SAC0051
Written evidence submitted anonymously
FUTURE ACCOMMODATION MODEL / NEW ACCOMODATION OFFER EVIDENCE
About the author: I am a regular army Major currently commanding a subunit. I am married with a child who has autism and other special educational needs. We live as a family in Service Families Accommodation. I have served for over 10 years.
I am writing to express my concern over the new accommodation model, which I worry will cause talent and diversity to haemorrhage from the army, and subsequently reduce our capability on land. It also contravenes law by inadvertently discriminating against a protected characteristic: disability.
Improving the lived experience of service personnel is a noble task, and one that we as commanders strive to achieve every day. NAO’s increased options for long-term relationships and support for those who weekly commute are both good news. The issue with NAO will be Service Families Accommodation (SFA) in garrison towns such as Aldershot, Tidworth, Bulford, Catterick, or, where demand outstrips supply.
The principal issue is that NAO decides entitlement based simply on the number of children, rather than attempting to model a more realistic definition of need. Basing it solely on number of children is an issue because of the following logic:
- Defining need by number of children breaches the disability discrimination act. This is because it inadvertently discriminates against a protected characteristic.[1] It’s like building steps at the entrance to a building because it’s the simplest solution and works for the majority. We have a son with autism and other delays. When I deploy on exercise for six weeks, or operations for six months, grandparents stay to help support my wife. He has sensory equipment to get him through the day, such as a quiet dark tent, and a trampoline. In short, managing his disability requires additional space which does not increase one’s entitlement. Counterarguments about being able to opt one entitlement up are hollow falsehoods, because every larger house will already be occupied due to the minimal cost differentiation and competition outlined below.
- Service Families Accommodation in garrison towns is in short supply. There is very little cost differentiation between the best and worst two or three bed houses. This means that paying just £50-100 pounds more could provide a house that is significantly larger, but has the same number of bedrooms. There will therefore be fierce competition for the best houses in each entitlement bracket, which are currently the officers’ houses.
- Over the past ten years, efforts to provide stability for service families have included super-garrisons and the forces help to buy scheme. These produce stability, and mean someone could spend their entire career in the same location. This is true for single unit ‘capbadges’, such as the Kings Royal Hussars. But it is not true for the larger corps, such as the Royal Engineers, Artillery, or Signals; who post as individuals between several units scattered across the country. It is also not true for officers who post around the country more frequently
- These last two bullet points together are really important because the way you currently secure the ‘best’ house is through word of mouth to understand when an opening will appear, phoning the housing management team, and then retrospectively completing an e1132 online application. This is how we secured our house, and it’s how most people on the road did the same. The people with the best intelligence network to game the housing system will end up in the best houses. Inevitably, this will be personnel in static units who will ensure their friends move in next door and subsequently remain there indefinitely. In short, it removes a rank-based inequality, and trades it for a capbadge inequality that is much harder to see, measure, or even justify.
- The British Army is running a strategic deterrence marathon at a sprint pace to prove its value for money to the treasury, and protect against future cuts. This pace is only sustainable because key senior non-commissioned officers and reasonably junior officers are working long hours behind the scenes to keep the organisation afloat. The roles that carry this weight are well known; those that want to advance their career aim for them, those that are deadweight avoid them at all costs. These people have to work from home. As a subunit commander leading over 100 people, I am one of them. At 10 or 11 PM, many of the key players in my team and the wider regiment are online. If the purpose of service family’s accommodation is to enhance operational capability, then working from home is a need for specific roles. The army has the systems in place to ‘tag’ these roles with this additional need, ensuring that people have the space for a small home office.
- Lastly, it is retention negative for those who are unable to have children, or are in same-sex relationships. The Army is trying to shake off its image of being ‘pale, male, and stale’. The leaders of the Army in 2050 are junior officers today. Same-sex couples bring much needed diversity, but their lived experience is going to reduce significantly under NAO. NAO is going to actively retain traditional heterosexual couples able to have children at the expense of anyone who does not fit this mould.
The FAM/NAO roadshows repeatedly answer questions with two counterarguments; both of which are flawed.
- First, that there will be a three-year transition period before changes come into effect. I have a regular commission until nearly 2050. A transition period over the next three years is not going to alter whether I feel able to continue to serve under NAO for another two decades.
- Second, that service personnel can opt to live in a house one up or down to their entitlement. There is far more demand than supply in service housing at most garrison towns. With the minimal cost differentiation and demand outstripping supply, this option will never materialise. Repeatedly suggesting it as the solution to difficult questions is naïve.
To conclude, three recommendations to improve NAO.
- Amend the definition of need to account for disability and special education needs.
- Amend the definition of need so that specific roles have space to work from home.
- Reframe the three-year transition period as a five-year trial period, to fully gauge the impact on Defence.
I hope that you can help change an accommodation model that has the best of intentions at heart, but requires significant further thought before implementation. Thank you for taking the time to read my perspective.
30 October 2023