James MacCleary

My hon. Friend raises questions for the Minister to answer in closing the debate, but recruitment and retention are key concerns and have been a sort of crisis in the armed forces for many years. In the context of authorising the maximum numbers of service personnel, it is reasonable that Parliament should be told how the Government plan to treat those people in service. New clause 9 would require publication of a retention strategy alongside the authorisation. It is a modest proposal, and the case for it is straightforward; recruitment alone solves nothing, if the conditions of service drive people back out of the door. We can invest in advertising, outreach and processing, and still find ourselves filling a vessel that will not hold. The problems that cause people to leave are well known: inadequate housing, unsupported families, opaque career structures and a sense that the institution does not value them as individuals. New clause 10 would require an independent review to examine precisely those factors, including diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing, not because these are peripheral concerns, but because they are operational ones.