Armed Forces Pay Review Body (Triennial Review)

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB), an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB).

Triennial reviews of NDPBs are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring, and improving, the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.

The AFPRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members of the armed forces.

The review will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing NDPBs, and will focus on the core questions of effectiveness and good governance. It will be carried out in an open and transparent way, and interested stakeholders will be given the opportunity to contribute their views.

I shall announce the findings of the review in due course.

Red Arrow Hawk XX177 (Service Inquiry)

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I wish to inform the House of the findings of the service inquiry into the accident involving RAF Aerobatic Team Hawk T Mk 1 XXI77 on 8 November 2011, in which Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham was tragically killed.

On the day of the accident, Flight Lieutenant Cunningham was undertaking pre-flight checks at RAF Scampton when the front cockpit ejection seat firing sequence was inadvertently initiated and he was ejected from the aircraft. The main parachute failed to deploy and he sustained fatal injuries.

A service inquiry was convened by the director general of the Military Aviation Authority to examine the cause of the accident and to make recommendations to prevent recurrence. The service inquiry panel has conducted an independent, thorough and objective inquiry and its report has been completed.

A copy of the full service inquiry report has been provided to relevant defence stakeholders to ensure the timely dissemination of these air safety lessons. The recommendations have all been addressed or are in the process of being addressed.

The coroner’s inquest into the death of Flight Lieutenant Cunningham has now concluded. As such, a copy of the service inquiry, redacted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, is being placed in the Library of the House today and on the gov.uk website.

Advisory Group on Military Medicine (Triennial Review)

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

On 5 December 2012, Official Report, columns 57-58WS, my predecessor the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, the commencement of the triennial review of the Advisory Group on Military Medicine (AGoMM). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.

AGoMM plays an important role providing independent, specialist advice to Ministers and senior officials on the policy for medical issues within medical force protection, and for clinical treatments used on military operations.

The review concludes that the functions performed by AGoMM are still required; however, it should be delivered as a public sector working group rather than the current model of an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the body in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes a couple of recommendations in this respect, mainly around the publication of unclassified information about the work of AGoMM and its membership; these recommendations will be implemented shortly.

The full report of the review of AGoMM can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress his Department has made on its study of the surrender of armed forces widows’ pensions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Under the 2005 pension scheme, widows and widowers retained their benefit for life. The older schemes are of course subject to Treasury rules, which is no doubt one of the reasons why the previous Government did not amend them. If we were to make changes for our service personnel, we would have to do so for all public service pensions, and it has been estimated that that would cost about £3 billion. I know that this has disappointed many, but I can see no prospect of the rules changing.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for that response, but there is real confusion among widows, with many unclear about which scheme they are under. What steps are the Government taking to provide widows with the information they need to make informed decisions on their future?

[Anna Soubry]

There are all manner of helplines and organisations available to any widow and widower who is in any way confused about what scheme he or she may be under. I urge the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who have constituents with such complaints to come my way, but an extensive system is available through the various charities and the armed forces to ensure that everybody is fully informed.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Lord Astor recently revealed that it would cost in the region of £250,000 a year to put this matter right, and that the Ministry of Defence spends about £50,000 a year enforcing the current rules. I appreciate that there are concerns about the impact on other pension schemes, but there is support and agreement across the House for special provisions to be put in place, where necessary, for the armed forces community. The Minister will appreciate the difficulties for armed forces spouses in building up their own pension pots, so may I urge her to look again at this matter?

[Anna Soubry]

I can assure the hon. Lady that this is a matter I am always considering, because I know of the representations from the Forces Pension Society and the War Widow Association of Great Britain. The difficulty is that this is not within our gift; it is a matter for the Treasury. The very important point to make is that if this is done for the armed forces, others will come forward. Presumably, that is why the previous Government did not do it. One could imagine that the widows and widowers of police officers and fire officers would make just the same sort of case.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the proportion of women in senior military posts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the mental health of armed forces veterans.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

This obviously remains a huge priority for me and other Ministers. One of my first actions after I was appointed was to go to the King’s Centre for military medicine and meet Professor Sir Simon Wessely and his team, which was one of the most enlightening and indeed informative visits that I have made. He discussed with me the state of health of our veterans, and in particular their mental health, which is actually as good as, if not better than, that of those in civilian life. However, when our veterans have mental health difficulties, they must remain a priority for treatment.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. My constituent Anthony Gibbs, who came to see me in my surgery, is a very brave young man who served in Northern Ireland and a number of other places. His service led in subsequent life to severe post-traumatic stress disorder, and he still has very severe mental health problems. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), wrote a report—which the Prime Minister told me last year was being fully implemented—on this issue, but it is quite apparent that things are still going wrong. I hope my hon. Friend will agree to a meeting with me and, if he will come, Mr Gibbs, so that she can have further conversations with her colleagues in the Department of Health and we can start to get this right for the brave young men and women of our armed forces.

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend has written me a letter, which I have before me. All those proposals have been implemented, but we are conscious that GPs, for example, do not always refer people for the treatment that they need. We have discussed the issue at length with the Department of Health. I am not saying that this cannot be done, but it will be difficult, because we cannot tell GPs to make the referrals. I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans of nuclear weapons tests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It is important for me to make clear that the Government continue to recognise, and be grateful to, all the servicemen who participated in the British nuclear testing programme. Like all veterans, they are entitled to a comprehensive range of support from the veterans welfare service at the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, which can also put them in contact with other organisations that can help with specific issues.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am sure the Minister is aware that, according to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, nearly half the descendants of those veterans have experienced some kind of congenital problem such as illness or disability, while the veterans themselves are particularly susceptible to cancer and other diseases. Will she consider establishing a benevolent fund to support those who are still suffering the after-effects of nuclear tests?

[Anna Soubry]

We had a lengthy debate in, I think, Westminster Hall on this very issue. I am aware of the argument that is being advanced by the survivors, but there is no evidence to support their claims, and I do not think that it would be right to set up a £25 million benevolent fund when no proper basis for it has been provided. I am always available to listen to arguments, but so far I have heard no good argument to support that case.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the nuclear veterans data are shared with other parts of the national health service, so that it can deal with some of the issues that may arise?

[Anna Soubry]

I cannot see any difficulty with that. As long as people have given permission for their data to be shared, it seems to me to be eminently sensible.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

If the hon. Gentleman shows a little forbearance, he will see where I am going with the argument.

A number of examples were cited. In the interests of making progress today and not getting bogged down, I will not talk about them all, but I want to mention one specific case. A young soldier from Bolton—coincidentally, he was also called Lee—phoned in to a Radio 5 Live programme on the morning of the BBC’s day of coverage on the issue. He said that he had returned from a tour in Afghanistan for a couple of weeks of well-deserved rest and recuperation and to see his family. It was the first time in three months that he had been home from deployment. He got off the train at Bolton quite late on the Saturday evening. He was in his uniform and had his bags with him. He was set upon by four or five drunken yobs. When the police caught them, the reason they gave for the assault was that they wanted to prove “how hard they were”. Those five brave yobs had attacked one soldier going about his business, having returned from service. I hope that answers, to an extent, the question the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) asked. While we see the attack in Woolwich as the most extreme and horrific example, there are examples reported every month.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shakes her head. I would be grateful if, when she replies, she sets out why she so adamantly opposes providing support to members of our armed forces and protecting them from that kind of attack.

[Anna Soubry]

I was not shaking my head because of any desire not to give our armed services personnel all the support and protection they require; I was shaking my head because four or five yobs setting upon a soldier in order to prove, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, how hard they are is certainly not in the same category as the appalling murder of Drummer Rigby, or indeed in the same category as discrimination. I know that I am a lawyer, but those are different jurisprudential matters and there is a real danger, especially with this type of legislation, of confusing the issues. I will explain that later in my speech, but I wanted to set the record straight that I was not shaking my head for the reason that was alleged, but because I disagree that we can liken four yobs trying to show how hard they are and discrimination against armed forces personnel.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for that attempt to clarify her position. I hope that she will have another stab at it later on.

The key point is that such attacks are too common, and that is unacceptable to this House and to the country, as I know from the feedback I have had not only from my constituents, but from the number of people who have contacted me, particularly since the summer. Indeed, there are people in the House service who have told me only this week how delighted they are to see the Bill coming forward. It is about sending a clear signal that we stand with those who risk their lives for our country to protect our freedoms and that it is unacceptable to attack, physically or verbally, a member of the armed forces because of that service.

I do not wish to try to take the Minister’s argument apart just yet—I will hear what she has to say first—but I suspect that on this occasion the Ministry of Defence, building on her point, will say that it is very difficult to look into somebody’s mind. With the greatest respect to her, this is an amendment to an existing criminal justice Act. Actually, the hon. Member for Shipley makes a valid point about this being a criminal justice matter. If the Minister wishes to go to the Library and get out the Hansard report from 2003, she will see that the debate was had then about how in principle to go about determining the motivation. The key point is that the Bill is a simple amendment of that existing principle. The Minister—and I forgive her for being a lawyer, as I am sure the whole House does—knows that it is the job of lawyers to prosecute and make their case. It will be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to set out why the motivating factor was the fact that the victim was in uniform rather than a general disagreement or some other factor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

That is exactly the point I am coming to. The landlord said that the sailors were in uniform and therefore likely to cause trouble. I think the House will agree that that is absolutely absurd. Our young men and women serving in the Royal Navy, wearing dress uniform, in the middle of the day, when entirely sober, are not likely to cause trouble. The House will think that an absurd and ludicrous argument, and it goes to some of the prejudices regrettably still facing members of our armed forces.

On this point, the previous Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, made some valid points a couple of years ago. He said that our country was undergoing a cultural change and that the perception of our armed forces was changing. I am sure that a few years ago there was the perception that groups of young squaddies or officers were likely to cause trouble. The service chiefs and the chain of command have worked phenomenally hard— [Laughter.] The Minister seems to be chuntering something about this being ridiculous. If she wants to explain what she thinks is ridiculous about the debate, I would be happy to give way. I think this has been a good and thoughtful debate and I regret that she is not approaching it in the manner—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

Of course I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conversation between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) had nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I was in two minds about whether to mention this, and it is with some regret that I do so now. If I were being charitable to the Department, I would say that it had not entirely fulfilled the expectations that were raised at approximately this time last year. The hon. Gentleman was present at the time, and made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

The Minister and his officials undertook to look into the issue, and to include their conclusions in the 2013 Armed Forces Covenant annual report. Earlier this year, during defence questions, I asked whether a Minister would meet me, but although I was given assurances, and although I chased the matter up several times, no such meeting, either with a Minister or with officials, was forthcoming. I find that very disappointing. Moreover, the 2013 report—which is, of course, available in the Vote Office—makes no mention of any study building on the work of Lord Ashcroft.

[Anna Soubry]

I should be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter in greater detail. However, page 54 of the report deals with precisely this issue of discrimination against members of the armed forces.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is true that there is a passing reference to Lord Ashcroft on page 54, but, with the greatest respect, it does not meet my expectation that Ministers would look into how widespread the practice was, although a clear undertaking to that effect was given last year. It merely restates the officials’ existing position. There is no examination of how often discrimination takes place, how widespread it is, or what types of discrimination are involved. Let me read the offending two sentences to the House:

“Our view is that, in the last year or so, the extent of public knowledge and sympathy for the Armed Forces has continued to grow—aided by the Community Covenant and the new Corporate Covenant. We therefore continue to believe that education, rather than legislation, is the key to eradicating the kind of behaviour that we all abhor.”

That is all motherhood and apple pie, but it does not meet the undertaking that was given last year to look at the Ashcroft report in detail and to follow it up. There is no mention of HMS Edinburgh, and no mention of any of the other instances of which we have heard from all over the country. The MOD claims that the figures cited by Lord Ashcroft—it is not for me to question the veracity of Lord Ashcroft’s figures—are not the whole picture, but no evidence is presented to show that those figures are wrong. There are no facts to back up the MOD’s assertions.

To finish on a consensual note, let me say that I do take the Minister at her word. I accept that she believes that that protection is sufficient, and I will take up her generous offer and meet her to discuss how to take this matter forward, but, 12 months on, this issue continues to be a problem. This is not a debate about how one measures the motivation. That is covered by the two Acts in 2003 and 2010. This is not about “Would the Crown Prosecution Service have an ability to demonstrate this in the courts?” That is already covered in the debates that took place a decade or so ago. This is a debate about whether we in this House believe that members of our armed forces and their families who risk their lives to protect our freedoms deserve to be given the greatest level of protection.

I commend this Bill to the House, and I look forward to it receiving a speedy passage.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on bringing this Bill before the House. Like the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), I thank and congratulate all those who have contributed to the debate. I share his observation that this has been a very good debate. In particular, let me single out my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who made one of the best speeches that I have had the pleasure of hearing in this place. He said that he was not a lawyer, but he spoke with all the jurisprudential knowledge and understanding of one. I fully endorse all that he said but, if I may, let me make only one criticism. Every time he said soldier, I would add, “sailor, airman or airwoman” to reflect all members of our armed forces.

I disagree with my hon. Friend, however, about what he would call the downside of those great Acts of Parliament that have sought to end discrimination in our country. The Race Relations Acts and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are huge achievements that have changed our society. I was brought up in Worksop and I well remember what it was like when I was a child. I remember with some horror, watching a documentary—in fact, I think it was in Birmingham—in which signs in boarding houses said “No blacks.” It is inconceivable. My children cannot believe that that ever happened in this country.

[Mr David Hamilton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

We know that, sadly, there is still racial discrimination, but goodness me, the scale of it now is much smaller than the scale that we remember from when we were young. I think the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) is about the same age as me. Of course I will give way.

[Mr Hamilton]

I recall that when we went to Blackpool, which was a favourite haunt of the Scots, the signs read, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”, all on the same sign. It was outrageous.

[Anna Soubry]

Indeed. I do not want to dwell on it for too long, but my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made a point about those great pieces of legislation and why we introduced them. We did it because we recognised that there was a deep-seated long-standing discrimination, prejudice or intolerance that we no longer tolerated. In order to cure that great evil, those great pieces of legislation were properly passed by this place.

[Rory Stewart]

I just want to put it on the record that what I was hoping to argue—perhaps I was not articulate enough—was that that legislation has, of course, been one of the great achievements of our age and something of which we should be proud as a civilisation but it was also cumbersome, difficult, sometimes futile and sometimes perverse and should therefore not be extended too widely. As an achievement, it has been extraordinary. The change to cultural attitudes is something of which we should be deeply proud.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention.

Let me turn to this Bill and why I would argue against it. It is not that I do not share any of the sentiment and many of the concerns that have been articulated. If I thought for one moment that there was the widespread prejudice, discrimination or so on against members of our armed forces in our society in the UK that is being suggested, I would not hesitate not only to support the Bill but to introduce and make the case myself. As yet, however, I have not heard such a clamour at my door as the Minister responsible for personnel, welfare and veterans.

[Thomas Docherty]

I agree with the Minister that this has been a good debate. On the specific point about the evidence, if the MOD sincerely does not believe that the Ashcroft study is a fair reflection of the situation, will the Minister undertake that, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has already suggested, the MOD will do its own work to refute the Ashcroft evidence? That is the only study out there and it shows high levels of discrimination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I shall deal with the Ashcroft study in a moment, but let me make it absolutely clear that I listen to any arguments that are made. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no clamour at my door at all. My understanding is that there is no demand among our armed forces for such legislation. I understand that we disagree, but let me explain one important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made an extremely important point about the law and protections that already exist. It is incredibly important that we remember that. Of course, an assault is an assault, and where the police believe that there is evidence to support a charge, they charge, and in due course the Crown Prosecution Service considers the evidence and decides whether to proceed to a full court hearing.

I remind the hon. Member for Gedling that the CPS’s own documentation makes it clear that the CPS has a duty, when it believes that there has been an assault on somebody because of their public service, to bring forward a prosecution and to do everything it can to ensure that that prosecution is successful. In its code of practice, the CPS recognises that it should pursue prosecutions for assaults on public servants.

That is reflected in the sentencing guidelines, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has already referred to. Perhaps this point is not understood widely and I hope to ensure that people understand it: when a judge considers sentencing, they consider the mitigating features that might be advanced on behalf of the defendant and then the aggravating features that might be advanced by the prosecution. It is absolutely clear that an offence against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public is an aggravating feature. That means that if the custodial threshold is passed, any sentence of imprisonment is automatically increased by the judge.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has already made the point about people working, for example, in jobcentres or accident and emergency units, including nurses and security staff, who are sometimes assaulted. Indeed, there was a spate of assaults against nurses and other workers in A and E units, and the provisions about the aggravating features in the sentencing guidelines were highlighted, so that judges were left under no illusion whatever that if someone assaults an individual purely because of their public service—including, of course, members of our armed forces—that is a seriously aggravating feature.

In short, the law currently provides the special protection for members of our armed forces, and indeed all public servants, that we would expect, and there is no need to change it.

[Mr David Hamilton]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. This is getting worrying; in my 13 years in Parliament, this is the second time that I have agreed with the Conservatives on something. Will she undertake to ensure that what she said is also the case under Scottish law? Scottish legislation was changed last year to do the same things that are being done in England. Can she ensure that what she has said also applies to the armed forces under the Scotland Act 1998?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, what I have just outlined did not require laws to be changed. Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales are set by the Sentencing Council, and of course the direction to the CPS comes from the office of the Attorney-General.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me: although I worked in Scotland for about three or four years and had the great pleasure of appearing in the sheriff court—I digress—I am not entirely familiar with the Scottish legal system. However, as I say, establishing the aggravating features did not require legislation, and knowing that Scottish law is—with few exceptions, I would have thought—extremely good, I would be surprised if there was not provision within existing Scottish legislation to ensure that these aggravating features are set out.

A mistake that we often make in this place is to think that if we have not passed a law, we have not sought to cure an ill that we have identified. The hon. Member for Gedling made the good point that there are occasions when this place has rushed into legislation. The legislation on dangerous dogs is a really good example—that was created under a Conservative Government, so I am not making a cheap party political point.

There is a danger of rushing into legislation. I would even go so far as to say that at times in this House we become slightly over-sentimental. The sentiment in the House is absolutely right, because we all pay tribute to everyone who serves their country as a member of the armed forces and know of the huge sacrifices that they are prepared to make, but that should not cloud our minds into seeing people in our armed forces as a special category—other than perhaps that they are even dearer to our hearts than others who serve our country, such as those in the police, and the ambulance and fire services—although we know that they regularly put their lives at risk and we have great respect for them.

The hon. Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Gedling talked about current public opinion of our armed forces personnel, which I do not think will diminish. We see people turning out not just on Remembrance Sunday, but for home-coming parades. When I visited the home-coming parade at Stapleford in my constituency only last year, on a really wet, cold and miserable May day, I was staggered that one simply could not move as the streets were literally jam-packed.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was right to raise the important point of the Ashcroft report. I am told that the report was based on a survey of about 9,000 service personnel that was conducted at the end of 2011. Those people were asked to talk about their experiences over the previous five years—since about 2006—which is important because, as we have heard, there has been significant change in the attitude of some sections of society to our armed forces.

Some 61% of personnel who responded to the survey said that they rarely or never wore their uniform in public in everyday situations in the United Kingdom. More than half all personnel, including two thirds of Army respondents, said that strangers had approached them to offer thanks or support while they were wearing their uniform in public. I suggest that that figure would now be considerably higher, given when the survey took place and the fact that it investigated the previous five years.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I will, but first I want to conclude this important part of my speech.

Some 29% of respondents said that strangers had offered to buy them drinks or similar, while a quarter, including a third of Army respondents, had received spontaneous offers of discounts in shops or other businesses. With the work of the covenant and through various schemes such as the blue light card, an astonishing number of businesses—often small, independent ones—are offering special discounts to our armed forces personnel and veterans, which demonstrates the huge shift in public attitude.

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I suspect that this is the bit that the hon. Gentleman will like. Actually, I do not mean “like”, because I know that these statistics trouble him, but they do relate to the purpose of his Bill.

More than a fifth of respondents had experienced strangers shouting abuse—that might not in itself, in any event, be a criminal offence—and 18%, including a quarter of Royal Marines, had been refused service in pubs, hotels or elsewhere. More than one in 20 had experienced violence or attempted violence while out in their uniform in the United Kingdom. Of course that is concerning, but the figure is one in 20.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is sincere in questioning whether the data are correct, so will she give an undertaking that the MOD will carry out a survey this year so that we can have the updated figures?

[Anna Soubry]

I am absolutely not able to say that I will ask my team to conduct a survey, but I absolutely undertake, and I know that my predecessor did this, to ensure that we are alert to any increase in discrimination or prejudice towards, or assaults on, our servicemen and women. The reality is that since my predecessor gave such an undertaking, we have kept ourselves absolutely alert, as hon. Members would expect—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gedling suggests from a sedentary position—that is not a problem; it would be wrong for me to complain about him doing that, given that I did quite a lot of it myself—that that is not reflected in the report, but we are not aware of any increase or problem. We are not receiving from our armed services the various representations—

Reserve Forces

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr McKenzie]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department provides to employers to assist employees who are army reservists; and how their skills will enhance the employer's company.

[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 15-16W.]

Letter of correction from Anna Soubry:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Iain McKenzie) on 6 January 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Anna Soubry]

SaBRE-Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers-is an organisation supported by the Ministry of Defence which is positioned to provide support to both reservists and employers. It maintains a website

www.sabre.mod.uk

that provides information for employers including detailed advice on the benefits of employing reservists and examples for companies of HR policies tailored to reservist employees. SaBRE also operates a telephone helpline that is available for both reservists and employers to address specific inquires. Further, each of the 13 Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs) has a Regional SaBRE Campaign Director able to provide a personal, face-to-face service for employers at a local and regional level.

In the White Paper ‘Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valued and Valuable’ (Cm 8655) the Government pledged to improve the relationship between Defence and employers. Financial support is given to assist employers to recruit staff or to cover overtime to fill an absence left by a mobilised employee. An incentive payment of £500 per employer per month is also available to some small and medium enterprises. Under our fresh approach to the Reserves, employers will have greater awareness and predictability of when their staff may be mobilised.

Reserve Service will benefit different employers in different ways. For some, the improved skills, experience and training of the individual reservist will be beneficial. For some, where the reservist’s military role is close to their civilian one, there will be more benefit from transferable skills.

For some companies and sectors, Reserve Service suits and supports their business models. Reserve Service might support corporate social responsibility objectives and be part of their social action plans, alongside any wider volunteering policies.

The correct answer should have been:

[Anna Soubry]

SaBRE-Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers-is an organisation supported by the Ministry of Defence which is positioned to provide support to both reservists and employers. It maintains a website

www.sabre.mod.uk

that provides information for employers including detailed advice on the benefits of employing reservists and examples for companies of HR policies tailored to reservist employees. SaBRE also operates a telephone helpline that is available for both reservists and employers to address specific inquires. Further, each of the 13 Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs) has a Regional SaBRE Campaign Director able to provide a personal, face-to-face service for employers at a local and regional level.

In the White Paper ‘Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valued and Valuable’ (Cm 8655) the Government pledged to improve the relationship between Defence and employers. Financial support is given to assist employers to recruit staff or to cover overtime to fill an absence left by a mobilised employee. An incentive payment of £500 per mobilised employee per month is also planned to be made available to some small and medium-sized enterprises. Under our fresh approach to the Reserves, employers will have greater awareness and predictability of when their staff may be mobilised.

Reserve Service will benefit different employers in different ways. For some, the improved skills, experience and training of the individual reservist will be beneficial. For some, where the reservist’s military role is close to their civilian one, there will be more benefit from transferable skills.

For some companies and sectors, Reserve Service suits and supports their business models. Reserve Service might support corporate social responsibility objectives and be part of their social action plans, alongside any wider volunteering policies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

5. What support local authorities have given to implementation of the community covenant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am pleased to say that 98% of local authorities have now signed up to the community covenant. Some 11 have yet to sign, but I am told—[Interruption.] I am reliably told that they have now all agreed and undertaken that they will sign up as a matter of some urgency.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but can she explain in a little more detail what steps have been taken to encourage those small number of authorities who are yet to sign up?

[Anna Soubry]

I am happy to answer as follows. There has been—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are very keen; it must be the Christmas spirit. If they could just hold their horses for a moment, we might get to an interesting punch line that could steal their joke. In all seriousness, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have written to the 11 remaining authorities. I also know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has spoken at length to Charnwood borough council to ensure that it would sign up. If any local authorities have not signed up by the end of January, I think it might be a good idea for me to ring them and to speak to their leaders personally.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we all agree that that would be a magnificent prospect and that it would bring a prompt end to non-co-operation.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I am proud that Kirklees council signed up to the armed forces community covenant on 29 June 2012, demonstrating the strong bond between my local community and our armed forces, particularly as the Yorkshire Regiment suffered such tragic losses in Afghanistan. Does the Minister agree that communities across the UK should show their respect and support for those who risk their lives for our country by signing up to the community covenant?

[Anna Soubry]

I certainly do. I should like to pay tribute to the Yorkshire Regiment and to Kirklees council. I took the trouble to visit the council’s website, part of whose home page is devoted to an item containing an abundance of information for people who are leaving the armed forces. That shows the council’s commitment, and it is a very good example of the kind of work that could and should be done. I also pay tribute to all those local authorities that have secured some £11 million of funding to ensure that they can deliver the community covenant.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

South Wales has traditionally been a strong recruiting ground for the armed forces, so I am delighted that Councillor Mel Nott, the leader of Bridgend county borough council, has signed up to the community covenant. Has any assessment been made by the Department, in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions, of the impact that the stretching of front-line services such as housing and social services could have on the delivery of the community covenant to veterans and their families?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question; he makes a good point. It is all well and good people signing up, but what matters is the delivery. There will no doubt be a chance later in questions to talk about today’s annual report on the covenant. This is about delivery, and some local authorities are clearly delivering, but there is also concern that some are not delivering in the way that we want them to deliver.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the subject of delivery, the covenant report published today contains a quote from the three service families federations, which states:

“Central Government has asked local authorities to implement many aspects of the AF Covenant with little additional resources in terms of financial support, staff or guidance.”

So, to ensure that we do not end up with central Government pushing extra responsibilities on to local authorities and with the service community being let down as a result, will the Minister undertake and publish an audit of what local authorities are being asked to do for the service community and what funding is being provided for it? At the moment, there is a gap.

[Anna Soubry]

The covenant grant scheme has already provided £11 million in funding to local authorities, often working with their local barracks to ensure that they are delivering on the covenant. I have here a copy of the annual report on the covenant; it has been placed in the Library and it is also available from the Vote Office. Yes, we know that we must ensure that there is delivery, but I shall make two points. First, any audit should be done by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Secondly, this is one of those instances in which local government must deliver, and it is for local people to ensure that their local authorities are doing so—[Interruption.] I appreciate that the hon. Lady might have difficulty in understanding that, but this is not about top-down government. It is about local authorities and communities coming together to do the right thing. It is not about a big bossy Government telling them what to do.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

6. What recent investment his Department has made in the armed forces’ helicopter capabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

16. When he plans to publish the annual armed forces covenant report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

As I have said, the report has been published today.

[Alex Cunningham]

I look forward to seeing the report. What legal advice has the Department taken about the impact of the Human Rights Act on the covenant, and will it be reflected in the report?

[Anna Soubry]

I am not aware of that being reflected in the report, though if it is, I apologise; my memory may be playing tricks on me, but from my reading of the report, I do not think it is there. I am sorry that I am not being more helpful. If there is any way that I can assist further, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What assessment he has made of the level of competition in the bidding process for the GoCo contract.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

21. What research his Department has commissioned since 2010 on gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the military.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

As an equal opportunities employer, the armed forces are committed to a working environment free from harassment and discrimination. Substantial progress has been made since the 2006 Equal Opportunities Commission report on sexual harassment in the military and, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the 2009 Watts Andrews report into equality and diversity in the Army was published last week. The UK has the first female two-star military officer, Air Vice-Marshal Elaine West. Since her appointment, a second female RAF two-star appointment has been made. The short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, but it is obviously a serious subject that we take seriously.

[Mrs Moon]

As the Minister will be aware, the numerous surveys that have been carried out among female members of the armed forces show that on a daily basis they experience sexual harassment and gender harassment. What steps will she take to ensure that we drive out this pernicious underestimation of the capability of female members of the armed forces and put in place the equality regime that our military should be operating to?

[Anna Soubry]

It is a serious subject, and certainly one that I take seriously. The armed forces continuous attitudes survey for this year indicated that 10% of personnel believe that they have been the subject of discrimination, harassment or bullying in a service environment in the past 12 months, which unfortunately is 2% higher than in 2012. It is a serious matter, and one that I will always be happy to discuss with the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

Roger Williams—not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

My Bridgend council recently added to its military covenant a recognition of the service of the nuclear test veterans and called for the development of a fund for those veterans and their descendants in times of need. The idea was put forward by Councillor David White, whose father died when he was four, as he had been at Christmas Island and was one of the nuclear test veterans. What steps will the Ministry of Defence take to give that additional support and recognition to nuclear test veterans?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

This is a somewhat complicated subject, and certainly one of some controversy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) recently secured a debate on the subject. At the moment, the Government have no intention of setting up such a fund. We believe that the existing provision is there. Again, I am more than happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady to explain what I think is the very good case that the Government make on the matter.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T3. As we approach the end of combat operations in Afghanistan, support for armed forces veterans will become more important than ever. What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that veterans charities benefit from LIBOR fines funding?

[Anna Soubry]

We are very much aware that, as a result of withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is a concern that a number of our charities might not get the sort of generous support we have seen from the public by way of financial donation. That is one of the reasons why the LIBOR funding is so important. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that an extra £10 million will be available from 2015 each year for the next 25 years.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

May I join the Defence Secretary in sending Christmas and new year wishes to members of our armed forces past and present and their families, whether abroad or in this country?

Once again the media are reporting concerns about a major defence issue based on a document obtained from the Ministry of Defence. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the planned privatisation of the Defence Support Group, which provides equipment repair and maintenance for our armed forces? Will he confirm that the US Government have raised significant concerns about intellectual property and that the sell-off is causing understandable nervousness in the Army?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T4. I strongly welcome the improvements already made to the care of veterans, but do Ministers agree with the Prime Minister that more can be done in this area? Do they also agree that the Chavasse report written by Professor Tim Briggs, which has the support of the surgeon-general and others, points the way forward to even better care of veterans and reservists through better co-operation with the NHS and Defence Medical Services?

[Anna Soubry]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know that Professor Tim Briggs is his constituent, and that is why he so ably puts forward this report, which of course has much merit. Professor Briggs has met the surgeon-general, and we look forward to the report bearing fruit in due course.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T2. Last time I asked the Secretary of State a question about the reserves, he said that he had a better track record than me as Secretary of State, although as I have never been Secretary of State I could not have a better track record in that regard. When and why did the Government’s policy change so that reductions to regular forces are no longer contingent on an uplift in reserves recruitment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T6. Press reports suggest the Prime Minister is increasing support for armed forces children in schools, which is, of course, welcome, but today’s armed forces covenant report says that “the need for more comprehensive, affordable childcare…needs to be addressed.”What does the Department propose to do about that?

[Anna Soubry]

Our child-care proposals in any event are providing the sort of support that one would hope for. Again, I believe there is an understanding at the local level and that, as the covenant rolls out, people will understand that they are making a commitment when they sign it. I believe we will see progress on this.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Earlier this year, the Royal British Legion was unable to secure a road closure for Armed Forces day in the village of Bulkington in my constituency. However, the good news is that that will be achieved next year, following the adoption of the community covenant by authorities across Warwickshire. What can be done to ensure that common sense prevails in such situations in future?

[Anna Soubry]

There is the community covenant, but I would be more than happy to make a phone call if it might help in any way.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am sure the Secretary of State is concerned, as are many people, about the new statistics on near air misses involving fast jets. The Ministry of Defence committed in 1998 to installing collision warning systems on Tornado aircraft, but it has not yet done so. Does the Secretary of State regret that? Will he also confirm that the Typhoon does not have a collision warning system installed? Are there plans to do so and when will that happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In written answers to parliamentary questions, the Government have said that they have had 10,000 applications for Arctic Star medals, of which 4,000 have now been processed. One of my constituents is the daughter of such a veteran who is seriously unwell. I am grateful to Ministers for expediting her application, but I ask them to do everything they can for other next of kin in a similar position to make sure that veterans get the recognition that they deserve?

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. As all my predecessors have said, if any hon. Member has any difficulty at all, they should write to me and we will make sure that we speed up the process. If hon. Members have any difficulty they should contact the Minister—at the moment, it happens to be me—and we will do everything we can to speed that up, because that is very important.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In respect of the defence estate, we are very keen to get on with building new housing on the surplus Ministry of Defence land at Craven Hill in Bicester, but there appears to be some confusion about where the new housing will go and where tank transporters will be stored. Will my right hon. Friend please intervene to make sure that that is sorted out as soon as possible? We want to ensure that he gets a financial receipt for his Department.

War Pensions Scheme (Uprating)

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

The new rates of pensions and allowances payable under the war pensions scheme proposed from April 2014 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of awards and allowances for 2014 will take place from the week beginning 7 April. Rates for 2014 are increasing by 2.7% in line with the September 2013 consumer prices index.

Defence Police and Fire Pensions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) on securing this debate and on his tenacity and diligence on the issue. I am aware that there is, and has been, a great deal of interest in this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his speech. He reminds us that the topic attracted a number of speakers during the passage of the Bill and of the importance that many attached to it.

It is important to set out that members of the Ministry of Defence police and the defence fire and rescue service are civil servants. Although there are similarities in the roles and responsibilities of both groups when compared to their Home Office and local authority colleagues, I would say that they are not the same. I believe that that has been recognised historically.

By way of history and some background, the 1979 Wright committee that examined the Ministry of Defence police found significant differences in their role when compared with what we call the Home Department police forces—the ordinary police officers and police forces as we ordinary citizens know them. For example, at that time—back in the 1970s—the work was essentially routine and involved a high proportion of static duty, largely because of the high degree of security.

In 1994 a study led by Sir John Blelloch recognised that there had been a significant change in the role of the Ministry of Defence police since the Wright report. Most notably, a requirement had been introduced for all MDP officers to have the capability to be armed. The MDP had also moved away from routine security towards higher-value armed guarding roles. Nevertheless, Blelloch noted that there were still substantial differences between the role of the MDP and the role of Home Department forces, such as the lower level of crime dealt with and the attendant physical stresses and strains placed upon Home Department police forces, as opposed to their counterparts in the MDP.

It might be helpful for the House to know that a much wider review of terms and conditions of service concerning the Ministry of Defence police is currently being conducted. This review, although begun earlier, is being taken forward in the light of the outcome of the independent review of the remuneration and conditions of service of police officers and police staff in England and Wales that was undertaken for the Home Secretary by Tom Winsor.

The defence fire and rescue service is subject to rigorous modernisation and efficiency initiatives, including the examination of opportunities for greater private sector involvement through the defence fire and rescue project which is in its assessment stage following initial gate approval, as it is called.

The Ministry of Defence police and the defence fire and rescue service personnel have always been members of the principal civil service pension scheme, as are all uniformed civil servants. Therefore they are subject to the normal pension age of that scheme which is 65, although the closed sections have a normal pension age of 60. The civil service unions have already accepted this move to a normal pension age of 65 for all staff joining since—after, in other words—2007. Prospect and Unite, which represent members of the defence fire and rescue service, were two of those unions.

As I am sure Members will be aware, in 2010 Lord Hutton conducted a review of public sector pensions. He recommended that the normal pension age for civil servants should rise in line with the increasing state pension age, but he made an exception, as we have heard, for the armed forces, firefighters employed by local authorities and Home Department police forces. For those individuals, he proposed that the normal pension age should be set at 60, but only where their normal pension age was currently below 60. That would have the effect of their pension age increasing in line with that of other public servants.

Following the review into public sector pensions, both the Defence Police Federation, which represents the Ministry of Defence police, and Unite, which represents the firefighter grades of the defence fire and rescue service, lobbied the Lords. They wished that exception to be extended to them so that their normal pension age would not only not rise in line with the state pension age, but reduce from 65 to 60.

As we have heard, the Public Service Pensions Bill was last debated in the House on 24 April this year. The Lords amendment proposed at the time was accepted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He announced that the Ministry of Defence would prepare and lay before the House a report on the likely effect on both groups of staff of the normal pension age increasing in line with the state pension age. The report was to consider the following three issues: the likely effect of the increased pension age on the health and well-being of the two groups; the likely effect on their ability to continue to meet operational requirements; and the extent to which they were likely to take early retirement as a consequence of the increase in normal pension age, and the consequences of that for them and for the taxpayer.

On 15 May the Ministry of Defence set out the report’s terms of reference, which were simply to

“review the Normal Pension Age of both the Ministry of Defence Police and Defence Fire and Rescue Service personnel”.

Those terms of reference were communicated to the respective trade unions and accepted without amendment. As part of the review, my Department has consulted the relevant trade unions and the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police and the chief fire officer of the defence fire and rescue service.

[David Wright]

The Minister says that she has consulted the unions. She might not be able today to give the dates on which those meetings took place, but could she provide that information in the Library of the House?

[Anna Soubry]

I see no reason why not, so I am more than happy to do so. I should have explained, as I often do in these debates, that if I do not answer the various matters raised by hon. Members in the course of my speech, I will write to them.

[Mr Reid]

My hon. Friend said that there were discussions with the trade unions. For clarification, the Defence Police Federation has reminded me that it is a professional association, not a trade union. I just wanted to check whether it had been consulted along with the trade unions.

[Anna Soubry]

I am so sorry—this is entirely my fault, because I was specifically briefed on that—but I have completely forgotten the answer to that question. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly raising that point about the Defence Police Federation. I know that there is an answer to his question, and it might be provided to me in the course of my speech. If it is not, I undertake to put it all in the Library. There is no difficulty at all in doing that.

I will now turn to the specific points my hon. Friend raised. I thank him for providing a copy of his speech, which is so helpful in these circumstances. I fear that I will be unable to answer all his questions, because of the short time available to us. The MOD will review the levels of abatement of pay and net pay deductions as part of the continuing and wider work into the terms and conditions of service and the future of both the MDP and the defence fire and rescue service. It is as part of that work that we are reviewing pension calculations.

We are also reviewing all pay and remuneration conditions and other potential benefits. For the purposes of that report, the Defence Secretary directed that the review should concentrate on the questions posed by the Act. As I have already stated, a separate continuing review is looking at the broader issues. The Department has engaged with the Defence Police Federation—I think that that answers my hon. Friend’s question—and the defence fire and rescue service section of Unite. Engagement with the federation has been through the quarterly police committee, the monthly Ministry of Defence police management board, and regular meetings in respect of the separate terms and conditions of service review.

Unite was briefed by relevant business units at the outset of the review. It has been engaged in agreeing the statement of requirement that, as I explained, was submitted to the Government Actuary’s Department, and it was invited to attend workshops and make separate submissions to the review as it has progressed. Unite is fully aware of the business units’ conclusions, and its concerns and points of view have been considered by the review. The reports due to be laid in the House—I will give the dates in a moment—will form part of the continuing discussions regarding future changes to the terms and conditions of both groups, including their pension age. I am reliably informed that staff representatives will have a copy of the report before it is published, and that is an eminently sensible idea.

[David Wright]

The Minister is relatively new to her post but I have experience of working with her in other areas of work and she is always fair and equitable. Is she willing, as the Minister involved at this point, to meet the trade unions to talk through some of the issues that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) has raised? That would be very welcome.

[Anna Soubry]

As an old trade unionist—a proud shop steward, I might say, of the National Union of Journalists—I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, my new friend. I have absolutely no problem with that, or with meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and trade union representatives. It might be fair to add the Defence Police Federation. It is always a pleasure to talk to the federation.

In respect of parity, the MOD acknowledges that defence police and firefighters deliver a professional and valued service to the Department and, not least, to the nation. There are significant differences in how they carry out their roles and responsibilities as compared with those under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office, and it is only right that that should be reflected in their terms and conditions of service.

During the review of the pension age, the MOD has considered a number of studies on the fitness levels of people over 60 and their ability to carry out their duties without long absences from work, including the likelihood of early retirement before the age of 65. These will all be referenced in the report. In addition, we have taken account of the management information available within the MOD. Individuals who find that they are unable to maintain the fitness capability required will continue to be exited under the regulations that are applicable to their pension scheme membership.

I hope that I have addressed all the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and others; if not, I will do so by way of letter. We must not forget that we agreed to undertake a review into the likely effects of an increase in the normal pension age beyond 65 on Ministry of Defence police and defence fire and rescue service personnel and, as part of that review, we will consider the three matters that I have outlined. I can assure Members that that is what we are doing. The review is due to be completed by 24 December this year and the Department is on track to meet that deadline. The report will be laid in the House before it rises on 19 December.

Question put and agreed to.

Police and Guarding Agency

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

On 27 March 2012, Official Report, columns 116-19WS, following a thorough and wide ranging review of the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) civil policing and guarding policy, the then Minister responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) announced some broad measures to adjust the number of policing and guarding posts at certain defence establishments, in order to maintain effective and proportionate protection, against the main security and crime risks faced by the Department.

Following that announcement, formal proposals for change were developed for consultation with the staff association and the trade unions representing the MOD police and the MOD guard service (MGS). Formal consultation commenced in October 2012, and concluded in June 2013.

This was a complex consultation. I should like to place on record my thanks to the trade union and staff association officials for the professional and constructive approach they have taken throughout the process. I know that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) met them during the consultation to hear the views and concerns they wanted to express on behalf of their members.

Following the consultation, we have decided to implement the measures set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, though in some cases with changes arising from the consultation process. For security reasons I cannot give details of our new arrangements, but I can say that while there will be prudent reductions in security personnel at some sites (reflecting the latest assessment of risk), many establishments will now have strengthened overall protection, particularly against the terrorist threat.

I very much regret that, as part of these changes, significant numbers of civilian posts in the MGS have been removed, with their duties passing to military personnel, who can be armed when necessary to counter the terrorist threat.

I would like, however, to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the MGS for the excellent contribution it has made over many years to security across the MOD, and will continue to make at the large number of defence sites where it will still operate.

I would stress that everything possible is being done to support those individuals in the MGS who have been adversely affected by these changes, including those potentially facing redundancy because their circumstances mean they are unable to move to a different location where work is available.

I should also like to place on record my thanks to members of the MDP and the military provost guard service (MPGS) for the very important roles they too perform in support of security across the defence estate.

Overall, these changes represent an improvement in security risk management in the MOD, and they have allowed significant recruitment campaigns to begin in the MDP, the MGS and also in the MPGS who will now play a more prominent role in guarding military establishments.

The House can be assured that the MOD attaches the very highest importance to security, and will continue to ensure that risks are kept under review and that effective protection is maintained at all our establishments.