Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
Currently, around 96% of service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Government’s decent homes standard. Only these properties should be allocated to our families.
James Cartlidge
That is entirely why we are investing in our estate. I have mentioned the importance of the additional £400 million, and that is not abstract. It has enabled us to make a real difference to the accommodation of our armed forces by putting in thousands of treatments for damp and mould, and lots of homes are getting new doors, new boilers and so on. That is the difference the funding makes, and that is why our commitment to 2.5% is so important. It is not just about capability; it is about the homes of our armed forces personnel.
Rachel Hopkins
Last month, the landmark report into armed forces housing found that poor quality military accommodation had become
“a tax on the goodwill of service personnel and their families”.
Does the Minister agree?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady is welcome to send me a copy of that report, although I am not sure it is entirely impartial. I look forward to reading the conclusions—[Interruption.] Presumably it recognises that if we want better accommodation, we need to put the funding in, so I assume that its conclusions recommend that Labour commit to 2.5%.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Heappey
Clearly, the delivery of aid into Gaza is principally a maritime and aviation effort in the eastern Mediterranean, but my hon. Friend is correct to say that the security of shipping in the Red sea also has an impact. That is why Royal Navy warships are part of the Red sea taskforce that is seeking to protect those sea lanes.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The MOD delivers a range of services to veterans and their families. This includes the administration and payment of armed forces pensions and compensation, the provision of tailored advice and assistance through the Veterans Welfare Service and Defence Transition Services, and integrated personal commissioning for veterans.
Rachel Hopkins
Veteran homelessness rose by 14% last year according to the Government’s own figures. Does the Minister agree that his colleague, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), is failing to deliver on his pledge to end veteran homelessness?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady will be aware that homelessness is not principally a function of the Ministry of Defence, but all of us want to make sure that veterans and their families are properly accommodated, and naturally reducing homelessness remains a Government priority.
Service Accommodation
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Having listened to my hon. Friend on the doorsteps in Mid Bedfordshire, I acknowledge that he is standing up for the issues that were raised now he is in this place. Does he agree that the litany of repairs and problems with housing have had a significant detrimental impact on service personnel’s morale? I am talking about not only those who have to live in that accommodation, but those serving elsewhere whose families remain in houses that are just not fit to live in.
Alistair Strathern
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. I know that she has been resolute in standing up not just for our service personnel, but for veterans in her previous job on the shadow Front Bench, and that she will continue to advocate for them passionately in her new roles. It is so important that we take this issue seriously. From speaking to servicemen and women and hearing from them through the survey that was carried out, it is so clear that allowing the issue to persist has a detrimental impact on their morale, their retention, and their sense of worth and value—something that should never be called into question for those who are putting themselves on the line on our behalf.
It is shameful that we have got to this point. Many will have seen the quotes from the survey that was carried out before today’s debate, and they should chill all of us. One mother reporting issues in her home told a story about her two-year-old daughter, who had
“been suffering from repeated chest infections and coughs”.
They had been getting worse month after month, exacerbated by the persistent, untreated mould in their home. Another person reported that the mould had affected their children’s health to the point where one of them had to be hospitalised with breathing difficulties. Those situations should shame us all. Living with a loved one in active service is tough enough. Our service families should not have the added anxiety of having to worry about the health impact that their home could be having on them and their loved ones.
Another key issue raised throughout the survey and throughout my conversations has been the impact of inadequate accommodation on morale, as my hon. Friend pointed out. It has driven personnel to despair and, in some cases, out of the service they had loved to serve. Stephen, who has served for 20 years in the armed forces, reported in the survey a “consistent” and constant
“erosion in the standard of family service accommodation”
over recent years.
LGBT Veterans Independent Review
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Murrison
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s observations. He may like to look up the Canadian scheme, which is a reasonable exemplar, although the circumstances are different. It awarded 110 million Canadian dollars, and this morning a Canadian dollar was worth 58p, but that scheme covered a much broader scope and the population of Canada is smaller than that of the UK. It covered police, the armed forces and civil servants, so the scope was much wider. Although the two are not directly comparable, the Canadian scheme does at least make us feel that we are in the right ballpark. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the commitment he is seeking, but I urge him to look closely at other schemes and certainly at the Canadian one, which is probably the closest comparator we have.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
May I impress again on the Minister the importance of hearing LGBT veterans’ voices on the Floor of the House, just as it was important to hear the apology from the Prime Minister at the time? I, too, want to share my concerns about the structure of the scheme that the Minister has talked about. He has referred to a front door; can we have an assurance that that front door will remain open for as long as is needed? Many of our LGBT veterans suffer great trauma and shame, and will be quite far away from that front door. They will need support from trusted partners such as Fighting With Pride to get anywhere near it.
Dr Murrison
Yes, the front door will remain open, but a stakeholder pack will also be sent to all organisations that we know are interested, urging them to socialise it, which is vital. I cannot emphasise enough that it is vital that those who believe they are eligible for some restorative action—in the first instance, non-financial—should register their interest. In doing so, they are able to register or flag the fact that they may be interested in a financial award as well. Unless we have that data, I think our job of determining what the scheme ultimately looks like will be very difficult, and the sooner we get a handle on that, the sooner we can start to get money out of the door.
Nuclear Test Veterans: Medical Records
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I know his constituent very well: he is a very lovely man and has fought long and hard to achieve recognition for veterans and their families and descendants. Unfortunately, veterans themselves have not undergone an extensive health study into the effects of the radiation to which they were exposed, let alone their descendants in relation to the impact on future family members. The Government certainly need to address that to give people such as Steve the certainty that he will receive the support that he requires if it is needed in the future. At the moment, he is not receiving such support, sadly.
The Minister himself has stated that it is likely that the blood tests are simply categorised in scientific data at the AWE. That may of course be the case, but for that data even to exist in the first place, the sample results had to come first, so what happened to them? I truly intend to be helpful to the Minister in getting to the bottom of this puzzle. I have no doubt that he wants to help veterans and their families to receive the information that they need. To that end, I have a number of questions that I would like him to answer.
First, can the Minister review the security classification for the 150 FOI documents that I have mentioned, so that they can be released for public view? Will he release the AB and ES series of files and, if not, explain to the House why they are to be withheld? In response to a recent question to the Defence Secretary, I was informed that all classified documents retained by the Ministry of Defence under a Lord Chancellor’s instruction or a national security exemption are still available to be searched on request. If they are indeed searchable, despite being withheld documents, can the Minister confirm that the person making the relevant search request will be notified that that information is being withheld and will be given the reasons why?
Is the Minister specifically aware of any blood test and urine sample information that is being withheld under a Lord Chancellor’s instruction or a national security exemption? He will be aware that many blood and urine test samples were taken under old Air Ministry orders and that the AWRE was not legally required in 1959 to share or disclose documents on request, as would be the case under current legislation. Can he confirm that those historical records are being searched when a subject access, FOI or similar search request is received?
The fact remains that blood and urine test samples were taken from many servicemen at nuclear test sites and the archive documentation suggests that they were formally documented, so what happened to the documents? Where are they now, and why in so many cases are nuclear veterans and their families unable to access their personal medical data? That data is vital for their war pension applications and for an understanding of the conditions that they suffer. If I have one request for the Minister today, it is to give those men and their families the medical information that they need, while they are still alive. They simply need to know where their test sample data is. I say to the Minister this. If it is not available, be open: explain what happened to it, when it happened, why it happened and on whose instruction.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, setting out all the issues. I would just like to add weight to that point about simple transparency. If the information is there, can the veterans and their families see it? If there is a reason why they are not able to see it, can that be explained? I really hope that the Minister will accept either of those routes and give an explanation to my hon. Friend today.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for all the work that she has done over the years to support nuclear test veterans. They are very appreciative of her efforts. On her point about transparency, that is the key to today’s debate. All that these men are asking for is the truth. They want to know where their test results are and if they cannot access them, they want to know why. They deserve nothing less than the truth for the service they have provided to this country. I hope the Minister will do all he can to honour their requests.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
On that theme, the loss of livelihoods and the long-term suffering endured by LGBT+ veterans due to the cruel and unjust ban on homosexuality in the armed forces has been enormous. The Opposition welcome the Etherton review into the ban, and its recommendations, which represent the beginning of a long-overdue healing process. The Secretary of State’s predecessor promised that the Government would provide a full response to the review’s recommendations after the summer recess, which the House would have an opportunity to debate. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will respond to the recommendations and that the House will still be provided with time to debate that response?
Veterans Update
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Today might be his last appearance at the Dispatch Box, so I pay tribute to him for focusing his last appearance on such an important issue for the LGBT+ community.
I thank Lord Etherton and his team for their diligent work in completing the review into the pre-2000 ban on LGBT+ serving personnel in the UK armed forces. As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we strongly welcome the apology from the Prime Minister as a recognition of this historic injustice.
The review represents important progress in recognising the injustice that LGBT+ veterans have suffered, and recommends a framework to enable LGBT+ veterans to rebuild their lives and get the resolution they need. On behalf of the Labour party, I pay tribute to LGBT+ veterans and groups such as Fighting With Pride which have campaigned for justice over this appalling treatment. It was right for the Government to launch the review, reflecting proposals put forward by the Labour party during the passage of the Armed Forces Act.
The loss of livelihoods and long-term suffering endured by LGBT+ veterans due to the cruel and unjust ban have been enormous. LGBT+ veterans put their lives at risk to protect our country. They were our nation’s heroes, yet suffered a serious injustice. We now know that, as a consequence of the ban, around 20,000 LGBT+ military personnel were jailed, dismissed, outed to their families or subjected to abuse, simply because of their sexuality or gender identity. That should have never happened. Many lost a job they loved, and their income, pension and honours. Those dishonourably discharged were banned from wearing their military uniform at remembrance events. Many more were forced to conceal their true identity. The review references the shocking and appalling treatment of serving LGBT+ personnel, including the disgraceful use of electric shock therapy. No one across the whole of society should be subjected to that awful practice.
I have spoken to brave LGBT+ veterans impacted by the ban, who told me how they lost careers they loved, suffered disgraceful abuse and still suffer the impact of the ban—all for simply being themselves. Many LGBT+ veterans showed exceptional courage to reach back into traumatic memories to contribute to the review. The review received 1,128 responses from people sharing their lived experiences. It is important that their testimonies are heard to ensure that the LGBT+ community has a sense of ownership of the report.
Today’s commitments represent the beginning of the process. We must now see immediate action from the Government to implement the review’s recommendations, as that will begin the process of helping LGBT+ veterans to get the resolution they need and, in some cases, rebuild their lives. The Secretary of State said that the Government agree with the intent behind the recommendations, but may deliver a number of them in a different way from that described in the report. Will he outline to the House which recommendations will be delivered in a different way from that set out in the report? How has that been decided? Will the Government work with LGBT+ veterans and third sector groups to ensure that they are delivered appropriately?
We fully support giving back medals to LGBT+ veterans and ending the ban on those dishonourably discharged due to their sexuality or gender identity from wearing uniform at remembrance ceremonies. I hope the Minister will outline how veterans can seek the return of their medals. Recommendation 28 states that an
“appropriate financial award should be made to affected veterans”.
How are the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor planning to take that forward?
Any proposed compensation scheme must be accessible to all veterans affected, whether they were dishonourably discharged, medically discharged, at the time, because of their sexuality, or dismissed while under investigation. The recommendations relating to mental health and physical welfare must be delivered in an inclusive manner that recognises all LGBT+ veterans and the different ways in which they were affected by the ban and dismissed. Can the Secretary of State assure the House and the LGBT+ community that this is an issue his Department is actively considering?
The Government must do whatever it takes to successfully implement the recommendations. We look forward to their full response and to a future debate. We cannot right the wrongs of the past, but we can help LGBT+ veterans now fix their lives, damaged for too long by this ban.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said. I think that all of us—the Opposition and those of us on this side of the House—share not only a desire to honour those veterans and make our apology, but a recognition that we must work to deliver recommendations that will make that difference. There is no delay and we are not avoiding the question: when I said that “we may” apply some recommendations in a different way from that described in the report, I was alluding to simple issues relating to the general data protection regulation and to differences of opinion in the same community.
Let me give an example: the veterans badge. Some members of the LGBT community would say that they are veterans, full stop. They do not want to be differentiated; they want the same badge as all other veterans. There are others, however, who want a separate badge. There is no easy answer to that, which is why we will be working on the issue with organisations such as Fighting With Pride. The same goes for financial provision or recognition of the harm done. We must arrive at an elegant solution that matches the needs and requirements of those individuals, rather than coming to the House in haste and making a statement. As we have seen with the infected blood scheme, for instance, when schemes are not thought through, more problems are caused and lawyers seem to take more money than the victims who deserve to be compensated or supported.
We will be very happy to work with the Opposition in advance of any debate to discuss our thinking on the recommendations. We have no qualms about that: the whole House has a role to play in valuing these veterans. People in my age group served in the old Army, and I say “old Army” because what the report says about institutional homophobia is true, and Members should read it. I was part of that Army, and I was determined to make this statement today—rather than its being made by my excellent colleague the Minister—because I wanted to acknowledge that I had been part of that Army and that thinking, which I deeply regret.
We should get these recommendations right, but some elements are less straightforward than others. Where we have been able to get on with them, we have done so, with, for instance, the apology. “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” went live today on gov.uk. It refers to the process of helping to restore medals, which we have done, and helping to inform the veterans communities about, for example, the fact that their pension rights were not abolished. Many, as they left, were misinformed or bullied, and told all sorts of things—for example, that their records would disappear completely, and that they would have no pension. That is not true. There are some pensions still to be claimed, and we should do everything we can to help the people concerned.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins
The Minister will be pressed again for his response—he will not have to wait until Saturday—because until 2000 it was illegal to be gay in the UK armed forces. The loss of livelihoods and long-term suffering endured by LGBT+ veterans as a result of that cruel and unjust policy has been immense. I am pleased that there is such cross-party agreement about the publication of the report being so important to those who have experienced such injustice, but 18 months on there is still no report and no Government apology. Will the Minister confirm specifically when the report will be published in full, with all testimony, and when we can expect an apology from the Prime Minister for this historic injustice?
Dr Murrison
It was this Government who set up the review. This situation was going on from 1967 to 2000, and it was an appalling stain on all of us, so I am really pleased that, at long last, the Government have gripped it. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to be a little bit more patient, but I suspect that we will publish the report and a response very soon indeed.
Veterans UK
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing and leading this important debate during Armed Forces Week, reflecting our deep obligation to our armed forces, veterans and their families.
Labour is deeply proud of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families—the whole community—for the contribution they make to our country. From the response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments during the covid-19 pandemic, the armed forces are essential to our country’s safety and security. We thank them for all that they do.
Like others, I have had the honour of taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, to gain greater insight and understanding of service and service life. The long-standing connection between Labour and the armed forces community is built on our respect for their public service, and recognition of their sacrifices. We recognise that it is people from our communities who serve—our family, friends and neighbours—and we have a moral duty to ensure that they can access the services they deserve. Theirs is the ultimate public service.
It has been excellent to see Labour MPs this week standing up for the armed forces community in Parliament, with further celebratory events over the following days, many led by local councillors and councils, as referred to. As shadow Veterans Minister, it has been a pleasure to join Labour’s Veterans’ Voice events across the country, hosted by Labour MPs, prospective parliamentary candidates and councillors. Our Veterans’ Voice nationwide listening campaign will help ensure that our plans for the next general election reflect the real-life experiences of veterans and their families.
What has been clear from all the events so far is that the Conservative Government are failing to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Veterans I have met from across the UK have told me how they feel overlooked and let down after 13 years of a Conservative Government. From veterans who need a hand up, to veterans who are doing perfectly well in life but expect more respect for their service, the whole community deserves better. Veterans UK is responsible for delivering that but, as we have heard from Members today, including the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), it is falling short of what is expected.
The previous Labour Government were proud to set up the armed forces compensation scheme, to ensure that serving personnel, veterans and their family members can receive support following injury, illness or death. On almost every visit I have been on, a veteran or a family member has explained the difficulties and frustrations with the scheme. There seems to be no plan to address the falling acceptance rates for veterans seeking compensation through the scheme, as successful claims have dropped from 65% to 47% since 2011-12, and rejections have risen from 24% to 41%. I cannot comment on the specifics of individual cases, but we know that there are many problems with the process, as the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) highlighted.
The headline findings of the current quinquennial review of the armed forces compensation scheme state that
“the process is overly burdensome and even distressing for the claimant due to unreasonable timeframes and a lack of transparency.”
That situation is creating mistrust in the armed forces community, because it is perceived that there is little procedural fairness and that decision making is inconsistent. We need immediate action from the Government to improve that. On 30 January, the Minister told the House that the quinquennial review of the armed forces compensation scheme would be published “in the spring”, yet we are now into summer and still have no report. Will the Minister confirm when the final report will be published in full? Further delay only further fails our veterans.
The cost of living crisis has had an enormous impact on our armed forces community, as it has on the rest of society, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for setting that out. The Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes have increased the number of grants awarded to veterans and their families to support them with rises in basic living costs, such as food and energy, and over the past year the number of veterans relying on universal credit has also increased by 50%. That means that over 50,000 veterans are now receiving universal credit. People are unable to cover their bills, and it is simply not good enough for the Government to ignore the situation. Will the Minister explain what new steps the Government will take to support veterans into well-paid work, and will he outline how his Department is working with service charities to ensure that veterans are not forced into poverty? These are our heroes; the very least they deserve is the dignity of a secure, well-paid job that enables them to cover their basic costs.
The Government rightly recognise the gaps in Government support, and we welcome the independent review of UK Government welfare services that is being jointly conducted by the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. It is long overdue, but for the review to be a success the Government must recognise that they have been responsible for the deterioration of veterans services over the past 13 years. From the slow roll-out of ID cards that veterans need to access services to missing important mental health waiting time targets, across the board the Government have not delivered the support that veterans deserve and were promised. The review must be shaped by veterans’ experiences.
On 13 March, the Minister told the House that the welfare review would be “completed within three months”, yet the following week the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said it would be “three to six months.” I subsequently checked the review’s terms of reference, which state:
“Full and final recommendations will be made by Autumn 2023.”
I too would therefore like to nudge the Minister—perhaps a bit more firmly—to confirm on what date the review outcome will be published. Will he also outline what resources his Department and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs have allocated to the implementation of the review’s recommendations? The review must not just shuffle around the deckchairs; veterans and their families deserve better than the status quo. I look forward to hearing further detail from the Minister.
In conclusion, the Labour party is ready to step up to the challenge. In government, we will fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, thereby delivering on the promise to those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families. They will receive fair treatment. Visa fees will be scrapped for non-UK veterans and their dependants if they have served four years or more. We will also boost specialist support and bring down waiting times for veterans’ mental health services as part of our £1 billion commitment to ensure that everyone receives treatment within a month. Veterans are at the heart of Labour’s plan for Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Hopkins Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the last serviceman being stood down from national service, and I express our thanks to all those who served. The headline findings of the five-year review of the armed forces compensation scheme found the process overly burdensome and even distressing. I have heard many complaints about the scheme from veterans and their families, as I am sure have Ministers. With the Government missing their own casework targets, delaying action on the scheme is not good enough, as it continues to let down our armed forces community. Can I press the Minister on when we will see the final report of the review? Can he confirm that meaningful improvements will be made to the scheme before summer recess?
James Heappey
As I have said in response to earlier questions, around £40 million is being invested in the ongoing transformation process to digitise the existing paper-based processes and records, and that will be transformative. These are hundreds of thousands of records kept largely on paper, which makes them extraordinary difficult to process and has caused all of the delays that the hon. Lady rightly mentions. Since the new online digital claims service was launched through the gov.uk website, the service has been available to service personnel and veterans. The new service has been well received and already accounts for 50% of all new injury and illness claims being made.