Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been 564 days since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. War in Europe is a harsh reminder that to be secure at home we must be strong abroad, and that our allies are our greatest strategic strength in doing so.
Our commitment to Ukraine must be long lasting. Fine words do not defeat the tanks of an invader; only weapons, training, courage and determination stand up to them. The Ukrainian war effort in recent weeks and months has been slow going, but effective. Despite deeply dug in and heavily mined Russian defences, the Ukrainians are steadily getting the upper hand on the battlefield in the south of the country by targeting supply lines and outlying areas in the western Zaporizhzhia oblast and Robotyne. In its defence, the Ukraine operation is also diversifying the ways it is hitting its enemy—airfields at depth in Russia, targets in Crimea and Russian ships in the Black sea. Some have criticised the slow pace of Ukraine’s counter-offensive, yet Ukrainian forces are making a similar rate of progress as British troops did in the days after D-day and the Normandy landings. Now, as then, it is brutal conventional trench warfare, and I want to pay tribute on behalf of all on the Opposition side of the House to the extraordinary heroism and resilience of the Ukrainian military in the face of Russian aggression.
In contrast, Vladimir Putin is fighting a war on a number of fronts with a military battlefield and a political one, too. He is fighting to fix his failing war strategy as Russia’s armed forces continue to fight on the back foot in Ukraine, without the supplies they need, the leadership they need and the rotation of troops they need. Putin is fighting increasing hostility on Russian soil, with a growing number of drone attacks and economic headwinds facing the country because of the grip of sanctions. He is fighting increasing scrutiny of his leadership, as we saw in the aborted coup over the summer, as concerns about the war continue to grow in Russia. However, more than 18 months on, there is no sign that his strategic aims have changed, nor are there any signs that he is any closer to achieving a single one of them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Going back to the hon. Member’s comments about D-day and Normandy, the Americans and Brits were bogged down in hedgerow country there, and the way they broke out and started to make real progress was with overwhelming aerial superiority and bombardment. That is exactly what the Ukrainians need.
Luke Pollard
It is telling that neither Ukraine nor Russia enjoys air superiority over the contested parts of Ukraine at the moment; nor does either enjoy superiority in the electronic warfare spectrum or in uncrewed aerial vehicles. That contest in EW and the airspace makes the contest on land even more brutal, so the hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring that we continue to support our friends in Ukraine not just with artillery systems but with the shells and spare parts required to ensure the artillery can keep firing. We must also ensure a continual supply of aerial combat systems—not only F-16s, but the uncrewed drones, which Ukraine is using with such effect—and training. This is a long-term commitment, and while there is no air superiority we need to make sure that every single available advantage that Ukraine can have from the provision of western support is available to it. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Putin believes that the west will not stay the course, as the Minister suggested, but Putin is wrong. Those who call for the Ukrainians to sue for peace and negotiate are doing Putin’s dirty work for him. In over 20 years, Putin has never given up territory he has taken by force. A ceasefire now would cede territory to Russia, allowing Putin’s forces to regroup, deepen the occupation and pretend there is legitimisation for the regime of torture, rape and execution, including the theft of Ukrainian children and their removal to parts of Russia.
The threats we face from Putin are long term, and our resolve must equally stand the test of time across Parliaments, across changes of Ministers and across changes of Governments. There may well be a change to Labour next year, but let me say clearly that there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
The defence of the United Kingdom starts in Ukraine. The support that has been offered to Ukraine by the UK should make us all proud, and I agreed with the Minister when he set out clearly the contribution that has been made by UK forces through Operation Interflex, with the training of our Ukrainian friends and the provision of military systems. Now it is time for Ukraine’s allies to double down on that support, because this is a long-term fight. The UK does deserve credit for its support for Ukraine and the leadership shown among allies to get them to do more, but it is vital that we are able to say the same thing in six months’ time, because stockpiles are being depleted, energy levels are lowering and there is a risk of fatigue. We cannot afford that fatigue, and that is why we must be in this for the long term.
Once Ukraine has prevailed, the rightful place for Ukraine is in NATO, alongside the allies that share common views on democracy, freedom and territorial integrity. That is the rightful place for Ukraine once it has prevailed. However, let me also reiterate that the UK Government will continue to have Labour’s fullest support on military aid to Ukraine and on reinforcing our NATO allies. Labour’s support for NATO is unshakeable, and our backing for Ukraine is solid and firm.
Ukrainians are now urgently asking for more, to help with their current counter-offensive and ensure that it succeeds. Since January, the Prime Minister has repeatedly pledged to accelerate UK support for Ukraine, but one concern on the Opposition side of the House is that momentum behind our military help is faltering. The 14 Challenger 2 tanks that the UK sent to Ukraine may be seen as top of the range, but our effort has now been dwarfed by other European allies. Poland has committed 324 tanks, the Czechs 90, and our friends in the Netherlands 89. There is an urgent need to help Ukraine ramp up its domestic industrial production of key weapons and equipment such as ammunition and shells. BAE Systems’ move to set up a local entity in Ukraine is a start, but the Government could be doing far more to help facilitate deals from a variety of partners, so that Ukraine can produce both modern and Soviet-era systems closer to the frontline, so that they can be used quicker.
Ministers are also yet to provide accelerated support on new drone technologies, including counter-drone measures such as electronic warfare systems and armoured vehicles, despite there being a clear need to do so. Finally, our friends in Ukraine need further support with their de-mining capability—that was raised earlier by a number of Members across the House. It is important that such de-mining support continues, not only on the frontline to ensure a breakthrough, but in the liberated areas to ensure that proper economic activity can return.
Now is the time when the UK should be stepping up support for the Ukrainian offensive. Will the Minister clarify how the new Defence Secretary will be accelerating UK assistance to Ukraine, and will he set out the scope of assistance that Ukraine can expect from us as part of that acceleration? How is he removing some of the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent partnerships between UK industry and our friends in Ukraine from taking place? The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) raised a similar point during Defence questions, and this is about breaking down the barriers between businesses and allies, rather than a simple intergovernmental transfer of support being required. Boxing clever here could produce good results. To be the lead nation in providing support for Ukraine, we must be faster in delivering the support that is required.
On help with rebuilding Ukraine, the European Union has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, Canada has passed laws allowing it to do the same, and now the US has also drafted a Bill to do so. The Government said in July that they support using frozen assets to rebuild Ukraine, so what is causing the delay? When can we expect frozen assets to be used for that purpose? If Ministers come forward with a workable plan, it will enjoy cross-party support. This Parliament will be agreed on it, so when will that happen and what will it look like?
The Government finally decided last week to proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation, but on 20 February this year I stood at the Dispatch Box and called for Wagner to be designated as a terrorist organisation. Labour colleagues have been doing that for some time, and the European Parliament voted for it late last year. Complacency could be the enemy of success in Ukraine, so why has it taken six months since Labour called for it to happen for Ministers slowly to grind into action? Why now, only after Prigozhin has been killed, has Wagner been proscribed in that way by the United Kingdom? That is a lengthy delay, and it would be useful to understand why we were so out of step with our allies when it came to Wagner. Will the Minister provide an assessment of the risk that Wagner troops pose to Ukraine, including the thousands still based in Belarus?
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, I and Labour colleagues have responded eight times to debates, statements or urgent questions concerning Ukraine. Time and again in such debates we have reiterated the urgent need for a stockpiles strategy to sustain support for Ukraine and rearm Britain. Time and again, the Government have failed to provide a coherent long-term stockpiles strategy. That is not good enough. Our generosity to Ukraine, correct as it is, is depleting our current military stockpiles, and despite the Government having known about this problem for over a year, they continue to act too slowly to replenish them. The capability gaps that are being created are concerning, because if we want to be in this for the long term—and I believe that on a cross-party basis we do—we cannot afford capability gaps. Nor can we afford to empty our cupboard to ensure that the front line is well supplied, while having nothing for our own defence, that of our allies or the continuing support we need.
Next generation light anti-tank weapons have been vital to Ukraine, and it was 287 days after the invasion before the MOD got its act together and signed a new contract, with the first newly made NLAWs not due until 2024. What active steps are the Government taking to improve the British magazine depth, as the Americans would describe it, and our stockpiles? Does the Minister accept that the UK needs a stockpiles strategy so that we can finally shift parts of our defence industry and MOD procurement on to urgent operational footing, to ensure that that we have the supplies of both the armaments and the military systems that we need to ensure long-term support? At the moment the Government are continuing to fall short on that front.
Jim Shannon
I have been listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about NLAWs, and there was a very quick response—some credit should be given to Thales for its response when the Government put the order in. Almost straight away Thales was able to respond, manufacture those NLAWs and get them out to Ukraine. Some credit must be given to the Thales factory and the workers back in Belfast, for what they were able to do.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to thank not only those in Britain’s military industries who have been supporting the effort in Ukraine, but those in Plymouth who are supplying the parts that go into some of the missile systems that are made in the factory mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. This is a long-term effort, and that is why we need a stockpiles strategy to ensure that investment is going in across the United Kingdom, especially in missiles and missile systems that are proving their worth on the battlefield in Ukraine, but that were developed, designed and built many decades ago, and that we have been using as part of our stockpiles ever since.
The Government need to show us that they are learning the lessons from the war in Ukraine, and part of that is about our homeland defence and how we better protect these shores. There was a brief mention of that in the defence Command Paper refresh published recently, but in light of developments in missile technology and the weaponisation of drones that has been on display in both Ukraine and Russia, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the Government are doing to protect the UK and our own homeland defence from such threats. Our cities are as vulnerable as Russian cities to those kinds of attacks, and as we begin the autumn and winter months we must learn from the experience of the attacks in Ukraine last year, especially Russian targeting of supply chains and, importantly, civilian energy installations. What are we doing in advance to ensure that those energy installations are better defended, and that there is an ongoing supply of power? I realise that there will be things the Minister cannot say, but I am sure there are things he can say to ensure certainty in this House. Russia will try to force Ukrainians into darkness once again. What additional support can the UK provide for increased Ukraine air defence, which is critical to ensure that Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure survives over the winter?
Ukraine must win this war, and Russia must lose. The former Defence Secretary understood that well, and his successor must now give that his full focus when he can. The new Defence Secretary has taken this job at a time when political leadership is just as vital as military leadership. Earlier this year, his predecessor conceded in the Commons that successive Conservative Governments had “hollowed out and underfunded” our forces. Since 2010, the Government have cut 25,000 full-time soldiers from the British Army, removed one in five ships from the Royal Navy, and taken more than 200 aircraft out of RAF service in the last five years alone. As the new Defence Secretary takes his place, he should pursue an accelerated UK plan to help support Ukraine and defeat Putin. First, he must accelerate military support, secondly he must redouble UK defence diplomacy to help maintain western unity, and thirdly he must spell out the long-term security guarantees announced with G7 partners at the recent NATO summit.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman is giving full solidarity, and the pledge on behalf of the Labour party to continue the Government’s policy in Ukraine is extremely welcome and will be heard around the world. Does that extend to guarantees on funding for defence? I appreciate that this is a loaded question, but will the hon. Gentleman match whatever the Government promise to spend on defence?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman invites me to write Labour’s manifesto from the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), would not be too keen on me doing that. Let me say clearly that Labour in power has always spent what is required on defence. When we left power we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, a figure never matched by Conservative Governments in 13 years. It is important that when it comes to defence, we not only have a reasonable budget for security, but that the money is well spent.
What we have seen recently, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a huge amount of waste in MOD procurement. That is not only on wasted systems, but through money going to foreign contractors that in the Opposition’s mind should have gone to UK contractors, because we believe in building in Britain first and foremost. As we have seen from the recent Royal Fleet Auxiliary solid support ship contract, which was sent abroad rather than to a UK supplier in its first instance, we are seeping money out of our system when we allow such contracts to go abroad. We need to make sure that as we build new platforms, there is an adequate work share for all partners involved. There is a balance to be struck, but I take the challenge that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am afraid he will have to wait for our manifesto for those commitments.
The final thing I will do is to thank all the communities up and down the country that have been supporting our Ukrainian friends throughout the 564 days since Putin’s illegal invasion. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you have been supporting people in your constituency in Doncaster and met some of them to thank them for their support. Members from both sides of the House have been supporting their communities over the summer recess, including in making sure that Ukrainians who have come to the United Kingdom can remain here. In particular, I pay tribute to some of the Ukrainian young people in Plymouth who have succeeded in achieving GCSEs and A-levels, despite the enormous pressure upon them and their families. In many cases, they were studying subjects in a new language and a new country while their friends and families are facing bombing and attack in Ukraine. It is an incredible achievement, and I put on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of the entire House to all those British families who have been making Ukrainians welcome here in Britain.
We still have a lot more work to do, and our commitment needs to be long term, not only in our military support for Ukraine, but in our support for Ukrainians for whom it is unsafe to go home. For as long as it is unsafe, we need to make sure there is a safe home for them here. Should there be a change of Government at the next general election, there will be no change in Britain’s support for Ukraine. We must rise to the same heights as our Ukrainian friends to ensure that Putin loses and Ukraine wins.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2023
Luke Pollard Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks 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.
Luke Pollard
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. This is an opportunity for Members of all parties to thank our armed forces for their service to our country and our communities. The motion will be carried on a cross-party basis, because it matters that the United Kingdom preserves an efficient, highly mobile and trusted fighting force. We will support the motion as it stands.
I reiterate that Labour backs our armed forces. They embody the very best of British, and in deployments abroad and at home, they have demonstrated in the past year that not only do they carry the confidence of the nation, but we build our security for every other part of our national life on the security guarantee that our armed forces present to our country in keeping us all safe. Theirs is the ultimate public service.
I am proud to come from a military family, to represent a military city and to speak for defence for my party. As we approach Armed Forces Day, it is important that we not only remember those who are no longer with us due to their military service and those who have been forever changed by their military service, but thank all the people in regular and reserve roles for their service to our country. I also put on record my thanks to all the civilians who support our armed forces, because we rely not only on those in uniform, but on enormous numbers of people in roles right across the country, in nearly every single constituency, for their work in supporting our armed forces.
It is the moral imperative of any Government to keep the nation safe from hostile threats and protect our citizens. With the increasing threat globally from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the threats to our NATO allies—especially on the eastern front—and rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, we need to solidify our nation’s defences. Regrettably, 13 years of Conservative Government have left our armed forces in a weaker state than we would like them to be. Earlier this year, the Defence Secretary admitted in the Commons that the Government have “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. The Tory cuts to our armed forces continue, and the Government plan to cut the Army even further. In the past decade, troop numbers have fallen from 97,000 to 76,000, and they are set to fall further to 73,000. As we face increasing threats to our national security, these cuts are too expensive for us to make, because the cost will be in our security and that of our allies. The former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Nick Houghton, was reported in the media today as saying that reducing the size of the Army “beggars belief”, and I believe that people in all parts of the House share that sentiment.
Does the Minister agree with the Defence Secretary’s assessment that our armed forces have been “hollowed out”? Does he confidently believe that our armed forces have the necessary size and strength to effectively defend our nation in the light of these cuts? The best way of doing that is to halt the cuts now. I would be grateful if the Minister set out when the expected defence Command paper will be published, and whether further cuts will be in there. I would also be grateful if he set out whether there are plans to fill the gaps that we now see in our armed forces, partly due to our very necessary support for Ukraine, which has created capability gaps—with the AS90 mobile artillery, for instance. Today, we are discussing whether the armed forces should continue to exist, which they should. The secondary question following that is: what shape, size and configuration should they be? It is important, when we acknowledge that there are capability gaps in our armed forces, that there is a plan to fill them, either with UK personnel and UK procurement or by borrowing from our friends and allies, so that we have as strong a fighting force as possible.
When we talk about the continuation of our armed forces, one very important aspect is the people who serve, which means that we must also look at the morale of our forces. In the past 13 years, the morale of our armed forces has fallen. In 2010, the continuous attitude survey showed that morale was around 60%. The latest survey, which the Minister’s Department recently published, shows that it has fallen to 43%. Those are not just arbitrary figures; they matter. Falling morale means more people leaving our armed forces, fewer people joining and the expensive skills with which we equip our armed forces being lost to the nation. It is important that steps are taken to increase morale in our armed forces, and I want the Minister briefly to comment on a number of the factors that affect morale.
One is poor military accommodation, which has a direct impact on forces’ morale and recruitment and retention. That is why, in March this year, Labour launched Homes Fit for Heroes, our campaign to highlight the poor state of our armed forces accommodation and to make it clear that, when Labour is in government, sorting that out will be a priority. I note that the hon. Member for Witney raised a similar concern in the Chamber recently, so this is a cross-party concern. If military housing was a priority, it would have been sorted by now—that is my assessment. Sorting it needs to be a priority.
Labour has pledged, during Armed Forces Week, to establish an armed forces commissioner to improve service life for our forces and their families. The commissioner would be an independent person to whom people can raise concerns and who can initiate their own investigations into issues of concern for our armed forces and their families, ranging from accommodation and kit to healthcare and food—and more besides. Will the Minister set out what action the Government are taking to halt the worrying slide in the morale of our armed forces personnel? Does he agree that the state of defence housing falls far below the standard that we should expect for our armed forces personnel?
I am aware that time is short, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out when we should expect to receive the Etherton report, which he mentioned. The report is a substantial piece of work that looks at LGBT veterans, their treatment and their experience in our armed forces, and it is an opportunity for us as a nation to right a set of wrongs that never should have happened. We understand that Lord Etherton has produced the report and delivered it to the Ministry of Defence, but the Ministry has not yet published it. Will the Minister tell us on what date it will be published and what actions will stem from its publication?
I welcome the publication of the Haythornthwaite review. Indeed, the Minister, a small number of parliamentarians and I had a briefing on that earlier this week. I would be grateful if he set out what additional steps he will take to implement the report. It is a very aspirational document that correctly identifies the problems, but does not really spell out the journey on how we are to improve service life, and particularly pay and conditions for our service personnel.
Labour backs our armed forces and will back the motion. We thank all those who serve our country.
Global Military Operations
Luke Pollard Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a serious debate, reflecting darkening times, uncertain times and the growing confidence of our adversaries. The warnings from the most senior Conservative Back Benchers were carefully worded, but behind that precision is deep worry. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) rightly said that the cuts to our defence have been “ruthless” and the Ajax procurement process “dire”, and he was right to say that we are in “a grim state of affairs”.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) set out a mandate for transformation. It was a lot of home truths and hard thinking from him, and it is worth reflecting on his words. My friend the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) spoke about the era of peer-to-peer conflict being back, and he is right. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) yet again made the case for halting the 10,000 cuts to the Army, which we on this side of the House agree with and share his view on.
I also thank my hon. Friends who contributed to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) set out clearly Chester’s keen defence links, including with HMS Albion, a proud Devonport-based ship in my constituency. It serves Chester and Plymouth well. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) spoke about their trips to Estonia. Having visited last year, I know just how seriously the people of Estonia take their commitment to NATO and how much they value the United Kingdom’s support. The Minister sketched over the departure of the second battle group from Estonia, and I hope that any discomfort that may have been created with our Estonian friends has now been patched up, because we need to make sure that we have a clear presence there with no chance of Putin putting an inch between us and our allies.
The delay to the defence Command Paper, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, is frustrating, and I hope that will be rectified shortly. I am grateful for the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who spoke passionately about the importance of soft power, which is something I hope we can all reflect on further.
The continuous at-sea deterrent was mentioned a number of times by Members on both sides of the House. It is really important that we thank the people who serve on the submarines, but also the people who support the submarines, including those who refit and service the Vanguard class submarines, again in Devonport in my constituency. As a proud Plymouth MP, I am proud to represent a military city and proud to represent those people who serve supporting our armed forces. I would like to agree with the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) about the need to recycle the old nuclear submarines. There are very few Members on their phones at this point—it warms my heart that they are listening to what I am saying—but for those who want to have a look, please do zoom in on the western side of Plymouth and see the submarines lined up against each other. It is a sure sign that as a nation we are not dealing with our legacy in the way we ought to, and we must do so.
A bonus point goes to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for mentioning the five domains. In a debate about global military operations, the inclusion of space and cyber is absolutely vital. All-domain warfare is there, and having been to and spoken at the Space-Comm expo in Farnborough last week, it is very clear to me that the UK needs to take further steps to ensure that we are fully integrating space and cyber into all our work.
This debate takes place on the eve of Armed Forces Week, and as the son of a Royal Navy submariner and as an MP who represents a proud military community, I want to say thank you to and recognise the sacrifices of our armed forces and their families in the defence of our nation. They are the best of British, and I echo the thanks that have been mentioned on both sides of the Chamber for their work and sacrifices. As many other Members have stated, I look forward to celebrating Armed Forces Day and Armed Forces Week in my own community, and I look forward to seeing the Secretary of State—or whichever Defence Minister it may be—in Falmouth for the national celebrations.
This debate is taking place under the long shadow of Ukraine, and the support that has been offered by the United Kingdom should make all of us proud. We need to ensure that we continue that support, because this is a long-term fight. On UK military support, the Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s continued backing. The UK should be stepping up to support Ukraine now, as the long-awaited counter-offensive has begun. That means setting out a clear plan, as was promised by the Secretary of State in August last year, as to what a 2023 action plan for Ukraine will mean, what the implications and consequences for the industry are, and how we can best prepare. The continued absence of that plan is telling.
The war in Ukraine has had a profound effect on how future global military operations will be conducted. Our allies in NATO and Europe—the likes of Germany, France, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania—have all rebooted their defence plans and their budgets. We also need to have a strategic rethink of the UK’s defence plans, but so far this seems to be lacking from the Government. Labour has argued for defence plans to be rebooted since March 2022. Why are we still waiting? Ministers must reboot defence plans, looking again at and halting their cuts to the Army, ensuring that our NATO obligations are met in full and renewing Britain’s contract with our forces.
As the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), rightly highlighted at the beginning of this debate, we are meant to be debating the new defence Command Paper about now. The delay in that paper coming forward is disappointing. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he gets to his feet, could set out when that paper will be published, and whether it will contain more Tory cuts to our armed forces. In the words of the Defence Secretary earlier this year, the Government had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. That degree of honesty was welcome at the time, but honesty should come with consequences in the adjustment of the strategy, and we all look forward to seeing whether that has taken hold in the defence Command Paper.
When we talk about global military operations, we must also talk about the morale of our forces. It is the duty of any Government to make sure that those on the frontline do not have to worry about the home front, but the reality right now for many of our service personnel is very different. Many members of our armed forces are living in, frankly, appalling service accommodation, putting up with damp and mould, broken boilers and endless waits for repair. The hon. Member for Witney was right to raise that in his remarks. Poor military accommodation has a direct impact on forces morale, and on recruitment and retention. Satisfaction with service life in the UK armed forces has fallen from 60% in 2010 to 42% this year. Four in 10 UK military personnel have stated that poor morale is increasing the likelihood of their leaving the armed forces. That is why in March this year Labour launched Homes Fit for Heroes, a campaign to highlight the poor state of our armed forces accommodation, and make it clear that when in government it will be a priority to sort that out. The truth is that Ministers could have made that a priority; this could have been sorted out over the past 13 years if they had wanted to do that, and it is important that it is fixed.
Under successive Governments since 2010 the Conservatives have wasted at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through MOD mismanagement and defence procurement mistakes, with £5 billion wasted since 2019 alone, while the current Defence Secretary has been in place. How much money is in the budget is as important as what we spend it on, and the certainty of what we spend that money on is important. As someone who grew into defence policy from a passion for the Royal Navy, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed the future for Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships Wave Ruler and Wave Knight. At the weekend it looked as if they would be decommissioned by the Government because of a lack of service personnel. Will the Minister set out whether an accurate assessment has been in the media, and say what will happen to the RFA’s tanker capability without those ships being held at readiness?
In conclusion, this debate has set out clearly that the world is more uncertain than it has been for some time. It has also set out why a reboot of the UK’s military plans is necessary and required. Let us not look back on these debates in future years and see a Parliament squandering precious time. Let us back our armed forces, rearm by filling our stockpiles, and ensure that the Government look again at their plans to cut 10,000 soldiers from the Army, and look again at the year in, year out defence cuts. I hope we have more debates such as this, in which there are more difficult challenges, and hard thinking and constructive criticism. Our defence and security depends on getting this right, and on a cross-party basis it is essential that we do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
In March, Labour launched Homes Fit for Heroes, our campaign to highlight the failings of defence housing for service personnel. One member of the armed forces who has served for more than two decades told us that they feel pushed to leave the Army because their house is in such a state of disrepair that they described it as “unfit to live in”. The Government could have solved that crisis over the past 13 years if they had wanted to, but it is getting worse and worse, with personnel leaving because of poor housing. Will this problem be fixed before the next general election, or will the Minister leave it to the next Labour Government to clean up this Tory mess?
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to engage with the Labour Defence Front Bench for the first time. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the significant investment that we have put in place. Of course, we recognise that we have had long-standing issues with mould and so on. I emphasise that the maintenance backlog from December is now down by 75%. He might want to reflect on the fact that his party’s Government oversaw private finance initiative contracts for service properties in Bristol, Bath and Portsmouth, which, I can confirm, had a cost of £25,000 per home whether or not they were occupied.
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Luke Pollard ExcerptsFriday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for introducing this Bill. It is a Bill he can be proud of; I suspect it may have been a Bill he was given by Ministers to introduce, but none the less he has done so very well.
I have enjoyed the speeches from Conservative Members, who have raised some important issues relating to veterans. Across this House, we thank all those people who have served in our armed forces. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I add my praise to the love-in towards the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and his team and all the SO1s from the Ministry of Defence who do such a good job supporting us in that endeavour.
This Bill is an important update to the piping, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy described it, for veterans advisory and pensions committees, which play a key role in supporting our veteran communities on a regional basis right across the United Kingdom. They are a vital method of engagement with war pensioners, armed forces compensation scheme recipients, the armed forces welfare services and the Veterans Welfare Service at a local level. I thank all those who volunteer on the committees—it is a job that until very recently has not received much attention in this place, but it is important that we thank them for the work they have been doing.
However, it also true that, as the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) mentioned, veterans advisory and pensions committees now operate in a fundamentally different environment from what their remit, as previously laid out in statute, has been. For that reason, Labour welcomes this update to the legislation to ensure that the committees are able to play a more extensive role in raising awareness of other initiatives that affect veterans and, importantly, their families—because not only those people who serve in uniform, but their families form part of the greater armed forces family and should have support.
On Second Reading last month, our shadow Minister for veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) correctly made the point that,
“local authorities, health bodies and other organisations must understand their obligations to veterans”,—[Official Report, 24 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 480.]
and those that extend to their families, under the armed forces covenant. This Bill makes reference to that. I know that Members on both sides of the House have tried their best to make the case that the armed forces covenant needs to be more clearly explained. Now, thanks to the census, we understand where veterans are—the answer is “everywhere”—and it is for every single local authority and public body to implement the armed forces covenant correctly, ensuring that the best practice already established by councils in Portsmouth, and Plymouth, which I am proud to represent, extends to every community.
In the Bill Committee, which I note some of the Conservative Members present served on, I raised a number of points. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs responded to them, but I want to press a couple with this Minister if I can. The work of the veterans advisory and pensions committees is very important, but they are not prominent on the Ministry of Defence website and the VAPC section on the MOD part of gov.uk could do with a wee bit of updating—in particular, ensuring that the annual report consolidating the work of all the VAPCs across the country can be more clearly understood, to enable parliamentary scrutiny.
Regarding the VAPCs, I acknowledge that the Government established non-statutory supplementary terms of reference for a period of 12 months in 2021, which provided the committees with a more comprehensive and distinct role in supporting all veterans and their families. That guidance now moves to the Ministry of Defence from the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. That is a welcome move and ensures that the work of VAPCs can be more properly aligned to other parts of veterans’ communities and public services that now interact with our veterans and their families.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the Secretary of State will use the powers in the Bill to appoint members of VAPCs. How do we ensure that membership of the committees reflects veterans’ communities? Two groups of veterans’ communities are often poorly served by veterans’ activities: national service veterans, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), and recent veterans. Making sure that someone is able to understand the services available to them and their pension arrangements, especially in the event of medical discharge at an earlier rate, is really important. In some cases, people who leave military service at an earlier age may not always regard themselves as veterans, so it is important that there is a representative body on the VAPCs that understands how to engage with all the appropriate groups.
Finally, many Members have discussed the superb work being done by veterans’ groups in their communities. I thank all those in Plymouth undertaking that work. On Wednesday, I visited the Southampton Veterans Drop-In Centre, with Councillor Darren Paffey from Southampton City Council. The centre does vital work, and I put on record my thanks to Colin and Tracey Gaylor for the work they are doing, providing first-class support for veterans’ communities in that city. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the rest of its stages.
Draft Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his thorough introduction of this draft SI. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee, but I have a number of questions to pose to him.
All in Committee agree that our service personnel embody the very best of British. They exemplify the highest standards in our society, and we rightly expect our service police to uphold those same values, but when complaints are made against the service police, considerable flaws in the service police complaints process become apparent. As highlighted by the Lyons review, the current process lacks independence from the Ministry of Defence and its scope is too narrow.
Our armed forces personnel need to feel confident that, in return for carrying out their duty to keep our nation safe, they will in turn be looked after by the service police force that is there to protect them and to uphold high standards. Our service personnel also need to know that when service police officers fall short of that mark, a strong system is in place to investigate properly officers who are the subject of a complaint, and that they will be held to account if they have failed in their duties.
Broadly, therefore, we welcome the implementation of a new independent service police complaints process, and Labour will support today’s draft legislation, but clarification is needed and I have a number of questions. Will the new body be adequately resourced to carry out its functions? The Minister says that he is not expecting too many cases to cross its desk, but I would be grateful if he set out whether sufficient resourcing is allocated, or whether the resources will come from existing budgets. There are also wider concerns about whether the new complaints process is wide enough in scope, and whether it will inherit some of the issues afflicting the current civilian police complaints system.
Labour welcomes the appointment of Ms Margaret Obi as the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, but the Government must provide assurances that the new independent niche body she oversees will be sufficiently resourced. We know that it will be funded by the MOD, but since there is to be a £2 billion real-terms cut in day-to-day spending for 2024-25, and since the extra money secured in last week’s Budget applies only to the nuclear programme and replenishing stockpiles, can the Minister say what the new body’s annual budget will be?
Will the funding for the new complaints system come out of the MOD’s existing budget, and existing service police costs, or will additional resources be applied? Will staff in the new complaints system be permanently working in the new unit, or will they be on secondment, as we discussed in a previous statutory instrument on policing in our armed forces? Will staff need additional resources to carry out the independent body’s functions? I am particularly looking at the training requirement to learn the necessary lessons, especially if we are to move service police complaints to the same level as complaints relating to civilian police forces. When is the new service police complaints process due to come into force? The SI mentions a date in June; will the Minister confirm that?
The Lyons review suggested that, even with a new independent body,
“investigations of serious crime and wrongdoing may not even reach double figures.”
It also stated that the caseload will depend on the scope of the system, who can access it, and what time limits are placed on it. New independent oversight of the service police is welcome but there are serious questions about service police misconduct when dealing with complaints in the armed forces. I hope those can be addressed through this new system. Also, from discussing a similar issue in a statutory instrument Committee a few months ago, we know of concerns that if cases remain very low in number, there will not be a sufficient volume going through the system for officers dealing with those cases to be adequately trained and familiar with the procedures. As the Minister is expecting only a very small number of cases, especially death and serious injury matters, will he set out how those working in that space will deal with a sufficient volume of cases to be trained to and to perform at a high standard? There were questions about whether that was appropriate the last time we met to discuss a related measure.
We also know that, in recent years, an epidemic of bullying and sexual harassment in our armed forces has been allowed to fester, with service police investigations into sexual offences increasing by a third since 2019. Although there are wider questions about the effectiveness of the military court martial system—the Minister will be aware that Labour has repeatedly called for the most serious crimes to be tried in civilian courts to improve access to justice for service personnel—it is crucial that service police officers and the service police force as a whole take more responsibility for creating a culture that roots out bad behaviour, and that they are held to account if they do not do so.
Given the statement that the Home Secretary has just made in the Commons regarding the Casey review, what steps is the Minister taking, as the Minister with oversight of policing in our armed forces, to see what lessons can be applied? Although that report looks at the Metropolitan police, I do not believe the Metropolitan police are alone in having these issues. I would be grateful if the Minister set out his plan to review the Casey report and apply any learnings to the MOD.
In the guidance on today’s statutory instrument, the Minister says that the draft regulations provide for a complaints system similar to the system applied to the civilian police in England and Wales. I draw his attention to concerns about failings in the civilian police complaints system, which we cannot afford to transfer to the service police system. For example, Labour is clear that officers of any kind who are accused of rape and domestic abuse should be suspended while their case is investigated. I realise that that deals with the appeal against the investigating officers, but it is important to put that on the record.
Regulation 19 deals with withdrawn complaints. With the aim of ensuring high levels of probity, if a complaint is made against a service police officer and subsequently withdrawn, can that be one of the items that is reported to Parliament? There is concern that an organisation with a high level of hierarchy and orders to be followed may place barriers in the way of people seeking justice who have been failed by the chain of command or the justice system. If there is a point where complaints are made and subsequently withdrawn, may we have an understanding of how many cases are involved? I do not expect to see signs of a conspiracy, but we need to make sure that there are no barriers in the system, and the culture that goes along with it, to someone coming forward with a complaint about their experiences.
Last year, the Home Affairs Committee looked into police complaints procedures and concluded that there are still serious concerns about delays to investigations due to the complexity of language and processes. The Minister said that he has mapped the civilian language over to this SI. How will the application of the same processes and language apply in an armed forces context compared with the civilian context? We do not want to arrive at a place where we are unable to effectively hold service police to account because of unwarranted bureaucratic language and processes, which have been cited as holding back justice in civilian police forces.
Will the Minister provide some much-needed detail about the differences between the civilian complaints regime and the new service police complaints system? He briefly touched on that point in his remarks. Paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum states that the key difference will be
“the lack of accelerated procedures for members of the Armed Forces”
in internal disciplinary procedures, to reflect the service context. We all understand that service life is different from civilian life, but will the Minister set out what is meant by a lack of accelerated procedures for members of the armed forces? Surely there is merit in having complaints dealt with swiftly. If the issue is personnel who are involved being deployed, I would be grateful if the Minister set that out.
I have had quite a lot of dealings with the Independent Office for Police Conduct in relation to the Keyham shooting in the patch I represent, and I have been impressed by the IOPC’s working. If the Minister’s intends to carry over a similar type of work to service policing, that is a good move. It is a really important sign that we need to move military justice to the same thresholds and standards that we expect in civilian justice.
On that basis, Labour will not oppose the regulations, but I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments about the super-complaints body. When that is assessed, will there be a consultation, or will the process just be applied and a decision made by Ministers? Does it need to be approved through a statutory instrument process? Could he set that out clearly?
The Minister said that historical matters will not initially be dealt with. I understand the importance of drawing a clear line between what cases are dealt with and what are not, but I am not certain about the “not initially” part of what he said. Will he clarify whether that will be a task for the new commissioner in due course, or whether that is a decision for Ministers?
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester raised a very fair point about the application of this legislation to Gibraltar. As the Minister knows, I often raise questions about territorial extent. Unlike many SIs that we have dealt with recently, it is good to see that overseas territories and some Crown dependencies are included in these draft regulations. However, if we continue to miss out Gibraltar, we are creating a situation where UK service personnel in Gibraltar—not just the Gibraltar regiment, but UK service personnel based in Gibraltar—have a sub-optimal level of justice and application of modern legislation. Is there a piece of work under way in the MOD to collate all the pieces of legislation where Gibraltar has been excluded so that we can make sure to use the opportunity of the next Armed Forces Bill, whenever that may come, to correct a growing level of disservice to armed forces personnel who are based in Gibraltar?
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Luke Pollard ExcerptsWednesday 15th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Owen Thompson
I do not intend to detain Members overly long. In moving the amendments, I am perhaps chancing my arm. They are not in any way meant to take anything away from the Bill, which is a very good Bill. I commend the hon. Member for Aberconwy for the work he has done to get it to this stage, and I look forward to its progressing further, hopefully with the support of all Members. However, I could not let such an opportunity pass without once again making efforts to try to address some of the issues that have arisen with Veterans UK over several years. For the record, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a vice convener of the all-party parliamentary group for veterans, and we have undertaken a fair bit of work looking at the experiences of veterans with Veterans UK.
My intention is not to detract from the Bill, which does a lot of very good things and moves very much in the right direction. It raises awareness of vital services that are available to veterans, but there is an opportunity to do just that bit more.
There is an opportunity here for us to reshape the relationship between veterans advisory and pensions committees—VAPCs—and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, giving that office the formal task, on a statutory footing, of holding Veterans UK to account, and providing a kind of ombudsman service. That is the purpose of amendment 1. At the moment—we have heard this from a number of Members in debates—Veterans UK, to a large extent, is judge and jury when it comes to deciding outcomes. The Bill could provide a potential mechanism for a third party to oversee those processes. I do not think that that asks too much in addition from the Bill.
Amendment 2 seeks to make provision about the membership of VAPCs. To my mind, it is a relatively straightforward proposal. Those who are part of veterans associations know our veterans better than anyone, so formally ensuring their inclusion in VAPCs is a sensible proposal. They may well be on those committees anyway, but let us just make sure that they form part of them.
On amendment 4, I have one particular question for the Minister. It was unclear from my reading of the Bill whether it covers any of our veterans who now live overseas. Amendment 4 seeks to make it absolutely clear that it does, because I do not feel that that clarity is there at the moment. I may have missed it—if I have, I welcome that. However, let us just be clear and make sure that all veterans can access the support that is available.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Some clarity on both the territorial extent of the Bill and veterans living overseas would be helpful, including the Bill’s application to veterans living in overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as they sometimes sit in a different category from veterans living overseas. Does the hon. Member agree?
Owen Thompson
I absolutely agree. It is simply a matter of clarity. I do not think there is any intention to exclude anyone here, and I am not trying to suggest that there is. We need some clarity around that, to be sure.
Finally, on amendment 3, the Bill refers to covenant matters in relation to housing, education and health, but those are not the only things our veterans need help and support with. I hope that the measure might be expanded to include social care, employment, immigration and that sort of thing. I do not think it would be unnecessarily complicated to add those to the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Member for Aberconwy and the Minister on the proposals.
I am not here to detain anyone for longer than is necessary, and this is a good opportunity for us to continue the work that is clearly under way better to support our veterans. After all, they have given so much to support the nations of these isles, so it is not too much to ask that we do everything we can to support them, particularly when they need it most.
Luke Pollard
I welcome the Bill that the hon. Member for Aberconwy is seeking to introduce; it seems perfectly sensible. However, I have a few questions for the Minister.
In the very useful impact assessment to the Bill, section D on risks assumptions and limitations states that the MOD
“has yet to complete its own review of the VPACs.”
It says that there is a risk that future legislation will be required if that review is not completed before this legislation is taken forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether the review has been completed, so that we can be sure that we are not risking a requirement for additional legislation. On a point about language, section D also states:
“There is a risk that the widened cohort of veterans in scope will increase the number of personnel receiving support from the VAPCs under option 3”,
which was the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberconwy. I think that is not so much a risk resulting from the legislation as its intention, so that is interesting language to use.
May I ask the Minister about the terms of reference for VAPCs? From various explanatory notes, it seems that the last terms of reference were issued by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, yet the explanatory notes to the Bill suggest that the Ministry of Defence will now issue them. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether it is the OVA or the Ministry of Defence issuing the terms of reference from now on.
Finally, I had a look on the VAPC website to see what is going on, and I would like to praise all the volunteers for their work. There are many minutes on the website, and the number of issues considered in them shows that there are some incredible volunteers working their socks off, but I encourage the Minister to ask his officials to update the website a wee bit. Some regions, such as Yorkshire and Humber, seem incredibly active and are very efficient at getting their minutes posted on the website. Other VAPC regions are, I am sure, meeting and writing minutes, but those minutes do not seem to be as prominent on the VAPC website.
Another question is how people can contact members of VAPC regional committees. There are frequent lists of names of those whom the Secretary of State has appointed to the VAPCs, but there is not any obvious way for people to contact them. If the intention is not for people to contact the regional chair, but to make contact via a different method, it would be helpful to say what that method is when listing the members of a committee that people are being encouraged to contact. Other than that, this looks like a sensible piece of legislation.
Dr Murrison
This Bill is intended to regularise what has become custom and practice. There is nothing particularly new here, but the Bill does give VAPCs, which we have decided are worthwhile, a statutory basis. I hope the Bill will be seen in that light.
Under this legislation, VAPCs would have a statutory remit to do more than engage locally with recipients of war pensions or the armed forces compensation scheme. They will cover a broader range of issues; they may, for example, gauge veterans’ views on the support they receive from the Veterans Welfare Service, and raising awareness of the armed forces covenant. I hope the Committee will accept that the Government’s intent, through the legislation and the various reviews under way, is to ensure that the interests of veterans are furthered. That Government are sensitive to their concerns about how they are dealt with under the armed forces covenant.
The VAPCs will provide the Ministry of Defence and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs with a source of independent advice about how the MOD should support veterans and their families. Families are very important in this. One of the changes that the legislation will certainly bring is a focus not just on war pensioners and recipients of benefits under the armed forces compensation scheme but families and the wider defence community. I should highlight that the Bill also allows for recommendations to be adopted from the ongoing independent review of the VAPCs under the Cabinet Office public bodies reform programme, which is due to report at the end of this month, and from the recently announced independent review of the role and scope of the Government’s welfare provision for veterans, including by the MOD under the Veterans UK banner.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which reflected the perfectly understandable concern that there is a lot going on at the moment, and that there is a risk of overlap. I hope that the timeline that I have given, and the fact that this is enabling legislation—further regulations would have to be made as statutory instruments—mean that, in reality, the whole thing is pretty much covered off. Of course, rather than running these things in parallel, we could have run them in series, but I am persuaded that we need to crack on with this issue, and I do not necessarily want one to follow the other.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
In this weekend’s newspapers, a senior British military officer raised doubts about whether the UK could still claim to be a leading NATO member, because of the hollowing out of the Army’s war-fighting capabilities. The Minister has so far evaded the question, but with today’s funding announcement limited to nuclear enterprise and stockpiles, can he confirm whether it is still his Department’s policy to cut troop numbers by 10%, to cut the reserves and to provide no additional funding to plug the gaps in Britain’s war-fighting capability?
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is a good one, because the Government’s failure on defence procurement is not limited to weapons and ammunition. We need only to speak to people in defence housing with leaky roofs, black mould and broken boilers to realise that defence procurement is failing the people who serve in our military and their families. Last year the MOD paid £144 million to private contractors to maintain service families’ accommodation, yet many homes are still awaiting repairs and not getting the service that they deserve. One of the Secretary of State’s Ministers has admitted that these contracts do not represent value for taxpayer money, so why did the MOD sign them in the first place, and when will he be able to tell all our troops that they have a home fit for heroes?
Mr Wallace
We always want our homes to be fit for the men and women of our armed forces. I distinctly remember my time in Germany, and indeed in the UK, when the service was in-house, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there were issues with living under a standard of home then, which in some cases were worse. We have been monitoring to make sure that we get these reports answered. It was interesting that the start point of some of the problems was a lack of manning of the helpline at the very beginning—people were ringing up at Christmas and almost no one was there—and then having to work through the whole process. We are trying to do more. We will hold the providers to account and take financial action or whatever against them if we have to do so; I am not shy about doing that. We will try to seek compensation for the people suffering and to improve what is happening. However, in some areas, waits over five days are getting better. That is the first point; we are getting closer.