Defence Procurement and Supply Chains

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing the debate on this important issue. As has been said, it is a timely debate—I absolutely agree—and I thank everyone for taking part. A number of excellent points have been made by colleagues on both sides of the House on the value of defence procurement and its wider economic benefits. I acknowledge those comments and will make a few broader points about the importance of defence procurement and personnel to the security and prosperity of our country.

I welcome the four-year funding settlement for defence announced by the Prime Minister last month. It is a long overdue upgrade to Britain’s defences after a decade of decline since 2010. The extra investment in R&D is important, not just for defence and security, but because, if managed correctly, it will have a positive multiplier effect in areas such as aerospace, maritime, higher education and the wider supply chain across the UK. I was particularly pleased to hear that, at such a difficult time for our economy, the funding is set to create 10,000 jobs a year and 40,000 jobs in total. We of course welcome that, and will hold the Government to account on it.

Labour wants to ensure that new jobs are created in all parts of the UK, which brings me to my central point. While the Prime Minister’s announcement of cash was welcome, the spending review figures confirm that the £16.5 billion injection is all capital spend, with day-to-day revenue funding for defence expected to flatline at around £31.5 billion per year. That equates to a 2.4% real-terms cut through to 2024-25. Inevitably, that will mean further cuts to our armed forces and armed forces jobs. What we saw from the Prime Minister was an announcement without a strategy. Capital investment is vital and long overdue, but it is nothing without personnel and staff to support it.

Labour stands squarely behind our armed forces, including everyone from squaddies to engineers, from caterers to staff at bases. Although the Government have made important commitments to infrastructure, the Ministry of Defence seems to have a blind spot for staff and service personnel. After the last defence review in 2015, the Government fudged the funding figures with efficiency savings and invest-to-saves, opening up a £13 billion budget black hole. They failed to recruit the troops that the UK needs, leaving the military 1,200 troops short of strength.

As we heard earlier, there is also continued concern about the splitting up of service contracts at our bases—the ongoing dispute at Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde is an example. Over the last few years, some services have been subcontracted, leading to a downgrade in terms and conditions. Cleaners transferred from Babcock to ISS, for example, have seen their pensions decline and their sick pay reduced. Managed incorrectly, those contracts pit team members against each other and begin a race to the bottom on standards and working conditions for staff who are indispensable for day-to-day defence and security operations. When the Minister responds, I shall be keen to hear what he can do to reassure workers at Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde.

The Clyde example is particularly important because, of course, Faslane is home to the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—an essential part of our nation’s defence infrastructure. I was fortunate enough to visit HMS Astute while she was alongside at Faslane in 2018, where we saw the expertise and dedication of service personnel aboard. It was during the week that Carillion collapsed, and as such was particularly instructive about the perils of mismanaging Government service contracts and the devastating impact this can have on vital services. Ministers must avoid the mistakes of the past, and place service personnel at the heart of defence and security operations. They must also use their significant buying power to drive up standards, and reinforce the high standards and working conditions that our personnel’s service and expertise deserves.

More broadly, this Government have an important opportunity to use defence procurement as a powerful lever to unleash prosperity in every region and every nation of the UK, including many areas that the Government claim they would like to level up. As ADS Group notes, the UK defence industry had a turnover of £22.7 billion in 2019, and directly supported 132,000 jobs, including 5,000 apprentices. Sadly, for five years Ministers dragged their feet on whether the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships would be built, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has pointed out and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) tirelessly campaigns on and has reminded us of today.

There are concerns that the MOD may still accept bids from consortiums, including—even led by—foreign companies. As I have said previously, there are enormous benefits to rewarding defence contracts to British companies, outside of the obvious security benefits. From the revenue generated for the Exchequer to the higher national insurance contributions, building British is a no-brainer, so I say to the Government that what can be built in Britain must be built in Britain. The defence and security industrial strategy must also involve plans to develop the UK’s future capability to build in Britain. This will be one of the tests by which we will judge the Government’s long-awaited integrated review.

I have several asks of the Minister, and would be grateful if he could provide some clarity on these issues. First, when will the Government publish the defence and security industrial strategy and the associated integrated review? Will the new defence and security industrial strategy place the rights of staff, who are indispensable to day-to-day defence and security operations, at the very centre of Government procurement, or will it continue the trend of undercutting them, threatening to undermine the operation of vital defence and security assets? Finally, will the strategy make an unambiguous commitment to spending on, and building, all platforms and assets in the UK to help built British jobs? I look forward to the response from the Minister.

Today, we have heard a positive consensus from all sides about the new funding. Ministers must now make sure that they put that new money to best use. They must close the £13 billion black hole in the defence budget, recruit and properly value our service personnel, and build new military equipment here in Britain.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Due to a rash of good behaviour, the Minister has acres of time in which to expand an argument and answer questions. However, would he please leave Mr Whitley two minutes at the end to wind up in his own way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend highlights the important effort that the military made in setting up the Nightingale in Harrogate. I visited it during the set-up time, and it is also welcome that that Nightingale has been used for other NHS tasks, which is an important step in building NHS capacity where it is under pressure elsewhere. Of course, we should make sure that we always bring to bear the best of our armed forces to help wherever we can right across the board. Resilience is Defence’s middle name, and it is that key part of our skill that we are bringing to support most of government across the country.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

We welcome the recent Government announcement from the other place of the 7,000 personnel who will be brought to readiness ahead of the winter period. In light of that, does the Secretary of State agree that Government should keep the House regularly updated on the numbers of personnel being deployed, how they are being deployed, and if any further strengthening of the numbers of personnel deployed will be necessary as we progress through the winter period? Can he provide an update now?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I am very happy to inform the House on a periodic basis, perhaps every two weeks or weekly, of the MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—tasks that are being fulfilled. I can place that in the House of Commons Library. In the previous lockdown, we committed more than 10,000 troops. The number is 7,500 at the moment, but we always keep that under review. During the last lockdown, we actually only used at most about 4,000 or 5,000 at any one time, but of course we stand by to help. At the moment, there are over 20 MACAs in place and being used, and as we speak, we are examining some significant asks from a number of local authorities.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I would like to start by paying tribute to our armed forces and joining colleagues from across the House in expressing gratitude to those who serve. They truly give us reason to be proud of our country.

There is consensus across the House today. Labour, the Government and our armed forces all want the same thing. We all agree that we must protect our troops from vexatious claims, and we all agree that we must defend those who serve our country overseas with courage and distinction. The Government promised to bring forward legislation to do just that in the first 100 days of government. Now, 284 days later, they have disappointingly got crucial elements of this Bill badly wrong.

The question we must be asking is: what does this Bill mean for our troops? It risks breaching the armed forces covenant and rolls back on their employment rights. It fails to properly protect against vexatious claims and undermines Britain’s proud adherence to international laws, such as the Geneva convention, that we helped to create. However, it is not too late. There is still time for Ministers to work with us to get this right.

A number of powerful points have been made in the House today. It would probably be unwise of me to single out any of them, but let me just mention my right hon. Friends the Members for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who all spoke commandingly on the importance of our nation’s national standing; my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who spoke about ensuring that we always think about the impact of this Bill on our armed forces personnel and veterans; my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), who spoke about the need to invest in mental health services and tackling homelessness; and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who spoke about the concerns raised by the Royal British Legion.

I also congratulate, and pay tribute to, the Chair of the Defence Committee on passionately saying that we do not want the Government to over-promise and that the Bill in its current form will not help a number of veterans. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said that Britain must uphold its commitment to human rights. I agree with him that we cannot afford to become an outlier among our allies by refusing to investigate allegations of some of the gravest crimes imaginable.

I am most concerned by the Bill’s potential infringement of the rights of Her Majesty’s forces. I share the view of the Royal British Legion—an organisation with an unwavering commitment to service personnel—that the Bill constitutes a possible breach of the armed forces covenant. I urge other armed forces groups to share their views on what the Bill means for our forces community. Our troops must be at the heart of this debate.

The Government’s introduction of a six-year limit for bringing civil claims will prevent troops who suffer injury from taking cases to court. As we heard earlier in the debate, over the past 15 years there have been 25 cases brought by injured British troops against the MOD for every one case brought by alleged victims against our forces. That means the main beneficiary of this Bill is the MOD, not our personnel. The Bill should be designed to protect troops, not the purse strings of Government. I put this to the Minister: if this Bill is for our armed forces community, why does it deny them the same employment rights as civilians?

Labour is also deeply concerned that this Bill does not meet its primary objective. It does not do enough to protect our troops from vexatious claims. Months of letters from the Defence Committee to the Defence Secretary —the Committee only received a reply yesterday—made the point that the Bill does nothing to prevent arduous investigation processes; it just protects from prosecutions. It does nothing to deal with the serious failings in the system of investigating allegations against British troops, something that Defence Ministers have themselves admitted. Had those allegations been dealt with properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably would not be here today. Perhaps the toughest, most intrusive aspects of the vexatious claims process are not being dealt with in this Bill, and that is not the only way in which it leaves our troops open to so-called lawfare.

By going back on our commitments under the Geneva convention, the Bill risks dragging our people in front of the International Criminal Court. I put it to the Minister: does he really want to make it more likely that the ICC can open investigations against British troops?

There is also a set of wider issues. Vexatious claims are not the only problem that our forces face. Action on the issue is not licence-e to neglect others, such as low pay, 10 years of falling morale, a decade of falling numbers and a housing crisis across the tri-services. If the Ministers are serious about tackling the poor track record on defence, we need to see action on all those issues. The Bill presents an opportunity to turn the tide, to break the mould and to work with Labour to get it right.

In this country, we are proudly patriotic, and reinforcing that patriotism—that love of our country—is the high regard in which our armed forces are held. When we see Union flags on the shoulder patches of service personnel overseas, that means something: it means honesty, it means respect for the rule of law and it means justice. From Sandhurst to Britannia Royal Naval College, there is a reason that countries around the world send their officers to be trained in our military institutions.

This Bill puts all that at risk. It is at odds with the rules-based international order we helped to create. In its current form, the Bill would make Great Britain the only nation among our major allies to offer a statutory presumption against prosecution. As the previous Chief of the Defence Staff but also the ex-Attorney General and a former Defence Secretary have said, the Bill undermines Britain’s proud, long-standing adherence to the Geneva convention.

Great Britain has proudly stood and must stand against the use of torture and against the use of rendition. I urge the Minister: do not undo the work of Churchill, do not undo the work of Attlee and do not chip away at our nation’s proud reputation. I put it to the Minister: how can we expect Great Britain to speak with authority on international law to China, Russia and Iran if we go back on our own commitments? In years gone by, a commitment made by our proud nation meant something. Last week, the Government tarnished that reputation by breaking international law with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I urge the Minister to commit to working with us to ensure that this Bill does not do the same.

Unfortunately, the Government have got important parts of the Bill badly wrong. In its current form, it risks damaging our reputation and failing to protect Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it is not too late. As I said, there is consensus in the House today. There is still time for Ministers to work with the Opposition to get it right. Protecting troops from vexatious claims does not need to be at odds with our commitments to international law. Labour stands foursquare behind our troops. We want to work with the Government to build the broadest consensus possible around a Bill tailored to support our armed forces and to safeguard human rights. Let us work together to get this right, protect our troops and their reputation, and our country’s international standing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

Emphatically, yes.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State recently said that

“the greatest asset we have is not our tanks or our aeroplanes, it’s people.”

Yet under the last 10 years of Conservative Government, the numbers of personnel in each of the tri-services have declined. With this in mind, will the Minister make it a priority under the integrated review to address the failure to maintain the strength of our armed forces?

[James Heappey]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to pre-empt the decisions of the Prime Minister and the integrated review. However, I can assure him that recruiting targets remain as they were, and that while the sun is shining we will be making hay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

I am not aware of any individual circumstances in which someone has been recovered back to the UK as a consequence of having tested positive. The symptoms would determine whether they required hospitalisation. Medical facilities in all theatres of operation and on all ships are appropriate to deal with covid as it would normally stand. If an instance had been more serious, we would of course have looked at the need to recover the individual.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Our troops have rightly continued their duties overseas for the duration of the pandemic, keeping our citizens safe and helping to maintain international peace. However, there are concerns that in countries such as Iraq, where some British troops are stationed and there has been a surge in covid-19 cases over the past 24 hours, the worst may be yet to come. With that in mind, what contingency plans have the Government put in place to safeguard our troops operating in areas prone to further covid-19 outbreaks and their families?

[James Heappey]

The theatre commander can make a judgment about the degree to which the risk of exposure to a population with a large amount of covid within it is worth the operational needs. That is a decision for the operational commander. In theatre, all sorts of force-protection measures are available, ranging from personal protective equipment to the choice not to continue with operational duties if they are deemed to be too risky.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The review’s stakeholders are the Foreign Office, No. 10, the Cabinet Office and ourselves. We will regularly review that decision. There is no ideological block or determination to carry on come what may. With this coronavirus growing, if it is the right thing to do, we will absolutely pause the review if necessary; if not, we shall move forward.

[Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

With cyber-security recognised as a tier 1 threat, it is important to ensure that all contracts outsourced by the MOD, whether defence procurement or service contracts, fully meet the necessary cyber-security provisions. Given reports suggesting that the cyber-security standards of some defence supply chains are low, what steps are Ministers taking to improve the situation as part of the integrated review?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a critical part of our cyber infrastructure. That is why nearly two years ago we founded the National Cyber Security Centre to work alongside the MOD, business and other parts of Government to focus, exactly as he recommends, on the weak points that are often exploited by hostile states and cyber-criminals. We are one of the few countries with such an organisation and I am confident that we are on the right track. We work tirelessly to ensure that those vulnerabilities are patched and stopped, and indeed that prime contractors, who own the supply chain, take their fair share of responsibility too.

Defence: Rotary Strategy

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for securing this important debate. I have observed his commitment to our armed forces through the armed forces parliamentary scheme—I think we have both been fortunate to have had the opportunity to travel in a Merlin, a Chinook and a Wildcat, seeing at first hand what our armed forces do.

I also thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who made an important point about the value of industry and the need for skills to meet the challenges that our nation faces, and the Scottish National party spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I certainly value the contribution that she made about continued collaboration as Britain leaves the EU.

From troop and equipment transportation to search and observation work and submarine protection, the 332 rotary-wing aircrafts in the UK armed forces play a crucial role in defending national security. I have always been clear that the Government have no higher duty than the protection of our citizens, and the maintenance of national security. Alongside that responsibility, the Government must strive for operational advantage. Key to that is maintaining sovereign capability. A national strategy for naval shipbuilding and combat aircraft has paved the way for an ambitious vision for the future in those sectors. As the hon. Member for Witney said, it is now time to talk about helicopters as part of a wider defence industrial strategy.

If the Government fail to provide a clear strategy for the protection of our sovereign capability to design and manufacture helicopters, it could jeopardise investment, jobs and the security of our nation. We have heard the case for a comprehensive, joined-up and integrated wider approach. It will allow a conversation to take place about defining a clear way ahead to preserve our national advantage. It will ensure that our highly skilled workforce continue to deliver innovation, and are at the heart of discussion, and it will bring to the forefront arguments for building British, securing us as world leaders.

For that reason, I reiterate the calls on the Government to look urgently at a wider defence industrial strategy, with rotary-wing aircrafts playing a key role. That must be part of a strategic defence and security review, and it must encompass expenditure, policy and operations across the full spectrum of defence, security and foreign affairs. Therefore, when does the Minister expect the formal process for the SDSR to get underway? In that review, when can he confirm that rotary-wing aircrafts will receive consideration tantamount to the contribution they make to the UK armed forces?

We know that future air warfare will be increasingly complex, with significant technological advancements over the lifetime of a single rotary-wing aircraft. As threats evolve, we must evolve with them. Without a comprehensive strategic defence and security review, that will be deeply challenging. I vow to continue applying scrutiny and pressure to the Government on this issue, and will continue to work alongside all Members present to ensure that rotary-wing aircrafts are given the priority that they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have a rebuild programme, whereby £4 billion is being put in to make sure we provide that state-of-the-art accommodation for our future defence capability. However, I agree with him that we need to do more to make sure we provide the type of housing that the recruits we want to bring in to the force deserve.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

T8. With the latest NHS statistics identifying that about 60 veterans a day are seeking professional assistance for mental health issues, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that our service personnel receive the tailored, bespoke mental health services they need and deserve?

[Mr Ellwood]

I should just clarify the difference between those who are serving and those who are veterans. In the case of veterans, each health authority now provides the transition, intervention and liaison service, to give veterans the mental health support that they deserve. In the case of those who are serving, as I touched on before, our mental health and wellbeing strategy is doing far more, which is why more people are putting their hand up to say, “I need help.” That is a good thing.

Veteran Suicide

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered veteran suicide.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.

“I love my family but hate my life. I need help. I’m scared now it hurts.” Those are the words sent in an email to the mental health services by David Jonathon Jukes, who served in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq twice, and Afghanistan. David Jukes was incredibly brave, as is his wife Jo, who has given me permission to share his heart-wrenching story. Despite what he did for his country, Dave was let down in his time of need. He was let down in 1997, when he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder but still deployed to a war zone. He was let down in 2012, when he returned from Afghanistan and was not properly diagnosed with a personality disorder. He was let down in 2018, when his priority need was not properly recorded and he was forced to wait weeks to see a doctor.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am horrified to hear that David was deployed if he had been diagnosed with PTSD. I am really surprised that that happened; I would not have thought any commanding officer would have sanctioned that. If the hon. Gentleman says that happened, so it did, but they should not have allowed him to deploy, because someone with PTSD can be a really big problem for his friends who he has to protect, as they have to protect him.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will carry on with my story, and explain a bit more about this personal case.

David was let down by the crisis team that turned him away because he was not in its records, and he was let down when a two-hour stand-off with eight police officers and two negotiators did not result in his sectioning for his own safety. He was let down by the home treatment team when it did not respond to 26 phone calls made by his loving wife, and refused to come out to support him. On 9 October 2018, David Jonathon Jukes, a veteran of five conflicts and a hero by anyone’s standards, took his own life. That truly harrowing tale is indicative of many other instances of veterans being passed around by Departments without any kind of tailored approach to their mental health services, and that is why we are here today.

There are about 5 million members of the armed forces community in the UK, and about 15,000 men and women leave service each year. It is important to stress that the majority of those individuals do not experience a decline in mental health upon their transition to civilian life, but we are here to talk about those who do. Last year, 58 veterans took their own life. That is a shocking statistic—but most important, a shocking loss of life.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. While the official figures state that there were 58 veteran suicides last year, numbers from the third sector and supportive organisations suggest that there were closer to 100, if not more. Is it not the case that one challenge with this issue is that we do not have the data we need to assess the scale of the problem?

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is something I will be coming on to later. This issue transcends party politics, and for me, today’s debate is about cross-party co-operation.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate; we can see from the number of Members present how this topic touches people’s hearts. He has made the point about 58 veterans taking their own life. Does he agree that the mental health of our brave veterans should be a top priority for Government, and that the Ministry of Defence and the NHS need to work more closely together to ensure that veterans get all the support they need and to treat those who risk so much to protect us and our country?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and she is absolutely right. There is more that the NHS and charities across our country can do, and I will say more about that later on.

I look forward to hearing views from colleagues across the House and working with them to improve the care given to the brave men and women who, day in and day out, put on their uniforms to keep us safe. I welcome today’s announcement of a £700,000 investment in veteran mental health in my Portsmouth constituency, following a long-running campaign by the Portsmouth News and local campaigners—a really good example of partnership working making a difference. However, there is much more that we need to do. No other job exerts the same control over a person’s life; no other job asks them to go into the line of fire. Our approach to veterans’ care needs to reflect those facts.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning, I received a very heartfelt and upsetting email from two women married to two former British Army infantrymen. Both men have been admitted to psychiatric wards in the past six months; both have attempted suicide, or caused serious risk to their health. The women described the shortfall in health resources and the lack of specialist expertise in dealing with combat trauma as “catastrophic”, and they say they are fighting with all their might to keep their husbands alive and for the future happiness and life prospects of their families, especially their children. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as supporting our brave veterans, we need to do everything we can to support their brave families?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. We should not have to fight for people to get the support that they need; it is imperative that they are given that support in their hour of need.

We need an approach to veterans’ care that reflects a number of facts. Exceptional grassroots organisations such as Forgotten Veterans UK and All Call Signs—representatives of which are here in force—have said that we need tailored, bespoke mental health care that is in line with the experiences of brave men and women like Dave, who have put themselves in harm’s way for our benefit. That is mirrored by the advice given by organisations such as Combat Stress.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on veteran suicide. In the past decade, the number of new referrals to Combat Stress, the excellent organisation that he mentioned, has doubled; its helpline received more than 12,000 calls just last year. As my hon. Friend will be more than aware, it is estimated that one ex-serviceperson commits suicide every seven days. Does he agree that it is ridiculous that the Government currently refuse to collect any data on this widespread problem, so we cannot identify its full scale?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right: we need that data so that we can understand the extent of the issue, and then do something about it.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have recently been approached by two veterans who live fairly close to the barracks in my constituency, and who are very concerned about this issue. Dr Walter Busuttil, who is the consultant psychiatrist and medical director at the charity Combat Stress, has said:

“In the UK, coroners are reluctant to call something a suicide unless it is obvious. They will often go with a narrative verdict…Other countries record more accurate suicide studies.”

Is it not a fact that many suicides in the Army and in other forces are not recorded because of narrative verdicts?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. There is a stigma around this issue, and it is crucial that we learn from our allies; we can learn a lot from them.

The need for tailored care is exemplified by a survey commissioned by Help for Heroes, which found that nearly 30% of veterans are put off from visiting mental health services on the grounds that they believe civilian services will not understand their needs. Serious funding issues are also hindering the provision of care to veterans: only 0.07% of the £150 billion NHS budget is allocated to veteran-specific funding.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so articulately putting forward the findings of the Defence Committee’s report on mental health services and the needs we have. I am interested in the fact that only £10 million of the NHS budget was spent on these issues last year. One of the biggest challenges that Help for Heroes has identified is that the Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to look after veterans for only 12 months after they have left the service, but some veterans are only coming forward with these challenges five years later. Does my hon. Friend agree that the MOD’s responsibility for veterans’ care should continue for five years after they have left the service?

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for her valuable contributions to the Defence Committee, which has raised a number of the issues. That figure that I mentioned is less than it costs to buy two Challenger tanks. That is what we are dealing with today. How can we expect to provide care for veterans like Dave when such an insultingly small amount of money is on the table? It is not just funding that is damaging development in this area; we are lagging behind in so many other ways.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am going to carry on. Canada, New Zealand and America are our allies and have similarly structured militaries and political systems. One thing we do not share with them is that their coroners record veterans’ suicides. How can we begin to address the problem if we do not know its true scale? Currently only one out of 98 coroners across England and Wales records the detail that the deceased in a suicide case is a veteran. That means the scale of the problem is unknown. Since my election, I have been working with experts in the field, such as All Call Signs and Combat Stress, which have been calling for the recording of veterans’ suicides. I hosted a summit on the matter in my constituency late last year.

Despite the cries from those who know best, the Government have repeatedly refused the requests, whose importance cannot be overstated. Current estimates project that the true figure could be as high as one ex-serviceperson killing themselves every seven days, but the problem is likely to be far worse, given that we do not have detailed recording. General Sir David Richards, former head of the armed forces, and Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander in Afghanistan, have called for coroners to start logging veterans’ suicides. That is absolutely right. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), has said that

“the Government could do better on tracking suicide rates among veterans”.

Grassroots expert organisations have been highlighting the importance of tracking those rates since their inception. As we heard earlier, the Defence Committee made it one of their key recommendations. When will the Government listen to the voices of those who know best and when will the Minister ensure that coroners begin to record the data? The disorganised, disjointed and disorderly approach to determining who is responsible for treating veterans, highlighted by Dave’s case, is an extension of the Government’s own ambiguity and confusion. When I tabled this Westminster Hall debate, that was exposed. Within 24 hours, two Departments had called me to express why they would be answering my questions, followed by an email stating:

“I believe there has been some confusion from our side and it’s confirmed that the MoD will be responding to the debate.”

With an issue of this magnitude, the Government should at least know who is responsible.

We can start making a change now. We cannot afford not to. The Government have initiated an inquiry into veterans’ mental health, but we need changes at the coalface now. We cannot afford to lose more of our servicepeople. I am committed to my party’s policy of a social contract for veterans, which incorporates a rounded approach to care that includes support for mental health, housing and retaining. That would begin with officially logging the numbers of veterans who take their own life and would see veterans given priority when it comes to mental health services.

I started my speech by telling Dave’s story, and I will finish by quoting someone to whom the issue could not be closer. Dave’s wife, Jo Jukes, said:

“If coroners began recording veterans’ deaths, the MoD would be forced to accept there was a problem and have to do something. It is a major failing. We need a far more joined up approach to veterans’ mental health care.”

It is clear that the Government do not know how big the problem is because they do not have the data. Some have said they are hiding behind their ignorance. I hope the Minister will take on board the comments in this debate. I look forward to his response.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I note that we have nine applications to speak. I urge Members to keep their speeches as short as possible—perhaps three minutes to start with.

A Better Defence Estate

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I hear the message first, but my hon. Friend raises an important aspect of looking after our veterans. I hope the whole House will join me in paying tribute to those who have worn uniform. Our duty of care does not simply end when they depart. We must make sure that they are looked after for the rest of their lives. There are charities and there are initiatives being looked at to see whether the new batches of housing coming online because of areas being liberated can be focused on providing housing for veterans. I think that that is well worth pursuing.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

May I first say how much I welcome the Minister’s comments with regard to the 75th anniversary of D-day? It is fantastic that Portsmouth will be the national home of those commemorations. I am especially proud that my grandfather was a veteran from Portsmouth and left Southsea on his 17th birthday for Operation Overlord. The MOD’s recently published quarterly personnel statistics reveal a further decline in personnel numbers of all services for the eighth consecutive year. Can the Minister be more specific about how he is looking at the impact of the closures on recruitment?

[Mr Ellwood]

First, on the hon. Gentleman’s particular area, I think the whole House supports the fantastic events that will take place in 100 days’ time, and I join him in saying that Portsmouth can be very proud of the role it played in putting together such a fleet that participated in the event itself. On HMS Nelson wardroom, which affects his constituency, there are some issues to do with the masterplan for the Portsmouth naval base which we hope will be resolved. I hope that he will welcome that update. He talks about recruitment. We must conduct these changes with recruitment in mind. As I have stressed, we must make the kind of 21st century high-standard accommodation that youngsters expect. When they go to university, they see the sort of environment they expect to live in. We need to provide them with that. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) is no longer in his place, but in Stonehouse, for example, we still have British marines living in eight-man accommodation with a very lousy shower. That is not acceptable in today’s modern age.