Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Armed Forces: Diversity and Inclusion

Monday 21 February 2022 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Jane Stevenson asked about steps to improve diversity and inclusion in the armed forces, focusing on recruitment efforts in Wolverhampton.
  • Jane Stevenson inquired about supporting disabled veterans, noting the closure of the veterans mobility fund and the financial burden this places on charities.
  • Stephanie Peacock asked about the status of consultations regarding visa fees for service members, expressing interest in potential announcements.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Jane Stevenson
Employment Veterans
Context

The question addresses the steps being taken by the Ministry of Defence to improve diversity and inclusion within the armed forces.

Question

What steps his Department is taking to improve diversity and inclusion in the armed forces. The MP asked about improving recruitment in areas like Wolverhampton, which has a high rate of unemployment, to ensure young people are aware of opportunities in the armed forces.

Answer from Leo Docherty

I should put it on record that Wolverhampton has a long and very proud tradition of people in the armed forces. What we can do is point out that recruiting is undergoing constant improvement. I invite my hon. Friend to visit her Army recruitment centre on Queen Street in Wolverhampton to celebrate the amazing careers on offer for young people.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The answer did not provide specific steps or initiatives beyond inviting the MP to visit a recruitment center.

How: Inviting To Visit A Recruitment Center

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Jane Stevenson
Veterans
Context

The question pertains to the closure of the veterans mobility fund and the financial burden it places on charities like Help for Heroes, who now must fund essential mobility equipment not available through the NHS.

Question

Improving diversity and inclusion in the armed forces must also mean supporting disabled veterans. The veterans mobility fund closed last year, passing the financial burden to charities such as Help for Heroes to fund essential mobility equipment that is not available on the NHS. As forces charities face funding pressures, does the Minister feel that that decision is fair?

Answer from Leo Docherty

Of course we face constant pressures, but I should put it on record that we have doubled the amount that normally goes into supporting our magnificent armed forces charities. It is only right that we work in partnership with those magnificent people.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The answer did not address the fairness of closing the veterans mobility fund or provide specifics on financial support for essential mobility equipment.

How: Acknowledging Constant Pressures

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Stephanie Peacock Lab Barnsley South
Immigration Defence
Context

The question relates to the lobbying efforts for abating or eliminating visa fees as a function of service, particularly focusing on any forthcoming consultations or announcements.

Question

On inclusion, the Defence Secretary will be aware that several parliamentarians have been lobbying hard, but privately, to get visa fees abated or preferably culled completely as a function of service. Please may I ask where we are with the consultation and with any announcements that may be forthcoming?

Answer from Leo Docherty

We acknowledge with gratitude my hon. Friend's active role in the debate. He should wait for news this week on that issue.

Not addressed: The answer did not provide specific information or timelines regarding consultations and announcements about visa fees.

How: Asking To Wait For News

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)