Service Accommodation
Judith Cummins Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Defence Committee. Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches.
I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Government Minister, but Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I plan to finish the Select Committee statement after 20 minutes.
Mr Dhesi
I welcome the Minister’s comments and, indeed, we will be supporting and scrutinising the work of Government. We look forward to working with the Armed Forces Commissioner as and when they are appointed. As I intimated earlier, Tuesday’s announcement is very welcome, but there is a great deal of work for the Minister and his colleagues to do. The proof will be in the planning and the delivery.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats fully support the findings of the report and we hope it will mark the beginning of a much better and fairer deal for armed forces personnel. For too long, they have been failed by successive Governments. Does the Chair agree that this is a long-overdue change, welcomed by our party and across the House? Our service personnel, who at times put their lives on the line for this country, should at the very least expect to have a warm, safe and secure place to call home. Does he also agree that the backlog and repairs to the basic services he has highlighted are unacceptable and should not be allowed to recur in future?
Mr Dhesi
I concur fully with my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Given his vast experience of having served in our armed forces, his contribution as a member of the Committee will be substantial, and I know he will bring that experience to bear as we look forward to remediating things. He is correct that service accommodation is the foundation on which we must ensure that our servicepeople have the very best facilities that we as a nation can offer.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
For the record, I declare an interest: I participated in the inquiry while serving on the Committee in the previous Parliament. I thank the Committee Chairman for kindly pointing that out. Also for the record, we welcome the Annington decision, partly because we had done a lot of work on that prior to the election. I thank the Minister for playing fair on that.
Now that we have hopefully resolved the issue of the ownership of the estate, there is still the question of its management. Changing the ownership does not fix the boiler. Will the Chairman of the Committee be pleased to hear that, in the same bipartisan spirit, we are happy to work with the Department and Ministers to see if we can provide proposals for improving the management of the estate now that, hopefully, we have resolved the ownership question?
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members, speaks with a great deal of experience having lived in service accommodation. When I had the honour recently to visit Catterick, I was able to see for myself some of the service accommodation. We do need to ensure that people are held to account. I have no doubt that the Government will put pressure on those management companies to ensure that compensation commensurate with what people have suffered should be forthcoming.
LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am grateful for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State today, although its arrival is almost as late as my own arrival in the Chamber this afternoon, for which I apologise.
The ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces until 2000 was a failure of the state; the delay in announcing reparations is another failure, which is in danger of eroding the public’s faith in politics to deliver for people. I see no point in in blaming the previous Government. In fact, I commend the work of the previous Government and of Lord Etherton, and of our own Government in bringing forward this scheme so swiftly. However, just as we saw with the Hillsborough scandal, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, we must move more quickly to compensate people. I concur with the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who emphasised that the scheme must be delivered swiftly and in a measured way. A long delay simply prolongs the agony of the many veterans who have waited decades for an apology and for the formal financial reparations announced today.
I have a constituent, Janice MacIver, who served in the British Army and was caught up in this dark period of our history in the 1990s, some 30 years ago. From 1992 to 1994, Ms MacIver served with the Army Intelligence Corps in Hong Kong and England. There was nothing wrong with her work or her service to the country, but, on 30 June 1994, she was unceremoniously and dreadfully kicked out of the British Army and sent back from Hong Kong simply because of who she was.
Many veterans affected by this scandal have lost their homes, health and peace of mind because of the awful treatment meted out to them. Ms MacIver is a resilient individual, as islanders tend to be, and she managed to get herself back on her feet. She served her country in another way, as a police officer, with a career of public service spanning two decades. However, as we have heard today, some people never made it that far.
What was done to Janice MacIver happened 30 years ago, but she was one of the first over the threshold of my Stornoway constituency office when I was elected. What happened to her still stings, still hurts. She did get a letter of apology from the head of the Army, which she appreciates, and a new beret, and the Intelligence Corps are to welcome her back to base in a ceremony next month. It is fantastic that Janice’s sister is flying from Australia to be with her and support her at that event.
The new levels of compensation are very welcome, but for Janice and many other veterans, it is not just about the money; it is about having proper acknowledgment and acceptance that what was done to her—the way she was treated by her country after serving her country—was wrong. This announcement, I hope, will go some way to repairing the damage done. I hope that with this, that sad episode will be done and dusted, but it ought to be recorded and acknowledged in Army records and museums. It belongs in the past.
What happened to Janice and to thousands of other veterans was wrong, which is so evident. It is widely acknowledged, and it is a shame it has taken so many years to put it right. However, I am glad of today’s announcement, and hope that LGBT service personnel and veterans can now say, finally, that they have served with pride.
Defence Programmes Developments
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on defence programmes developments.
I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.
This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence. We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed defence as a priority sector as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life. Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better defended.
We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.
However, as I have told the House since taking office, the problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans, taxpayers’ funds being wasted, and military morale down to record lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.
First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government’s plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future. That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and investing in people and future technologies.
Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence.
Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions. They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks, some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than 50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and flown in them during their deployments around the world. They have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work is done, and we must now look to the future. All current personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,
“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required”.
Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.
These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to work with me on this.
Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters, operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be central in prioritising investment and spending between the services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.
Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention; targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight, but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20 years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new £30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service. It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January, we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a year for three years—12,000 troops in total.
I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure abroad.
John Healey
That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the plan “misleading”.
I readily pay tribute to Ben Wallace as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked not about defence reform, but about the decision that Ben Wallace rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine, so that we led the field and made sure that other countries followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the retention incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need. Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review. As I said in my statement, I made today’s decisions in consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight. There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and technologies.
The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit. I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future. These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must, learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for the future.
John Healey
As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I declare an interest in that my nephew is an aircraft engineer with the Royal Air Force, so I shall not be commenting on the retention payment, much as it sounds very handsome.
I welcome the emphasis in the statement on defence people. A legacy of the last Conservative Government was that there was not enough emphasis on retaining brilliant people in the armed forces. With Grant Shapps, we saw a Defence Secretary who was fascinated by technology—he came to the House and made a statement about DragonFire—but missed the very important things that were slipping down the list, such as the platforms that we hear today are being decommissioned. So I welcome the pay rise for personnel, and I particularly welcome the retention payment for Army personnel who have served for more than four years, given that the legacy of Capita is an appalling one.
However, there are some alarming gaps. The new Chinook heavy-lift helicopters not coming in till 2027 leaves a very substantial gap of three years in relation to the 14 Chinooks. The new medium helicopter contract is not due to be awarded till next year. I question when the contract for the new medium helicopter will be introduced—perhaps not until the beginning of the next decade. The multi-role support ships are not due to come into service until 2033. I am alarmed at what that may do for the ability of the Royal Marines to operate in the littoral. I question that the statement said there was full backing from our service chiefs. Of course, there was: they have to salute, turn to the right and carry on. What was lacking was a statement about this being done in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. Was this statement given their full backing?
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.
With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?
On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken. The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 18th November 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I am grateful to the Select Committee’s Chair for intervening on this point. The legislation and what I propose reflects the current arrangements and practices in Parliament. I am keen that the Committee exercises the toughest pre-appointment scrutiny—we need to appoint somebody who can do the job as a fearless, independent champion—and I will certainly listen closely to and take close note of the Committee’s views in any pre-appointment hearing.
The Bill also provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Of course, the ombudsman’s role is too narrow: it is entirely reactive, it can consider formal individual grievances only after the service complaints system has been completed, and then it can judge only whether that process has been reasonable. I expect that the Armed Forces Commissioner will challenge us to do better in the service complaints system and widely across service life. I expect that the commissioner will develop strong views on improving the service complaints system, and I believe that the future Armed Forces Bill will offer us the right opportunity for that, should primary legislation be required.
This is landmark legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with the mission to improve service life. There will be, for the first time, a champion for our armed forces; for the first time, a champion for forces families; and for the first time, a champion with serious powers to access every part of service life, who will report in public to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent point. I pay tribute to those sorts of schools and how they share in society’s commitment to our armed forces. It has been Labour policy since the 2017 general election—seven and a half years ago—to introduce VAT on school fees. Families who have personnel serving abroad this Christmas will have just December to deal with whatever those new fees mean for them. That is a shockingly short amount of notice.
On pay, we agree that those who serve their country must be appropriately rewarded, which is why in 2023 we announced a core armed forces pay rise of 5%, plus a further consolidated increase of £1,000, equating to a rise of approximately 9.7% for the most junior ranks, and including a freeze in food charges. Alongside pay, accommodation is an important part of the offer from the MOD. We all accept that much more needs to be done, and presumably that will form a key focus for the commissioner. I stand by what I said in the Remembrance debate: the problem is the underlying structural nature of so much of the accommodation in the defence estate. For that reason, as a Minister I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate—the long-term solution that I think the Veterans Minister referred to earlier. I hope the Government will take that work forward, but I appreciate that it is highly legally and commercially sensitive, and there is a limit to what they can say on that.
As for the short term, the lesson from our winter plan last year is that investment and a plan for the defence estate can still yield results. Early on as the Minister responsible for the estate, in 2023, I accepted that the previous winter we had let down service families, and with the backing of Ben Wallace and then Grant Shapps, we secured £400 million in the defence Command Paper refresh, and delivered a winter plan that saw thousands of homes treated for issues such as damp and mould. Complaints to contractors fell sharply between 2022 and winter 2023.
That brings me to the final critical point—funding. The new commissioner will almost certainly be assailed with accommodation cases, but any reports that he produces will inevitably form one conclusion: there is a need for more investment in the estate, at a time when there are many other competing priorities. The £400 million that we announced required us to make choices about spending, and to prioritise accommodation and the welfare of personnel over other pulls on funding. It is incredibly important that the Government commit to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible. The Secretary of State will inevitably say that the last time we reached 2.5% was in 2010. I could as easily say that the last time we reached 3% was in 1996. They were two points on a pathway of consistently falling spending since the cold war, because successive Governments believed, like many around the world, that we were in a more peaceful era. That is a statement of fact.
The point is that welfare in the military is about us as a nation and a Government saying to those who serve, “We have your back.” That is impossible without more funding, and that means setting a definitive date for getting to 2.5%. The Conservative party will always support the welfare of service personnel. That is why we will try to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We will not be dividing the House this evening.
Mr Dhesi
I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being a one-trick pony. He tempts me, but I would like to consider that point about veterans, reserve forces and so on in Committee and thereafter.
The German armed forces commissioner—the inspiration behind the Bill, as the Secretary of State highlighted—is entirely independent of the German Defence Ministry and armed forces, but that is not the case for the commissioner under the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint and be able to dismiss. The Secretary of State will fund the commissioner and agree their staffing arrangements—I am very grateful to the Minister for his briefing this morning at the Ministry of Defence, at which I was able to highlight some of my initial concerns—and the Secretary of State will be able to constrain the exercise of the commissioner’s powers on broad grounds of national security and personal safety. So when Ministers describe the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner as independent, they must surely mean something else. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain exactly what? And can he tell us why he has not decided to go further in ensuring the independence of the commissioner from his Department? Can he also explain how the commissioner’s resourcing requirements have been estimated, what the process would be if the commissioner asked for additional resources, and who would find out and how if the commissioner was denied resources they had requested?
The Bill arrives during a crisis in armed forces recruitment and retention, at a time when there are high levels of dissatisfaction with service life, and an unacceptable level of inappropriate behaviour in the armed forces. The Defence Committee will be delving into that in greater detail. The Bill cannot solve those challenges on its own. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly where the Bill sits within a coherent strategy and a set of broader measures, so that the House can consider the Bill in context.
Expectations of the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be high. They will need to be a strong character, with the best interests of the armed forces in mind. They will need to be prepared for questions and challenge, but also to understand, win support, and change hearts and minds. Their success will likely ultimately depend on the support and trust of the armed forces, including the chain of command. What kind of person do the Government imagine filling the role? How, if at all, will the key requirements of the role differ from those for the Service Complaints Ombudsman?
I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister, but he is a very capable individual and he has been taking copious notes. No doubt he will be able to answer all my questions in his speech. My Defence Committee colleagues and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention of allowing the Committee to conduct a non-binding pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the role. As the Secretary of State highlighted, that is in line with practice for the appointment of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The Defence Committee has always offered both support and scrutiny to the ombudsman, and we look forward to working closely with the new commissioner. They will, I hope, become a regular witness before the Committee. I hope that the Government will ensure the smoothest possible transition between the two roles.
Dave Doogan
Yes. What’s not to like? I am very happy to support that.
I have two questions that I hope the Minister will address in his summing up. Will the commissioner have the power to investigate the challenges faced by serving personnel within the nuclear enterprise, or will personnel in this service have to continue to suffer in secret?
Scotland, as usual, is out in front with our veterans commissioner, so what learnings will the UK commissioner for serving personnel be able to take from their Scottish counterpart? How does the Minister envisage the commissioners working together? Moreover, given that Wales and Northern Ireland also have veterans commissioners, and that the commissioner proposed by the Bill will not have responsibility for veterans across the United Kingdom, what is the timeframe for veterans in England to enjoy the same benefits as those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Remembrance and Veterans
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I will indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. On support services for veterans who need them, there is not just what the Government can help provide—including, on mental health, through Op Courage—but what is provided by a network of first-class local charities. If One Vision plays a part in that in his area of Cumbria, I certainly pay tribute to it.
There is a more profound reason for our concern to provide support for our veterans. We need to recognise that those on deployment in the armed forces must have the confidence to act decisively on behalf of the nation, and they can be motivated and have their confidence reinforced by how they see the nation supporting veterans back home. That is why we pledged in our manifesto in July to improve access to support for our veterans, including on mental health, employment and housing. It is why we have committed to putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. It is why, within three months of taking office, we have delivered on the commitment to make the veteran’s identity card an accepted form of voter ID, and why the Prime Minister, in his first conference speech, announced that veterans would be exempt from rules requiring a connection to the area from those seeking to access housing there.
At the heart of our national security will always be the men and women who serve this country. As we consider this debate, we have an opportunity to reflect on what we mean by remembrance and to recognise the immense contribution made to this country by our veterans, by serving members of the armed forces and by the families who support them.
Hundreds of thousands have answered the nation’s call and given their lives in doing so. We honour them, and we will remember them.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I rise today, in common with many other hon. Members, to express my immense gratitude and admiration for all our veterans of today and yesteryear. I also rise to speak from a different angle. I represent Slough, one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies, and I was the first turbaned Sikh to be elected to Parliament. I believe I have a specific duty to speak out for those who have often been relegated to the footnotes of history, but whose sacrifices must not be sidelined. It is more important than ever, particularly having seen our streets recently filled with far-right hatred, that remembrance is not exclusive. The contribution of all those who have sacrificed their lives must be remembered.
In particular, it cannot be ignored that both world wars could not have been won by British-born troops alone, without the contribution of soldiers born beyond our own borders. In world war one, approximately 2 million brave soldiers from Commonwealth countries laid down their lives to protect ours. Some 166 African servicemen were decorated in recognition of their valour. Troops from the British West Indies Regiment were awarded 81 medals and received 51 mentions in dispatches. More than 1.5 million people from what is modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh contributed to the war effort, forming a largely voluntary army of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and many other faiths. Indeed, today over 11% of our current forces are from ethnic minorities. If we fail properly to commemorate and celebrate the contribution of our armed forces whose roots lie in countries across the globe, we do our own history a huge disservice.
Coming from a strong military background myself— my great-grandfather lost a leg fighting in the first world war; my grandmother’s brother and other family members fought in the second world war—I feel immense pride in that shared history. It is staggering that despite making up just 2% of pre-partition British India, Sikhs formed 20% of the Indian Army. I am immensely proud of those who fought so valiantly and believe that such a contribution should be properly commemorated. That is why I serve as president of the National Sikh War Memorial Trust and have passionately campaigned for several years for a fitting memorial in central London to those Sikh soldiers, so that we may remember the tens of thousands of turbaned Sikhs who sacrificed their lives, and the more than 100,000 who were injured during both world wars. We must ensure that remembrance serves as a reminder to all that the freedoms we enjoy today were hard fought for by forces as diverse as modern-day Britain.
We cannot airbrush the past, despite the efforts of some right-wing commentators to do just that. In 2020, Kevin Maguire from The Mirror and I had to educate Laurence Fox on Sikh sacrifices during world war one, following his bigoted comments that the film “1917” was somehow “woke” or “racist” for its inclusion of Sikh soldiers. To his credit, Laurence Fox later apologised, after he had been hit with some hard facts, but that ignorance has rooted in much of the culture of remembrance and must be challenged.
Even today, forces who stood shoulder to shoulder with British troops struggle to get the recognition they deserve, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will rectify that. For example, Gurkha pensions are falling short of the Army standard; it took a fight to get certain visa fees scrapped for non-UK service personnel; and recent errors in the Afghan relocations and assistance policy have left Triples forces out in the cold. Pervasive racism caused a failure to treat 54,000 world war one casualties from India, west Africa, east Africa, Egypt and Somalia equally. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary campaigned effectively on that important matter, but there should not be another battle simply to get parity.
Those who served alongside British troops should be a beacon of hope for a collective pride that goes beyond borders, colour or background. Their commitment to our country meant they were willing to sacrifice everything for it. Those contributions should be celebrated, not sidelined. Their commitment in the darkest of times ensured our safety. Fundamentally, without the sacrifices and contributions of the millions of personnel across the globe, we would simply not have the privilege of sitting here today. They have ensured our collective freedom. We must never take for granted the hard-won freedoms to operate under a democracy, to live in a pluralist society and to be safe. It is simply not enough to be thankful. We must celebrate their service, honour their duty and always remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation. We will remember them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will now impose an immediate time limit of three minutes for Back-Bench speeches and six minutes for maiden speeches. I call Jodie Gosling to make her maiden speech.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
For me, remembrance is a deeply humbling time of the year and an opportunity to reflect upon the freedoms and privileges that we often take for granted in this country. Freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy are values for which our forefathers fought bravely. Each generation must make sacrifices to ensure that their children can live in freedom. We see that most clearly today in eastern Europe, where Ukraine fights to defend itself from the barbaric assault on its democracy by Putin’s Russia.
My South Northamptonshire constituency is filled with monuments to the heroes of the past, and I look forward this year to marking their sacrifice by attending the Towcester remembrance service at St Lawrence Church, the Brackley service at Winchester House school and the act of remembrance in Bozeat cemetery. I will also join the local branch of the Royal British Legion to sell poppies.
Since my election to this place, I have joined the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and have had the opportunity to see at first hand how crucial it is that we support our serving men and women properly. In a world where threats are rising, we should be investing more, not less, in our armed forces. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and I am disappointed that the Labour Government cannot make the same outright commitment. Our veterans are the very best of us and should be given the right support to transition out of active duty and into civilian life.
The previous Government put a Veterans Minister around the Cabinet table for the first time, tackled veteran homelessness through Operation Fortitude, created a dedicated veterans’ mental health pathway in Operation Courage, and introduced the veterans’ railcard.
If we are to honour the sacrifice of those who came before us, if we are to keep our promise to make the UK the best place to be a veteran, and if we are to ensure that the cause of freedom is defended around the world, we must fund our armed forces properly.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for her fantastic maiden speech? Like other Labour Members, I have Nuneaton seared into my memory because of its role in the 2015 general election. It is nice now to be able to think of such a fantastic speech when I think of Nuneaton.
I pay tribute to my predecessor as the MP for Chipping Barnet, Theresa Villiers, who served with much hard work and diligence over her 19 years of service. She was a hard-working Member of Parliament, and I hope to follow in her footsteps in that regard.
Just yesterday, I was with members of the East Barnet branch of the Royal British Legion, and I thought then, as we think now, of all those who have given their lives and livelihoods to service to keep our country safe.
Chipping Barnet is not, as some may assume, in the Cotswolds, which is home to Chipping Norton and Jeremy Clarkson’s farm—although we do have 14 farms in the constituency. We are, in fact, a suburb of London—part of the London borough of Barnet—and it is the suburbs that I would like to speak about today, for it is my contention that when a political party understands the suburbs, it is able then, and only then, to speak on behalf of, and govern for, the country as a whole.
Let me give the House a little history of Chipping Barnet. Back in the 1700s, a weary traveller trying to make their way northwards out of London, on the great north road, would find that the natural resting point for their first night’s stay would be Chipping Barnet, where no fewer than 25 public houses could put them up for the night. I will ensure that I continue supporting and patronising the pubs in Chipping Barnet during my time in office.
If we roll forward 200 years, we get to the extension of the Northern line to the constituency, joining us up with the city of London proper. With a relatively liberal planning system pre-1947, that connectivity enabled a surge of housebuilding, which Labour Members will think about, I am sure, when we seek to build and invest for the future. Chipping Barnet is home, as I said, to wonderful farms and green spaces, and many of us moved to Barnet because we value a house with a garden, room to raise the kids, and maybe even space to park the car out front—the aspirations of suburban life.
Let me say to people of faith in my constituency just how grateful I am for the warmth with which I have been received in churches, synagogues and mosques. In particular, I say to Jewish and Muslim residents that I will always stand with them against the antisemitism and Islamophobia that I know has been on the rise in recent months and over the past year.
It is important to do good work locally as a Member of Parliament, but it is my firm belief that we must raise our game in this House and nationally if we are to truly make a difference for our constituents. The need for change is great. Gone are the days when a child could grow up in a low-income family and on free school meals, just as I did, but with the security of a social security system that was there for them and genuinely affordable social housing. Representing the suburbs is just as much about standing up for the people who cannot afford to or do not commute into town as it is about representing those who do.
People’s aspiration for a better life for their families and communities is still there, but it is not being met. I am talking about the deal of suburban life: people who put in so much—spending their time stuck in traffic or on the Northern line, raising their kids to know right from wrong, and serving in their communities and working hard—expect in return that the Government will just get some things right by providing public services that are there when needed and ensuring that the economy is strong and growing. I saw that deal fall apart somewhat during my time as an economist before entering this House. I worked at the Treasury for a time, and then at the Resolution Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I saw that deal fall apart in charts and in numbers on spreadsheets, but since becoming a parliamentary candidate and then a Member of Parliament, I have heard at first hand from constituents in the suburbs about how that deal has fallen apart. I think of young people who cannot afford to move out of their parents’ homes and own or rent in the suburbs. I think of many residents who want to buy a new car but are scared that if they do, it will be stolen and the police will not follow up. Those everyday aspirations are not being met any more.
My work in this place—our work on the Labour Benches—will be to rebuild that deal of suburbia and ensure that those who put in so much get it back again. I say to residents of Chipping Barnet, whether they live in Brunswick Park, Whetstone, Totteridge, Mill Hill East, Arkley, Edgwarebury, Underhill or one of the many Barnets—High Barnet, East Barnet, New Barnet or Barnet Vale—that it is the honour of my life to serve and represent them. I will do all I can for our communities during my time in this place.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in this important debate about remembering the valiant actions of those who have fought to keep this country safe.
It is a privilege to rise as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Reigate, a constituency that I am proud to represent and serve. I am deeply grateful to the people of Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages for placing their trust in me.
Before I turn to an issue of great importance to my constituents, I must acknowledge my predecessor, Crispin Blunt, who is himself a veteran. I have not rushed to deliver my maiden speech, not least out of a desire to give careful thought to the words I choose. Ironically, it seems that Crispin faced a similar conundrum in 1997. In fact, I do not think I can do better than to quote from his own maiden speech:
“It must be admitted that Sir George Gardiner did not end his Conservative party career in a blaze of glory…Sir George was a resolute battler for the causes he believed in, and although many of us questioned his judgment at the end, no one could question the resolve with which he steered his chosen course.”—[Official Report, 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 857.]
My sincere hope is that when my successor rises to deliver their maiden speech, they are not inclined to give those words a third airing in this House.
That said, I would like to recognise Crispin Blunt’s 27 years of public service, and also pay tribute to his team. No MP achieves anything without a great team supporting them, and Crispin’s team served our communities with diligence and grace during many challenging times. I take this opportunity to thank them, especially Teresa Craig, who has gone above and beyond in the past 15 years to help many thousands of constituents. I also pay tribute to Lord Grayling, the former MP for Epsom and Ewell: thanks to recent boundary changes, I have welcomed the wards of Nork and Tattenham Corner and Preston into the Reigate constituency. Chris was an exceptional local MP, and I thank him for all his support.
Let me now turn to a subject close to my heart: my wonderful home. Reigate is a constituency that encapsulates the very best of both town and country—a trinity of towns in the most beautiful part of Surrey, each with its own unique character and identity. We have the historic town of Reigate, with its winding streets, independent shops and proud heritage. It is a place of immense charm and community spirit, and notably is the location of the first road tunnel built in England; it is the birthplace of Margot Fonteyn, one of the greatest classical ballerinas of all time, and is also the place where both our current Prime Minister and Fatboy Slim were educated. Just north of the town stands Reigate fort, a Victorian structure intended to serve as a last line of defence in the event that the south had fallen and defeat seemed certain—a role not unlike that which Reigate played in the recent general election.
Then there is Redhill, a railway town that pulses with energy and ambition—a transport hub and a centre for business, commerce and the arts. It is home to an inspirational Lioness and some Lobsters. As the place where the existence of solar flares was first confirmed, Redhill shines bright as a vivacious younger sister to Reigate. Finally, we have Banstead, which offers a quieter appeal with its village feel and beautiful commons. Its bustling high street is adorned with gorgeous flowers that are lovingly tended by local residents. It is a community whose respectful patriotism is keenly felt, especially at this time of year. I must take this opportunity to recognise and thank the Banstead and District Royal British Legion branch, whose members do an outstanding job paying tribute to, and raising money for, our armed forces and veterans.
Beyond our towns, we are blessed with many picturesque villages, each with its own charm. Disappointingly, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not enough time for me to tell you about all of them, so I will tell you about just one: Walton-on-the-Hill. With its serene pond, world-class golf and history of feisty suffragettes, it is the place I chose to settle and raise my family. Like a thief, Walton stole my heart, and I must thank the Prime Minister for giving it early release.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you to hear that the green belt is one of the reasons why the towns and villages of my constituency are so unique. We are incredibly fortunate to be surrounded by beautiful countryside, from the rolling hills of the north downs to the open green spaces of Banstead commons. This country needs more homes, so there now comes pressure to build on the green belt because it is easy, but that is the lazy solution. The new Government talk about developing brownfield first, which I very much support, but just saying the words is not enough. For building on those sites to become a reality, we need tangible action to make brownfield development economically viable. We also need to have an honest conversation about the impact of reducing housing targets in London while nearly doubling them in Reigate and Banstead. Even if by some miracle my local council could deliver on those targets, they would simply be building homes for people from London to move into, not meeting the local need and certainly not bringing down house prices. If we are to break the cycle, we must densify in cities, where essential infrastructure is already in place.
I hope this Labour Government will consider tackling the issue of housing with the same spirit shown by the Labour Government elected in the final months of the second world war. Then as now, the country was in desperate need of more homes; Clement Attlee delivered 1 million of them, while insisting both on densification and ensuring that development was concentrated in cities and towns. Mr Attlee set out to build his new Jerusalem primarily as a fitting tribute to a generation of servicemen who fought, endured and suffered to keep this country safe from fascist tyranny. That heroic generation included Flight Lieutenant Douglas Adcock from Redhill, who flew ultra-high-risk missions for the Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron at RAF Benson. Tragically, though, Douglas never came home: on 11 August 1944, his aircraft failed to return from one of those missions. Some days later, his body washed up on the shore in Belgium, where he is buried today.
A generation earlier, Lieutenant Rupert Hallowes, another Redhill man, answered the call to serve his country. He would go on to earn the Victoria Cross in the first world war; he died fighting at Hooge in 1915. Those are accounts of just two men, but memorials across my constituency bear the names of many hundreds more who left home to fight for their country and did not return. Ultimately, the debt we owe to the fallen can never be repaid, but we honour them, keeping the promise to never forget.
I will end on that note, but just before I do, I want to thank my parents, Bev and Steve, without whom I would not be here today. Today is a proud day for our family—one that we will remember.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In Huntingdon, one in nine households has a veteran in it. That astonishing figure illustrates the historical link between our armed forces and a constituency that still has RAF Wyton and two United States air force bases, RAF Alconbury and RAF Molesworth—legacy bases that can trace their history back to the second world war. I am hugely proud to represent such a vibrant veterans community.
My own service was as an infantry officer in the Royal Yorkshire Regiment. I served in the British Army during the most kinetic period of operations since the Korean war. Operation Herrick 11 in Afghanistan was a difficult tour. In Sangin, our battlegroup lost 30 soldiers; a further 170 were wounded. I remember being in the operations room when two new battle casualty replacements arrived on a resupply helicopter. I did not stop to have a brew, or help them settle in; my interaction with them both was fleeting—transactional. It was an everyday occurrence, and I thought little more about it.
A fortnight later, on Tuesday 15 December 2009, I was manning the operations room, and over the radio came an all-too-familiar message: “Contact IED. Wait. Out.” There follows a pause that lasts an eternity. You know somebody is now fighting for their life; they might already be dead. You know that you can do little other than stand up the quick reaction force and wait to find out how grave the situation is. A suicide bomber had ridden his motorbike into the checkpoint and detonated the bomb, instantly killing the two Afghan soldiers manning the checkpoint and fatally wounding two of our soldiers providing cover. I pressed our commander on the ground for an update. To my eternal regret, I was quite short with him, and continued to harry him for a sitrep. I did not know at the time that he was trying to give lifesaving first aid to one of those soldiers while under fire.
The medic that day tried valiantly to save both soldiers. Ignoring the bullets cutting the air around her, she calmly moved between each casualty, determined to do all she could to care for them. The weight of enemy fire increased. With flagrant disregard for her own safety, Bushbye nevertheless continued to move between the casualties, personally administering CPR to one of the soldiers. For her actions, Lance Corporal Sarah Bushbye was awarded the Military Cross.
Rifleman James Brown was 18 years old. He had arrived on that helicopter. He had been in Sangin for less than two weeks. Age shall not weary him, nor the years condemn. I have always promised to remember him, and to give him the opportunity to live on that he sadly never had. We have a duty in this House to consider the ramifications of committing our soldiers to operations. I do not recount this story to dissuade, but to put a human face on the price it costs. They were the best of us, and the very least we can do is remember them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a real honour to follow five cracking maiden speeches from the new hon. Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), who all did their constituents proud.
For so many of us in this Chamber this debate is personal. We have been lucky to hear from several Members about their own service. My connection to our armed forces is a family one: both my grandad and my uncle served in the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry, and their shared experiences remind me that behind every veteran is a story of sacrifice, resilience and courage, as well as the family and friends who support them and miss them while they are away. The loved ones of servicemen and women often bear the weight of anxiety and uncertainty, worrying for their safety and wellbeing. It is crucial that we honour their contributions, for they too endure hardships that are often overlooked.
I want to spend a moment to think about those whose names may not be etched into the stone of our war memorials, but whose legacies deserve to be remembered. One such figure is Romiley’s own Gertrude Powick. During the first world war, she dedicated herself to the war effort by volunteering with the Friends War Victims Relief Committee, working as a nurse on the frontlines in both France and Poland. Having travelled to Warsaw to treat a typhus outbreak, she contracted it herself and died in 1919. Gertrude was not just a care giver and a suffragist, but a trailblazer for women during wartime, and she is the only woman to be named on a war memorial in Stockport, on a plaque on the Heaton Moor memorial. Her work reminds us that heroism comes in many forms, and it is our duty to remember those like her who played a pivotal role in shaping our country’s history.
In my constituency of Hazel Grove, our community is taking many proactive steps to address the challenges faced by veterans. Nearly 3,000 veterans are estimated to be homeless in the UK at any given time, and a report from the Royal British Legion indicates that 42% of veterans are experiencing issues with their mental health—with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. We have brilliant groups in Hazel Grove such as the Armed Forces and Veterans Breakfast Club, obviously the Hazel Grove branch of the Royal British Legion, and Project Recce, which trains veterans in construction skills. We are also looking to turn Woodbank hall, a 200-year-old building that is falling into disrepair in Woodbank Memorial park, into a veterans centre, and I welcome any and all support from Ministers on the Front Bench to that end.
As we remember those who have served, let us commit ourselves not only to honouring their past sacrifices, but actively to improving their present circumstances, because a brighter future for our veterans and their families is possible—one that ensures they receive the respect, care and support they so richly deserve.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am a veteran, and it is great to be a veteran. I learned so much from my service in the military: I had so many great experiences, was proud to play my own small part in Afghanistan, and worked with some fantastic people. It is great to be a veteran. Serving is not all sunshine and roses, but I can recommend no better career for someone in their 20s than to join our military.
But with the joy of service can come sadness. My constituency has many diverse towns and villages—the ex-pit town of Clay Cross, Dronfield with its bustling heart, or Killamarsh with its proud Derbyshire spirit. But they all have one thing in common: at the heart of each of them is a war memorial with the names of those lost in conflicts over the previous 100 years. These names were all once living, breathing members of their community—much-loved brothers, sons, fathers, other relatives and friends—and it is them I think of when I wear the poppy.
There can be a lot of very clever discourse about the poppy, which is such a simple and humble flower. The fact is that the poppy appeal is a truly successful grassroots movement. The first poppy appeal saw over 9 million sold in its first year, all worn by ordinary men and women who came together because they had lost a loved one and wanted to remember them. Grainy black and white photographs from the 1920s show people standing in remembrance ceremonies in the cold and silent November air, their grief clear to see on their faces even in those more stoic times. The poppy truly spontaneously united millions of people in hope. Some may not bear to see that unity but it is something that still unites millions of people today.
I would like briefly to address a few points that have been raised. It is very important that we learn the lessons of the past 14 years, and that we understand who made the decisions regarding our armed forces and why those decisions were made. Who sold off our valuable military housing stock so cheaply to Annington? I believe it was the Conservatives. Who pulled our forces back from important bases in Germany even as Russia became active in Ukraine? Again, it was the Conservatives. Who wasted billions of pounds on procurement, and reduced the offer to serving personnel, leading to a haemorrhage in the numbers serving in our military? It was the Conservatives. Who oversaw the reduction of our military size to barely being able to field a brigade minus? It was the Conservatives. So, yes let us have accountability, but it starts with an iota of shame from the party opposite before they are allowed anywhere near our defence again. At least, however, some of them are here; I note that not every party has a representative present.
I would also like to add briefly in response that one tenet very close to my heart as a veteran is that the rule of law is of the highest importance—
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I would like to update the House on the ongoing review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including former members of Commando Force 333 and Afghan Task Force 444, commonly known as the Triples. These Afghans worked alongside UK armed forces in Afghanistan, fighting valiantly, with some dying alongside our troops. It is for this reason I know that former Triples have the support of veterans of the conflict and the British public, as well as Members on both sides of the House.
When we were in opposition, the Defence Secretary and I, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, as well as many sitting and former Members of the House—again, on a cross-party basis—advocated a review of decisions made on ARAP applications from the Triples. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and those former and sitting Members of Parliament. I am keenly aware that an update on the Triples review is long overdue, so I thank colleagues for their patience. Although the review, which should not have been necessary in the first place, has taken longer than initially intended, I can confirm today that key issues have been identified and resolved, and the Government are now making important progress, with eligible former Triples and their families now being invited to relocate to the UK.
The Triples review was announced by the previous Government on 1 February in response to my urgent question, after they accepted that inconsistencies existed in how decisions on ARAP applications from members of the Triples were being made. For clarity, officials are currently reviewing a cohort of ineligible decisions taken on applications that contain credible evidence of links to former Afghan specialist units and in which Ministry of Defence caseworkers previously referred cases to officers in other parts of the MOD, to other Departments and to governmental bodies under category 4 of the ARAP scheme, and which may have been affected by that inconsistent approach. The review is being carried out by staff who have not previously worked on those applications, including independent caseworkers. Approximately 2,000 such applications are within scope of the review, and I can report that more than three quarters have so far been reassessed.
The previous Government committed to conclude the review within 12 weeks of launch, which was at the end of March. The review should have reported before the general election, but clearly it did not. Given the perilous situation in which many former Triples still find themselves, that is a source of deep regret and concern for me that I know many Members will share. I have investigated the reasons for the delay, which include the emergence in Government archives of additional information that officials undertaking the review discovered and which required careful consideration.
The nature of the relationship between the UK Government and the Triples evolved over the almost 20 years of UK military involvement in Afghanistan. That has led to a complex set of historical records held by different Departments. It has taken time to piece that information together to give a fuller and more accurate picture. I am now able to provide a provisional update on what we have learned from the review. Officials have now confirmed that there is evidence of payments from the UK Government to members of Afghan specialist units, including CF333 and ATF444, and that, for some individuals, that demonstrates a direct employment relationship. That evidence goes beyond previously identified top-up payments and reimbursements for operational expenses, which do not in themselves demonstrate such an employment relationship. That, of course, runs contrary to the position reported to Parliament by the previous Government that no evidence of direct employment existed.
My officials have advised that some record analysis, which is to be carried out, should give us a more confident picture of the task at hand. I am satisfied, however, that what has come to light is sufficient to move forward with decision-making without delay under ARAP categories 1 and 2, as well as under category 4 where appropriate for the Triples. The review is still progressing, and each application is considered on its own merits, but given the information that is available at the moment, we are expecting an overturn rate of approximately 25%.
For the benefit of the House, those categories permit ARAP eligibility to persons including those who were directly employed in Afghanistan by a UK Government Department, or those who worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK Government Department—in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting that Department—and who are at risk because of that work. Like me, Members will be understandably anxious about the impact that the delay has had on the pace at which we can move to safety as many as possible of those who are eligible for relocation.
Many Members will have concerns for the welfare of former Triples who might be ARAP eligible and remain at risk. I share their deep frustrations, but I hope that it is of some comfort to colleagues across this House that if a decision is overturned as part of the review, applicants are informed immediately and the relocations process can then start. I have already begun signing eligible decisions to relocate eligible former Triples to the UK, which is why this statement is necessary. Furthermore, once they arrive in Pakistan and are confirmed as ARAP eligible, we can offer them protection from deportation back to Afghanistan thanks to the UK Government’s ongoing and constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan.
Confirming that we have found evidence of direct employment for some of the Triples cohort is the opposite of the previous Government’s position that no such direct employment existed. I would like to state that I have seen no evidence suggesting a conscious effort by the previous Administration or by any Minister to cause delay or indeed to mislead the House or the public on this matter. When Ministers in the previous Government provided statements to the House on the Triples, I believe that they did so in good faith, based upon the known information under consideration at that time. Record keeping in the context of a long multinational operation is notoriously challenging, but that is no excuse. It is of course critical that we understand how and why that error occurred.
A failure to access and share the right digital records and challenges with information flows across departmental lines have all led to this significant body of information being overlooked, with huge real-world implications. Where corporate memory failed, so did processes. As is all too often the case, it was those who needed help the most who suffered. I am clear that this sort of systems failure is not good enough. Under my direction, officials will now review and renew efforts to improve information flows and processes to ensure that this never happens again.
I do not consider there to be malicious intent in this case, but it is an example of the problems that dogged the Afghan resettlement scheme under the previous Government. The Triples review should not have been needed in the first place. It should not have taken this long, and the system in place at the time that the initial decisions were made should have been led with more competence and grip, to ensure that these mistakes were caught and managed more quickly.
It is with some relief that I, as part of this new Government and as someone who championed the case for the Triples when in Opposition, can assure Members that we have unblocked progress and that eligible former Triples and their families will now rightfully receive the sanctuary that their work in support of our troops in Afghanistan deserves. I am confident that we will be able to relocate those eligible to safety and so that they can start a new life here in the UK. I will keep pushing this work forward at pace so that we can close this chapter in our history, knowing that we did right by those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK armed forces in Afghanistan.
I recognise the strong sense of feeling and support across the House on this matter and on Afghan resettlement in general. The Defence Secretary and I will keep the House updated on our approach to Afghan resettlement. Given the seriousness with which we take the Triples review in the MOD, I aim to report to the House when the review is complete.
Luke Pollard
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the review and for the Triples in general. Those who served alongside our forces are owed a debt of gratitude by all those in the UK. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Triples and for the contribution they made in support of our mission to Afghanistan.
On the shadow Minister’s question, there is an ongoing application process for ARAP, where people can apply and their eligibility is checked. It is entirely possible that someone can qualify while still not having direct employment, but that is subject to the case-by-case process for the individual applicant. The review and the update I am presenting today does not mean that all Triples are eligible, nor does it mean that no Triples are eligible. It means that where a direct employment relationship has been established we will now take forward their applications, whereas previously those applications were refused.
We will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan. We are grateful for their work and support in facilitating the flow of eligible persons from Afghanistan to Pakistan and then onwards to the United Kingdom. It is important that we continue that flow, so people who are currently at risk from the Taliban—it is important that we stress that they are at risk because of the Taliban’s actions—have the ability to get to sanctuary. We are doing so at a reasonable pace to ensure that the entire flow can be delivered properly and sensibly.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for saying what he did on rebuilding lives. There is, I think, enormous support from all parties here for the Afghans who put their lives at risk to support our troops to be settled in the UK and to start a new life. I am grateful to Members from both sides of the House who have supported efforts in their own constituencies to do so. The new Government are working across government, with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. We will make further announcements when we can on transitional accommodation, to make sure the flow is appropriate through the United Kingdom. There will be some Members of Parliament who will have transitional accommodation in their constituencies. I am very happy to speak to them to ensure that the integration and flow is as smooth as possible.
I echo the words of the shadow Minister in relation to the appalling atrocities of the Taliban, not just in their attacks on the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, but in the way that they are pursuing, and in many cases deliberately attacking, those people who served alongside coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is the actions of the Taliban that put at risk those people who tried to rebuild their own country and work for a better Afghanistan alongside our troops. That is why the ARAP scheme is so important, and why it enjoys cross-party support and will continue to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister, who was a staunch advocate for the Triples when in opposition. We should never have needed the review, because those individuals bravely supported us when we needed their assistance for the betterment of Afghanistan. Can he advise whether a member of the Triples whose case was previously rejected under the ARAP scheme will be aware that their case is under review? How will the Department and the Government go about making contact with those individuals?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for ARAP and the Afghans involved. As part of the Afghan Triples review, 2,000 or so cases are under consideration. Where we discover that there has been a negative decision that should be overturned, we are contacting individuals immediately, but that does not mean that all Triples are eligible. Nor does it mean that everyone who served as part of the Afghan national army in support of its mission is eligible for relocation to the UK. Additional routes are available via the Home Office, but in the very particular case of the Triples, we aim to conclude the review at pace, contacting all those who we now deem to be eligible based on the new evidence we have found. There is still some work to be done and a number of the most complex cases are still to be delivered, so he will understand that I cannot put a timetable on when that review will complete. However, we have made sorting out the ARAP scheme one of our early priorities as a Department and we will continue to deliver the changes we need to make to ensure we can have confidence that all the decisions made in relation to the Triples are the right decisions.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The late Paddy Ashdown was one of the first to call on the UK Government to recognise that we have a moral obligation to support Afghan interpreters and others who supported us over a 20-year period by providing them with a route to resettlement in the UK. More than three years on from our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is troubling that those such as the Triples and their families are still waiting for their chance to come to the UK and to safety. Earlier this year, we welcomed the review of those cases, and we thank the Minister for his update today. These brave individuals put their lives on the line in support of our operations, and sadly many now face threats to their lives for that reason. We must get them out and to the UK as quickly as possible.
It was deeply alarming to hear the Minister’s revelations about a direct employment relationship. Tragically, during this period some of those brave Afghans have lost their lives; perhaps they would not have done so had this been uncovered more quickly. Can the Minister provide a figure for the number of Triples estimated to have been killed over the past three years? Given this new evidence, does he remain confident in the decision-making processes for other individuals whose ARAP applications were rejected? Does he or his Department plan to look at those again? Will he update us on what steps he is taking to ensure that these people are not only eligible for ARAP, but able to get to the UK safely? Has he spoken to his counterparts in the region to that end?
Will the Minister also look at the treatment of those who have come to the UK under the ARAP scheme, and will he consider widening the scope of the armed forces covenant to include those who came to our aid during our operations in Afghanistan?