---

Armed Forces

My Lords, I join the Minister in paying tribute to our Armed Forces who are serving on our behalf, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to their families who support them. I also join the Minister in paying tribute to those who have given their lives for this country in earlier wars and campaigns. I thank the Minister for facilitating this long-awaited debate, which is, I am sure, welcomed by all sides of the House. In opening this debate, the Minister commended to the House the White Paper, The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans. This side of the House welcomed much of the White Paper, in particular the admission that the bureaucratic process, as a whole, operates to the frustration of service families, and of where that process can be adjusted. However, real enthusiasm escapes me for three main reasons. First, parliamentary debate about the Armed Forces needs to go much deeper and wider than the matters addressed in the White Paper. My second ground for concern is scepticism, borne of experience, over the extent to which, and how soon, the Government will succeed in bringing about their promised changes in the working of the bureaucratic machine. My third reservation relates to the general tone of the document. While it explicitly recognises, at several points, the human dimension of the sacrifices which our soldiers, sailors and airmen are expected to make in the course of their duties, it seems to regard what needs to be done as largely mechanical matters of process, and not matters of people talking to, listening to and helping others. I found no real acknowledgement of the key role that voluntary organisations such as The Royal British Legion, SAFA, the Army Families Federation and the War Widows' Association can and do make in supporting veterans and families. The only recognition that they receive is acknowledgement in the list of consultees at the end. It is likewise for the old comrades’ associations, to use a generic term, which do so much to help with welfare issues. A further curiosity of the wording of the White Paper is that, as far as I can see, it does not refer at any point to the military covenant, yet, in ordinary conversation and debate, that phrase encapsulates the subject matter of the White Paper. I was therefore very pleased to hear the Secretary of State, giving evidence recently to the Defence Committee in the other place, use precisely the phrase ““the military covenant”” in answering a question on the matter from my honourable friend Bernard Jenkin. The commitment that the Minister then gave was that the military covenant is a vital part of the whole deal. That is how it is rightly perceived by my right honourable friend David Cameron, and that is why he appointed a commission to advise him on precisely that brief. I commend that commission for its work and its interim report entitled, Restoring the Covenant. There must be an acceptance by government of a duty of care and support for those willing to die and be injured, often with life-changing injuries, on behalf of their country. That was recognised three centuries ago by the Duke of Marlborough. He told this House after his victory at Blenheim that the best way to celebrate was to do right by the soldiers who fought so bravely with him. With that in mind, I shall concentrate on three points that are very relevant to the military covenant and morale. First, for the past few years, I have been raising in this House the totally unsatisfactory position of the air bridge to Iraq and Afghanistan. Each time, Ministers gave me assurances that something would be done, but when I speak to troops, which I do quite often, I am told that that is not the case. The air bridge problems are a continuing cause of real resentment for those service men and women travelling to and from Iraq and Afghanistan. I make no apology for returning to that again today, as it is having a serious effect on morale. New figures show that so far this year, only 56 per cent of flights returning from Afghanistan have been on time or delayed by less than an hour. Moreover, the number of flights delayed by six hours or more has increased to 17 per cent. Given that new figures from the Military Covenant Commission show that only 47 per cent of the fleet is fit for purpose, perhaps flight delays are not surprising. The Royal Air Force’s fleet is, on the whole, very old, so delays are not always its fault. In America, leave starts at one minute past midnight the day after service personnel have arrived at their destination. In this country, however, leave starts when waiting for the flight home. Here, as the Chief of the General Staff’s briefing team reports, plane delays, sometimes as long as 24 hours, mean that loss of leave is still widespread. Service personnel get only two weeks’ leave during their six months in theatre, so that precious time with their family and friends must be protected as a very high priority. It is astonishing, therefore, that this seems impossible to achieve. What plans do the Government have at this time to improve the air bridge and what is the latest news on the A400M? The sending of unsolicited parcels to service personnel from well-meaning members of the public should be an occasion for good cheer. They are signs of gratitude and a mark that those in Afghanistan and Iraq are not only in the minds of their family but also of those members of the general public who acknowledge their debt to the Armed Forces. However, because of the strain these parcels put on the air bridge, the Ministry of Defence has decided that this practice must cease. Do the Government understand what a damaging impact this will have on morale? The second grievance that is fully justified is the sub-standard housing for service men and women and their families. Real resentment at the incompetence and lack of motivation of MHS, the company responsible for service accommodation, is apparent at many units I have visited. The strength of feeling is considerable. There is little confidence in the approach of MHS or in its service. In his recent report, the CGS said that he was, "““hugely irritated by the initial contract delivery standards of MHS””." He went on to acknowledge that efforts are being made to improve these standards. Can the Minister assure us that MHS is now focusing sustained attention on improving its performance and customer satisfaction? A few weeks ago the Lords Defence Group visited Wellington Barracks. To say that we were all shocked by what we saw is an understatement. It is quite wrong that service men and women are forced to accept these very sub-standard living conditions. I was grateful to hear the Minister’s assurance in her opening speech that there are going to be considerable improvements to Wellington Barracks. Admiral Timothy Laurence, Chief Executive of Defence Estates, recently spoke to the Lords Defence Group. I was heartened by his address and I am confident that he will get a grip on the problems of service accommodation. Will the Minister assure us that further instalments of payments for Chelsea Barracks are secure and have been ring-fenced, as we were told they would be, for defence accommodation? Thirdly, I am concerned at the premature voluntary retirement of too many service men and women in all three services, particularly middle-ranking officers and NCOs who we can ill afford to lose. One area for downward adjustment of spending lies in programmes for the future provision of technologically advanced kit. I will not venture into that today but of one thing I am certain: our most important resource, our most valuable capability, is our people and the Government must stop short-changing them. It is well recognised today that through-life capability management is a key objective where kit is concerned. The same should and must apply to the capability that is our people. The White Paper and the interim report of our covenant commission are the necessary first steps to that end.