Unity Contract

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

It is almost a shame to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on an important development relating to our Royal Navy submarine fleet that will boost national security and economic growth, and deliver savings to the taxpayer.

This morning, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is visiting the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy site in Derby to announce our new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. Unity is worth around £9 billion over eight years and, as its name implies, brings together eight contracts into one, covering the research, design, manufacture and in-service support of the nuclear reactors that power the current and planned Royal Navy submarine fleet, which helps to keep the nation and our allies safe.

This is the biggest contract that Rolls-Royce has ever had with the UK Ministry of Defence. The contract will help Rolls-Royce to operate in a more integrated and efficient way, driving efficiencies, reducing waste, saving more than £400 million and delivering on the Government’s commitment to provide value for money for the taxpayer. It will ensure that our committed submariners, who, alongside their families, sacrifice so much to keep us all safe, can continue to protect us around the clock, every minute of every day.

Not only is this new deal a boost for our national security, but it underpins the Government’s triple-lock guarantee to our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our important AUKUS defence and security partnership with the United States of America and Australia by enabling the development of our next-generation SSN-AUKUS nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines.

The Unity contract is also a boost for British industry, for the resilience of our defence supply chains, and for jobs, skills and economic growth in communities in the east midlands and across the country. The Unity deal will create more than 1,000 new jobs, sustaining around 5,000 skilled and well-paid roles in total—the majority in Derby, but also around 200 in Glasgow and Cardiff. The deal will also help to deliver the next generations of skilled workers we need in our nuclear defence enterprise, with the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy offering 200 apprenticeships each year. Unity also paves the way for the use of safer and more sustainable materials in our fleet, supporting the commitment made by defence to better environmental performance.

The new contract with Rolls-Royce—an historic British industrial success story—comes as we consult industry partners and trade unions on our new defence industrial strategy, and as we seek to create a new partnership with Government fit for our more uncertain age. The Government recognise not only that defence is critical for our national security, but that it is a key driver for economic growth. It makes the UK more resilient. Through our defence industrial strategy, we aim to strengthen the virtuous circle that connects a more resilient UK-based defence sector and economic growth across the country. That virtuous circle will enhance our military capabilities and in turn make them more resilient, which not only deters our enemies but acts as an engine of growth for opportunities, skills and well-paid jobs across our devolved nations and regions.

By onshoring and putting British manufacture first wherever it is in our national interest to do so, we will build on the 200,000 skilled British jobs currently sustained by MOD expenditure, delivering on the Government’s plan for change and our primary mission to kick-start economic growth, while simultaneously delivering on the first duty of any Government: to keep their people safe.

We in this House are all passionate about defence. The defence of our nation should be too important for political point scoring, and I hope we have a consensus on that. It is in that spirit that we are consulting on our strategic defence review, so that we have a national plan for defence—not just a Labour plan for defence—that will inform our path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. In that spirit, I thank my predecessor in the role, the current shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for the groundwork he put into this deal. What he started, we are finishing.

On Wednesday, the Defence Secretary updated the House on the key role of our submarine fleet and the role it plays in deterrence. We all saw it warding off the Russian spy ship Yantar from UK waters. We should be under no illusions: this was just the latest example of growing Russian aggression targeting the UK and our NATO allies. In our increasingly dangerous world, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy that protects our freedoms and our way of life.

This deal underpins that insurance policy for the next eight years, as we begin to phase in our new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines. This deal also foreshadows a brighter future for the UK defence sector, guided by our defence industrial strategy, which will make us more secure and prosperous at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She knows a lot about the subject, and she is correct that it is a landmark deal. It is particularly beneficial for Derby. As she said, there are many skills there already, but the Nuclear Skills Academy will be creating 200 apprenticeships and opportunities a year for young people to get into nuclear skills. Of course, those are transferable skills that are relevant not only on the military side but on the civil side, which will give young people with those skills great opportunities in life. That is one of the most important parts of the deal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I welcome this announcement of the UK’s new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. This £9 billion investment will create 1,000 new jobs in the industry, and this sort of investment represents a boost for not only our national security but communities across the UK.

It is right that we celebrate this success for British industry and its skilled workforce. However, while we welcome this development, the Government must go further to create the stability and certainty that businesses need to thrive. Long-term growth requires an industrial strategy that incentivises investment in ethical, inclusive new technologies such as artificial intelligence and clean energy. We must position the UK as a global leader in these sectors, so that we tackle the climate crisis while creating good jobs and driving economic growth.

Furthermore, we urge the Government to work in closer partnership with businesses of all sizes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to the defence supply chain, yet too often they are left out of the major procurement processes. What are the Government doing to ensure that SMEs are included in the MOD procurement process? We also want to unlock British businesses’ global potential by bringing down trade barriers and building stronger relationships with our closest trading partners, including by fixing our broken relationship with Europe.

Universal liberal principles are at the core of what we believe as Liberal Democrats, not least among them internationalism, human rights, the pursuit of peace and the rule of law. That is why we continue to champion the liberal, rules-based international order, which provides a strong basis for multilateral co-operation to address the world’s biggest problems.

The Liberal Democrats believe in a policy of pursuing global disarmament. However, in the meantime, and in the light of all the current threats, we call on the Government to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and maintain the current posture of continuous at-sea deterrence.

I urge the Government to rebuild trust with our European allies. Our security is inseparable from Europe’s, and we must work towards a UK-EU defence and security agreement. Recent agreements with Germany are promising, but they must be a starting point for deeper co-operation. What steps are being taken to strengthen the AUKUS partnership with the United States and Australia, particularly in the light of concerns about potential shifts in US foreign policy? National security and economic growth—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman will be aware that she is allocated two minutes, which she has already exceeded significantly.

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the deal and for our continuous at-sea deterrent; that has not always been the Liberal Democrats’ position, so I welcome the fact that consensus has increased in this House.

The point that the hon. Lady made about enabling SMEs to get involved in the defence supply chain is tremendously important. We are currently consulting on the defence industrial strategy, and I am particularly keen to ensure we take steps to make that better, because the potential for innovation, agility and pull-through of new technologies is tremendous. I invite her to contribute to the consultation and to watch out for the defence industrial strategy when it is published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right that skills are key, which is why this deal has established a defence nuclear skills academy to ensure that 200 apprentices a year can benefit from gaining those skills. I have no doubt that long-term partnerships with defence industries will enable us to do that on a broader scale. The defence industrial strategy will be a key part of giving that confidence to companies that it is the right time to invest in skills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. While the Ministers switch places, I inform Members that we are going to return to the Climate and Nature Bill.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of—

(a) whether or how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and the Chairman of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery;

(b) whether or how the Commissioner and Secretary of State will ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners and related bodies.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner must—

(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;

(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from—

(a) the Ministry of Defence;

(b) the Armed Forces, including the chain of command; and

(c) any other government bodies;

and shall be free from any influence of interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government, the Armed Forces and any interference in the carrying out of their duties.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended time frame for—

(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;

(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;

(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.

Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—

(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance;

(b) the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition; and

(c) the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces in the Commissioner’s investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 31, after “means” insert

“kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel as well as other”.

This amendment would include kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel in the definition of ”relevant family members”.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“340IAA Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel

(1) When investigating general service welfare matters under section 340IA, the Commissioner must consider the specific experiences of minority groups within service personnel, including but not limited to—

(a) female;

(b) BAME

(c) non-UK; and

(d) LGBT+

service personnel.

(2) The Commissioner may investigate service welfare matters unique to one or more of these groups of service personnel.

(3) The Commissioner must maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms to identify and address issues specific to these groups.

(4) The Commissioner must establish a formal network of representation to enable the views and concerns of these groups of service personnel to be communicated to the Commissioner.

(5) The Commissioner must publish an annual report outlining—

(a) the issues facing and concerns raised by these groups of service personnel;

(b) the actions taken by the Commissioner to address identified issues;

(c) the progress made in improving conditions for these groups of service personnel.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to take specific action to consider and address welfare issues facing service personnel from minority groups.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) the report must include the Commissioner’s view on whether the relevant general service welfare issue has had, or may have, an effect on the retention of armed forces personnel; and”.

This amendment would require a report by the Commissioner on a general service welfare matter to include the Commissioner’s view on whether the issue affects the retention of armed forces personnel.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) After section 340O (annual report on system for dealing with service complaints) insert—

‘340OA Annual report on the work of the Commissioner

(1) The Commissioner must, for each calendar year, prepare a report covering—

(a) the actions taken by the Commissioner to promote and improve the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(b) the initiatives undertaken by the Commissioner to enhance public awareness of welfare issues faced by persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(c) the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required.

(2) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament promptly and, in any event, before the end of 30 sitting days beginning with the day on which the report is received.

“Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.

(3) The Secretary of State may exclude from any report laid under this section any material the publication of which the Secretary of State considers—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) might jeopardise the safety of any person.

(4) With three months of the receipt of any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the report which includes an overview of any measures taken or planned to be taken to address any resource issues identified by the Commissioner.’”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to publish an annual report on the work it had done to improve the welfare of service personnel and public awareness of welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—

“3 A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.

3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.

3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.

3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.

Amendment 3, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the financial and practical assistance provided to the Commissioner is appropriate and sufficient to allow the Commissioner to carry out its functions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide adequate financial and practical assistance to the Commissioner to enable it to carry out its functions.

[Helen Maguire]

This is an is an important Bill, and one that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome. However, we believe that it must go further. Before turning to the detail of our proposed changes, I want to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the opportunity it presents to deliver meaningful change for the armed forces community. I thank the Minister and his team for all the hard work they have put into bringing the Bill to the House.

The Armed Forces Commissioner as proposed in the Bill will serve as an independent and vital advocate for service personnel and their families, reporting directly to Parliament. The role is long overdue. For too long, service personnel and their families have felt neglected, overlooked and unsupported. The commissioner’s remit will include addressing a wide range of issues from unacceptable behaviours and substandard housing to equipment concerns. The power to visit defence sites unannounced and commission reports is particularly welcome, as is the consolidation of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities into this more robust role.

The Liberal Democrats welcome those provisions as steps in the right direction, but steps alone are not enough. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just morally right; it is a strategic imperative. Recruitment and retention challenges directly impact on national security. We cannot allow systemic neglect to erode the morale, trust and effectiveness of those who defend our nation.

Time and again, reports from reviews such as the Haythornthwaite and Atherton reviews have highlighted the failures of previous Governments, which include failures to provide decent housing and support service families adequately or to tackle issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment. Those are not new revelations; they are systemic problems that require a new approach.

The former Conservative Government failed to deliver for our armed forces. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call for a fair deal including strengthening the armed forces covenant, ensuring that service accommodation is fit for purpose and delivering for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The Bill is an opportunity to begin addressing those issues comprehensively, and I am proud to propose amendments that would have it deliver for all members of the armed forces community.

New clause 1 seeks to extend the commissioner’s remit to include individuals going through the recruitment process. At present, the Bill excludes those individuals, but recruits can face challenges during that initial formative stage. Recruits can be asked to stay on bases overnight, and we cannot ignore that they may encounter issues during such trips. It is essential to understand those issues to retain recruits, as many currently drop out, which we assume is due to the long waits that they are currently experiencing but may stem from issues that we are unaware of. The new clause would ensure that support was available from the very start of their journey into the armed forces, not just after they sign on the dotted line.

Amendment 1 would address another critical omission. The Bill currently leaves the definition of “relevant family members” to the Government, which creates ambiguity and risks exclusion. The amendment would ensure that kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel were explicitly included. Those groups face unique challenges, and it is vital that they are not left behind.

The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive development, but we need to ensure that the role is truly independent, adequately resourced and held to account for its actions. Several key issues must be addressed to guarantee the commissioner’s effectiveness. For the commissioner to function properly, they must have adequate financial and practical support. Without sufficient resources, they will struggle to fulfil their vital responsibilities. Amendment 3 would place a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioner’s office is properly resourced—both financially and practically—to carry out its work effectively. That would ensure that the role would not be hampered by a lack of support.

Additionally, transparency and accountability are essential. If the commissioner is to be a meaningful advocate for service personnel and their families, their work must be open to scrutiny. Amendment 4 would require the commissioner to publish annual reports to Parliament, ensuring that their efforts are transparent and that they can be held accountable for their actions. Such reports would allow Parliament, the public and service personnel to understand the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

To safeguard the commissioner’s independence and credibility further, amendment 5 would have their appointment subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. That process would allow Members of Parliament to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed. This person needs to be independent of Government influence and focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Such additional scrutiny would help safeguard the integrity of the role and ensure that it remains focused on the needs of the armed forces community.

Further, the armed forces covenant should be central to the commissioner’s work. The covenant is a fundamental framework that guides how we treat our service personnel and their families, ensuring fairness and respect in all aspects of their lives. Amendment 7 would enshrine the covenant’s principles in the commissioner’s remit, ensuring that those values remain at the heart of their mission. Given that the covenant is at the heart of how we support our armed forces, it should be explicitly included in the Bill.

It is essential that we do not delay putting the Bill into action. That is why amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to publish a timeframe for the appointment of the commissioner within six months of the passing of the Act. Our armed forces and their families need this service urgently and cannot wait around for years for action to be taken.

Following the damning findings of the Atherton and Etherton reports, it is clear that minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ personnel and non-UK nationals face systemic challenges within the armed forces. The Atherton report, published in 2021, focused on the experience of women in the armed forces. Four thousand female service personnel and veterans completed a survey to inform the inquiry, and shockingly 62% of respondents had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. It is unacceptable that women who serve in the armed forces too often face sexual harassment or misogyny.

That issue has not been adequately addressed, reflecting a lack of moral courage within parts of the armed forces, despite good intentions across the services. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to take specific action to consider and address issues facing service personnel from minority groups: not only female service personnel but black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel, LGBT+ personnel and those not from the UK. That would be backed by annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. That is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and no one in the armed forces community is overlooked.

The Bill must be part of a wider effort to improve the quality of life of service personnel and their families. Housing, for instance, remains a persistent issue. Decent housing is not a privilege but a right, and service families deserve homes that are safe, comfortable and fit for purpose. Just last week in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill that would have extended the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation, ensuring that all members of the armed forces would have the living standards they deserve. I was beyond disappointment when the Government voted it down.

The Bill represents progress, but it is not the finished article. Although I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, our proposed changes are about fairness, accountability and doing right by all those who serve and their families. Let us seize this moment to deliver real and lasting change for the armed forces community. They have given so much for us; it is time that we gave back to them.

LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

They can expect to be able to get the full details from 9 o’clock tomorrow. They can expect to be able to complete the details and respond to the information required from tomorrow. I am conscious that, for many of these veterans, time is ticking, and I am determined that the scheme will not take long to make its proper decisions. Therefore, soon into the new year, LGBT veterans who are confirmed as eligible should expect payment.

I look forward, by the way, to the large number of contributions that there will be in the debate. As I wind up, I want to emphasise two or three points. This is a Government delivering for defence. This is a Government delivering for LGBT veterans. On behalf of the Government, I want to apologise without reservation for the pain and injustice caused during this dark chapter of our armed forces’ history. The treatment of LGBT veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It is shameful that those who put themselves in harm’s way to defend our country were treated in such callous and unjust ways.

Our Government will now right those wrongs of the past. That is why we are providing financial recognition to veterans. It is why we are making sure that payments will be fair, proportionate and prompt, and it is why we are delivering on the remaining recommendations of the Etherton report. We will learn the lessons from that report. We will never forget the pain and trauma that LGBT veterans were subjected to between 1967 and 2000. We will root out any remaining prejudice and abuse wherever it rears its head in the forces and we will look to build a more diverse, stronger military that better reflects the society that it serves and protects; a military in which everyone can serve without fearing injustice or discrimination. That is the one nation mission that the Government are committed to: a modern, representative, unified armed forces, proud to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. As Members can see, a large number of speakers wish to contribute to a very important debate. I have no plans as yet to impose a time limit, but perhaps Members might be respectful about the number of interventions they take.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome today’s debate, and I thank the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister for the way that they have gone about this, working with LGBT veterans and charities such as Fighting With Pride, and building on the work of the previous Government. I know that the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister care deeply about this issue. The Defence Secretary rightly said that this was unfinished business for Labour, and the Veterans Minister assured me when I first raised this matter with him many months ago that the scheme would be up and running by the end of the year. We can put that under the “promises kept” part of the Government’s record, and I am grateful for that.

This is a profound injustice and a moral stain on the nation, as the Defence Secretary rightly said a few moments ago. Thousands of servicemen and women over many decades were interrogated, persecuted and punished for their sexuality—people who only wanted to serve our nation, but were let down in the most profound way. A constituent of mine in Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven told me that he felt “washed in shame” at the way he was discharged, imprisoned and discarded by the RAF, despite his exemplary service record. Thousands more veterans fall into that bracket, some of whom we have already heard about this afternoon and, hopefully, we will hear more about.

Those people lost their career, their pay, their pension and often their family and friends, but also, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, their sense of self, value and belonging. The emotional, psychological and physical impact is still being understood. That is the central point of this debate and the injustice we face—how do we ever go about rectifying something on such a scale? Harder still, how do we put a value on it and a process around it?

I thank Lord Etherton for his work on this issue over many years, and recognise that the Defence Secretary and Veterans Minister have worked incredibly hard to build on the work of the previous Government to deliver this hugely welcome financial recognition scheme, which will be set up tomorrow. I know it will be welcomed by veterans in my constituency and others across the country. I will do everything I can to encourage the many LGBT veterans in my constituency to apply for it, as I hope other Members will, and as I know the Defence Secretary will.

I welcome the increase in funding that has been allocated—a 50% increase is not insignificant. This is a significant commitment from this Government, and it is welcome. I also welcome the creation of two clear funding schemes: first, for those with formal discharge and dismissal; secondly, importantly, for the many who never suffered that discharge and dismissal, but who suffered much wider loss—emotional, financial and physical —as many Members have spoken about.

As the Defence Secretary has said, it is also incredibly important that the option of restoring rank and removing the record of discharge has been brought forward—a point raised by many LGBT veterans I have met in my constituency surgeries and around Brighton Kemptown. It is, in some senses, as important as the financial measures announced, so I welcome that, too.

However, if I may be so bold, I would also welcome clarity on a couple of points. First, what estimate has the Ministry of Defence made of the number of people likely to apply for each of the two tranches under the scheme? Secondly, what estimate has been made of what the average payment is likely to be? No two cases are the same, as the Defence Secretary said earlier. Of course, the headline figure of £70,000 is very welcome, but how many people does the Secretary of State believe will ever receive that? How many are likely to fall into those two tranches? I would welcome some clarity on that.

Thirdly, how does the Secretary of State respond to the concern that by keeping a hard cap on compensation—albeit a significantly increased one—many applicants will ultimately receive quite low sums, particularly given the level of injustice that we have all stated? Fourthly, will he explain why there is a two-year cap on applications, and what the Government will be doing to ensure that all who are eligible will come forward and will be able to apply? As we know, and as we have all heard from looking at this over many months, many people are only just willing to come forward on this issue. It might take much more time to reach the many people who have suffered this injustice. I am slightly concerned about that cap, and I would welcome some clarity on it.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know there is a lot of work to do to get these schemes up and running and to get the compensation out as quickly as possible. Today is an incredibly welcome step on that journey. As we have heard, it has been a very long journey for many people—decades in the making—and time is running out to deliver justice. Above all, I thank those who have made that journey possible, especially the extraordinary LGBT veterans whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in the past five months, and Fighting With Pride, which has done so much for so many to achieve the progress we are discussing today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I will just make the point that it is imperative that Members be present for the opening statements of any debate if they wish to be called—perhaps particularly so for those on the Front Benches.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time.

Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard.

The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible.

Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. As a Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Lady, first, should be on the Bench when I am on my feet. Secondly, we must not refer to colleagues by name in the House but by their constituency.

[Helen Maguire]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault.

Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him.

David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach.

These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected.

The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”.

The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return.

This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture.

The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I provide a small business update to hon. and right hon. Members. The second debate that was scheduled for this afternoon will now not go ahead. That gives this very important debate the full time up until 5 o’clock, which will certainly enable me to get all Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

We have heard some very powerful stories today. It is not every day that my constituency surgeries lead me to well up—I am normally as hard as nails—but I recently had the pleasure of meeting Craig Jones MBE, one of the founders of Fighting With Pride. He talked so powerfully about his own and other veterans’ stories of pain and injustice, but he also spoke of honour and pride. It was deeply moving to speak with him.

During our meeting, the word “honour” came up time after time, as Craig described his LGBTQ+ colleagues in the armed forces who suffered so much under the ban which, we must reflect today, was lifted only in 2000. In the period before that, thousands and thousands of LGBTQ+ service personnel were removed or forced from service and many, as we have heard, were physically or sexually abused. Craig told me that many of his colleagues felt “washed in shame” because of what happened to them.

In those days, simply admitting to being gay was dangerous and had far-reaching consequences, which we must compensate for today. Although homosexuality was decriminalised for civilians in 1967, it remained a criminal offence in the armed forces. These people faced imprisonment. We must compensate fully for that.

Craig described moving to Brighton, saying that our city was the only place in which he and his partner felt safe. On the day that the ban was lifted, he came out as gay and, after a few more years, he left the forces. He helped found Fighting With Pride, and took part in that excellent campaign that led to the Etherton review and the actions that we are pleased to welcome today.

But I do not think that this is finished. As other Members have said, the financial scheme is crucial; it must provide full compensation. It appears that Lord Etherton was unable to go higher than the recommendation in the review of a cap of £50 million, and was unable in his terms of reference to recommend a financial scheme that was unconstrained. This £75 million is a rise, but, as others have said, it is not high enough. Fighting With Pride has said that £150 million would be a more realistic estimate if it is to provide real justice to the people who might come forward.

In the interests of real justice, I do not believe that we can cap this number at all. As the Royal British Legion has said in response to the earlier proposed cap, the cap provides an incentive for the Ministry of Defence to limit the number of people applying for compensation, in opposition to the aim of achieving fair recompense. Moreover, Fighting With Pride today asked whether the flat rate of £50,000 would really be able to compensate for the pensions that would have been earned by all those people who were discharged early.

As Craig pointed out to me, this has been a “discreet” community. We still do not know how many people could come forward having been harmed by these unjust policies in ways not envisaged by the strict types of payment described in today’s statement. For the wider impact payment, we are talking about harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister today as to whether this could go further. People may have resigned because they felt that they could not come out; because they were not able to live in the way that they would choose to live. They have still suffered harm. They have been unable to fulfil their full potential, which is genuine harm.

We have spoken about shame and honour in the stories that we have told today. There could be people who wanted their colleagues to preserve their honour to help them not feel ashamed and who wanted to be discharged for stated other reasons, so that nothing in the written record would confirm that they had suffered from the harms for which the flat-rate payment is envisaged, but who have none the less suffered exactly the same harm. I would welcome some clarification on whether you might go wider, and be willing to be challenged—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Please say, “he”.

[Siân Berry]

Sorry. Would the Minister be willing to be challenged on those terms in the future?

This compensation must bring the full comfort and security in older age that is enshrined in the armed forces covenant. It must bring true justice for the community that was shamed so shamefully. These payments must be looked at again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

As a retired RAF police officer, I was particularly moved by stories where my own branch seemed to have acted so zealously. Perhaps it is appropriate that I apologise on behalf of the RAF police. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made the same request on behalf of the Royal Military Police.

I am glad that the debate is being held at length in the House after it was deprioritised by the previous Government. Perhaps it would have required Olympic-standard political gymnastics to show empathy with the victims of the LGBT ban, apologising to those victims as did Prime Minister Rishi Sunak while manufacturing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I made the point earlier that we do not in this House refer to serving Members of the House by name. He remains the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.

[Cameron Thomas]

Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) did so while the mother of Brianna Ghey was on the estate. I appreciate that is a bit of a change in tone from the rest of the debate, but it is important that we recognise that the rhetoric we use in this House has a cultural impact across the rest of society.

The Government should be proud that they brought the debate before the House. They have my gratitude, and I know there are people present who were directly affected by the ban, including Lesley Davison, who travelled from South Devon to be in the Public Gallery. Our LGBT veterans should have been able to serve their honourable careers fully and retire simply as veterans, but they were unfairly discarded by the Ministry of Defence in line with the laws of the very country they served. The Ministry of Defence described this as a “moral stain” on the armed forces, but it is also a stain on the history of our country.

One haunting testimony comes from a constituent of north Shropshire. It is an account of how hundreds of gallant, proud and selfless service personnel were hunted by the military police, arrested, interrogated and often imprisoned for even an assumption of their sexuality. Take a moment, if you would not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine the line of questioning of an interrogation into one’s sexuality. To anyone who was affected by the ban in any way, I believe you and I am sorry.

By the time I joined the Royal Air Force in 2000, the ban had been lifted, but the legacy of the ban and of the political culture at the time was a toxic mentality that remained in plain sight for several years. I recall my initial trade training at RAF Cosford. One particularly notorious training team threatened to call ahead to my future unit and have my head “caved in” once I arrived for merely daring to voice support for the LGBT community. I was 17. I am sure that such intolerance continues to persist in small pockets of narrow-mindedness that exist beneath the surface today, but I am proud that the RAF I left in 2023 is, indeed, a greatly transformed and more inclusive organisation.

I am now simply a veteran. During the general election campaign in June, I joined some local veterans for a communal breakfast in Tewkesbury. They were decent, honest and selfless, and they met regularly and welcomed me as their own. But before I was introduced to the group at large, one person pulled me aside and whispered, “Don’t worry about the he/she. We just ignore it.” It turned out that “it” was transgender Royal Navy veteran Gina Shelton, who had served in the closet as a man despite internally identifying as a woman to avoid persecution by her own friends and colleagues. I spent a few minutes speaking with her. She was seated clearly separately from the rest of the main group, and I could not help but feel moved by her courage and dignity as she spoke matter-of-factly about her circumstances, but with an affection and understanding for those fellow veterans who even now disowned her. She took responsibility for the way she was now ostracised, which I admire but reject. I otherwise enjoyed the company of my fellow veterans. I should reiterate that these are decent, honest people, but meeting Gina reminded me that changing minds is the greatest challenge before us, and that challenge will endure long after legislation.

The Liberal Democrats have always stood with the LGBT+ community, and are proud to have brought the equal marriage Act into law while in government. I am proud that those treated unjustly by the LGBT ban have now been able to speak their truth. It is difficult to put a monetary figure on such an injustice, but having considered the Secretary of State’s announcement this afternoon, we still call on the Government to stand with the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride and uplift the fund to £150 million. Finally, let these veterans’ legacy not be one of tragedy. Let Members of this House learn the lesson that the previous Government never did: that the language we use in this place has real-world consequences.

LGBT Veterans Independent Review

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I gently remind him that it was this Government who set up the Etherton review, and it is this Government who are carrying out the 49 recommendations. I am proud of that. He needs to be very careful: political parties should not throw stones, and I think that he would be the last to try to make party political points out of this subject matter. To a large extent, I think that we have resisted that.

I said that a full debate would happen in the new year, but it must have the advantage of there being something meaningful to debate—namely, the financial elements, which I perceive to be the main point of likely controversy. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that we are all in agreement with the general thrust of the review, so the controversy will be around how we structure the financial award. I expect to be in a much better place in the new year to bring a suggestion to the House about how we might do that, having consulted others and observed the lessons of the past and experience in other countries. However, the debate will not be confined to the finances. I think that was implied by my use of the phrase “full debate”. I hope that reassures him.

On intent, we have discussed before other ways of delivering the same outcome to the satisfaction of veterans. For example, some veterans want a veterans badge that is different from the existing veterans badge; some do not. We have therefore designed a ribbon, which I have seen the prototype for, and I think that is a compromise. That is an example of how we might do things differently from the ways described by Lord Etherton. Lord Etherton also talked about re-listing people on the Navy, Army and Air Force lists. Those lists do not exist in the way they once did, but we can publish those names, if people want them published, via the London Gazette. That is a further example of doing the same thing, but in a different way.

We debated pensions in the summer, when we last went round this particular buoy, so the right hon. Gentleman will know that accrued pension rights remain. However, some people were misled when they left the armed forces, and I strongly recommend that they refer to the guidance available on gov.uk. The “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” page is very comprehensive and will take people through how they can apply for pensions if they are not currently drawing them.

Destroyed documents, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, are impossible to rediscover. However, there are tags attached to most of them that highlight the fact that material has been removed following the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2010, so there is a marker, at least, of why those pages are missing. He will know too that ACPO made those recommendations for very good reasons at the time—namely, the desire of people who had been wronged to have reference to those wrongs expunged from their records.

I think that I have covered most of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but I want to be as comprehensive as I possibly can, so if I have missed anything out, I will be happy to write to him.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last week, I met Fighting With Pride and one of my constituents, who I will not name because he has not given me permission to do so. Three points came across in that meeting. The first was the importance of testimonies. He was a grown man who had been discharged in the 1980s and whose mother had received a letter from his commanding officer outing him as gay. He was still traumatised and crying in my office last week. This is about making sure that those testimonies are heard. The second point was about having the debate on the Floor of the House and not farming it out to Westminster Hall. Will the Minister make sure that the debate happens on the Floor of the House?

The third point was about financial redress. I welcome the opportunity that my constituent will now have to feed in how he has been impacted—how he has lived a life alone, because he has carried that shame for all these years. On behalf of my constituent and all the other LGBT servicemen and women who suffered in that way, I put it on the record that they want the opportunity to feed in their own stories so that the financial redress addresses the harm they suffered.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is right that testimonies are vital. Those testimonies will ultimately be lodged in the National Archives and they will be part of our national story. I urge her to encourage her constituents to log on and provide their testimony—that is very important. I can confirm that the debate will be on the Floor of the House and not in Westminster Hall.

Dalgety Bay: Radioactive Contamination and Remediation Works

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before I call Neale Hanvey to move the motion and the Minister to respond, I remind Members that there is not an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up in 30-minute debates.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered radioactive contamination and remediation works at Dalgety Bay.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. At the outset, I pay tribute to the community of Dalgety Bay, the action group and the sailing club. Without their organised determination, perseverance and forbearance, I do not believe we would be approaching the conclusion of the remediation work. Indeed, one wonders whether remediation work would have begun at all. I also praise the journalism of the Dunfermline Press and The Courier, which have played an exemplary role in highlighting the concerns surrounding Dalgety Bay. They deserve credit for their investigative and supportive coverage of the issues that have developed over many years.

This long-running saga has taken place over decades, so it is important to set out the historical context. During the second world war, the Dalgety Bay area was home to Donibristle military airfield. At the end of the conflict, a large number of planes were dismantled and decommissioned, and the resulting debris was burned and buried. What has proved problematic is that radium was used to coat the instrument panels on the aircraft so that the pilots and other personnel could see the dials in the dark. It is extremely hazardous to health and has a half-life of 1,600 years.

Radium was discovered by radiation treatment pioneer Marie Curie, and it was considered a miracle element at that time, but by 1938 its toxic impact on human health had been well and truly established, principally as a result of the women who are commonly known as the radium girls. The case was properly established in 1938, when radium worker Catherine Wolfe Donohue successfully sued the US Radium Dial Company for causing her illness. Despite the established risk, there was no regulation, so the contamination at Dalgety Bay was not established until 1990.

It is only since 2011, when the health risks posed by that contamination became increasingly apparent, that part of the foreshore of Dalgety Bay has been off limits to the public. Aside from Dalgety Bay, a further 15 sites across the UK were identified in 2011 as potentially at risk of contamination from radioactive substances.

Although the fact that the matter lay fallow for two decades demands consideration, that is not the subject of this debate. Demands for the Ministry of Defence to accept responsibility and begin remediation began in earnest after the closure. On behalf of the community, I acknowledge and publicly thank my predecessors, Roger Mullin and Gordon Brown, for their efforts to keep this issue at the forefront of the minds of Ministers and civil servants. I also acknowledge the efforts of local campaigners and councillors Alice McGarry and David Barrett for their enduring work.

Speaking in an Adjournment debate in December 2013, Gordon Brown MP said that the

“responsible course is for the MOD to own up to the damage, to pick up the bill to get rid of the waste and clean up the area, and to do so as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 718.]

Notwithstanding the progress that has been made towards remediation in recent years, almost 10 years on from that debate, the community of Dalgety Bay is still awaiting completion. On 15 April 2019, the then Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), gave the following assurance:

“ Remediation is due to physically begin in April 2020 and be completed in September of the same year. The second phase of work is planned to begin in April 2021 and be completed in September 2021.”

On 18 May 2021, the then Defence Minister, Jeremy Quin, gave the following assurance to Parliament in a written answer:

“The target remains to complete all work by September 2022.”

However, dates for completion have come and gone without the work being concluded, undermining public trust and confidence in the process. On 2 March 2022, the then Defence Minister, Jeremy Quin, confirmed in a letter to me that despite decontamination and remedial work having been undertaken since May 2021 by the Ministry of Defence contractor Balfour Beatty, the timescale had slipped and

“it seems increasingly likely that work may extend into 2023 to ensure the full remediation is effectively undertaken.”

Work finally got under way on the site, following the granting of a licence by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, commonly known as SEPA, on 17 May 2021. The MOD has confirmed to me that it has removed existing infrastructure, laid ground membrane and placed rock armour on top of it. It also intends to replace the jetty and slipway.

I sought assurances in October 2020 on how MPs should contact the MOD prime contractor for the remediation works, in order to seek clarification and updates on the licence application and subsequent stages of the project. That helped to clarify that it was the responsibility of the MOD prime contractor to apply to SEPA for the licence to commence the remediation works and decontamination of the shoreline. The final contract award was made to the MOD prime contractor in February 2020. I also asked what residents of Dalgety Bay and the surrounding area can expect in terms of disruption to their lives, and what visual remediation would take place on site. The MOD confirmed in a parliamentary written answer on 14 May 2019 that implementation of the agreed management strategy would involve

“the removal of radium sources; the reinforcement, replacement and extension of coastal armour stone and the construction of a replacement slipway at Dalgety Bay Sailing Club.”

Key milestones in the progression of this work have included the appointment of Balfour Beatty as the MOD prime contractor, and the development of a construction plan in consultation with Fife Council, in order to minimise disruption to the local community.

In concluding, I pose the following questions to the Minister. What recent discussions has his Department had with SEPA and Fife Council on the remediation of the coastline at Dalgety Bay and on carrying out this work in a timely manner? What is his current estimate of the costs of the remediation works? Will he confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that all costs will be borne by the MOD? When did officials from his Department last visit the site where the work is being carried out? Will he provide an undertaking to visit the site and inspect it during the period of the remediation works? What recent advice has his Department received in relation to the risks to health from radioactive pollution particles found at Dalgety Bay? Will he publish that advice? Finally, what ongoing monitoring will take place, once the remediation works have concluded?

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I gently remind the hon. Member that in this House we do not refer to Members by name. In this case, he should have referred to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin).

Royal Navy: Conduct towards Women

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. I agree with him about external scrutiny. That is why the investigation that has been set up, which will report soon, to which I referred, will include an individual from outside Defence, who is currently being selected for his or her independence, probity and integrity, who will be alongside that investigation. I do not know where this is going to go. I suspect it is going to be complicated and may take a while. I want it to report quickly, but I do not want to put a time limit on it necessarily.

However, it is going to report “soon”—that wonderful, plastic term. It will have within it an independent individual —the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a divergence from the norm—because I am absolutely clear that there needs to be oversight of this that is outside the process. He will know full well that these investigations are conducted properly always—I have been involved with a number myself—but there has to be the appearance also of their being transparent. I hope that that will give him some reassurance.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Henriques report, most of which of course was accepted. He may also be aware of the joint protocol that will be drawn up for the very serious offences that he cites between the civilian and the service prosecuting authorities. I hope that that goes some way to addressing that outstanding concern that I know he has.

A parallel strand of work is being set up by the commander of the submarine flotilla to look into conduct and culture. That will be headed by Colonel Tony de Reya from the Royal Marines. That will report, I hope, by the end of the year. It is separate from the investigation on the specific that I have cited in my opening remarks, but, obviously, it will touch on much of the same material. I look forward to returning to the House to discuss that once Ministers have had a chance to examine its findings and conclusions.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It must not come down to one brave woman being prepared to speak out; there have to be processes in place where every woman and man serving in our armed forces has the confidence to come forward. I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot simply be looking at the culture in the submarine community. This happens across our armed forces and we need to have processes that are swift and give redress to those victims, so that they come forward with confidence. I have a constituent who is not at the start of her military career—she is a lieutenant colonel—who waited 10 years before the Ministry of Defence took her complaint seriously. We have to have faster justice for the women who have been victims of this sort of culture.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This is my 42nd year in Defence as a regular and reservist, and over that time things have changed dramatically—I am happy to say that is the case—particularly in the past few years. I accept all of her comments. There is no room for complacency. With two daughters in the armed forces, I am certainly not complacent. However, I have to refer to some of the objective data that we have, some of which is to do with the sexual harassment surveys that each of the three services conduct and that show a positive trend. We can argue as to whether that is fast enough, and certainly it should not be the antidote to complacency. Nevertheless, it is positive in terms of the experience of people feeling supported and feeling that their complaints will be dealt with outside the chain of command, where appropriate, with action taken. That is very positive, but she is right to say that there is no room for any complacency and a single complaint is one too many.

UK Military Personnel Serving Overseas: Vaccination

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is not in our gift to order people to take a medication should they not wish to do so. Prior to deployments where we have been seeking to fully vaccinate beforehand, we have been having a conversation with those who have expressed concern to try to reassure them that the vaccine is entirely safe and that it is in their interest to take it. I can absolutely assure him that anybody who needs to be removed from an operational deployment because of their unwillingness to take a vaccine is not in any way career fouled as a consequence.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

The reports of events in the Black sea remind us of why families worry when they have serving personnel at sea or serving abroad. Can my hon. Friend reassure the constituents who have contacted me on this issue that the vaccine roll-out programme to our brave men and women is going well and will hit the targets he has outlined?

[James Heappey]

I certainly can. The second doses will all be deployed so that everybody overseas gets them as soon after their first dose as is medically advisable. Achieving that is not without challenge: getting these doses forward can require quite a logistical effort given some of the locations in which our people serve, but that has gone well and it is testament to military planners in the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Medical Services that that is the case.

Covid-19 Response: Defence Support

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Member is right: it is not just the clinical touch. A vaccination process can take about 25 minutes. The actual time that someone is in front of a person with a needle and injected is three or four minutes; the rest of the time can be stewarding, keeping an eye on people and ensuring that they find the right places to go. His question is timely, because right now we are having a discussion with the vaccine taskforce and the NHS about how we can augment that to ensure that nurses and clinicians focus entirely on the clinical part and therefore the throughput can increase. We can help with such things as stewarding and, I suspect, marshalling all the volunteers.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

My constituent Dr Sheila Fitzpatrick contacted me yesterday about her application to get into the process to be a volunteer vaccinator. She used the phrase: this

“needs the intervention of the military”.

I am sure she will have been pleased with my right hon. Friend’s statement, but can he explain how Army logistics can be used to ensure that those volunteering end up in the right place?

[Mr Wallace]

I am tempted to say that a good sergeant major will be able to fix a lot of that. It goes to the point that I made earlier: volunteers need managing and we need to work out their needs. Because they are volunteers we may be unable to lean on them as much to do the same number of hours. Also, we need to ensure that we match troops to task, as we call it, ensuring that the skillset is in the right place. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) asked the same sort of question. What we are doing at the moment with the NHS is discussing exactly how we can increase and augment that, because our skillset is often just that. The sergeant major will ensure that people are in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing. I never said no to my sergeant major.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I was, in fact, aware of my hon. Friend’s views, which he always articulates so forcefully. The international community has reaffirmed its commitment to Afghanistan at the NATO summit. On current plans, the resolute support mission will have approximately 12,000 personnel. It plans to operate one hub in Kabul/Bagram and four spokes to that hub in Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Kandahar and Jalalabad. We, of course, have made our commitment to assisting with liaison, support and training at the officer academy.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

18. What progress his Department has made in upgrading helicopter fleets across the armed forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

This has so far been a stand-out year in rolling out more than £11 billion of our investment programme in helicopter capability. During this year alone we have already achieved, within time and budget, initial operating capability for the Merlin Mk 2, which we brought in four months ahead of schedule, and the Army Wildcat. We also expect that initial operating milestone for the Puma Mk 2 and the Navy Wildcat next year. We have also achieved the in-service date for the Chinook Mk 6 and taken delivery of six of the 14 new helicopters.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Minister for that response. He will be aware of the importance of Middle Wallop, the Army Air Corps and the school of Army aviation. Given that the training for the Army Wildcat is conducted at Yeovilton, what reassurance can the Minister give on the future of Middle Wallop in Army 2020?

[Mr Dunne]

Middle Wallop, as my hon. Friend has just told the House, is the home of the Army Air Corps school of Army aviation. It will continue to play an important part in preparing our helicopter crews of the future, including the Apache conversion to type training for Army pilots and ground crew.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I can assure the hon. Lady that this is a matter I am always considering, because I know of the representations from the Forces Pension Society and the War Widow Association of Great Britain. The difficulty is that this is not within our gift; it is a matter for the Treasury. The very important point to make is that if this is done for the armed forces, others will come forward. Presumably, that is why the previous Government did not do it. One could imagine that the widows and widowers of police officers and fire officers would make just the same sort of case.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the proportion of women in senior military posts.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

The most tangible evidence of the progress that women have made in getting to the most senior ranks of the armed forces is the appointment in 2013 of Air Vice-Marshal Elaine West and Air Vice-Marshal Sue Gray as the first female two-star officers in the RAF. Air Vice-Marshal West is a project manager in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, and Air Vice-Marshal Gray will be responsible for the procurement of future combat equipment, including fighter aircraft. I am sure the whole House will wish to offer both of them congratulations and the best of luck in their new appointments.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell the House what specific steps the armed forces are taking to improve the proportion of women serving in senior roles in the military?

[Mr Francois]

The proportion of women in senior military posts is increasing. For instance, I believe that we now have about 30 female colonels serving in the British Army, but the increase is still not as fast as we would wish. Therefore, although we are now seeing the best and brightest of our people recognised and promoted irrespective of gender, we are working to address the under-representation of certain demographic groups, including women. To cite an example that illustrates our commitment, I am delighted that the Ministry of Defence will be hosting an event on 12 March, in conjunction with other Government Departments, to celebrate and support international women’s day.