SAC0018

Written evidence submitted by Major Andrew Meeke

SERVICE ACCOMMODATION – CALL FOR EVIDENCE

1.           Introduction. Aspects of the new accommodation model reduce the offer to a point where I, and many of my contemporaries, are actively considering and seeking alternative employment. This note will focus on some of the key disadvantages that affect serving personnel at my stage of career and life; senior Captains and above.

2.           Personal Circumstances. I am a Major, currently serving at the Army Headquarters. When I joined the Army in 2011 housing was not one of the factors the affected my choices, I lived in the Mess with the other Officers in my Regiment. Housing began to be something that affected me in 2018 when I got married and moved with my new wife into a three-bed “Type V” house. Our daughter was born while we were living in this house, and it was perfectly suitable for our needs. We currently live in another three-bed house of the same type in Tidworth. This house is below entitlement as a Major’s “Type IV” house was not available, but it is adequate for our needs. My wife works from home, something she has been able to do in the four quarters in four different locations we have lived in so far, and needs a room to be able to use as an office. We need a spare room as part of our childcare arrangements involve parents, who need to stay over periodically. These experiences frame the details below but are not the sole underpinning factor; there are other more personal elements that I will not detail but are relevant to my specific case. This is not an argument for Officers to be protected above others, it is an argument that aspects of the new accommodation model are poorly thought through and will result in increased outflow as “the offer”[1] continues to be eroded. My points are detailed below.

3.           Military Discipline and Residential Life. The removal of a divide between Officers’ and Other Ranks’ estates is likely to reduce the operational effectiveness of the Army and increase the discomfort those living on estates. One of the great advantages of a military “patch” is that you are surrounded by others with a similar outlook on life, and those at a similar life stage. This may have the perception of snobbery, or classism, and the mind may leap towards an officer looking down on soldiers and not wanting to have anything to do with people from a different background, but this is not the case. I have lived next door to direct entry, late entry and international officers and have been able to find common ground with all of them. A true “snob” is a rare thing in the Army, where personnel uphold the core value of respect for others by default. Familiarity does, however, breed contempt which undermines professional effectiveness if an officer may be quartered next door to a soldier who may conceivably be one of their own soldiers. A divide between officers and soldiers is necessary in maintaining good order and discipline and Officers are regularly told not to overdo socialising for this reason. The impact to mental health must also be considered; a home is supposed to be a place where you can relax without undue work pressures being imposed on you. If a soldier comes home from a day at work and sees their neighbour wearing an officers’ rank, or vice versa, they are essentially still at work. They will feel they must “perform” the whole time, despite their life being laid open to a senior or subordinate. During the accommodation roadshow, answers to questions stated that, “people are expected to live side by side as ‘good neighbours’”. Soldiers are expected to refer to officers as Sir or Ma’am regardless of the circumstances or setting which will make both sides uncomfortable in a residential setting. This blending of work and life is unfair to all concerned.

4.           Entitlement. My family, and others like mine, will suffer from a reduction in entitlement which will affect spousal ability to work and childcare arrangements while raising the perception that small families are being penalised. During the first Tri-Service Accommodation Roadshow held at RAF Brize Norton on 28 Sept 23, it was stated that the entitlement for a family with a single child is a two bedroom house. This entitlement should be considered substandard for the majority of families with any number of children of any rank.

1.           Personnel in the Army can spend a significant proportion of time away from home on exercises and deployments. Spouses are put under significant pressure when families are posted to locations away from an established support network and often rely on support from family coming to stay for periods of time, for which a spare room is required. A spare room is not a luxury, it should be considered an essential part of the housing offer. Families with two children who are allocated a three bed house may create a spare bedroom by putting two children in the same room, although housing policy should not force this personal choice on behalf of service families. A family with a single child who are allocated a two bed house cannot, however, make this choice and are penalised. The minimum entitlement for any family with any number of children must provide for a spare bedroom as an essential part of family support.

2.           Working from home is prevalent across the country, supported by a range of military organisations. In the Army Headquarters we include sections about staff being supported in hybrid working in all job specifications, the iHub provides IT equipment for working from home and working from home is the first step in many business continuity plans. It has been shown that the lack of a dedicated work space when working from home negatively impacts mental health.[2] Families often use a spare room as a home office as a way of separating home and family life, despite this facility often being removed while the room is in use. This often allows a spouse to remain with the same company and not be disadvantaged by the necessity to move regularly. A family with a single child who are put into a two bedroom house do not have this facility which either removes their ability to have a dedicated workspace negatively affecting their mental health, forces them back to the office at potentially disproportionate cost, or forces them to give up their job. The Military Covenant aims to support spouses in career retention and progression[3] yet the New Accommodation Offer does not. The requirement for a room to use as a study or home office must be a part of the criteria used to assess a family’s entitlement.

3.           The panel stated that the alternatives to SFA were to rent privately or to take assistance in buying a house, neither of which are appropriate alternatives. If renting privately, it was briefed that an allowance would be given based on the market average of home at the family’s entitlement. If the family entitlement is a two bedroom house, noting the paragraphs above, then they will not be able to get a house appropriate to their needs without being significantly out of pocket. This equates to a real terms pay cut for families who choose not to or are unable to have children. If buying a house, this ties the family to a single location. This potentially ties the service person into living away from their family during the week at personal and financial cost. This removes flexibility from families that may be prepared to move at the expense of the Services.

5.           Remuneration. Questions posed to the panel on the Accommodation Roadshow received an answer stating that, “many service personnel do not live in service accommodation and therefore do not receive a “reward” from rank based entitlements”.[4] The inverted commas were not inserted by me but were used by the author. This response fails to note that personnel who currently do not live in Service Accommodation do so as a personal choice, this is not for the Service to exploit as a means of justifying a new policy. Service accommodation is not a reward, it is a way of enabling the family mobility needed in an Army that posts Nationally and Internationally. The reply goes on to say that “reward for seniority and rank [will be] recognised through pay”. The implication is that currently, personnel receive housing which contributes materially towards pay, and therefore the offer. A reduction in entitlement after the three year “transitional protection” period does, therefore, count as a substantial reduction in the offer.

6.           Conclusion. Morale in the Army is low. Cuts to the size of the Army without a corresponding reduction in tasks have led to overstretching and over commitment of personnel, “trawling” of personnel at short notice for a range of tasks and increased uncertainty. With all of this, pay has not kept up with inflation year on year, despite a recent pay award. The current accommodation offer is not perfect and needs overhaul, but this must not happen at the expense of a large proportion of those who rely on military accommodation. The current model removes a large incentive to remain in service and must be reconsidered.

3 October 2023