Veterans: Handforth
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I start by declaring my interest as a veteran and an active reservist. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing the debate and the way in which she has presented it. I know she has a deep interest in veterans’ affairs, which shines through, and she has been a passionate advocate for her Handforth constituents and veterans in general. Her aim is to make life better for the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way in the service of our country, and I certainly share that goal.
My right hon. Friend reflected thoughtfully on the question of what we might call signposting. At the time of my first stint as a Defence Minister a decade ago, there was an impenetrable maze of veteran provisions without any realistic road map for navigating it. It was bitty—I think that was the term that my right hon. Friend used. In the meantime, there have been significant improvements, although I am the first to admit that we are not there yet. The MOD actively supports vulnerable service leavers to make the most successful transition possible to civilian life, building on the substantial skills and experience they have accrued in the armed forces.
I am bound to represent to my right hon. Friend the Veterans’ Gateway, which offers a pretty good first point of contact for all former personnel and their families who need access to both the state and charitable sectors. It offers help with pretty much everything, from finances to families, housing to health and independent living to mental wellbeing, and I really commend it. We should all be concerned about delays in getting assistance to veterans, which my right hon. Friend touched on. Ideally, there should be no gap between the request for and the provision of help. Realistically, the system caters for approximately 1.85 million veterans, each with individual issues that may or may not be related to service and requiring different contact with myriad organisations, from Government and local authorities to the charitable sector. To give an idea of the scale of the work, some 450,000 veterans receive an armed forces pension—happily, me included—and last year the veterans’ welfare service handled calls from almost 40,000 people.
Unfortunately, even with the best efforts of the dedicated staff who fill out the forms and operate the phone lines, people can slip through the net; usually we hear from them, not from those who are satisfied with the service they receive. I have visited Norcross near Blackpool to talk to those whose job it is to manage those sometimes quite difficult calls, and I have been impressed by a couple of things: first by their longevity in the job, and secondly by the sense of dedication they have to servicing the needs of their clients’ community. Claims for compensation, for example, have long been hampered by a reliance on paper records—a theme that I have talked about before. The staff at Norcross operate in, frankly, an outdated environment that does not match their commitment and expertise. We need to do away with all those paper records. While it may sound boring, I am convinced that those paper records are at the heart of some of the delays we have seen. They are not the only reason, and I am more than happy to describe at greater length the cause of those delays, but we must drag the systems at Norcross kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
James Sunderland
The Minister will recall that we met earlier this year in the all-party parliamentary group on veterans and discussed the much-needed reform of Veterans UK. As part of his closing address, or perhaps in the near future, is he able to provide an update to the House on where we are with the review of Veterans UK and any subsequent work that needs to be done?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I have discussed this before. I am afraid that I will not be able to show very much ankle on this occasion, but in my remarks I will certainly touch on where we are with the two commissioned reviews, which will improve matters as part of the process I described. In the meantime, we have invested £40 million to digitally transform veterans’ services and phase out paper, which is so much impeding the quality of the service we want to offer our veterans. We are introducing online verification, which will make it much quicker and easier to establish veteran status, and that is also why we have introduced the reviews to which my hon. Friend refers.
There have been calls for medical checks when people leave active service to allow for the early spotting of traumatic brain injuries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton rightly touched on. It is an issue that I, as a military medic, have a long-standing interest in. Remarkably, in Afghanistan a British combat soldier was likely to face exposure to between six and nine improvised explosive device explosions, with the consequent risk of mild traumatic brain injury. That is a staggering figure.
Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury should be detected at the time of injury and managed accordingly. The diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury is generally made clinically on referral to the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall, which operates a dedicated treatment programme for TBI of all levels of severity.
As for medical assessments conducted at discharge, their purpose is to assess and record the physical and mental health status of individuals at point of departure. All episodes of ill health during service will be reviewed at that time, and an assessment will be made and recorded about whether there has been any interaction between health and work. Our duty of care to people is principally to ensure that any disadvantage that they have suffered as a result of their service is remedied as best we can; that is at the heart of the military covenant, as my right hon. Friend will well appreciate. That assessment, at that time, is part of that duty.
The real sticking point here is that mild TBI is generally not visible on routine clinical imaging. The US has something called magnetoencephalography, which it has deployed to try to detect who has mild TBI and who does not. We have our own Independent Medical Expert Group that assesses these things, and it has assessed magnetoencephalography twice. It has found that magnetoencephalography is not sensitive and specific enough to be of use as a screening test at the moment, but naturally it keeps all evidence under review and that position may well change. In the meantime, our own Defence Medical Services is part of a national civilian and military collaboration called mTBI-Predict, and that is looking for reliable biomarkers, which may include—but are not confined to—magnetoencephalography.
I turn to the possibility of rewording the armed forces covenant to encourage authorities to treat veterans as a priority more energetically. I share my right hon. Friend’s appreciation of the value of our armed forces covenant. Indeed, I wrote the book on it 12 years ago, which is sadly now out of print, although a colleague said he had seen a copy recently in a charity shop. He then went on to spoil the story by saying that he did not bother buying it! Nevertheless, I am particularly proud that this Government, in their very early days, put the covenant into legislation—at about the time that I was writing my book—and that organisations are now able to sign up to it, as so many have, including all local authorities in Great Britain.
We should not forget that the covenant is not about advantaging members of the armed forces community; it is not about placing them at the front of the queue or mandating outcomes. I do not think that is what veterans and the service community want. The covenant is about ensuring that people are not disadvantaged by virtue of having served. That “no disadvantage” enjoinder lies at the very heart of the covenant we have built.
The Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a new statutory duty to promote better outcomes for the armed forces community when accessing key public services. That duty came into force in November 2022. It requires certain public bodies to have due regard to the covenant’s principles when carrying out specific functions in the key areas of housing, healthcare and education. In other words, it is there to give veterans a fairer hearing and to ensure that service providers have the needs of the armed forces community in mind when making policy decisions. We will evaluate the impact of the new legislation as it beds in; we will report on it annually in the armed forces covenant and veterans annual report; and in any event, as we are bound by statute, we will report on it formally after five years.
All service people, from private soldiers to Chief of the Defence Staff, come to defence from civilian life, and to civilian life they will return. Preparing for that inevitability is not something that should happen in a rush in someone’s last few weeks spent in uniform, but from day one. That is why accredited training, skills and education are so important and is why issues like facilitating spousal employment and encouraging personnel to buy their own homes early have been, and will continue to be, firmly in our sights.
I would like to sound a cautionary note. The tabloid press likes to suggest that the veteran living in a cardboard box underneath the arches is typical. That is a complete 180° reversal of the truth. Overwhelmingly, our service leavers transition brilliantly, as one might expect considering that they are resourceful, enabled individuals with in-demand skills and attributes, but there are exceptions and we should be constantly kicking the tyres to see what more we can do to maximise the resilience of our service leavers.
Our holistic transition policy, published in October 2019, was designed to better co-ordinate and manage service personnel and their families transitioning from military to civilian life. Whether that means helping with the basics, such as registering with a doctor, or offering more intensive assistance for those with complex needs including those related to housing, budgeting, debt, wellbeing, employment and children’s education, it is there for them. Holistic transition builds on the success of the career transition partnership, which has provided employment support and job finding services for the last 20 years. Last year, 87% of service leavers were employed within six months of leaving their service. I want that to improve, but that is 12% higher than the UK employment rate, which validates the remarks I made about the majority of our service leavers being in a good position by virtue of having served. The holistic transition policy gives tailored interventions to service leavers assessed as needing extra help. That is done through the defence transition service. It is one to one, provides tailored information and guidance and facilitates access to support services, including from other Government Departments, local authorities, the NHS and trusted charities.
I underscore the contribution of charities. Some disparage charities and say that it is all the responsibility of the state. I disagree. I think our service charities do an absolutely fantastic job and need to be encouraged in what they do.
Mindful of the compensation touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, in July the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs published a review of the Government’s veterans’ welfare services alongside the statutory quinquennial review of the armed forces compensation scheme. I will not pre-empt the Government’s response to the reviews. That will come later this year—I hope very much not too much later. Suffice to say, those reviews prove that the only way to meet our aspiration of making the UK a truly great place to be a veteran is to continue to listen to what they say, both directly and through their elected representatives as in this debate.
A fortnight ago, I was honoured to be asked to speak in Kyiv at a conference for veterans hosted by the Government of Ukraine. I am pleased that a country that will, as a result of Putin’s aggression, have a large number of veterans, some with the most complex of needs, should, at both ministerial and official level, be looking to the UK for advice and looking at our structures as it works out what it should now do. I find endorsement in that and I am humbled by it.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review and Independent Review of Veterans Welfare Services for Veterans
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The following joint statement is released on behalf of myself and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
We are pleased to announce the completion and publication of both the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review 2022-23 and the independent review of UK Government Welfare Services for veterans.
The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) provides compensation for injury or illness caused or made worse by service; or where death is caused by service in the UK Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005. Quinquennial reviews ensure that the scheme is scrutinised and remains fit for purpose; this is the second of these quinquennial reviews.
We informed the House on 2 March 2023 that we had commissioned an additional review into the role, scope and breadth of UK Government welfare provision for veterans, including by the Ministry of Defence under the Veterans UK banner. This is the first time these have been considered in the round since the launch of the strategy for our veterans and corresponding Veterans Strategy Action Plan, and the creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
These reviews will help us to build on positive work already being undertaken across Government under the strategy for our veterans, including the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) £40 million digitisation project, which will significantly improve customer service and the process for managing claims within MOD.
We welcome both reviews and are grateful to the review teams for the considerable amount of work that has gone into both reports. The MOD and Office for Veterans’ Affairs, along with other stakeholders, will now consider the recommendations of both reports in full, and the Government’s response to each will be published later in the year.
We are placing copies of these reviews in the Library of the House.
The attachments are:
UK Government Services for Veterans Review (Independent Review of UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans.pdf).
Annex D Public Bodies Review Programme (Annex D Public Bodies Review Programme- Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees_.pdf).
AFCS Quinquennial Review 2023 (Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review 2023.pdf).
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-07-17/HCWS956/.
[HCWS956]
Armed Forces Personal Accident Insurance Scheme: Contingent Liability
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I have today laid a departmental minute to advise that the Department has entered into an agreement with its subcontracted personal accident insurer to enable continuation of personal accident insurance cover for around 60,000 policyholders before the expiry of the existing arrangement on 31 May 2023. This has ensured that our armed forces and civil servants deployed on operations continue to be able to take out personal accident insurance at reasonable premiums under the personal accident and optional life and critical illness insurance scheme (PAL Protect).
There have been times when service personnel have experienced difficulty in obtaining commercial personal accident or life insurance cover similar to that available to the general public due to the nature of their employment and the war risks associated with conflict situations. In keeping with the armed forces covenant, the Ministry of Defence is committed to ensuring that service personnel are not disadvantaged in their ability to access privately arranged personal accident and life insurance due to their employment. That is why this contract is so important; to make sure that our people have that option available to them.
The contingent liability would be for those injuries resulting from war or terrorism which are beyond the scheme provider’s contractual responsibilities. The PAL Protect scheme will ensure that Government intervention is minimised to only addressing the specific gaps in market cover arising from the potential large-scale risks resulting from war or terrorism. The contingent liability will be required for the duration of the contract.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-06-28/HCWS890/.
[HCWS890]
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
We have introduced a range of measures to support personnel and mitigate the cost of living, including capping subsidised accommodation charges, freezing food charges, increasing travel allowances, rebating contributions in lieu of council tax and introducing wraparound childcare, saving £3,000 per child a year. Additionally, over the past five years, the armed forces have received a cumulative pay award of 11%, with 2022 being the biggest percentage uplift in 20 years.
Marion Fellows
According to the House of Commons Library, this Westminster Government plan to spend £3 billion on renewing nuclear weapons for this financial year 2023-24. The UK Government are making a political choice on weapons of mass destruction. When we have seen reports of service people and their families using food banks, does the Minister think that is a wise use of public funds?
Dr Murrison
I have to differ with the hon. Lady. I fully support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. It has kept us safe all these years, and so long as we have a Conservative Government, there will be a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. It is a pity that her party cannot line up behind the men and women of our armed forces, who are committed to that deterrent.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
We will shortly be publishing the quinquennial review into the armed forces compensation scheme and the independent review of Government provision of welfare services for veterans. Between them, they will ensure that the scheme remains fit for purpose and that we identify areas for improvement and better align support services. Crucially, we will continue to press ahead with the £40 million digital transformation of paper-based processes.
Janet Daby
At the last Defence orals, I stated that claims to the Veterans UK compensation scheme have dropped and rejections have risen compared with a decade ago. The Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) said that the Department’s digital programme would address that. Is the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families concerned about the structural issues with the scheme? I say that because even the independent reviewer has said that the scheme’s process is
“overly burdensome and even distressing for the claimant due to unreasonable timeframes and a lack of transparency.”
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Dr Murrison
I am glad that the hon. Lady has asked that question, because two reviews are under way: the quinquennial review and the review being launched jointly by the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. I suspect strongly that those reviews will bring forward recommendations to improve processes, but all institutions have to change with time, and this is no different. I am pleased to note that fewer claims are now going to appeal or tribunal, and that is our measure of success. I pay tribute to those who administer such things; they work very hard.
Stephen Morgan
Over the past year, the number of veterans claiming universal credit has increased by 50%. How does the Minister plan to help veterans in receipt of universal credit to acquire the skills they need to access well-paid employment?
Dr Murrison
Universal credit is an in-work benefit that will affect a small number of service people. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have done everything we can to mitigate cost of living rises. I said in response to the previous question that we have a freeze on accommodation costs, a freeze on food and a contribution to offset increases in council tax. All those things are helping our service personnel at this difficult time. We will continue to do what we can to mitigate those cost of living increases.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
One group of veterans to whom a gross injustice was done many years ago is the LGBT community, who until 2001 were court-martialled, shamed and dismissed. That shame is still with them today and has not yet been corrected. The Government perfectly properly commissioned a report by Lord Etherton to look into the whole matter, and I understand it was provided last week. Will the Government undertake to produce that report and make an oral statement to this House to discuss it? Above all, will they give the apology it calls for and accept the need for financial compensation that those veterans deserve?
Dr Murrison
I suspect I will be asked the same question on Saturday, when I attend London Pride. The Etherton report has been delivered. It is pretty magisterial, as we would expect from Terence Etherton, with a number of recommendations that we are working through. When we respond, it will be a proper response, and I hope it will satisfy my hon. Friend.
Rachel Hopkins
The Minister will be pressed again for his response—he will not have to wait until Saturday—because until 2000 it was illegal to be gay in the UK armed forces. The loss of livelihoods and long-term suffering endured by LGBT+ veterans as a result of that cruel and unjust policy has been immense. I am pleased that there is such cross-party agreement about the publication of the report being so important to those who have experienced such injustice, but 18 months on there is still no report and no Government apology. Will the Minister confirm specifically when the report will be published in full, with all testimony, and when we can expect an apology from the Prime Minister for this historic injustice?
Dr Murrison
It was this Government who set up the review. This situation was going on from 1967 to 2000, and it was an appalling stain on all of us, so I am really pleased that, at long last, the Government have gripped it. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to be a little bit more patient, but I suspect that we will publish the report and a response very soon indeed.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The hon. Lady will welcome the commemorative nuclear test medal announced by the Prime Minister in November last year to recognise service veterans and civilian personnel who participated in the UK’s atmospheric nuclear test programme between 1952 and 1967. The first nuclear test medals are expected to be available this autumn—I hope in time for Remembrance Sunday.
Rebecca Long Bailey
A nuclear testing veteran has said:
“We have heard it all before, governments come and go, but the Nuclear Veterans keep fighting, that’s exactly what we did for our country all them years ago, so please, no more false promises just action…award us our medal”.
He speaks for the thousands who were promised medallic recognition by the Prime Minister on 22 November last year. Sadly, they are now informed that the medal has been delayed again by the Government. What is the delay? Why is it happening? Will the Minister categorically promise the House today that those veterans, whose average age is now 85, will finally be awarded their medals before Remembrance Sunday so that they and their descendants can proudly wear them?
Dr Murrison
Once again I remind the hon. Lady that it is this Government who got on and made the announcement on 22 November last year. I very much hope that by 22 November the veterans will get their medals. It is my sincere hope that by Remembrance Sunday they will be able to wear proudly what is due to them.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Last week, the Ministry of Defence published the Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation. Rick Haythornthwaite and his team have done an absolutely brilliant job. The MOD is now working out how to implement the recommendations, but I think it true to say that Haythornthwaite addresses our pressing need to build a firm foundation for an increasingly skills-based future in which the MOD will have to compete extremely hard if it is to continue to recruit and retain the very best.
Mary Robinson
In February of last year, we were informed that the Ministry of Defence was
“actively considering recruiting people with neurodiversity”.
That will have given hope to many, including a constituent of mine who does not believe that his autism diagnosis should be a barrier to service. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the status is of those considerations, and will the MOD consider running a pilot scheme so that neurodiverse individuals can be encouraged to give their skills to the armed forces?
Dr Murrison
We are very proud of the wide-ranging make-up of our armed forces, which includes many neurodiverse people. The Haythornthwaite review recognises that tomorrow’s defence will be very different from today’s, and that its people will be as well. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s perceptive question, and anticipate that the skills and attributes that we will need in the future will mean our casting the net much more widely than before.
Selaine Saxby
In North Devon, our two military bases, Chivenor and Arromanches, have units specialising in logistics, engineering and unmanned marine technologies. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage more budding young engineers to fulfil their technical education and work prospects in our armed forces?
Dr Murrison
The Ministry of Defence is deeply committed to supporting future engineers both inside and outside the armed forces, and is one of the largest deliverers of UK apprenticeships: we have 22,000 personnel on 100 different apprenticeships at any one time. Furthermore, the Haythornthwaite review and the pan-defence skills framework will take the skilling of our defence people to the next level.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. Northern Ireland is one of the leading regions of the United Kingdom that are pushing cyber-security very hard. Has the Minister given any consideration to ensuring that companies that are involved in cyber-security, of which there are many not only in Northern Ireland but in the south-east of England, could work in partnership with the MOD to ensure that the skills to be found in private companies can be used in the Army?
Dr Murrison
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that in future we will see much more zig-zagging between the armed forces and the industry and back again, and, indeed, Haythornthwaite touches on the subject of so-called zig-zag careers. I expect to see a much closer working relationship between the armed forces and industry in the future: we are all in it together.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
On Armed Forces Day last week, as a nation we thanked our armed forces for their service, and as a nation we rightly invest in the skills of those who serve, but year after year we are seeing more people with essential skills leaving the forces. Satisfaction with service life has plummeted from a recorded high of 61% under Labour in 2009 to 42% today, and among junior ranks it is even lower, at 39%. What is the Minister’s plan to restore morale in order to help to retain the skills that we need in our armed forces, and does he expect armed forces morale to be higher or lower than it is today by the time of the next general election?
Dr Murrison
It was a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in Falmouth for Armed Forces Day at the weekend.
The armed forces continuous attitude survey was established in 2007 by the last Labour Government. It is interesting to look back at what the figures were then. There was no Labour nirvana. We find from the 2007 figures that the percentage saying that morale is high or higher is about the same now as in 2007. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may chunter, but these are the facts. The percentage feeling valued has risen significantly, as has the percentage who would recommend their career to a friend. It is hardly surprising that satisfaction with kit, for example, is much better now than it was then. We remember 2007 and the Snatch Land Rovers—coffins on wheels—and we remember, do we not, the appalling kit with which the then Labour Government provided our armed forces in Iraq and then Afghanistan. I think that Labour’s record is nothing to be proud of.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I was delighted to announce the war widows ex gratia payment scheme last month. A specialist team is being stood up to deal with applications and assist and advise widows when the process opens. This will ensure that people are treated with the care they deserve and that their individual needs are met. The scheme will start as soon as possible, and in any event by this autumn, and will be open for two years. It will not erase their loss, but I hope that this payment will offer some comfort to those affected. I again pay tribute to the staunch, dignified campaigning of the War Widows Association, which has brought us to this point; I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has been absolutely four-square behind the campaign.
Sir Julian Lewis
In return, I would like to thank Ministers for persevering with the matter in the face of many obstacles erected by the Treasury. There is just one last hurdle to surmount: the question of taxation of the ex gratia payment. As war widows’ pensions are a recognition of sacrifice and not a benefit, they are not taxed. If this ex gratia payment is taxed, some war widows will get only slightly more than half the lump sum concerned. Will my right hon. Friend use his very best endeavours to avoid that unintended and unfortunate result of an otherwise successful initiative?
Dr Murrison
I fully understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making. He will know that the payment was uplifted to take tax into account. I appreciate that it may not be taking care of all tax in many, if not most, circumstances. What I will say to him, without setting any hares running, is that I am having a conversation with colleagues, but I emphasise that it is around how we deal with tax on this payment. I cannot really give him any more comfort than that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Ministry of Defence fully recognises the importance of safe, good-quality and well-maintained homes. In the last seven years, the MOD has invested more than £936 million in service family accommodation. That includes £185 million last year on modernising homes, tackling damp and mould and improving thermal efficiency. Currently, 97% of MOD SFA meet or exceed the Government’s decent homes standard. Only those properties are allocated to service families. We strive to do better but, for context, the figure for social housing is 91%.
Matt Western
When he has been around various sites, I am sure the Minister will have noticed the substandard quality of accommodation, and indeed squalor in certain cases. He will also know that some 800 armed forces families are living in potentially unsafe homes that have not yet had gas safety checks. Will he confirm what action he and his Government are taking to make those homes safe?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. On gas and electric safety, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was made aware of the issue on 2 May and he worked exceptionally quickly to remedy it. Currently, there are some 555 gas safety certificates outstanding. That number is plummeting dramatically, and almost all of them will be cleared by the end of June, which is a measure of some success.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
If a private or a professional landlord did not properly complete these safety checks, they would be sued. It is completely unacceptable that we put armed forces personnel and their loved ones at risk for months because the Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract that is meant to do that is completely broken. If the head of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, who is meant to oversee this, is completely out of his depth, which some of us believe he is, after this, should he not consider his position?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. The important thing is that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State got to know about this, he acted immediately to put the matter right. I am not really interested in getting people’s scalps; I am interested in putting the matter right, and that is exactly what is happening.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I congratulate staff sergeant Mickle and his fellow instructors. Many of us were out and about for National Armed Forces Day on Saturday and saw some of our wonderful cadets. I pay tribute to all those instructors who put in so many hours to make it all possible.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the range of mental health support services that are open to our veterans, particularly Op Courage and, he will be interested to note, Op Fortitude. Of course, there is always more we can do, particularly for those who have suffered as a result of their service, but I think it important to say that, in general, service in our armed forces is a positive for mental health, not a negative.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I accept that we will hear a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statement in due course, but given the events over the weekend, what assessment has the MOD made of Ukraine’s ability to win in Ukraine?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The armed forces continuous attitude survey results have just been published. They show that less than a third of personnel believe that their basic pay is adequate, and nearly a quarter are looking to leave the forces. Will the Secretary of State admit that it is high time that he increased basic pay across the public service, but especially for those in uniform?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has reported, and that will be released shortly. Pay is part of a wider remuneration package, which includes an excellent non-contributory pension, subsidised accommodation, wraparound childcare, incremental pay, and a range of allowances. The non-financial aspects of the offer are also highly valued. What is not highly valued, frankly, are the tax increases that the SNP introduced in February, which make servicemen in Scotland much worse off than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
Robert Courts has gone, so let us have Simon Jupp—he is a man on his feet.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Royal Marines Charity, based in East Devon, helps to provide support to former servicemen and women in Devon, who we celebrated on Saturday as part of Armed Forces Day. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the welfare provision for veterans in Devon?
Dr Murrison
I am sorry that I was not in Devon on Saturday; I was next door in Cornwall, commemorating our armed forces, as my hon. Friend was.
There is a range of welfare support services in Devon. My hon. Friend will be aware of the regional welfare support operation there, which has expert welfare officers who can look after the needs of our wonderful veterans. Of course we can always do more, but I would cite, as I just have, Op Courage and, now, Op Fortitude, which I think will be of great assistance.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
While we wait for the upcoming pay review, may I ask what assessment the Minister’s Department has made of relative poverty rates among our service personnel and, while they await a significant pay rise, what work it is doing with the Department for Work and Pensions to signpost colleagues to the benefits that they are eligible for?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in addition to pay, things such as wraparound childcare and subsidised healthcare and dental care are available to members of our armed forces, as well as subsidised accommodation, the freezing of food charges and help with council tax—things that we have done in these difficult times to take the edge off the cost of living crisis. I hope he will welcome that.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Nowhere does events as well as my Southport constituency. This weekend’s Armed Forces Day was truly testament to that fact, so would my right hon. Friend welcome and support an application from Southport to host the national Armed Forces Day in 2025?
Draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2023
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2023.
It is the job of parliamentary draftsmen to make legislation sound as dry and routine as possible; in this particular case, the title of the draft order that we are considering does not do the measure justice. Although I am confident that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not oppose the measure—because of the consequences that so doing would bring—it is important to reflect on the historical provenance of what we are debating.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
We are backing the draft order because Labour backs our armed forces, not because of the consequences of not doing so. I want to put that on the record, so that the Minister is not under any false impression about why we are here. We are here to support our armed forces.
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful for that, because the consequences of opposing the draft order would be that our armed forces would effectively become ultra vires. That has been the case since 1688 and 1689. It is important to understand that the legislation that underpins the continuation of our armed forces has to be renewed regularly. That is why we are here today.
The statutory instrument extends the Armed Forces Act 2006 until the end of 2024. It is an expression of this Parliament’s right to ensure the continuation of a standing army. That is the basis of the legislation. Without supporting the draft order and extending the legislation, we would have no statutory basis for continuing with our armed forces, with all the consequences that that would bring. Our annual consideration of this legislation is very much a standard piece of parliamentary business, but it is also an opportunity for Committee members to reflect on the professionalism, the personal and collective bravery, and the sacrifice of our service personnel. That is particularly the case as we approach Armed Forces Day on Saturday.
My colleague in the other place, the Defence Minister the noble Baroness Goldie, has mentioned many of the change processes that are happening or have happened in defence recently. She mentioned the imminent defence Command Paper refresh, the Haythornthwaite review on Monday and the Etherton report earlier this month, which came hard on the heels of the Selous and Atherton reviews. I do not intend to focus on those today, but I mention them for the record.
Operationally, we have recently seen a spectrum of engagements by our armed forces, ranging from the successful airlifts from Sudan to Operation Cabrit in support of Estonia. Our armed forces are committed to supporting that which is right, and, of course, nowhere is that more the case than in Ukraine. Many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have been or are being trained across 33 partner nations. I am very pleased to say that the UK is shouldering a very large part of that. Our people have been working tirelessly—I have seen it in my constituency—as part of an operation to ensure that brave Ukrainians are capable of facing down Putin’s illegal aggression. I am particularly proud that our armed forces are inculcating what they are world renowned for doing, which is exercising professionalism, service ethos and fighting practices of the sort, of the standard and at the level that I am confident will ultimately prove decisive in the fight.
The Committee may be reassured that we in the UK, along with our international allies and partners, remain resolute in our support for Ukraine against the Kremlin’s barbarous behaviour, which, I am afraid, will stain Russia for years and years. Last week, defence announced a major new fund that will see a significant package of vital air defence equipment delivered to Ukraine. To achieve that, the UK is working closely with allies so that Ukraine is better able to defend itself against air threats to its people and infrastructure.
I hope that Committee members will support and approve the draft continuation order, which simply provides a sound legal basis for our armed forces to continue to operate.
Dr Murrison
To address that point head on, the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, will be aware that there was a debate this morning on veterans’ welfare and Veterans UK in Westminster Hall, in which his colleague, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), spoke very well. I would refer him to the printed record in due course.
I am pleased to hear from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, that Labour backs our armed forces. I accept that, although it is worth reflecting that, until relatively recently, the Labour party was led by a politician whose support was hardly unequivocal. Heaven loves a sinner brought to repentance, and I am pleased that in the run-up to Armed Forces Day, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, whose personal commitment I reflect fully, has reiterated his party’s support for the men and women of our armed forces.
I also noted an implied spending commitment. While it is easy for all of us to stand up in this place and say what is wrong, it is more difficult to say how we will put it right. As we get closer to the general election, no doubt those themes will be explored to their fullest. Since we are approaching Armed Forces Day, and in the spirit of some level of collegiateness, perhaps we can reflect upon cuts and reduced headcount not being the exclusive province of one particular political party. Indeed, the peace dividend has weighed upon politicians of both hues as we try to grapple with the competing demands made upon us in terms of our public services.
On headcount, and what the hon. Gentleman cited as cuts, it is important to reflect that what is vital in defence is capability and output. By that measure, our armed forces are punching well above their weight, not because of investments in kit, but because of the excellence of the men and women who operate that kit.
I am very pleased that Lord Terence Etherton has completed his report. The hon. Gentleman knows that Lord Etherton brought his work to a conclusion at a reception that he hosted at the Imperial War Museum earlier this month, which was well received by the community. I had the privilege of speaking at that event. I hope that his report will hit the streets very soon, and, equally, that the Government’s response will be published soon. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this. The way people were treated between 1967 and 2000 was truly shocking on occasion, and left a stain on defence. It is right that we acknowledge that and do what we can to make amends. I am confident that the Government will do just that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Haythornthwaite. I think we are all gradually coming to terms with the enormity of what Haythornthwaite has recommended. It is a complicated report, with 67 recommendations, most of which, it is probably true to say, are strategic in nature. They are overarching and will profoundly affect the way we do people business in defence. We cannot simply do nothing; that is not an option. To do nothing would mean that, as defence, we would wither and die. All militaries have to grapple with demographic change and changing societal mores and attitudes. We are no different, but if we are to compete in the marketplace, we have to change. We cannot expect the remit population to change.
I am confident that when we produce our response to Haythornthwaite, which will be carefully considered, we will have a blueprint to establish how the people side of the business proceeds in the years ahead, but it is a long haul. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support Rick Haythornthwaite. I have already said that I think his work is sound, and the best basis for proceeding with the recruitment and retention of our people in the years ahead. As for the detail of the Government’s response, the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is quite a lot of work to be done, so that when we come to say what we think about this, what we have makes sense and will convince not just him, but, more importantly, the men and women of our armed forces. Without their consent and that of their families, I do not think we will make progress at all.
My nightmare is the report ending up a little like the Bett report of the 1990s—the last big review of its kind. Although it was useful at the time, much of it sat on a shelf gathering dust, and we have not implemented a lot of it to this day. I said to Rick Haythornthwaite that I do not want that to be the destiny of his report. It therefore needs a proper response from the Government. I am seized of the importance of doing it quickly, and of the importance of doing it properly. That is what we will do.
I think I have addressed most of the points raised by the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for Glasgow South West, but I will happily respond to anything that I have missed in writing.
The Chair
Before I put the Question, may I say that it is customary for Members to request permission to remove their jacket in a sitting, and not to assume that permission has been granted?
Question put and agreed to.
Veterans UK
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the support and services provided by Veterans UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey. I apologise in advance if the hay fever bomb that has followed me throughout London this week disrupts my speech. Please be kind to me.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to all those who have served our country, both past and present, as we spend this week commemorating the armed forces. We, as parliamentarians, have been aware of our obligations to look after and provide for veterans since Elizabethan times. In 1593, our predecessors passed the Act for the Necessary Relief of Soldiers and Mariners, which ordered parishes to make special provisions to help the sick and wounded veterans in their communities. That Act, now over 400 years old, forms the cornerstone of what we now call the armed forces covenant.
The covenant states that, to compensate veterans for their sacrifice,
“British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they…will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.”
I was a councillor in Sheffield when the city council was among the first signatories to the armed forces covenant. I am proud that we enshrined the covenant in our working practices, placing a legal duty on ourselves to encourage integration from service life into civilian life. The covenant is a promise to the approximately 2 million veterans in this country and the 15,000 soldiers who join their ranks every year. Their service can have a profound and wide-ranging effect on them for the rest of their lives. We have an obligation to ensure that those who have served our country receive the best possible treatment, care and opportunities when they return.
There are thousands of voluntary signatories to the covenant, and the Armed Forces Act 2021 requires certain public bodies to pay due regard to the principles of the covenant when carrying out their functions, but—shockingly—Ministers have resisted efforts to apply the covenant to their own Government. Perhaps that is because they know that if the Government were to be bound by the covenant, they would fail to meet their statutory obligations.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs wrote:
“our veterans need to be able to access support that is human, sensitive and that works for them”,
but a significant number of our returning veterans have found the transition from serving soldier to civilian distressing, and that has actively hindered their interactions with Veterans UK. The all-party parliamentary group on veterans has done excellent research on this matter, for which I commend it. The results of its survey on veterans’ experiences with Veterans UK were released several months ago. It received responses from 1,000 veterans: over 75% of respondents to the survey rated their overall experience with Veterans UK as either poor or very poor, and nearly 85% believed that the consideration given to their mental and physical health was poor or very poor.
Those findings are damning, but even more harrowing are the comments left by some of the respondents. One wrote:
“the process had broken me mentally to the point where my choice was walk away or commit suicide.”
Another said:
“My dealings with this organisation would lead me to believe it is set up to cause deliberate harm to veterans—it is a disgrace.”
Even a single soldier who, after years of dedicated service to their country, has been left feeling that desperate and despondent is one too many, but the depth and breadth of the respondents’ issues with Veterans UK led me to fear that the problems with this body are systematic.
I am pleased that, following the report from the APPG on veterans, the Government announced a review of the role and scope of welfare provision for veterans by the Ministry of Defence in its entirety. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has himself admitted that
“for too long veterans services have suffered from under-investment, and been over-reliant on paper records and outdated tech.”
None the less, the Government must not allow this review to overshadow other reports into veterans’ affairs. The armed forces compensation scheme, also administered by Veterans UK, compensates those who have suffered injury, illness or death during UK armed forces service, and undergoes a review every five years to ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose. The headline findings of that review were published in January, with the independent reviewer finding that the current process is
“overly burdensome and even distressing for the claimant due to unreasonable timeframes and a lack of transparency.”
The indifference and, in some cases, outright hostility to the plight of our veterans was highlighted by The Telegraph last year in a report that injured soldiers had been “laughed at” and “belittled” by officials involved in awarding payouts from the medical compensation scheme. Some soldiers highlighted that unqualified medical advisers were challenging their surgeons’ professional assessments, resulting in armed forces personnel being undercompensated for their injuries. Compensation money is a lifeline for many of our veterans wounded in service.
Millions of people are grappling with the ongoing cost of living crisis and extortionate waiting times for medical services, but these issues may have a disproportionate impact on veterans. Analysis of Government figures this week shows that 50% more veterans than last year are relying on universal credit. That is a damning indictment of the Government’s support for veterans. Staggeringly, the number of active personnel claiming universal credit has also risen by more than 50%. Not only are our serving troops forced to rely on benefits to get by, but they are also often subjected to substandard housing plagued by mould and damp. There are even reports that some soldiers are unable to afford the subsidised food in their mess halls, and that a food bank on an RAF base that was established to support local communities is instead being used by service personnel who are struggling to get by. It is little wonder that after 13 years of Conservative rule, in which our forces have been underfunded and underappreciated, satisfaction with service life has plummeted from 60% in 2010 to just 42% today.
I have spoken about the difficulties that soldiers face in claiming compensation for their injuries, but surely they have quick and easy access to the medical evaluations and treatment that they may need. The armed forces covenant and veterans annual report states that:
“Looking after the health needs of Service personnel…especially where military service has caused or exacerbated those needs—is one of the first priorities of the Government when it comes to the wellbeing of the Armed Forces community.”
But on multiple key metrics, this Government are failing. Waiting times for treatment through the transition, intervention and liaison service are up by a week since last year, and waits for appointments in the complex treatment service are missing the Government’s target of 10 working days by more than an entire working week.
Shockingly, the list of systemic failures faced by our veterans continues. Thousands of them were robbed of their career, their pension and their dignity as they were dismissed from the force and, in some cases, tarnished with criminal records. Their crime? Being a member of the LGBT community. Early last year the Government commissioned a report to investigate that historical wrongdoing and accepted in the terms of reference that the policy was wrong. The least the Prime Minister could do is offer a formal apology. Sadly, none has been forthcoming.
The LGBT veterans independent review has reported its findings and recommendations to the Government. As Pride Month draws to an end, I call on the Government to release the report as a matter of urgency, and to implement Lord Etherton’s recommendations so that our LGBT veterans are compensated properly for their service and for the trauma inflicted on them by their own country.
Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs promised that every veteran would receive an ID card by the end of 2023. These cards are meant to ensure that ex-servicemen and women have quicker access to the health, housing and charity services that they need. We should all support this scheme. However, of the 13,000 recorded veterans in Sheffield, only 218 have received their identity card. The Minister pledged several months ago that he would shave off his eyebrows if every veteran had not received their card by the end of 2023. I hope that he can get to grips with the roll-out in record time for the sake of our veterans, but I fear that, at the current rate of progress, he will be wearing a striking new look after the Christmas recess.
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Wrong Minister!
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. May I first say what an improvement these little lecterns are, particularly for those of us who are increasingly long-sighted? It is the first time that I have appeared in Westminster Hall with one of them in place, and it is a great improvement. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing today’s debate. As we run up to Armed Forces Day, it really is timely.
Regarding hay fever, the hon. Lady has my sympathies; if I may say so, she fared exceptionally well in struggling with that affliction, which somehow seems to get worse the older we get. I also reassure her about my eyebrows. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families are plainly different, I am happy to say. That is important because of the eyebrow issue, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs lives in trepidation. I am happy to say that my eyebrows are safe as I gave no undertaking to shave them off.
The hon. Lady referred to the relief Act of 1593. I am pleased she did because I started my book on the military covenant, which I wrote 10 years ago, and which is sadly out of print, with the same assessment. The reason being is that it is important to take a long and historical perspective on the military covenant, which has become the armed forces covenant.
I am delighted to hear the commitment made in respect of the covenant by the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who speaks for the Opposition, and I am particularly proud that this Government, in their early days, inculcated the covenant into legislation and that organisations are now able to sign up to it. I am especially proud of the guidance that goes with the enjoinder to sign up to the covenant, which is important in explaining to organisations what it means to sign up. I am delighted by the number of local authorities that have done so.
We are eternally grateful for the service of all our veterans, and it is only right, as they give so much to us, that we support them as best we can. The strategy for our veterans and the refreshed “Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan” lay out the Government’s aspiration to make the UK a truly great place to be a veteran. I would, however, like to correct a common misconception about what Veterans UK actually is. It is not the same as the US Veterans Administration, and for very good reasons. It is not a stand-alone agency responsible for providing all Government support for veterans. As veterans are civilians, the majority of their care and support comes from the full range of Departments, notably our NHS, but also from local government or from the devolved Administrations.
Veterans UK is simply the public-facing name given to the services delivered by one Department: the Ministry of Defence. Those services include the administration and payment of armed forces pensions, which are very important. I declare an interest as a service pensioner. The other services are the war pension and armed forces compensation schemes, and the delivery of the Veterans Welfare Service, Defence Transition Services, independent personal commissioning for veterans, and Ilford Park Polish Home.
Only the war pension scheme and the Ilford Park Polish Home are services delivered solely to veterans and their families, as the other services also support serving personnel or those in transition. Some 75% of armed forces compensation claims are received from serving service personnel, and that is quite important in the context of the review that has already been mentioned. If I have time, I might come to discuss exactly why that is.
Let me illustrate the scale and the number of individuals supported by those services: last year, almost 12,000 armed forces compensation scheme and war pension scheme claims were cleared, and more than 97,500 war disablement pensions were in payment to the value of £622.5 million. Under the armed forces compensation scheme, more than 3,500 guaranteed income payments were made to veterans, and £104 million was paid out under the scheme.
In the year ending 31 March 2023, approximately 454,000 armed forces pensions were in payment to a value of almost £5.3 billion annually. In the year ending 31 March 2023, the Veterans Welfare Service interacted with 38,609 people via phone or email. It provides tailored advice according to each person’s specific circumstances. When financial assistance is required, the Veterans Welfare Service helps with benefit checks, completion of application forms and signposting to entitlements, and the support available from the wider public and voluntary sectors.
I have met welfare managers and heard at first hand about the range of issues they have to deal with and the troubled circumstances of many of their customers. The help that they provide is extensive, and I have been struck by how dedicated they are to doing the best they can for the people they serve, who are frequently at a point of crisis in their lives. The workforce is fairly mature; many of them have been doing that work for many years. I assure hon. Members that they are very dedicated to what they do, but all big organisations must strive to do better. In the year ending 31 March, there were 161 formal complaints received about veterans services, compared with 2,014 instances of positive feedback from customers who wanted to give thanks for the service that they had received.
The same organisation that delivers all these services has been issuing veterans recognition cards to all service leavers since 2018. It is developing the new digital verification service that will enable veterans to verify their veteran status online quickly and easily, and apply for their veteran recognition card. That service will begin to be rolled out by the end of the year. The card will enable veterans to prove their veteran status to help them to access specialist support and services, and to maintain a tangible link to their career in the armed forces.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), I was fortunate to visit Veterans UK in Norcross, where many of these services are delivered, fairly recently and early in my tenure. As I said, the staff there were notably enthusiastic about delivering for our veterans. They are clearly committed to doing the best they can and their level of experience is immense and hugely valuable.
That is not to say that the staff and I do not recognise that there is room for improvement. Much of the frustration voiced by veterans with services delivered under the Veterans UK banner relates specifically to the armed forces compensation scheme and the war pension scheme, and particularly to the lengthy process for making claims or making a subsequent appeal. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Luton South, said that the armed forces compensation scheme was created by a Labour Government. I know from her remarks that she accepts that the scheme is not perfect in all regards, and that it needs fairly extensive attention.
The interim findings from the quinquennial review, which have been referred to, give some grounds for encouragement, so the hon. Lady should not be too concerned about the organisation that her party created all those years ago. The review states that
“there are many elements of the AFCS which function well”,
so I think we have to accept that at face value. However, it goes on to say that there are issues that need to be addressed, particularly the length of time it takes for claims to be resolved. We have very little control over some of those issues, and some are common to any such scheme, whether in civilian life or in the armed forces. However, none of that negates the fact that we have to do better. I am convinced that the processes already under way at Norcross will do just that and hopefully improve the less than satisfactory experience of many of our veterans.
One of the major reasons for the delays is that we have to get proper, full, comprehensive medical reports from claimants’ medical practitioners. I can say from personal experience that busy GPs and consultants do not put returning forms very high on their priority list. Part of the reason for delays in concluding claims is beyond the direct control of Defence, but I think it is possible to bring down some of the delays. That has to do, in large part, with digital transformation.
The current process for managing claims is incredibly paper-driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley said. I have witnessed it for myself. The number of paper files crammed into every nook and cranny at Norcross is truly extraordinary. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to visit; they will be immediately struck by the acreage of paper files all over the place, reminiscent of a bygone age. That is why we are investing around £40 million in a transformation programme to digitise existing paper-based processes, introduce automation and create a single user portal for pensions and compensation. That will provide a single electronic view of the claimant with online self-service provision, enabling them to provide and retrieve information electronically and allowing them to secure access details for their entitlement and payments.
Such a complex programme brings together multiple different IT systems. On the current trajectory, the first release of the new system is expected early next year, with further iterations being released through to early 2025. That will underpin the customer portal, which is being developed concurrently. Serving personnel will have external access to the portal from personal devices in late 2024 and veterans will have that in early 2025. Meanwhile, lived experience events with veterans are taking place to enhance understanding of the services provided by the MOD. They are designed as an opportunity to inform areas for improvement and to tell us how the MOD can enhance services, as well as share with our customers the improvements that are in hand.
We are committed to improving the customer experience for our veterans. Claims journeys are detailed on the gov.uk website to better explain the process to them. New bespoke animated presentations on gov.uk help to explain how the process works and how veterans can help to provide the necessary supporting documents with their claims, thus addressing one of the criticisms levelled in the interim findings of the quinquennial review.
In November 2022, a new online digital claims service was launched on gov.uk for those seeking compensation from the armed forces compensation scheme and war pension scheme. The service is now available to all service personnel and veterans. The new service has been well received by those using it and already accounts for more than half of new injury and illness claims made. I monitor key performance indicators for delays in claims being concluded and, a bit like inflation, they are stubbornly flat and have been for the past several months. Since the new way of being able to file claims was introduced in December, I expect it to expedite claims and for those KPIs to be met in the foreseeable future.
The MOD is committed to ensuring that the armed forces compensation scheme delivers for those who make a claim, and there are mechanisms of assessment and accountability in place to ensure that that is the case. For that reason, the scheme is checked using the quinquennial review that I referred to, meaning that, as time passes, the scheme is updated and hopefully becomes fit for purpose. This time around, the review has been taking place alongside the improvement activity that I discussed. The headline findings were published in January and I anticipate publication of the full report before the summer recess.
In addition, and in partnership with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, whose eyebrows are at risk, I have commissioned a review of welfare provision for veterans, which includes, but is not exclusive to, those provided under the Veterans UK banner. The review will build on the positive work already being undertaken across Government under the strategy for our veterans. The review is being led by a senior civil servant, with the independent veterans adviser and other key stakeholders providing advice. Again, I anticipate publication of the report before the summer recess.
To turn briefly to the comments that have been made, I will not be able to do them all justice, but I am more than happy to write to hon. Members. I was struck by the support from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for our armed forces and veterans, though I would expect nothing else. I was pleased that he articulated the support of the SNP and the Scottish Government. It is worth reflecting on the fact that Scotland more than plays its part in the defence of these islands. That is extremely welcome and is of very long standing.
I must, however, raise the point about nuclear test veterans. While I am very pleased that the hon. Member welcomes the medallic recognition, which they are due, we need to be careful about suggesting that that cohort of people have been damaged by their service. We obviously monitor all the evidence, both in this country and overseas, to pick up on anything that is emerging that suggests long-term consequences of service of this nature. So far, that has proved negative, but it is important to keep all the evidence under review, as he would expect, and I certainly commit to doing that.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) was rightly concerned about the cost of living. He will be aware that the MOD has taken action where it can, for example by freezing rents. We are about to have the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body report—he will have to wait for it, I am afraid—but we will see what the recommendations are in the light of the current circumstances. I urge him to be a little patient.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about reserves over the age of 60. I have had some correspondence on the subject, but as an active reservist over the age of 60, all I will say is that I am sympathetic to his point and I look forward to the letter that he promised. I will certainly address it as best I can.
The hon. Gentleman and others were right to mention the treatment meted out to members of the LGBT community between 1967 and 2000. It was truly shocking. I am extremely in the debt of Lord Terence Etherton for his work on this matter. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was at the reception held by Lord Etherton to mark the end of his review a few days ago, but it was a great experience, though a humbling one. Lord Etherton’s report will be published very soon, as will the Government’s response to it.
There is no question but that this group of people were badly managed and badly handled by the armed forces. It was truly shocking on occasion, and I am deeply grateful to Lord Etherton and his team for producing a very fine report that touches on actions that will span right across Government. We will never make full amends for what happened—that is not possible. People have been deeply hurt, but it is important that the Government properly recognise what happened between 1967 and 2000 and, where we can, try to bring some comfort and restoration to that group of people. I certainly give an undertaking that that will happen.
I will just highlight the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley, who takes a deep interest in these matters, for which I am profoundly grateful. In particular, she clearly has informed herself exceptionally well by taking the trouble to go to Norcross to see the problems there. I know from her remarks how shocked she has been at the 19th century way in which many of the claims are handled.
Mrs Drummond
The Minister talked about the delay with GPs and consultants. Would it be possible to, as I mentioned, use either scanned documents or the NHS digital records that nearly every one of us now has to speed up the process?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I think so. Of course, that requires compliance by GPs and consultants. The history of IT in our NHS is not necessarily a very happy one, so it is perhaps easier said than done, but where we can do things digitally, we must. We have to ensure that where it is within our power to change things, particularly in relation to digitisation of applications for compensation and processing within the MOD, we do it. That is at the heart of the transformation process. That, in itself, will bring down the length of time that people have to wait.
I will use this opportunity to pick up another issue that the interim quinquennial review highlights: the perceived adversarial nature of the process. When the Government of the hon. Member for Luton South introduced the scheme, it was never intended to be adversarial, yet that has been the perception of many of our veterans. That is a pity, because that is not what we want. I look forward to the recommendations of the review in relation to how we can make that better. I very much hope and expect that the whole journey for our veterans will be dramatically improved.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough for introducing this timely debate. I assure her that Defence is absolutely committed—as I am personally—to delivering the best possible services for veterans, both serving and retired.
Service Family Accommodation: Maintenance
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Thank you for the reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a while since I was last in this situation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her interest in this matter, and for initiating the debate. I represent a garrison town, I am a veteran and an active reservist and two of my children are in the armed forces, so, unsurprisingly, I am determined that we should do everything we reasonably can to give service people the accommodation that they deserve.
Unfortunately, our personnel have not been well served in this area for decades covering numerous Administrations, including one involving Liberal Democrats. Too often our people have had to put up with poorly built housing that has been crudely adapted with the advent of central heating. I have lived it in my service career, and I have seen it professionally. Sadly, in the years after the Annington deal only £100 million of the £1.66 billion in sale proceeds was reinvested in upgrades, with predictable consequences, and the Future Defence Infrastructure Services accommodation contract, which went live on 1 April last year, has yet to live up to its potential. We have heard some examples of failure today, and I have examples of my own.
We should not forget, however, that there are some great examples of service family accommodation. I can say from first-hand experience that some of it is truly exceptional. On 18 May this year, the Ministry of Defence announced a £173 million investment in capital purchase of family homes in the UK for armed forces families, comprising the purchase of 310 brand-new homes and the purchase of the freehold of 113 modern, formerly leasehold, homes. The brand-new homes have been purchased in the last 12 months, and are due to be occupied by the end of this year. All will meet modern energy performance certificate standards, and some will meet the very highest, a grade A rating.
In 2022-23, as part of that purchase, the MOD bought 66 homes to support Imjin Barracks at Innsworth, 58 homes at Brize Norton, and 36 homes at Aldershot. As well as those, we have agreed to purchase an additional 176 homes at Innsworth over this and the next financial year, to be completed by 2025. These homes will be net zero. So investment in accommodation is going up. During the last seven years the MOD has invested more than £936 million in service family accommodation improvements, including about £185 million last year spent on modernising homes, tackling damp and mould, and improving thermal efficiency. This is part of a wider £3 billion FDIS programme that has replaced the old facilities management contracts.
However, customer satisfaction has fallen, especially in relation to damp, mould, heating and maintenance. During the December cold snap, there were reports of personnel being without heating for more than five days. Response times for maintenance and repair works have been slow, although I have to say that conversations I have had recently suggest that families have noticed an improvement in responsiveness. That is anecdotal, but I offer it for what it is worth, and we shall see whether it feeds through into our survey data in due course.
In relation to the hon. Member’s concerns in her constituency, on 9 June, DIO’s regional manager and estate officer for RAF Shawbury met Amey counterparts and a warrant officer representing the station. All parties were also at a families’ surgery that morning. Only two families attended the surgery, a significant reduction on previous surgeries, linking to the point that I made earlier from my experience.
Dr Murrison
I hope that the scale of the challenge and the financial commitment that Defence has made to improving accommodation are clear. They are certainly heartfelt as far as I am concerned, but for context, it is worth pointing out that we are also committed to keeping rents low. The hon. Member for North Shropshire may be interested to know that, on average, our service families in North Shropshire pay £323 a month for a three-bedroom property. I have checked and I found that private renters in the same area can expect to pay an average of £750 a month for the equivalent home.
Defence is responsible for 47,800 military homes across the country. Right now, 97% of all MOD family accommodation nationally meets or exceeds the Government’s decent homes standard, and the figure for occupied service family accommodation in North Shropshire is also 97%. By means of comparison, in Shropshire, 76% of all private rented homes and 79.5% of social housing meet the Government’s decent homes standard. I hope that the hon. Lady has raised that with her local authority.
I should say that the seven occupied properties in the hon. Lady’s constituency that are below the decent housing standard are structurally safe and sound and met the standard when occupants moved in, but have since fallen below. Remedial action on the door and window lintels at fault is expected this summer. I hope that she is reassured by that.
However, when we are dealing with housing, it is inevitable that things will go wrong, as we all know. When they do, the response needs to be first-class, but according to the last armed forces continuous attitude survey, which canvassed service personnel late last year—and was published earlier this month—only 19% of respondents were satisfied with the response that they got. That is not good enough.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being characteristically frank about the problems, as well as the successes, of the policy. Can anything be done to the model of financing for the maintenance of service housing that would perhaps incorporate a financial incentive on the people who have the contracts, so that if they do not arrange for repairs quickly enough, they could conceivably feel it where it hurts, in their bank balance?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The FDIS contract that was introduced early last year does just that. If he will forgive me, I may just come on to describe what that might mean, or has meant, in a few moments.
The day-to-day management and maintenance of service housing has, since early last year, been through FDIS, and it has been contracted out to three separate contractors: Amey in the central and northern regions; VIVO in the south-east and south-west; and Pinnacle, which runs the national service centre and co-ordinates activity.
Any contract transition is fraught with difficulty, and it certainly has been with FDIS. But there is a third issue that challenges delivery to our service families—namely, the underlying issue of poor original build quality, which flowed from decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s and was compounded by historical underinvestment. When combined with a resource-constrained “fix on fail” regime, the resulting effect has led to a maintenance logjam estimated to cost around £960 million.
These are explanations, not excuses. The new contracts introduced a number of improvements: clear customer satisfaction targets, for the first time in MOD housing history; more demanding target response times for most types of reactive maintenance; a higher standard of preparation of homes for families to move into; and financial consequences for contractors that fall short, and incentives to go beyond the minimum standards.
Currently, as a result of some of the poor performance already outlined this evening, the MOD’s contractual rights to withhold payments from suppliers are being exercised and deductions are being made, as appropriate. Withheld profits will be reinvested for the benefit of service families. In addition, a total of £1.14 million in compensation has been paid direct to service personnel by FDIS suppliers, at no cost to the Ministry of Defence, since the FDIS accommodation contracts went live on 1 April 2022.
We are taking further measures to address issues related to damp and mould. We have established a dedicated hotline to address specific concerns, and we have improved the initial triage process to prioritise cases. This is followed by an on-site visit to apply the initial treatment, assess the need for a follow-up and decide whether a professional survey is required. Since early 2022, homes are not being allocated where there is a known damp or mould issue.
Separately, tomorrow we will table a written ministerial statement titled “Defence Infrastructure Update,” which will update the House on the work being undertaken to reduce a backlog in expired gas and electrical safety certificates in MOD properties through an accelerated and targeted renewal process. I am not going to pre-empt that announcement, but suffice it to say that Ministers were made aware in May of an issue relating to a backlog of expired gas certificates that had accrued while families were occupying their properties. That has occurred for a variety of reasons, including residents being unavailable to allow access to their homes for inspections, and supply chain resource and contractor IT issues.
The backlog of electrical certificates is a consequence of changes in regulations in August 2020, which required certificates to be completed every five years instead of every 10. Needless to say, we have acted immediately. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence Procurement have spoken with FDIS contractors personally, stressing that we expect this backlog to be cleared in the next few weeks. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has worked with its suppliers to improve communications to families, to ensure availability for inspections. The MOD’s contractors have also made progress in recruiting additional resource and improving their data management to reduce this unacceptable backlog.
The Government have required all contractors to submit rectification plans. There is no complacency, but those are now showing progress. Pinnacle’s national service centre is answering all calls in an average of 14 seconds, which is significantly better than its 90-second target. Amey and VIVO have brought waiting lists down significantly, with very big improvements in maintenance response times. At the end of last month, the maintenance backlog stood at about 5,000, which is down from a high of 21,100 in December 2022. The number of open complaints is down by about 70%, and most key performance indicators are now at acceptable levels or better across most regions.
We need the final few measures to be brought up to scratch and, crucially, for that performance to be sustained. That is easier said than done, but we are making headway. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation is working with VIVO and Amey to develop a programme of straightforward interventions to address damp and mould. Critically, we also have the means, through FDIS, to hold our contractors to account should they fail to meet their end of the bargain. If required, we can recoup money or refuse to pay it out. We have already used those levers robustly where we can and where it is appropriate to do so, and they have made a difference.
So I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for North Shropshire that we are on the case, and we will most certainly continue to hold our contractors’ feet to the fire. Our new accommodation strategy, published last October, sets out a clear ambition for where we want to be: a situation where all our people have access to good-quality accommodation, in line with modern living standards.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Incentivisation Review
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation (HRAFI) was an independent review of our service personnel’s terms and conditions, which the Ministry of Defence committed to undertake in the Defence Command Paper of March 2021.
The final report has been delivered and published on time and is available for all those who wish to study its recommendations. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House. These recommendations are wide-ranging. They provide a potential roadmap out to the 2030s aimed at improving the proposition to those who serve now, and those who may consider serving in the future. I note the report’s acknowledgement of the good work already underway across Defence to improve the lived experience of our service personnel and make it more attractive in a modern workforce marketplace.
The MOD is currently studying the review’s recommendations and I will make a formal response in due course, but overall I agree with Rick Haythornthwaite’s analysis and his conclusions.
I would like to place on record my thanks to Rick and his team for their work in producing this ambitious and comprehensive review. It is my intention to invite Rick, at an appropriate point after the report has been published and implementation has started, to take stock of our progress towards achieving the vision for our armed forces highlighted by his review.
Attachments:
1. Haythornthwaite Review
Attachments can be viewed online at:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-06-19/hcws857
[HCWS857]
Defence
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I cannot do justice to the detailed points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). As a logistician, I expect him to make a number of forensic points, but he is quite right to say that we should not be matching the good against the exquisite. Never let the excellent be the enemy of the good. I think he mentioned a medal for CASD. Of course, all medallic recognition is kept under continual review. I cannot give him a commitment. I would just point out, although I know it is second best, that the deterrent patrol pin was produced in 2009, the 50th anniversary of CASD, which I know a lot of submariners wear with pride.
[Official Report, 14 June 2023, Vol. 734, c. 403.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison):
An error has been identified in the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). The correct response should have been.
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I cannot do justice to the detailed points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). As a logistician, I expect him to make a number of forensic points, but he is quite right to say that we should not be matching the good against the exquisite. Never let the excellent be the enemy of the good. I think he mentioned a medal for CASD. Of course, all medallic recognition is kept under continual review. I cannot give him a commitment. I would just point out, although I know it is second best, that the deterrent patrol pin was produced in 2019, the 50th anniversary of CASD, which I know a lot of submariners wear with pride.
Global Military Operations
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his remarks and for the support he has given to our current operations and the men and women of our armed forces. I am pleased he cited Albion. I have visited Albion twice in the recent past, once in Plymouth and once overseas. He was also right to support the men and women of our Submarine Service; I would expect nothing else from a Devonport MP. They are unsung heroes and do an extraordinary thing. He hinted at the NATO defence model, which is important at the moment as we consider Vilnius and what follows from that.
It is reasonable to say that the UK will remain a trenchant supporter of NATO and what it does, and its ask. It is the cornerstone of our defence, notwithstanding the remarks that were made, quite reasonably, by right hon. and hon. Members about forming alliances wherever it is expedient to do so. Indeed, I was particularly heartened in that respect by the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) about the European Union. We have to be pragmatic about our alliances and where we form them, in order to promote our shared and common interests. The men and women of our armed forces are extraordinary. They do things that the vast majority of our fellow citizens are not called on to do. Particularly as we approach 24 June, Armed Forces Day, it is right that so many Members took the opportunity to pay tribute to them.
This has been a good debate—discursive on occasion, off the point from time to time, but in general a thoughtful contribution to Britain’s place in the world, and specifically to what part defence plays in that. A year after I was born, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who was no fan of the United Kingdom, quipped that Great Britain had
“lost an empire but has not yet found a role.”
If that was true then, I do not think it true now, and recent events have confirmed that.
Put simply, our role today is to safeguard and improve the lives of those whom we represent. Most hon. Members in the Chamber would agree that defence is central to that—we are among friends—but it is right that we are challenged on whether the £50 billion we now spend on it might be better deployed elsewhere. After all, the Almighty provided us with a quite adequate natural defensive position in the form of the channel, which is a bit like the Alps in respect of Switzerland. Why not shelter and cower behind that? Why not announce that the UK will henceforth simply be patrolling its Euro-Atlantic backyard and take a dividend that could be used to give public services a welcome shot in the arm? We are all facing re-election next year, and that would surely be quite appealing, would it not?
Well, first there is Ukraine. Some nations in the global south may try to convince themselves that Russia’s neo-imperialistic war of conquest is no more than a little local difficulty. Less enlightened jurisdictions may even revel in a challenge to a stable democratic and liberal world order. They are wrong. Putin’s behaviour has had global consequentials with the pain falling on ordinary people everywhere through food shortages, the energy crisis, the cost of living and opportunities forgone: their hopes, their dreams and their future. In a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made that point well.
What has happened has real-life consequences, not just for those individuals caught up in the immediacy of that terrible conflict but for people right across the world, and those who are affected the most are the poorest. Meanwhile, China watches and waits, inscrutably. How we respond to Putin today will determine what happens in the Indo-Pacific tomorrow. Get it right in our Euro-Atlantic backyard today and we may yet avoid conflict in the South China sea.
Britain’s global contribution buys us influence that benefits all our constituents. I have seen it myself, serving in the Navy and at the MOD and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Whether it is a carrier visiting the Indo-Pacific, our Air Force evacuating citizens from earthquake-hit Turkey or our Army working with Kenya to strengthen regional security, the signal that we send to a transactional world is that Britain is a serious player; one to be reckoned with and one that can be relied on. Tangible examples of that reliance are AUKUS and the Global Combat Air Programme. The US, Australia, Japan and Italy chose to work with us because they knew that we could deliver. Look at what those partnerships mean for our country: thousands of jobs and the creation of a long-term skills base that will give a generation of young people cutting-edge skills to succeed in the decades ahead.
There is a further reason why the UK should retain its global presence. It is about values and the sense that the UK is a force for good in the world. We have seen in recent times that whenever adversaries detect liberal democracies weakening, they move to fill the gap. The UK, as the world’s oldest democracy, a member of the UN Security Council and a nation with global reach, has a responsibility to show leadership, stand up for values that make chaos and conflict less likely and promote peace and prosperity.
In the time available, I will attempt to do some justice to the points raised. First, I turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because the first shall be last, and the last shall be first—that is Luke 13:30. I agree with him that continuous at sea-deterrence is a necessary evil. I wish that we did not need it, but we do, and we will. In the spring statement, £3 billion was announced for the nuclear enterprise. That is a big commitment and a vote of confidence in those who undertake this vital task. I thank him for his invite to Northern Ireland and will very much take him up on that in the near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is always thoughtful and, as always, I agreed with much of what he had to say. He is right to point out that, in this country, our military workforce has always expanded and contracted. That has been in the nature of how we have done defence for all time. That is perhaps by virtue of the fact that we are blessed with quite a lot of water between ourselves and those who have historically been our adversaries, but the crucial thing is that we need to be able to scale up quickly when the time demands it. He was also right to point out that we need agility—particularly in relation to equipment—and sovereign capability. That is one of the lessons of the recent past.
Of course, none of this defence is cost-free. If I may be ever so generically critical of the debate, very few of us have really bent our minds to what it costs, although I have hinted at it in suggesting somewhat rhetorically that there is an opportunity cost to it all: we could spend more on defence, but we would have to find that from somewhere else. I can assure the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) that there is an active dialogue with all those supporting Ukraine right now. I am very pleased to say that at all levels—politicians, officials and members of the military—the United Kingdom is taking a lead. I think the facts bear that out. He should be proud of the leadership role we are taking, and I say that to him in all sincerity.
I cannot do justice to the detailed points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). As a logistician, I expect him to make a number of forensic points, but he is quite right to say that we should not be matching the good against the exquisite. Never let the excellent be the enemy of the good. I think he mentioned a medal for CASD. Of course, all medallic recognition is kept under continual review. I cannot give him a commitment. I would just point out, although I know it is second best, that the deterrent patrol pin was produced in 2009, the 50th anniversary of CASD, which I know a lot of submariners wear with pride.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for her support in backing the UK’s efforts to support Ukraine. That is much appreciated. She spoke about digital and cyber. However, she did seem to be committing her party to more defence spending. I will come on to that in a minute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) understandably focused on the Royal Air Force. I look forward to being in his constituency very soon indeed. He made a point about dispersal, which took me back to world war two. From my memory of a number of films from that time, dispersal is very much an RAF thing. I agree with him, but there is, again, a cost in terms of money and, probably, efficiency and delivering effect, but the point is extremely well made. He also made a point about the importance of logistics, which is not glamorous.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North spoke about Estonia, which was music to my ears. I have been there on a number of occasions, including very recently. I agree with her that our enhanced forward presence there is impressive. I visited Tapa Camp and the headquarters in Tallinn, and saw our RAF in action at Amari. I am particularly pleased that it is an amalgam of all three of our armed forces working together. She was also right to cite Exercise Spring Storm, which I witnessed while I was there.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), a trenchant advocate of all things to do with the armed forces, argued for an uplift. There’s a funny old thing; I have never heard him do that before. He called the 2% pitiful. Well, okay, but—I am sure he would agree with me—as we aspire to do better than that, we must take others with us, too. That is vital. Our efforts on their own will not be sufficient in facing down some of the threats we face. I was interested in the 5% figure he cited. I think we joined up more or less at the same time. I have to say, though, that the effect we are able to project these days is way greater than what he and I would have been used to at that time. Our kit today is in a completely different league. To compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned, in a thoughtful speech, the central Asian republics—the Stans—where, interestingly, Russia’s influence is on the wane. It is axiomatic to say that Russia is extending its influence pretty much everywhere, but we have to understand that in some parts of the world, particularly in Russia’s backyard, that is not necessarily the case. The current war and Putin’s behaviour has turned off almost as many as it has enlisted to his particularly unpleasant cause. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned defence engagement. I am very pleased he mentioned that, because when I was in Defence previously I had some hand in increasing the defence engagement activities we undertake. We have recently recruited six new Defence attachés.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) made spending commitments on behalf of his party. I have noted those.
I really must come back at the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I mean, to say that the Royal Australian Navy does not patrol off Scotland is clearly not right. I am afraid he was not listening to the previous exchange on the Navy’s most lethal platforms and I know the Submarine Service will be upset with his comments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) worried about headcount and equipment. He is right, but I gently point out to all contributors today that we spend at 2% consistently. We have done for many years and we will continue to do so, hopefully with an uplift to 2.5%.
I am sorry that I have not left sufficient time to deal with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). May I, however, address his point about a plan? Plans are great, but President Zelensky is not too troubled, apparently, because he said:
“If everyone in the world—or at least the vast majority—were steadfast and courageous leaders…as Britain, I am sure we would have already ended this war and restored peace throughout our liberated territory for all our people.”
That, I have to say, is the best endorsement for our armed forces that I can possibly find.