Oral Answers to Questions
James Gray Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Michael Fallon
We are supporting the Mosul operation through airstrikes, through surveillance and reconnaissance from the air and, above all, through the training that we have supplied to Iraqi and Kurdish forces. I can tell the House that British troops have now trained more than 30,000 Iraqi soldiers, including Kurdish.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will recall that the decision to launch airstrikes, both in Iraq and latterly in Syria, was taken not under the royal prerogative, but by resolution of this House. Does he agree that that precedent might well be useful in discussions in the months ahead?
Sir Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend tempts me into a matter to be considered by this House a little later this afternoon.
Defence Expenditure
James Gray Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Second Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2015-16, Shifting the goalposts? Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge, HC 494, and the Government response, HC 465.
It is a privilege to present the findings of our report entitled “Shifting the goalposts? Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge” to the public once again—it was published some time ago. I doubt whether anybody two or three years ago would have registered the significance of the term “2% of GDP” in connection with defence, because it was only relatively recently that the prospect of Britain’s falling below the NATO recommended minimum expenditure on defence for the first time came to the public’s attention. For many years, we spent a great deal of money on defence. The purpose of the report is to track the history of that expenditure to check the extent to which we are continuing to meet the NATO minimum and to see whether there has been any financial jiggery-pokery to enable us to do so.
In a nutshell, we found that no rules have been broken. The Government’s figures and methodology conform to the NATO guidelines. It is true that, on the basis of including such things as armed forces pensions, which were not previously included but are allowed to be included, the Government will reach the 2% minimum. I use the word “minimum” advisedly, because that is what it is. It is not a target, but the minimum expected of each NATO country to contribute as a proportion of their gross domestic product to their defence. One could argue that it remains a target for countries that have never managed to reach it, but for those of us who have always exceeded it, often by very large amounts, it remains a floor, not a target, let alone a ceiling.
I know it is frowned upon to use props in debates in any Chamber, but the sheet of paper I have is so vivid that, even at a considerable distance and through the lens of a television camera, it is easy to read. The bar graph shows a consistent and steady decline in the percentage of GDP spent on defence since the mid-1950s. In the mid-1950s, we spent more than 7% of GDP on defence. In about 1963-64, that downward-falling graph crossed the upward-rising graph of what we spent as a proportion of GDP on welfare. Far from spending more on defence than on welfare, as we did until about 1963, we spend six times on welfare what we spend on defence. In the mid-1980s, we were spending roughly the same amount on defence, education and health. Since then, the descending graphs for defence expenditure and the rising graph for education and health have similarly crossed over, and we have declined closer to the 2% minimum. We now spend almost four times on health and about two and a half times on education what we spend on defence.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am interested in the chart that my right hon. Friend is describing, which appears as a corrigendum to our report. More interesting than the three Departments he mentions is the fact that, during that period, spending on overseas aid increased by a significant amount while spending on defence declined. Is that not a significant correlation?
Dr Lewis
It is significant, and it is indeed included on the chart. The only reason why I did not mention it is that, in comparison with the total spent on the other high-spending Departments, it is a relatively small proportion of our GDP. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right because, such has been the decline in defence, our commitment to spend 0.7% on international development now amounts to one third of the total that we spend on defence, which comes in just above the 2% minimum.
When we called the report “Shifting the goalposts?”, we put a question mark at the end because we did not wish to prejudge it. There are two ways in which the Government could be said to have shifted the goalposts: first, by including things they are not allowed to include—we absolved them of that—and, secondly, by including things that they are allowed to include but never included in the past, which would mean that we are not comparing like with like in terms of our previous methods of calculating UK defence expenditure. The Defence Committee inquiry found that the NATO minimum would not have been fulfilled if UK accounting practices had not been modified, albeit in ways that are permitted by the NATO guidelines.
Dr Lewis
We did not find a hard and fast case of double counting, but we noticed in the past that there are items of expenditure that are highly relevant to defence and security that could fairly and usefully be catered for by the international development funds. Given that the 0.7% is protected, and given that one sometimes hears stories of the Department for International Development struggling to find creative ways of spending the money it has to dispose of, there is an opportunity, particularly in relation to soft power, to use elements of the international development money for measures that add to our security.
Of course, this is a rather crude measure, because gross domestic product can vary. If this country’s gross domestic product goes down but we spend the same amount on defence, it might appear that we are doing more when we are doing nothing of the sort. Similarly, when the value of the pound changes, as has happened in the short term following the Brexit decision, we see the effect on what we are able to buy for the money we have available for defence when we purchase big-ticket items such as the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft from the Americans, although a considerable amount of that purchase will find its way to the British defence industry. What I am driving at is that perhaps we ought to be talking not about shifting the goalposts, but trying to move the benchmark.
We should be reminding people that, in the 1980s—the last time we faced a significant threat from the east in Europe in the second and closing phase of the cold war—we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5.1% of GDP on defence. The similarity lies not only in the international situation. In the 1980s, we simultaneously faced a very significant terrorist threat in the form of Irish republican terrorism. We now face a similar threat in the form of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism.
It therefore seems appropriate to note that and, in the week that we were told that the first of the successor submarines for the nuclear deterrent will be named HMS Dreadnought, to remember a previous HMS Dreadnought, the battleship that changed the whole nature of sea power as far as capital ships were concerned in the years approaching the first world war. A famous naval arms race was going on between this country and Germany and, around 1909, there was a great deal of controversy that the German navy was drawing level with the grand fleet of the British Royal Navy in terms of dreadnought battleships. A public campaign was mounted, encapsulated by the phrase of the Unionist politician George Wyndham:
“We want eight and we won’t wait!”
My view, which I believe is shared by at least some other members of the Defence Committee, is that a new benchmark is perhaps needed for the percentage of GPD to be spent on defence: “We want three to keep us free!” In reality, if we go on at the 2% level, we are in danger of finding ourselves incapable of meeting the threats that face us today and will continue to face us in future.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It was just outside the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) that Her Majesty’s Government first committed two or three years ago to the 2% target—or the 2% figure; I will come back to the target in a moment. I would be ungracious if I did not start by saying that I warmly welcomed that that was the case. Until then, through five years of coalition government, that had not been the case. It probably would not be the case—dare I say, without being too party political—if we had a Labour Government; people would seek to find savings from defence to spend on schools and hospitals. The first thing that we ought to say is that thank goodness we have that 2%. I am glad that the previous Prime Minister made that firm and rather surprising commitment at the Wales summit.
Mr Spellar
Will the hon. Gentleman tell me in which year under a Labour Government expenditure fell below 2%?
Mr Gray
The trouble is that under Labour Governments we always have wars and things so we have to keep spending up—that is the difficulty. However, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I am not suggesting that the Labour party made cuts in previous years, but, from listening to some of the speeches produced by the current leader of the Labour party, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that significant defence cuts would be made were Labour to be in power today.
Mr Gray
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaps in to enter into a party political discussion of the matter, the purpose of the debate is not to have a party political pop across the Chamber—and of course I would not wish to tread unreasonably on the Opposition’s personal grief on this subject.
Mr Spellar
On a point of order, Mr Bone. As we are having a debate on defence, it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman, who is normally much better behaved in the Defence Committee, to make partisan points. What I think is improper and verging on being out of order is then not giving way for a response, because I for one do not believe in unilateral disarmament either in the Chamber or in our defence policy.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced and knows full well that that was in no way a point of order.
Mr Gray
I have the strongest respect—[Laughter.] Allow me to finish the sentence. I have the strongest respect for the strength of commitment by Labour members of the House of Commons Defence Committee to the defence of the realm. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that I have been a little ungracious in talking about some other parts of his party’s approach to defence because I know the members of the Labour party on the Defence Committee are strongly committed to that.
Mr Spellar
May I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend from the Committee, for giving way? I point out that in fact he cannot point to any Labour party policy. The policy of the party is decided at our party conference, as indeed is our commitment to Trident. In the previous Parliament, when decisions were being put off on Trident, there was an overwhelming majority in the Labour party to support the Labour party policy of renewal of Trident. It is the same for the defence budget.
Mr Gray
I am most grateful and greatly reassured by the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment both to Trident and to an increase in defence spending. I look forward to that vision being repeated by the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) when he replies to the debate from the Front Bench. It is good news to know that that is what Labour thinks.
In all events, the debate is not about which party will spend more on defence. I think perhaps we should move away from that parti pris squabble and move on to discuss the report in front of us, which is a very well worded, calculated and researched paper. The first thing I would say, however, is that the Ministry of Defence’s accounts are second only to the Schleswig-Holstein question in being completely and utterly incomprehensible. I think there is nobody alive today who fully understands the MOD accounts, so the one or two accountants in the Department are well able to move figures around and fiddle with them in such a way that no normal human being can understand or follow.
Indeed, much of the language used is equally incomprehensible. For example, in paragraph 14 of the Government’s reply they are talking about the £11.2 billion of efficiency savings—we asked where they would find that. It lays out a few efficiency savings first and then says:
“A further £2 billion will be delivered through the reprioritisation of existing funding.”
They will save £2 billion through the reprioritisation of existing funding. They then go on to say that £2.1 billion that will come in from the joint security fund will in fact allow cuts in the ordinary defence spending. Therefore, that is not extra money coming in from the joint security fund at all; that is merely replacing moneys that otherwise were to be cut. There are many other examples of precisely the same thing.
Without a PhD in such matters it is simply impossible to understand exactly how the MOD accounts work and I am slightly concerned that the Government’s response tends not to try to clarify matters but to make them even more complicated than before. That makes comparators extremely difficult. It is very difficult indeed to compare our spending today with what we spent in the past. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) touched on this: it is perfectly true that when I was born in 1954 we were spending something like 7.8%—if I remember rightly from the charts in the report—and today we spend about 2%. Therefore, the cut has been gigantic. However, comparing what we were spending then with what we spend today is extraordinarily difficult because of the accounting procedures.
It is unclear whether things like urgent operational requirements, or several other things that occurred in the past, are included, not least because, as the MOD said in its reply, it keeps its accounts only for seven years. Therefore, if we ask officials about any financial matter before seven years ago, they do not know. They are unable to give answers on what happened in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s because they do not keep the accounts. It seems to me simply bizarre that a Government Department should not keep accounts in perpetuity—it ought to be able to give an answer on what Government spending on defence was at the time of Waterloo if we asked the question sensibly. To say that it does not know for more than seven years ago is simply extraordinary. We therefore do not know how our spending today compares with previously because of that rule and we cannot compare our spending with other NATO countries for the same reason: it is all lost in the shrouds of mystery and antiquity.
My right hon. Friend made the extremely important point that 2% is all very well, but it is not a target and it is not even a floor—it is absolutely the minimum. In terms of the rhetoric, the Government appear as if they are claiming, “Haven’t we done well? We have achieved 2%.” No, never in the history of British defence before have we ever had to spend only 2% of GDP. Actually, that is the lowest figure we have ever been at. Moreover, if we were to listen to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and we were to face quite a significant recession post-Brexit—I personally do not believe that will occur, but he said so plainly—2% of GDP would presumably mean a significant cut in the pounds spent on defence. Therefore, the 2% figure is, to some degree at least, misleading. What we need to know is that this year we are spending £35 billion or thereabouts on defence and that that will increase every year irrespective of what happens to the economy.
The opposite applies as well. Supposing the economy were to grow at some fantastic rate thanks to Brexit—let us imagine that we see 2%, 3% or 4% growth—does that really mean that we will spend billions and billions of pounds more on defence than we have currently programmed to do? If so, how on earth will we find things to spend the money on? I am not certain that the 2% figure necessarily allows for sensible comparators with other Departments or that it is quite the right way to judge it.
We need to know how much the Government will spend and, as my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bridgend said, not only how they will spend it but what they will spend it on. What we need to know is what we can do in defence terms—how many ships, tanks, soldiers and sailors and all the other things we need, such as cyber, will we have in the future? The 2% figure does not necessarily tell us that. It is a question of capabilities and not necessarily of money.
While I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to the 2%, which is certainly a step in the right direction, that by no means reassures me that we as a nation are ready to face the appalling threats we now face. Russia is a bigger threat to us today than it has been since the cold war, the middle east is in complete turmoil and much of the rest of the world is a disaster area and we are struggling to maintain a level of spending that we have never before seen.
It seems to me that we are in danger of failing in our primary responsibility of defending the realm by allowing ourselves to be fooled by a piece of camouflage: “Aren’t we being great? We are spending 2% of GDP”. Are we able to defend the realm? I suggest that we may well not be.
Several hon. Members rose—
Veterans Care Sector: Government Role
James Gray Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on securing this debate. His sterling work and passion in ensuring that our veterans have the necessary support and welfare they deserve are highly commendable. As a veteran himself, he is well placed to speak in the House on their behalf. Since arriving in the Commons in 2015, he has made it his mission to campaign on this area. Although I cannot claim to be a veteran quite yet—I was described by a senior general at the Army Board last week as a “seasoned oak”, so clearly it cannot be long before I can—I do, through my rather more modest service, absolutely recognise the importance of this subject.
Equally, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern about my ever-expanding portfolio, to which the reserves have been added. As a Royal Engineer, I have now been a serving member of the Army Reserve for some 28 years. I confess that I used to say that I looked far too young to have been one for so many years, but I fear that I nowadays do not look far too young. However, I do at least have some basic understanding of that brief, and I have not had to do too much background reading.
Comments have been made about the armed forces covenant—the recognition that the nation, as well as the Government, have a responsibility to ensure that our veterans suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service. There is an implication in those comments that the covenant has not been applied consistently across the United Kingdom. I have had such a concern for some time. That is why I commissioned the Forces in Mind Trust to do a review of the covenant across the United Kingdom earlier this year, and it has recently published a very extensive report that aims to share best practice.
I encourage colleagues in the House tonight to read that report and, crucially, pull out that best practice and encourage their own local authorities to follow it. There are some fantastic things happening across the UK. It will come as no surprise that the local authorities that seem to do things best are those with the greatest proportion of members of the armed forces. I take the opportunity of this debate to send the message: please spread that report far and wide, as it is the means by which we can begin to improve the level of understanding of the armed forces covenant.
The service charities have a crucial role to play. We have been supporting organisations such as Cobseo—the Confederation of Services Charities—which is an umbrella organisation for 250 charities, in its critical cluster work. I will talk about that in greater detail throughout the course of the debate.
My hon. Friend and I agree on many things, but I fear there is one on which we do not. I once again note his request for a separate Department for veterans. I can only repeat what I said in the debate in March this year, that on balance I do not believe that to be the best approach; if it meant I ended up in the Cabinet he might be able to persuade me to change my mind, but I fear it would not be me in the Cabinet. The needs of veterans straddle Whitehall boundaries and national borders because first and foremost our veterans are civilians. As I said previously, although we agree on the end, we do not necessarily agree on the means.
I fear a veterans Ministry would duplicate work that already exists through the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government and many organisations and Government agencies. I believe that the work of Defence Business Services Veterans UK provides a valuable service bringing together pensions, compensation and welfare support.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about whether a Department for veterans’ affairs would be better for veterans or in fact worse. Does he agree that should there be such a Department that would demotivate some of the very good civil servants in the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere who are currently thoroughly committed to the issue of veterans, as if there were to be a separate Department for veterans they might well say, “That is nothing to do with me—give that to them”?
Mark Lancaster
To a degree, this goes back to the principle of the armed forces covenant, which is really an agreement between the nation as a whole and our veterans. I would hate to think that we had moved to a position where we were in effect delegating this responsibility to a single Department and allowing others to feel that it somehow was not their responsibility to play a role in supporting our veterans.
The current system, whereby responsibility for veterans is cross-government, is positive. Yes, more should be done to ensure that all are playing their part, but on balance I agree with my hon. Friend that a dedicated veterans Department would be a retrograde step. We need not look too far, when looking at things across the Atlantic, to see some of the problems there. They are not simply financial; the very complex way in which care is given to veterans can be diluted. We also have the advantage of the national health service, which is a very comprehensive health service. That is a very good medium for supporting our veterans.
Select Committee on Defence
James Gray Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Lewis
Yes, indeed, and I thank the hon. Lady for that. She is a tremendously supportive member of the Committee; this is her first parliamentary term, but she has made a great start. I re-emphasise what I said about the importance of dialogue with Russia. The fact remains that different societies develop at different stages and go through different phases in their attitude to their relationships with the rest of the world. One mistake that the west clearly made after the downfall of communism was to evoke a degree of triumphalism at a time when magnanimity would have been more appropriate. Those in the west make a terrible mistake if they fail to recognise that Russia is and always has been a great power, and what we have to do is reach out the hand of friendship, while trying to discourage those aspects of the Russian tradition that seek to dominate lands beyond its own borders. Russia is a pretty large landmass and one would hope that the Russians could make a success of running their own country without feeling the need to impose their will on their neighbours.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Potential Russian expansionism must be deterred by NATO with a fist of steel—there is no question about that, as we cannot let them do it—but one encased in a velvet glove. At the moment, we do not understand Russia and what it is doing. We must find better ways of understanding the Russians and talking to them about it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one area where we simply do not know what they are doing is in the high north—in the Arctic? Russia is, without question, expanding its military capabilities up there and we do not quite know why. Does he agree that that was one area the report was not able to look into, and is there not room for further work on that?
Dr Lewis
I agree with every word my hon. Friend has said. Our report drops a very broad hint that the Arctic—the high north—deserves special attention, and I strongly suspect that if and when the Committee takes a decision to give it that special attention, my hon. Friend, who has led the way, with his all-party group for polar regions, in alerting the country to the significance of this area, will be playing a very prominent part indeed.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Gray Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that our relationship with members of the EU will remain as strong as it is today even when we are not a member? Given that nearly all members of the European Union are members of NATO, and that most members of NATO, leaving aside Turkey and the United States, are members of the EU, surely the fact that we are that cornerstone of NATO stands for our strong defence, and being a member of both involves some degree of duplication.
Michael Fallon
We have continued to argue against duplication between the European Union and NATO, but my hon. Friend is right. We have the very important bilateral relationships with other European countries—the Lancaster House treaty with France, and our growing co-operation with Germany—and I reassured both the French and German Defence Ministers last Friday that we will continue to work at those relationships and to strengthen them.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Gray Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fallon
No, I do not think there is direct evidence of movement from one country to another. Daesh is on the back foot in Iraq. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces, with support from the coalition, have liberated Tikrit, Baiji, Ramadi and other cities, and Daesh is being pushed back there. That is not happening yet in Syria, and I, like the hon. Gentleman, am extremely concerned about the proliferation of Daesh along the Libyan coastline, which is why we have been urgently assisting the formation of a new Libyan Government.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
As the Secretary of State has said, coalition efforts have a significant effect on stopping and degrading Daesh not only in Iraq, but, to a lesser degree, in Syria. Does he agree, however, that a conventional, full-frontal assault on Mosul and Raqqa might well have the opposite effect to that we are seeking, and that trying to do something about Daesh’s poisonous ideology and funding is possibly more important than purely conventional attacks?
Michael Fallon
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to look at all those things and deal with Daesh across the board. We have to combat its ideology, we have to cut off its financing and we have to deal with the message that it is putting out to local populations. Preparations for the liberation of both Mosul and Raqqa will require very careful preparation to reassure the Sunni population, particularly of Mosul, that it will be able to enjoy better security once Daesh is thrown out.
Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report
James Gray Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
May I first of all pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—?
Mr Gray
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. If I may say so, Mr Hanson, I wish that the screens in Westminster Hall better indicated who is speaking here and what the topic is here, rather than who is speaking in the main Chamber. Currently it is rather hard sometimes to follow the debate here. That is a point that is perhaps worth making.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I particularly respect what he has had to say because standing up for the armed forces or serving the armed forces in Northern Ireland is a significantly more difficult thing to do than for those of us who are in areas such as mine in Wiltshire, where almost the most natural and easy thing to do in the world is to stand up for the armed forces. To do so in Northern Ireland, in the way that he has described, is particularly difficult, so I pay particular tribute to him and the points that he made, and I know that the Minister and the Government will listen very carefully to them.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) and her two male colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—for having the initiative to call for this outstandingly good and useful debate. As she said, it is very important that we discuss the armed forces covenant. We should be doing so on an annual basis and I was astonished to discover—perhaps it is my fault and I should have called for such a debate myself—that we have not done so after the previous three annual reports on the covenant. So I respect and pay tribute to the way that she has done that, and very much hope that this example will be followed in future years. We could actually debate every year what progress has been made in the implementation of the covenant.
I should first of all say that the covenant itself is an outstandingly useful and worthwhile document, and I pay tribute to the then Labour Government, which first created such a document. They did not write it into law, but it was their idea to write down a contract that had been in existence for many centuries—that invisible contract between society and our armed forces. It was the Labour Government that said, “This time, we ought to codify, write down and make it plain, create a metric of it”. It was then a Conservative Government that wrote the observance of the covenant into law, which again was a very worthwhile thing to do, and the annual reports that we are now producing are extremely good.
No one in the debate today—indeed, no one in the Palace of Westminster and probably nobody in Britain—would disagree with the fundamental principle behind the covenant, namely that we ask our armed service people to do things that we ourselves would under no circumstances consider doing, and that in return for that we provide support for them. That is support of every kind. I will come back in a moment to talk about veterans and support for people who have suffered as a result of their service in the armed forces, but that support is not the purpose behind the covenant.
The covenant is about supporting people in our armed services every day of their lives, and their families. There are about 200,000 people who currently serve in our armed forces and do a brilliant job of doing it. There are also their families. If we take 200,000 people and consider regular turnover, probably a million people, or something of that sort, in Britain today have served in the last 20 years. Add their families to that number and we are talking about 2 million, 3 million or 5 million people who are being affected by service in the forces. The purpose behind the covenant is to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as a result of that service. It is about enabling them to go off to places around the world, to serve in the way that they do—they do so superbly well—and to ensure that their families are given education, housing, medical support and all the other things that they deserve. Those are things that they must have as service families.
I pay tribute to the variety of charities that do those things so extremely well. I am proud to be a patron of Recruit for Spouses, which provides jobs for the spouses of armed service personnel. I am also a patron of Mutual Support, which looks after service people with multiple sclerosis, as the initials indicate. A whole host of other similar charities of one sort or another do all sorts of things to help the families of our armed services.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments and comments on the charities that do so much good work. Would he join me in sending the wonderful volunteers at HorseBack UK all our best wishes as they try to deal with the flooding affecting their premises in Aberdeenshire?
Mr James Gray
I was not aware of the particular circumstances that the hon. Lady mentions, but if that is occurring in west Aberdeenshire—I know the area extremely well—I of course wish them well in their work, and I hope that they successfully rehabilitate their premises.
An enormous number of military charities across the board are doing all sorts of good work for people who are serving, for their families and for veterans. I am glad that they do that work. I am proud to be wearing the SSAFA tie this afternoon. Such organisations, which include the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes—we spoke about them earlier—are outstandingly good charities doing outstandingly good work for our armed services.
One or two of the speeches this afternoon have focused on those who are disadvantaged because of their service in the armed forces, but that seems to misunderstand slightly the nature of the covenant. Of course it is right that people who have been injured in warfare, whether physically or mentally, should be looked after properly. Of course it is right that when people have come back and have all sorts of difficulties—whether they find themselves in prison or have problems with drugs or drink or other issues—we should look after them properly. That, however, is a very small part of the covenant.
The covenant is a broad document that concerns every aspect of the armed forces and every aspect of how we look after those who we ask to do jobs that we ourselves would not do. It is right that on such an occasion as this we should celebrate the triumph of the magnificent armed forces, their fantastic work and how we in this place are duty-bound to look after them and say, “Thank you very much” for what they do.
The covenant usefully covers what happens during a person’s active service. In North Wiltshire we have a huge military presence, and a great many cases come to my notice, including bullying in the armed forces, failure to be promoted and all sorts of other things that might go wrong in a serviceman’s career. The covenant says that we must look after our armed servicemen and what they are doing on the ground. We must encourage them in their careers and help and support them. They have a difficult job to do. Often they are away from their families and are asked to do all kinds of things that we would not normally do ourselves. Their career path must be encouraged and supported by what we do, and the covenant must take account of that.
I will focus on one particular aspect this afternoon in my brief contribution. I must be careful about my language, but it is what the press have called “ambulance-chasing lawyers”. That issue does not really appear in the armed forces covenant, but perhaps it should. Lawyers have been trawling around Iraq in particular, finding people who allege some form of abuse by our armed forces in Iraq 10 or 15 years ago. That has been highlighted in particular with the lawyers, Leigh Day, which behaved very badly in the al-Sweady inquiry, wasting £31 million of public money in pursuing a case that should not have been pursued in the first place. A whole variety of other lawyers are doing similar work in Iraq today.
We must be very aware of that issue because it does not only affect our veterans. It must be terribly worrying for large numbers of our veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan when they did things perfectly correctly under orders and behaved naturally, but some lawyers for their own financial reasons are seeking to investigate what they did. That must also have an effect on the operational capabilities of our forces today. Any soldier doing something might have to think, “What would happen if I got this wrong? What would happen if I breach some rule? What will happen if, in 10 or 15 years’ time, the law changes and the law comes back and haunts me and seeks to arrest me or prosecute me for something that I should have perfectly happily been doing under the law?”
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, who wrote a magnificent paper about “lawfare” called “The Fog of Law”. He wrote it with Laura Croft, if I remember rightly. That fine paper lays out precisely how the law might interfere with operational effectiveness on the ground, and we have seen that issue become a great deal worse in recent years.
I would not want what has been a consensual, pleasant and important debate to become party political in any shape, size or form—it would be quite wrong if it did—but it is none the less worth noting that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who was appointed just yesterday, is in receipt of £45,000 of cash from this particular bunch of lawyers. It is she who, among other things, described that firm as a “great firm”. Our armed servicemen, who are worried about whether they will be picked up by that “great firm”, might be worried by her attitude.
Mr David Hanson (in the Chair)
Order. If I may offer some gentle guidance, the points that the hon. Gentleman is making are perfectly within order, but the subject of the debate is the military covenant, and I hope he will reflect on that when making his remarks.
Mr Gray
You make an extremely good point, Mr Hanson. If I were in your place, which I often am, it is a point I would be making myself to speakers of my kind. None the less, it is worth reflecting on the fact that people serving around the world are taking difficult and often instant decisions. If there is a flicker in the jungle, they may fire at it. Was that the right thing to have done? The difficulty with these cases is that servicemen do not know whether someone will come looking for them in 10 or 15 years’ time, saying, “You should not have done that. You are arrested.” There are a number of particularly high-profile cases at the moment. We took part in a debate in the Chamber not so long ago on Marine A.
The simple point I make is that our contract with our armed forces asks them to do things that we would not. Part of that contract must give them the freedom, the rights and the ability to carry out things—to close with the Queen’s enemy and kill them if necessary; they do not want to do that, but if they have to do that, they have to do that—without excessive intervention by the law courts, whether domestically or even in the International Criminal Court. One thing that we might consider writing into the covenant is some approach to the whole question of “lawfare”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling described it.
Leaving that to one side, the document is superb. I am pleased that the annual report that we produced recently demonstrates further work and further advances in a whole variety of areas. That is good. The covenant is incredibly important and I am glad that we are reviewing it every year. I hope very much that there will be debates in this Chamber in years to come, and that in those debates we will be able to record for posterity that every year we are giving our armed services greater respect and looking after them and their families in an ever better way.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) for his kind words on my paper, “The Fog of Law”, which was published a couple of years ago. That paper is only more relevant, sadly, given that various trials—we warned of them several years ago—are coming to fruition. Young men who took decisions on our behalf are being unfairly pressured into answering for actions that were fundamentally of the Government and therefore of this House, rather than their own. When considering the covenant, it is important that we consider the individuals—they are carrying out requests not on their behalf, but on ours.
I should immediately declare an interest, as I am still serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces as a reserve officer. I have many friends who continue to serve in uniform, and I am proud to say that they do. The points I was going to make on the military covenant have already been made, so I will limit my comments a little more than others may have needed to.
The fundamental point of the covenant is that it is not just something that we give to those in the armed forces: the possibly 1 to 4 million people that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire referred to; it is actually how we ensure our own future. All relationships and human interactions are fundamentally reciprocal. In the give and take of the armed forces covenant is the extension of the commitment we make to our troops. It is the extension of buying a proper uniform, of making sure the troops are properly armed, trained, paid and motivated. Part of that is the covenant. If we get that wrong, we not only fail to look after those who served us with great honour and courage, but we weaken ourselves, because we discourage the best and the brightest of every generation who have served with great fortitude in our armed forces. Indeed, everyone from the grandson of the monarch to the grandson of anybody else has served in our armed forces.
We discourage people from serving, and in doing so we weaken ourselves. I therefore argue that the military covenant is not an act of generosity or normalisation, but of self-defence. We must look at it very clearly as such, because self-interest in this area is sometimes the way to get the best result out of the Exchequer. The Chancellor has already been generous, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) identified, but it is important that we do not see the stories, which we occasionally see, about servicemen having to sell homes to fund the purchase of prosthetic limbs, and it is important that other veterans are not forced out of the family home in search of medical help. We need to make sure that such duties are taken on by society, not only because it is the right, moral and honourable thing to do, but because it is the best, safest and most sensible thing to do.
I look forward very much to our covenant coming to fruition and the reports building one upon another, so that we get to a state where what we are really arguing about is tweaks and turns and not substance, because, as we build up that covenant, we build up our own defence. That covenant is not only about the individuals, but about the families. When I speak to serving members of the armed forces today, I know that part of that covenant is also about the way in which we treat the serving families. I am particularly struck time and again when people—my friends in the armed forces—talk to me about things such as continuity of education. Some people have seen it as a luxury; some have said it is a way to support various families to continue a form of education that has long gone from most people in society. It is not. It is a way of ensuring that families who move around—men and women who serve overseas at the drop of a hat, who leave home and family and go away—can continue to ensure that their children are properly cared for; that they enjoy the opportunities that they rightly deserve; and that, where the family is staying at home in one location, they enjoy it.
How do I know that? If we look at any large employer or any of the large multinationals that regularly move people and take staff and say, “You were a director of X in London; you are now a director of Y in Paris, New York or Nigeria,” one of the essential parts of the package of employment is always education. No father or mother will accept to impoverish their children’s future. It is wrong that we should ask serving members of today’s armed forces to do that, which is why I strongly support the continuity of education allowance. It is essential not only in terms of recruiting and maintaining the quality of personnel—officers and other ranks; many apply for it—but to guarantee the commitment to maintain that we have the best and the brightest for the future.
I want to talk a little about the law. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has spoken extremely eloquently about it. The law can be used in both ways. It can be used quite rightly to support the actions of our armed forces and to defend them. That is exactly what the Geneva convention is for: to control and regulate the conduct of operations in battle. However, it is also right that we use the appropriate law. Sadly, in recent years a legal doctrine has grown up in which we have started to use inappropriate legislation, and we have started to treat soldiers as policemen. Once again, this is not just a nicety and choosing which element we like or do not like; this is fundamentally about the security of the state and the liberty of the individual. If we start to view people who are not policemen but soldiers and treat them like civilians, various operations become impossible.
It would be wrong to ask the police to storm a building knowing that they would take casualties of 5% or 10%, and yet we asked young men to do that on the beaches of Normandy. It would be wrong to ask the police to go into a riot situation knowing that five or 10 of them would probably be killed, but that is exactly what we did at Mount Tumbledown in the Falkland Islands. We do it again and again, because what we ask servicemen to do is not the job of a civilian. It is not the job of a policeman, a doctor or a fireman; it is something more than that. We literally ask them to put their lives on the line.
The deal is up to death, and that deal makes the covenant different, but it also means that the legal protection that is required to enable soldiers to act and to operate is also different. They must have the right to act. They must have the ability to act in a sensible and reasonable way. This does not mean that they must have the right to break the law; they do not and should not. This does not mean that the Geneva convention is irrelevant; it is not and it should not be. This does not mean that they should be allowed to commit murder, rape, looting or anything else. They are not and should not.
What it does mean is this: soldiers take split-second decisions—hard decisions—that young men and women were taking every day when I was in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 18 and 21-year-olds—junior commanders; sometimes more senior—were taking split-second decisions and then, 10 years later, in the cool of the courtroom, were being asked to justify to people who had never walked on to a beach without getting into a sweat how they could have made such a decision, evaluated the situation they saw before them, and taken a call. What was actually happening was that the serviceman or woman in question was being asked to justify the decisions of this House that sent them there, and that is wrong. That is why it is right that the appropriate law, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire put it, is the law that should apply, and not the European Court of Human Rights. In this case I have argued against various articles, in the paper “The Fog of Law”.
There is another point I want to make about the covenant: it must apply as widely as we can make it. Many have served our armed forces with huge honour and distinction around the world, and I include the enormously courageous interpreters I served with in Afghanistan. I include the Iraqis who sadly lost their lives serving next to us, but in the Queen’s uniform—they were dressed as we were—as interpreters. We owe them a duty of care, too. This covenant does not cover them—I understand that—but the generosity of Her Majesty’s armed forces and Her Majesty’s Government must include them. Only by doing so will we ensure that we get the best people to serve alongside us in our time of need. Those interpreters were not extras. They were not a luxury. They were not an add-on to our fighting capability; they were integral to it. Only by getting that right will we maintain the fundamental combat power that the British armed forces deploy on operations. It is absolutely right that we extend the covenant rights, as much as is possible and is reasonable, to those who have served alongside us.
Mr Gray
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the interpreters, and we are making some steps in the right direction there, but there are of course large numbers of other contractors of one sort or another, who in many cases serve right up at the frontline. To a greater or lesser degree they, too, should be covered by the terms of the military covenant.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree entirely with what he just said.
I want to bring in one other aspect: the fact that many, many young men and women from various other countries have served in Her Majesty’s uniform. Our recruitment system is blessed in having young men and women from all over the world who want to come and serve in our armed forces. My information may be out of date, but when I joined the armed forces, more men and women from the Republic of Ireland were serving in the British Army than were in the Republic’s army. Those young men and women, who serve in the Queen’s uniform, deserve as much protection as we can give them. Ireland is an independent state, and quite rightly so, but it is absolutely right that Her Majesty’s Government should recognise their service and, where appropriate, offer the same support through the covenant that British servicemen would enjoy anywhere else. The same is true of Nigeria, Nepal or South Africa. Young men and women have come from those countries, sometimes in great numbers, and served alongside us. I urge the Minister to look very closely at how, through the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, Her Majesty’s Government can support communities that have sent young men and women to fight alongside ours.
Finally, I should say that the covenant is not always essential, because some of us have benefited disproportionately from our armed service. I have benefited massively from the camaraderie. I have benefited hugely from the education and the training. I have benefited completely from the moral ethos and the integrity that has, quite rightly, been rammed into us all. Military service is not a disadvantage. It is not a handicap. It is in no way something that should hold one back. It does not. In the vast majority of cases, military service empowers, enables and liberates people. It takes young men and women, often those who have been failed by the civilian services in our society, and gives them the leg up that they always needed, and a sense of discipline and purpose. The covenant is not a negative. It is not always about correcting a fault. It is about recognising where we can do that little bit more.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. Governments ask a lot of those who serve in our armed forces, so we need to ensure that both regulars and reserves, and their families, are well served by Government. It is therefore vital that the Government respond to their needs. I welcome the fourth report on the armed forces covenant, which Labour was so proud to instigate when in government, and I welcome today’s debate, called for by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). The armed forces covenant is on a journey and is constantly in development. It is right on such occasions that we take stock of where we have come from and consider where we can travel to.
Before I respond to the debate, I want to pay tribute to the work of our armed forces, not least this Christmas when they played a vital role at home in supporting flooded communities. I can give testament to the excellent service they provided in my constituency of York Central through the height of the floods. I thank Brigadier Gerald Strickland, commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade, for his leadership and also York’s local signal regiment. Many men and women are also serving in the most dangerous parts of the world, and we pay tribute to their professionalism and skill as they serve their country.
Ensuring that the families of personnel are supported with good services, from housing to health, is one of their greatest concerns when serving overseas. We have all heard stories from personnel about how, before taking part in operations, they are concerned more about whether the shower at home has been fixed than about the dangerous, high-risk situations they are about to face. As we debate the armed covenant and as we look forward, we must ensure that we focus on our service personnel’s peace of mind and ensure that they can be focused in times of duty because their families are supported at home. From spending time with service personnel, with their families and with many charitable organisations, including the services families federations, we know that more needs to be done to ensure that both regulars and reserves receive the very best support.
The armed forces covenant is a mechanism to ensure that no detriment is suffered by our service personnel, but we have also heard in today’s debate about whether we should take the opportunity to champion their needs. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned the scope of the covenant and whether it should be increased, bringing in interpreters, contractors and those who have come from overseas to serve in the British forces, so that we can work out how best to honour their service.
The armed forces covenant is a covenant for four nations. We heard about best practice in Wales, including representation on all health boards, bringing in awareness of the needs of service personnel, and the mental health self-referral system for victims of PTSD. At a time when so many people have ongoing mental health needs, it is important that we take that into account. We also heard about some of the challenges raised so articulately by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), including ensuring that the covenant is applied without representation on the reference group. We all want the hon. Gentleman to have as much support as possible so that he is able to further the covenant in Northern Ireland. Speaking of best practice, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) mentioned the work being done in Scotland with the first Scottish Veterans Commissioner and some of the specialist services in mental health, prosthetic care, education and housing.
Let me turn to healthcare, specifically mesothelioma, which is a pressing issue, as many with the disease may not have long to live. Labour tabled an amendment to the current Armed Forces Bill to ensure that compensation for those with the disease matches what all other civilians receive. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that, and I would welcome an update ahead of the Bill’s Third Reading next week on the progress made.
The covenant report rightly highlights the investment in specific services, from audiology to wheelchair provision, but one of the challenges faced by charitable and specialist organisations when providing healthcare is navigating the NHS, which has become far more complicated since the reorganisation following the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Instead of trying to engage in dialogue with over 200 clinical commissioning groups, there must be a smarter way for specialist services to deal with the NHS. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether NHS England could be the focal point for organisations that are trying to provide such services. Many organisations, whether they deal with physical or mental health, have said that they are having multiple conversations, and it would be helpful if we could find a smoother way.
Continued reports of expedient access to treatment—which we have heard a lot about today—are also an important part of the challenge. We have received reports that people are waiting, whether for a transfer from one service to another due to relocation or just on waiting lists. We must ensure that dealing with the needs of both veterans and serving personnel, and their families, is expedited. It would be helpful to get more reports on the waits that people are experiencing in prosthetic care, wheelchair adaptation and access to mental health services, which can vary across the country. The current waits are unacceptable and can make situations worse. If someone receives an injury, they should be prioritised, not only for the duration of their service but for life, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) highlighted in his contribution. What mechanisms are in place for monitoring veterans’ waiting times and what more is being done to help them to access services?
The Minister has done much to focus on mental health, and Combat Stress is playing a vital role in providing information and crucial research for better understanding of mental health needs and how to address them. Key to that is securing good tracking of veterans, which is a real challenge. What progress has been made in tracking those who have left the services—for example, by maintaining a database of their information to allow for continued communication?
Mr James Gray
The hon. Lady has been talking a great deal of sense—up until now. I take slight issue with her on the notion of a database. So many bureaucrats love to come up with databases, but we are potentially talking about many millions of people who are constantly changing their way of life, address and everything else. Trying to keep any kind of updated central database is therefore virtually impossible. It would be much better to rely on regimental and local support services to keep track of the people from their own units.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but tracking veterans and providing a continuum of service to those who have served is a real issue about which I have spoken to many organisations. I am not saying that the mechanism for doing so has to be at a governmental level—it could be regimental—but it is important for data access, research, and monitoring and overseeing the welfare of former personnel. Too many are slipping through the net, often because of constant changes of address due to their having no fixed abode or having to change locations. It is really important that, as part of our duty of care, we are on top of who they are and where they live.
Much needs to be done to support the mental health of service personnel, as has been highlighted today. We are asking for all serving and former members of the armed forces and their families to have better access to mental health assessments and services. The health service, in particular for mental health, is challenged at the moment, as we know from our constituencies, whether in delivery, capacity or prioritisation. Further investment is important, in particular in personnel.
We cannot depend on an individual presenting themselves for support, because that is often late in the day, when further treatment is needed and further damage has already happened because of the delay. We are changing attitudes to mental health culturally, with better understanding coming more to the fore, but it is vital to take a more proactive approach towards mental health, moving upstream with it and ensuring that the needs of service personnel and their families are seen as a priority. We should provide the opportunity for assessment continuously, because early intervention can make such a radical difference to outcomes.
The public health agenda, although not mentioned in the report, should be a focus of Government attention. Alcohol use in the armed forces is a major concern and many veterans experience difficulties with substance abuse, so far more needs to be done to address public health concerns. Will the Minister develop a public health strategy for the armed forces to focus on the main pillars of public health? I was heartened to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said about the free swimming initiative in her constituency, but a public health strategy right across the services would be helpful, because so many people would benefit. Prevention of poor health is vital, and with the right investment we can save lives. Again, it is time to move upstream and to be proactive about the health agenda.
Much is being done on education, as the report highlights. The itinerant nature of work in the armed forces, however, has an impact on young lives. Moving families from base to base has consequences. In discussion with service personnel, I have found that many appreciate the benefits of their itinerant work and enjoy living in different communities, but many families find it disruptive, not least for their children’s education. One solution is highlighted in the report, but it is also important to think about other opportunities for families to have stability in a community.
Many service personnel have asked me—and I ask the Minister—whether it is necessary for their work to be as itinerant as it is currently. Can more stability be provided, so that families stay far longer on one base? If so, children could have greater stability in their education and social networks, and spouses and partners could have greater stability of employment. Education is a lifelong issue and something on which the armed forces are very focused. Beyond the plans in the report, will the Minister also look at increasing opportunities for spouses and partners to engage in lifelong educational opportunities? They give so much to support those in the services and their children, but they should also be given a greater opportunity to develop their own careers. The itinerant nature of the forces militates against career opportunities for the wider family.
Transition issues are also vital. Many leave the services and find that their plan for the future fails, so they might need to revisit their opportunities for an exit or transition strategy. I am therefore asking for continuous access to educational opportunities for veterans, so that even if their plans go wrong, they can come back to get back on course. We want those transitional opportunities to be seen as longer term.
Many points have already been made about housing, but there are so many service personnel who want security for a home. Increasing demand for home ownership has been addressed with the Help to Buy scheme, which we welcome, but for some it is still inaccessible because of the level of income necessary or because of priorities at their stage of life. There are equity share schemes, but will the Minister also consider a rent-to-buy scheme? That is very much part of Labour’s wider housing agenda, but I suggest it as another option in this housing portfolio.
The maintenance of service housing has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Companies have sometimes not been as good at fulfilling their contracts as perhaps they should have. What mechanisms are in place to monitor such contracts to ensure that they are fulfilled and that work is carried out in a timely way? Government need to provide scrutiny of the process, because so many personnel are concerned about what is happening at home when they are away.
I want to touch on the corporate covenant and then the community covenant. Engagement with the corporate covenant has increased. Seven hundred companies are now signed up, so the momentum is picking up, but that number is quite small in the scale of things. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also made that point, but engagement with the corporate covenant cannot be seen as tokenism either. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View was right to say that it must go beyond that and have real meaning.
In addition, all commercial companies that the Ministry of Defence procures from should be obliged to sign up to the corporate covenant under a mandatory social clause in MOD contracts. If a company is to gain from the MOD, it should also make a commitment to the services through the corporate covenant. I have been given examples of companies employing people working on MOD contracts that have not served reservists well on their return to the company. I would like the Minister to look at that. We believe a social clause would strengthen relationships and understanding of service personnel and bring greater synergy between service-provision companies and the armed forces. We think it should be extended to subcontractors, too.
The community covenant has received support from all local authorities, although I note the exception in Northern Ireland and hope for progress there. The vague nature of the relationship needs to be developed. I note the review due in March, which will be vital to assess the covenant’s effectiveness. On top of that, sharing best practice among local authorities and promoting greater dialogue between them could place the covenant on a stronger footing. That is what we want to see, so that a real community of people oversee the covenant in the future.
The report emphasises the work that the Government have done with veterans who end up in the criminal justice system. It highlights how the needs of veterans appear to be akin to those of the general population, yet we know that the exposure to trauma and other trigger factors can be significantly different. We would therefore like services for veterans to be more proactive in supporting vulnerable veterans who have additional needs by providing for relevant early interventions to assist with managing the challenges in their lives, whether those are mental health issues, substance and alcohol-related issues, or issues relating to their conduct and behaviour.
That point also holds true for conduct within the family home. Many who serve in the armed forces can experience or be at risk of experiencing challenges in their relationships, and tragically that leads on occasions to domestic incidents. Instead of taking a reactive approach to such incidents, a proactive support mechanism could benefit families and would enable greater recognition of the risks that can arise and more support to be provided at an early stage.
Finally, I want to turn to advocacy. While we very much welcome the increased role of the armed forces ombudsman—that is really important—we know that many still do not raise concerns that occur as a result of their duty. I would therefore like to know how the Minister sees the advocacy framework developing in the future. We have heard clearly from the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and for Tonbridge and Malling about the changing nature of the challenges facing service personnel after their duty. It is therefore important to understand the advocacy support available to individuals now and in the future to take forward issues, from a first instance of bullying through to serious accusations about the situations they have dealt with in combat.
To conclude, I have raised a number of issues to help take the covenant forward, but there has not been time to raise everything today. This has been an excellent debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. Following the example set by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), I remind the House, as I occasionally do, of my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), for Tonbridge and Malling and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on securing this debate to discuss the armed forces covenant annual report 2015. I thank hon. Members for the valuable contributions made, to which I shall return shortly. Some hon. Members raised constituency casework and I simply ask them to write to me on that, as I will then deal with those cases rather than attempt to deal with them in the debate.
I am sure I am on safe ground when I say that we all agree that we owe a debt of gratitude and a moral obligation to all members of the armed forces, wherever they are in the United Kingdom, both past and present. It is for that reason that in 2011 the Government enshrined its commitment to the armed forces covenant in law. With that came the commitment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the then Defence Secretary, to report annually to Parliament about progress on upholding the covenant principles. As we have heard, the armed forces covenant has two main principles.
Mr James Gray
Before we move off the annual report, is there not an argument that the Government should hold this debate annually to highlight good work done and analyse whether the armed forces covenant has been adhered to?
Mark Lancaster
There probably is an argument for that, but my hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that the previous Government made the proactive move to change the nature and structure of debates in this place by allowing much greater flexibly for Back Benchers to dictate what should be discussed. However, in so doing, that equally restricted the amount of time for the Government to deliver their business. It is therefore down to the will of Parliament to have such debates and today is a fine example of that genuine need and will. Therefore, on balance I am fairly content with the situation, because that Government gave Back Benchers greater flexibility, which is something that previous Governments did not. That is my view—I hope that is clear.
The principles are: the armed forces community should not face disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and bereaved. The armed forces covenant annual report 2015 is the definitive document of what we have done to uphold those principles and is the fourth such report. It sets out what we have achieved, but it is also an opportunity to explain our priorities for the coming year. Let me be clear that it is certainly not an opportunity for us to rest on our laurels; it is an annual report of the continuing efforts to strive to improve on the military covenant. I view it simply as a starting point for further progress.
I will say a few words on contributions to the report and the implementation of the covenant. Delivering the covenant is a national responsibility involving the whole of Government, local authorities, industry, service charities and of course the public, who provide vital support and recognition for our armed forces. It is only right that I pay tribute to the representatives from all of those groups who have helped meet the commitments in the armed forces covenant in the last year. I genuinely thank them all. However, I would particularly like to recognise and thank those charities who work so tirelessly in support of our armed forces. Their efforts are indicative of the whole nation’s support for our armed forces community.
Our priority this year was to tackle the areas where the armed forces felt most disadvantaged: family healthcare; children’s education; spousal employment; housing and local services; and commercial support. The report sets out the measures we have taken to address concerns in those areas.
A common theme in contributions and perhaps that which hon. Members focused on the most was the relationship with the national health service and access to healthcare. Indeed, I will happily say that that is the area on which I have spent most of my time. I am delighted to say that I now meet the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), on at least a quarterly basis to discuss areas where we can work together on that. Of course, the national health service in England and in the devolved parts of the UK is responsible for delivering healthcare to veterans, but equally the MOD has a duty to engage constantly.
To some extent we are asking whether we have proper buy-in. I think that we do, certainly to the extent that we have managed to embed the covenant’s principles into the NHS’s constitution in England. That positive step will hopefully ensure that veterans and their families are not disadvantaged in accessing health services where they live. It remains the case that veterans should receive priority treatment, subject to the clinical needs of others, relating to a condition resulting from their service in the armed forces. I can only say again that if any hon. Member has evidence that that is not happening, I encourage them to get in contact, because I would like to hear from them.
A couple of other issues relating to health were raised. With regards to osseointegration, I am pleased that through close collaboration with Blesma we have now moved to establish a pathway for veterans who can now go back to Headley Court. That is a positive step and I look forward to seeing how that develops over the coming months and years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who opened the debate, referred to updating electronic records. While I am pleased that since, I think, 2013 the armed forces have had an electronic record system, we are seeking to upgrade that system to allow an easier transfer of those records to the national health service. As part of that process, veterans will effectively be flagged so that they are easily identifiable. I cannot give her an exact timetable as to when that work will be complete—we all understand that Governments have faced challenges in the past on electronic systems—but I understand that work is progressing well, so I hope that we will not have to wait too long for that.
Equally, mental health was raised by several hon. Members. That is an area of particular interest to me: the first charity I visited when I became the Veterans Minister was Combat Stress. While there is some debate, there does not seem to be any particular evidence that veterans or members of the armed forces suffer a higher rate of mental health problems than the general population. However, we recognise that that is an issue and, where mental health problems do occur, I am determined that the highest standard of support should be made available. Indeed, it is.
To that end, I am delighted that we have implemented every recommendation of the “Fighting Fit” report, written by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). In addition, more than £13 million from LIBOR funds has been awarded to programmes supporting mental health in the armed forces community. That is an area I intend to continue to focus on and on which I would like progress to continue to be made, because I recognise its importance for colleagues across the House.
On children’s education, we have amended the school admissions code to prioritise service children and service families, so that they can now apply for and be allocated school places before they move to the area. That positive step is helping to reduce the effect of short-notice deployments on children’s education.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised the issue of spousal employment. She will be delighted to hear that we have launched a two-year trial to give service spouses additional employment training and support. Indeed, I visited one such trial in Cyprus recently and was very impressed. There are now also dedicated armed forces champions in every jobcentre region.
On commercial disadvantage, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, he was slightly dismissive of our recent progress in getting the four main mobile phone providers to agree that service personnel and their families can pause their contracts when posted overseas. I was very much involved in the process to get that agreement, and it did not seem like a minor step. I am delighted that we are now in this position and can only thank the providers for their support. These small steps, when taken slowly and added together, provide the progress we all need. I know it does not simply stop here; we need to continue to improve the support we offer, and I am determined to do so.
The annual report includes unedited comments from key representatives of the armed forces charities sector and the three service families federations, which I meet on a regular basis; I enjoy that, and it is a valuable experience. That ensures the report is accurate and gives a clear indication of where those groups think further action is required. Ministerial colleagues are due to meet with representatives from those groups next week, to discuss their feedback. This is a cross-government effort.
I have listened intently to the points raised today and hope to demonstrate to colleagues that their points will be taken into consideration as we move forward. To that end, I would like to update Members on our priorities for next year. Improving delivery of the community covenant will be key. While I do not favour legislative targets, we have committed to review delivery in order to identify best practice and robustly promote that across local authorities.
Recognising the importance of independence in the review, we are collaborating closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Local Government Association and the charitable sector to meet our shared objectives. I addressed local authorities at the community covenant conference in November, and I will continue to work with the chair of the LGA, Lord Porter, to ensure that local authorities understand their covenant commitments and are committed to improving the support they offer their local armed forces community. Equally, as Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities in our constituencies are doing their bit.
To respond to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who is no longer in her place, I understand that many local authorities publish their reports online and help to share their best practice. I certainly encourage all local authorities to do that. I intend to speak at next year’s LGA conference in order to do just that and to raise many of the points that Members have raised today.
I will move on to Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) looked up when I said that. I was impressed by and enjoyed listening to his very moving speech. Delivery of the covenant extends, of course, to the whole of the United Kingdom. The annual report includes input from the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important that we continue to work together to ensure there is universal support for the armed forces wherever they work and live, and that must extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have listened to the concerns regarding delivery of the covenant in Northern Ireland. I was delighted that two local authorities in Northern Ireland signed a community covenant last year. That is clearly a big step forward, but we need to ensure that support extends across the region. In 2013, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs assessed that over 93% of covenant measures applied in Northern Ireland. It is sensible that in 2016 we update our assessment of how the covenant is being delivered in Northern Ireland and look at the areas where we could do more. That will be a priority. However, I do not believe Northern Ireland should be treated any differently to Scotland, Wales and England; our focus must be on improving delivery for all. To that end, I intend to visit Northern Ireland shortly to see what more I can do.
I have regular meetings and discussions with the hon. Member for South Antrim, who is a dear friend, colleague and veteran—I was going to say he is a fellow veteran, but I am still serving—of service in the Province. I am equally pleased to see on the Order Paper the Armed Forces Covenant (Implementation) (United Kingdom) Bill—the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling—which highlights that we need to make progress on the application of the covenant in Northern Ireland.
I am pleased that there are now 785 corporate covenant signatories. Next week, the Defence Secretary will present awards to 16 employee recognition scheme gold award winners, recognising the very best support for our armed forces. We will continue to tackle the key areas of commercial disadvantage and look at how the finance and insurance sector can do more to support the armed forces community and tackle the effects of overseas postings. I expect to announce new commitments later this month.
We must also continue to build on our work to support employment opportunities for reserves, veterans and spouses. The MOD has set up a relationship management team to engage with employers, which has not only encouraged an increase in the rate of new signings but, crucially, enabled us to work with existing signatories to deepen and enhance their pledges.
I hear the call from the hon. Member for York Central to look at effectively forcing, through contracts, companies that deal with the MOD to sign up to the corporate covenant or, indeed, to employ reservists. I am happy to be corrected, but I fear she may be unintentionally making an argument for leaving the EU, because I believe what she calls for is not possible under European procurement rules. I am happy to check that.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Gray Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brazier
I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman asks for about RAF Leuchars, but if he waits until half-past 3, he should hear some excellent news for Scotland.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
There can be no question but that the retreating ice provides significant commercial opportunities, and that will lead to military stresses if we do not handle it correctly. The UK has a fantastic offer—namely, the Royal Marines who are trained in the Arctic; I have seen their work—so can we expand that capability? Secondly, we have not used under-ice submarines for a number of years. We have that capability so is it time that once again we used our submarines to operate under the Arctic ice?
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but he will have to wait until half-past 3 for confirmation of the future of our amphibious capability. I take on board his point about under-ice submarines, and I will write to him about that.
Armed Forces Bill
James Gray Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to her new role; I look forward to working constructively with her and her colleagues in the coming weeks and months. On behalf of the Scottish National party, may I also express our deep sadness at the loss of Flight Lieutenant Alan Scott and Flight Lieutenant Geraint Roberts? We, too, extend our most sincere condolences to their families and friends on the tragic loss of such highly regarded servicemen.
It goes without saying that we support the renewal of the Armed Forces Acts that enable our dedicated and professional service personnel to defend and protect the people and the interests of all four constituent parts of this United Kingdom. We will fully engage with the Bill as it progresses through Committee.
Let me put on the record at the first opportunity to do so since coming to this place that we wish to highlight some serious concerns about the current state of the armed forces, particularly pertaining to Scotland. It is an inescapable fact that since the last Armed Forces Bill came before this place, a record number of servicemen and women have been betrayed by a Government who have overseen historic levels of cuts to the number of service personnel and the military footprint in Scotland. Year on year, we have had to endure cuts to the number of people serving in our armed forces. The Scottish Government’s employment figures show a 9.5% drop in the number of people employed in the armed forces in Scotland. That is a staggering 2,800 jobs lost in just five years. It is a matter not just of military personnel but of Scotland’s military footprint.
Since the strategic defence and security review of 2010, we have lost two of our three air bases—Leuchars and Kinloss—and we have had to witness an act of gross military vandalism when the Nimrods, the nation’s strategically vital maritime patrol aircraft, were chopped into pieces and sent for scrap. Given the United Kingdom’s geographic position in the north Atlantic, not having maritime patrol aircraft is quite remarkable, but for the United Kingdom to have had MPAs and then to have had them chopped into pieces and scrapped simply beggars belief.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Many of us in the House would agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and we opposed many of these sad cuts, which were necessary for the nation to break even. Will he enlighten the House? If the outcome of last year’s referendum had been different and we now had an independent Scotland, would he guarantee that the pre-cuts strength that he decries that we have lost would be replaced by the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government? Also, how many jobs would be lost if Trident were to be removed from Scotland?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
If ever there was a Bill that underlined the need for a written constitution, this would probably be it. When a constituent asks me what I do when I am down here, I do not think they would be happy to hear that we spend valuable legislative time renewing a Bill that was first put before the House in 1688. That shows that this country’s relationship with its armed forces personnel is outdated. The Glorious Revolution brought us this tradition.
Mr James Gray
I am astonished by that comment. The hon. Gentleman says he resents spending his time renewing this Act, but he completely misunderstands the point. The whole point is that it is this Parliament’s right and duty once every Parliament to renew our relationship with the armed forces. If, by a written constitution or some other means, that did not happen, our rights and duties in this place would be severely reduced.
Douglas Chapman
My point is that if there were a written constitution we probably would not have to go through this process each time and our business might be better understood by the general public, who are sometimes at a loss to understand some of the intricacies of the ways of the House.
The tradition we have in Scotland of contributing more economically and in manpower to the armed forces than we receive in return is a different tradition. I thought that the rules now were that we pool our resources and fairly share the spoils of the UK. However, in terms of defence spending, Scotland continues to pool our resources, tax base and manpower, but much more of the investment is sucked elsewhere. That must change.
We look forward to the Bill being debated and scrutinised in Committee. It must be considered within the context of resources, where the service personnel are deployed and how that impacts on the families of service personnel and veterans. There is massive underinvestment in conventional defence forces in Scotland, which is both unfair and dangerous. The Ministry of Defence used to keep records of investments made in Scotland but mysteriously stopped, apparently when it became clear that questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) were decidedly inconvenient to the idea of Scotland being “better together”.
Other Members have mentioned their constituencies and how investment is affecting work practices there. However, in Scotland we must also recognise that the 2010 defence review brought an end to many of our historical regiments, and that had an impact on both recruitment and morale. We have lost two of our three air bases with the third, Lossiemouth, yet to receive adequate assurances that it will outlast the Tornado. We are a maritime nation with a coastline about as long as that of India, yet we are without a maritime patrol capability. There is not one serious ocean-going surface-based ship in a country which built some of the best ships in the world at places such as Scotstoun, Govan or Rosyth in my constituency.
I do not want to spend much more time discussing the Bill as we will be scrutinising it in Committee. We welcome the progress that has been made so far, and we will continue to consider how it and other Bills will affect defence investment in Scotland.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to follow the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). I should like to reflect on the events of a century ago and put on record some of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. War memorials in Scotland record many lives lost at the battle of Loos, which raged briefly in September 1915. The newly built war memorial funded by the people of Neilston, in my constituency, remembers the sacrifice of soldiers from the village and the surrounding areas who were killed in world war one, a number of whom were lost at Loos. I grew up in Carnoustie, a town that prides itself on two men who were awarded the Victoria Cross. Lance Corporal Jarvis of the Royal Engineers was the first recipient of the Victoria Cross in the first world war. He risked his life for over an hour under enemy fire to destroy a bridge to protect retreating colleagues. Petty Officer Samson of the Royal Navy Reserve gained his Victoria Cross for tending the wounded on the beach at Gallipoli.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has said, we support the Bill. I also echo the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), in saying that we look forward to debating the detail of the Bill in Committee, to ensure that it will be the best and most effective that it can be.
It is worth recalling that the backdrop to recent legislation in this area has sometimes been the fraught relationship between the Government and the armed forces in regard to issues such as Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, senior officers were forced to go public in an effort, as they saw it, to protect those under their command. The current members of our armed forces are entitled to ask that we learn lessons, when they are there to be learned, and that we do not repeat any mistakes that might have been made.
We also need to look at how best to support those who have been involved in wars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute said, the Scottish National party’s manifesto made a commitment to the creation of a British armed forces federation. I was encouraged by the positive words from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on that subject. This would represent real progress in the way we deal with our responsibility to undertake our duty of care to our service personnel. We absolutely must use the opportunity that we will have in Committee to continue to modernise the governance of our armed forces and to consider properly how we treat those who enter the services. In so doing, it is particularly important that we understand and act on our responsibilities to those who suffer as a consequence of their service, and to their families—for instance in relation to their housing needs. The Scottish Government’s funding for supported housing in Cranhill is very welcome in that regard.
It was positive to hear the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions on the care that the forces medical services provide so well. It was also useful to participate in yesterday’s Adjournment debate on veterans mental health provision, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). There is clearly a will in this House to properly and effectively consider the mental health of our service personnel during and, importantly, after their service. We need to work together to ensure that the provisions of the Bill reflect that good will towards our armed forces.
We must commit to doing more work like the intensive post-traumatic stress disorder treatment programmes that NHS Scotland and Combat Stress are undertaking. Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, I have been fortunate to meet a number of organisations dealing with veterans over the last few months. It is striking how much of a support network is provided by charities such as the Coming Home Centre, Horseback UK and Scottish War Blinded. The work that they and others do to support our armed forces and our veterans is immense and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
I am pleased that Scotland is leading the way with the appointment of a Scottish veterans commissioner. That appointment is most encouraging, and it reinforces the Scottish Government’s commitment to providing support to the 400,000-plus ex-servicemen and women living in Scotland and to the capacity-building funding they are providing to Veterans Scotland to allow the organisation to work on developing and improving support for our veterans over the next two years.
Let me briefly mention my own constituency. I was heartened by the focus on the veterans in East Renfrewshire as well as in neighbouring Inverclyde. Our local authorities are working together in Renfrewshire on a veterans support service, which provides local support to address individual circumstances.
Veterans and our current serving personnel will rightly expect this House to use the opportunity of this Armed Forces Bill to examine all the issues, including the creation of a federation, the extension of veterans’ initiatives and how we continue with issues relating to the gathering and use of data, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford.
Mr James Gray
I strongly agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said in regard to veterans, mental health and a number of other things. However, I am a little unclear as to which part of the Bill she thinks can be amended to take account of the things that she proposes? For example, where will she get this proposed armed forces federation into this particular Bill?
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his positive words. As I mentioned earlier, there are important discussions around these areas that we must bring forward in Committee.
In conclusion, let us be ambitious for our armed services, our veterans and this important Bill. Let us work in Committee positively to improve the Bill, to probe and to debate so that we make real positive progress for our armed forces and veterans.
Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy
James Gray Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fallon
Support is going to the Syrian Kurds, but it is also important, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would recognise, to continue to try to identify moderate elements further south in Syria who are prepared to take the fight to ISIL. He is right that those who come forward for training have to be properly vetted. We are part of the overall American organisation of the programme. We must have confidence that, once trained, these people will be prepared to re-enter the fight when they return to Syria. That is why the numbers have been relatively small. However, we are at the beginning of the programme, and we expect and hope that the numbers will build up.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Were it not for the coalition’s efforts, with our support, there is no question but that Iraq, including Kurdistan, would have fallen by now and that there would be a significant threat to the west as a result. Will the Secretary of State comment on something that he missed out from his statement? We have done great work supporting the peshmerga, who are the one people who have done fantastic work holding ISIS back. They are asking for more support through training on the ground and more heavy weapons. What consideration has been given to providing that support to these brave people?
Michael Fallon
The peshmerga have fought extremely bravely and have had some success in pushing ISIL out of Kurdish areas. I have welcomed the training and equipment that we have been able to supply to them. However, it is also important to assist the Government of Iraq by supplying training and equipment to the Iraqi army outside the Kurdish areas. That is where our new effort, which involves stepping up our counter-IED training, will largely be concentrated.