Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raises two points. First, should things change as a result of the reserve forces review that might give rise to something different, that would not necessarily be covered in the Bill as enacted but might require some other form of legislation. Secondly—I am delighted to see the coalition acting as one on this—we have argued all along that we want broad guidelines within the covenant report, not boxes to tick, so the Secretary of State can consider almost anything he likes when preparing his report. Furthermore, the external reference group, or anybody else, can raise whatever they like under the covenant report and our subsequent discussions about it.

To return to the protection of employment for reservists, the 1985 Act will apply to the amendment that we passed to widen the use of reserves in the UK and to all other current operations. I hope that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will accept that assurance as a response to her earlier point, and I will not send her a letter if that is okay.

I think that this is a good Bill. It is the first Bill that I have taken through the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

And the last.

[Mr Robathan]

I might concur. I am proud to have served on the Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill and would like to thank my fellow Committee members, most of whom are here, for the serious and careful way in which they went about their work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to those two individuals. However, he does not understand that the chief coroner’s role is to drive up standards across the country. Following pressure from the hon. Gentleman when he was in opposition, we rightly allowed military inquests to move away from where the body arrives back in the UK and inquests can now be heard at other coroners courts. The important thing about the chief coroner is that his role would be to ensure that the high standards kept by the two coroners of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks are consistently applied throughout the country.

[Dr Murrison]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would say to him that we now have several years’ experience of a local model with two excellent coroners who have not held back when they have felt it necessary to criticise the Government. That is absolutely appropriate. I understand that Labour Members bear the scars on their backs from these two gentlemen, but that is precisely as it should be. I have to say that I have been very impressed with how Mr Masters in particular has conducted his business and has got to grips with the reality of front-line service.

At the heart of the military covenant lies the concept of “no disadvantage”, which I am pleased has informed much of this debate. “No disadvantage” is played out on two levels: first, no disadvantage in access to public services, which can be easily understood by those of us who represent large numbers of servicemen and women. We have seen it in the disadvantage that service children have been put to when they move around frequently. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have introduced, as part of the pupil premium, a sum that will, in some small way, mitigate the disadvantage they suffer. We see it also in servicemen and women being bumped off NHS waiting lists and having difficulties accessing dentists.

Secondly, at another level—perhaps a more fundamental level—we have the concept of “no disadvantage” in relation to those who have suffered greatly, physically and mentally, as a result of their military service. It is surely the mark of a civilised society that, when men and women who have contributed so much to that society are injured physically or mentally, we do everything in our power to mitigate the disadvantage that they suffer. I believe that that is what is in Ministers’ minds with the concept of special provision, which has been introduced under amendments to the Bill, and which we discussed on Tuesday.

It is vital that men and women who give so much of their mental and physical health are restored to health so far as is reasonably practicable. I have been impressed recently while touring limb centres, and particularly Headley Court, by the importance of ensuring that that care is ongoing. The Minister can be certain that as this matter returns to Parliament annually the ongoing care of those who have suffered mentally and physically will be brought up time and again. I am very concerned that as the tempo of operations reduces, and as the battle rhythm declines over the years leading up to 2015, the prominence of military matters and our military personnel will decline. Throughout our history, that has always been what happens after the war fighting stops. Indeed, Rudyard Kipling’s sardonic poem “Tommy” highlights that very well. We need to bear in mind Tommy Atkins and his plight, and I believe we need to think about that as we plan how to keep this issue in the public mind and, by extension, the minds of politicians.

The annual report has come in for criticism. Some think it is flute music, that it has no substance. I think it is vital, and I commend Ministers for introducing it as part of this Bill. I am also delighted that the Government have listened so well to external bodies that have impressed on Ministers the need to ensure that those who feed into that annual report are heard properly, and that the report, when it comes to Parliament, properly reflects their views and input. In a year or so, we will have the opportunity of seeing this process in action, and I confidently expect the House to have every opportunity to debate the military covenant again and in depth. I suspect that the Minister knows full well that if this looks like being a superficial exercise, he will come in for a great deal of criticism. However, I confidently expect that in a year or so, we will be able to commend him once again for this measure of his to which we are going to give a fair wind today.

There are those who say that the Bill does not go far enough. There are also those who say that we should be more didactic in what we write into the Bill. They are simply wrong. We have support from an unlikely source, in the Archbishops Council, which will of course reflect the views of the unlikely guest editor of the New Statesman magazine. He is not a gentleman who is necessarily known to be a supporter of the coalition Government, yet the Archbishops Council is quite clear that the military covenant exists in the moral realm. It is not contractual, and it is not statutory.

There is a risk, however, that pressure from Europe could codify a military covenant. There is something called Synchronised Armed Forces Europe—which is known by the rather misleading acronym SAFE—which seeks to impose a European soldiers statute that would codify the covenant. I urge Ministers strongly to resist such a thing.

I do not intend to detain the House any longer, as a number of colleagues wish to speak. I congratulate Ministers on bringing forward this measure. The Government have taken the Armed Forces Bill—a Bill that, as something of a constitutional anomaly, we take through this House every five years, with the exception of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which dealt in depth with service discipline—and really added substance to it. This is a truly historic Armed Forces Bill that will do much for the men and women to whom we owe so much, and will honour the covenant that we all have with them.

Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I will move to finish my remarks fairly quickly because we are subject to some rather strange remarks at the moment.

The role that support officers would play would be to ensure that relevant individuals who came into contact with the criminal justice system received support while they were held within the system. Only a small percentage end up in the criminal justice system, but it is entirely possible that a goodly number of those people would not be in the prison system if they had been assisted in other ways when they came out of the services. That is my point. As far as the numbers are concerned, I am not saying that the majority are affected, as that would be absolute nonsense.

Concurrent with the need for support officers is the need to improve the recording of the number of veterans held in prisons, on probation or on parole. At no time hitherto has an individual been asked, upon entry to the justice system, whether they have a service record, but that is now changing I am pleased to say. I shall not go into this topic at length, but I note that a survey conducted by the Home Office in 2001-02 recorded that roughly 6% of inmates were veterans, whereas a survey carried out by the MOD in 2007 estimated the percentage in one prison, Dartmoor, at 17.5%. I shall not get into bandying figures around, as we have had this debate before. These are MOD figures, not mine or NAPO’s. I remember that the last time we had such a debate everyone clubbed together to denigrate Harry Fletcher, but these are not his figures.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Stop making them up then.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not making them up.

[Mr Jones]

I know that discussion of this issue can be a bit like “Groundhog Day”, but when I was a Minister, I—under pressure from the right hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in this matter—had the Ministry of Justice’s figures, going back to 1967 for the Royal Air Force, cross-referenced with service records and the figure came out at just over 3%. That is not to dispute the fact that there might be more of those individuals in certain prisons, but the facts were established independently and I do not know why certain people keep disputing them.

[Mr Llwyd]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman why, if we have time to talk turkey. They are disputed because of the scoping exercise that was recently carried out, which came out with a figure of about 5% or 6%. The figure does not really matter, but figures he mentioned excluded women who had served, the reserve forces, those who had served in Northern Ireland and people under 18.

[Mr Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Llwyd]

They certainly did, but the hon. Gentleman and I can argue about that elsewhere. I am sure that they did; I would not say so otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

When the Secretary of State comes to the House to make his annual report and, if the hon. Lady is still in her place—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Or you are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Well, the hon. Gentlemen obviously got parachutes, which might not be my intention for one or two other people.

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s serious concerns about housing, which is an ongoing problem that we wish to improve. We inherited a bad situation, but I do not question the good faith of the previous Administration because it is a difficult matter—[Interruption.] Well, I do not think that we can be blamed for the state of housing 14 years ago.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Oh, apparently we can be blamed.

[Mr Jones]

If the previous Conservative Government had not sold off the estate to Annington Homes, which the Minister will find hamstrings him in what he can do with housing, we would be in a better position.

[Mr Robathan]

I do not think that we want to revisit debates from 1996 and I doubt that you, Dr McCrea, would allow it—[Interruption.] Shall we revisit that debate from 1996? I have to say that I had words with Ministers at the time and was not entirely enthusiastic about the policy, but there we are. It is important that we continue to work on housing because we do not wish people to live in substandard accommodation.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) mentioned the Defence Police Federation’s annual conference, which took place up near the Clyde, next to her constituency. The head of the federation works on the floor above me in the MOD, and I have invited him to come to talk to me about the issues. I do not think that that is particularly unreasonable, especially since the conference is taking place today and I have to be here.

I will consider the large number of amendments in three chunks. I will speak first to the Government amendments, secondly to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and thirdly to the official Opposition’s amendments. When the Government decided to include clause 2 in the Bill, we had two main objectives: to recognise the armed forces covenant in legislation, as we are committed to doing; and to strengthen the Government’s accountability to the House through the mechanism of an annual report on the covenant.

The clause rightly places the covenant at the heart of our national debate on whether we are treating current and former members of the armed forces as they deserve to be treated. This is not a matter in which only the Government have an interest; right hon. and hon. Members are well aware that groups that aim to speak for the armed forces community, including the Royal British Legion, take a close and constructive interest. The legion has now made clear its overall support for what we are trying to do in relation to the covenant. I do not apologise in any way for listening to what it and others have said and, having done so, making changes to the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Contrary to what the hon. Lady says from a sedentary position—perhaps she is reading what is on her BlackBerry—it is not chaos.

Those other organisations are as concerned as the Government are to avoid the pitfalls of the covenant ending up in the courts. They have also pointed out where they think we can do better, and we have listened to them. They argued persuasively that the language of the Bill that related to the armed forces covenant report did not go far enough in explaining our intentions. Our amendments aim to put that right, and I hope that everybody in the Chamber welcomes that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

So why did the Minister, along with his Liberal Democrat colleagues, argue forcefully in Committee on numerous occasions that the Bill as it then stood enshrined the covenant in law, when clearly it did not?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman, together with the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, is continuing to fish for any minor criticisms that he can make. We have listened to what people have said and responded, and they might welcome that rather than carping at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs to offer to do that. That is a bit sexist, if you ask me, but there we go.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire asked earlier from a sedentary position where we got the idea from that there was a £38 billion black hole. May I tell her that it came from the National Audit Office report “Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report 2010”?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Well, Dr McCrea—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Go on then, why not?

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but if the Minister reads the NAO report, he will see that it states that the figure is between £6 billion and £37 billion. The only way we can get to the £37 billion figure is if we include all the forward programming for the forward thing. The problem is that, like a lot of his colleagues, he cannot get away from the spin of central office.

[Hon. Members]

Forward thing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their compliments. I am not used to that and, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, I do not expect it to continue. Never mind. We enjoy these things while they happen.

I was interested in some of the comments that were made because I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is quite keen on reducing the voting age to 16, which seems not entirely at one with some of the things that were said during the debate. However, I shall not dwell on that.

Young people who join the armed services at the ages of 16 and 17 are a valued source of manpower—it is particularly man power in the Army—but we take the duty of care seriously too. When the subject was first raised with me, I had not appreciated that there was what we might describe as a certain element of confusion over whether people could leave at the age of 18. The situation is changing, but currently if a young man—they are typically young men—approaching his 18th birthday said that he was unhappy, he would be dubbed an unhappy minor and in practice he would be allowed to go after a cooling-off period. However, the situation is slightly confused.

People who go absent without leave do not necessarily do so because they want to leave the armed forces. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might say that that is ridiculous, but sometimes people go AWOL because they have done something wrong and they do not want to face the music. There can be other reasons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) has spoken to me about the situation too and, after listening to people and to the debate in the Select Committee, it seems to me that it is important to clarify the position. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, people will have a right to leave up to the age of 18. However, I am not saying that we want them to leave, so we shall give them a cooling-off period. It is likely to be longer than two weeks. It is a genuine change and will be enacted in statute, because it is right that people understand that they do not have to beg to leave; they have the right to leave, but we shall make every effort to dissuade good young people from leaving if we wish to retain them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. People are currently informed of their rights and that will continue. The answer to his question is the old parliamentary expression, “We expect secondary legislation soon.” I hope it will be before the recess, but it may not be. I do not want to get it wrong.

I turn to people who are less satisfied, if I can put it that way, such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. We want good young people to join the armed forces and we get a pretty high quality of recruit these days, as I think the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) would agree. Prohibiting the enlistment of people under the age of 18 would be to the detriment of the armed forces. We take real pride in the fact that the armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people.

Not all the young people who join the armed forces come from happy backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman talked about young people leaving care and joining the armed forces because they saw it as a way out of their difficult circumstances. It is important to bear that in mind.

I shall digress if I may, although it is absolutely germane to the discussion. Probably—notwithstanding other claims—the most decorated man in the British Army at the moment has two conspicuous gallantry medals, a George medal and an MBE. He is now a lieutenant-colonel. When I met him last year, he told me that he spent the night before he joined the Army, aged 17, in a police cell in Bradford. He will not mind my saying this because he told me quite openly—[Interruption.] I know; being in Bradford is a bit much—[Laughter.] Oh God, I’ve let myself in for a few questions now. Humour never translates on to the pages of Hansard.

That man decided that the future for him was either one that did not look very good and might involve further visits to prison and police cells, or that he would join the Army. He joined the Army at the age of 17 and he has not just made an outstanding career for somebody without great educational qualifications but, if I may say so, has made himself a role model for many people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the Minister agree that although there are such individuals, there are also many who go, for example, through the Harrogate college and gain qualifications, or through the excellent Welbeck college where they do A-levels? Not all are from the kind of background that he describes, although I accept that some are. Those colleges give them life chances and educational opportunities that they might not get elsewhere.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I could not agree more. We get some very high-quality people—I presented the prizes at Welbeck two weeks ago, and there is also the apprentice college, Harrogate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I am pleased to hear that the professionalism of those serving at Leuchars, which I saw for myself recently, remains unaffected. There has been some ill-informed and unhelpful speculation in the media. In particular, last week there was a routine meeting to discuss all aspects of defence reform. It was absolutely not the case that there was ever any prospect of decisions being taken at that meeting, nor was there any proposal to that effect on the table. This is important work, and there is more work ongoing. I categorically assure my right hon. and learned Friend that no such decision has been taken, and we will come to the House as soon as we are in a position to do so.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Last week the Chief of the General Staff told the Defence Committee that substantial investment in accommodation and training facilities will be needed if the Government are to be able to meet their challenging target of withdrawing half the troops currently based in Germany by 2015, let alone withdrawing the rest by 2020. What assessment has the Minister made of the cost of this policy and will it come out of the current departmental financial settlement?

[Nick Harvey]

The Chief of the General Staff was absolutely right to say that the accommodation that the British Army will need must be of the highest standard. What that will cost will depend entirely on the decisions that are taken on where the Army will go and the state of readiness of any facilities into which we might propose to move them. The figures will emerge when we know where we are sending them and what will have to be built in readiness to receive them.

Armed Forces Covenant

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

It is generally accepted that more members of the Falklands campaign committed suicide after that campaign—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Not true.

[Conor Burns]

Or may have committed suicide after that campaign than died in active service. Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] These are very serious matters. Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the figures from Combat Stress indicating that further to our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 48,000 veterans may suffer from some form of mental health problem in the years ahead? May I say that his commitment today that the unseen scars of war will be treated as seriously as the physical ones is to be warmly welcomed?

Submarines and Frigates (Plymouth)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile]

The decision has been made, but other issues must be taken into account. I agree that we inherited a £38 billion shortfall, which needs attention. I also agree that from 2015 we must ensure that we have the ability to build up our capacity.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain where he gets the figure of £38 billion from? Even his own Front Benchers have now retreated from that election propaganda put out by Conservative central office.

[Oliver Colvile]

That debate is certainly above my pay grade, but my understanding is that there is a shortfall within the defence budget, and that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. What is important is that we must contain public expenditure. It must be reduced, and that is part of the general thrust of what we inherited and must try to deal with.

The principal issue of the level of defence spending is not affordability, but deciding political priorities. If the events in the middle east continue, I firmly believe that our defence budget may have to be reviewed. During the past 13 or 14 years, there has been real uncertainty about Devonport’s future both as a dockyard and as a naval base. Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that Plymouth should take precedence over Portsmouth, Faslane or Rosyth, but I am arguing that Ministers should not put too much reliance on one naval port for surface ships, and another for submarines. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already said that we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket. However, I want to challenge the previous Government’s plans to base-port both aircraft carriers, all the Type 23s, all the Type 45s and eventually the new Type 26s in Portsmouth, and to move the submarines currently based in Plymouth and the submarine school at HMS Raleigh in Cornwall to Faslane.

Last October, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to confirm that Plymouth Devonport will continue to play a major role in the defence of our country and will remain a premier naval port, he replied:

“I can absolutely confirm that.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 817.]

In all fairness, he added that both Plymouth and Portsmouth would have to face some challenges. We in Plymouth are up for that, but we are worried that if the previous Government’s plans are implemented, there will be a real threat that Devonport will be left with just three amphibious assault ships and five survey vessels.

I am grateful that the strategic defence and security review confirmed that Devonport will retain flag officer sea training, and deep maintenance work at the dockyard, and that the city will host the amphibious capability through 3 Commando Brigade, which is currently in Afghanistan. However, I am worried that the decision to move the seven Type 23s from Devonport to Portsmouth was taken at a time when the four Type 22s were expected to stay in service for at least another few years. That could make quite a difference to the balance of UK base-porting, and could do enormous damage to the skills base in a city and region where both skills and wages have traditionally been low. If the Government allow Devonport dockyard’s waterfront work to decline, they could make it difficult for Babcock, or its successor, to retain and attract the skilled work force needed to refit our nuclear submarines and surface ships. In my opinion, such a collapse in a service that provides unparalleled value for money could have an impact on whether Babcock is able to deliver economies of scale. That in turn could see greater costs for the Ministry of Defence and the taxpayer, and lead to a reduction in competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mrs Brooke, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this debate. He follows his predecessor Linda Gilroy, in being a strong advocate of Plymouth and the dockyard. As a Member, she was tenacious in debate. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, she put the case not only for Plymouth but for the Navy. On numerous occasions, as a Minister I was on the receiving end of her representations.

Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I pay tribute to the people of Plymouth. As a Minister, I had the honour to visit the town several times. Its contribution to the defence of the country is not only recent, and we should be thankful for what it did previously. I also pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy currently serving in Afghanistan, including the Royal Marines, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We often see Afghanistan through an Army prism, but it is important to recognise the contribution made by the Navy.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Raleigh. It is an excellent facility, and I once had the honour of taking a passing-out parade there. The best of British youth can be changed in a matter of 10 weeks from what one mother described as being difficult to get out of bed and not knowing how to use an iron to people who can make a huge contribution to our country’s defence. We should be proud of the young men and women at HMS Raleigh.

[Oliver Colvile]

May I associate myself with those remarks? I recently visited Lympstone, another Royal Marines training centre. I decided not to go into the sheep-dip because I did not want to spend two hours walking about soaking wet. Nevertheless, I was desperately keen and interested in what was being done.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the work that is done at Lympstone. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) mentioned the economic contribution that the dockyard makes not only to Plymouth itself but to the surrounding area; some 25,000 individuals are directly employed by the dockyard and there is a knock-on effect on local business. In addition, I have seen for myself the support that exists for the excellent university.

My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the trade unions at the dockyard which, over many years, have campaigned for the dockyard and ensured that its case is put to both Tory and Labour Governments. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned the cross-party nature of the campaigning that has been carried out by the local authority. When I visited Plymouth, I was very impressed with the way in which the members of the local authority, irrespective of political party, spoke with one voice for Plymouth and the dockyard.

The previous Labour Government conducted a naval base review, in which the decision was made to support Faslane, Plymouth and Portsmouth. However, there were those who said that we should put all our eggs in one basket at Portsmouth, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned. I am sure that there are many who still say that and the Minister will have to address those pressures in the coming weeks. It has been said, perhaps unfairly, that some of the naval top brass prefer Portsmouth to Plymouth because it is nearer to London.

The review was supposed to bring some stability to the future footprint of the Royal Navy in the UK, which is important. Earlier, we mentioned forces accommodation. When I was the Minister responsible for armed forces accommodation, I was conscious that we needed long-term investment in the naval estate. However, that is difficult, especially if the sword of Damocles is hanging over a site—whether it be a naval base, an RAF base or an army base—because there is a tendency not to invest. We have certainly seen that at Faslane and other places. The delay by the previous Government in making a decision on the long-term basing of submarines meant that investment did not go into armed forces family accommodation. If we want our armed forces to be ready for deployment and to fight in difficult situations, it is vital to have good family accommodation and support. For far too long, we have thought of the families as secondary to the fighting forces. They are, in my opinion, integral and important. That is particularly relevant for the Royal Navy because individuals are away at sea for many months. It is important that, while they undertake their duties, they are content and feel that their families are being well looked after.

The naval base review agreed that HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark would be based at Plymouth along with the hydrographic survey ship and the Type 22s and Type 23s. More importantly, there was also a 15-year agreement with Babcock Marine on the dockyard itself. When people look at the arguments for or against Plymouth or Portsmouth, they should consider the fact that the dockyard at Portsmouth has not been viable since 1984, when it was closed. That is an important argument for retaining Plymouth. We need a dockyard capability not only for nuclear but for the refit of existing frigates and other service ships.

With the decommissioning of the Type 22s under the strategic defence and security review, there will be very little left at Devonport. The current review will consider whether the dockyard has a future. However, as the hon. Member for New Forest East so eloquently put it, to put our eggs in one basket would be a mistake. The arguments that were proposed by the previous Government in their base-porting review are relevant today. Although the SDSR is a defence and security review, it is basically led by the Treasury. Having dealt with the Treasury on a number of occasions, I am sure that it will be breathing down the neck of the Minister to ensure that it gets every last pound from any decisions that are made to free up money in the short term.

[Alison Seabeck]

If the defence review was, as we all believe, Treasury led, does my hon. Friend not find it surprising that the Treasury does not seem to be listening to the wider socio-economic case about the implications for Plymouth, given the huge cost implications of making the wrong choice?

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested that that review is being presented to Government. I urge my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, along with the trade unions and the local council, to make the case strongly to Government. However, I have to say that I sympathise with the Minister. Under any Government, the bottom line is that the Treasury will look only at the budget of the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend is right to make the wider case. Closing a dockyard might save money on the defence budget, but in terms of the overall spend to Government, it would cost money in the long term.

I was impressed with the way in which Plymouth, and particularly the university, tried to diversify into other naval-related and maritime sectors. Such efforts would be taken away if the dockyard were closed and the effects would be felt for many years to come. I come from a region which unfortunately saw the end of naval shipbuilding on the River Tyne under a previous Conservative Government, so I am not sure whether this Government will take much cognisance of the wider effects that such closures will have on the region or its capabilities.

The danger that we face is that the Treasury, which is leading the decisions in the SDSR, will make short-term decisions that will have long-term implications. If we were looking for an example of where a short-term decision could be made and we could get things wrong, this would be it.

Although I accept that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is a strong advocate for the armed forces and would argue for a larger defence budget, I have to say gently to him that it is naive to pin his hopes on an increase in the defence budget after 2015 saving his dockyard. The Treasury will not reopen facilities once they are closed and will not invest in new capacities. Its policy will be one of entrenchment rather than expansion. Both he and my hon. Friend must ensure that the case for Plymouth is put very strongly and effectively.

In closing, we are already seeing the effects of the short-term decision not to have any carrier-based air strike force for 10 years, in terms of our inability to deploy air power in Libya effectively and swiftly. Certain Ministers in the Ministry of Defence are recognising that it is now time to look again perhaps at the SDSR and to do so not only through the prism of the Treasury. We must realise that, if we are going to be a nation that wants to project power around the world—both naval influence and other types of influence—a strong, effective Navy is an important part of that aspiration. In addition, a well financed and strategically thought out defence policy is a cornerstone of any such aspiration.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)]

Mrs Brooke, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this important debate.

I must state at the outset that I am responding to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government in the stead of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology. I am very pleased to say that he is in Japan undertaking work that I hope the House will approve of: promoting Britain’s defence interests and defence exports to that country. Consequently he is unavoidably detained overseas and so it falls to me to respond to the debate.

As is customary, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the other hon. Members who have taken part in it, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who is an esteemed former Front-Bench colleague, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, all three of them have taken part in various defence debates in this Parliament. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View have participated in such debates during the many years they have been in the House, and are therefore noted contributors to the wider issues of defence. They are not limited simply to their constituency interests, which I always think is a rather healthy manifestation of political expression in the House. It is healthier than simply articulating the case for one’s own constituency.

I must also say that, as ever, it is a great pleasure to participate in a debate with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I have sparred with him for many years and personally we have always enjoyed the best of friendships, although I am delighted to say that I am now on the Government Benches and he is on the Opposition Benches.

Where Royal Navy vessels are based is an important topic for the entire House. It has an impact on both service personnel and their families, and on local jobs and infrastructure. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the important role that Plymouth has played in the defence of the nation throughout our seafaring history and to pay tribute to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Those men and women have contributed so much to the United Kingdom’s defence, at home and overseas.

The story of the naval base at Plymouth stretches back as far as the time when the English fleet sailed out to face the Spanish armada. Famously, Sir Francis Drake, who was a vice-admiral in that fleet, was playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe when he sighted the armada. Indeed, the fleet accommodation centre at the base in Plymouth is still known within the Royal Navy as HMS Drake, in his honour. Since the time of the armada, the base has survived more than four centuries of warfare, including heavy bombing during the blitz. That is thanks in large part to the hard work and resilience of the people of Plymouth.

As everyone knows, we have had to make some difficult decisions in recent times as a result of the utter incompetence of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who virtually destroyed the public finances. It always astonishes me how few people in this country understand the magnitude of the budget deficit problem that we inherited. I ask people at various gatherings, “How much was the budget deficit in May 2010?”, and very few people—even well informed ones—know the answer. For the benefit of putting it on the record, I will say now that the deficit then was £150 billion. For those of us interested in defence, that translates to the cost of three Type 45 destroyers each and every week of the year. The deficit is that great. To put it in a wider historical perspective, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and I both remember that in 1979 the budget deficit was £8.25 billion; now it is some 20 times greater. [Interruption.] That statement is true. The hon. Member for North Durham is mumbling away, but I remind him that Jim Callaghan left an economic legacy almost as bad as that left by the last Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, last year.

Of course, it is in the context of the current budget deficit that we have to address the position on defence. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the budget deficit is itself a threat to our national security, and if we were not dealing with it in the way the Chancellor is dealing with it now, the UK would most likely have found itself in the same position as Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What a load of nonsense.

[Mr Howarth]

It is not a load of nonsense. I was in the financial world and I understand how important it is to secure the support of the international financial community. It is just as important for an individual, if they have an overdraft, to have the support of their bank manager. When the nation is in the dire straits it now finds itself in, it is absolutely imperative that we have the support of the international financial community. That support is what deserted Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

[Mr Jones]

I just wish that the Minister would not keep peddling this absolute nonsense. The idea that the UK economy is the same as the Greek economy is utter rubbish. The idea that somehow the UK’s credit rating was in peril, in terms of receiving the support of the international financial community, is complete nonsense. If he looks at long-term borrowing for Greece, he will see that more than 50% of its debt is on short-term loans of about three years. Most of the UK’s debt is on loans that are in excess of 14 years. If he is using the deficit argument as an excuse for decimating the armed forces, I can accept that he needs some cover for what he is doing; but he should acknowledge economic reality rather than just continually peddling nonsense.

[Mr Howarth]

It is wonderful that the hon. Gentleman can still come to the support of his former boss, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, after the devastation he wreaked on the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why in the strategic defence and security review we chose an adaptable posture for the UK’s defence and security. We specifically rejected the concepts of fortress Britain or an over-committed Britain, which would result in a lack of agility. The events of recent days have shown how unpredictable the external environment can be. That is why we were correct to maintain that flexibility and agility in our armed forces.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

A week ago 50 senior military figures called for the SDSR to be reopened. They signed a letter saying that the SDSR

“seems to have been driven by financial rather than military considerations”.

However, when the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee last week, he refused to deny reports that the Ministry of Defence was facing another £1 billion of cuts. Is it not becoming clear that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is in the driving seat in the MOD, not the Secretary of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

I will not be the only one to set out that information, as I am sure the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee as well as the Select Committee on Defence will want to make it perfectly clear. I have made it clear, including in the evidence I gave to the Select Committee last week, that I would like to see greater transparency in how the Department makes its information available. As for the unfunded liability we inherited from the previous Government and the damage it has done to our ability to plan for the future—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Where has the £38 billion gone?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman asks where the £38 billion has gone; he should know; he left it behind. It was his Government who were responsible for it. We shall diminish that unfunded liability and put the Department back on a sound footing—something that Labour Members were incapable of doing.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I will come to the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and what is known as Gulf war syndrome. I am aware of and have previously commended in the House the work of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is in his place, and the report that he produced, which I know the Secretary of State has committed to implementing in full. We welcome that commitment and look forward to its being honoured, but we are also supportive of the key points that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made in his early-day motion. Some of the soldiers who suffer from Gulf war syndrome reside in Northern Ireland; I have met some of them and am aware of their concerns, and more needs to be done to assist those suffering from that condition.

A harrowing statistic that has been given in the House before, going back to the Falklands conflict, is that more of our armed services personnel who served there took their own lives as a result of the trauma of their involvement in that conflict than died in the conflict itself.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

That statistic keeps being repeated, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the evidence and find out where it comes from, because I do not think it is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say on behalf of the Government.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is continuing the way he acted in Committee by supporting everything the Government do. The Opposition tabled an amendment in Committee to enshrine the covenant in law, but he and the Government voted against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I begin by associating myself and my party with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Liam Tasker? The work that he was doing was vital not only in securing and supporting his colleagues and comrades but in bringing peace to Afghanistan. We should think today of his bravery and the sacrifice that he has made, and also think of his family and his comrades who have been left behind.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on securing this debate. As the Secretary of State said, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, I had the honour of visiting Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. I concur with his view about the contribution that people from Northern Ireland make—not only servicemen and women but their families— in supporting our armed forces and making the valiant contribution that they are making today in Afghanistan.

Our commitment to the men and women of our armed forces is non-negotiable. As Veterans Minister, I was always very proud of the support that the British people gave to our servicemen and women and their families, recognising their courage, skill and dedication. We must do our best not only to honour them when they make the ultimate sacrifice but to support them while they are in service and throughout life.

I should like briefly to touch on what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said about the previous Government’s commitment to this issue and the contribution that we made to supporting not only our servicemen and women but their families. The Command Paper to which he rightly referred was a groundbreaking piece of work initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence. For the first time, it looked across Government and got different Departments working together. The Command Paper had two fundamental principles: first, to recognise and end the disadvantages created by military-style life—for example, where being moved meant losing one’s place on waiting or housing lists—and secondly, to recognise that at all times it is right and necessary to provide special treatment, whether in removing disadvantage or in recognising the sacrifice made by those who have been seriously injured in the service of their country.

That piece of work was a landmark document. It did not just gather dust; it was implemented through working across Government and, for the first time, getting other Government Departments thinking about veterans and servicemen and women and their families when they were developing policies. I hope that it has left a good foundation for the coalition Government to build on. I put on record my thanks to the Royal British Legion for its campaign and the work that it continues to do not only in highlighting our debt to our servicemen and women and their families but in ensuring that all politicians recognise that debt.

When we published the Command Paper, we were criticised in certain quarters for trying to ensure that we honoured the covenant. Unlike some Conservative politicians who were happy to take pot shots at us when we were in government, I never believed that the covenant was broken; rather, it was something that we were able to build on through the Command Paper. We did much to be proud of, in which I was directly involved, in improving the lot of servicemen and women and veterans.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned service accommodation. When I was a Minister, he was always knocking on my door to advocate and lobby for improved accommodation in Colchester. We made some great strides in improving accommodation, although that was made very difficult by the decision taken in 1996 by the previous Conservative Government to sell off Army housing to a Japanese bank.

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer the House to the disgraceful privatisation involving Annington Homes. Does he agree that every pound of public money that is spent on improving the housing stock increases the value of that property to Annington Homes?

[Mr Jones]

It is on the record that that was a lousy deal for taxpayers, our servicemen and women, and their families. The important point is that we invested in new housing. In some cases, it was difficult to negotiate around the Annington Homes deal because of how it was structured.

The new single living accommodation that has been put in place through SLAM—the single living accommodation modernisation project—is some of the best anywhere in the world in terms of quality. The millions of pounds that we spent to improve service accommodation were recognised in 2009 by the National Audit Office, which stated that 90% of service families’ accommodation were in the top two of four standards for condition and met the Government’s decent homes standard. I accept that there is still accommodation that is not acceptable, and that sometimes the way in which service families were treated was wrong. Sometimes they were treated as though they were in the Army as well. On occasions, we did not get that right and did not recognise that the families should be looked at as customers, rather than as simply part of their partner’s employment conditions.

Health care is another area that the previous Government can be proud of. The new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham has dedicated military wards, and we put money into Headley Court to provide first-rate and world-beating rehabilitation for those who are severely injured in the service of their country. One of the things that I am most proud of from my time as a Minister is the Army recovery capability project, and I am pleased that the Government are following through on that. We owe a debt to the severely injured. We must not forget them when the headlines go away, but must have a long-term commitment to them.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned our debt and said that we must not forget. Will he recognise an area of support for the armed forces that has not been mentioned, which is remembering those who have fallen? Will he join me in welcoming the recent decision of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) to recommend to the Sentencing Guidelines Council that the desecration of war memorials should be considered as an aggravating factor, to reflect the seriousness of such offences?

[Mr Jones]

I do welcome that announcement. As a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I think that it is very important that anybody who desecrates such monuments, whether or not they are Commonwealth War Graves Commission monuments, should be dealt with severely. The disgraceful scenes that we have seen of people desecrating war memorials are totally unacceptable and should be condemned.

[Dr Murrison]

In the “National Recognition of our Armed Forces” study, Lord Davies of Stamford, the former Member for Grantham and Stamford, stated that if those who wear the Queen’s uniform are insulted, that crime should be subject to special sentencing. Does the hon. Gentleman still hold to that?

[Mr Jones]

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to be disrespectful to anybody in uniform, whether they are a member of our armed forces or of any other service that works on our behalf, such as the police or fire services. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward that policy now that his party is in government, I am sure that it will be supported by Opposition Members.

Another aspect of health that we must refer to is mental health, and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in that area. In government, we made great strides with the mental health pilots and the medical assessment programme at St Thomas’s hospital under Ian Palmer, which was there to provide support to all veterans, including Gulf war veterans, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) who is no longer in his place. I support anything that improves mental health services. The Command Paper did that by allowing us to work with the health service to ensure that mainstream mental health services reflect the needs of veterans.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that veterans, particularly those who have served in recent conflicts and particularly those who suffer from mental health problems, are not well served in northern England and frequently have to travel some distance. I hope that we can have an all-party approach to reaching a better conclusion on those treatments.

[Mr Jones]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady says that, because one of the mental health pilots was in the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, which covers my constituency in Durham and hers. That pilot was specifically about ensuring that local services such as mental health nursing recognised the needs of veterans. I am not sure where the Government have got to in that work, but anything that can be done to roll it out should be done. I agree with her that services need to be local. If possible, people should not have to travel long distance to access them.

I know that the new veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), agrees that when we are debating mental health issues relating to veterans, we should not lose sight of the fact that although post-traumatic stress disorder is a personal tragedy for every individual who suffers from it and for their families, it affects a small proportion of the population—something like 4%. Other areas, such as depression and alcohol abuse, need the same concentration and support. We need to focus the media portrayal of this issue back on to those other areas, and not just label everything as PTSD.

The previous Government can also be proud of doubling the compensation paid to injured servicemen and women. No amount of monetary compensation can repay the sacrifice of the veterans with horrific wounds whom I have met. However, we helped by doubling the amount and by ensuring that, for the first time, such people received lump-sum payments. Before the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, they did not get lump-sum payments, although if one read the newspapers of the time, one would have thought that they had always existed. I put on the record my thanks to Lord Boyce, who did a valuable job in fine-tuning the compensation scheme and bringing it up to date. I know that the Government are committed to implementing his recommendations.

Service charities are also important, as has been recognised by the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. The Royal British Legion has been mentioned, as have the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and the Army Benevolent Fund. Those organisations are not just about fundraising, but contain a vital network of unpaid volunteers who, week in, week out, go into veterans’ homes to support them. I thank those volunteers for the work that they do. Combat Stress does a vital job in ensuring that individuals who suffer from mental illness access the support that they require. We need to ensure that there is better co-ordination in the charities sector. That is happening through some of the initiatives that I implemented, and it is being followed through to ensure that there is no duplication. I stress from the Dispatch Box that what we need is not new service charities, but for existing charities to work closer together, which they are, to ensure that the support is there.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in allowing interventions. May I counsel caution? Many micro-charities are spontaneous and very British, if I may put it in that way. They reflect the public’s desire to do something immediately. Often, they are part of the grieving process. I therefore urge caution about laying into such small charities.

[Mr Jones]

I take that point on board, but the best thing to do would be to focus fundraising efforts on the existing charities. The Royal Navy is rationalising its smaller charities. That is not being done to denigrate their work, because some of them do key specific work, but it is important that there is better co-ordination between them.

[Ian Paisley]

I believe that there are something like 2,000 such charities, many of which are doing an excellent job, and that they are issue-specific and will fade out. There is a strong case to be made for co-ordinating and consolidating their work.

[Mr Jones]

I believe the Confederation of British Service and Ex-service Organisations is working with the Veterans Minister to consider how we can get better co-ordination between those charities, which will be very important, especially when the clientele of some of the smaller charities pass away over the next few years. I am thinking, for example, of the Association of Wrens, which I believe has an end-date by which it will wind itself up and merge with other naval service charities. I put on record again my thanks to the individuals involved in such charities.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned the covenant, which it is important to consider. The previous Government were quite clear in our Command Paper about where our work on that would go next, and the Green Paper that I produced in 2008 considered ways of embedding in law the covenant and other matters covered in the Command Paper. I am sad that the Government are not following through on that work, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister’s commitment on the deck of the Ark Royal is in sharp contrast with what has happened in practice.

The opportunity provided by the Armed Forces Bill is being missed, because the covenant is not being enshrined in law. Members have mentioned the Royal British Legion, which clearly feels let down. It saddened me that when I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee a few weeks ago, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted against it. That was a missed opportunity, and we need to revisit the matter.

[Dr Fox]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State is rethinking the matter, I will very much welcome it.

[Dr Fox]

This has been a very open debate so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to me whether, in his eyes, putting the military covenant into law means creating specific, definable rights for certain members of society. Will he give us an example of what sort of rights those might be, and what legal advice the Opposition have been given about the justiciability of such rights?

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State has looked at our Green Paper, he will have seen what I was proposing. I agree that we should not create a feast for lawyers, but we wanted to ensure, for example, priority access in the health service, which we believed could be legally enforceable. My recent amendment suggested that the local government ombudsman should be responsible, as was suggested in the Green Paper. I accept that there is resistance to that, not from the Ministry of Defence but from other Departments. However, people ask whether veterans should get special treatment, and, in my opinion, they should.

[Mr David Hamilton]

It might help if I say that in my local authority area veterans get priority in housing. We have the Glencorse barracks in my area, and people coming out of the armed forces have always gone to the top of the list. That is enshrined in the rules. Such a provision in law could make every local authority comply with that arrangement. They do not all do it at the moment.

[Mr Jones]

I am aware of that, and I know that other local authorities including Wigan have changed their housing policies to do exactly the same thing. The Prime Minister made a clear commitment to enshrining that in law, as the quotation that we have heard this afternoon shows. The Armed Forces Bill does not do that, and if the Government are rethinking ways of doing it, they will certainly have the Opposition’s support and assistance.

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for it. There is a strong case to be made that it is a national issue. When a soldier comes out of the Army, they should be able to settle in public housing somewhere with their family and expect something in return for the service that they have given this nation. It is a very small ask, and we should insist on it.

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree. The danger with the system outlined in the Bill is that the Secretary of State will produce a report without any independent input. As I said in Committee, I do not question for one minute the Secretary of State’s integrity or his intention to ensure that everything that should be in the report is in it, but a future Secretary of State could decide that certain matters should not be. That is a missed opportunity, and I hope that when the Bill goes to the other place it will be amended to ensure that the covenant is enshrined in law.

[Bob Russell]

It is.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman chunters on about that, and I know he is doing his best to support the Conservatives now—I believe he is known locally as Tory Bob these days. I found it remarkable that he was the only member of the Public Bill Committee who was doing the Government’s heavy lifting. It is important that we enshrine the covenant in law, and if the Government reconsider the matter they will certainly have our support.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned Gurkha pensions. As Members know, I have form on that matter. I wish to dispel some of the myths that continue to be portrayed in the newspapers and media about the equalisation of pensions. A Gurkha can retire after 15 years of service, so in some cases they retire on a full pension at about 35 years of age, or even younger. If pensions were equalised, most Gurkhas would not gain anything at all, because their UK counterparts cannot access their pension until they are 60. Backdating would mean their getting not just equalised pensions but actually better terms and conditions than other servicemen and women in some cases. Before 1975, service people got no pension whatever unless they had 22 years’ service. It is important that the facts are examined in detail.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Perhaps it might be of interest to my hon. Friend to hear that recently some Gurkha campaigners have been writing to the Defence Committee complaining that although the Government parties used a lot of rhetoric in opposition, the great promises that they made have been abandoned since the formation of the Government. The campaigners feel let down.

[Mr Jones]

I have friends on the Government Benches, and I know that even when they were in opposition some of them privately agreed with my position and that of the Government at the time. Clearly, in the hubris of the campaign, opportunistic Liberal Democrats got carried away. Unfortunately, Gurkhas and their families are now feeling the consequences. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), will have to answer questions about that.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that 10,000 Gurkhas are living in poverty. There are two separate types of Gurkha pensioner—welfare pensioners, who do not accept pensions, and service pensioners. When I visited Nepal, I saw that service pensioners are some of the wealthiest individuals in their local communities. Although they have a pension of only about £170 a month, that is equivalent to the income of an engineer or a junior doctor, so people need to examine the facts. Welfare pensioners are supported very ably by the Gurkha Welfare Trust and the Ministry of Defence, both financially and through logistical support on health and education.

Once again, I welcome the debate. Our brave servicemen and women are serving around the world, and we have a debt to them not just now but for years to come. It is right that they have had a lot of attention and recognition while they have been serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said earlier, it is important that in future years, when the spotlight has perhaps moved elsewhere, we do not forget our debt to them. I will work with anybody who wants to ensure that servicemen and women, particularly those who have suffered mental injury or serious injury, are not forgotten when they are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. We cannot shy away from our debt to them, no matter what happens economically or in any other way.

Military Covenant

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hancock]

We had the same problem when the last Government refused to accept their duty of care responsibilities. They did that because nobody could clearly define, in rigid legal terms, what a duty of care was.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

We did.

[Mr Hancock]

No, you didn’t. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister and before that was on the Defence Committee, will remember from his experiences on the Committee that the Labour Government’s big failure on the duty of care was that they were unable to define clearly what it meant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I thank Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber for having retrieved the debate, as Hansard will record. The debate will be read by many service personnel and former military personnel and, as I said in an earlier intervention, it does not go down well to play party politics with our armed forces.

Having served on the previous Armed Forces Bill—now the Armed Forces Act 2006—and on the Committee debating the current Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to the previous Government for the many advances that were made regarding the welfare and interests of our serving personnel and their families.

I have no recollection of the military covenant—now known as the armed forces covenant—being mentioned in our deliberations on the previous Bill. That concept has been brought about by the efforts of the Royal British Legion, to which I pay tribute. I also thank the Secretary of State for praising reservists and for reiterating that praise when I intervened on him, because that is part of the one-Army concept. Serving reservists and their families are sometimes left out of the debate.

The armed forces covenant will be enshrined in law when the Bill is enacted because those words will appear in legislation for the first time and because the Secretary of State will be required to come to the House each year and make a report. I am pretty confident that any Secretary of State who for whatever reason tried to airbrush out matters of concern would be quickly picked up, and quite rightly so, by any Member who thought such issues were being ignored.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman says that the covenant will be enshrined in law, but he attended the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill the other day when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said of the covenant:

“As I have explained already, it will be a conceptual, philosophical statement, and it will have about the same legal position as the service Command Paper”.

To say that it will be enshrined in law is complete nonsense.

[Bob Russell]

I am not a lawyer; all I know is that the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, refers to the armed forces covenant. Should there be more than that, or should there be less? I do not know, but I do know that as the years unfold, that concept will be developed and built upon. Not only the Royal British Legion but other charities are involved. We have heard about the external reference group, but in fact a breakdown of that group has shown that the majority of its membership is within Government. It is more of an internal reference group, with a few very important external people added on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can. I love the idea of a military covenant. Of course our armed forces are a special case. They are a martial profession: people who join them do not do so to join a nursery school; they know they are going to take risks and they know they may lose their lives. As we know, they are in a unique profession, so we have to deal with them uniquely. That is why we must look after them. I repeat: we must look after them.

The military covenant is a work in progress. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who is no longer in his place, and others who say that it is the idea of the covenant that counts rather than law. We feel strongly that the tri-service military covenant being looked at now, as work in progress, could get better. I feel that the military covenant comprises three crucial aspects, which I will quickly run through.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What the Defence Secretary said this afternoon, which was also said in recent proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill, is that a document called “the armed forces covenant” is being worked on now and will be produced later this spring. If that is the case, and the Prime Minister is clear that the covenant should be written into law, why is it not part of the Armed Forces Bill? When an amendment was proposed last week to enshrine the covenant in law, why did the hon. Gentleman’s party vote against it?

[Bob Stewart]

The answer is I do not know, but I will continue and I will be quick.

What is crucial to whatever we call the military covenant is how we respect our soldiers when they are killed. As a boy, I remember watching my father’s battalion come back. He was the only officer who had not been killed and I remember watching the bodies come off the back of an aircraft at RAF Khormaksar in Aden. We have come a long way since then, and we must respect people properly. Secondly, the families must be looked after properly. When someone dies in the service of our country, we have a duty as a Government to look after those families for the rest of their lives. And my third point is that we have a duty to look after those who are hurt badly for the rest of their lives, too.

I am happy that the military covenant is going to be part of the Armed Forces Bill. I like the idea of having a report every year. I commend the idea of the Queen’s regulations. When I was serving, they were my bible when it came to dealing with my soldiers and how I should behave. Perhaps the tri-service military covenant will in due course become part of the Queen’s regulations.

Members on both sides of the House must try to do whatever we can in these parlous economic times to look after our soldiers so that we will remember them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman ought to discuss that matter with his own Front-Bench team, as it was the last Government who appealed against the ruling in favour of the atomic war veterans—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Which you agreed with.

[Mr Robathan]

Absolutely. As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) will know, the courts have now decided in favour of the Government. I pay tribute to those who took part in the tests many years ago, but it was about 60-odd years ago and I am afraid that the courts have found that there is no causal link whatever between many of the disabilities and illnesses suffered and exposure to any radiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

Let me make it clear to the House that the primary consideration in the basing study will be the military advantages and the military necessity of locating particular things in particular places. We will, of course, have to take account of the financial climate in which these decisions are being made and their socio-economic impact. We are addressing all these things and hope to make a full announcement in the spring.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on last week’s press reports that he told a meeting at RAF Lossiemouth that RAF Marham would be too costly to close. Those comments will have appalled those working at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars, who believed that they would get a fair hearing from Ministers as they carried out their base review. Should we not conclude from his comments that the review is nothing but a sham?

[Nick Harvey]

I should correct the hon. Gentleman by saying that the meeting in question took place at RAF Kinloss. What I said to the Moray Task Force, whom I was meeting at the time, was that the costs of moving the in-depth maintenance facilities from Marham and, indeed, paying to relocate the staff of the contractors involved would be so prohibitive that it would potentially undermine any savings that might accrue from closing a base. The economics of moving the in-depth maintenance facilities for Tornado at this stage in Tornado’s life cycle would, as I said on Thursday last, be very questionable indeed.

Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I would have to consider that matter in detail. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps he should volunteer to sit on the Committee—I certainly will do so—and we can then explore the issue in greater detail. That is probably a sensible way forward, and it will be interesting to see whether he volunteers to do that.

Clause 2 deals with the military covenant and that matter has already been mentioned in the debate. The Royal British Legion—I am proud to be vice-president of the Olney branch—has raised concerns, and the Secretary of State has promised to consider them and, indeed, deal with them. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the role of the external reference group to continue in some form or another. That is something else I expect we can explore in Committee.

We have talked mainly about the three principal areas of health care, education and housing. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve on the Select Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), when we looked at the issue of the education of service families. I am delighted that the Government have introduced some of our recommendations and we should continue to consider that matter. I am pleased that an annual report will be presented to Parliament. [Interruption.] When I referred to the Government, the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), said from a sedentary position that it was the previous Government. I am actually being apolitical and mean the government of the land.

There has been some concern that perhaps the Government’s commitment to the military covenant does not go far enough and that the relationship between the armed forces and the Government should be enshrined in black and white. My personal feeling is that it is not important what is in black and white for the lawyers to argue over; what is important is how the covenant has been interpreted by successive Governments. I shall give one example. After the introduction of joint personnel administration—the new payment computer system in the Army—there has been a problem with some junior ranks in the British Army being effectively overpaid for a number of months. That has amounted to a sizeable sum for some individuals. I do not think any fair-minded person would suggest that that money should not be paid back; it is an overpayment and we would all expect to pay it back. However, the true test of the covenant is how the money is paid back. It should not have to be paid back in a single lump sum in one pay cheque; those concerned should be allowed to pay the money back over time. That is just one example of how the application of the covenant, and not what appears in black and white, is important.

To be honest, soldiers are quite cynical about government. They feel that any covenant would always be interpreted in the Government’s favour. I hope that the Opposition will take that point in the spirit it is intended because it is simply an objective statement of fact.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that what is being put forward today is rather disappointing, especially in the light of the Green Paper that I produced in 2009, which set out not only what we had done in terms of the Command Paper, but how we could make what it referred to legally enforceable? Does he share my disappointment that the work and the response to that have not been brought forward in the Bill, so that the things put in place in the armed forces Command Paper would be legally enforceable?

[Mark Lancaster]

I do not, because the real test will be in the implementation. I have confidence that the Government will implement and uphold their end of the bargain, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and only time will tell. Perhaps we can consider the matter again in one of our annual debates on the military covenant.

I was going to give one example of where soldiers are perhaps right to be slightly cynical. I fully supported the previous Government’s introduction of the operational allowance in October 2006. That was a good move, and it introduced a tax-free allowance of £2,240. However, it is worth remembering—I wish to make it clear that I think that this was more by cock-up than conspiracy—that at the same time the Government also cut the long-service separation allowance, meaning that a soldier on a six-month tour in Afghanistan lost £2,341. The Government gave with one hand and took away with the other, within the space of a month. When such moves happen, one can see why any soldier is entitled to be cynical of any Government. It is therefore very important that we see, over time, how the military covenant is improved.

As I said from the Opposition Benches shortly after I got back from my operational tour in Afghanistan, there has been a major improvement in personal kit over the past few years. I felt that when I was mobilised in 2006, the standard of personal kit that I was given then was far better than the kit I was given when I was mobilised in 1999 or 2001—so, once again, credit to the previous Government for that improvement, which I should like to continue under this Government in future years.

My other general point about the military covenant concerns rest and recuperation. I had personal experience of the problems of R and R on coming back from Afghanistan in 2006. Although I do not want to go into the details of the matter again—it was the subject of debate in this House for some time—I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the problems with the air bridge have been addressed. Clearly, we will always have trouble when we have to rely on airframes that are very old, but I have heard reports that unfortunately the problems experienced in 2006 are beginning to happen again. There have been calls for us to guarantee the two-week R and R period for soldiers in the middle of an operational tour. I do not support that for simple operational reasons. If a soldier were to lose a day at the beginning of his leave, a guarantee that he could come back from it a day later would make the whole manning plot for the commanding officer in theatre almost impossible. However, I would support a guarantee that if any R and R days are lost during an operational tour, they should be added to the post-tour leave. That is perfectly reasonable.

I was slightly disappointed that neither Front Bencher chose to mention the reserve forces. That is an oversight that I should like to correct, especially given that some 15% of soldiers mobilised on operations are from the reserve forces. Members of the reserve forces face some very specific problems when they are mobilised. Any mobilisation process starts at the reserves training and mobilisation centre in Chilwell. If I am lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Bill Committee, I would like to suggest that we visit that facility, which plays a very valuable role. Having been through it on three occasions, I must say that the standard of service that it provides in preparing reservists for mobilisation has improved significantly over recent years.

However, there can be major problems when a reservist returns home. Because, in general, they are mobilised as individual replacements, they lack the support that a regular soldier, sailor or airman has in coming back with a formed unit. I can give an example of a very unfortunate case from my own unit when a colour sergeant came back from mobilised service in Afghanistan. Because we are a specialist unit that does not meet for drill nights, there is no regular contact every Tuesday night where we can monitor colleagues who have recently returned, and we did not see much of him until one weekend when he was clearly not well. The effects of service in Afghanistan had clearly had a significant impact on him. I regret to say that that ended up with an incident in which he attempted to shoot a colleague with a weapon that he had brought back from Afghanistan, and he is now in prison. It was an awful incident. One wonders whether the same thing would have happened had that individual been serving with a regular unit and received the same levels of support that a regular soldier would have had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, but if I remember rightly, the methodology of that particular report was somewhat questionable. [Interruption.] May I finish my point? The reservists were not included, nor were people under 18 or women who had served in the Army. I believe that one other category of people was excluded—there were four such categories.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

In support of the Minister, I wish to say that as the Minister who commissioned that research, I know that it was the most comprehensive ever done on the matter. It cross-referenced all the service records in all three services, in some cases going back to the late 1960s, with the records of the Ministry of Justice. Trying to rubbish it by making points about reservists, for example, is not helpful. It was a thorough piece of work, and I stand by what the Minister said about it.

[Mr Llwyd]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and he knows that I have been discussing the matter with him for a long while. I am not rubbishing the report. All I am saying is that four distinct categories of service people were exempted from its scope. The first thing that the people conducting the report did was to ring Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers and ask him about his methodology. They were very much working in the dark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Llwyd]

I will give way to both hon. Members, but I am trying to construct an argument and do not want to make political points about the figures involved. I hope we can all agree that we have a huge problem. I give way first to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

[Mr Jones]

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not helpful to rubbish the most thorough report on the facts of the matter. I have met Mr Fletcher on a number of occasions and know that he is a great self-publicist. He came up with the figure of 10% of the prison population being ex-armed forces, or at one time even 15%, on no evidence at all. That was not very helpful as part of the debate into which the hon. Gentleman has rightly put a lot of hard work.

[Mr Llwyd]

The way in which Mr Fletcher went about the matter was to e-mail every member of the probation service who was connected with prisons and ask them how many people on their books had been in the services. That was how he came up with his figures, but even within the latest Government figures of 3.5% or 4%, we see that in Dartmoor, for example, the figure was 17.5% in 2007.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

Such work is being done by, for example, Kent police, to which I referred earlier, and probation services here and there. Very good work is undertaken in some prisons. That work is done by people who have an interest in assisting veterans, and we need to roll out good practice throughout the UK.

It is wrong for anyone to hint that I am disparaging the services when I refer to alcohol or drugs. I am trying to consider matters realistically, not to insult members of the armed forces, for heaven’s sake.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with comments that have been made. However, when I was veterans Minister, we introduced tracking. We are obviously now waiting for the current Government to implement that.