Historic Allegations against Veterans

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) on bringing forward the debate. All of us in the Chamber are proud of our armed forces. Our veterans are an asset to our society, deserving of our thanks, respect and support. We support them because we are proud of them, because we know they have been trained to the highest standards and conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and because they operate to bring peace to areas of conflict.

That confidence in the behaviour of our military personnel enables them to continue carrying out their duties with full public support in every theatre of war. However, when the actions of individuals call into question the integrity of our armed forces, we must address that. That is not to say we should not protect ex-service personnel from bogus legacy cases. Members and former members of our armed forces must be treated fairly when accusations of wrongdoing are made. We know about the huge backlog of cases in the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which means that serving members and former personnel face extended periods of uncertainty over accusations that have been made. The case of Major Robert Campbell has been mentioned today, and I think we would all agree that that is not acceptable.

We must also have confidence in the institutions of the police and judiciary in Northern Ireland to serve the people. Responsibility for policing and justice matters in Northern Ireland is devolved and should be respected as such. The PSNI legacy investigations branch should be given adequate resources for such investigations so that they are not prolonged unnecessarily. In the north of Ireland, we know that few families escaped the suffering and the violence.

This debate is timely, given the actions we saw yesterday from the Israeli military. The callous manner in which civilians, including children, were mowed down, demonstrated to the world a military not operating in a manner that we would consider exemplary, but we cannot brush over our own past. Events such as the Ballymurphy massacre, into which an inquest is currently taking place, or the Bloody Sunday murders, are a stain.

[James Heappey]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to clarify that. I am sure she is not, but she seems to be saying that whatever happened on the border of Gaza yesterday has perhaps some equivalency with the behaviour of the British armed forces during their service in Northern Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Carol Monaghan]

That is absolutely not what I said. I said that that was a military behaving in a manner that was not exemplary.

We know there were terrorists on both sides in Northern Ireland, but the idea that people can murder with impunity cannot be tolerated. Those carrying out the atrocities we are talking about today were not terrorists. They were sent to Northern Ireland to keep the peace, not to enflame an already volatile situation. We expect the highest standards from our armed forces and that requires them to operate within, not outwith, the rule of law. The actions of a few individual members of the armed forces during those events brought them down to the level of the terrorists. That is something that should cause us all shame.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carol Monaghan]

Our service personnel should rightly be held to the highest standards of behaviour, but they should also be supported fully by the Ministry of Defence when allegations are made. That certainly means being offered proper legal representation and support. Our armed forces have our gratitude for the difficult work they do on our behalf, in defending us and our values, sometimes in traumatic and highly stressful situations. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) talked of his own experience. He described the very best practice, where he was aware of what was going on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

[Carol Monaghan]

For the public to have full confidence in our military, there must be some accountability when they operate outwith the rule of law, and there must be due process.

Armed Forces Covenant: Northern Ireland

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his passionate, knowledgeable speech, which kicked off this afternoon’s debate. I declare an interest: my husband was an officer in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy. I have mentioned that many times before, but I probably have not mentioned that he is an Ulsterman.

[Jim Shannon]

It took an Ulsterman to win her heart.

[Carol Monaghan]

He was a very special Ulsterman.

The armed forces covenant is a statement of the moral obligation that exists between the nations of the UK, the Government and the armed forces. It was enshrined in law for the first time in 2011. Specifically, it outlines two core principles. The first is that current or former members of the armed forces, or their families,

“should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.”

The second is that:

“Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for…the injured and the bereaved.”

However, as the Armed Forces Act 2011 does not create legally enforceable rights for service personnel, across the UK it remains a statement of intent rather than a statement of action. It is a statement of intent to which members of the armed forces have no recourse, so we are letting service personnel down.

The right hon. Gentleman described the particular culture that prevents members of the armed forces and veterans in Northern Ireland from identifying themselves. I have experienced that personally when visiting Ulster with my husband and having to check under our car for devices, so I appreciate the situation we are talking about. The right hon. Gentleman described in some detail the fact that although many charities work with veterans in Northern Ireland, a lack of funding and a lack of transparency in some places with the veterans means there are serious issues. However, I believe this is part of a wider problem across the UK.

We welcome the progress that has been made with the new ministerial covenant and veterans board. In recent years, society has become far more aware and more understanding of the effects of military service on the health, mental and physical, of those who choose to serve, and on their relationships with their families and communities. However, it must be recognised that for veterans in Northern Ireland very particular circumstances apply, and for local councils to show reluctance to fully implement the armed forces covenant is simply letting these veterans down.

Veterans are an asset to society, and they deserve our thanks respect and support. In Scotland alone, every year approximately 1,800 men and women complete their military service and settle in our communities, many with their families. We have an ambition to make Scotland the destination of choice for service leavers and their families. For almost a decade, the Scottish Government’s Scottish veterans fund has made a real difference to the lives of the armed forces community in Scotland and has provided £1.1 million to a host of veterans and ex-service charities that offer advice, help and support. There is no doubt that that lead should be followed by other UK nations.

In Northern Ireland, there has been long-standing criticism of the lack of implementation of the armed forces covenant. We are of course all sensitive to the tensions that still exist in parts of Northern Ireland, particularly in respect of the Army, but that must not be used to avoid providing the service that personnel and veterans deserve and require. While I am talking about tensions, I wish to mention the outstanding work that has been done to break down barriers in respect of policing in Northern Ireland. The transition from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland has enabled the police in Northern Ireland to have a more inclusive outlook and to be widely accepted in every sector of society.

Members of the republican nationalist community serve with distinction in the RAF and the Royal Navy. For some, though, the Army is still viewed with suspicion. A recruitment drive aimed at alienated communities would undoubtedly improve diversity and community representation in the Army. With movement on this issue, I believe that cross-party support for personnel and veterans would increase—that is, of course, if power-sharing is ever restored.

Much of this debate goes beyond Northern Ireland. What makes this issue infuriating is the voicelessness of personnel and veterans. We believe that personnel should be properly represented in the military and among defence policy decision makers. An armed forces representative body that is on a statutory footing is the norm for many other countries, including Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany. Such a representative body would give voice to our armed forces and would be able to liaise directly with the Government and ensure that personnel and veterans throughout the UK are central to defence thinking. That would be a major step forward for personnel across the UK and would give a much stronger voice to veterans in Northern Ireland.

The UK Government should honour the armed forces covenant tenet of “no disadvantage”. The covenant commits the UK Government to removing, where possible, disadvantage experienced as a result of service, and that includes for serving personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State will grasp the cold reality at some stage.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) referred to the service of everyone in Northern Ireland, whether in an Army uniform, in a police uniform or in the prison service, and we thank him for that—I showed him a text earlier from one of my constituents commending him for doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) found it took an Ulsterman to win her heart. We are pleased that that happened.

[Carol Monaghan]

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he was a rich Ulsterman?

[Jim Shannon]

He was rich the day he married the hon. Lady. That is what riches are—not money—but that is by the by. We thank her for her comments. She clearly outlined local councils’ reluctance in Northern Ireland to fully commit to and implement the military covenant. We are very aware of that, and she has quickly become aware of it as well. She referred to the transition of policing initiative and the principle that there be no disadvantage to service personnel.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) mentioned that councils in Scotland had brought in the military covenant—so the job’s done—and asked why the Northern Ireland councils could not support each other, as should be the case across all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to the scars. Sometimes we need to think for a minute sometimes about the scars, the pain and the hurt there has been. He expressed that extremely well in reminding us of the nation’s moral obligation towards those who sacrificed so much for all in the community. He also mentioned how Sinn Féin had disregarded this Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned how proud he was to stand up for veterans and how his own family had been part of that. He also reminded us of the commitment in the US of A to veterans and of those who have lost limbs and sustained life-changing injuries. We have been reminded today of what that means.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) mentioned how many of her family members had committed themselves in uniform to liberty and freedom and how incredibly proud she was of the armed forces. She also told us that one third of people in Northern Ireland had either served or had family members who had served. It is good to remember that sometimes. The Army units in her constituency remind us not only of the commitment of the reservists, but of that of the NHS whose personnel are allowed to serve in the reserve forces. We should never forget that.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) had the good fortune to marry a girl from County Armagh.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Carol Monaghan—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] The hon. Lady just did not how popular she was.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

T9. I am enjoying the recognition, Mr Speaker. The National Audit Office has revealed that the cost of the Dreadnought and Astute programmes has now risen by nearly £1 billion. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no further cuts to conventional forces to meet the rising costs of Trident?

[Guto Bebb]

I can assure the hon. Lady that our at-sea continuous nuclear defence programme is within budget, and there will be no impact on the rest of the defence budget as a result of the work that we are doing in relation to our submarine capability.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend highlights my point that we do need absolute clarity and transparency in the figures, not only on diversity, but across the board.

As I have said, diversity is a strength; it minimises the risk of groupthink. As operations take place in varying locations, a diverse force offers different ways to connect with local populations. If the purpose of the Bill is, in part, to increase the number of female personnel in particular, including through greater retention, why do the Government not see the logic in including information about part-time working in the statistics to show how progress is being made in the numbers of female personnel?

I simply cannot see a good reason for the Government not to adopt new clause 1. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), told us in Committee:

“The number of applications…is likely to be low in the early stages, so collating and reporting information on a monthly or biannual basis on the number of regular personnel undertaking new forms of flexible working would not provide significant or beneficial data.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2017; c. 27.]

How long does that remain the case? Is there a plan for the Government to bring in reporting when the number of personnel reaches a certain percentage of all personnel? If so, what would that figure be?

Moreover, even if the number of applications is low initially, if there is a data from the initial implementation of the scheme then we could look at trends over time. Of course, the monthly personnel statistics are now quarterly and the diversity statistics are published only once every six months. It does not seem too difficult an ask to include within these statistics the number of those who are serving under the flexible working scheme. Indeed, the Minister told us in Committee how important monitoring would be, saying that

“it will be crucial to ensure that all cases of flexible working are properly recorded and monitored to provide personnel and commanding officers with a record of all the discussions and agreements, so that they can understand the impact and success of the entire process.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2017; c. 27.]

If there will be a clear record from the outset, why will this not be added to the statistics? It seems that there will be no undue work or additional cost placed on the Department as a result of the new clause. If the Government are confident that this will see a reduction in outflow and even a boost to recruitment, what good reason is there to not include this information?

I hope the Government will see that this new clause is about ensuring transparency and allowing scrutiny and will accept it into the Bill.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party welcomes the measures in the Bill that aim to address some of the issues around recruitment and retention of personnel. However, we are concerned that they do not go far enough to tackle the crisis. Unless some evaluation of these measures is carried out, we run the risk of this simply becoming a paper exercise.

The most recent figures show that there was a net outflow of 2,740 personnel from the UK regular forces in the 12 months to the end of September 2017. The MOD said that this difference has increased compared with the 12 months to the end of September 2016, when there was a net outflow of 1,930. According to the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey, 35% are dissatisfied with service life in general, and the impact of service on family and personal life remains the top reason for leaving.

There are a number of operational pinch points, which are areas of expertise

“where the shortfall in trained strength…is such that it has a measurable, detrimental impact on current, planned or contingent operations”.

Data on operational pinch points are published in the MOD’s annual report and accounts. The latest report shows that the total number of pinch points, as at April 2017, is 30. Broken down by service, there are four pinch points in the Army, relating to logistical roles; 15 pinch points in the Navy, in engineering and specialist warfare; and 11 pinch points in the RAF, in engineering and intelligence roles, with emerging shortfalls in aircrew.

New clause 2, which is in my name, would ensure that a review is carried out allowing Parliament to monitor and evaluate whether the provisions in the Bill are having a positive impact on recruitment and retention. It would allow Parliament to hold the Government to account, and to monitor whether the measures are addressing the underlying crisis in recruitment and retention.

According to the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 1(4) will give a commanding officer

“the ability…to vary, suspend or terminate the arrangement in prescribed circumstances, for example: national emergency or some form of manning crisis”.

I do not believe that anyone has a problem with the suspension of the agreement during times of national emergency—we discussed this point on Second Reading and in Committee—but we know that there are long-standing shortages in key areas and that the operational pinch points are increasing. We are concerned that a large number of service personnel will not benefit from the provisions in the Bill. The SNP amendment would allow Parliament to keep a close eye on the uptake of flexible working in the armed forces.

We welcome measures that could have a positive impact on recruitment of women, but it is clear that the Government need to do more to meet their 2020 target. The 2015 strategic defence and security review stated that by 2020 at least 15% of the intake into the UK regular forces would be female. In the 12 months to 31 March 2017, only 9.4% of the total intake was female. With women making up just 10.2% of the armed forces, more effort needs to be put into attracting female applicants. What impact does the Minister think the measures in the Bill will have on recruitment of women to the armed forces? What more do the Government intend to do to meet their target for 2020, because on current statistics we are a long way off?

As I said, the SNP welcomes the measures in this Bill, but we believe that this was the opportunity to do far more for service personnel and their families. Although the Bill aims to tackle some of the issues around dissatisfaction, unless personnel are properly represented among defence policy decision makers, it runs the risk of being a paper exercise. I do not think that any of us in this place want that to be the outcome. Having an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing is the norm in many countries. Recognised representation is a key way that the UK Government could better understand the needs and requirements of our armed forces and their families. If the UK Government are serious about improving the lives of our armed forces, they should look at putting an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing.

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

May I say how wonderful it is to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I speak in support of the new clause and the wider provisions in the Bill. We have spoken before in this House about the challenges that we as a country face, and how vital it is that our armed forces have the capabilities that they need to tackle the threats that we are confronted with. Much of that discussion has understandably centred on funding, equipment, and having the right number of platforms. However, it really does not matter how many platforms we have and what their capabilities are if we do not have the skilled service personnel trained and retained in enough numbers to staff them.

We currently face a personnel deficit of 5%, with no fewer than 38 operational pinch points across the three services. Clearly, therefore, recruitment and retention is a real problem, and it is beginning to undermine our ability to deploy. While there are multiple issues that we need to address in this area, we know that flexible working offers the chance to begin to rectify the problem. As I have mentioned previously in this House, 46% of service personnel within the Royal Navy cite the lack of flexible working as a reason why they would consider leaving the military. Conversely, a third of all our armed forces cite flexible working as a reason why they would stay. So there is a very real and genuine demand in our military for provisions of the sort that this Bill brings forward.

However, for flexible working to succeed, it is vital that recruitment numbers increase, so that flexible working is a real option afforded to all service personnel. After all, introducing more flexible working at a time of static recruitment would risk exacerbating the problems we face, as we lack the numbers to fill the gaps, and people will not be able to take the options available. It will be important to monitor how many service personnel are working part-time, to identify and fill potential gaps in capacity, and to assess the effectiveness of this Bill’s aims. That is why I welcome my Front Benchers’ new clause requiring this information to be included in the armed forces biannual diversity statistics.

While a lack of flexible working is often cited as an obstacle to recruitment and retention, it is by no means the only one. There are challenges to be addressed in all four areas being looked at in the new employment model—pay and allowances, accommodation, terms of service, and training and education. In the case of accommodation, the recent collapse of Carillion—as everyone in this House knows, a major partner in the delivery of appalling service accommodation—means that these conversations are now even more urgent, and reassurance is a necessity.

On the matter of pay and conditions, little will change until we know what the pay review body is going to recommend this year to move us away from the appalling 1% pay cap. We also need certainty about the other terms and conditions offered to our personnel. Future pay rises cannot be funded by cutting tour bonuses or other allowances.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I am profoundly aware of the debt we owe to the men and women of our armed forces. Their commitment to our country is unwavering every day. Our commitment to them, to their families and to their welfare should be unwavering, too. I fear that the message the Government are sending on this front remains mixed. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as an attempt to tackle some of the problems we face and a good start on the work of improving recruitment and retention in our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the Minister for his work on the Bill around which there has been much consensus across the House, and I pay tribute to those involved in drawing it up.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not committed to publishing the statistics called for in the amendment and new clauses tabled by the Opposition and the SNP. No doubt, however, we will return to this issue, through parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests and so on, to ensure we are properly capturing the picture. I understand what he says about the small uptake initially, but we need to know that there is a small uptake initially and that it is increasing, and without the statistics, that is not possible.

The SNP has some concerns about the housing that armed forces personnel and their families are expected to live in. I repeat some of the comments about pay. It is imperative that we get the pay correct for members of the armed forces if we are to recruit and retain the best. I have raised leave entitlement several times. It is not enough that it can be carried forward and carried forward; safeguards must be in place to make sure that people can take their leave when they need to. There must also be safeguards in place for families to make sure they are supported when spouses are deployed and when they are on base and that the education of their children is considered when they join up.

The SNP will continue to call on the Government to set up an armed forces representative body. It was in our manifesto, and we will continue to raise this issue. The Police Federation is able to liaise with the Government. The armed forces and armed forces personnel do not have similar abilities. It would give a voice to those affected by the issues raised today—issues that affect retention and recruitment, not simply flexible working. I call on the Minister to look seriously at the issue of a representative body, but I thank him once again for his work on the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Kirstene Hair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Some countries make far better use of reservists for that same reason. They bring their armed forces skills into civilian life and vice versa. Some countries’ armed forces have huge numbers of reservists making up their ranks, as opposed to UK armed forces which have only a very small number.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a good point; reservists do add something, but I am talking about regular members of the armed forces being able to leave for a certain period of time on the understanding that they will come back. In the United States, many on senior military courses leave to do doctorates or work in business and do other things and then come back into the armed forces, and doing that is not seen as a black mark against their career; on the contrary, it is seen as enhancing both the armed forces and those individuals’ careers.

This Bill is a start, therefore, and I assure the Minister I will be scrutinising how it works in practice and the uptake of its provisions. I also join him in thanking the Clerks and everyone involved in the Bill on making sure it has gone through both Houses with a degree of consensus from all sides and with additions to the offer that we can now give to people who want to join our armed forces.

British Armed Forces: Size and Strength

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing the debate. It seems that we are getting used to seeing the same faces in debates on defence, calling on the Government to do the same thing time and again. This matter has to be taken seriously—we are at tipping point.

Any organisation that is struggling to recruit and retain staff must consider what is going on. We are seeing the effects of austerity across many areas, including health, education and defence. It has an impact on the equipment, the service that can be delivered, and ultimately the people. Despite the cuts, we want the same good outcomes. We want our population to have good health services, excellent education, and well-organised defence with critical capabilities.

We have not reduced the demands on the armed forces. We still want to deploy overseas. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) talked about our well-trained personnel. Of course we want them to remain the best-trained personnel in the world, but operational stretch in the armed forces means that, although our expectations remain high, with fewer personnel, the demands on those still serving are increasing year after year.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot on securing this debate. It is not only the men and women of our armed services who suffer from operational stretch, but also their families. That might very well be a deterrent to many of the young men and women choosing a career in the armed forces.

[Carol Monaghan]

Mine was one of those families who experienced operational stretch and know first hand the impact it has. Many people serving in the armed forces have to make the decision to leave simply because remaining is no longer sustainable for their personal life. We know from the continuous attitude survey that the retention crisis is not simply about pay. Although that does contribute, the crisis is about the value we place on our armed forces personnel. Housing, family life, leave entitlement and so on all contribute to the retention problems.

Scotland faces eight base closures. What message is that giving to those who are stationed there? Are they feeling valued? Is their service being recognised? As the crisis deepens, more and more personnel will leave. These are highly trained individuals and have skills that are in such high demand in civilian life. There are many companies just waiting to snap them up when they walk out.

We have called on a number of occasions for an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing, which is the norm for many countries, such as Ireland, Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Germany. Recognised representation is a key way for the UK Government to better understand the needs and requirements of our armed forces, their families and the wider armed forces communities. A representative body like the Police Federation would be a voice for both personnel and veterans. It would tell them that their concerns are being taken seriously and that they are valued, and would give them a means of liaising with the Government.

The Tory party bills itself as the champion of the armed forces, but the chronic underinvestment simply does not match those claims. The Scottish National party is currently organising a commission, talking to members of the armed forces and finding out what it is they require and what terms and conditions would make a difference to them. I hope that, when we publish the findings, the UK Government will act on the recommendations.

Ultimately, glossy adverts cannot solve this problem. Serious investment is required. A complete overhaul of the terms and conditions of members of the armed forces has to be considered, including pay and housing, and the impact on the family and children’s education. It is commendable that so many Tory Members are in the Chamber—I know they champion the cause—but unless the defence budget becomes serious and the Chancellor opens up his purse, there will be no improvement. The hon. Member for Aldershot suggested—we have heard the suggestion many times—that Trident should be removed from the defence budget. I would say it is better still to just remove Trident from any budget, and we can start looking at serious defence that continues to have critical capabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The point my hon. Friend raises is very valuable. We have to be reaching out to so many veterans, who have given so much to our country over so many years, and the work of Help for Heroes and the Leigh-on-Sea branch of the Royal British Legion is absolutely pivotal to that. We have recently seen investment of £2 million to create the veterans’ gateway, which is there to make sure that veterans are signposted to the charities, support organisations and of course Government organisations that can best support them if they are suffering from loneliness or need other additional help. May I take this opportunity to thank the Royal British Legion—at Leigh-on-Sea and at so many other branches across the country—which continues to do so much for our veterans, day in and day out?

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The armed forces covenant is currently more of a statement of intent than a statement of action, and it does not guarantee the support that serving personnel and veterans require. Does the Secretary of State agree that putting an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing would be a bold commitment to ensure proper representation of personnel and veterans?

[Gavin Williamson]

What we have done is to create the veterans board. It was previously co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and me, and it will now be co-chaired by me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We have found that the feedback about what we have been doing and trying to achieve in creating the board has been very positive. This is about not just the Ministry of Defence, but every Department, every local authority in the country and businesses helping and supporting our veterans and our service personnel.

Defence

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

I will come back to my hon. Friend in a minute.

I thought that we had got rid of that situation, but no. Just this week, we saw this in the media:

“An SNP MP is demanding reassurance from the UK Government that they will proceed with the… maritime patrol aircraft”.

Let me quote what the hon. Gentleman said in that article:

“I would like to hear them restate their commitment to purchasing all nine of the promised Poseidon P-8 aircraft.”

That was agreed when the contract was signed with the UK Government and the US Government to provide those nine Poseidon P-8 aircraft. Why did the hon. Gentleman feel that it was necessary to put out a press release to say that that might be in doubt, when all along the UK Government have had that contract signed with the US Government? We should be focusing on the benefit coming to Moray, rather than launching scare stories. I note that the hon. Gentleman has remained in his seat. He has not tried to intervene to say that I have said something wrong.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Douglas Ross]

Well, if the hon. Lady needs to support the hon. Gentleman, I will quite happily give way.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing this intervention. I have no need to support my colleague, but I certainly want to take issue with one comment that he has just made, which was about the nine maritime patrol aircraft. I am sorry, but in Scotstoun and Govan in my constituency, and in the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends, we were promised 13 Type 26 frigates. Forgive us if we do not believe this Government’s promises.

[Douglas Ross]

What I will never forgive is an SNP politician who sits in this House and has the opportunity to question Ministers at any time, but who instead decides to put out a press release launching another scare story about the future of a Moray base. It is very clear: we are preparing for this record investment in Poseidon P-8 aircraft at Lossiemouth, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire chose to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

As many Members will know, my husband served as a Royal Navy officer for 17 years. As a result, I want to speak almost exclusively about the impact that serious budget cuts have on personnel.

It is often said in the military that the most important part of a weapon system is the human being. If the human being is not maintained with due care and attention, as other parts of the weapon system are, the Government are undermining the fundamental principles of our armed forces: defending our nations, promoting democracy and protecting human rights. The men and women who serve in our armed forces are used to the warm words of this Government. Unfortunately, pledges of support ring hollow, however, when the everyday reality of forces life is being made far more difficult by chronic under-investment and cost-cutting.

If the human being is to continue to be the most important part of our weapons systems, personnel must be central to any defence strategy. Unfortunately, they appear to be an afterthought. Considering the journey of a typical soldier throughout their career, we see that a number of areas must be improved. Recruitment should play an important role in our defence strategy, but this has been outsourced to a private company, Capita. Leaving aside the £44 million annually that Capita is creaming off to perform the service, I must ask why we are relying on a third party—possibly one with no knowledge of service life—to recruit those who will defend our nations. Instead of wasting millions on a failing contract with Capita, the Government should invest in a fair pay rise for personnel. It was revealed in response to a written question in October 2017 that the Government had increased spend on recruitment advertising by nearly 50%, yet Army numbers have continued to fall.

When recruits join up, they are faced with housing conditions that in some instances have been described as squalid, as a number of Members have mentioned. Military personnel may accept that as being just part of the job, but what about when families and children are involved? Relationships are already put under huge strain by service life, but the additional pressure that poor housing puts on relationships is immense. How can children study when there is no internet or when the central heating boiler does not work? Meanwhile, we continue to refer to our service personnel as “brave” and their families continue to be lauded. I am sure they do not feel the same way.

Then comes the time to take some well-deserved leave—leave to which service personnel are fully entitled. In the submarine service, where my husband served, five days’ leave used to mean heading off on a Friday afternoon or early evening and not returning until a week on Monday, so there was a full week and two weekends at home. Now, it is far more common for five days’ leave to start on a Monday morning, with submariners expected to be back in post on Friday night. How is that sustainable? How can relationships survive such neglect? Those submariners are not central to any defence thinking.

Worse still, the reality for some is that they are unable to take their leave at all because of personnel shortages, or part of their leave has to be spent doing mandatory training such as health and safety, conduct after capture or equality and diversity. No one would argue that that training does not have to take place and in isolation no one would object to it, but when they are back from operations, personnel need to fit in such mandatory training, operational training and leave. That has come about slowly over a period of time and is now simply accepted as the reality. However, when the operational stretch is such that the only time training can take place is during leave, I question once again whether personnel are really central to defence thinking.

I want to talk again about the children, who can have a variety of educational experiences. In Army regiments, the families often move with the unit. The solution presented is to send the children to boarding school. When I was faced with that possibility for my son, we took the decision to remain in Glasgow—me in my job and my son in the local comprehensive school. However, the educational experience of many children is disjointed, resulting in poor outcomes and children’s attainment not always matching their potential. If personnel are central to defence thinking, we must think more creatively. We must think about things like the distance between family homes and bases, and how we can ensure educational continuity.

Equipment has been mentioned by a number of Members so, in the interests of time, I will move on to veterans. We celebrate our veterans’ service and thank them for their sacrifice, but in many cases, unfortunately, we then leave them to get on with it. There are fabulous veterans’ organisations, but they are scrabbling about for funding—funding that should come from the Government. Organisations such as Combat Stress deal with the most psychologically damaged veterans and centres such as the Coming Home centre in Govan in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) provide a vital lifeline for veterans, but they are struggling to keep in the black because of cuts and a lack of funding. Are those veterans central to our defence thinking?

All the personnel issues are compounded by chronic disinvestment. What makes this infuriating is the voicelessness of the personnel. The Netherlands has four trade unions that represent the armed forces. They act as a go-between that can liaise between the Government and the armed forces. Morale is so high and conditions so good in the Netherlands that special measures have been introduced to encourage personnel to retire at the age of 55 to make way for younger recruits. We need to establish a representative body on a statutory footing to give a voice to our armed forces—a representative body that is able to liaise directly with Government and ensure that personnel are central to defence thinking. Ultimately, the chronic disinvestment must be addressed. Our most important weapons system must be maintained, not neglected.

I will finish by quoting, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), from General Sir Richard Barrons, who gave evidence to the Defence Committee in November:

“The people who are in defence have to keep going every day. They are never going to say publicly, or to themselves, their enemies, or their allies that we are broken, but when they fly, sail, or deploy on the land and they look at their equipment, their sustainability, the shortfalls in their training, and at their allies, they know that they are not fit for purpose.”

UK Amphibious Capability

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have already made it very clear on the record what today’s position is. [Interruption.]

We can all see that the global security context is challenging. So, Members would expect us to ensure that, as we spend our growing budget, we focus expenditure on those capabilities that are most effective at keeping us and our allies safe, and at deterring or defeating our adversaries or potential adversaries.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way briefly?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Members are very much eating into my time, Mr Gray, but I give way.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way. Of course, the resources that keep us safe are unable to do so just now, because there simply are not enough of them. We now regularly see Russian submarines and warships in our waters, and we have nothing that we can throw at them to keep them out.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Well, Mr Gray, I really do not know where to start with that intervention, because the hon. Member and I disagree so profoundly on what we need to spend money on to ensure the security of this nation. Frankly, she might want to ask the former leader of her party why he wants to take a gig on Russia Today. [Interruption.] That is my response, because that is how we send out a strong message in terms of the strength of this country.

Mr Gray, I really do not know where to start in terms of the Scottish National party’s priorities, but I will say a few words about ours. [Interruption.]

Defence Aerospace Industrial Strategy

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on making a powerful case for the need a defence aerospace industrial strategy and on getting us all here on a Thursday afternoon. Remarkably, in less than an hour we have heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Witney (Robert Courts), for North Durham (Mr Jones), for Fylde (Mark Menzies), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Henley (John Howell), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Preston (Mr Hendrick). There has been consensus across the House on the need for such a strategy.

The BAE Systems announcement in October that it was planning to slow the production on the Typhoon and Hawk jets, resulting in a huge number of job losses, shocked many of us in this place, but with hindsight perhaps we should not have been surprised. Without a defence aerospace industrial strategy there can be no certainty within industry. Of course it is not just the 2,000 BAE Systems workers who will be affected; small and medium-sized enterprises, supply chains and local communities will all feel the impact of this announcement. Importantly, we face losing key skills from this industry, at a time when we should be protecting and developing them. This strategy must look not just at procurement and plans for equipment, but at how we are going to ensure we have the skilled workforce for the future.

Reckless decisions on defence are already affecting the security of the UK. Russian submarine incursions into the waters off Scotland’s west coast are reaching levels not seen since the cold war. The former Defence Secretary admitted that himself, warning of an “extraordinary increase” in Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic when he gave evidence to MPs last month. Despite those warnings, the UK’s ability to find the submarines has been drastically hampered since the Nimrod was scrapped seven years ago. In the past few years, we have seen American, Canadian, French and Norwegian aircraft in UK airspace, helping to pick up the slack.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) submitted a written question after a flight-tracking website at the end of last month tracked a friendly aircraft thought to be looking for a vessel. He asked

“which NATO countries provided Maritime Patrol Aircraft for use in UK airspace”.

The Minister for the Armed Forces admitted that aircraft from

“United States and Canada were temporarily deployed to RAF Lossiemouth during the period in question.”

This is a fundamental problem, and we will have to wait many years for the replacements. In fact, the we believe the P-8s are not going to be available until 2024, meaning that we have another seven years until they will be operational. We can only assume that Russian incursions will continue.

The Government must admit that their actions have an impact. The fall in the value of the pound has exposed the taxpayer to increased spending, and the former National Security Adviser Mark Lyall Grant stated that MOD officials were having to address a funding shortfall well before a final Brexit deal. He said that

“national security cannot be divorced from economic security…Put at its most basic, if the British economy suffers as a result of the prospect or reality of Brexit, then our ability to fund the ambitious 2015 strategic defence and security review will be put at risk, whether we continue to spend 2% of GDP on defence or not.”

These matters really must be considered as part of the industrial strategy. We also have to consider the impact of Brexit. The EU provides important opportunities for defence research and innovation, not only through the single market but through bodies such as the European Defence Agency. The Government must actively explore means to ensure that UK industry can maintain its existing relationship with European counterparts and benefit from collective innovation and joint projects.

The challenge for many companies is to be able to remain globally competitive. This is how an industrial strategy can help, regardless of whether we are talking about defence, aerospace or security. The Government must support investment in future skills and education, promote apprenticeships and technical courses, and build future capability. We need to recognise and support the regional clusters of universities, colleges and companies where collaboration is pushing the boundaries of innovation. Solutions for the defence sector have been applied to the civil aerospace sector, creating the potential for significant new business and economic expansion over the next decade.

We need to focus on collaborative programmes in Europe, the United States, South Americas and Asia if the UK is to continue in its position as a globally competitive player. Any strategy for defence aerospace should ensure that access to the best possible equipment and capabilities for the UK armed forces is safe- guarded.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Gerald Jones]

I concur with the Minister about the unity across the House in wanting the best for our armed forces. As I said at the start, this is a probing amendment to seek further clarification. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has indicated what clarification is required on how the proposal will work across the ranks and on the appeals mechanism.

Although I accept what the Minister said about the services having flexibility, there needs to be some idea of what the limit will be in the future. Hopefully the Minister will consider that. For the arrangement to work effectively, there needs to be further clarity. I ask the Minister to look at that again, but I do beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“(3AA) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on any use of the power to vary, suspend or terminate set out in subsection (3A) and must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”

An amendment to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on instances where the right to work part-time or in a geographically restricted area has been varied, suspended or terminated.

I rise to speak to amendments 4 and 5—

[The Chair]

Order. Amendment 4 has not been selected. It is not on the selection list, so just speak to amendment 5.

[Carol Monaghan]

I think I missed that paper then, because I am looking at it—

[The Chair]

When we come to the clause stand part debate, you can be more wide-ranging in your comments, Ms Monaghan, but please just stick to amendment 5 for now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I would like to raise similar concerns to those raised already, but probably coming from a different position. We have already heard that there are issues around large numbers of personnel and the requirement to maintain operational capability. I would certainly echo those concerns, but if the Bill is to deal with retention of the talent that we cannot afford to lose, and identify how best to make the armed forces modern and fit for purpose, we need to consider how it will be implemented.

There are some worrying phrases in the Bill, such as the “prescribed circumstances” in which flexible working can be suspended. We have already talked about the suspension of flexible working during a national emergency; nobody has a problem with that, but the form of manning crisis and its management, and the ability of the service to refuse applications broadly on the grounds of defence need are more problematic.

We have already heard about areas in which there are key shortages—engineering and particular parts of the RAF, and I will add the submarine service to that. There are people in those services who are currently unable to take the annual leave to which they are entitled. Those same people will not be able to access flexible working, and the result will be the same—members of the armed forces will leave before they are due to do so and the problem with retention will continue. To maintain operational capability, members of particular sections will not be able take up flexible working or get leave because of things that are absolutely out of their control, such as shortages and budget cuts. We need some clarity on how that is rolled out.

Getting the Secretary of State to report to Parliament is quite important. People need to know the situations in which applications have been refused and the number of people who have taken the option up. The Minister mentioned his view that a very small percentage will take it up. We need to be told regularly exactly what the uptake is and across which services, and why applications have been refused—was it because of a particular short-term issue or longer term, endemic problems? Having the Secretary of State report to Parliament regularly would allow some clarity and allow us to monitor who is able to access flexible working and who is not.

Amendment 4 is a probing amendment, but I reserve the right to return to it at a later stage.

[Mr Ellwood]

I admire the way in which the hon. Lady finessed amendment 4, which disappeared, into amendment 5 with the dexterity that we all require in such situations.

I am grateful for the general support for the armed forces. It is important to understand the context. Is this about budget cuts? That is a knee-jerk reaction—a question that I also posed, when I was in opposition, whenever any decision came up. Is the Bill a consequence of that? I can say to the Committee that it is not; it is absolutely nothing to do with financing whatsoever. It is purely to do with recruitment and retention, and the hon. Lady cited examples of that.

[Carol Monaghan]

I am not suggesting that the Bill is a way to deal with budget cuts. I am suggesting that budget cuts to particular areas may make people working in those areas less able to access the flexible working provisions because they are stretched to their limit.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that clarification. The hon. Lady talked about what she called the endemic problems we are having. I was very frank, honest and transparent and said, yes, as the Secretary of State and the Armed Forces Minister recognise, we need to do our best to recruit and retain. We can only do that if we adapt, and that is one of the reasons for the Bill.

The hon. Lady gave an excellent example of those who are under pressure because of their expertise—there are not enough experts in a particular field, which places extra pressure on those who are there. We need to make sure that we recruit more experts in a particular field—engineers, for example—so that we limit the pressures on any individual to constantly be at work, which we do not want.

The new arrangements will be available to all regular service personnel and are aimed at improving recruitment and retention, in not just the short but the long term. Our aim is to approve as many applications as we can, but we also recognise that there will be some that we will not be able to approve. There will be requests made to work part time to which we will have to say no—for example, because somebody is serving at the moment in a high-readiness unit. We have to manage the expectations about the arrangements and we have to provide commanding officers with the information to help them to determine, with their people, whether the arrangements are right for them, or whether less formal flexible working arrangements, which are already available, might suit them better.

Careful consideration will be given to applications when they are made, and because of that we do not anticipate that there will be a need to vary, suspend or terminate any arrangements. However, the ability to do that is necessary to maintain our ability to recall if operational capability demands. It also provides our people with some flexibility should their own needs change.

When it comes to the numbers, as I mentioned, we do not expect take-up of more than about 1%. On that basis, in our view, collating or reporting the information for the size of the cohort will not provide significant or beneficial data. Our internal systems are likely to capture that information anyway as a matter of course and be reported to Parliament in the normal way. That will provide management information from which the services can assess how effectively the new arrangements are working and make any appropriate adjustments.

This is a new concept; of course we need to understand and manage it, see how it works in practice and adapt accordingly. It therefore seems disproportionate to require the services to spend time and resources compiling the management information proposed in the amendment into a form robust enough for publication when we expect the numbers affected by the powers to be small. I hope that I have provided clarification and assurances, and that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Carol Monaghan]

I still have some questions. There is a difficulty: if we cannot look at the entire picture and see the particular areas of service that cannot access the arrangements, we are missing a trick. Undoubtedly, if people are operationally stretched and unable to access them, there will be more retention issues. However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Consequential amendments

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

[Mr Ellwood]

Clause 2 makes small consequential amendments to existing legislation to provide that regular service personnel temporarily serving under flexible working arrangements continue to be excused automatically from jury service. It has long been recognised that regular service personnel are in a unique position when it comes to jury service. It is vital, as I stressed before, that operational capability is maintained at all times, so commanding officers have the ability to certify the need for their personnel to be exempt. The changes will ensure that the same protections are in place for those working under the new part-time arrangements.

The relevant legislation providing automatic excusal and discretionary deferral from jury service in England, Wales and Scotland refer to full-time serving members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces. Service personnel temporarily serving under part-time working arrangements will not, therefore, be covered by the legislation in England, Wales and Scotland. Clause 2 will ensure that we maintain the current position for our people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Short title, commencement and extent

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones]

I thank the Minister for the clarification and reassurance he has provided, and for recognising that there is still significant concern. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham highlighted the concerns and practical issues facing families. The Minister commented on the future accommodation model, understanding that it stands alone as a significant piece of work. He said it is “coming round the corner” soon. Given that we were told that we would have the detail in 2017 and there are only six weeks left in 2017, and while I appreciate that he might not be able to give the fullest detail, I would have hoped for an indication of when that detail will be forthcoming. I am sure the Government recognise that this is a significant issue and that there are huge concerns around it. That said, I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Carol Monaghan]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) Within one calendar year of making any regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation into the impact of part-time and geographically restricted working on welfare of Armed Forces personnel.”

An amendment to require the Secretary of State to consider the welfare implications of part-time and geographically restricted working on Armed Forces personnel.

I will explain a little about the amendment. Ultimately, the Bill is to improve the welfare, satisfaction and work-life balance of those who are serving. Of course we want to modernise the services, consider working practices and, as a result, improve the recruitment and retention of personnel. The amendment would ensure that there was an evaluation of the process. Unless we evaluate the scheme, it will be impossible to know its efficacy and impact. The continuous attitude survey is already carried out, and we know that, at the moment, 35% of serving personnel report dissatisfaction with service life. It would be straightforward to widen the continuous attitude survey to include a section on flexible or part-time working, and have a specific evaluation for those who have undertaken that work.

Any new scheme needs evaluation. I am sure the Government have plans to monitor the success of the scheme, so I am not trying to be difficult, but it would be useful to know the details of the monitoring that will take place. Without evaluation, we cannot know the impact of what I believe to be a positive step for those now serving in the armed forces. I would welcome comments from the Minister on that point.

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but she wants to place a further burden on the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the new flexible working arrangements within 12 calendar months of the clause containing the powers to make the new terms of service regulations coming into force. I am not sure whether that is exactly the intention of what she wants to achieve. The regulations to implement the new flexible working arrangements may be made some months before they come into force, so she might be seeking to place a duty on the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the new flexible working arrangements within one year of the new terms of service regulations coming into force.

Either way, I assure the hon. Lady and the Committee that the policies and processes that will support the changes brought about by the Bill have been designed by the services for the services. We have done a great deal of work to ensure that the services develop policies that work for them and for their people. Any effects on allowances or promotion are intended to be proportionate and fair, and our policy has been developed to limit any of the negative impacts.

The physical and mental health of our people and their wider wellbeing contribute directly to our operational capability. I have stressed again and again that we must bear that in mind, but we recognise the welfare risks of some personnel having less income, for example, as a result of serving part time. We will strive to ensure that service personnel are independent and responsible in respect of their personal finances, and that will be one of the things that commanders discuss with applicants before making recommendations or seeing applications that are pushed through.

I hope that, given those assurances, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, but I am happy to discuss it with her in more detail at a later date.

[Carol Monaghan]

There is an issue. We need to know how successful flexible working is. Some 35% of serving personnel are dissatisfied; we need to know whether personnel accessing flexible working feel more satisfied with service life. If they do not, the Bill fails.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes the argument herself that if there is a sense of dissatisfaction, we have to ask ourselves why that is. We are trying to remedy that dissatisfaction; we are trying to make more people satisfied. That will be achieved through flexible working—through the Bill.

[Carol Monaghan]

I think we are probably coming from the same point of view. It is difficult to know the impact if we do not monitor it. The impact of every change we make has to be monitored. However, given the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I just have a question. Clause 3(5) states:

“Section 1 and this section extend to—

(a) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,

(b) the Isle of Man, and

(c) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.”

I wonder what the issue is with Gibraltar.