Stephen Morgan
Main Page: Stephen Morgan (Labour - Portsmouth South)Department Debates - View all Stephen Morgan's debates with the Cabinet Office
Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)
Stephen Morgan Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am not giving way any further. The Minister has had enough time; he has had plenty of time. I am afraid the Minister will just need to sit down and mute himself.
Negotiating pay and conditions was essential to the betterment of working-class people in the shipbuilding and associated industries that many of my forebears served in. I cannot imagine why that would not be the case for those members of my family and for my constituents serving in the armed forces today.
As with all the other new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have tabled, I do not expect new clause 4 to pass, but I ask Members of the governing party to reflect on the fact that this may be the way things have always been done or part of the charm of serving in the armed forces, but young people today will increasingly ask themselves why working in the NHS comes with a framework of obligations that people can expect from their employers and a host of independent advice that they can rely on, whereas public service in the armed forces does not. No amount of effusive praise that we give them in the House of Commons makes up for that.
One Armed Forces Day or Week each year does not make up for the 365-days-a-year protection that would be created by an organisation that allowed them all to speak with one strong voice. That is why I think an armed forces representative body gets to the very heart of everything we have been talking about on this Bill Committee—to the heart of what kind of country we want to live in, and how the social contract between the Government, the people and their armed forces should work.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
New clause 19 is designed to provide for the establishment of a federation for the armed forces. It owes much to the British Armed Forces Federation, which pioneered service representation. This issue has been close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, and I am loth to let an Armed Forces Bill go without raising it. It has been clear for some time that the armed forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses that I have seen before this Committee have reinforced that point and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse that takes place within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system, and of a concerning perception that someone’s career will be under threat if they complain persistently. Most members of the armed forces have also endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade.
Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. I want to stress that this federation would not be equivalent to a trade union for the armed forces. It would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command. We can learn from positive forerunners such as the British Armed Forces Federation, which clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.
Although the proposal might be seen to be radical or dangerous by some, other nations, including the US and Australia, already have similar models embedded into existing military command structures. Given that Ministers in this Government have been so fond of looking to Australia for solutions, I hope that they will feel able to do so again. The nominally independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the service complaints ombudsman present a clear direction of travel towards independence.
Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity and also give them a voice.
Carol Monaghan
I just want to add a couple of comments. Both these new clauses seem to worry the Government, and we have to wonder why. I think many personnel will wonder, “Why would the Government not wish to support these proposals?” A body that can speak for armed forces personnel on issues such as housing, terms and conditions, and pay would surely be a benefit. If personnel could raise these issues themselves, it could avoid situations such as those that we have seen recently through the National Audit Office report on the poor quality of single living accommodation.
It is important that we look at other bodies that work. The Police Federation would be a good example. In the Police Federation, individuals do not have the ability to strike and there is no threat to the chain of command. Despite us raising these issues time and again, the Government simply throw the same lazy arguments back at us. Those lazy arguments include, “We don’t want anything that undermines the chain of command.” This organisation would operate separately; it would be a body that personnel could go to without breaching the chain of command. All of us here understand the importance of that.
What arguments is the Minister going to come up with for opposing these new clauses? We have heard the same arguments time and again on strikes and chain of command, but we have said that these new clauses are no threat to those things. What can the Minister tell us other than that? Why would he not want to support personnel when they are looking for improvement? I do not think any of us would argue about what they want. They want decent housing, and decent terms and conditions; and we should not have any problem with that. I am really interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Stephen Morgan
New clause 10, taken together with amendments 3 to 6, is designed to ensure that the Government fulfil their commitment to fully enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, and that it is delivered to all service personnel, veterans and their families. As I previously noted on amendments 3 to 6, the Bill as drafted attempts to absolve central Government of the responsibility to deliver the armed forces covenant. Instead, it places the burden on cash-strapped local authorities and other public bodies, and provides no new resources with which to deliver it.
The new clause would strengthen the duty of due regard. It would build a conscious commitment to all aspects of the covenant into the framework of Government public policy, and mandate Ministers to provide evidence of where they have done that. Serving personnel, veterans and their families access a great range of services from across Government Departments, local authorities and other public bodies, but the Royal British Legion has pointed out that policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are often ultimately the responsibility of national Government or based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners.
Placing the burden entirely on local authorities and other public bodies conveniently leaves out the responsibilities that the Government have to veterans in areas such as pensions, compensation and even social care, where central Government set the policy that is delivered by local authorities. It also means that serving personnel who rely on the MOD for most services are not currently included in scope. At the moment, the Bill does little to reinforce and support the welfare of those who are actively serving. After a year in which they have been bolstering our frontline efforts to tackle coronavirus, in addition to carrying out continued deployments overseas, nothing is more illustrative of the low ambition with which the Government have approached the Bill.
The operation of the new clause is similar to that of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which ensures that relevant new legislation and guidance pass a climate change litmus test. Why would we not require the same standards for our armed forces communities? The covenant contains laudable commitments that should be delivered to those who have served our country with courage and distinction, but for many in service communities it is a well-meaning but nebulous document that cannot be relied on to make any tangible difference to their day-to-day lives, as we have heard from witnesses and seen in successive reports. A practical example is the debate around priority care for veterans. That is guaranteed by the covenant, but as Cobseo pointed out in the armed forces covenant annual report, it is implemented in an inconsistent manner, and its ambiguity can cause problems on the ground.
We know that the statutory guidance that will give meaning to the legislation will not be published in full until Royal Assent. That means that politicians, service charities and, most importantly, service communities will not understand whether the Bill actually delivers until it has passed. Why are the Government happy to take that chance? The new clause is an antidote to the ambiguity and fragmentation of the current system of covenant delivery. It consciously builds the concept of “no disadvantage” into policy making across public bodies and offers an opportunity to give actionable meaning to the laudable but sometimes ambiguous commitments in the covenant. Taken together withother proposals, it will clarify the promises in the covenant and ensure that all aspects are deliverable in practice for service personnel, veterans and their families.
Mrs Hodgson
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South. I rise to speak to new clause 14, which calls on the Government to record and then report the following: first, the number of veterans, or families of veterans, who have contacted the Office for Veterans’ Affairs or Veterans UK each year, with an overview of the most commonly mentioned reasons for that contact; secondly, the number of veterans who have applied for a veterans’ railcard, as well as the number of veterans who have applied to the civil service interview scheme, and the proportion who have been successful; thirdly, the number of veterans in the street homeless population; and, finally, the number of veterans who have died by suicide.
I know that the Minister is working on all those areas, but the reality is that without the data we cannot establish what more may need to be done. He is right to celebrate having the veterans’ question on the census for the first time. I look forward to seeing the data published as a result of that. He also often celebrates the veterans’ railcard and the civil service interview scheme, which is why we are keen to hear how they are doing. I have tabled some written questions to find out, and it looks like both are going really well.
New clause 14 relates to my previous speech on public services asking if someone is a veteran or reservist. Such a measure would improve services and help government—at a local and national level—to make policies to address shortfalls. For example, in July to September 2020, 460 households were reported as having additional support needs due to a member having served in the armed forces. But not all local authorities ask, or consistently record and report this data.
We have only a small insight into the number of veterans represented in the street homeless population in London. In 2019-20, 376 people seen sleeping rough in London were recorded as having served in the armed forces; 129 of them were UK nationals. That is an increase from 2018-19, when 322 people seen sleeping rough in London—115 of whom were UK nationals—were recorded as having served in the armed forces. But, again, not all rough sleepers are assessed on their armed forces history, so we cannot say for certain whether these trends reflect what is happening in the whole population of rough sleepers.
Similarly, we do not know the scale of veterans’ suicide. I know that this is a complex issue that the MOD is working on, alongside a further study by Professor Nav Kapur from the University of Manchester, who is looking into the causes of veteran suicide. However, if coroners were mandated to record the service history of the person who has died by suicide, we would be a step closer to understanding the scale of veteran suicide and whether being a veteran played any part in a suicide, as it is not always a contributing factor. New clause 14 seeks to measure the scale of the issue so that we can understand and address it.
I hope that the Minister will see merit in recording and reporting this data to better improve our understanding of veterans’ lives and the challenges they face, and therefore to improve the Government’s response to the issue.
Stephen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause is designed to take long-overdue comprehensive action to tackle the low standard of accommodation that our service personnel face. It will require the Government to report annually on the standard of service accommodation, including the number below minimum standards and where they are located. It will also place a duty on Ministers to provide a service housing charter, which will set and enforce a common minimum standard across all service housing.
As I have said when speaking to previous amendments, as currently drafted the duty to have due regard does not apply to Government Departments. This means that service accommodation, which is the responsibility of the MOD, is not currently included in the Bill. This new clause seeks to change that, and to respond to the widespread concerns raised repeatedly by service charities, service personnel, the Select Committee on Defence and the National Audit Office.
According to the armed forces continuous attitude survey, 40% of tri-service personnel live in single living accommodation, and 31% live in service families accommodation. A third of both these groups are dissatisfied with the overall quality of their accommodation. Roughly half of both these groups are dissatisfied with the response to maintenance requests, and a further 45% of personnel are dissatisfied with the quality of that work. This has been reinforced by the recent NAO report on SLA, which detailed a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs and an appalling prevalence of issues with heating and hot water. Even the chief operating officer of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has conceded that the current quality-grading system for single living accommodation is complex. Yet it finds that 36% of personnel live in grade 4 or below, which is the lowest of the categories, and there is no minimum standard. Problems with heating and hot water are widespread.
The Government have committed funds to the modernisation programme, which is welcome, but it will take significant time to come to fruition. In the meantime, it is essential that we have a transparent picture of standards for which Ministers and civil servants are accountable. When we look at service family accommodation, it is the fix-on-fail contracts that cause so much trouble. Although Ministers say that Amey is meeting its key performance indicators, I suggest that these need to be reviewed, as the reality for service families is very different.
Last week, I spoke to naval families living in SFA in Portsmouth. They described huge waits for maintenance appointments and botched jobs that exacerbate problems and leave homes in shameful states of repair. I understand that service family accommodation is subject to a decent homes standard, but this in itself should be reviewed and the Government should aspire to far better for our service personnel.
Although the provision of service accommodation is split, with some being provided directly by the MOD and the rest being outsourced, it does not prevent a clear minimum standard from being applied across the board. This is simply a question of creating the homes fit for heroes that our service personnel deserve, and it should be a top priority.
It also poses a fundamental risk to recruitment, retention and morale. The 2020 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that 29% of personnel say that accommodation actively increases their propensity to leave. The Committee was due to visit service housing as part of its consideration of the Bill, but the Secretary of State mysteriously vetoed it at the last minute. Perhaps he was embarrassed by the unacceptable standards that our service personnel too often endure.
I would like to ask the Minister some very specific questions, and I look forward to his answers today. How does he justify the omission of the MOD among those responsible for having due regard to the covenant? Does he acknowledge the need for greater transparency on the overall quality of service accommodation? Will he undertake a review of Amey’s KPIs, and how will the Government incentivise a move from fix-on-fail? Will he consider establishing a minimum standard across all service accommodation?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South for so clearly setting out the arguments for this new clause. For years, service personnel have had to put up with accommodation that is not up to scratch, and this Bill would have been a perfect opportunity to make some real, positive changes to rectify that.
When we heard from David Brewer and Tim Redfern a couple of weeks ago they were very keen to promote their successes but, as we all know and as recent surveys have shown, nearly half of our service personnel remain dissatisfied with their living arrangements.
I am sure we have all heard from constituents about acceptable housing, so today I would like to hear from the Minister about how exactly he is going to improve conditions for those who serve and their families. The state of accommodation has a big impact on the retention of staff. When more than a quarter of personnel are saying that accommodation is one reason for leaving the services, we know something just is not right. The loss of experienced, trained service personnel is not cost-effective, nor does it contribute to the state of readiness of our armed forces. Clarity and transparency are vital to improving conditions for our tri-service personnel, and I will be supporting the introduction of new clause 11 as it would go some way towards improving the current situation.
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Ministry of Defence to commission an annual report to evaluate what constitutes the minimum quality standards for service accommodation and how many service personnel reside in accommodation that does not meet those criteria.
Our armed forces personnel are the heart of everything we do. As a condition of service and in recognition of their inherently mobile lifestyle, frequently remote bases and terms of service, regular service personnel are provided with high-quality, subsidised accommodation. Defence already operates a quality standard for all service family accommodation properties and is in the process of developing accommodation standards for single living accommodation. The Department has made a commitment to service personnel and their families to provide decent living standards through the service family accommodation customer service charter. The charter formally commits the Department to improve the condition and standard of the service family accommodation estate, sustaining improved levels of maintenance and repair performance and enhancing the customer service delivery that they receive from Amey Defence Services.
Defence has invested £1.2 billion over the last decade on construction and upgrades of our single living accommodation, and we continue to invest in a range of new build and renovation projects. My Department currently plans to invest a further £1.5 billion in single living accommodation, new build and upgrade projects over the next 10 to 12 years. That is more money going into SLA. As part of the wider £200 million upgrade programme for service family accommodation and single living accommodation that was announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence in July 2020, an additional £78 million will be invested in single living accommodation and transit accommodation by 2022.
With regard to applying a minimum standard of accommodation, I am pleased to report that service family accommodation already adheres to the decent homes standard, as defined by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Currently, 96.9% of SFA properties meet or exceed the standard, with work ongoing to modernise internal features across the estate. The standard of available housing is monitored on a monthly basis, and housing that does not meet the decent homes standard is not allocated to service personnel. The decent homes standard is currently being reviewed by MHCLG, and I look forward to considering the findings of the review and the impact that has on defence.
Work is ongoing through the SLA expert group to define an agreed minimum standard for SLA premises across all services. This work will also be supported by the roll-out of the SLA management information system, which will enable an evidence-based approach to the application of future funding through the analysis and exploitation of veracious accommodation data. The system has proved to be both complex and multifaceted, but it is now on track to go live in September 2021.
We conduct the armed forces continuous attitude survey annually, and it allows service personnel the opportunity to provide feedback on all aspects of service life, including accommodation. The results of the survey are used to identify particular aspects of the service accommodation package that require improvement. The publication of the defence accommodation strategy by the end of 2021 will formalise the Department’s vision for our standards for such accommodation to meet the lived experience and expectations of our personnel now and in the future.
Given the scale of ongoing work to improve the standard of accommodation offered to service personnel, backed by significant investment in infrastructure and the existing procedures to monitor standards, it would be premature to require the Department to report on standards and produce a charter at this stage. The review of the decent homes standard is currently ongoing in MHCLG and is due to report in summer 2022. Following those assurances, I hope my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the motion.
Stephen Morgan
This is perhaps the most fundamental standards issue. I posed a number of questions to the Minister, and it is regrettable that he has not answered those today. The Bill is a missed opportunity to tackle this issue, which the Government need to take further action on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion, but we may return to it on Report.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Mental health report
“(1) No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include—
(a) a definition of what constitutes ‘priority care’ as set out in Armed Forces Covenant and how the Secretary of State is working to ensure that it is being provided, and
(b) a review of waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans accessing mental health support.
(2) The first report published under this section must also include a resource plan to meet current Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service waiting time targets for the offer of an appointment in England and set new targets for mental health recovery through the veterans mental health pathway.”—(Mrs Hodgson.)
This new clause would require the Government to produce a definition of ‘priority care’ to help primary care clinicians deliver the commitments in the Armed Forces Covenant, conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, and produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time.
Stephen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is designed to address the frankly extortionate visa fees that Commonwealth veterans face to remain in the country that they fought for following their service. This is a long-standing and shameful practice, and I am pleased that Labour is bringing forward a solution. The clause proposes to ensure that Commonwealth veterans pay only the unit cost of an indefinite leave to remain application, currently set at £243.
It is a source of immense pride that those from across the world have served in our armed forces—from the 1.3 million Indians who volunteered to join the British Army in the first world war, to those who took part in operational tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, more than 6,000 personnel serve in the forces from overseas, many from the Commonwealth. Alongside servicemen and women from this country, they continue to make extraordinary sacrifices and display incredible bravery, risking their lives overseas and more recently bolstering our frontline response to the coronavirus crisis, but the Government are shamefully letting them down.
Following four years of service, Commonwealth service personnel earn the right to live in Britain, but in recent years the Government have increased the fees for service personnel to apply. A service leaver with a partner and two children will be presented with a bill of almost £10,000 to continue to live in the UK after they have served. That is an increase from just £155 in 2003. To add further insult, they are given just 48 days following the discharge in which to pay it. That is dishonourable, unfair and certainly no way to repay the bravery and sacrifice of Commonwealth service personnel.
This is not just a moral argument about appropriately recognising their service; it is an issue of basic humanity. Those eye-watering fees represent a huge part of applicants’ wages, and many are not expecting them. The Royal British Legion, which has campaigned strongly on this issue for several years, suggests that around 300 Commonwealth personnel leave service and are faced with those fees. The fees leave Commonwealth veterans facing huge uncertainty and financial hardship, and feeling abandoned by the country that they have served.
Citizenship for Soldiers is doing fantastic work, as we heard in an evidence session, to advocate for those affected by this injustice. One of the claimants it represents, a 12-year veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, was given a bill in the region of £30,000 following an emergency operation, after he was deemed ineligible for free NHS care. As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, without leave to remain, Commonwealth veterans are cut off from being able to access employment or state support. That often leads veterans reliant on their families or charitable funds, or facing repatriation to their country of origin.
That is a breach of not only the armed forces covenant but the moral obligation that this country has to them. Successive armed forces covenant annual reports have pointed that out. The Royal British Legion and other service charities have explicitly called for this injustice to end. It should bring shame to us all. I know that many on the Committee sympathise with the new cause—including you, Mr Sunderland—and I hope that we will find the courage to support the amendment when it comes to a vote. Even the Minister has repeatedly said that this is an injustice, yet the Bill misses a crucial opportunity to end it.
Commonwealth veterans have already paid for their citizenship once, through their service to our country. I hope that colleagues from across the political spectrum will support Labour’s new clause to ensure that no one has to pay twice.
Johnny Mercer
Let us be absolutely clear: Labour has done absolutely nothing on this issue since visa fees came in, and it offers nothing for our armed forces, so we should drop the doe-eyed “Labour care about humanity” stuff. Only one Government have come in and promised to do something on visa fees, and that is this Government, not one before. I am proud of that. We will provide a pathway to residency and we are looking to start a public consultation on that in the next month.
The Government highly value the service of all members of the armed forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK both here and overseas. Commonwealth citizens and Gurkhas who have served at least four years or have been medically discharged as a result of their service can choose to settle in the UK after their service and pay the relevant fee.
The time before discharge that such settlement applications can be submitted has recently been extended from 10 to 18 weeks. We recognise, however, that settlement fees place a financial burden on service personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge, and we recognise the strength of feeling from service charities and the public about this issue. The Defence Secretary has met the Home Secretary to consider how we could offer greater flexibility in future. We will launch a public consultation in the next month. I urge all those with an interest in the issue to respond to that consultation so that we may correct this injustice.
It is right and proper that we seek views on any change to the immigration fees policy through public consultation. In the meantime, the MOD makes clear to Commonwealth and Gurkha recruits the process by which they and their families can attain settlement in the UK, and the costs involved. The MOD is also working with the Joining Forces credit union to provide financial education, savings packages and loan packages to help non-UK personnel pay for visa costs, should they wish to remain and settle in the UK after their service. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member will agree not to press the new clause.
Stephen Morgan
We do not believe that is a satisfactory response from the Minister. Ministers from successive Conservative Governments have promised a solution on this forever and a day. Commonwealth veterans should not have to wait until some time never for a consultation to kick off.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. I alluded to some of the figures in my speech. Regrettably, the Minister did not cover that in his response. That is why—
Stephen Morgan
I will carry on, because I am near to the end of my speech. I will not press the new clause for now, but I put Ministers on notice that we will return to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Stephen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is designed to provide greater transparency on the strength of our fighting forces, following the Government’s broken promises on armed forces cuts. It would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each quarter on the fighting strength of our armed forces, including on the number of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.
As the Committee knows, the Prime Minister promised to end the era of retreat, and that no further cuts would be made to the Army. Instead, he has further eroded our fighting strength: 45,000 personnel have been cut since 2010, and the forces were 10,000 below target strength. Now the integrated review and the Command Paper have confirmed that the Army will be further reduced to just 72,500 by 2025—smaller than at any time since the 1700s. That has been compounded by a leaked MOD report suggesting that 32 to 33 infantry battalions are short of battle-ready personnel.
The Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to yield a single war-fighting division was
“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”.
Recently retired British generals have said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK is no longer taken seriously as a military power and would damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO. The Royal United Services Institute recently reinforced that point, suggesting that the cuts mean that the UK can no longer be considered a tier 1 or full-spectrum military power.
These sweeping changes to our armed forces represent a huge gamble with our national security. Although the battlefield is undeniably changing, it remains to be seen whether the investments made in cyber, space and electronic warfare will be enough to keep us competitive on the world stage.
Government cuts to the conventional strength of our forces today, with the promise of jam tomorrow in the form of pioneering technology, are nothing new. Tory Ministers promised the same in the 2010 and 2015 reviews, but they failed to deliver. In 2010 they promised a future force by 2020, and in 2015 they promised a war-fighting division with a strike force by 2025. It is now being promised in 2030. A recent Defence Committee report on the Army’s armoured vehicle capability says that the division will be “hopelessly under-equipped” and overmatched by adversaries.
While we wait to see whether the Government finally deliver a coherent strategy for our national security, it is vital that we have a clear understanding of our fighting strength. Successive Conservative Governments have talked up their commitment to our armed forces, but they have broken their promises at every turn. Our adversaries will exploit continuing holes in our capability, and Labour is determined to ensure that our country can protect itself properly now and in the future.
Mr Jones
I rise to support this new clause because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has outlined, promises have been broken not just by this Government but since 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party argued for a larger defence budget, an increase in numbers, more equipment, and a commitment to the armed forces of our country. Since then, we have not just seen the size of the Army reduced; we have seen cuts in numbers in the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, and in the Royal Air Force. Under the coalition, we had the terrible situation where brave members of our armed forces were made compulsorily redundant—again, something that was never promised in 2010. Certainly, if a Labour Government had implemented that policy, Members on the Tory Benches would have opposed it and would have been highly critical of the Government for doing so.
The overall size of our armed forces does matter, not only in terms of the Army being able to deploy individuals but to ensure that, for example, the Royal Navy has enough personnel to put ships to sea. We can have as much equipment as we want, but if we do not have the individual servicemen and servicewomen to support that equipment, it is useless. In the past few years, we have seen naval ships tied up because of a lack of trained strength, so it is important that we have this report annually and also that it talks about trained strength, because the Government do play fast and loose with the numbers.
It is not just a matter of the overall size, but what the overall capability is and how many members of the armed forces can actually deploy. There has been a decade of decline in the UK’s armed forces, and although the Minister and others champion the idea that they are supporting members of the armed forces, they have been part of a Government that have not only cut pay—as we have already spoken about this morning—but cut the actual numbers of the armed forces.
Another aspect I would like to raise is the lack of opportunity this will mean for many young people in constituencies such as mine, who proudly join the armed services to not only serve their country, but ensure they can have a career that they can be proud of and take those skills back into civilian life. The cuts will have an impact in constituencies across the country that provide men and women for the armed forces, because there will be a lack of opportunities. A lot of negative things are said about service in the armed forces, but I see service as a positive thing, where the people joining not only contribute to the safety that we all take for granted but, more importantly, get great career opportunities and opportunities that they would never have in civilian life. Once they leave, that expertise helps those individuals, and also helps local communities such as mine in North Durham. These cuts will limit the opportunities for those people, which saddens me, and is something we should bear in mind.
Johnny Mercer
I really welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. He is right about the absolute disaster zone we were left with in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham obviously likes to remind us regularly of his experiences in the MOD, but the key would be to look at them in detail and to be more honest about them. Ultimately, people watching this do not really care what happened 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What they care about is sorting out these issues now and that is what this Government are looking to do.
We have to meet the threat as it is presented in the integrated review. We have had a good defence White Paper that looks at the new and emerging threats, and the way we want to change our integrated operating concept. It is a good review. I think that members of our armed forces would like to see people get behind that, rather than talking about issues that are quite significantly out of date.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Defence Secretary to
“report to Parliament quarterly on infantry battalion soldier strength, including the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.”
The Government already publish on gov.uk quarterly service personnel statistics, containing detailed information on the strength, intake, outflow and gains to trained strength for the UK armed forces overall and specifically for each of the three services, including the Army. Providing a further breakdown of those figures to include infantry battalion soldier strength and the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion would be highly likely to prejudice the security of the armed forces for three clear reasons.
First, it would expose any extant or potential vulnerabilities and capability gaps within the force structure—a threat that will be exacerbated over the next four years as the Army reconfigures and readjusts in line with the outcomes of the integrated reviewed. Secondly, it would risk exposing any nascent and emerging capability plan. Thirdly, it could reveal the size and strength of sensitive capabilities to our adversaries.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South will understand, the safety and security of our service personnel and the effectiveness of our force are among my highest priorities. He will therefore understand that I am not willing to put the security of our personnel at risk in this manner. There is also a real concern that focusing Parliament’s attention disproportionately on infantry strength would serve only to undermine the guiding principle of our nation’s future security.
As the Secretary of State wrote in his introduction to the defence Command Paper, it is essential that our future armed forces are
“integrated across all domains, joining up our people, equipment and information to increase their outputs and effectiveness.”
It goes without saying that providing quarterly updates on infantry strength alone would place an uncontextualised and unhelpful emphasis on one part of a large and integrated whole force that we value highly. That is why our current reporting, which is made available to all, covers that whole force.
In the light of these very real concerns, I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the new clause.
Stephen Morgan
National security is the first duty of any Government. Following the publication of the integrated review and Command Paper, it is clear that this Government have not only broken their promises on fighting strength, but taken a significant gamble with our national security in the medium term. I will withdraw this clause for now, but reserve the right to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament reports on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, this includes—
(a) formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or
(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.
(c) in this section, ‘sexuality or gender identity’ includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.
(2) The report shall include recommendation of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) the restoration of ranks,
(b) pensions, and
(c) other forms of financial compensation.
(3) The report shall include a review of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders register.
(4) The report shall include discharges and forced resignations at least back to 1955.
(5) The first report must be laid no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Dan Carden.)
This new clause requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dan Carden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause seeks to right an historical wrong. Twenty-one years ago, the ban on LGBT+ personnel serving in the armed forces was lifted. During the years of the ban, it inflicted staggering cruelty on those men and women who had stepped forward to serve their country. This is a hidden history of the British military, so let me reveal some of the sorry tale.
Between the mid-1950s and 1996, men and women—predominantly men—of our armed forces who were thought to be gay were arrested, searched and questioned by officers trained for wartime interrogation. In many cases, this went on for days before they were charged, often without legal counsel or support. On many occasions, arrest was based on little evidence. It has emerged that many heterosexual personnel were falsely accused by service police officers, losing careers and, in some cases, homes and families. After harrowing investigations, these men and women were led away to military hospitals where they were subjected to degrading and shameful medical inspections, conducted in accordance with confidential Defence Council Instructions, held by every unit of the armed forces.
At court martial, in the moments before those convicted were sent down, operational medals and good conduct badges were ripped from their uniforms. They typically served six months in prison for the military criminal offence of being homosexual. It is staggering that this continued until 1996, and that administrative dismissal of LGBT+ personnel continued for a further four years, until January 2000.
As these members of our armed forces walked from prison, they were dismissed in disgrace, with criminal records as sex offenders, which from 1967 had no civilian equivalent. As they left through the main gate, they were commonly given letters instructing them to never again use their military ranks or wear items of uniform, for example in remembrance at the Cenotaph. With dignity, they continued to obey those letters. Their names were erased from the retired lists of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force as though they had never existed. These once-proud members of our military were cast out of the armed forces family and outed to their own family and friends. They lost their homes and their financial stability. Their service record cards had the top corner clipped and were marked in red pen with the annotation, “Dismissed in disgrace”, causing many a lifetime of employment issues.
In the past, in their moments of need, these personnel were shunned by military charities. I am pleased that has now changed. However, there has been no such remedy or reckoning from our Government or the Ministry of Defence. The Committee heard at first hand, from the charity Fighting with Pride, accounts of how those affected live today amidst the ashes of their former service careers. Our LGBT veterans are scattered across the United Kingdom, often away from military communities, living lives in stark contrast to those hoped for when they joined the forces. In the 21 years since the ban was lifted, nothing has been done to support those LGBT+ veterans. The impact endures amidst loneliness, isolation, shame and anger. As Canada, Germany, the United States and other nations prepare, assess and make reparations, putting right this shameful wrong is long overdue for the United Kingdom, which persisted with the ban for longer and implemented it more zealously than many others.
The Minister, I know, has offered his apology, for which many are grateful, and he and I have talked about this issue, but does he not agree that this community of veterans, who were treated with unique cruelty, deserve an apology on behalf of the nation from the Prime Minister in Parliament? They must be supported on the pathway to royal pardons, restored to the retired list and have their medals returned. Prohibitions on their use of rank and wearing of berets at the Cenotaph must be revoked. They need resettlement support, which we offer to all other members of our armed forces, and they must be fairly compensated and have their pensions reviewed in recognition of their service and the hardships they faced, then and now.
Until that is done, this will remain a matter of national disgrace, and it will stand in the way of this Government’s stated wish to be a global exemplar for both LGBT+ and veterans’ communities. This amendment places a duty on the Ministry of Defence to find our LGBT+ veterans, find out how they have fared and make recommendations to Parliament about what must be done to right this wrong. Remedy must not take years, and the Government will need to work closely with community leaders.