(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this topic for our Adjournment debate? I am very grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in her place. It is the first time that we have been able to engage in this way since she has been in her role, so I look forward to that exchange. I truly hope that we will not get a 15-minute elongation of the answer I got to my parliamentary question, which is that the Government do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see—there is plenty of time for it to develop.
I know that some will look at the title of the debate on the Order Paper, “Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy”, and ask, “What has this got to do with a Northern Ireland MP?” or with the colleagues of mine who have kindly stayed in the Chamber this evening. I do not know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades.
Charles Milroy joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired in 2015, having served his time as a reservist, as a commissioned officer and major. When he retired, he sought to attain what his co-workers successfully already had: a pension. This House will remember that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), introduced a pension for reservists in 2015. But Mr Milroy was not entitled, he was told, to a pension. For almost six years now, he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts.
As the Minister and colleagues will know, the law that lies behind that is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour Government —an entitlement that assesses whether a part-time worker is being treated less favourably than their full-time counterparts. On two occasions, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, through the judgment of Lord Fairley on 29 January this year, have ruled that yes, Mr Milroy was being treated less favourably than his full-time counterparts.
Let me explain why I am raising this matter, and why I think it important for it to be raised. I served on the Defence Committee for eight years over the course of a number of Parliaments, and have taken an interest in defence issues and raised and championed cases not just for an individual, but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country. I raise this matter because of the fundamental, important principles that lie behind this singular case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my right hon. Friend for initiating the debate. I met the Forces Pension Society guys on Monday. I did not know that he had actually secured an Adjournment debate on this matter, but when I showed them what he wanted to say, they were incredibly interested, and wanted to put on record their thanks to him.
My right hon. Friend understands, much better than I do, that Northern Ireland has identical legislation that provides the same protections for part-time workers, and that consequently this will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland’s reserves. I should declare an interest, as one who served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this process must be handled quickly, and that urgency is of the utmost importance to ensure that we right this wrong and stand with our ex-service personnel who should never have had to fight their Government—their Minister—for what should rightfully have been theirs?
Gavin Robinson
I want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, but I do not disagree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.
As I mentioned earlier, I had a brief conversation with Mr Milroy this afternoon. From the way in which he engaged with me and the way in which he outlined his experience in this regard, I recognised him to be a true gentleman. I recognised him as someone who, for the last six years, has fought to assert what is now a legal entitlement accepted by two courts in this land. I also recognised him to be a gentleman who, having served as a senior military leader, was more interested in those who lay beneath him, those whom he led, those for whom he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support. He told me that over the last six years of his quest—he won two years ago and won again in January—three of his colleagues, comrades, individuals whom he had led, had died.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
There were more than 40,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, half of whom—about 20,000—were part-time members. In the light of this ruling, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be entitled to a pension as well?
Gavin Robinson
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will return to the issue of scope, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s point.
I lament the fact that someone who has been campaigning on this issue for six years, personally and with colleagues, has lost three comrades in the process who were never to attain their legal entitlement.
I imagine that the legal decision set by Lord Fairley, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal across England, Scotland and Wales and someone of legal standing, is engaging not only individuals in the Ministry of Defence but those who are engaged in finance. There is a scope issue here. I understand entirely, and I will always champion those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment most recently, in the Home Service Battalions until their disbandment in 2007, or indeed in the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, we cannot assert legal positions that did not exist at the time. The Ulster Defence Regiment was disbanded in 1992, some eight years before this legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom.
We can look, in particular, at those who served as reservists from 2000 or 1997 until 2015. We can look at the scale of that. We know that in 1997 there were 130,000 reserve personnel in the United Kingdom, that in 2000 there were 110,000, and that in 2015 there were 85,000. We know that in 1997, for example, when this legislation was introduced on a European basis, there were 1,870 reserve or part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. But we also know this: that is not the case before the MOD today.
The case before the MOD today is one of principle, in Major Milroy and those of his co-claimants who are already in the system. The Minister should also know well that there will be impediments through a statute of limitations to further and future claims. There is an opportunity for the Minister to consider this case and that of those who have travelled alongside Major Milroy, rather than worry about a scope that could be exponential but, sadly, for which time has already passed.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate. Whenever I wrote to the relevant Minister a year ago, the MOD confirmed that there were at least 310 people in Northern Ireland who fell within scope, but I agree entirely that there is absolutely no point in the Government deciding to fight this or seek in any way to curtail it. They should now accept that they have lost on this point of law and therefore allow anyone eligible to benefit.
Gavin Robinson
I think the time is coming, though we might not hear it this evening, for the Ministry of Defence to engage in the reality of what has been asserted in the courts. The Ministry of Defence is going to have to accept that, at a time when I, my colleagues and others throughout this Chamber are raising issues around support for veterans, particularly in the light of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the challenges that the Minister knows well and on which she has engaged in debate with me in the past.
The Minister will know that when I challenged this Labour Government and said they were not bringing forward safeguards for veterans, I was told that they were. I was then told that I was right and that the Prime Minister would bring forward amendments to the Government’s Bill, which they had already said included protections. We have not seen those amendments or the nature of them.
We stand here tonight with yet another opportunity for the Government to demonstrate recognition for the service of reservists and veterans, and to demonstrate that, though they recognise that there will be a financial implication, there is a moral imperative to honour a legal commitment that a previous Labour Government brought through and applied in this country. We hear from the Labour Government all the time about the need to adhere to international laws. What about adhering to the ones that they brought in themselves in our own country, and honouring and recognising the sacrifice and service of so many—I know that includes the Minister—who have served our nation? That is one of the challenges.
The second challenge is clearer: the Minister will need to provide an outcome for this process. If that is not today, then she needs to indicate that the Ministry of Defence is interested in a particular analysis and the implications of this case, and that Ministers have a fair understanding of how they are going to deal with it and that they will work towards a resolution. The last thing this Labour Government want to do is appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, not only giving the impression but establishing the actual fact that they will exhaust every opportunity to deny a legal right that is there and that has been asserted on behalf of our veteran reservist community.
It would be an indictment of this Labour Government if they were to exhaust ad nauseam every appeal mechanism and opportunity to frustrate the legal entitlements of our service veterans. I do not think that they can stand here today and honourably say that that is the position they wish to adopt, or stand here in three weeks’ time and talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and how much protection they afford to veterans, when they cannot get the basics right.
I know the Minister is not responsible for what has gone before, but she has the opportunity to address not only the perception but the reality that has been faced by Major Milroy, his co-claimants and those who have a legal entitlement, which they are asserting. It is an opportunity to redress the harm that has been caused over the last six years, and an opportunity to ensure that this Labour Government do not endlessly pursue appeals to thwart entitlement. It is similarly true of the McCloud judgment, which applies to the Ministry of Defence. That judgment is still being worked through unsatisfactorily and unsuccessfully.
I raise this matter this evening in the earnest hope but limited expectation that the Ministry of Defence will, through the Minister, give at least some certainty that this process will not be dragged out endlessly through each and every subsequent court possible—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understand that it is under consideration and that there will have to be an assessment of what to do, but that should not happen until there is a full understanding and analysis of the implications of the judgments thus far and the real prospect of any successful appeal. There will not be one. The entitlement is there; it has been asserted in so many other spheres and sectors and asserted here in these cases.
I can say clearly, as I heard earlier from colleagues across this House, that these guys did not serve for a pension. No—they served under the leadership and guidance of the Ministry of Defence and their senior command. This is an example of where they are saying, “Well, hang on a second. Maybe in service I took the orders I was given, but in retirement I am at least going to ask, ‘Were they lawful? Do the laws apply to us, too? Do we have legal entitlement and protections that we can avail ourselves of?’”
I think this is the opportunity for Government to say, “We recognise your service and all you did for us. We will not, by hook or by crook, deny you the legal entitlements and the recognition of your service that you so richly deserve.”
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate. I am grateful for his contributions and those made by other Members. I know, and can see and hear, that the right hon. Gentleman is a passionate champion of veterans and reservists’ rights. As a veteran myself, I thank him for his commitment and hard work on behalf of those who have served and contributed so much to our armed forces.
As the right hon. Gentleman notes, the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy raises important questions not only in law, but in how we recognise and support those who serve and have served our country, including through reservist service.
Let me set out the Government’s position: on 29 January 2026, the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland handed down its judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy, in which it upheld the earlier tribunal’s findings in relation to Major Milroy’s service and the application of employment protections to reservists. That judgment is being carefully considered by this Government. This evening I will explain the principles guiding the Government’s approach, the work already under way and the position we are taking to support reservists and employers.
First, I will speak on our commitment to reservists. Reservists are, of course, integral to the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring vital expertise into Defence, strengthen operational resilience and provide specialist skills that cannot be generated or sustained in the regular forces alone. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last month, our reserve forces are crucial to Britain’s security and, if necessary,
“to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid…transition to war.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 644.]
Their contribution directly enhances Defence’s capability. The Government’s position is clear: reservists must be treated fairly, lawfully and with proper regard to both their military service and their civilian employment. That principle underpins our policies and will continue to do so.
Secondly, it is important to place the pension issues raised by this case into the correct historical context. The questions before the tribunal relate to an earlier policy framework and, since 2015, reservists have had access to the same pension scheme as their regular counterparts. Moreover, reservists have long been entitled to pension provision during periods of mobilisation, recognising the fact that they may be placed directly into harm’s way while serving on operations. That protection remains firmly in place today and should not be lost in the wider public discussion of this case.
Thirdly, on the judgment and the Government’s considerations of next steps, we must be clear about the particular facts of this case before the tribunal. It was found that aspects of Major Milroy’s reservist service engaged employment protections in a way that had not previously been recognised. Both the employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal expressly acknowledged that the level of service days in question was atypical. That finding raises legitimate and complex questions about how certain forms of reservist service are characterised in law, and how they interact with employment-related rights, including questions of pay and pensions in this individual case. As such, the Government are carefully considering its implications for the judgment. That work is ongoing and it is being carried out while the case remains within the statutory period during which an appeal may be brought. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to prejudge the Government’s final position at this stage.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I know that the hon. Lady has served and that she comes at this very much from a service background. Time is of the essence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a powerful point about three reservists who served with Major Milroy having passed away. I am not hearing today a clear timetable for implementation, I am not hearing that sufficient funding has been allocated, and I am not hearing that the Government are in the process of bringing forward an impact assessment detailing the number of affected reservists, the estimated financial liability and the Department’s plan for redress. Can the Minister go further and give hope to those reservists that the Government are actually going to do something?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are considering the implications of the judgment very closely, and I am mindful of the point that she and others have made about the need for speed in coming to this judgment.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Of course, the Government are considering whether to appeal. I trust that they will not, but if they do not and this is the end of the legal road on this, they will be faced with the next stage, which is to determine what remedy model they are going to develop for this case. Could I appeal to the Minister that, in arriving at that model, the Government do not make it tight and narrow specifically to this case but base it on the emerging strong principle of this case that there has to be an acceptance that part-timers should have pension rights? That is the fundamental principle. If the Government seek to avoid that by focusing only on this case and on the reservists, while ignoring the wider cadre of individuals who are equally part-timers and denying them what they will have to give to this applicant, would that not be a very wrong-headed approach?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his point, and his comments have been noted. As soon as I have further details, I will provide an update.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. and gallant Lady. We understand that she has a personal intention to try to make things better. Whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they said that many part-time soldiers are not aware of their rights and the fact that they might be able to claim. Are the Government, and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try to contact all those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the longer this goes on, some people will pass away. The opportunity for money should also go to their relatives; it should be retrospective.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am not in a position to give details at this point, but I will absolutely take into account the hon. Member’s comments and ensure they are considered. I note his concerns.
Several Members have spoken about the importance of confidence—confidence among reservists that their service will be supported, and confidence among employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and predictable. The Government’s objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law. Where the Milroy judgment indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that. Where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly.
Finally, on the wider message to those who serve, reservists across the United Kingdom make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgment and the debate it has prompted reinforce the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.
The Government will give full and proper effect to the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications carefully and engaging with stakeholders, and we will act where action is required. We will do so in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East for bringing this matter before the House, and everyone who has contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.