SAC0065

Written evidence submitted anonymously

SERVICE ACCOMMODATION – CALL FOR EVIDENCE

Submission of evidence in reference to:

Question 6. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Future accommodation Model? How successful was the Future Accommodation Pilot and what should the MOD take forward to include in the new accommodation offer?

Introduction

I am the wife of a serving Army Officer (Major). We have two small children. We have had five homes in the past six years, including a posting abroad. I have given up a well-paid career I loved to support my husband in his mobility and provide essential stability for our family. My husband has been on various tours since we’ve been together (not to mention the countless extended exercises and training), including a 7-month tour four days after the birth of our youngest child, with no R&R due to covid. This left me home alone, with two children under two. I am from a military family, and take the stresses and strains of all that military life throws at us in my stride. I am strong and capable, as are most of the other spouses I have been lucky enough to encounter on our journey. However, it is far from easy; there are countless sacrifices as a family; long periods when my husband is away, potentially in danger, missing out on our children growing up, lots of solo parenting on my part, being far from friends and family, and constantly moving for the sake of the best jobs. All that it encompasses is difficult to comprehend from an outsider’s perspective, and there is a tipping point which makes all we endure untenable. My husband has always been at the top of his peer group and would have significant earning power in the civilian world. He has, until now, wanted to pursue a full military career (his contract runs to 2046 if he so wishes), however the New Accomodation Offer (NAO) brings this into question.

In the evidence below, I offer my perspective in three categories. First are general observations that offer context to why this policy has generated so much anger. Second, a personal perspective on how this erodes the offer to my family and third, some conclusions on the impact to the officer cohort in particular.

1.                General Observations

Our lived experience of life as an armed forces family to date is:

a)                     Patch life is essential, particularly for those who’s spouses are deployed. Being next to people at a similar stage in their lives to bond more closely. Whilst it might appear archaic to suggest patches divided by rank are beneficial, it is a view common across the Army and not one to be dismissed for fear of not being ‘on message’.

b)                    The condition of SFA is unacceptable as is the support from Pinnacle. When work needs to be done it isn’t properly executed (we lived on a building site with no garden for a year during covid because we had a constantly flooded garden, which was dug up and left as a building site). This is the overarching concern with SFA, not needs based entitlement. This is the real issue which Defence should be addressing.

c)                     Remuneration in the military is poor(particularly noticeable for someone of my husband’s age and rank)  when compared with similarly educated peers and civilian roles with comparable levels of responsibility.

d)                    The requirement to move often incurs a cost (as it has with me) on one of the spouse’s careers. This means many Army families are on a single income due to constant moves and the requirement to provide primary childcare during tours/exercises/ training. Often in the cases where spouses do work, they have to compromise on their earning potential.

e)                    The best officers and soldiers prioritise role over location as it offers better chances of promotion. The NAO is incompatible with incentivising career progression and mobility.

2.                Erosion of the Offer

a)                     We are currently entitled to a four-bed house, 137 square meters. Under the NAO we will be entitled to a three bed, 94.5 square meters. This is a significant reduction in entitlement and at odds with a basic principle that as one progresses in a career, there are commensurate benefits that come with promotion and greater responsibility. We have used the Forces Help To Buy Scheme to buy our own home (after we found no availability on the patch at my husband’s latest posting due to poor management of the SFA estate by DIO and Pinnacle[1]). This will support jobs that my husband applies for in and around the Wiltshire and Hampshire area, but not all. Indeed it is one of the realities of Army life that one is to a greater or lesser extent, expected to be mobile. Therefore, it is only fair to apply a commensurate housing benefit that allows officers to progress through the ranks and for that hard work to be reflected in something central to one’s sense of worth- a home for one’s family.

b)                    The type of house that we have been housed in also plays a huge role.  In my husband choosing a career in the armed forces, he earns a fraction of what our university peer group are now earning, and what he would expect to earn in the private sector. This is a choice he made for the opportunities military service provides and it is a sacrifice we make as a family. However, if we aren’t housed appropriately; proportionate to the level of responsibility he has, then a full career in the Army will become untenable and he will leave. He loves his career, but he is versatile and will be appropriately rewarded in a civilian career.

c)                     Armed forces housing allocated by rank isn’t a taxable reward as we keep being told. This is the narrative promoted by the NAO policy team, essentially that the Treasury is driving this on a technicality. However, the principle that money is the primary consideration rather than people (we are always told people are the Army’s top priority) suggests the MOD has not robustly challenged this position.  Housing allocated by rank is simply appropriate housing commensurate with the level we would expect in the civilian world. Without this, you will lose the very best, and erode the quality and ability of the armed forces. The NAO is incompatible with the priority to retain the best and brightest officers in the Army. Defence must challenge the Treasury when policy implications represent genuine risk to our national security (by losing quality officers).

d)                    When I listened to the NAO policy team briefs, the refrain has been ‘fair and equal to all’. That is not how the world works. The CEO of a private company does not earn the same nor live in the same type of house as a junior associate. Seniority (or rank in military terms) comes with rewards. The notion that this is archaic is incorrect and the equivalence made with social housing is insulting.

3.           Conclusions: repercussions.

a)              NAO will, in time, erode the quality and effectiveness of the British Army and the Armed Forces as a whole. The three-year transition period only serves to delay this erosion. There will be an impact in absolute terms on retention but also in the level of talent that remains.

b)             According to the panel at the roadshow, NAO only has a negative impact for 6% of serving personnel (SP). 10% of SP are officers. Presumably, it is the top ranks, late entry officers’ and warrant officers who are negatively affected. As such a rudimentary calculation is that c.60% of officers are negatively affected by this offer. That is a worrying statistic that in other public services would likely result in industrial action.

c)              Talented officers will leave. This offer will become more insulting the higher one promotes. NAO does not reward ability, effort or endeavour. It rewards fertility and is anathema in a capitalist society.

d)             The best potential officers either will either not join the Army at all, or will leave when SFA becomes a requirement. There is no incentive for partners/spouses of young officers to leave good jobs and nice homes, to follow them around the country/abroad when they would be moving into significantly smaller housing under the NAO, particularly for those couples without children.

e)             The proposed increase in choice achieved through increased private rental agreements will generate enormous problems. Why would a landlord privilege military customers who may only rent for 2 years and may require to leave at short notice? This element of the policy has the potential to be both more expensive and more unreliable than the current model. The policy team is also reliant upon the abolition of “no fault evictions” being pushed through, which isn’t guaranteed.

4.              Summary. Military life has some enormous benefits and the sense of belonging and selfless commitment my husband shows on a daily basis makes me proud to support him. However, the ‘social contract’ that asks so much of military families will be severed and people will leave in large numbers. It is a callous, ill-thought out, poorly researched, badly executed policy that undervalues the hard work my husband and so many others like him do every day. We deserve better.

1 November 2023