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.

UK Military Personnel Serving Overseas: Vaccination

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that 96% of people currently serving on Op Shader—that will include those who are based in Cyprus as part of the aircrew—have been vaccinated, and 31% have had their second dose. I can assure him that they will receive their second doses as soon as it is medically advisable for them to do so. I cannot, however, tell him that it is policy to vaccinate the troops with whom they are partnering.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Will the Minister publish details of the risk assessment that was undertaken to determine why our troops were not fast-tracked for vaccine before deployment in high-risk areas?

[James Heappey]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the CSEU report on shovel-ready projects, which I commend. It is always good to have advice from those quarters, and indeed, many of them are already ongoing. I gently remind him, however, that the report praised the German Government for increasing spending by €10 billion to €12 billion over the next few years. It also praised the French—I think the French Minister has been asked to go before the Assemblée Nationale with an extra €1.5 billion, or around that number. That does not bear any comparison with our £24 billion investment in defence over the next few years. That is the biggest single boost to defence over the past 30 years, and it will mean a lot of orders coming through, to the benefit of British defence, the British armed forces, and British firms across the Union.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

What discussions he plans to have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer prior to the conclusion of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the integrated review, and will continue to do so on wider issues concerning defence.

[Owen Thompson]

The spending review made recent welcome changes to defence spending, particularly with cyber and other areas of resilience. It seemed strange, however, that those spending increases were announced before the integrated review. Are the new funds in the spending review part of the Government’s response to the integrated review, and is that a case of the cart coming before the horse? Or, is it a case of, “That’s it”, meaning that the review will not make any new announcements backed up by spending commitments?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question about the timing of the integrated review, and there will be an integrated review at the beginning of next year. The defence announcement was a building block as part of that review, and it will obviously work towards the overall posture of global Britain when it is announced in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

There are elements of programmes that are being brought forward. The prime focus now, however, is on supporting the cash flow of the companies and suppliers. We have the means of doing so and we have been doing so. We have also been encouraging primes to support their own supply chains. From what I hear from trade bodies, that has been happening. I am pleased by the way the whole of industry has leant in during this ongoing pandemic and the support they have been given right the way across.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

What assessment he has made of the potential threat of international disinformation to the security of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The Ministry of Defence takes the threat posed by malicious disinformation campaigning by state and non-state actors very seriously. Working with allies and partners across Government collectively, we monitor such activity closely, assess the risk, and take action to counter it if appropriate.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go up to Scotland with Owen Thompson.

[Owen Thompson [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

We will go straight to topical questions, then.

Middle East: Security

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We are going to be working hard to make sure it is achieved. The President of the United States has talked about a grand deal. He has talked about a bigger and more sustainable long-term deal. He has talked about wanting to do a broader deal. We will of course assist in that process if the US continues on that path and we will reach out to the Iranians. We have no ill will towards the Iranian people. We should not forget that this Government are concerned and saddened by the loss of up to 50 people in the stampede at the funeral that took place. We send our condolences to those mourners and to that population. No one should have to go through that. Our hand of friendship is there for the people of Iran. If all this teaches us something, it is that the leadership of Iran has not served its people well; it has led them down a cul-de-sac and it has led the middle east to a less stable, not more stable, position.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Clearly, any escalation of tensions in the region could have significant consequences not only for our armed forces, but civilian populations there. It is time for cool heads. The Commander-in-Chief of the United States is not known to be a cool head. What action can the Government take to ensure that late night Twitter tirades do not further escalate tensions in the region?

[Mr Wallace]

There are many of us who should take tips about Twitter. The main point is that it was in response to a specific threat that the United States took an action. The hon. Gentleman can disagree on whether it should have done that, but after that action has taken place there is a duty on all of us to ensure that that single event does not lead to an escalation. The White House and the US Administration are on the same page; they are also keen to de-escalate the situation. The challenge for this Government, the Germans, the French and our allies is to ensure we convert those wishes of not wanting to escalate into action. That is what we are going to be doing over the next days and weeks.

A Better Defence Estate Strategy

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) for securing this debate. I was delighted to join her at the Backbench Business Committee to make the case for it.

When the announcement was made, the shockwaves went through my constituency of Midlothian, where the closure of Glencorse barracks has been intimated. Understandably, the community were upset at the lack of consultation before or after the announcement, but there are two glaringly obvious issues in Midlothian that compel me to speak in the debate today: first, the huge loss that the base would be to service personnel, their families and the wider community, but also to infrastructure and the local economy; and secondly, the enormous financial investment made by the Ministry of Defence a number of years ago, which now seems entirely pointless.

The position I take today is an entirely cross-party one. Every elected member at all levels for the community representing the Glencorse barracks supports the position. All six local councillors, Christine Grahame MSP and myself have joined together and have met the local community. This is an entirely united position. A petition is on its way and, in due course, we will look to present it to the House—I am sure many hon. Members will do the same.

The history of Glencorse barracks is well-known, from its start in the Napoleonic war as a prisoner of war camp, through to its current situation. Unlike many other bases, Glencorse is fit for purpose following a £60 million upgrade in 2003 to 2005, at which point it was hailed by the MOD as benchmark accommodation for our forces. It is frustrating that some of the information around that investment is difficult to come by—it was announced not in Parliament, but on a visit to a construction firm by the then Defence Secretary. When we ask the MOD for information about the investment, we are simply told that the information requested cannot be provided in a format that would not incur a disproportionate cost. As an elected Member, it is very frustrating trying to get to the bottom of some of the details. It would appear that I am able to get more information from Midlothian Council and through the Scottish Government than from the Ministry of Defence. I ask the Minister to reflect on that experience—Members of this House ask questions to be better informed when making cases in situations such as this one.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about Glencorse. Does he agree that, in the case of Fort George in my constituency, very little evidence has been supplied to say that it would save the MOD money? In fact, it will simply leave a £12 million to £16 million annual hole in our economy.

[Owen Thompson]

I agree. That is certainly true for many of us who are making the case for retaining our local bases.

Given the investment in Glencorse, it makes no financial sense to close the barracks. It has already been upgraded to the condition of a modern Army base, and it meets the criteria set out in the most recent defence estate reviews. It would be financial suicide to throw away such an investment.

There are rightly concerns that closure would damage the local economy, given the number of troops that are based there. Penicuik is a thriving community, but it needs more to support it. Given the investment in local schools and the special training given to local teachers to support our armed forces, if those Army personnel and their families were removed from the community, the impact would be felt down the line well beyond any closure.

Lastly, I must address the disappointing regard that the MOD has shown to Midlothian councillors and the Scottish Government following the announcement. I urge the Minister to take that on board and engage with all of us in the future. If the closures go ahead, what happens afterwards is vital. This ill-thought-out decision is financially unsound and strategically absurd, and it needs to be urgently stopped.

Defence Estate

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am certainly happy to discuss continuing investment in the facilities with my right hon. Friend. The estimated disposal date for Cawdor barracks is 2024, so I hope that that gives some more certainty to those who support the Signal Regiment there. We are shortly to confirm where the 14th Signal Regiment will be re-provided for.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

The Glencorse barracks in Penicuik in my constituency are a fundamental part of that community and the wider constituency, but there was no mention of the barracks in the Secretary of State’s statement. I am now wondering whether this is closure by stealth, as the Government look to continue to invest in weapons of mass destruction at the cost of conventional defences.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

No, that is not the case. We are reinvesting, as I have said several times today, in Scotland, which is a key part of the defence of the United Kingdom. Just as the RAF is centring all its squadrons on Lossiemouth and the Navy is focusing its submarines on the Clyde, so the Army will be not wholly, but principally, based around Leuchars Station in Fife. The result will be that the capabilities that the Army needs will be clustered more efficiently together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Thompson Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

The MOD continues to review its estate to ensure that it is smaller and more sustainable, allowing us to focus on delivering future defence capability and enabling considerable investment in sites such as Lossiemouth and Faslane. While no decision has been made on Fort George’s future, Scotland will continue to be a vital home for our armed forces. However, Scotland, like the rest of the UK, must expect some sites to close and some investment in other locations.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

T5. Research from the Fraser of Allander Institute found that the number of defence jobs in Scotland is plummeting despite promises to the contrary in 2014. There are almost 3,000 fewer MOD employees and the number in military roles has gone down. In 2008, there were 23% more jobs in uniformed and MOD civilian roles. Can the Secretary of State tell us how Scotland is better off in the union given that reality?

[Michael Fallon]

I certainly can. Scotland is getting additional investment at Faslane, and Lossiemouth will be the home of the new Typhoon squadron. Faslane will continue to be the base for all the Royal Navy’s submarines. Scotland is playing a key part in the construction of our new Navy with the new aircraft carriers, the Type 26 global combat ship, and the offshore patrol vessels, all of which will contribute to more jobs in Scotland.