Helen Maguire MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward. Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said: “Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.” Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes. Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy. Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards. This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges. The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges. I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me: “We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.” Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is home to two significant rivers: the Hogsmill, a pristine chalk stream; and the River Mole, which tragically ranks as one of the most polluted rivers in the country. The River Mole, stretching 50 miles from Sussex to the Thames, is more than a waterway; it is a much-loved amenity for families, walkers and wildlife. Yet it is fighting for its life. Sewage discharges surpassed 2023 levels by November this year, with over 12,500 hours of raw sewage polluting the river through storm overflows. That is unacceptable. The crisis has been caused by water companies’ mismanagement, enabled by Ofwat’s failure to hold them to account. Thames Water has prioritised shareholder dividends over infrastructure investment, and Ofwat has issued no fines for sewage treatment failures since 2021—an extraordinary regulatory failure. The Water (Special Measures) Bill introduces vital provisions to block bonuses for water company executives and to impose fines. Although these measures are welcome, they do not go far enough. Ofwat is a regulator that does not work, and it must be replaced with a new regulator with powers to ban bonuses comprehensively, to revoke licences for poor performance and to set legally binding sewage targets. Bonuses must be blocked not just for pollution, but for persistent leaks, missed investment targets and failing infrastructure improvements. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that the companies are held accountable for all their failures, not just the most egregious ones. We must also rethink water company ownership. Since privatisation, those companies have accumulated £68 billion of debt, while paying out £70 billion in dividends. Customers are now paying for that debt in their bills. In a public-benefit model operating as not for profit, debt-free mutuals would reinvest all profits into upgrading our water system. That model works. Denmark, whose not-for-profit utilities have some of the lowest water losses, ranks among the top EU countries for bathing water quality. Closer to home, I commend the River Mole river watch group in my constituency. Those dedicated volunteers test water quality and report pollution online. Their work is extraordinary, but they should not have to do it alone. Water companies must publish detailed and transparent data on sewage spills so that the public understands the full extent of the problem. Such local groups deserve more than praise; they need a seat at the table. Those environmental champions should have representation on water company boards, bringing community-driven accountability to decision making. My constituents and the rest of the public are sick of seeing their rivers turned into open sewers. They are sick of paying higher water bills to subsidise shareholder profits and executive bonuses while vital investment is neglected. The Government must go further by replacing Ofwat with a new regulator that has stronger powers, expanding the ban on bonuses, empowering local communities, and reorganising water companies into public benefit organisations. This is our chance to turn the tide on water mismanagement and restore our rivers to health. The people of Epsom and Ewell, and indeed of the whole country, deserve no less.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Epsom and Ewell, local charities such as the Sunnybank Trust are seeing a lack of employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities. In fact, only 6.9% of people with learning disabilities are currently in paid work. What measures is the DWP taking to support employers to help individuals with learning disabilities to get into work?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must uphold its obligations to the International Criminal Court by supporting investigations into alleged war crimes in the region and enforcing any resulting rulings?

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time. Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard. The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible. Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—

• 12 Dec 2024 · LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault. Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him. David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach. These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected. The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”. The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return. This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture. The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Am en d men t, by leave, withdrawn .

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert— “(5A) The Commissioner must— (a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions; (b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.” This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions. The armed forces covenant is “a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.” I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On amendment 3, we feel that the financial and practical assistance of the commissioner must be absolutely appropriate. It is crucial that there is this resource, and that the commissioner can carry out the dual role of both promoting the welfare of service personnel and their families and improving public awareness of these issues. If those ambitions are to be met, alongside the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role that are to be assumed into the commissioner’s remit, the commissioner needs to be properly resourced. That is why we feel that amendment 3 needs to be included in the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert— “3 A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner. 3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner. 3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee. 3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate. 3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty. 3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.” This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval. As numerous hon. Members have outlined, it is incredibly important that the role of the commissioner be completely independent and be scrutinised across the parties. We feel it is important for a parliamentary Select Committee to play a role in the commissioning process. It would allow cross-party consensus and would ensure that the commissioner, whoever they may be, is truly independent and can make the right decisions and examinations as appropriate.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for providing the reassurances that I think the Committee needs in order to ensure that there is absolute scrutiny. It is good to hear that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee. We hope that that will ensure that the commissioner who is appointed is truly independent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended timeframe for— (a) the appointment of the Commissioner; (b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman; (c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational. We have tabled amendment 6 because currently no time frame is set out in the Bill. We believe it is important for a time frame to be set out and we feel that the Government should be held to account on that. Otherwise, the process could continue for several years. We feel it is important for both the armed forces and the MOD to know exactly when the Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished and the commissioner appointed, and when the powers of the commissioner will take effect. At least setting out a time frame would have some strength.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners “Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of – (a) how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner; (b) how the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will each ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”— (Mr Francois.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting; I was in the Etherton review debate in the main Chamber, contributing on important LGBTQ+ issues. I see that my amendments fell in my absence, and I hope that nothing detrimental was said about my absence, considering the importance of the Etherton review for LGBT veterans. Moving on to recruits, it is essential that the commissioner can also investigate issues facing recruits, who sometimes have to stay on bases overnight. Upon reading the Bill, I saw that there is an absence of consideration of recruits, which is why I tabled the new clause—to make sure that they are also considered in the Bill.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Mr Dowd, for your excellent chairmanship of this debate and I thank the Minister for his reassuring responses. I really look forward to working with him on these issues. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the debate. It was really helpful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined the different domestic challenges that we have had and continue to have. I also personally thank the EOD community for all their hard work in keeping us safe 365 days a year. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) about all the countries around the world where we are working to de-mine, including Angola, Cambodia and Lebanon, as well as Ukraine. That work continues. Hon. Members have highlighted the importance of continuing to support our veterans, especially those with prosthetic limbs, and civilians with prosthetic limbs as well. Among those of us who have served, many will know people who were killed or injured by explosive ordnance; indeed, many Members explained that today. It is therefore vital that we continue to support our veterans. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead also talked about how mines impact women globally and their ability to continue to work post conflict, and how important it is that de-mining supports our global humanitarian goals and the UN SDGs. The work there is vital. Again, I express thanks for the contribution of all the charities that help all the de-mining work globally. That includes the HALO Trust and others. Finally, I want to talk about the APPG. I do not know whether Vicky McClure is listening today, but she raised the profile of the EOD community in her “Trigger Point” series. I hope that if she is listening, she can perhaps come along in January and help to launch the APPG. I extend an invitation to colleagues to join the new APPG, to engage with our planned inquiries and to support the incredible efforts of those in our mine action, explosive ordnance disposal and victim assistance communities. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered Government support for the explosive ordnance disposal community.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the explosive ordnance disposal community. I am delighted to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate. It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Minister to his place. The United Kingdom’s capacity in explosive weapons disposal and victim assistance requires the utmost Government support, particularly at a time of extreme geopolitical unrest. Two weeks ago in Parliament, I met specialists from our explosive ordnance disposal community, the military, the police, the commercial sector, academia and related non-governmental organisations. Among other things, we discussed the United Kingdom’s enviable global reputation for expertise in search and disposal and victim assistance. As well as a global reputation, we have global reach: impacted countries around the world turn to the UK to provide search-and-disposal assistance, policy advice and training. We also have a vibrant EOD equipment production and export sector. Our humanitarian mine action delivery, through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s global mine action programme, sees our major charities working on almost every continent. With a budget of £14.8 million for 2023-24, the programme is the UK’s main vehicle for tackling the threat posed by landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war. We have all seen the photographs of Princess Diana in a minefield in Angola, but there is so much more that the United Kingdom does to make the world safe from explosive weapons, including within our own borders. At our meeting, we agreed that the UK certainly has the capability, but our capacity to cope with the major conflicts that are currently happening and those that are in danger of flaring up may well be stretched. These conflicts will result in an overwhelming need for explosive weapons disposal expertise once any form of peace is allowed to descend. Explosive weapons are being used in modern conflicts to an extent that we have not seen for generations. The number of people killed and injured by explosive weapons is mind-numbingly high. In the past three years, there has been a 70% increase in civilian casualties, with the conflicts in Ukraine and the middle east as the major cause. Ukraine now has more amputees than the UK has military personnel. In 1999, the anti-personnel mine ban convention, also known as the Ottawa convention or the mine ban treaty, came into force. The UK was one of its first signatories. It was soon followed by the convention on cluster munitions in 2010. Neither Russia nor the United States signed either convention; Ukraine did. The USA is now offering Ukraine the use of anti-personnel landmines—weapons that Russia has been using since day one of the conflict. Aggressors throughout history have never let the rules of war or international probation interrupt a good night’s sleep, while those countries that hold the rule of law dear are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back. We are not in any position to stop Ukraine using landmines or cluster munitions, but we can help it to clear up the mess once the hostilities are over. Landmines are not a new weapon, but technological advances have made them increasingly sophisticated and dangerous. The sheer variety of weapons being used in Ukraine—from cold war-era landmines to airdropped Russian munitions, which are now triggered seismically by recognising approaching footsteps—poses a huge challenge to those sent to clear them. Many new smart weapons are battery-powered, and the claim is that once the battery goes flat, the weapon is no longer a threat, but there is still a piece of explosive material stuck in the ground and it still needs to be cleared. It will take decades to make the land safe again. The task of search and clearance will be vast, but the UK is in a strong position to play a leading role in helping Ukraine to clear the explosive threats. Since my meeting in Parliament with the professionals, I have had an online briefing with a British EOD specialist based in Ukraine. I asked him what his particular concerns were and where he felt the UK could make a difference. His first response was about the lack of trained personnel required to address the magnitude of contamination in Ukraine. Some 150,000 sq km of land is considered at risk and in need of survey before clearance can take place. Even with the likelihood of 75% to 80% of that area not being physically contaminated, it would take at least 10,000 de-miners working all year round for 10 years to make the land safe, at a conservative estimate. Currently, we think that there may be 2,000 de-miners in Ukraine. That led us on to discussing the availability of suitable equipment. The EOD specialist’s major concern is the lack of co-ordination among equipment donor countries and companies. The operators know that equipment is available, even in-country, but they do not know exactly what or where. That leads to a lack of clarity on what is still required and what specific training needs to be on offer. There are land clearance machines from various countries, including Armtrac machines from the UK, but they can be used only in very particular terrains, and there are a multitude of different terrains to be cleared. The lack of donor co-ordination is not unique to Ukraine. It is an issue on which the UK is in a good position to lead at a diplomatic level in donor co-ordination meetings at the UN. Also of concern to the operators, and not unique to Ukraine, is the issue of export, import and control licensing. De-mining equipment is being supplied to Ukraine, but the licences to use it are not being issued by the Ukrainian authorities. Our de-miner said: “I can guarantee that there is equipment in a warehouse somewhere that should be in the field. Equipment like this will be collecting dust because of the lack of licensing and suitable training.” There is a role for the UK to negotiate an easing of restrictions with Ukrainians. I asked about the role of emerging technology in survey and clearance work. Our de-miner’s response was that technology was a useful additional role, but nothing could provide a perfect solution for every context. Total assured clearance can only really be achieved by suitably trained human operatives on the ground. I might add at this point that a number of UK academic institutions are at the forefront of research into highly sophisticated de-mining technologies, such as drone-mounted ground-penetrating radar, chemical signature analysis and ground anomaly analysis. If we are to improve the pace and scale of de-mining operations, we must ensure that research into de-mining technology receives support. On assistance to the appalling number of victims of exploding weapons, we discussed the possible role for de-mining operators to take on injured former combatants and retrain them as de-miners or equipment technicians. This would give the veterans a sense of purpose in the continuing defence of their country. The Revive campaign here in the UK is working to co-ordinate a PhD programme with Imperial College and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy to investigate the link between blast injury and self-identity in civilians and the military. The results of that research will inform our approach to victim assistance in many other conflicts and contexts around the world. As a final point about UK specialists operating in complex environments, our de-miner said that the role of the UK insurance industry was vital to allowing them to operate in areas such as Ukraine or the middle east. Our UK regulatory framework on insurance companies ensures that specialist policies for de-mining activities are considered fit for purpose. Returning to our theme of the UK’s capability and capacity, explosive weapon clearance is not just about saving lives and land release. Our EOD activity can be a tool for peace building, economic development and reconstruction in post-conflict countries. It can be a powerful diplomatic tool. At a time when there is a seismic shift in geopolitical power, the UK needs a suite of effective and impactful diplomatic tools. Our EOD specialism is one such tool. The UK Government are rightly focused on bringing the conflicts to an end. We are supplying much-needed equipment and materials to Ukraine, and our defence industries are heavily supported by our trade and export Departments. But are we overlooking our post-conflict services? How much consideration is there in Whitehall for the EOD task? When conflicts are over, there is a need to return the land to its previous use—in the case of Ukraine, often agricultural use. This brings jobs, enables individuals to support their families, and supports the local economy and global food security. I have mentioned that the rise in victim numbers was huge. Victims, both physically and psychologically, are scarred for life. At the meeting two weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking to three victims of explosive weapons: one who was a refugee from Ukraine and two who had taken their children to a pop concert in Manchester. They had similar stories, although from very different contexts. When an explosive weapon is cleared, a threat has been removed, a life has been saved and a job has been well done, but for a victim of an explosive weapon, their whole life has been changed. What we hear from victims is that there is plenty of support and medical attention at the time of impact, but over time they become forgotten. Hard-stretched local health services and charities are left to care for them—not just civilian but military victims. I have already referred to the psychological trauma associated with an injury in Ukraine and the research into the impact on self-identity. One of the voices at my meeting was that of a leading surgeon at the Centre for Blast Injury Studies at Imperial College, a UK institution leading the field of research into understanding the impact of blast on the human body and developing the tools to protect the body from blast and the prosthetics for those who fall victim. It is only relatively recently that, through Centre for Blast Injury Studies research, we have started to learn about the differences in the impact on male and female bodies. For de-miners, the one traditional size of protective gear does not fit the female physique. Last year, the centre produced a field manual on paediatric blast injury, which was quickly translated into Ukrainian and Arabic. That document tragically highlights the fact that children are increasingly becoming the victims of explosive weapons. We are privileged in this country to have some of the best facilities for dealing with the physical and psychological impacts of blast, but do we have the resources and political will to provide the lifelong support that many victims require? How much consideration is given in Whitehall to long-term victim assistance, both globally and domestically? Clearing the millions of explosive remnants of war will take a huge effort and will cost billions of pounds, and supporting the victims needs the same level of attention. I began this debate by saying how positively we are seen in the world for our explosive ordnance disposal capability. I related a story from a de-miner in Ukraine, I explained the importance of long-term victim assistance, and I have asked two questions of the Minister. I am currently drawing together a new all-party parliamentary group on explosive weapons and their impact. I hope that this debate will be the first of many conversations with the Minister and his colleagues on the issues that I have raised today.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to understand how you view the overall welfare services offered by the military? How do you see the commissioner working to improve areas where you might feel that improvement is required? Abby Dryden: I can only speak about my organisation’s experience of working with the pre-existing welfare structures. The vast majority of the time those structures work very well, and they work well because of the people who are involved; they care about personnel. In my experience, I have only ever encountered a positive approach from military processes, structures and the chain of command side of things in terms of addressing the issues that we present to them. They are very much interested in the quality of life that personnel enjoy. In terms of how I see the commissioner supporting that, how it could be different and where there might be gaps, there is always room for improvement. For example, younger people joining the military may have a different expectation of what that structure should represent to them, how they should be able to access services and the proximity that that institution has to their quality of life and the quality of their family’s life. I would say that the commissioner should focus on the changing expectation of new recruits and young people. That might be a positive addition.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mandy, are there any particular challenges you see that naval communities face in contrast with the other services? Mandy Harding: It is difficult to know how distinct our challenges are, because I do not know the challenges that the communities of my colleagues face. Somebody told me that the Army tend to work within family groupings and units, whereas the Navy take a village to sea. I thought that was an interesting analogy of the difference. That brings different issues. Lengths of deployment are different. Beyond that, I am not sure I can offer you more because I am not sighted on my colleagues’ areas of expertise.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Let me ask Air Commodore Harper the same question about the RAF. Do you see any particular challenges not seen in the other services? Air Commodore Simon Harper: I would make two points. There is a community and a family around a particular RAF station, of which there are 24 or 26 in the UK and others elsewhere, but there is increasingly a diaspora of families who live elsewhere, separated from that base. You have individuals who are weekend commuting to a different location where there is not the localised support for a family. It varies. Generally speaking, historically, the support has always been focused around a serving base for the Royal Air Force. Increasingly, we need to reach out into other areas of the UK, where families have now settled for other reasons. That diaspora is UK-wide, in the UK context. It is a different challenge and there are different needs associated with both.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We would all like the Bill’s provisions to be accessible to all service personnel. How can the Secretary of State ensure that it will be accessible to everyone, including reservists, female personnel, the LGBTQ+ community, and non-UK, black and minority ethnic personnel? Luke Pollard: The hon. Lady is a relatively new Member in this House. If she had been here over the last seven years, she would have seen this massive gay over here—me—speaking loudly about equality matters. I feel incredibly strongly about this. From an armed forces point of view, we should value all our people. That is the intent of this Bill: to provide an opportunity for all our service people and their families—a cohort of people absolutely essential for the delivery of our national security who have often been forgotten in legislative and some MOD approaches in the past. There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner was undertaking their reports, they would be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and families. I would expect that to be present. If looking at some of the equivalent reports we have seen, there would be an opportunity for the commissioner to look at the experience not only of the whole armed forces but groups within it—however those may be defined. There would be an opportunity for the commissioner to make that distinction in experience, not just in determining what issue to raise but also how they investigate it. I would expect that to be front and centre. If it is not included, I would expect Parliament to be able to scrutinise and ask questions of the commissioner in due course.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Maria, the same question to you. You understand the difficulties and challenges that RAF families face. How can the commissioner help support that? Maria Lyle: I will not replay what my colleagues have said. Collette articulated a lot of the challenges that RAF families would also face in terms of their mobility. We very much see that. The thing that sums it up for me is the line that says that part of the role is improving public awareness of the welfare issues that serving families and personnel face, which I would wholeheartedly support. My only slight qualm about that is that it works two ways. Having a role that coalesces that understanding and helps us amplify people’s voices could be really powerful. I would like to put on the record that I think it would be helpful if it is done in a way that supports the role in general, rather than put people off joining our military. Part of the challenge the military has at the moment is the impact of gapping and poor retention. This needs to be a part of bolstering the offer and talking about some of the benefits and challenges of military life. Otherwise we run the risk of making life worse for people because retention falls even lower. I recognise that is straying into a different area, but I would not want an opportunity to become a threat.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sarah, a very similar question, because I know that you mentioned enabling families to thrive in communities of their choice. How do you feel the commissioner could work to support families to achieve that? Sarah Clewes: It is about just being mindful that not all naval families live around the base port areas. You would expect that some do, and that is absolutely fine, but others choose to live wherever their support network or employment is. Actually, dispersed families are much more common than you would perhaps think, because there is that assumption that everyone lives in service family accommodation around a base port area, but they absolutely do not. It is about trying to reach those people who are very happy and thriving in their community of choice, who may not need any support from the Navy. Actually, when they do, hopefully they have a life-changing event or do not know about the free swimming and sailing that is available to them. It is about spreading the net really wide and saying, “If you ever need that support, we are here for you, in whatever guise that may be.” Welfare is absolutely not our part of ship, but it is about actually giving that little nugget of information to take away a little bit of pain. They may be juggling a very successful career and childcare while their partner or spouse is at sea or—worse still—under the water for six months, with absolutely no contact or very limited contact. When appreciating service life, it is all very well to think that we know what it means, but we really have to understand what it means across a huge range of issues, and family dynamics are huge. We really need to be mindful of who we are talking about when we talk about families, and let’s not just pigeonhole folk and think we know. Therefore, it is important that the commissioner does what we do on a daily basis. They have to ask, “What does that look like for naval families? VAT on school fees, what does that look like for naval families? Have you given them the information they need to make those informed choices or will they have to half-guess and hope that a hardship fund will become available so that they can get through Christmas?” It could be really impactful, and like Colette, I am absolutely interested to see how this could develop.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will start from the left and go to the Army first. It is nice to meet you, Collette, and thank you for coming. I want to understand what challenges you see with families getting the support they need, and how you think the commissioner will help to address those challenges in their role. Collette Musgrave: The challenges that we see with families getting the support they need can be articulated as both internal and external. Internal services and processes are the ones that Defence offers to families in order to maintain service family life, and then there are those provided by what one might characterise as external agencies—whether that is local authorities, the NHS, educational provision or whatever. The nature of the challenge can be different depending on with whom families are seeking to engage. The challenges within the internal system can be largely about not being able to access the right information, not being given the right information when asking for it, consistency of the information and guidance that is given, and consistency of the provision. As we have spoken about, Army families in particular are very mobile, and what they are provided with in one location might be very different to what they are provided with in another, both in extent and quality of provision. We would really like to see the Armed Forces Commissioner do something on that in their role. As the Army Families Federation, we absolutely welcome the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner with, as the Secretary of State said, a laser-like focus on the serving experience, which is often lost when talking about the armed forces community—those who are actually serving at the moment. We believe the Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in looking at the consistency of provision of both policy and processes within defence. Many of the concerns that come to us are a result of mixed information and mixed messages, and families not being able to access the provision that is there because they simply do not know how to access it or are being blocked in some way. Externally, the issue is subtly different. There is not an unwillingness from the general UK population to support service personnel and their families. What there is sometimes is a lack of knowledge and understanding. In many of the large organisations that they are interfacing with, whether that is the NHS, a local authority or the Department for Work and Pensions, there is often a lack of understanding of the unique circumstances of service personnel and their families. It is difficult sometimes for those families in particular, who are to an extent slightly outside society—I am not articulating that well, because that is not what I want to say, particularly as a former service family and veteran myself. Often with housing, as well as sometimes healthcare and education—particularly if they are overseas or move back from overseas—their interfaces with external statutory authorities are not always straightforward and can vary hugely as they move around the country. Your experience in Scotland might be very different to your experience in England. Their ability to interface effectively with those services can sometimes be compromised. Many of these organisations have signed up to the armed forces covenant. The people at the top are very happy to sign up to the armed forces covenant and say, “Yes, we made a great commitment.” The people on the frontline, who are actually dealing with our service personnel and their families, are often not so well-informed and do not necessarily fully understand some of the additional or different provision that has been made under the terms of the armed forces covenant. Those are the big handfuls, and to finally answer your question, those two key areas are where the Armed Forces Commissioner could help.