister to put the covenant into law. Some really interesting work has been going on over the last six years to do that.

I have RAF Boulmer and the Otterburn Ranges in my patch, so I see a lot of young men and women doing training of all sorts. One of the key challenges I have found is that our serving personnel and their families have no voice, and that is part of the contract they make when they take the Queen’s shilling and stand at the frontline on our behalf. It is so important that we in this House can be their voice, because they want to serve, and they grin and bear it as they face all sorts of things that are unimaginable to a lot of us in our daily civilian lives. We must make sure that we speak up for them in this House, so it is fantastic that this debate is taking place.

I want to mention just a couple of charities I do a lot of work with. One, which I have recently become a patron of, is called Forward Assist. It is based in Northumberland, and it is run by an amazing man called Tony Wright, who is a former Royal Marine. He explained to me how he views the journey of those who serve, and his explanation sticks in my mind—if I could do cartoons, I would turn it into one. He said that we go out and seek young men and women to become members of our armed forces—they are the sheep, and we pick the sheep from the great flock that is our nation. We then turn them into wolves; that is quite a harsh statement, but that is what we do—we take them and we train them to the nth degree to become incredibly honed fighters, able to defend us with all the tools we provide them with. They then go out and fight, and they live in teams—in packs, as wolves do—fighting for us and taking on the enemy.

However, when they leave the armed forces, what do they do? They become a veteran. What is that? What we need them to become is sheepdogs. We will never turn wolves back into sheep, but if we get things right, we might just turn them into sheepdogs. The sheepdog is one of the farmer’s most important tools and a critical part of looking after the community. The challenge we have is to ensure that, as members of our armed forces become veterans and return to civilian life, we give them the tools to become sheepdogs and to lose the wolf—to park that as part of their history—so that they can live a full life as civilians, channelling their skills in new ways, and they have such extraordinary skills.

Forward Assist, this wonderful small charity in Northumberland, has developed a programme that ensures that, as these people—quite a lot of them are young men and women—come out, they maintain team activities. One of the key problems is that they live in teams—that is how they fight as military personnel—and they never work alone. However, they then come away from that environment, and ensuring that they maintain those relationships restores their confidence as they get to grips with civilian life.

We have to help veterans understand what their skills are. They have a very diffident view of the extraordinary talents they are given as they are trained to the nth degree, and they need to understand what those can be worth in the civilian world. So many do not value themselves, and we clearly have to challenge that. We have to ensure that we support the charities and organisations that help to empower these men and women to get into the modern workplace.

We also have to help veterans to get to grips with what one might call day-to-day life challenges. When people who have lived in an institutional framework as part of the armed forces, and who have been focused entirely on the defence of the realm, come back, they have to deal with a lot of stuff that they have not dealt with during that time. Those are critical things, which so many of our charities help these people to do, and we need to make sure that charities are able to do that.

Another charity that is a wonderful representation of how those who have served bring their talents to our communities is a small charity called Challenger Troop, which is run by Simon Dean. His team of veterans take the military ethos of discipline, self-belief, personal motivation and challenge and go into deprived communities. They take groups of children out into the big outdoors. Many of these children have never been beyond their small community, and he empowers them to discover who they can be. He tests them and pushes them to their limits, and that revolutionises the vision they have of what the world might offer them. It is extraordinary to watch the charity’s staff do that and to hear how they talk about the challenge of helping those in our communities who have probably had little, if any, contact with the military to discover just how far they can go and to do what they thought they could not do. It is extraordinary to watch what the Royal Marines would call “commando morale”, when at the point when someone thinks they cannot go any further, they keep going and find that they can do something extraordinary. That has been brought to our most deprived communities and children who otherwise would not have such opportunities.

A very small charity called PTSD Resolution does, in a baby way, what Combat Stress does, working individually with those who need psychological support to bring them through what can be a very traumatic side-effect of having dealt with these incredibly stressful environments, and quietly making sure that they can be supported. They may hold down really good jobs, but sometimes it becomes too hard. We have seen that this weekend with fireworks, which can often trigger PTSD-recurrent behaviour. It is extraordinary to know that there are people out there who understand and quietly provide that support, so that we ensure that the wolves can be sheepdogs, doing amazing jobs while sometimes feeling that parts of them have been damaged by their service.

As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, the big charities do extraordinary work across the board. They have been in the system for 100 years, looking after veterans from 1918 right through to now. We all support them at this time of year, and it is important that we make sure that people support them all year round.

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

The hon. Lady is telling us about lots of laudable charities that are doing excellent work with veterans, but does she agree that the state has a role in supporting them fully rather than leaving it entirely to the charity sector?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady makes an absolutely critical point. This is about the great question of what the covenant might become—how, as a nation, as a Government, and as Departments we might consider the best way to take it right through our nation’s consciousness, so that we not only feel that it is a good thing but it becomes a reality across the board. Then, wherever serving personnel who come back into civilian life and their families live, the communities they return to understand, respect and support them, and can value and make best use of the extraordinary talents that they have brought back.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady is making some important points. Does she agree that one of the ways in which the Government could do more would be in ensuring the consistency of data on veterans? Many of us have been campaigning for the “Count them in” campaign to ensure that there is a question on the census, but there are also issues about what is included on the service leavers form—for example, it has signposts to only two charities and not to others. There are things we could be doing a lot better to understand who needs our support, where they are, and how we can get to them.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working hard to see whether we can get the Cabinet Office to ensure that we have the census marker, because that will give us a starting point from which we can tackle the question of how big our military family is and how we are making sure that we look after them.

We all want our armed forces to be there when we need them, but in—thank goodness—times of peace here at home, we do not think that much about them, as the statistics prove, horribly and truly. In reality, though, our armed forces are not sitting about in barracks with nothing to do, or on the dockside twiddling their thumbs. Our Navy is absolutely at full stretch across the oceans and under our seas, our Air Force is fully engaged in the fight against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and our Army is going through an extensive re-basing programme as troops return from Germany and we prepare for ongoing NATO operations in the face of uncertain times ahead.

I have serious concerns about the impact of the current levels of undermanning on families and on the retention of our highly trained personnel whom we cannot easily replace once lost. I worry that we are putting too great a strain on the offer to our serving personnel. As one recent veteran said to me only last week, “Redundancies, pay restraint, pensions slashed, new pay model, CAAS, FAM, and now future base closures. What a way to boost morale!” With the impact on the next generation of personnel as we recruit and want to retain them, it is critical that we understand what it looks like from the inside and how we can support those who are serving now, because they will be our future veterans and we need to make sure that we surround them with the right package to ensure that they will be able to serve for as long as they choose and we can hope to keep them.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing the debate. Along with the new generation of service personnel, there will be a new generation of children, young people and young carers of veterans who are profoundly impacted by pre-deployment, deployment and reintegration. Does the hon. Lady agree that in existing policy documents, particularly around health and social care, we need to revisit the idea of the broader family supporting the veteran back into community and civilian life?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I agree. It is absolutely critical that we look at a whole-family approach to military family support, and there is a lot more work to do. We have a small charity in Northumberland that supports the children of military family carers. The charity is working, with some support from the Department, on how we can understand that better and provide support in a more holistic way, with the hope of achieving a more constructive outcome.

Although there was much in the statement yesterday from the Secretary of State about better use of MOD estate assets and the technical side of things, we must actively start to value in a financial way—I speak as a chartered accountant, and I apologise if that lowers the tone—our armed forces personnel. They are our human capital. Our armed forces are often thought of as big tanks, shiny ships and fast jets, but none of that works without the humans making it work. Human capital is a critical military asset. People are vital to the whole process, and without them we have no armed forces. We do not value our military personnel as an asset. They are listed in MOD accounts as an overhead, and that fundamental mindset is a huge challenge. I challenge the Department regularly, as the Minister knows, to think differently. To assess, for instance, retention risk—how to keep our finest when we really need them—we need to look holistically across the MOD, on a value-for-money basis, at how we value those individuals.

The Minister is a great advocate of our personnel and veterans at a personal level, but I urge him to encourage the Department to adopt a more holistic perspective on how we invest in our human capital: the men and women of our Army, our Navy, our Air Force and our Royal Marines. Those people have spouses and children, without whose silent commitment and loyalty to our nation’s protection we would not have the world-class armed forces that we are all so proud of and grateful for.

I had the unexpected privilege of attending the submariners’ remembrance parade last Sunday. I still do not know why it happens the weekend before Remembrance Day, rather than on the main weekend; that must be one of the mysteries of submariners. It was an extraordinary privilege to meet an enormous number of men who had served—they were all men, although there are a few women who are serving now—in what is known as the silent service. That remarkable group of people, with whom I have previously had very little to do, have spent decades under our seas quietly and continuously looking after us, protecting us and keeping an eye on our enemies. They continue to do so day in, day out.

It is so important that the nation understands that this is a continuum. People are putting their lives on the line for us every day and every night. People such as the Northumberland Fusiliers who died in the third-to-last week of the war in 1918, for whom I am going to lay a wreath this Friday in Tezze in northern Italy, and William Chapman, whose grandson still lives in Berwick-upon-Tweed and has asked me to lay a special wreath for his family, were extraordinary men whom we must always remember. But today there are people serving across the globe—British men and women who are putting their lives on the line, and whose families are quietly waiting at home, supporting them. As we remember those who serve today and those who have gone before, we must never forget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Just for clarity, my hon. Friend and I had the great honour of sharing a tent in minus 23°C conditions 3° north of the Arctic circle with a group of 19-year-old Royal Marines—pretty much the same age as my son. They were extraordinarily gentlemanly and none of them commented on whether my hon. Friend or I snored.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have a bit of additional information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

Forgive me, but my comments were to ask for evidence. If that is the evidence the hon. Lady is providing, I look forward to seeing it, but of course there are many sources of evidence. I am concerned about the general point: we need to be careful in the House not to paint a particular picture of our veterans as a cohort in our society. There have been some disturbing newspaper articles recently suggesting that employers should not be employing veterans. We should be careful in the House not to fall into a trap—I would not dream of accusing the hon. Lady of doing so—but rather to spend as much time as possible talking up our veterans community and dispelling some of the myths. Otherwise, we could fall into an awful trap.

Questions were raised earlier about the ability to track our veterans. The health service might be one area where we have that opportunity. Work is ongoing to ensure that the electronic record system used in defence medical services matches that used in the national health service and—I would imagine—NHS Health Scotland as well, so that there can be a seamless transition of our service personnel’s records once they move out of the armed forces. Effectively having a marker on those records might be one way to begin that process of helping to track veterans.

On housing, the Department for Communities and Local Government has extended the period within which ex-service personnel and surviving partners are given priority for Government-funded shared ownership schemes from 12 to 24 months after service, and we have allocated £40 million of LIBOR funding to projects that provide veterans’ accommodation. When it comes to both health and housing, we are using the Cabinet Office-chaired covenant reference group to link up health, DCLG, the local government authorities and the devolved Administrations, so that covenant principles, particularly with regards to veterans’ access to healthcare and social housing, are applied consistently and correctly across the United Kingdom. I hope that that addresses one of the questions from the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith).

On employment, which was raised by several hon. Members, we are working with business to offer ex-service personnel job support. Our career transition partnership provides one-to-one guidance, training and employment opportunities to about 15,000 service leavers. Its success rate is significant: 85% find a job within six months of leaving the armed forces, compared to a 73% employment rate in the rest of the UK population. So our ex-service personnel are achieving a better employment rate than the average in the UK. All personnel—without exception—are eligible for this support. Furthermore, the employment support available to our service leavers through the CTP continues for two years after their date of discharge.

Separately, we are using the covenant to raise awareness of the benefits of hiring service personnel. Where else can business get highly skilled, highly motivated team players with leadership attributes tested in the most challenging of environments? Already, more than 1,200 businesses have signed the covenant and are offering veterans everything from skills training to guaranteed interviews.

We know, however, that we need to do more—we all absolutely accept that. With the end of the era of enduring campaigns and the drawdown from Germany coming to its conclusion, we can expect the numbers of veterans to increase in the short term. So we are making sure support is in place by using £2 million from our annual £10 million covenant fund to set up the veterans gateway. This will be a single point of contact, open 24 hours a day, that can give veterans the advice they need, wherever they are located.

Finally, we are keen to learn more about all those veterans who fail to make a smooth transition to civilian life. We need to know who they are, so that we can help them. As the Royal British Legion points out in its “Count them in” campaign, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, after the 2011 census, we knew more about the Jedi population of the UK—or indeed about the fact that Rushmore in Hampshire has the highest concentration of Buddhists—than about those who have served in our armed forces. That is ridiculous, but true. So I am working closely with the Office for National Statistics and the chief statistician to include a question on veterans in the national census. As I mentioned earlier, we do not have the power to force Mr Pullinger to do that, but I hope that he is listening to this debate and gets the very clear message that it is this House’s will that that question be included on the next census.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Does the Minister agree that it is not only the veterans that we need to identify, but their direct families as well? The covenant is very clear that it supports the families against disadvantage and that it is important to identify the spouses and the children who will carry forward that military family—they need to be identified forever.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and reasonable point, and I will ensure that it is conveyed. The more we do to show that veterans are well looked after, the more we will encourage a future generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen and women to come through our doors.

That brings me to the second element of this debate. In the years to come, our armed forces will face an increasing challenge to recruit the people in the face of increased competition from companies that offer more money and more flexible ways of working.

That is why we are determined to transform the MOD into a modern force that does not provide its people only with modern equipment, but with better accommodation, better terms and conditions and even greater flexibility. We fully recognise that the current offer that we make to our servicemen and women is not keeping pace with modern needs, which is why we are committed to changing and improving it better to reflect the realities of today’s society.