Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

The 2023 armed forces satisfaction survey confirmed that half of personnel do not believe that their family benefit from being a service family. The impact of service life on family and personal life remains a top factor behind the intention to leave, so what does the Secretary of State propose to do to listen to forces families and implement policies to make a difference?

[Grant Shapps]

It is very important that our service personnel feel that they are not only honoured when they go to war but comfortable at home. One of the big things I am doing is pressing forward with the review of armed service accommodation, including by providing £400 million to improve that accommodation, which will make the lives of service personnel better at home.

Defence Command Paper Refresh

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I too thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of a draft statement, albeit that there were one or two additions on delivery. I also, perhaps pre-emptively, join in wishing him well in whatever comes next. Although I have not directly shadowed him, I certainly pass on those thoughts from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who has worked closely with him over a period now.

I will start on a positive note. I welcome a number of the points made. I very much welcome the fact that people are put front and centre. That is absolutely critical in anything we do in defence. People are what make it work, and if we are not supporting the men and women of the forces, what are we doing at all? There is probably that more we can do, even beyond this. While it will not surprise Ministers to hear me say that we need to support those serving, we also need to continue to look at what we are doing to support our veterans. I know that the Minister is working on that, but it is an area in which we need to try to do more.

I also welcome the recognition of some of the accommodation conditions. I welcome the fact that steps are being taken and matters looked at, but that needs to be moved forward at a greater pace.

I note that the Secretary of State says we are going to spend over £50 billion for the first time next year. I wonder whether he can tell us how much of that is simply down to inflation created by this Government. I am not trying to be awkward, but that is clearly quite a significant factor.

We have also heard of the ongoing and long-lasting issues around procurement, with reports showing that roughly £2 billion is wasted each year in failed equipment programmes and cancelled procurement contracts. Is the Ministry of Defence making the necessary reforms to make its procedures better, and will they deliver value for money?

Recruitment and retention issues have been flagged up; the Haythornthwaite review clearly highlighted those. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the steps being taken now on the skills agenda will be the necessary actions to address recruitment and retention issues?

Finally, the Haythornthwaite review highlighted cyber capability as a major issue. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the steps being taken and outlined today will do enough to deliver that capability in the way that we all want to see?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and grateful for his party’s support on Ukraine.

On the Haythornthwaite review and skills, right across Europe and the west we are seeing recruitment challenges in the military. I was with my New Zealand counterpart recently, and my Canadian counterpart, and they too have a challenge. The skills shortage across society is big, and it is no different in the armed forces, which is why we have to adapt rapidly and tackle some of the challenges.

On procurement, as I said, the figures have started to improve. Yes, there are challenges, and we could spend a whole day debating the reasons for those challenges. Complex procurement is not as straightforward as many people think, and the hon. Gentleman will know from the Scottish Government’s procurement issues that it is not straightforward to deal with. I certainly believe that if we invest in the people and are prepared to invest in continuity—if instead of having the senior responsible owners who help manage our projects here today and gone tomorrow, we ensure that they are there for the long term and link their incentives to success, and help them manage our projects—we will have a better chance of delivering better value for money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am sorry that I was not in Devon on Saturday; I was next door in Cornwall, commemorating our armed forces, as my hon. Friend was.

There is a range of welfare support services in Devon. My hon. Friend will be aware of the regional welfare support operation there, which has expert welfare officers who can look after the needs of our wonderful veterans. Of course we can always do more, but I would cite, as I just have, Op Courage and, now, Op Fortitude, which I think will be of great assistance.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

While we wait for the upcoming pay review, may I ask what assessment the Minister’s Department has made of relative poverty rates among our service personnel and, while they await a significant pay rise, what work it is doing with the Department for Work and Pensions to signpost colleagues to the benefits that they are eligible for?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in addition to pay, things such as wraparound childcare and subsidised healthcare and dental care are available to members of our armed forces, as well as subsidised accommodation, the freezing of food charges and help with council tax—things that we have done in these difficult times to take the edge off the cost of living crisis. I hope he will welcome that.

Veterans UK

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Ms McVey, and I commend the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for securing it. I echo her and other colleagues’ tributes and thanks to those who serve in our armed forces, and it is fitting that we are having this debate in Armed Forces Week. I declare an interest as vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, which conducted the survey that has been referred to.

Many veterans have been broken by the Government’s failing system, which seems to hinder and hound veterans when it should help them. One told me that the process had broken them mentally to the point where their choice was to

“walk away or commit suicide.”

Another said:

“Veterans UK make it so difficult for all veterans and you feel like a criminal…there’s no compassion whatsoever.”

Another described the organisation as a “disgrace”, and yet another said the organisation seeks to

“ignore, obfuscate, delay and deny for as long as they can.”

All that is happening in a country that aimed to be the best place in the world for veterans by 2028. That is a boast by the UK Government who say that they want to transform services for veterans, understand our veterans’ community and recognise veterans’ contribution to society. I recognise that the Minister is taking steps to address some of these issues, but it is not happening quickly enough, and the Government are far from realising the lofty goal of creating a veterans’ paradise. Instead, many former servicemen and women are being plunged into hell as they struggle to make ends meet. Again, we heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough about veterans and serving personnel having to make use of food banks, and we should be doing all we can to support them.

There is a real sense that once someone is out of the barracks gate, the MOD washes its hands of them. Veterans UK, the MOD department administering support for veterans, has been described as lacking any empathy for veterans, and the APPG survey, which had more than 1,000 responses, found that only 6% felt that they had had a “good” or “very good” service. That feedback is unacceptable.

I secured a debate on this issue in March 2022, having had contact from constituents. At that time, I had written a letter to the then Minister, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), who wrote back saying there was no issue. We had the debate in Parliament, Parliament agreed that there should be a review of Veterans UK, and he said it was not necessary. As there had been a votable motion, we followed up the debate and asked when the review was going to take place, and he said it was not necessary, so I am delighted that the new Minister is taking this issue forward. Off the back of the survey, we have got the review that we waited for, but it is very telling that it did not happen straight away—the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister present for making that happen, but his predecessors went out of their way to put up roadblocks.

The failures of the system and veterans’ sense of betrayal are in danger of creating an invisible epidemic of moral injury among retired military personnel. Moral injury refers to the experience of sustained and enduring negative moral emotions of guilt, shame, contempt and anger, which result from the betrayal, violation and suppression of deeply held or shared moral values. It comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) about the bad and mad—the sense that everyone is out to get them. Potentially morally injurious events include other people’s acts of omission or betrayal by a trusted person in a high-stakes situation. Such events threaten one’s deeply held beliefs and trust, and can cause feelings of shame and guilt. They can even lead to substance misuse, social withdrawal and self-destructive acts. Our veterans deserve so much better than that, and I commend the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for the efforts he has made in moving forward his Bill on VAPCs.

It is interesting to note that the Scottish Government remain committed to doing all they can, within the powers they have, to provide support for veterans in Scotland, and the SNP is certainly committed to acting on the findings of the APPG survey. As a result of the survey, the UK Government have now announced that they will conduct

“a review of the role and scope of welfare provision for veterans, including by the Ministry of Defence under the Veterans UK banner”,

which I genuinely welcome. The Minister knows I am always impatient and always looking to the next thing. Having secured the review, we now look to when we can see the outcomes and when improvements can be implemented—I nudge him a little on that.

The review must have the scope and the necessary funding to change the situation. Mental health assessments undertaken while a veteran was serving in the forces should be considered by Veterans UK medical assessors when a claim is made under the war pensions or armed forces compensation scheme. There needs to be better signposting of information for veterans about war pensions and the armed forces compensation tribunal process. There also needs to be an increase in the maximum tariffs for mental health condition compensation payments. In some circumstances, an unmarried partner can qualify for a war pension, and we want the qualification criteria further broadened. There needs to be an alternative method to mitigate the impact on war widows who remarried or cohabited before the introduction of the pensions-for-life changes in 2015.

Veterans really need to be at the heart of the review, and I cannot let this debate pass without again flagging the nuclear test veterans. We welcome the fact that they were recognised with a medal, but we need to put in place a scheme to take account of their very serious injuries, and do more to support them, as they deal with their exposure to radiation.

The Scottish Government, even with their limited powers, have gone some way to showing commitment to support our veterans. Last year, the Scottish Government contributed £250,000 to the Unforgotten Forces consortium, supporting its work in improving the health, wellbeing and quality of life of older veterans in Scotland. They also increased the Scottish veterans fund pot to £500,000 per annum, to provide greater support for veterans and their families. The Scottish Government also funded 14 new projects across a range of organisations, including employment support from Walking With The Wounded and outdoor counselling from the Venture Trust. In my constituency, Midlothian’s SNP-led council was the first in Scotland to partner with Veterans Housing Scotland to provide additional accommodation for our veterans. I look forward to seeing that partnership continue successfully.

That list could go on. We have a very proud military history in Scotland. With the limited devolved powers available, we know we have a debt to these men and women. We know that freedom is not free. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the UK Government a lot of the time. In the words of one veteran, they seek to

“ignore, obfuscate, delay and deny for as long as they can.”

Our veterans deserve so much better.

Top Secret Document Leaks

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I will be equally brief. There are clearly serious issues to consider here, and it is very important that we avoid speculation, particularly because, as I understand it, this case is sub judice in the US. No doubt our intelligence community is working hard with its partners to review the implications and will report to the ISC. I do not want to prejudge anything, but to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), can the Minister confirm that he will work closely with the ISC to ensure that we are fully able to consider any outcomes of this investigation?

[James Heappey]

I note the concern of the hon. Gentleman and of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will ensure that any matters that can be exposed to them relating to this are exposed.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Owen Thompson Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I commend the work of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) in bringing the Bill to Third Reading. As he knows, I tried to amend the Bill in Committee, to test the Committee’s mood and to see what more we can do.

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a vice-chair of the all-parry parliamentary group on veterans, which has undertaken a lot of work on the further support that is needed, particularly through Veterans UK. I saw this Bill as an opportunity to see what more we can do, but that takes nothing away from the Bill itself. The Bill’s aims are excellent, and it will go a long way towards further increasing the support available to veterans.

I thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for meeting me and other members of the APPG, and for initiating a review of Veterans UK. Just over a year ago, I led a Backbench Business debate in which the House agreed that there should be a review. Unfortunately, we hit a few buffers along the way, and only since he took up his post have we seen the review move forward. I look forward to the review’s outcomes, and the passage of this Bill will enable him swiftly to implement any recommendations.

Just yesterday afternoon, the Justice and Veterans Minister, Keith Brown, led an excellent debate in the Scottish Parliament on employment support for veterans. The debate was also an opportunity to highlight the support being put in place by the Scottish Government, within the powers they have. We must all take every step we can to help veterans. On that note, I am proud of Midlothian Council in my constituency, as I understand it is the first housing organisation in Scotland to sign up as a partner of Veterans Housing Scotland. The first family has now been housed through that process.

We provide better support when we all work together. This Bill will go a long way in making a real difference to a lot of people. There is still more we can do, and I will continue to make that push. Veterans have been in touch with so many of us and, in my constituency, Garry McDermott first brought some of these issues to my attention. A wide range of members of our forces community are finding it challenging to address the situations in which they find themselves through no fault of their own. I think we are all on the same page in wanting to do everything we can.

I commend the work of the hon. Member for Aberconwy, and I look forward to the Bill being passed.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome Committee members to this line-by-line consideration of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Aberconwy. The order of batting is on the selection list in front of you. For clarity, I intend to call the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Midlothian as one group and then move on to the stand part consideration of the clauses, which will be rather like a Second Reading debate.

Clause 1

Veterans advisory and pensions committees

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations must provide for the membership of committees to include at least one representative of a UK veterans’ association.”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations may give the committees functions relating to—

(a) monitoring and holding to account Veterans UK in the discharge of its functions; and

(b) oversight and review of decisions made by Veterans UK.”.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—

“(4A) The regulations must specify that the committees’ functions apply to British Armed Forces veterans who are resident overseas.”.

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “education” insert “social care, employment, immigration”.

[Owen Thompson]

I do not intend to detain Members overly long. In moving the amendments, I am perhaps chancing my arm. They are not in any way meant to take anything away from the Bill, which is a very good Bill. I commend the hon. Member for Aberconwy for the work he has done to get it to this stage, and I look forward to its progressing further, hopefully with the support of all Members. However, I could not let such an opportunity pass without once again making efforts to try to address some of the issues that have arisen with Veterans UK over several years. For the record, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a vice convener of the all-party parliamentary group for veterans, and we have undertaken a fair bit of work looking at the experiences of veterans with Veterans UK.

My intention is not to detract from the Bill, which does a lot of very good things and moves very much in the right direction. It raises awareness of vital services that are available to veterans, but there is an opportunity to do just that bit more.

There is an opportunity here for us to reshape the relationship between veterans advisory and pensions committees—VAPCs—and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, giving that office the formal task, on a statutory footing, of holding Veterans UK to account, and providing a kind of ombudsman service. That is the purpose of amendment 1. At the moment—we have heard this from a number of Members in debates—Veterans UK, to a large extent, is judge and jury when it comes to deciding outcomes. The Bill could provide a potential mechanism for a third party to oversee those processes. I do not think that that asks too much in addition from the Bill.

Amendment 2 seeks to make provision about the membership of VAPCs. To my mind, it is a relatively straightforward proposal. Those who are part of veterans associations know our veterans better than anyone, so formally ensuring their inclusion in VAPCs is a sensible proposal. They may well be on those committees anyway, but let us just make sure that they form part of them.

On amendment 4, I have one particular question for the Minister. It was unclear from my reading of the Bill whether it covers any of our veterans who now live overseas. Amendment 4 seeks to make it absolutely clear that it does, because I do not feel that that clarity is there at the moment. I may have missed it—if I have, I welcome that. However, let us just be clear and make sure that all veterans can access the support that is available.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some clarity on both the territorial extent of the Bill and veterans living overseas would be helpful, including the Bill’s application to veterans living in overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as they sometimes sit in a different category from veterans living overseas. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Owen Thompson]

I absolutely agree. It is simply a matter of clarity. I do not think there is any intention to exclude anyone here, and I am not trying to suggest that there is. We need some clarity around that, to be sure.

Finally, on amendment 3, the Bill refers to covenant matters in relation to housing, education and health, but those are not the only things our veterans need help and support with. I hope that the measure might be expanded to include social care, employment, immigration and that sort of thing. I do not think it would be unnecessarily complicated to add those to the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Member for Aberconwy and the Minister on the proposals.

I am not here to detain anyone for longer than is necessary, and this is a good opportunity for us to continue the work that is clearly under way better to support our veterans. After all, they have given so much to support the nations of these isles, so it is not too much to ask that we do everything we can to support them, particularly when they need it most.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian, whose work in this place on behalf of veterans I acknowledge. I recognise the points the hon. Gentleman has made, which came up frequently in discussions I have had about the Bill. They represent legitimate concerns.

The amendments would widen the scope of the committees in relation to their interaction with Veterans UK, the VAPC membership and territorial extent, and, effectively, add social care, employment and immigration to the definition of the armed forces covenant. The intention of my Bill is to recognise how committees have operated in practice in recent years and enable them to carry out additional functions in relation to other aspects of the services provided to veterans and their families by the Ministry of Defence. However, those are subtle but important distinctions.

Amendment 2 would prescribe that the regulations that establish the VAPCs provide that there must be at least one committee member who is a representative of a UK veterans association. There is no question about the importance of the relationship between VAPCs and the UK veterans associations at local, regional and national levels. However, those committee members will be appointed by the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families following an open and fair competition that involves the civil service appointment process. Representatives of UK veterans associations are therefore welcome to apply for membership of the committees through that process.

The wording of clause 1 allows flexibility in how the regulations are framed, including in relation to the composition of committee memberships, precisely because different compositions might be appropriate across the different regional committees. The amendment is well intentioned, but it would start to encroach on how the committees are constituted, which would prevent the very flexibility that the Bill aims to afford, and which is necessary for VAPCs to operate differently across different regions.

Amendment 1 would give VAPCs functions in relation to holding the Ministry of Defence’s Veterans UK service to account in the discharge of its functions, and give oversight and review of decisions made by Veterans UK. Again, I recognise those points from comments made by Members, veterans groups and veterans themselves in the weeks and months leading up to these debates, and the hon. Member for Midlothian is right to raise them. However, in addressing the amendment, it is useful to consider the recent all-party parliamentary group on veterans survey. Many issues raised by the veterans who responded related specifically to the armed forces compensation scheme, which is subject to quinquennial review. That review is due to report fully in the spring.

We must also look to the future. I am mindful of the fact that the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs have commissioned a review of Government welfare provision for veterans, which includes services provided by the Ministry of Defence under the banner of Veterans UK. VAPCs will be within scope of that wider Government veterans review, which will be led by a senior civil servant, with the independent veterans’ adviser and other key stakeholders providing advice. The review will last approximately three months. A copy of the review and the Government’s response will be placed in the Library of the House.

The Bill will give the Secretary of State the powers to make changes that he—or she, if it is she by then—considers necessary based on recommendations deriving from those reviews and surveys. Without knowing the outcome of those reviews or any forthcoming recommendations they might make, it is difficult to see how the amendment, which would provide VAPCs with a function to review Veterans UK, could operate in practice.

Amendment 4 prescribes that regulations must specify that the committees’ functions apply to British armed forces veterans who are resident overseas. That point was, again, well made by the hon. Member for Midlothian and echoed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. However, the additional functions that my Bill gives to VAPCs relate to MOD services and armed forces covenant matters relating to veterans and their families. Therefore, the Bill specifically relates to services provided by the MOD to veterans and their families within the UK.

The Armed Forces Act 2021, which introduced the armed forces covenant duty, sets out that the focus of covenant legislation is access to UK-based public services and is therefore not applicable to those living overseas. The legislation refers to those

“ordinarily resident in the UK”.

Therefore, armed forces covenant matters, as defined in this Bill, must apply only within the UK.

Veterans who live overseas and are having issues with accessing public services in the countries they are resident in will find that those are best raised with the relevant UK embassy or high commission, which can advocate locally on behalf of the veteran. Again, that may be something worth raising with the Minister on another occasion.

Amendment 3 changes the definition of “armed forces covenant matters” to include issues relating to social care, employment and immigration. The definition of “armed forces covenant matters” in this Bill derives from the Armed Forces Act 2006 provisions on the armed forces covenant. When the Armed Forces Act 2021, which introduced the covenant duty, passed through the other place last year, it defined the duty as focusing on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing. That reflects those already in statute, which are the most commonly raised areas and are where variation of service delivery across localities can inadvertently disadvantage the armed forces community, including the veterans and their families who are the focus of this Bill.

Again, the hon. Member for Midlothian has made a point worth raising. However. areas of concern relating to the armed forces covenant can be addressed as and when they arise, through the powers introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2021, which allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant duty, subject to consultation or where there is evidence and support to suggest it would be beneficial, through secondary legislation. That is the process by which any amendments to the armed forces covenant duty might be made—not through this Bill.

The hon. Member may be aware that the Government have committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty during 2023. The review will encompass the operation of the new duty across the UK and will consider whether it would be beneficial to exercise any of the powers conferred by the 2021 Act to add to its scope. That will include specific consideration of whether central Government and the devolved Administrations could usefully be added. The Government will report on that review as part of their covenant annual report in 2023.

I hope that, following those assurances, the hon. Member for Midlothian will agree not to press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

That is an interesting point. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will get correspondence all the time from people who live overseas. I do not know what his practice is, but mine is to engage with their inquiries and where it is clear that people have a strong connection with my area or have lived there for a reasonable period, I take those up on their behalf. I will not lay down here that VAPCs should do so, but it is more than likely that those issues would be covered in any event. I hope that is a comfort to the right hon. Gentleman.

I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian for tabling the amendments and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy for addressing them. I hope the hon. Member for Midlothian is content.

[Owen Thompson]

I will not press any amendments to a vote today, but it was important to flag the issues. If we cannot amend this Bill, can we find a mechanism to facilitate some of the things that we were trying to achieve here? It is not about putting in place a wrecking mechanism; this is all about putting in extra support. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, and of course I will meet him. At the moment, for an adult to be eligible for funding for further education, they must ordinarily be resident in England on the first day of the first academic year of the course, and throughout the three years immediately preceding that date. The matter is primarily one for the Department for Education, as he will know, but I am happy to discuss it with him and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to see what we can do on this matter.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

What efforts will be made through the recently announced review of veterans’ experiences? Following the excellent work of the survey carried out by the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, of which I am a vice-chair, what attention will be paid to the different experiences of veterans in the four nations to ensure the best possible outcomes? Sadly, they appear in many cases to have been overlooked and ignored.

[Dr Murrison]

I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman and his co-chairs later this week, I think, when we can discuss the matter in some depth. I am absolutely sympathetic to the notion that we need to do more for veterans, of course, which is one reason why I have instituted the review to which I have referred. We need to be consciously aware of the lived experience in each one of the four nations of this country.

Ukraine Update

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s important contribution. Of course we accept that Putin represents a threat; we said that in the IR. In the actions Putin took in February last year, he made it crystal clear that the rhetoric he had been developing prior to that period had been put into action. It is clear to us that unless we address this threat now, through the support for Ukraine, which is fighting a just war of defence, it is likely that that threat will only grow. On land forces, my right hon. Friend is extremely well acquainted with the future soldier programme to rebuild those armed forces. On a matter of detail, the tank number is not 148—it is 227.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I, too, rise to welcome this statement and I thank the Minister for advance sight of it. I will largely echo the comments of others, because clearly all of us in this place stand united behind Ukraine and welcome the steps that have been taken. I do not think any of us can underestimate the steps taken yesterday with the decision by Germany and how difficult a decision that was for the Germans. That is most certainly worth noting. I also note that there are concerns about this next wave of mobilisation of Russian troops, the suggestion that the Russians have drafted 500,000 new recruits into their army and how quickly they may be able to mobilise.

Although I welcome the moves we have made, there is, obviously, concern about the time it is going to take to get troops up and running and feet on the ground. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s authorisation of the shipment of the 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, although I note that Ukraine’s most senior military commander, General Valery Zaluzhny, said that it needs some 300 western tanks and about 600 western armoured fighting vehicles in order to make a difference. Will the Minister outline whether we will be sending any further Challenger 2 tanks, beyond this initial squadron? I note that in 2021 the Government announced that they were planning to retire about 80 tanks from the UK’s arsenal, so it is possible that some or all of those could be considered for repurposing for deployment to Ukraine, if they are fit enough for that? How is the Ministry of Defence assisting other NATO allies such as Spain that have not yet sent tanks but wish to do so?

Ukrainian forces will need time to learn how to operate this highly technical equipment, so how will UK armed forces collaborate with NATO counterparts to supply the necessary auxiliary equipment and training to make sure that Ukrainian forces can maximise that capability? Finally, what discussions has the Department had with allies to consider sending fighter jets to Ukraine in the coming weeks and months, so that we do everything we can to aid Ukraine’s struggle?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He raises a number of very important issues. May I reiterate the point about unity across the House? He has demonstrated that, and I thank him for it.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point at the beginning about the time taken to mobilise. No apology is made for that, because, unless the time is taken to properly train the tank crews and also those who support the equipment, we will not achieve the impact that we all want to see. One thing that I am encouraged by, and I am pleased to be able to update the House about, is the extent to which we will be training those maintenance crews on a five-week course, entirely separate from the tank crews themselves, to provide the kind of deep maintenance that is needed, by which I mean if a gearbox or wheel needs to be replaced. We will be supplying not just the tanks, but the supplies and the training to ensure that those vehicles can remain on the road. The tank crews themselves will have a level of maintenance training, but there will be a deep maintenance training support package as well. In addition, there will be the ability to reach back to the UK. In other words, they will be able to communicate to the UK, “Look, this is an issue with this tank. Can you support us?” We will then provide that technical knowhow remotely.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of tanks. The thing that is so important, and that the Secretary of State was so clear about in his remarks in the House, is that the UK has a leadership role to catalyse other nations. That is what we intended to do and—I hope it is fair to say—that is what we have delivered. The number of tanks overall is now over 70. Two weeks ago it was zero, so we are making steps in the right direction.

The hon. Gentleman asked about other countries—Spain, for example. It is of course a matter for Spain, but I hope that it will take comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom and, indeed, Germany, as he rightly pointed out, have reached this decision, and it may be that other nations will see the way to make similar decisions. Ultimately, though, it is a matter for those other countries.

Let me address the point about armoured fighting vehicles—a point that is sometimes lost. This nation alone has donated more than 200 armoured fighting vehicles—the so-called dogs of war that we are familiar with from Afghanistan. These are big, heavy fighting vehicles with weapons capabilities that provide assistance on the battlefield.

On the issue of tanks overall, the Secretary of State has been clear that 40 tanks have been provided, which means that those existing hulls that were at low readiness will be brought forward to high readiness. That is about ensuring that our overall fleet—the fleet that remains—is more lethal and more ready for action.

As for fighters, we will just have to wait and see. This is an important step at the moment. It is one that we think has a way to go, especially as other nations will perhaps see their way forward as well.

War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Payments

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the current process for claiming War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation payments is not fit for purpose and urges the Government to launch an independent inquiry into the system’s failings.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for debate and the Leader of the House for arranging time tonight in a timeslot that is not normally allocated for Back-Bench business. That is very much appreciated after the debate was moved from last Thursday.

In recent years, many of us have become disconnected from the idea of war. It is becoming something that happens far away to people we do not know. We might try to keep on top of the news, but the human stories are often lost. However, the war in Ukraine has reminded us that armed conflict is not just something remote and abstract; the sad truth is that it can happen anywhere when political processes break down or when leaders put their egos above human life. Ukraine has reminded us of another truth: wars are not fought by armies; they are fought by individuals each with a life as complex as our own. When we hear the stories from Ukrainian civilians leaving behind their careers and families to take up arms to defend their country, we see the human face behind every member of those armed forces. When we hear the stories of teenage Russian conscripts surrendering in tears, we see that under each helmet is a complex and unique individual.

Whether or not we agree with the motives of a conflict, or disagree with the concept of war in principle, that all takes second place to our ability to recognise the humanity in every individual, and veterans are central to this. Many veterans have seen the very worst of humanity, so it seems only right that when they return home they should be greeted by its very best: compassion, recognition and respect. They have given all for their state and it is only right that the state, in turn, should give its all for them. That is the key principle in why it is so important to compensate veterans fairly. It is about recognising our duty of care to help them to live a full and dignified life post service, and doing so with respect to their individuality. Schemes such as war pensions and the armed forces compensation scheme are absolutely critical in delivering our duty of care to solidify our commitment to veterans by pledging that whatever injuries, mental or physical, someone receives during their time in the forces, or whatever existing condition was worsened, the burden of that harm should be carried by the state, not by the veteran. It is absolutely correct in its simple recognition that whatever harm was incurred in the name of the state is the state’s responsibility.

That is not asking for much; in fact, it is the bare minimum that we can do to show that we respect these veterans for what they have done to support all of us. Yet the reason we are here today is that at the moment, at least, that bare minimum is not being met. The Government are not yet recognising the duty of care towards veterans. They are not offering to freely and unconditionally carry the financial burden of their injuries. They are not respecting veterans. Yes, war pensions and the compensation scheme exist, but the way in which they are being administered is a national scandal that should have us all hanging our heads in shame. The process, as it stands, operates in a way that discourages veterans from pursuing their claims. It is loaded with presumptions that veterans are not entitled to compensation, making them prove eligibility beyond any reasonable standards. It is a process that is inherently distrustful, presuming that veterans are trying to swindle the system. It is mired with complicated terminology and legalese, with little signposting for those who need it most.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I speak as someone with a one-third war disability pension. When I left the armed forces, I had a medical, and that signposted me to get the disability pension. People do not necessarily have to wait until they get a condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

[Owen Thompson]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I will come to that point, but we see a lack of transparency and serious questions about conflicts of interest. As a result, the process pushes veterans into poverty, ill health and, sadly, even suicide.

I was first made aware of the seriousness of the issue by my constituent Garry McDermott, a former lance corporal with the Royal Scots who left the armed forces in 2003. As a result of his time in service, he had been diagnosed with complex PTSD, and he suffers from a variety of physical health issues including with his hips and his knees. Those injuries were caused or worsened by his time in the service of his country, but, when he returned home and sought compensation, he found that the country was not willing to serve him.

Garry has been fighting for more than a decade for the Government simply to recognise their duty of care towards him and pay him what he is due under his war pension. Time and again, they shirked responsibility by denying a link between his injuries and his time in service. His physical health has severely deteriorated over the past decade—he now needs a new knee and two new hips—due to trauma induced by carrying 80 kg bags during his time in service. That was confirmed by his Army medical files, yet he has been refused an increased payment. Medical advisers at Veterans UK have denied the link between Garry’s time in service and his injuries time and again. Damage to his teeth from his time in service was noted as “poor dental hygiene” by Veterans UK. Damage to his toes was said to be due to fungus. One time, his ability to go for a run to support his own mental health was held against him. Whenever he put in a claim, he was made to feel like he was trying to cheat the system and not worthy of the Government’s support. He was not claiming for millions of pounds or thousands of pounds—these are claims for an extra £22 a week.

Mistreatment of one veteran is bad enough, but Garry is one of thousands. The true scale of the scandal became clearer when I raised his case at business questions only a matter of months ago and was told:

“It is not always right to draw conclusions about a whole system from one case.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 517.]

The reaction to that statement proved otherwise, as social media exploded with veterans who had experienced the same issues as Garry and were dismayed by the former Leader of the House’s flippant dismissal. Dozens contacted me directly to set the record straight: the problem was systematic and they were the very proof of that. The veterans whom I have spoken to have been in all ranks of our forces, including majors and colonels, and it is extremely widespread.

Let us look at Veterans UK’s recent customer satisfaction survey. Of the 324 veterans surveyed about their satisfaction levels in using the war pension scheme, only 36% noted any level of satisfaction, and 32% gave it a one—the lowest possible rating. For the armed forces compensation scheme, it was even more dire, with only 13% giving any sort of positive rating above five; meanwhile, half of veterans rated their satisfaction at one, which again was the lowest possible option. If war pensions are not bad enough, it seems that the scheme that replaced them is even worse. More generally, the dissatisfaction rate with the Veterans UK claims process is a shocking 80%.

Because of the sheer scale of the issue, it is easy to get lost in the details of individual cases. However, important as those are, they give Veterans UK and the Ministry of Defence the chance to portray them as outliers, which they are not. They are symptoms of a system that is simply unfit for purpose. We need to take a step back and identify the recurring issues among the cases: the common threads that show us that the problem is systematic. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has helped to identify the problems, including campaigning groups such as the Independent Defence Authority and Justice4Troops and, most of all, the veterans who have reached out to share their own stories.

The first issue is that the system of war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments operates with a presumption against awarding veterans with their claims. Let us start with the cold, hard statistics. Since April 2009, of the 107,000 disablement claims cleared at initial review under the war pension scheme, 32% have been declined. Only 59% of those whose claims passed forward received a financial award.

Of the 94,000 armed forces compensation scheme claims, 31% have failed at the initial stage, and 74% of appeals have been rejected. Only 57% of claims have resulted in a financial award. The fact that a third of claims fall at the first hurdle and only a minority make it through the appeals process paints a bleak picture of claimants’ chances. That is especially worrying given the fact that the stats date mostly from before Veterans UK took over the assessment processes. According to many veterans, that has worsened the situation.

Interestingly, the MOD does not hold in a collated format stats on how many claimants decided to withdraw or not to take steps to progress their claim—the details are tucked away in the paper files of each case. I have been told that the reason for making the information so difficult to locate is that it is

“not information the Ministry of Defence needs to capture in order to process claims or monitor performance.”

I cannot imagine any reason why holding data on how many veterans give up on the process would not be conducive to monitoring its success, but that is where we are.

Whatever the case, far too many veterans do give up. They are faced with a system that presumes they are trying to swindle it. Many veterans, like my constituent Garry, find themselves struggling to prove that their health conditions were caused by their time in our forces. The slightest ability still to do any physical exercise is held against them and injuries sustained in service are noted down as otherwise. It is the same cruel and distrustful approach to benefits that is embodied by universal credit, with people being made to undergo undignified tests to prove their disabilities.

Even when it clashes with professional opinion, Veterans UK keeps denying claims. Army medical files that prove causation between time in service and injuries are regularly ignored. Similar tests that are carried out for other benefits—such as personal independence payments—and prove unfitness to work are ignored. Veterans are made to feel like they are guilty until proven innocent. In some cases, evidence of a veteran’s disability has seemingly—this claim has been made to me—been doctored to underplay its severity. In one case, a veteran’s medical files stated that they could walk 140 metres with discomfort, but when their claim was rejected, part of the reason given was that they could walk 140 metres—there was no mention of the discomfort.

One veteran, a former major, told me:

“Veterans UK have followed an unofficial policy of ‘Deny, Delay, hope you Die’ in which at the first stage they claim you don’t have that injury, then when it’s proven they insist on a level of evidence that the claimant must provide, despite the fact that they have full access to my medical record, then they attempt to claim that the cause wasn’t service, such as in my case they attributed my deafness to my age, which is currently 49.”

As with universal credit, it boils down to saving money. An ideological dogma of small government has led to starved public resources and a scramble to save money here and there. The ones who pay the price are those who need help the most—in this case, veterans. It is evident that the system is rigged to deny veterans their claims for the feeblest of excuses, at all costs. It should go without saying that no amount of money saved is worth the lives and livelihoods of those who gave their all for all of us. The overarching goal of a body like Veterans UK should be not to save money but to do all it can to repay the debt that we owe our veterans.

Of course, the MOD says that assessments are arrived at through evidence-based professional judgement and that medical advisers seek to advise on the pre-existing evidence rather than to diagnose issues. However, as we have heard, it is not uncommon for existing evidence to be ignored or, allegedly, altered. Medical advisers seem consistently to exceed their remit to pursue a policy of cost-cutting and cover-up.

The role of medical advisers ties into another issue that runs through veterans’ testimonies. Many veterans have raised questions about the lack of transparency around obtaining details of who makes decisions on their claims. Personal privacy is of course paramount—I do not think anyone would question that—but it should be balanced with veterans’ right to know that their assessors are the right people to make the decisions, even if for nothing other than their peace of mind. There is no transparency on that front, and veterans feel completely in the dark about the people who make these life-altering decisions. Medical advisers stay deep in the shadows, even going as far as to refuse to appear on video link at tribunals. The Minister might consider how dehumanising that can be for a veteran—to feel that their fate is in the hands of a faceless bureaucrat. What is so hard about treating veterans like human beings and creating a healthy, open relationship between them and their medical advisers?

In one case, a veteran requested a statement from a medical adviser on why they thought he had PTSD, but they declined to do so, saying that they were not qualified to make such a judgment. However, the same assessor then rejected their claim relating to PTSD deterioration. How can an adviser make a judgment on one, but not on the other? I just cannot understand that. It might be explained by seeing exactly what the assessors do, opening that up and shining a light on it.

Perhaps even more concerning is the reuse of the same medical adviser at different stages in the appeals process. Testimony after testimony has complained to me about the same individual assessor giving their judgment on a claim at the initial stage, the appeal and then feeding into the tribunal. Separate advisers should be used to ensure impartiality and a range of opinions. Surely the whole point of appealing is to get a second opinion to reassess the claim from a new point of view. If the adviser used at the initial stage is then brought in for the appeal, how can a veteran be assured that their claim will not just be subject to the same opinions that rejected it in the first place? Where is the fairness and where is the impartiality? At best, it is serious neglect in the system design, leading to a conflict of interest. At worst, it is a deliberate choice to cut costs by rigging the system against veterans. It is little wonder that so few appeals get anywhere. All of this contributes to a feeling that there is a huge power imbalance between the veterans and those assessing them.

The picture painted of Veterans UK is that it puts cost-cutting above its duty to protect veterans’ lives and livelihoods; it perpetuates a culture of distrust towards veterans, and sees many as dishonest and unworthy of compensation; it operates under an assumption that veterans will not get their compensation—a case of “guilty until proven innocent”; it overrides medical and professional opinion to claim that injuries were not caused by time in service; and it hides behind a lack of transparency around its medical advisers. Most of all, however, it completely disregards the debt that society owes to our veterans.

Of course, there is a serious human cost to this. According to Lisa Scullion and Katherine Curchin, writing in the Journal of Social Policy,

“it is evident that there is a lack of understanding of the impact of trauma on people’s psychosocial functioning and, as a result, veterans are treated in ways which are variously perceived as disrespectful, unfair or disempowering and in some cases exacerbate existing mental health problems.”

Returning from the unimaginable conditions of war, physical and mental trauma leaves many feeling vulnerable, isolated and financially unstable. PTSD is rife, and the risk of self-harm and suicide can be high. Subjecting this community to complex, lengthy and demeaning processes to claim the money they need to support themselves does nothing but exacerbate mental health problems. They are forced to relive trauma and put their mental health on the line.

For some veterans, their lengthy fights to claim their money is simply too much to bear. Many simply give up and some, tragically, take their own lives. They simply cannot bear the mental strain of fighting for years—sometimes decades—to be told that they cannot be recognised as worthy of help. One veteran told me:

“In September last year, I had a full physical and mental breakdown because of all these accusations that I’m not as injured as make out, and again tried to hang myself. I was diagnosed with Complex PTSD directly because of the MoD.”

Yet Veterans UK is ill-equipped to deal with this. It even admitted in a written statement that it has no policy in place to deal with veterans suffering from mental health issues. I welcome the Minister’s pledge to start publishing veterans’ suicide rates in England and Wales, starting next year. It is important that the MOD does understand the scale of the problem across the UK as a whole.

I have been delighted by the level of support from across the Chamber in bringing forward this debate, and I am certainly not here seeking any kind of political scalp. This is not about point scoring; this is an entirely cross-party issue. We are united by wanting to do the very best by our veterans. We simply want the Government to hear the pain veterans are in and address it. That is why we need an independent inquiry into the failures of Veterans UK. It is evident that a few tweaks around the edges will not be enough to fix the system.

Root-and-branch reform is needed to build the foundations of a system informed by different philosophies and following different priorities. An independent inquiry should investigate how Veterans UK arrived at the culture of cost-cutting. It should give veterans an opportunity to air their concerns and feel listened to. Most importantly, it should lay the groundwork for a new approach. For instance, there would be huge benefits in creating a system using the principles of trauma-informed care. Again, in the Journal of Social Policy, Lisa Scullion and Katherine Curchin write that

“the application of trauma-informed care principles to the UK social security system could improve interactions within this system and avoid re-traumatising those experiencing on-going or unresolved trauma.”

In the meantime, we could take actions right now that could save lives. Untimely payments cost lives; target times should be reduced as far as possible. War pension payments that exceed their target by a fortnight must be brought into line with it. On top of that, the Confederation of Service Charities, or Cobseo, has raised concerns about the backlog of appeals awaiting resolution. Immediate steps could be taken to progress that. Veterans UK’s policies around the consideration given to previous health assessments undertaken during a veteran’s time in service must be taken into account fully and properly.

This is the right time to make changes. The armed forces compensation scheme will be reviewed this year, and major work is being done to digitise the schemes. Now is the time: the opportunities are there to lay the groundwork for a better system, including by addressing the recommendations of the previous five-yearly reviews in 2010 and 2017.

All these actions are necessary, but without an independent inquiry to lay the foundations of a new approach, the MOD risks tinkering around the edges. I appreciate that not all these issues can be fixed with the wave of a magic wand; I do not think anyone would expect that. Reforming the treatment of veterans will be a long process. But that could start now with an inquiry, simply to recognise what has gone wrong, learn from the mistakes and understand how we can do better.

I urge the Minister to take this call seriously and bring forward plans for an inquiry. Our veterans deserve our respect. They deserve better than what they are currently receiving. They deserve an independent inquiry, and a new system that recognises their humanity. I urge hon. Members to support this call.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I think there is a very great degree of agreement. I do not think that anyone is necessarily saying anything vastly different from each other. We all want to see the best outcomes for the veterans who have given service to our nations, but sometimes the system is not working, and we need to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that it works right, whatever that takes. I am encouraged by what the Minister says. I will certainly be keeping a very close eye on what comes next, because we have to get this right. We cannot go on like this. There are veterans who have been put in these situations for decades in trying to get the compensation that they should be receiving, and we should all be endeavouring to ensure that they do. Again, I thank Members for their contributions, and I look forward to seeing what comes next.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that the current process for claiming War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation payments is not fit for purpose and urges the Government to launch an independent inquiry into the system’s failings.