Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Andrew Murrison ExcerptsMonday 18th November 2024
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I can indeed. Our definition of “relevant family members”, which is on the face of the Bill, will include bereaved families.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Of course, the other group excluded from that provision is veterans—I speak as a veteran. Why is the Secretary of State not concerned about them? Should they not come under the auspices of this new official too? An example might be those who were exposed to potential contaminants at Camp Lejeune in the US. That is a thematic investigation that the new commissioner might undertake.
John Healey
Our first priority is those who serve and their families—those who are subject to service law. The range of agencies and services that support veterans is very different. A better way of improving support for veterans will be to fully implement the armed forces covenant in law, as well as the range of steps that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has already started to take. We have taken the view that the commissioner established by this Bill will give their first priority and full focus to those who are serving, as well as their families, who are also impacted by their service life.
As I have said, this Bill is significant and long overdue. It is long overdue because the forces have been badly let down for the past 14 years. The Conservatives have created a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale. Last year, the trained strength of the armed forces fell at the fastest rate for a decade—with 300 more personnel leaving than joining every month—and service morale fell to its lowest level on record. Only four in 10 of our forces personnel report being satisfied with service life. They report that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing their decision to leave.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
At all times, and on both sides of the House, we should want to ensure that our armed forces have our back and that their morale and the offer from the MOD is as strong as possible. The Opposition recognise that the Bill introduces a manifesto commitment for which the Government have a clear mandate and, moreover, that it creates a new mechanism by which the MOD intends to boost the day-to-day experience of our armed forces personnel. No one could disagree with that goal. While it remains to be seen exactly how the Bill will deliver in practice, we will not oppose it but will be a constructive, critical friend, because the least that those who bravely put their lives on the line to defend our country deserve is proper scrutiny from Parliament in matters of legislation and the armed forces.
Of course, there are areas of welfare not directly affected by the Bill where we want to see further progress, but, in terms of the Bill’s provisions, we wish to probe a number of matters. At face value, there is clearly merit in seeking to ensure extra accountability for how welfare matters are conducted in the forces. I note in particular, as the Secretary of State just stressed, that the commissioner will explicitly not be drawn from the ranks of either the military or the civil service, precisely in order to deliver genuine independence.
In many ways, that provision is not dissimilar to the principle that I wanted to see in the integrated procurement model back in February, with the idea of a second opinion in procurement, not least from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the science base—the point being to ensure that major procurement programmes and the requirement request from the single services could similarly be subject to genuine challenge and transparency. After all, the Sheldon inquiry focused on transparency and openness as key tools to guarding against the bad culture that can pertain without confidence for military personnel and officials to come forward and air their concerns—what we call being “psychologically confident”.
Therefore, in principle, the proposal appears to be consistent with the push for a more transparent culture in defence that makes it harder to hide embedded problems. The most serious such examples could include the issues raised by the Lyons Review and the Defence Committee’s “Women in the Armed Forces” report, as referred to at oral questions earlier by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). As such, if the new office of the commissioner genuinely exposes cultural weaknesses and hidden systemic problems that would otherwise not have been disclosed or would take longer to emerge, it should be welcomed.
That said, such extra transparency cannot be at the expense of operational effectiveness. That is why one of the most significant issues that we will want to probe further is the interaction between the commissioner and the chain of command, especially in sensitive operational settings. The Bill states that visits will not be permitted on national security grounds, but what if the commissioner and the chain of command disagree on whether those grounds apply? Will the Secretary of State adjudicate? If so, how will that work in practice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) alluded to in his earlier oral question, how will such visits work in practice without disrupting live operations? We must have clarity.
Off the back of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, the previous Government did much work to reduce bureaucracy, shorten the complaints process and strengthen oversight. It is important that that is not undermined through the organisational upheaval that the Bill will inevitably generate. What steps will the Government take to ensure a smooth handover, especially in relation to existing casework? A few of our colleagues have experienced that recently.
On the territorial application of the Bill, as things stand there is a permissive extent clause that enables an Order in Council to provide for relevant sections of the legislation to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any of the British overseas territories except Gibraltar. First, what is the rationale for apparently excluding Gibraltar? Secondly, what of the US visiting forces?
As Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the estate, I visited both Lakenheath and Mildenhall in my county of Suffolk, where there is a significant presence of US forces, F-35s and F-15s. I had the pleasure of meeting the then commanding officer, Major General Campo. There were a significant number of infrastructure, planning and other matters where, inevitably, the USVF needed clearance and input from the UK MOD. What will the Commissioner’s responsibilities be in relation to USVF, particularly where British personnel are stationed alongside them? Similarly, what about the personnel of the many nations assisting with training Ukrainians for Operation Interflex on the UK bases? My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a very good intervention. We agree that we want to question the point about veterans, and we will probe that in Committee.
Finally, on costs, we note that the Department expects the annual cost of the commissioner to be higher than that of the current ombudsman, and overall in the region of £5 million. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that the cost will grow further and above that estimation in the years ahead, as the commissioner becomes more established? More broadly, we know that many issues affect morale, recruitment and retention in the armed forces. We want the Bill to succeed, but there remain a number of areas of concern where delivering a better offer to our service personnel is critical.
On recruitment and retention, hopefully all hon. Members understand the critical importance of boarding school to service families, and that there are very few places not in the independent sector. Boarding school provides stability for their children in a career that does not automatically lend itself to such. Yet families affected by VAT on school fees will not find out until December exactly how they will be hit by a tax that commences the very next month. Let us remember that many such families do not receive continuity of education allowance, and will have to cover a 20% hike in fees from their taxed income. That is why the Opposition wanted the type of VAT exemption for all children of service families that is offered to children with special educational needs and disabilities with an education, health and care plan.
Dr Murrison
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just not fair on the small businesses that are independent schools, such as Warminster School in my constituency, which traditionally have taken a significant number of service pupils, to have that level of uncertainty about what the school roll will look like in January?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent point. I pay tribute to those sorts of schools and how they share in society’s commitment to our armed forces. It has been Labour policy since the 2017 general election—seven and a half years ago—to introduce VAT on school fees. Families who have personnel serving abroad this Christmas will have just December to deal with whatever those new fees mean for them. That is a shockingly short amount of notice.
On pay, we agree that those who serve their country must be appropriately rewarded, which is why in 2023 we announced a core armed forces pay rise of 5%, plus a further consolidated increase of £1,000, equating to a rise of approximately 9.7% for the most junior ranks, and including a freeze in food charges. Alongside pay, accommodation is an important part of the offer from the MOD. We all accept that much more needs to be done, and presumably that will form a key focus for the commissioner. I stand by what I said in the Remembrance debate: the problem is the underlying structural nature of so much of the accommodation in the defence estate. For that reason, as a Minister I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate—the long-term solution that I think the Veterans Minister referred to earlier. I hope the Government will take that work forward, but I appreciate that it is highly legally and commercially sensitive, and there is a limit to what they can say on that.
As for the short term, the lesson from our winter plan last year is that investment and a plan for the defence estate can still yield results. Early on as the Minister responsible for the estate, in 2023, I accepted that the previous winter we had let down service families, and with the backing of Ben Wallace and then Grant Shapps, we secured £400 million in the defence Command Paper refresh, and delivered a winter plan that saw thousands of homes treated for issues such as damp and mould. Complaints to contractors fell sharply between 2022 and winter 2023.
That brings me to the final critical point—funding. The new commissioner will almost certainly be assailed with accommodation cases, but any reports that he produces will inevitably form one conclusion: there is a need for more investment in the estate, at a time when there are many other competing priorities. The £400 million that we announced required us to make choices about spending, and to prioritise accommodation and the welfare of personnel over other pulls on funding. It is incredibly important that the Government commit to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible. The Secretary of State will inevitably say that the last time we reached 2.5% was in 2010. I could as easily say that the last time we reached 3% was in 1996. They were two points on a pathway of consistently falling spending since the cold war, because successive Governments believed, like many around the world, that we were in a more peaceful era. That is a statement of fact.
The point is that welfare in the military is about us as a nation and a Government saying to those who serve, “We have your back.” That is impossible without more funding, and that means setting a definitive date for getting to 2.5%. The Conservative party will always support the welfare of service personnel. That is why we will try to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We will not be dividing the House this evening.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
No one could argue with the honourable intent of the Bill: to improve service life. That is why there is widespread support for its main proposal, an enhanced role with new investigative powers. The Service Complaints Ombudsman and her predecessor have both called for powers along those very lines. This was a commitment in the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stood for election.
The Defence Committee published a letter last Thursday setting out our initial thoughts on the Bill, to inform the House’s scrutiny today. We had hoped to have time to take account of the views of representatives of armed forces communities, as well as the Service Complaints Ombudsman, but the pace of events made that impossible. As a result, at this stage, my remarks contain more questions than conclusions.
If the Government are to be judged by their own success criteria, the two key questions for the House are these. First, how far will the Bill go towards improving service life? Secondly, is the commissioner established by the Bill given the right powers, protections and resources to act as the strong, independent champion that our gallant armed forces and their families deserve, and that the Government have promised?
On behalf of the Defence Committee, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces to address in his winding-up speech the points that we raised in our letter, in addition to those that the Defence Secretary outlined earlier. What are the Government’s priorities for improving the service complaints system? It is striking that the Bill contains only one change to the system, when successive ombudsmen have found that the system as a whole is not efficient, effective and fair. To bring the Bill to life, can the Minister draw to the House’s attention examples of times when the power to conduct investigations on general service matters would have improved service life, if it had existed at that time?
It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, as far as possible, who will be able to ask the commissioner, under clause 4, to investigate a “general welfare service matter”. Will that include members of the reserve forces, family members of reservists, former partners and spouses of serving personnel, and—the Secretary of State has, thankfully, already provided clarification on this—bereaved service families? This is a matter of interest and concern to representatives of armed forces communities such as the Royal British Legion.
The independence of the commissioner will be crucial in maintaining the confidence and trust of the armed forces community.
Dr Murrison
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. May I tempt him to agree with me that the Armed Forces Commissioner should have his or her powers extended to veterans, on the grounds that a lot of the themes that he or she would look at would be hybrid matters that affected both the veterans community and those currently serving? At the risk of being accused of being a one-trick pony, may I suggest that the Camp Lejeune case exemplifies that point?
Mr Dhesi
I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being a one-trick pony. He tempts me, but I would like to consider that point about veterans, reserve forces and so on in Committee and thereafter.
The German armed forces commissioner—the inspiration behind the Bill, as the Secretary of State highlighted—is entirely independent of the German Defence Ministry and armed forces, but that is not the case for the commissioner under the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint and be able to dismiss. The Secretary of State will fund the commissioner and agree their staffing arrangements—I am very grateful to the Minister for his briefing this morning at the Ministry of Defence, at which I was able to highlight some of my initial concerns—and the Secretary of State will be able to constrain the exercise of the commissioner’s powers on broad grounds of national security and personal safety. So when Ministers describe the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner as independent, they must surely mean something else. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain exactly what? And can he tell us why he has not decided to go further in ensuring the independence of the commissioner from his Department? Can he also explain how the commissioner’s resourcing requirements have been estimated, what the process would be if the commissioner asked for additional resources, and who would find out and how if the commissioner was denied resources they had requested?
The Bill arrives during a crisis in armed forces recruitment and retention, at a time when there are high levels of dissatisfaction with service life, and an unacceptable level of inappropriate behaviour in the armed forces. The Defence Committee will be delving into that in greater detail. The Bill cannot solve those challenges on its own. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly where the Bill sits within a coherent strategy and a set of broader measures, so that the House can consider the Bill in context.
Expectations of the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be high. They will need to be a strong character, with the best interests of the armed forces in mind. They will need to be prepared for questions and challenge, but also to understand, win support, and change hearts and minds. Their success will likely ultimately depend on the support and trust of the armed forces, including the chain of command. What kind of person do the Government imagine filling the role? How, if at all, will the key requirements of the role differ from those for the Service Complaints Ombudsman?
I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister, but he is a very capable individual and he has been taking copious notes. No doubt he will be able to answer all my questions in his speech. My Defence Committee colleagues and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention of allowing the Committee to conduct a non-binding pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the role. As the Secretary of State highlighted, that is in line with practice for the appointment of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The Defence Committee has always offered both support and scrutiny to the ombudsman, and we look forward to working closely with the new commissioner. They will, I hope, become a regular witness before the Committee. I hope that the Government will ensure the smoothest possible transition between the two roles.
Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey
I can indeed. It was one of my predecessors as Defence Secretary who admitted to this House that under 14 years of the previous Government the armed forces had been “hollowed out and underfunded”. That is no surprise when we look at the record of the Conservative Government when they came into office in 2010, compared with the record of this Government. Our first Budget has a £3 billion boost to defence. Their first Budget had a £2 billion real-terms cut. Our manifesto had a commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5%. Their first five years in government saw an 18% real cut in defence spending, which laid the foundations for the degradation and the poor state of our armed forces, and the poor state of the finances that we have now inherited.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The last Government extended to state school pupils the undoubted advantage of the combined cadet forces, which had been the almost exclusive prerogative of private school students. Why, then—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at me while he is asking his question?
Dr Murrison
Why, then, Mr Speaker, did this Government decide, last week of all weeks, to defund combined cadet forces and thus remove the advantages that state school pupils are now enjoying as a result of decisions taken by the last Government?
John Healey
I simply do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of any decisions that we have taken, and it would run contrary to what he and I agree is the value of combined cadet forces. Most of us, in our constituencies, have contact and working relations with good cadet forces that give young people opportunities that they simply would not have at school or in any other walk of life. They have an important part to play in the future of individuals, and also in the wider understanding of our armed forces.
Ukraine
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I will indeed. I have had the privilege of visiting Interflex training courses four times now, I think. I visited the second ever course at Salisbury plain. It is deeply moving to see the level of commitment of British forces to the task of training the Ukrainians, and to spend time with those Ukrainian recruits. They are lorry drivers, bank clerks, PR executives of all ages, who have volunteered to fight for their country and their freedom. They are trained by British forces, now with those from other countries alongside them, who are equipping them to be able to fight for their country. Knowing that they will soon return to the frontline in their own nation is deeply sobering.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this £2.26 billion, but has the Defence Secretary had the opportunity to study the National Audit Office report published last month into the impact of our operations in Ukraine, particularly Operation Interflex, on the availability of the defence estate for the training of units of the British Army? While that is acceptable in the short term, in the long term it probably is not. What impact assessment has he carried out, and what proposals does he have to make available the defence estate we need to train British soldiers?
John Healey
Nothing will shake our commitment to continuing the Interflex training programme. We are determined and we will continue that throughout 2025. Many of the partner countries that have been alongside us this year have already committed to doing that again next year. The right hon. Member asked me about Interflex, the defence estate and the training of Ukrainian soldiers. That will continue. On the National Audit Office report, I have indeed read that report. It is a welcome change from the normal run of National Audit Office reports into the Ministry of Defence that we have been used to in recent years. It praises a good deal of what has been done by the Ministry of Defence in support of Ukraine, and it is very welcome.
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her approach. This case is a perfect illustration of why it is important to get these decisions right. It is not possible to relocate every single person who supported the UK mission in Afghanistan, but there is an opportunity to appeal rejected applications. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss the case further, and to take it forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the tone and substance of the Minister’s statement. Few of us thought 20 years ago that we would still be mopping up after Operations Telic and Herrick. Does he agree that the long shadow of discretionary warfare, particularly in the civil domain, should act as a powerful incentive for any Government when considering future military conflict?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his work as a Minister in the previous Government.
As part of the new Government’s reset, we have commissioned Lord Robertson to undertake the strategic defence review, which will consider the threats we face. Although it is certainly true that state-on-state threats are more prominent than they have ever been, there are still non-state threats to the United Kingdom, which creates an enormous challenge not only in the military space but in the civil security space. The strategic defence review will try to work out the best shape. We have invited submissions from all parties, as well as from individuals.
Ukraine
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of Operation Renovator and how does he plan to change it?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman asks a question with a good deal more information than the rest of the House. I will write to him with the detail he seeks rather than trying to give a superficial answer from the Dispatch Box.
Nuclear Test Veterans: Atomic Weapons Establishment Records
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
On 28 November 2023, I made a commitment during the debate on Nuclear Test Veterans: Medical Records (Official Report, column 245WH) to personally review records held by the Atomic Weapons Establishment relating to nuclear test veterans. Having reviewed 151 records, I am today publishing those papers on www.gov.uk and also placing them in the Library of the House.
The titles of 151 records were promulgated in responses provided by the AWE to Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests on 5 July and 12 September 2023, following a search for records using the terms “blood” and “urine” within a database named Merlin.
The Merlin database contains over 28,000 records relating to historical technical and scientific documentation on the UK’s nuclear testing programme. It is held and maintained by AWE and was developed to store relevant factual documentary evidence considered during nuclear test veterans’ legal action for compensation.
The Merlin database does not contain, and AWE does not hold, any medical records for any former service personnel. Any medical records taken either before, during or after participation in the UK nuclear weapon tests should be held in individual military medical records in the Government’s archives, which can be accessed on request. A veteran, or representative acting on their behalf, can make a subject access request to gain access to records held on them. The records of deceased veterans can be requested by surviving family members through an FOI request. Guidance is set out on: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/requests-for-personal-data-and-service-records.
AWE does hold, and routinely responds to requests for, the dosimetry data of nuclear test veterans and will continue to do so. Further information on submitting a SAR or FOI to AWE for this data can be found here: https://www.awe.co.uk/freedom-of-information-act/.
Concurrently, the Ministry of Defence is also conducting a review of around 74,000 historic files in the ES and AB series relating to the UK’s nuclear weapons programme. There has been speculation that this work relates to the concerns of nuclear test veterans, which is not the case. The files were withdrawn from the National Archives to be reviewed due to emerging national security considerations. To date, approximately 68,000 files have been released back to public access. As this security review has progressed, those records which may relate to historic testing have been, and will continue to be, prioritised.
I would like to make clear that the Ministry of Defence, including its agencies and arm’s length bodies, does not withhold any personal data or medical records from nuclear test veterans.
[HCWS486]
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Mr Speaker, I will by all means answer the question. In 2023, 262 service complaints relating to bullying, harassment and discrimination were ruled admissible, compared with 227 in 2022. I am pleased to say that changes to the service complaints system in June 2022 have been encouraging people to come forward with their complaints. The “My Complaint” app, which launched in October, will make the system easier and more accessible.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The defence anti-bullying hotline is a great step forward in ensuring that members of the armed forces have the support that they need, any time of day or night. Can the Minister tell me what training advisers have had, not only on how to help our armed forces, but on ensuring that everything is completely anonymised, so that people can go forward with their life and get the support and help that they need?
Dr Murrison
Obviously a hotline is no good if the individuals at the other end of it are not trained. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The most important thing is to ensure that people have confidence that if they come forward with complaints, they will be listened to and taken seriously.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for Defence People and Families for inviting me to visit the defence serious crime unit, which I did last Thursday. The people there are obviously doing good work focused on tackling serious sexual and violent crimes in the armed forces. Given the doubling of reports of bullying, discrimination and harassment in the Ministry of Defence since 2019, and some cases remaining unresolved for up to three years, what is the Minister doing to address the toxic culture in his Department? Why is it that such things seem to be worsening on this Government’s watch?
Dr Murrison
I think the right hon. Lady would have to admit that a lot has been done over the past two or three years, including the setting up of the defence serious crime unit and the defence victim witness care unit. They are important. The general message has been that we have a zero-tolerance approach. It has been, “Come forward. You will be listened to and taken seriously.” It is reasonable to assume that some of the figures are the result of people now having the confidence to come forward, because their complaints will be investigated independently. Previously, that was not the case.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Following meetings with colleagues and veterans, having personally reviewed the files at the National Archives, and in the interests of transparency, I am placing copies of two recently reviewed extracts from the 1982 board of inquiry report on the loss of RFA Sir Galahad in the Library of the House. Those extracts are drawn from different sections of the inquiry and have been returned to the National Archives within the main report, which will be publicly available.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
As the grandson of an RFA officer, I defer to nobody in my admiration for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I commend the RFA for maintaining its operational commitments, in particular in relation to Gaza. Clearly, we listen to what Nautilus has to say with a great deal of interest and I hope the dispute will be ended as soon as possible.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Defence People and Families on behalf of Falklands veterans and their families, including Mike Hermanis, who brought the issue to me, for releasing the documents relating to the bombing of the Sir Galahad in 1982, which exonerate the Welsh Guards. I know that the campaign, which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), will continue to seek the full truth, but does the Minister agree that instead of being blamed the Welsh Guards are owed our thanks for their service?
Dr Murrison
I agree with the hon. Lady. As the Government have made clear consistently throughout, no blame is attached in particular to the Welsh Guards. They committed themselves heroically on that day, and I join her in saluting them, in particular those who died.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is of huge strategic interest to Britain and the west that Israel prevails against Hamas and their funders in Iran. The Foreign Secretary was right to state last week that ending military exports to Israel would embolden Hamas and Iran. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a move would both harm UK defence interests and disadvantage our own armed forces, who rely on Israeli-made battlefield equipment?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
I say to the hon. Lady, who has been consistent in that line of questioning, that one person homeless is one person too many. It is important to emphasise that most people leave the armed forces in a very good position, with skills that will advance their careers in civilian life. I do not want her giving the impression that people are damaged as a result of the service that they have given; the very reverse of that is the case. We will of course continue to support veterans, charities and initiatives to ensure that, particularly in places such as naval base port areas and garrison towns, we house everybody who needs accommodation.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Britain’s world-leading motor sports industry is worth at least £10 billion annually to the UK economy. The sport’s governing body, Motorsport UK, has proudly sponsored access to military venues for many years, but despite recently signing the armed forces covenant, that access appears to be diminishing. Will the Minister please agree to meet me, and perhaps the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, to discuss better third-party revenue-generating opportunities for the MOD estate?
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
A constituent of mine who rents his home from the Ministry of Defence has recently been given notice to quit within two months, without any reason. He has never missed any rent payments and he has been unable to contact his landlord with a query on the instruction. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation?
Dr Murrison
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that; I have seen several cases of people having to leave their service accommodation. In general, the DIO and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that people have more than the minimum allowed by legislation, and we bend over backwards to ensure that people leaving service accommodation have somewhere to go to.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend will appreciate the huge importance of what the UK defence industry is doing to help Ukraine get the equipment it needs. Can he update the House on what his Department is doing to increase the amount of ammunition getting to the front line in Ukraine?
Service Complaints Ombudsman: Annual Report 2023
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2023 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
This report is published by Mariette Hughes and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the work of her office in her third year as the ombudsman.
The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the ombudsman will follow once that work is complete.
[HCWS452]
Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024.
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Cummins. We have discussed at length in this forum our shared desire to ensure that the criminal justice system and the service justice system are aligned wherever possible. That has been a recurring theme during my tenure as a Minister, and I think that it is something on which we are all agreed. This measure is part of that process. In essence, it brings into the service justice system a small element of the criminal justice system that has been missing since the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
The statutory instrument before us today is technical in nature. It amends the court martial rules by introducing a new procedure for the court to review sentences under new sections 304D and 304E of the Armed Forces Act 2006, further to the Armed Forces Act 2016. I will begin by briefly providing the primary legislation context. New sections 304A to 304H will create a statutory framework for immunity from prosecution, undertakings restricting the use of evidence, and sentence reductions for offenders who co-operate in investigations and prosecutions. These provisions closely follow those contained in sections 71 to 75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which apply to the civilian criminal justice system.
The instrument before us today specifically relates to new sections 304D and 304E. New section 304D provides that a person who has been sentenced by the court martial may have their sentence reviewed to take account of assistance that they have given, or offered to give, to an investigator or prosecutor pursuant to an agreement with the Director of Service Prosecutions. The reviewing court may reduce the sentence in return for the assistance offered or given.
New section 304E allows a sentence to be reviewed to take account of a failure by the person sentenced to give assistance that they have offered to an investigator or prosecutor, and in return for which they have received a sentence that was discounted. If the reviewing court is satisfied that the person knowingly failed to give assistance, it may increase the sentence to take account of that failure. However, it is important to note that the power under new section 304E can only be increased up to a term not exceeding the level that the court indicated would have been the sentence had there been no agreement to provide assistance. In other words, it cannot put the offender in a worse position than they would have been in had they not offered to provide the assistance.
Finally, I would like to mention that both new sections 304D and 304E include a right of appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court. This allows for any decision coming out of a sentence review to be appealed by either the offender or the Director of Service Prosecutions. I direct the Committee to the Armed Forces (Appeals Against Review of Sentence) Regulations 2024, which I will soon be laying before Parliament. Those regulations, which will be subject to the negative procedure, will make provision to govern the procedures for such appeals.
Dr Murrison
I would be very disappointed if the hon. Gentleman had not mentioned MMR or Gibraltar, but there is nothing in the draft rules that alters the situation in respect of either of those things. We will have to disagree on MMR; the arguments for and against are extremely well rehearsed, and he will note the time it takes to convict in the service justice system versus the civilian justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am comfortable, on balance, that continuing to try those cases through the SJS is appropriate in the interests of justice. Obviously, everything is subject to whatever happens in the future, but, on balance, that will be the position of this Government.
On why the rules have not been brought forward before, I share the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment at anything that does not serve our shared intention of aligning the criminal justice system and the service justice system in a timely fashion. This piece of work has been going on for many years now, and it would have been good had we been able to crack through all of it immediately after the passage of the primary legislation, but these things take time; I am just pleased that this tiny bit of regulatory change is being made now. I must emphasise that the number of cases to which it is likely to apply is pretty small. I do not have figures for how many cases it affects in the criminal justice system, but I am assured that it is a very small number; if that is translated to the service justice system, I suspect that it will be even less.
On members of court martials declaring an interest, any conflicts need to be made clear to the president of the court and dealt with in the normal way. As far as lay members are concerned, that is not the subject of the draft rules but is laid out in primary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Defence
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
First, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This has been a typically excellent debate. Across the House I think there is an understanding that, after two or three decades of relative tranquillity, we are living with the threat of proximate warfare. The price of freedom is of course eternal vigilance, and that is generally agreed across this House, as evidenced by the contributions made, such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think my right hon. Friend was arguing, slightly cheekily, for defence spending of 44% of GDP, although that was probably in the event of total war, which of course we all want to avoid. His proposition was that we should never have taken a peace dividend post the cold war, but I think that is a little harsh on our predecessors. However, plainly the situation has changed, and we must change with it. I hope very much that Europe will follow our 2.5% commitment, meaning £140 billion more for our collective defence against the primary aggressor. I would have been very disappointed had my right hon. Friend not rehearsed the arguments for a continuous at-sea deterrent, which of course is 16,000 tonnes of eternal vigilance.
The right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who speak for the Opposition, I think gave us the commitment we were seeking, which is to match the Government’s cash spend. However, the right hon. Gentleman was a bit flaky, if I may say so, on the 2.5%, or at least on when it would be achieved and how they would pay for it. That became clear from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for which I am grateful.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne is indeed an honourable man and I like him very much, but I am bound to point out that his assurances that Labour is the party of defence run contrary to its management until very recently by a right hon. Member who had very different ideas indeed. The right hon. Gentleman was very keen to recommend the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to the British public in 2019 as the Prime Minister of this great country and to serve under his leadership for nearly five years, but heaven loves a sinner brought to repentance. I am also bound to point out that defence is not short of reviews, and another review would mean obfuscation. I suggest that is the very last thing our armed forces need right now. At best, it would introduce a huge measure of uncertainty when we simply cannot afford it.
The Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), rightly reflected on what 2.5% across the NATO alliance would mean. Where Britain leads, our European allies must follow: we are not in this on our own. He gave a magisterial romp around the geopolitical, societal and economic contribution of the whole defence enterprise.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) got tied up with nomenclature. There are other ranks in the Army and the RAF and ordinary seamen in the Navy, and I think that was the essence of his confusion. Either way there is nothing ordinary about the men and women of our armed forces, and either way he was rightly concerned about the junior ranks. I recall a previous conversation we had in this place during which he confused a pay award this year for them, which is 9.7%, with the 5.5% for senior officers; I assume he is happy with that. He wanted more Europe in defence, which I think means more European Union. He may have missed, for example, the Lancaster House treaties, the attendant A400M programme and unmanned aerial vehicles, and he may also have missed the joint expeditionary force. We are indeed co-operating wherever we can with our European friends and neighbours.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) gave a very detailed and authoritative account of kit, majoring on air defence. He catalogued some of the procurement issues that have historically bedevilled the defence enterprise, but he resisted reference to his favourite defence contractor, for which we are very grateful. I know that he supports the integrated procurement model announced in February.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), to whom I always listen with a great deal of interest, rightly highlighted industrial skills. I have said it before but I will say it again: the Ministry of Defence is this country’s No. 1 employer of apprentices, and we are exceptionally proud of that. He rightly implied that the men and women of our armed forces—both civilians and people in uniform—have a choice. Of course they do, and they very often exercise it; our economy is the better for it. I make no apology for injecting trades and skills into our armed forces and our defence enterprise; it benefits us all. The trick is retaining those people and then perhaps pulling them back in at some future date. He will be familiar with that, because he has read the Haythornthwaite report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) rightly highlighted the perils of coalition, but to be fair we have got the Liberal Democrats to commit to CASD, and maybe even CASD with missiles—for that, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) has done us a great service today. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex made about leadership were extremely well made.
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke about the recruitment and retention issues that the armed forces certainly have, in common with just about all our allies. Meanwhile, we deal with all our defence commitments. We are rightly proud of the men and women who serve.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was fighting a bit of a rearguard action on defence spending, which the Opposition Front Benchers now say they support. If he wants to disregard the costs for Ukraine, he needs to have a word with his colleagues. Given that I need to face down Putin’s naked aggression, he might as well carve out other parts of the defence budget and say that they do not count either. I am sure he would not want to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire spoke about votes in Parliament and about warfighting, and I agree with his analysis. We forget—do we not?—what a grave mistake the Iraq war was. Having been heavily involved with the effort and the process, I entirely agree with his remarks about LGBT people and I salute the role that the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces played early on in that process.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about a variety of subjects. Interestingly, at the end of his remarks he committed his party to, I think, a regular Army of 82,000. I am not quite sure where that figure came from, but I assume we will hear about the attendant spending pledge in due course—or maybe not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about apprentices, defence-related jobs and R&D. That is not surprising given that Abbey Wood in Filton puts his constituency at the beating heart of the defence enterprise; he is a constant advocate for both.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong advocate for the defence enterprise in Northern Ireland, and his part in particular. He rightly highlighted the further opportunities in Northern Ireland, which I know about full well as a former Northern Ireland Office Minister and Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke of enablement and logistics—of interoperability, modularity and plug and play—from a position of real expertise as a former senior logistics officer. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) rightly highlighted the changing nature of warfare. Mass matters, but so does tech, as we can see with potential game changers such as DragonFire. I am not sure I agree with him about A400M, but we can perhaps have a debate later over a cuppa or some such.
In our more dangerous world, the Government believe that spending 2.5% of GDP on defence must become the minimum NATO benchmark as Putin ramps up his wartime economy as part of a network of authoritarian states that are attacking our allies and interests. NATO must respond, and I am proud that the UK is leading among European allies through our defence reforms and our 2.5% commitment, verifiable against NATO rules, our £75 billion cash boost for defence from a flat cash baseline, and our additional package of support for Ukraine.
As Putin lays waste to his military and recklessly exposes his strengths and weaknesses to general view, we watch, we learn and we act. Our defence reforms are making our industrial base stronger. Our investment in our conventional forces, stockpiles and innovation makes us more capable and more lethal. Our investment in our alliances is making us and our friends more secure. Our investment in our independent nuclear capability will always make adversaries back off.
I finish by paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. They are the best of us, and as we enter a new age of high-tech warfare we need to remember that, day in, day out. It is our people and those who support them who put the great in Great Britain. On that at least I hope we can all agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered defence.