Woke new housing rules set by a weak Ministry of Defence undermine the attractiveness of service life.
The assumption, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, that democracy had won and there would be less need for a large Armed Forces and consequent military expenditure has proved to be catastrophically wrong.
The UK has met the Nato target of spending 2 per cent of its GDP on defence, but the Ukraine conflict has shown just how short of military equipment, spares, war stocks and, vitally, manpower we really are. Trying to maintain a military on the cheap inevitably leads to a reduction in the size of the Armed Forces.
Indeed, one of the key problems facing the military today is the loss of so many highly-trained personnel. The figures are now truly alarming. In the year to October 2023, 10,470 joined the regular Armed Forces, but 16,260 left. The number of Army officers choosing to leave early reached a record 792 in the last quarter. The RAF has lost more officers than at anytime in the last decade. These are typically younger officers mid-career, as opposed to those finishing their engagement, who are counted separately.
Bad as that is, it’s just going to get worse. For the Treasury is now demanding that all benefits in kind in the military, including housing, should be taxed unless that benefit has been allocated based on need. This Treasury rule would shatter the already fragile offer for officers in the Army and RAF, bringing to an end entitlements for officer Service Family Accommodation (SFA).
In short, housing based on rank is being scrapped. Instead all family accommodation will be allocated simply on the basis of family size as part of the New Accommodation Offer, which starts in March.
This flies in the face of the exceptional needs of the Armed Forces. It is nothing short of incredible that the Treasury seems to have dismissed the life and death role performed by servicemen and women, a role that keeps officials in Whitehall safe in their beds at night. Perhaps the Treasury has not read the Armed Forces Covenant, which it signed up to.
Unlike many in civilian life, spouses of those in all three services make colossal sacrifices – seeing their husbands or wives leave regularly for many months at a time and for dangerous combat deployments. In the Army and RAF, meanwhile, these spouses’ own careers tend to have been trashed by the nature of military life, given that they are constantly moving around.
While their counterparts in the civilian world might be able to muster two salaries to get onto the housing ladder, those dependent on service family accommodation used at least to be able to expect a decent Armed Forces house to live in. Not now.
Even if they manage to buy a house for themselves, then let it out when posted away, they will have to pay rent on their service accommodation, the mortgage on their own property, and tax on the rent they receive – and face considerable risks trying to manage tenants from afar. It is the Army and the Royal Air Force that have this problem. The Navy is a different case, because most ships are centred on two locations, Plymouth and Portsmouth.
Small wonder then that the exodus from the Army and RAF officer corps is becoming a flood. Worryingly, I understand that the most recent search for company commanders in the infantry, normally hugely competitive, has fallen fully one third short.
We are close to losing a whole cohort of the best and brightest officers because a weak Ministry of Defence has torn down existing arrangements and devised a crackpot housing scheme antithetical to the interests of middle-ranking officers. All this to accommodate a Treasury tax rule and a woke and wilful misrepresentation of the chain of command.
The services are uniquely a disciplinary construct needing a clear chain of command. The necessary distinctions of rank as part of that chain of command, both in peace and war, must be maintained, for orders will often be about life and death. No civilian organisation has to operate in the same way and all ranks benefit from such clear distinctions. That’s why the allocation of accommodation has always followed that essential definition of rank.
Accompanied service is a similarly vital component of service life. It is very far removed from the nature of civilian life, and military families provide support to one another when service personnel are on operations, which is why service accommodation should be seen as an entitlement.
How ironic then that following the revelation that our Armed Forces are riven with dangerous woke virtue-signalling, it now appears that the same people responsible for this nonsense are also seeking to destroy the vital distinction of rank. It is a real kick in the teeth to majors and captains already under pressure to leave from disenchanted spouses.
If this set of changes is driven through, wrecking the offer for officers, the consequences will be dire. That’s why these MoD housing changes should be shunned. It’s time to stop and think again.