---

Armed Forces Personnel

I do not have the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman is posing, but I am happy to take advice and get back to him, perhaps in written form. But certainly the result of this Labour Government’s consistent funding is that last year, the defence budget reached something in the region of £30 billion for the first time—20 per cent. more in real terms than the budget we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. Over £1 billion more comes from the reserve for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. There may be selective amnesia on the Opposition Benches, but I can well remember, as a shipyard worker under the watch of the Conservatives, that insecurity in the shipyards was the norm, and contrast that with today, where workers and management have extreme confidence in the future. I am proud that the Government recognise the achievements of our armed forces, and equally proud that the Government understand that having good armed forces is not simply down to how much money we spend. That is why I am happy to support the Government as they move forward to deliver the changes to ensure that our armed forces are available to fulfil their duties and meet the challenges in an ever-changing world. In today’s environment the UK’s armed forces can expect to be called upon to respond nationally and internationally to a broad spectrum of tensions, crises and conflicts. Our servicemen and women can therefore expect to deploy over great distances, often rapidly and unexpectedly, and for indeterminate periods, either in support of UK national interests or to strengthen international peace and security arrangements. Engaging in combat operations will remain the most demanding task that our service personnel will ever face. People are the single most important aspect of our armed forces’ operational capability. The Government recognised that as the key during the strategic defence review in 1998, which identified the need to recruit and retain personnel in every branch of the military. To that end, personnel issues were placed at the top of the reform agenda for the armed forces. I am also pleased that the Government have focused their efforts on ensuring that the considerable demands placed on our service personnel are manageable, and that in their personal and family lives and in their terms and conditions of employment, they are fairly and appropriately supported. This the Government have achieved through the armed forces overarching personnel strategy, which provides a framework for all aspects of the service personnel policy agenda. The armed forces overarching personnel strategy utilises a whole-life approach, from encouraging the young to join to supporting and remembering former service personnel. That emphasis on improving personnel issues was expanded in the 1999 defence White Paper, which highlighted the fact that it was personnel who give our armed forces the critical edge that leads to success, whether in high intensity conflict or peacekeeping operations. It is no secret that recruitment and retention have been a big problem over the past 30 years, with figures dropping from 320,700 in 1980 to 190,420 this year—a fall of 130,280. Admittedly, the end of the cold war undoubtedly reduced the requirement for such large standing armed forces, but given the many strains placed on them by peacekeeping and operations in the war on terror, it is clear that the Army needs to be seen as a desirable career path. That is difficult in light of the socio-economic context, with employment at high levels in the public sector and the commercial world, offering other competing attractions for young people. Moreover, more and more young people are staying on in further education and training, again limiting the number of potential recruits. The 1998 strategic defence review also highlighted the correlation between overstretch, where the armed forces were trying to do too much with too little manpower, and the higher than expected exit rates by service personnel, which led to more overstretching, creating a Catch-22 situation. Despite those issues, the measures that the Government have introduced in an effort to encourage recruitment and retention in the Army, Navy and Air Force, have helped and will continue to help in bolstering morale among serving soldiers, and act as an incentive to those considering careers in our armed forces. The Government have also introduced the operational welfare package, which provides those deployed on operations with free internet access, free phone calls, newspapers, free mail, fitness equipment, free laundry, a rest and recuperation package, entertainment and an additional 20 days’ leave after a six-month tour. Families receive concessionary travel allowance for keeping in touch with relatives and support through advice centres and internet access. The welfare package has been independently assessed twice by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body as being one of the best available when compared with those of armed forces around the world and our allies on operations. Poor service accommodation has recently been picked up by the media and it has been highlighted as a factor in the high numbers of people leaving the armed forces. This is a problem with much of the accommodation dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, and I for one welcome the news that the Government are spending £1.3 billion on modern en-suite single bed spaces for service personnel as part of a £5 billion improvement project over the next 10 years. It must also be noted that during the past six years the percentage of service families’ housing at the top standard has risen from 40 per cent. to 59 per cent. Nevertheless, I am aware that the Government attach the highest importance to improving living conditions further and this will hopefully turn the tide on the numbers leaving due to poor living conditions. Given the nature of the work undertaken by the armed forces, it is necessary to ensure that the pay that soldiers receive is appropriate, and again the Government have successfully balanced this and the armed forces pay award this year was a good one. Basic pay for the lowest ranks will be increased by 9.3 per cent. and there is an increase of 3.3 per cent. across all ranks. In addition, the 3.6 per cent. increase in the tax-free operational allowance paid to British troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is a positive step in recruiting and retaining personnel. The operational allowance is better than tax-free pay. It is fairer—the same benefit for everyone—tax free, and for the lower paid, much better. The amount is pitched to ensure that the more junior personnel on operations are compensated for their tax bill whilst deployed. It is based on the tax paid on salary and allowances received on operations by a private with five years’ service. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has also awarded new financial retention incentives to address key operational pinchpoints. The Government have also considered the family lives of service personnel and have established the Service Families Task Force, specifically to assist the families of service personnel and offer advice and assistance in cases where problems are being experienced with issues such as child care facilities, communication on matters relating to a spouse's deployment, education, health and housing. These measures, which ease the difficulties facing servicemen and women and their families and thus make it more likely for people to continue their service, are very welcome. Indeed some benefit can already be seen from these measures; with the numbers of personnel recruited in 2005-06 being 3 per cent. higher than in 2004-05 as the services achieved 96 per cent. of their target. In the six months between April and October 2006, 10,180 personnel joined the services, up from 8,810 in the same period in 2005. I have welcomed all the initiatives undertaken by the Government in creating a modern armed forces, which takes into account and supports service personnel. However, ordinary soldiers still lack a means of conveying their concerns to senior officers and Ministers except by way of their immediate superiors. In any environment, making a complaint or a comment to one’s boss can be an intimidating prospect, and in an environment filled with rigorous discipline such as the armed forces this can be even worse. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a so-far unofficial group calling itself the British Armed Forces Federation was formally constituted in December last year by former members of the services. The federation's objectives as stated in its constitution are to represent, promote and protect the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the armed forces. Furthermore, the British Armed Forces Federation also seeks to improve members' employment and working conditions, pension arrangements and their treatment by the Ministry of Defence, and to promote the professional and personal development and economic and social well-being of members. I must emphasise that the federation will not be a trade union for the armed forces. It will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation will seek to work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It will also recognise the importance of the chain of command. If we look at its website, we see that it clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden. The proposal might be seen as radical and dangerous by certain members of the armed forces, and possibly by some Opposition Members, but many other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have such federations, which have the support of the military command in those countries. The British forces federation will reflect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services, but it will also meet the requirements of men and women who are serving in our armed forces. Those aims in many ways tie in with the objectives set out by the Government in improving the welfare of service personnel and offer a unique channel of communication without the pressures that can be present with complaints and comments passed up the chain of command. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) introduced a Bill to this House earlier this month, which I am co-sponsoring, which calls for the British Armed Forces Federation to be recognised by the Ministry of Defence for that very reason. Recent controversies surrounding accommodation, treatment given in medical facilities to injured personnel returning from Iraq, and the scandal at Deepcut, highlight the increasing need for members of the armed forces to have an independent voice and to ensure that it is heard. I am aware that the Armed Forces Act 2006 has introduced a complaints commissioner, who will be able to receive allegations and complaints from service personnel and third parties. The commissioner will have the power to refer allegations and complaints from service personnel and third parties—concerning bullying and other forms of unacceptable behaviour—to the chain of command. The chain of command will have a duty to ascertain whether the individual concerned wishes to make a complaint, and to ensure that he or she understands clearly how to go about it. The commissioner will also review the effectiveness, fairness and efficiency of the whole redress system and provide an annual report to the Secretary of State which will be considered by the House. That is welcome, but it does not cover the broader views of the armed forces as a whole in the same manner as an armed forces federation. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to consider supporting the Bill when it returns to the House in October for its Second Reading. I would like to address one other issue: wounded soldiers and veterans. As is only right and proper, the medical care for the armed forces on operational missions is widely recognised as being of a very high standard. Military medical teams have the equipment and resources that they need, including large stocks of blood, plasma and oxygen. Military commanders are required to ensure that casualty evacuation and treatment facilities are in place before they approve an operation. The Government have made it a clear priority to ensure that service personnel who are seriously injured receive a very high standard of care, including returning them to the UK for specialist treatment. Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham, which is the primary reception hospital for casualties evacuated back to the UK, is at the leading edge of medical care for the most common types of injuries. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said in a BBC interview on 13 March 2007:"““There is nowhere better in the country, nowhere more expert at polytrauma medicine, than that hospital in Selly Oak. That’s why our people are there.””" The Government recognise and appreciate the importance of our service personnel continuing to feel part of the military family, and have continued to increase the numbers of military nurses and welfare support at Selly Oak. The Ministry of Defence has worked with the hospital authorities to change the layout of the ward to produce a separate area for some military patients whose condition allows them to be nursed together, utilising the two bays and isolation rooms at the far end of the orthopaedic trauma ward. A rolling survey this year of military in-patients undergoing treatment at Selly Oak shows almost total agreement among respondents that their treatment overall was good, very good, or excellent. Decisions on closing military hospitals were made in the mid-1990s by the previous Government, and there is insufficient demand, even when our military forces are in action, to warrant an independent military hospital. Serious casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan need and receive advanced levels of care across a wide range of medical disciplines that can only be found in a major trauma hospital. Our numbers of casualties would not sustain a separate military hospital with the modern specialist equipment and skills of medical staff needed to provide the treatment that they justly deserve. For many years, the Royal Hospital Haslar has had nothing like the range of medical facilities and expertise that a major trust hospital such as Selly Oak has. On the issue of veterans, as the Member of Parliament for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North, I cannot make a speech without mentioning the work of Erskine, which, since 1916, has provided nursing and medical care for former members of our armed forces. The work undertaken by Erskine throughout Scotland is remarkable and highlights a continuing need to support former service personnel. Since its inception, Erskine has cared for soldiers from both world wars as well as more recent conflicts, and is already looking after young men and women who have come to Erskine from current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our veterans’ needs are constantly changing, and the new home that Erskine is building in Glasgow, along with the additional beds planned for the Edinburgh home, will provide them with much-needed facilities. Erskine has established four dedicated care homes in Scotland and a fifth is due to open in Glasgow in the autumn. It also operates a bursary scheme in areas without an Erskine care home. In partnership homes in Aberdeen, Inverness, Perth, Dundee and Dumfries, the highest possible standards of care are provided. We can therefore see that Erskine’s experience and skill in helping sick and injured former service personnel is providing an invaluable service. However, the need for Erskine as a charity also indicates a lack of such provision. I wonder whether the Minister will agree that, given the ““whole-life”” ethos brought forward by the armed forces overarching personnel strategy, his Department could work more closely with charities such as Erskine to ensure that the care for those who have served our country so well is provided locally across the UK. To conclude, the reforms brought forward by the Government—to make life in the armed services a desirable option and to treat service personnel as people— are important in ensuring that the British armed forces remain the best in the world. Our armed forces can only benefit from that, and will continue to lead the way in peacekeeping and in securing the defence of the UK.