Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make an assessment of the potential implications for his policies of the level of US government control of Starlink in Ukraine.
Answered by Luke Pollard - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
The Ministry of Defence has assessed the implications of a disruption to Starlink services to Ukraine. The large number of Starlink terminals (reported at over 40,000) means Starlink makes a significant contribution to Ukraine civil and military sectors. As per Starlink terms and conditions, off-the-shelf purchases of Starlink terminals are not subject to US Government export regulations.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will fully implement the recommendations of the Atherton report.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
Following the July 2021 House of Commons Defence Committee report into Women in the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence has delivered a range of initiatives to improve the experience of women in the Armed Forces.
Key actions have been taken to combat unacceptable sexual behaviour, with two Zero Tolerance policies and a Sexual Exploitation and Abuse policy; improvements have been made to women’s health and wellbeing with new policies on menopause and breastfeeding, emergency sanitary provision, sports bras and a urinary support device; together with improved female fit uniform and equipment (including body armour); greater career flexibility; and improved access to childcare through the Wraparound Childcare scheme.
Related work has reformed the Service Complaints System to improve confidence and efficiency. The Service Justice System is more victim focussed, having established the Defence Serious Crime Unit and the Victim and Witness Care Unit in 2023.
The Raising our Standards Team will continue to focus on driving more inclusive behaviours. In addition, new initiatives are being developed on women’s health to better prepare them for arduous training as well as an increased focus on bringing a gender perspective to the future development of existing equipment and uniform.
The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will establish an independent champion for our Serving personnel and their families. This a new, unprecedented post that will serve as a direct point of contact for Service personnel and their families to raise general service welfare matters.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to support women in the armed forces.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
Following the July 2021 House of Commons Defence Committee report into Women in the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence has delivered a range of initiatives to improve the experience of women in the Armed Forces.
Key actions have been taken to combat unacceptable sexual behaviour, with two Zero Tolerance policies and a Sexual Exploitation and Abuse policy; improvements have been made to women’s health and wellbeing with new policies on menopause and breastfeeding, emergency sanitary provision, sports bras and a urinary support device; together with improved female fit uniform and equipment (including body armour); greater career flexibility; and improved access to childcare through the Wraparound Childcare scheme.
Related work has reformed the Service Complaints System to improve confidence and efficiency. The Service Justice System is more victim focussed, having established the Defence Serious Crime Unit and the Victim and Witness Care Unit in 2023.
The Raising our Standards Team will continue to focus on driving more inclusive behaviours. In addition, new initiatives are being developed on women’s health to better prepare them for arduous training as well as an increased focus on bringing a gender perspective to the future development of existing equipment and uniform.
The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will establish an independent champion for our Serving personnel and their families. This a new, unprecedented post that will serve as a direct point of contact for Service personnel and their families to raise general service welfare matters.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department plans to take in response to Russian use of cluster munitions in Ukraine.
Answered by Luke Pollard - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
As a State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), the UK has made a commitment not to produce or use cluster munitions and to discourage their use. We stand by that.
As President of the CCM in 2022 the UK frequently highlighted the use of cluster munitions by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. The UK has committed £6.1million to address explosive ordnance, including cluster munitions, in Ukraine in financial year 2024-5 through the Global Mine Action Programme.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if the Government will make an assessment of the (a) adequacy of and (b) lessons learned from the security response to the Russian invasion of Crimea; and if he will make an assessment of the impact of that response on the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Answered by Luke Pollard - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
The Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on 25 February 2025 that this Government is actively responding to the security situation regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We have already commissioned a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) to examine the whole of Defence and identify where reprioritisation of roles, capabilities, activities, and support may be made in the current Defence programme to allow new investment, achieve better value for money, and secure greater economic gain for the UK.
The Reviewers will make their final report to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State in the spring of this year. The Secretary of State will then subsequently report to Parliament.
This Government is also beginning the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, reaching 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, maintaining that level for the rest of this Parliament, and then setting a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% in the next Parliament.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will (a) hold discussions and (b) take steps with Super Humans Ukraine to provide (i) training, (ii) equipment for (A) prosthetics and (B) medical (1) assistance and (2) training and (iii) other support in Ukraine.
Answered by Luke Pollard - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence)
As a world leader in military rehabilitation, the UK Ministry of Defence, in consultation with our Ukrainian partners has chosen to contribute to the NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) funded Project RENOVATOR, a project to support the development of increased rehabilitation capacity and capability within Ukraine to help deal with the thousands of injured military personnel.
Project RENOVATOR supports the building of infrastructure and the provision of equipment and delivery of training and education, including specialist physiotherapy and prosthetic capabilities. The ultimate aim is to provide five modernised rehabilitation facilities across the country, supporting Ukraine to develop a modern military healthcare system.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2025 to Question 31092 on Armed Forces: Pensions, if he will take steps to ensure that service members who are not eligible for pensions due to them falling under pre-1975 criteria are provided with periodical payments instead.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
This is a Government of service and I am leading work across Government and with civil society to look at the best ways to ensure all Veterans get access to the support and opportunities they need and deserve. This year, we will set out our plans for Veterans in our updated Veterans’ Strategy. This Government will always stand up for those who have served our country. That said, the rules governing Armed Forces’ pensions are designed to be fair to all military personnel and thus the awarding of periodic payments is not under consideration by this Department.
The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all occupational pension schemes to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6 April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. It is a fact that the legacy issues associated with the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 are replicated in other public sector schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973.
Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, any provisions or change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection or make provisions for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes and this would have huge financial implications. This would also impact any future meaningful improvements to pension schemes for current employees and make them unaffordable.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2025 to Question 31092 on Armed Forces: Pensions, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of that proposal on service members at pension age.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
This is a Government of service and I am leading work across Government and with civil society to look at the best ways to ensure all Veterans get access to the support and opportunities they need and deserve. This year, we will set out our plans for Veterans in our updated Veterans’ Strategy. This Government will always stand up for those who have served our country. That said, the rules governing Armed Forces’ pensions are designed to be fair to all military personnel and thus the awarding of periodic payments is not under consideration by this Department.
The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all occupational pension schemes to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6 April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26. It is a fact that the legacy issues associated with the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 are replicated in other public sector schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973.
Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, any provisions or change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection or make provisions for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes and this would have huge financial implications. This would also impact any future meaningful improvements to pension schemes for current employees and make them unaffordable.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Social Security Act 1973 to ensure pensioners who served in the armed forces prior to 6 April 1975 but did not meet the qualifying service threshold receive a pension.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
Although the Ministry of Defence is unable to comment on possible changes to the Social Security Act 1973 as this legislation was introduced by the Department of Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions, I am leading work across Government and with civil society to look at the best ways to ensure all Veterans get access to the support and opportunities they need and deserve. This year, we will set out our plans for Veterans in our updated Veterans’ Strategy. This Government will always stand up for those who have served our country.
Prior to 1975, there were no rights to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes. For instance, to qualify for a pension under the Civil Service arrangements, an individual had to be over age 50 and have served for ten or more years. Those who left voluntarily before meeting these criteria lost rights to pensions. For the Armed Forces, occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years reckonable service as an Officer or 22 years reckonable service as an Other Rank. Reckonable service is paid service after age 21 for officers or after age 18 for Other Ranks.
Engagements for shorter periods were on non-pensionable terms. Gratuities (lump-sum payments) were awarded to those who did not serve long enough for a pension but had completed at least nine years reckonable service as an Officer or 12 years reckonable service as an Other Rank. Gratuities were not paid to compensate for lack of pension but rather to assist the individual to settle into civilian life.
The Social Security Act 1973 brought about changes by requiring all occupational pension schemes to preserve pension rights for those who left service after 6 April 1975 having completed at least five years qualifying service and having attained the age of 26 (later Social Security Acts reduced the qualifying period from five years to two years and removed the age qualification requirement). These changes were not made retrospective.
The legacy issues of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 are replicated in other public sector schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973. Where legacy issues are common across public sector schemes, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from others for similar treatment. To concede retrospection for one group would place great pressure on other public service schemes. Further, if retrospection were to be accepted, future meaningful improvements to pension schemes for current employees would be unaffordable. It is a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Social Security Act 1973 on veterans who served before 6 April 1975 but did not meet the qualifying service threshold.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
This Government will always stand up for those who have served our country, and I am leading work across Government and with civil society to look at the best ways to ensure all veterans get access to the support and opportunities they need and deserve. This year, we will set out our plans for veterans in our updated Veterans’ Strategy.
It is a principle of public service pensions policy, and one that has been upheld by successive Governments, that improvements to pension schemes are not made retrospective. The legacy issues of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 are replicated in other public sector schemes in existence prior to the Social Security Act 1973. Accordingly, a retrospective change implemented for the Armed Forces would certainly result in pressure from other public sector schemes for similar treatment. Although no specific estimate has been made, resolving legacy issues across the board would cost the tax-payer billions of pounds and render future meaningful improvements to pension schemes for current employees unaffordable.