Defence
Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and James Sunderland(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful for that opportunity, but I have previously declined it for various reasons. I will get into that in a wee bit more detail and, although the hon. Member may not agree with me, I may want to reflect on some of the profound experiences that we saw in that report. I am afraid that we would not hear those things talked about on the armed forces parliamentary body. I am talking about ordinary service personnel, in private meetings with parliamentarians as part of a Committee inquiry, talking about the dreadful conditions that they suffer because of their gender, sex, sexuality or ethnicity. Some of it has been like a revolving door.
James Sunderland
I spent 27 years of commissioned service in the British Army. The hon. Member does the British Army a disservice.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I recall the hon. Gentleman chairing the Armed Forces Bill Committee during the pandemic, when we heard some really profound and challenging evidence. I do not think that he and I would disagree that it was challenging. The report from the hon. Member for Wrexham, a former reservist, was challenging. It was the bare reality of what many members of the armed forces had to go through. I am sure that he was in the Chamber when members of Pride were here to hear the Prime Minister’s apology to LGBT members of the services. That happened; it is not a figment of the imagination. It does not say anything about the abilities and capabilities of the vast majority of the armed forces.
To me it is more about the structure. How different it would be if we had a body in which members of the armed forces, elected by their peers, could engage with any Government in the future. We would then be in a far better position to have that debate and to actually target support where it is needed. I have not yet heard a convincing argument against that.
I am glad that the official Opposition have a policy on this matter. It might not be one that I think is appropriate, but it is a reflection that the time has now come to have some type of body to take up that physical challenge. I believe that their example is from Germany, but I am also mindful of the example of the Kingdom of the Netherlands—one of our closest military allies—where a member of the armed forces could also be the general secretary of a trade union. Having a distinct armed forces trade union does not stop them carrying out their duties as members of the armed forces.
One or two of our NATO allies have unions and actually have the right to strike, although that is not somewhere I would be going in terms of policy. I just think that having such a union is critical, given some of the conditions that members of the armed forces and their families have faced over many years. We have heard about them in Select Committee reports, in debates on housing and in statements. My friend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about Capita and some of the profound problems that members of the armed forces face on a daily basis. I honestly believe that they would be in a far better position to deal with these challenges if they were able to come together and deliberate and engage with whoever the Government are.
It is important to reflect on some of our Scandinavian allies when it comes to a more coherent approach to how we go forward as parliamentarians, because this is not just about members of the armed forces; it is about the role of Parliament as well. I have heard Members talk about having a more collegiate approach. Were we to follow the Danish or Swedish examples—this could be done whether or not the Government have a huge majority—it would mean that for an entire parliamentary term we could have an agreed military defence posture and an agreed budget. We could bring the main parties together and make a collective parliamentary decision.
The Nordic-Scandinavian model means that there is a good foundation to create a robust defence posture, with full parliamentary support. Even we in the SNP would agree to that. We may disagree on the nuclear deterrent, but Parliament has voted for that. But on the vast majority of issues I think the vast majority of parties in this place could agree and support a Government, which is critical given that the times in which we live need a coherent approach and full and robust parliamentary support.
I do hope that both the Government and the official Opposition will consider that if and when the next election is called, and whoever should form the next Government. That brings people together. It is also about us as parliamentarians taking our responsibilities appropriately, and about creating transparency and openness. Even in the United States, there is far more transparent and robust engagement with the Government on Capitol Hill by the Armed Services Committee. Of course, our Defence Select Committee has no such powers, in any shape or form, but if we had more open and transparent engagement at parliamentary level, we could hopefully overcome a lot of that.
The other thing I want to talk about, in bringing my remarks to a conclusion, is partnership. I am really glad that the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned some partnerships in bringing his speech to a close. Since 2016, we on the SNP Benches have been pushing for a more coherent mutual defence agreement with the European Union. He will need to correct me if I am wrong and that was not a part of what he said in his concluding remarks. The reason for that is not to replace NATO, but to understand that some of the complexities that EU members face—for example, when it comes to logistics, road design and bridge weights—could be tackled far more easily through the EU in partnership than, say, through NATO. That is because if we are trying to move a tank from the west to the eastern front, it has to get across France, Germany and so on. [Interruption.] I will conclude my remarks in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say that as a Euro-Atlanticist. It is really important that we create defence relationships with people who share our common interests here in the Euro-Atlantic area, because, as others have mentioned, we face a crisis of retention, a crisis of recruitment and unfathomable black holes that I would not wish on any Defence Secretary, whether the present one or anybody who wants to be one. The next Government will face unimaginable tasks, but if we put people, place and partnership at the heart of that, we in the SNP—although with our differences on the nuclear deterrent—would certainly be willing to support that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and James Sunderland(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Payments
Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and James Sunderland(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Perhaps there will be a certain type of reply to his final question, because I asked the Minister this morning about the Army’s future soldier programme and how it engages with those in what we weirdly call the “ordinary ranks”. I think the answer to him will be the same as the one to me about veterans engaging in this process—I got a less than effusive response this morning.
The reason I wish to speak in this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) is because I know the case of his constituent Garry and because, having been on the Defence Committee for a number of years—it is always good to see its former Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis,) with us—I wish to follow up on a couple of issues. Not only that, but my nephew is a member of the Royal Engineers and is now extending his time in the armed forces, and I am delighted for him. As the Minister will know, he was my brother’s commanding officer for at least one of his tours of Afghanistan, my brother being a reservist; so much of the backbone of the armed forces is in the reserves, but we will come on to that in a wee minute. I may also take up the points made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) about chairing the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill last year. Was it last year?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It was 2021, yes. The hon. Gentleman had to do that online, and I congratulate him on that. A range of issues similar to those faced by Garry, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, consistently came up; here we are in the 21st century and members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland require us to stand and have these debates. They require us to stand and say how wonderful it is for charities to support them—charity! I find that extraordinary. I am more a fan of the Danish model, where a member of the armed forces, no matter their rank and how long they have been in the armed forces, receives the same treatment as every other citizen, because the treatment is that good that they do not need anything different and they do not need to rely on charity.
I know that many of the charitable organisations that support members of the armed forces—there are a lot of them—do a power of work and have done for a number of years. Many of them have done this for a very long time, such as the Royal British Legion, Poppyscotland and others. When it comes to issues such as war pensions and armed forces compensation pay schemes, I wonder to myself, “Is it really up to charities or even the body itself, the war pensions armed forces scheme, to be part of this process, to the exclusion not only of veterans, but members of the armed forces themselves?” That comes back to the crux of the matter.
I know that Conservative Members will disagree with what I am about to say, but I am glad that the Labour party decided at the last election to agree with the SNP on the requirement for an armed forces representative body. That is the missing cog in this wheel. We see that time and again. For example, if we go back to the extraordinary report led by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), through the Defence Committee, on women in the armed forces, we see that a clear clarion call about the treatment of women was that women in the “ordinary ranks” were not being listened to. We see the exact same thing when it comes to terms and conditions or the future armed services programme: no one is listening to the ordinary ranks. I am in disbelief that we are still going through old conundrum.
If we look at so many of the armed forces across the NATO alliance, we see that because they have independent armed forces representative bodies like a police federation, without the right to strike—apart from in the Netherlands, where people have that right—they are able to move forward in agreement, in negotiation with their Governments. In the Scandinavian model and, notably, in Denmark, we see that this also comes with the vast majority of Parliament agreeing a set out programme over a period, for example, a parliamentary term. So there is engagement, discussion, debate and agreement about treatment and terms and conditions, including pensions.
It beggars belief that nearly 80 years after the second world war, we are still talking about veterans as though they were charity cases. It is extraordinary that 21st-century parliamentarians are still having this type of debate, no matter how good or well intentioned the charities are that provide so much support. However, as someone who worked in charities before coming to Parliament, I was always trying to do myself out of a job. I know, frankly, that that will go down like a lead balloon with some, but the reality is that the failure to move forward with engagement, discussion, deliberation and agreement continues to fail veterans. It will continue to fail veterans now, as well as people such as my nephew who will be veterans at some point. I hope that, by that time, we will have moved forward and will have an independent armed forces representative body.
Armed Forces Bill: Special Report
Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and James Sunderland
James Sunderland
I thank my very good right hon. Friend for his question. The simple answer relating to Northern Ireland is that the legacy issues, very much in the news at the moment, are subject to separate work being led by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Ministry of Defence made it clear to me and the other members of the Committee that that would not be within the scope of this Bill. We divided on that at the beginning of the session. For me personally, the wider issues relating to Northern Ireland and care, and the provisions of the covenant, are catered for in this Bill. I am pleased that the implementation of the armed forces covenant in statute is very much the core feature of this Bill and will happen, for the benefit of all those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
The Armed Forces Bill is something of a whirlwind, and all on the ad-hoc Bill Committee will have learned so much over the past couple of months, as the Chair—the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—the Clerks and the digital support staff, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for enabling the hybrid Committee to function, will know. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on his appointment to the Front Bench—Dochertys seem to get everywhere.
It should not come as a surprise to me, I suppose, after a good few years on the Defence Committee, but the armed forces have come on in so many ways in recent years in how they seek to recruit and retain personnel, for which they should be commended. It should also be said that all who were on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill were resolved to ensure the process continues.
However, while there was much for us to be positive about and agree on, as the Chair of the Committee has stated, I cannot help but feel that we are at a crucial inflexion point in the way the armed forces are perceived. The more I think about those of us in the Opposition who sought to make amendments to bring the armed forces closer to the society they seek to protect, the more I feel the Government favoured measures that keep them remote, discrete and unempowered. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) tabled common-sense amendments on a representative body, gender-neutral language and bringing the age of recruitment in line with that of our NATO allies. We supported other amendments on housing and on terms and conditions, and never really understood why the Government could not.
We use the language of heroes so often to describe those in the armed forces that sometimes we forget that almost all of them just want the simple pleasures of good pay, conditions and terms of service, or at least certainty, and certainly nothing worse than those of their fellow public servants in the NHS or a police force. Let me thank my fellow Committee members for their work, and the Chair and the Clerks for, over the last couple of months, writing this report—and here’s to more scrutiny of the work of the MOD on Third Reading.
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and James Sunderland
James Sunderland
I thank my very good right hon. Friend for his question. The simple answer relating to Northern Ireland is that the legacy issues, very much in the news at the moment, are subject to separate work being led by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Ministry of Defence made it clear to me and the other members of the Committee that that would not be within the scope of this Bill. We divided on that at the beginning of the session. For me personally, the wider issues relating to Northern Ireland and care, and the provisions of the covenant, are catered for in this Bill. I am pleased that the implementation of the armed forces covenant in statute is very much the core feature of this Bill and will happen, for the benefit of all those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
The Armed Forces Bill is something of a whirlwind, and all on the ad-hoc Bill Committee will have learned so much over the past couple of months, as the Chair—the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—the Clerks and the digital support staff, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for enabling the hybrid Committee to function, will know. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on his appointment to the Front Bench—Dochertys seem to get everywhere.
It should not come as a surprise to me, I suppose, after a good few years on the Defence Committee, but the armed forces have come on in so many ways in recent years in how they seek to recruit and retain personnel, for which they should be commended. It should also be said that all who were on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill were resolved to ensure the process continues.
However, while there was much for us to be positive about and agree on, as the Chair of the Committee has stated, I cannot help but feel that we are at a crucial inflexion point in the way the armed forces are perceived. The more I think about those of us in the Opposition who sought to make amendments to bring the armed forces closer to the society they seek to protect, the more I feel the Government favoured measures that keep them remote, discrete and unempowered. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) tabled common-sense amendments on a representative body, gender-neutral language and bringing the age of recruitment in line with that of our NATO allies. We supported other amendments on housing and on terms and conditions, and never really understood why the Government could not.
We use the language of heroes so often to describe those in the armed forces that sometimes we forget that almost all of them just want the simple pleasures of good pay, conditions and terms of service, or at least certainty, and certainly nothing worse than those of their fellow public servants in the NHS or a police force. Let me thank my fellow Committee members for their work, and the Chair and the Clerks for, over the last couple of months, writing this report—and here’s to more scrutiny of the work of the MOD on Third Reading.