Service Complaints Commissioner

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I am pleased to place in the Library of the House the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s formal response to the Service Complaints Commissioner (SCC)’s third annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.

The MOD and the services accept the SCC’s four new three-year goals, which are challenging but reasonable. The formal response sets out how we propose to address the SCC’s 20 new recommendations, including as part of the work that we are currently doing to review the complaints process as a whole.

Since the complaints process was introduced in January 2008, the MOD and the services have made considerable improvements to their management of complaints, drawing on the SCC’s valuable input as well as on lessons learned from their own experience of operating the system. While recognising that changes should be given the opportunity to bear fruit, we will maintain and build on the progress made to date to deliver a process that is as fair, effective and efficient as possible.

People, Pay and Pensions Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

With effect from today, the People, Pay and Pensions Agency (PPPA) will cease to have the status of executive agency of the Ministry of Defence (MOD).

The People, Pay and Pensions Agency (PPPA) was formed in April 2006 to bring together civilian pay, pension and human resource (HR) services. The PPPA subsumed the Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) and became the single provider of all corporate civilian personnel services to the MOD.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, announced on 22 March 2011, Official Report, columns 49-50WS, the intention to establish the new Defence Business Services (DBS) organisation, bringing together the delivery of a range of corporate service functions to support all areas of the Department from one organisation. The DBS stood up on 1 July 2011 and the civilian HR function of the DBS provided by the PPPA has been renamed as DBS Civilian HR.

This change in operating status will have no impact on PPPA’s customers and will deliver efficiencies and wider savings to Government, in particular the costs incurred in auditing the agency’s annual report and accounts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

9. How much his Department spent on accommodation in London for military officers and staff of his Department in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Over the last 12 months, the Ministry of Defence spent some £25 million on renting 3,000 service family accommodation properties and 1,000 substitute family and single accommodation properties in London for entitled service personnel. Substitute properties were rented only when no suitable MOD accommodation was available. We seek to get best value for money. Travel and subsistence payments for service and civilian personnel relating to short-term detached duty, permanent transfer, which involves move of home, or temporary transfer in London cannot be identified separately. However, for civilian personnel in London, the MOD imposes a monthly rental ceiling of £1,250. Personnel based in the London area are undertaking essential duties in a range of locations.

[Mr Cunningham]

Given the financial difficulties of the MOD and the worldwide economic situation that we inherited, the present Government have made the position worse. With all these defence cuts going on, particularly among specialist police in the MOD, how does the Minister justify spending £500,000 on a trip to America, which was cancelled last year?

[Mr Robathan]

I am not entirely sure how that question relates specifically to my previous answer, but I will of course answer it. As I understand it, the trip is part of the Defence Academy course, and 300 people went to America for a week or whatever. It seems to me that this is a reasonable use of defence expenditure to ensure that people are properly trained at the Defence Academy and that they gain a proper understanding of the United States, which is, after all, our most important ally, with which we are much engaged in Afghanistan at the moment.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

10. Whether he has discussed with ministerial colleagues the effectiveness of co-operation between French and UK armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

19. What recent representations he has received on arrangements for members of the public to pay final respects to fallen servicemen.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Over the last two weeks we have received a number of e-mails and letters following a campaign on Facebook about arrangements for members of the public to pay their final respects to fallen servicemen and women.

[Mark Pawsey]

I recently spoke to a lady in my constituency who is a member of the War Widows Association. She expressed concern about the forthcoming change which would mean repatriation flights arriving at RAF Brize Norton. Like many other people, she believed that it was important for the British public to continue to be able to pay their respects to fallen military personnel. Will the Minister assure us that that will still be possible under the new arrangements?

[Mr Robathan]

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend and the House that that is the case.

Because of the number of e-mails that we had received, I went to Brize Norton on Friday to reassure myself about the plans that are being made. The RAF is spending £3.2 million on a new repatriation centre specifically for the families of the bereaved, who must be the focus of our attention. It is an excellent centre, which will give them a very good view of what is happening when the aircraft land. There are private chapels of rest where they can go and be with their loved one’s remains. The cortege will then head down a very dignified avenue of limes to the nearest gate, which is being refurbished and will be called the Britannia Gate. It is dignified, respectful and solemn.

Once the cortege has left Brize Norton, it will be the responsibility of the police and Oxfordshire county council. The county council is building a memorial garden with a great deal of car parking so that people who wish to show their respect—the general public and the Royal British Legion, which approved the arrangements—will be able to do so in a dignified and proper place.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Minister misses the point. As recently as 12 o’clock today a representative of the people of Brize Norton expressed his disappointment and anger, because they wish the very moving scenes that took place at Wootton Bassett to be replicated at Brize Norton. That cannot happen because the cortege route is being taken through rural roads and not through the urban area. Should not the people of Brize Norton and the surrounding areas have the right to express the grief of the nation, in order that we are all reminded of the true cost of war?

[Mr Robathan]

First, as I have said, the families of the bereaved must be the most important consideration. Oxfordshire county council has carried out a great deal of consultation. The hon. Gentleman mentions Brize Norton and, as it happens, the route will go straight through the village of Brize Norton. It will not go through the nearby village of Carterton, whose streets are both very narrow for a modern village and have speed bumps, which are not suitable for corteges. This has been decided by Oxfordshire county council in consultation with local people, and there is no suggestion of its having been done covertly. If I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman should go to Brize Norton—as I did—and see the alternatives, as he would find that we wish to allow the British public the right to show their respect for these heroes, but we are not necessarily going to be driven by one person on the radio.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister. I call Mr James Gray.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

There can be no finer sight than the last four Hercules from RAF Lyneham flying down the line of the high street of Wootton Bassett on Friday afternoon on the way to Brize Norton, but does the Minister agree that it might not be possible, nor indeed quite right, to seek to replicate the Wootton Bassett effect elsewhere, as that was a chapter in our history? I am not sure we necessarily want to see it repeated elsewhere.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The route from Lyneham to Oxford passes straight through the centre of Wootton Bassett, and the route from Brize Norton to Oxford is being drawn so that it can go past somewhere where people can pay their respects. As my hon. Friend will know, the facilities at RAF Lyneham were fairly ad hoc, but we have now built a repatriation centre which, I have to say, is very impressive. It will be finished at the end of July, and I think people will come to realise that this is a different situation, and that the RAF, Oxfordshire county council and the police are doing the right thing for the bereaved and the servicemen who have been killed.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

The creation of the office of the chief coroner would make a significant difference to the families of fallen service people as they go through the very difficult inquest process. The Royal British Legion believes this is a matter of priority, not of cost. When will the Secretary of State stop passing the buck to his colleagues in the Justice Department and make this one of his priorities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As you will understand, Mr Speaker, this is not a question of passing the buck: the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the coroners department. This has been the subject of much consultation, and the MOJ must answer on it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) asks what it is doing: it is ensuring that coroners are better trained, as training was the problem beforehand.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T2. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree with me and the British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign that the recent MOD medal review was wrong to suggest that there is little appetite or desire in this country to recognise our brave service veterans with a UK national defence medal?

[Mr Robathan]

I would not agree with my hon. Friend on that. What I would say is that groups such as the British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign are being consulted on the medal review. What that campaign proposes would mean that some 4.5 million to 5 million people would qualify for a national defence medal, and we have to take into account all representations before determining whether that is the right thing to do.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T3. On 24 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that a £10 billion black hole in the defence budget will lead to cuts having to be increased beyond the current 8%. Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny that report?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T9. What plans do the Government have to mark the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, which ended a quarter of a century of conflict in Europe and packed Napoleon off to St Helena?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend may know that I spent some 15 years in the Coldstream Guards and he will know—he has historical knowledge—that the Coldstream Guards shut the gates of the chateau, or the farm, of Hougoumont. Wellington said that the battle would have been lost had that not happened. Our relationship with France has changed a little since the Napoleonic wars, and this is now an historical matter. I understand that our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have set up a Waterloo 200 committee to discuss the commemoration, but it will certainly be commemorated by the Coldstream Guards, among others.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), for agreeing to meet me yesterday to discuss the potential implications of the SDSR on organisations that depend almost entirely on Ministry of Defence contracts for their survival? I was perhaps a tad parochial at that meeting in stating the case for the Remploy factory in my constituency. Is the Minister in a position to give any assurances and an update to the people employed at Remploy in Dundee West and to me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may be aware of the excellent research carried out by Professor Al Rowland into the exposure of our atomic test veterans. Since conducting that research, Professor Rowland has been honoured by the Queen. The UK Government are now the only Government refusing to accept their responsibilities for Christmas island, so will the Secretary of State now agree to do so?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I happen to know that neither do those on his party’s Front Bench. What happens in New Zealand is, of course, up to the people of New Zealand. However, I note from the article in The Times today, which he might have read, that Neil Sampson of Rosenblatt says that he wants a compensation fund worth £30 million to be set up. It should be asked of Rosenblatt—perhaps the hon. Gentleman himself might wish to ask this question—how much its fees are, because I understand that they would take up more than half that compensation fund, and would—I think everybody in the House would agree—therefore probably be a little large.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that RAF Leuchars in my constituency continues to fulfil its responsibilities for the air defence of the northern half of the United Kingdom with the professionalism and commitment that we have come to expect. Has he assessed the extent of the effect on the ability of Leuchars—or, indeed, of any other air base in Scotland—to operate if Scotland was not under the umbrella of NATO?

Armed Forces (Council Tax Relief)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Further to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence on 16 May 2011, Official Report, columns 25-27, regarding the armed forces covenant, I am today announcing the increase of the rate of council tax relief for service personnel deployed on specified operations overseas, from 25% to 50%, to commence from 1 July 2011. This further underlines our commitment to rebuilding the armed forces covenant, that unique bond between the armed forces, the Government and the nation.

Private Gary Barlow

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for securing this debate on the very tragic death of Private Gary Barlow slightly over 38 years ago. As it happens, I know the Divis flats and the observation tower. I have served and seen the difficulties of operating there, as did the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment in 1973.

Private Barlow joined the Army in 1970 and went into the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, and he deployed to Northern Ireland with his regiment in the early years of Operation Banner, at the end of 1972, when the violence in Northern Ireland was at its height. Tragically he was killed in Belfast on 5 March 1973 aged just 19. There was absolutely no doubt who killed him: responsibility for his death was admitted by the IRA and the murderous thugs who supported it in the Divis flats. He was part of a four-man patrol that had deployed to search an area following a series of shooting incidents. The patrol was forced to withdraw rapidly as a hostile crowd had gathered, and Private Barlow was in the process of searching a garage at the time and did not withdraw with the rest of his unit, as we have heard.

Unfortunately it was not until later that Private Barlow’s patrol realised that he was missing—the hon. Lady brought out one or two very good points about that—and returned to retrieve him, by which time he had been shot and injured by the IRA. Tragically, he succumbed to his injuries in hospital later that night. Had he lived, Private Barlow would have seen his 58th birthday this week. He was one of more than 250,000 service personnel who saw service in Northern Ireland during the 38 years of Operation Banner, which was the longest single operation ever mounted by the British Army. The Army demonstrated a resolute, disciplined and flexible attitude towards adapting to a unique deployment of military forces on UK territory—it was never a happy occasion. The resilience that our soldiers displayed over such a long period and under extremely difficult circumstances greatly contributed to the peace that now exists. They and the community at large have suffered death and injury, and we should again take this opportunity to remember their commitment, bravery and sacrifice, and that of Private Barlow.

In recognition of the ultimate sacrifice paid by Private Barlow, his mother, Mrs Rona Barlow, has already been presented with the Elizabeth cross and the memorial scroll. The Elizabeth cross is awarded as a symbol of national recognition of the sacrifice and loss of those UK armed forces personnel who have died on operations or owing to acts of terrorism. It is a reminder of the contribution made by those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom and our security, and of how highly their service is valued. Regrettably, however, it is not for me to recommend that Private Barlow be given a further award. Our honours and awards system relies on the bestowal of gallantry awards soon after the event for which it is believed an individual’s actions should be recognised.

The convention adhered to is that no award can be made for an event that took place more than five years previously. To rely on incomplete and sometimes contradictory or anecdotal evidence so long after the event can be regarded as a slight to those commanders at all levels whose task it was to reward the most deserving as they judged at the time. This system has been developed over many years, and is designed to ensure that the process by which awards are made is fair and consistent, and it has stood the test of time. Neither the present Government nor any previous Administration have departed from the strict rule that British gallantry awards are not granted retrospectively.

Recommendations for gallantry awards are generated by commanders in the field and scrutinised at a number of levels by military committees, the last of which is the Armed Forces Operational Awards Committee, which comprises five senior officers representing all three services, and which ultimately recommends to Her Majesty the Queen who should receive awards. This process is completely independent of political influence, and it would not be possible—nor would it be right—for me to seek to influence this process. On a personal note, however, I would like to take this opportunity to pass on my condolences to Mrs Barlow for the loss of her son, and to express my deep gratitude for his service to this country and her dignity in grief. I would also like to take this opportunity to put it on the record that we are fortunate to have individuals such as Gary Barlow, both then and now, who are willing to demonstrate their bravery by serving with our armed forces. In the words of his commanding officer while expressing his and his regiment’s sadness and horror at Private Barlow’s death:

“He was a fine boy and a good and brave soldier”.

I am told—the hon. Lady mentioned this too—that the family were subjected to intense and often unwelcome media and public scrutiny, and to threats. I am sincerely sorry for the additional distress that this must have caused them. In the 1970s, when Private Barlow was killed, very little support was offered to bereaved families by the military, so I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure his family and the House that measures now exist to prevent other families from suffering the same experience.

Each death of a member of our armed forces is a tragedy—for their comrades and the country, but most especially for their family, such as Private Barlow’s family. As the years have progressed, I believe that we have got better at learning the lessons from each death, both in the field and in how we help and support the families left behind. Gone now are the days when the first that a family heard about the death of their loved one was a tersely worded official telegram. Despite the challenges of 24-hour media, we are largely successful at ensuring that families hear from us before impromptu and unofficial sources when a tragedy occurs. Sadly, with the increasing operational tempo since 9/11, we have learned a lot about loss and grief, and so have steadily improved the support and help available to families who lose a loved one. Every effort is made to ensure that the next of kin are informed as soon as possible by those who are appropriately trained, and a period of grace is given before the official announcement is made. It grieves me to say that this is going on even this week, as we know.

Since 2005 we have appointed and trained both casualty notification officers and visiting officers, so that the support that we offer families is not provided by those associated with the delivery of the worst news. Our dedicated visiting officers are able to guide, support and assist families through the difficult times of the repatriation ceremony, funeral arrangements and the return of their loved one’s effects. The hon. Lady was quite right to draw attention to the way in which this could sometimes be done in an arbitrary manner, with the arrival of some boxes containing a loved one’s effects. Visiting officers can be assigned to a bereaved family for six to nine months, but support remains available through the Army’s inquiries and aftercare support cell, right up to an inquest and beyond, unlike in 1973.

All families show different reactions to the loss of a loved one. Our visiting officers are trained to understand the differences and react accordingly, so that the level of support received is determined by the need of the family. The support is therefore enduring in nature and co-ordinated in provision. In addition to giving emotional support, the visiting officer can act as a conduit to practical support regarding pensions, counselling and financial matters. This includes access to public funds that are available to help families attend the significant events associated with their bereavement, helping with funeral expenses, travel to the repatriation, funeral and inquest, and accommodation. Public funds are also available to help families after their initial period of grief and mourning to move on with their lives, through the continuity of education allowance, the maintenance of the living overseas allowance, the ability to remain in service accommodation for up to two years and the transfer of the resettlement allowance. These are changes that have happened since 1973.

I referred earlier to the lessons that are now learned in the field. The Army keeps all its procedures under continuous review to ensure the safety of its personnel. Additionally, systems exist at various levels to identify lessons from incidents and make recommendations to take action to prevent similar circumstances from arising in future, including, where necessary, a statutory service inquiry and, when there is a death during operations, a service police investigation. We are not complacent. Despite the strides that have been made in recent years, we recognise that more can always be done. The armed forces covenant, which was published on 16 May, sets out what service personnel and their families can expect from the Government and the nation in recognition of what we ask them to do to keep us safe. The Government are determined to remove disadvantages encountered as a result of service, as well as ensuring that the armed forces community receives the recognition to which it is entitled. By publishing the covenant we have a clear sense of what we are trying to achieve and have established the right direction of travel that will allow us to do so.

As a nation, we have an obligation to our servicemen and women who, like Gary Barlow, commit themselves to the service of this country and risk paying the ultimate price to keep us safe, as well as to the families who support their loved ones in the armed forces through good times and bad. Our commitment to them should be just as enduring, and with the publication of the covenant, we believe that we have established a way of ensuring that this commitment does not waver. The nation will hold us to account.

I reiterate what I said to the hon. Lady earlier. This was an awful tragedy. As it happens, I also joined the Army in 1970, and to think of a young man of 19 being killed in that way in Northern Ireland must bring us all grief. I hope that raising this matter in the House of Commons will lead the Barlow family, and Mrs Rona Barlow and the sister whom the hon. Lady mentioned in particular, to appreciate that Private Barlow’s death is recognised and truly appreciated by the nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.

I have in front of me a four-hour speech because I did not quite manage to cover everything that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and the shadow Defence Secretary raised with me two days ago.

As hon. Members will know, in essence, our purpose in this debate is to agree that the Bill has been scrutinised by the House and to wish it well as it moves to the other place. The Ministry of Defence does not often introduce legislation, so this is a task that very few Defence Ministers have the pleasure of performing. As is the custom, I should like to use this occasion to pay tribute to a number of people who have helped during this House’s consideration of the Bill. Before I do so, I should like to discuss some weightier matters.

For the Ministry of Defence, the Bill represents an important step regarding the armed forces covenant. For the very first time, the armed forces covenant has been recognised in statute. Some 10 years ago, people did not talk about a military covenant; that is a relatively recent development. However, everybody, over centuries, has recognised what is meant when people refer to it. The Prime Minister said that the armed forces covenant would be recognised in law, and it will be so recognised through this Bill.

The Bill will have an enduring legacy. Under its provisions, annual reports on the covenant will be required. We are very serious about the covenant. It is not a political fad—something that will be allowed to wither away in a year or so as political fashions change—because the armed forces are far too important for that. We expect that Parliament will want to debate the issues that are highlighted in the report, and I certainly do not see any way in which anything will be covered up. It is right that Governments, of whatever political hue, should be held to account for the way in which they uphold the covenant.

We discussed the covenant at length during the Select Committee stage. Hon. Members have expressed differing views, as have people outside Parliament. The Government have listened to those views and tabled the amendments that were accepted on Tuesday.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware that many, if not most of the public services covered in the covenant are devolved. I am sure that he will join me in commending the work of Major-General David McDowall, the Scottish Government’s expert adviser on veterans’ affairs, for his efforts in this field. Will the Minister confirm that there has been correspondence between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm the delivery of the covenant in Scotland?

[Mr Robathan]

I pay tribute to Major-General McDowall. Although I do not know him, I am sure that he does a very good job. I have of course met Alex Neil, as the hon. Gentleman will know. There has indeed been correspondence. That will not be a surprise to him, as he was in the House on Tuesday when I read out half the letter, but there we go.

The House has agreed that the amendments bring clarity about the principles that the Secretary of State must take into account in preparing his report. I was particularly pleased that they were accepted in all parts of the Committee on Tuesday without a Division, and that they have also been welcomed outside Parliament. The result is clause 2, which establishes the annual report as a route towards achieving real benefits for armed forces personnel, former members of the armed forces and their families.

As hon. Members will know, the Bill has been used to amend the legislation governing the reserve forces. This is an important change, because it will allow us to call out reservists for service in the United Kingdom in a wider range of circumstances than is permitted at present. For instance, we discussed on Tuesday the recent floods following snowfalls in Cumbria, where reservists would have been ideally placed—particularly medical reservists to deliver blood supplies. We also discussed the forthcoming Olympics. There are a huge number of occasions where we currently do not have the power to call out reservists, even should they volunteer.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is long overdue change, and that given the ongoing review of the reserve forces, it will make them much more relevant in years to come?

[Mr Robathan]

I do think it is overdue. It provides the opportunity to call people up in the same way that we can use the regular forces. It also fits in well with the reserve forces review, Future Reserves 2020, which we are undertaking to ensure that this country makes proper use of the reserves. The amendments that we made this week anticipate some of the changes that may be proposed in the review and that the study is likely to recommend when it is published later this year.

When we debated the amendments earlier this week, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire raised a point about the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. She rather threw me because I was not an expert on that Act, but I have now looked up the details, so I should like to take this opportunity to respond to her point. It concerned the Cabinet Office’s red tape challenge, which is a welcome initiative to look at legislation and identify where it is no longer required. One area of legislation to be reviewed relates to employment law. I gather that on the website, under the heading, “Managing Staff”, 127 pieces of legislation are listed for review. I congratulate her on having studied this website, or perhaps on having a very assiduous researcher who has done so for her. The list includes the 1985 Act, which appears at the top of the list only because that is how the list has been ordered, not because it is a particular target for rationalisation. Of course, we carry out reviews from time to time to ensure that our existing employment legislation is appropriate, and we will continue to do so. However, I can assure her that for the foreseeable future it is absolutely our intention that the protection that this Act provides for reservists and employers will continue to remain available.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

If the review that is being carried out into the reserve forces comes up with recommendations that would need to be written into the covenant, would it be possible to update it in the yearly report, or would the covenant, as now written, have to await the five-yearly report under the Bill?

[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.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Where are the Labour ones?

[Mr Robathan]

I will resist the cry from behind me to be partisan on this occasion, although I would not usually.

The Committee undertook visits to Chilwell, Headley Court and Colchester, which helped Committee members in their consideration of the Bill. I thank everybody who put themselves out to arrange those visits for us, both here and in those places.

I thank the Select Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his good humour and wise guidance and I thank the Committee staff for their work behind the scenes. There is a gap in my brief because my civil servants said that they could not possibly put in that I would like to thank them. I would like to thank the Ministry of Defence Bill team for the work that they have done on our behalf. Sometimes, they found things marginally fraught, but most of the time they just got on with doing their work in a good-natured way. One has to take tranquilisers if one works for me. [Interruption.] I thought I would get that in before anybody else. I still have not got the letter from the mayor of Bradford, by the way.

We have a good Bill, which has benefited from the scrutiny it has received. I believe that the Bill we send to the other place is in good order. Above all, it contains much that will benefit the many people who have served, do serve or will serve in our armed forces. I wish the Bill well in its remaining parliamentary stages, and I commend it to the House.

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

The Minister has surprised me by giving a much shorter speech than I expected, considering his contribution on Tuesday.

[Mr Robathan]

I am awfully sorry, but I think we need to get it on the record that my speech on the group of amendments on Tuesday was shorter than the hon. Lady’s.

[Gemma Doyle]

I think the Minister will find that I spoke for a shorter time than he did, but, on the basis that my speech was rather more engaging, I took a number of interventions. As such, my speech took up a greater amount of parliamentary time. I shall move on.

I very much welcome and support the Bill, just as I welcome all measures designed to improve welfare for the armed forces, their families and veterans. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment to this issue. As has been said by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, this Opposition will always act in the interests of what is right for our country and will always support the Government when they do the right thing by our forces. In this Bill and the amendments to it, the Government have made progress in the welfare of our armed forces and all service families. The Government have committed to stronger provisions to enshrine the covenant in law. As we have done throughout this process, we will work with Ministers whenever necessary to ensure that the path from rhetoric to reality is as smooth and fruitful as possible.

It is worth reminding ourselves that although the right decision has now been taken by the Government, they acted reluctantly, in the face of public pressure and following much denial from Government Members that any amendments were required. Indeed, on 10 February, at the first sitting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, the Minister stated:

“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c. 21.]

He went on to say that it is a “conceptual, philosophical statement”. I imagine he wishes that he could eat his words now. Although we support the Government, we will scrutinise and form judgments based on their actions and not their words, which have been proved in this process to sometimes be two different things.

Many provisions in the Bill concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in this area, not just through the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill in 2006, but by ensuring that the forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector; investing in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities; increasing access to the NHS for dependants; and introducing the personnel Command Paper, the first ever cross-Government package of benefits.

The military covenant is the bond between the nation and our services. It says that the United Kingdom’s commitment to its armed forces is made in recognition that a career in the armed forces differs from all others. The covenant recognises that service personnel agree to sacrifice certain civil liberties, to follow orders and to place themselves in harm’s way in defence of others. In return, the United Kingdom shall help, support and reward our armed forces, their families and, of course, former serving personnel.

I am still somewhat new to this place—I am not sure how much longer I will get away with saying that—but I firmly believe that one of the most difficult decisions we are asked to make is to ask our service people to put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of this country and to safeguard human rights around the world. I felt that responsibility strongly when we voted on 21 March on action in Libya. I know that Members who have been here longer than me have been even more greatly vexed about these issues in recent memory.

Upholding the covenant is now more important than ever. At a time of unprecedented cuts to the defence budget, when we have seen allowances and pensions cut and personnel made redundant in record numbers, and when there are warnings about the capacity of our forces to perform at the current tempo for 90 days longer, it is vital that all service people have the protection to which they are entitled. The principle that no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service and that special provision may sometimes be needed to reflect their sacrifices is vital. We support the introduction of that principle to the Bill.

It is important, however, that such principles apply to policy making and implementation in all public bodies to ensure that all action undertaken by public servants is in tune with our commitments to the armed forces. I am still concerned, therefore, that the Government amendments did not go as far as they could have gone. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State must only “have regard” to the principles in

“preparing an annual armed forces covenant report”.

That is a limited application of the principles, which we have all agreed are vital. Rather than applying across Government to all issues, the principles will apply to only those issues the Secretary of State deems fit to include in his report. There is, therefore, ministerial judgment about where the principles of the covenant apply, rather than an obligation on all public servants to take heed of them. I hope that the Minister appreciates the difference that I am pointing out.

I support the action that the Secretary of State is taking, and I believe in the Prime Minister’s desire for a genuinely enshrined covenant, but I fear that we will not fully achieve that unless the principles of the covenant are given due regard in all aspects of public policy making. As the Minister knows, I tabled amendments at earlier stages to try to achieve that. I am sorry that we have not persuaded the Government to go quite as far as we would have done, but as you would imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are delighted that the Minister has come as far as he has. Having stated in Committee, as I said, that the covenant would not be enshrined in law, he has now been forced to support amendments that ensure it will be.

When I asked the Minister on Tuesday what had changed his mind, he stated that he had engaged in a listening process. I have to say, we saw very little evidence of that in the Committee’s debates or evidence sessions. I am sure that everyone would be grateful if, at some stage, he provided an explanation of his change of direction.

To ensure that the ambitions that we all hold for the covenant are realised, it is vital that there is sufficient accountability between members of the armed forces and the public servants charged with its implementation. I fear that the Government’s proposed annual report, in which Ministers will report on what they deem fit to report on rather than being obliged to provide an update on all aspect of forces’ welfare, may still be somewhat inadequate.

An annual debate in the House on the covenant is very welcome, but it should not be at the expense of real scrutiny. For the report to be meaningful, the Minister knows that I believe that there needs to be a greater number of fields on which Ministers are compelled to report. I have asked the Minister to explain why he has chosen only the three subjects that are specified in the Bill for inclusion in the report, but he has not yet given a rational explanation of why other welfare issues for which the Secretary of State is directly responsible are not included.The original intention behind the introduction of a covenant report was clearly to allow Ministers to say that they were enshrining the covenant in law, whereas their actions now demonstrate that they knew all along that that was not what they were doing. As such, the Minister will forgive me for being concerned that the Secretary of State will decide which issues to put into and leave out of his report.

My bigger worry is that without a duty on public bodies to give regard to the principles of the covenant, and without a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on a wider set of concerns than is currently included in the Bill, there will not be a thorough examination of the possible issues of disadvantage that we have discussed, covering all relevant responsibilities of the Government.

On accountability, we welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the external reference group, which I understand may now have had a name change, will publish its comments on the annual report alongside the report itself, and that as such its terms of reference will be updated. It would therefore be useful if the Minister confirmed at the earliest opportunity that the change means that the group will now be a permanent body, charged with overseeing the implementation of all policies that relate to forces welfare. I also look forward to his advising us of when updated terms of reference will be ready, and whether they will be placed in the Library for Members to view.

For the enshrinement of the covenant principles to be genuinely meaningful, there must be a proper system whereby service people can report on whether those principles are being upheld. All would agree that the Bill must be about people’s lives, not simply about securing the safe passage of legislation. When asked in a recent parliamentary question who was the legal arbiter of any complaints by service people about the principles of the covenant, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), stated that the chain of command or the Service Complaints Commissioner was responsible. That is surprising, because in her annual report last year the commissioner said the existing complaints mechanism was a

“most ineffective system. It causes extreme delay and fails to deliver justice. It also leads to inconsistencies.”

The very arbiter whom the Government recommend that armed forces use to determine whether the covenant is being upheld says that the system is not good enough.

This is not about creating new rights, it is about the accountability of those charged with upholding the principles that the Government are enshrining in the Bill. The commissioner recommended that an armed forces ombudsman be introduced, and I would be interested to hear what consideration was given to that recommendation. As the Minister did not support amendments earlier in the week regarding the creation of an ombudsman to oversee these issues, I am anxious to find out what measures will be introduced to ensure that our forces have the opportunity to make their own judgments.

[Mr Robathan]

I just wish gently to point out to the hon. Lady, apropos our altercation at the beginning of her speech, that she has now spoken for rather longer than me on Third Reading as well.

[Gemma Doyle]

I am not really sure that that was a substantive intervention, so I will carry on.

The three fields specified in the Bill as being covered by the annual covenant report are devolved, so Scottish and Welsh armed forces or veterans are potentially excluded from any recommendations at all to be made in the report. We need clarification of whether the report will apply to all UK forces and what the devolved implications of the Bill are. On Tuesday, the Minister produced a letter from the First Minister of Scotland. I do not doubt the First Minister’s intentions with regard to this matter, but I know that the Minister will be shocked to hear that the First Minister does not always do exactly what he says he will. I therefore look forward to the Minister confirming his own view of what the devolved implications of the Bill are.

There was some confusion in Committee on Tuesday about the Government’s position on the reserve forces’ employment rights. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment, which he reiterated today. Indeed, I congratulate him on standing up to the Secretary of State for Defence, who refused to give such a commitment just a matter of weeks ago. However, it would be welcome if the Minister confirmed what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office to ensure that all his colleagues are on the same page.

As I said initially, the Opposition will judge the Government on the military covenant on their actions and not on their words. One of the Government’s first major acts since their U-turn on the military covenant is their decision to abolish the Chief Coroner’s Office. The Royal British Legion has called that “a betrayal” of armed forces families that “threatens the Military Covenant.” That very neatly demonstrates the need for accountability and the need for the principles of the covenant to apply to all Government policy.

The Bill would not have prevented that decision, and nor does it provide for servicemen and women who feel disadvantaged as a result to seek redress. The Minister said earlier this week that he could not speak for the Secretary of State for Justice, but I am asking the Minister to speak to him—I urge him to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to do the right thing for service families. However, the Minister should also look at this carefully as an example of why the Bill does not go as far as it could, or indeed should.

In conclusion, the principles of the military covenant ensure that we do our bit for the men and women of our armed forces who serve this country and their families. I welcome the Bill, which has been much improved since we started out. I am delighted that the Government have come so far on this issue, and I look forward to pushing them a little further forward at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I would like first to offer the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who spoke for the Opposition, and the Minister the opportunity to join the reserve forces, because if their combative skills in this place are anything to go by, they would both be welcome in whichever element of the service—

[Mr Robathan]

I am too old.

[Mr Hancock]

One is never too old to give service to one’s country.

I join the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in paying tribute to the two coroners who have dealt with military deaths up to now. I have assisted families who have been through that process, and they have always been very complimentary about the way the coroners have acted, the way they were treated by the court and the way the coroners—they believe rightly—tackled the very controversial issues that had resulted in the deaths of their loved ones. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone who is seriously dissatisfied with the behaviour of those coroners, both of whom rightly deserve to be congratulated and thanked on behalf of this House and all the families who have been through that process.

There are those Members who would like more written into the Bill than the three points in the covenant, but really the list is endless. The three issues identified were those that have been raised most consistently, but that is not to say that the others will be ignored. One benefit of having a yearly review and a report to this House is to give all players—those inside and outside the armed forces, whether former or serving members, and other groups representing them—the opportunity to put into play their points of view. Therefore, not writing things into the Bill is not as relevant as some would want to think. I happen to believe that Members from all parts of the House who have worked as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have tried to put the armed forces at the forefront of their endeavours to be fair.

I also criticise those who do not believe that the covenant is a contract. It is a contract: a contract between the British people, through this House, and the armed forces. Those who have criticised the idea that the covenant is not a written contract are mistaken. At a time when the armed forces have never been held in greater esteem, the people of this country believe that we have a duty not only to honour the covenant, but to make it work for those inside or outside the forces. The idea in the Bill of giving greater independence when complaints are made and dealt with is to be welcomed. However, I am slightly dismayed that we have not done more to introduce a proper ID card for veterans, to give them the same status that veterans have in other countries. I am grateful that the Minister and the Secretary of State have at different times conceded that further consideration will be given to that matter. We need to be sure that we honour our pledge to provide these services through the covenant and through the Bill, wherever they are asked for around the country. It should be irrelevant where the person lives at the time.

The Bill has a number of attractions for people in the armed forces, but it does not really satisfy those who have an interest in the way in which reservists who go on active service are treated when they return. The Select Committee on Defence has taken evidence recently on the way in which returning reserve service personnel are treated—by the health service or by employers, for example. The situation is unsatisfactory in that there is still a sense of exclusion. Returning reservists are not given enough support, for example, when they have problems with their employers.

We need to build into the review of armed forces legislation over the next five years, and into the covenant itself, greater support for reservists who are having trouble. It is often difficult for someone returning to the United Kingdom after serving abroad for six months to deal with problems arising from their employment. Where do they get the help and support that they genuinely need? In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get that sort of assistance, and we must look at that.

Service Personnel and Veterans Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

With effect from 16 June 2011, the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) will cease to have the status of executive agency of the Ministry of Defence (MOD).

The SPVA was formed in April 2007 from the merger of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) and the Veterans Agency (VA). The purpose of the merger was to provide both serving and retired members of the armed forces and their beneficiaries with a single point of contact for all personnel administration matters, and this has been achieved.

The SPVA will become part of the new Defence Business Services (DBS) in 2013. The SPVA will relinquish its agency status from 16 June 2011 as this is not considered critical to delivering its business, but it will retain its name until it is incorporated into DBS to avoid the unnecessary expenditure associated with re-branding. This change in operating status will have no impact on SPVA’s customers and will achieve staff reductions in the support functions of £319,000 per annum, starting in late financial year 2011-12. Wider savings to Government are also anticipated, in particular the costs incurred in auditing the agency’s annual report and accounts.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 and 15.

[Mr Robathan]

The new clause reflects the importance that the Government place on their reserve forces, and amendments 14 and 15 are concomitant with it. The new clause is designed to align more closely the circumstances in which reservists may be called out in the United Kingdom with those in which regular personnel may be used. It would enable reservists to be deployed in the UK more widely than at present so that their skills can be used in a wider range of circumstances.

Legislation has been in place for some time allowing our reserves to be called out to serve on warlike or humanitarian operations worldwide. Indeed, it is worth stressing that there have been more than 24,000 reservist mobilisations in support of operations both at home and overseas, including Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2003. I am sure that the Committee would wish to pay tribute to those reservists who have deployed on operations—with some losses, I fear. During those operations, 27 reservists have made the ultimate sacrifice.

In the UK, local reserve troops were mobilised under existing legislation to provide assistance during the Cumbrian flooding in November 2009, and helped to build Barker bridge—so-called after the tragic death of Police Constable Barker during some of the worst UK flooding in living memory. This assistance could not have been provided so quickly and efficiently without the excellent support of reserves from the local Territorial Army unit. However, we do not have legislation in place to allow us to use the numbers of reserves available or their specialist skills in all appropriate circumstances. The Secretary of State’s power to call out reservists in the UK is currently limited by the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to the defence of the realm or

“the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life and property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”

There are many circumstances falling short of “disaster or apprehended disaster” in which reserves could make a valuable contribution, but under the existing legislation, they cannot be mobilised. I have in mind a number of examples. The first is the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, when we could not call out reservists because the work that needed to be done was not to alleviate distress or preserve life or property. The second is a major disruption to the road and rail network, such as we saw at the beginning of this year, when reservists could not be mobilised to deliver vital food and blood supplies to a large number of people over a wide area, and when we had to resort at the last minute to volunteers. The final example is a requirement for unarmed, low-level support to the security operation for the London 2012 Olympic games. Currently in such circumstances, it would be possible to use regular forces because there is a power to use regulars for urgent work of national importance. This power has been used for a wide range of activities, such as dealing with the consequences of flooding, heath fires, severe snow, hurricanes and the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001.

I propose to amend the 1996 Act so that reserve forces, like regular forces, can be called out for urgent work of national importance. The amendment represents an improvement to the existing position, where there is one test governing whether regulars can be used, and another slightly different test governing whether reserves can be mobilised. Being able to mobilise reserve forces would offer a number of important practical advantages. First, there are more than 30,000 committed individuals in the volunteer reserves. Secondly, reservists are based in every part of the UK and can bring to bear important local knowledge in relation to local problems. Thirdly, this would enable us to draw on a range of specialist skills held in the reserves that do not exist in the regular forces—for example, medical skills, meteorological expertise, and rail and maritime expertise. Over the last decade, we have seen the ever greater integration of the reserves into our force capability. The new clause is proposed in that developing context. The Future Reserves 2020 study, which will report to the Prime Minister this month, is taking a wider look at the role of the reserves and making better use of their specialist skills. I expect the study to recommend that we should make more of the strengths and skills that reservists offer. The new clause represents a first step towards that.

Mobilisation is an essential tool for two reasons. First, it gives the Department the guarantee of the reservists’ service; secondly, it activates statutory employment and financial assistance safeguards for reservists and their employers. These help to minimise any disruption that mobilisation may cause. Under the new clause, as now, no reservist will be out of pocket as a result of mobilisation, and every employer will have the right to apply for financial assistance that will allow him temporarily to replace any member of staff who is mobilised. In addition, existing restrictions on both the length of mobilised service that an individual can be required to undertake and the frequency of mobilisation will apply. Furthermore, reservists and their employers will be able to appeal against mobilisation under the proposed new power, just as they can under existing powers. There is also a further appeal to a tribunal that will be independent from the Ministry of Defence. In reality, the MOD works with employers to identify potential concerns at the earliest stage and support the employer throughout.

I hope that I have covered the major implications and benefits of the new clause. Let me stress that this change to the legislation strengthens the role of reservists in our armed forces and society more widely.

Government amendment 14 provides that the provisions in the Bill relating to the call-out of reserve forces will come into effect two months after it receives Royal Assent. That is the standard period of time for bringing provisions into force, and we see no need to deviate from the norm in this case. Government amendment 15 changes the long title of the Bill. The amendment is necessary because the new provision about the call-out of reserve forces is a subject that would not be covered by the long title as it stands.

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

Let me begin by paying tribute to the men and women who serve our country as reservists. They show immense dedication to serving our country. As the Minister said, we have only to look at the vital role played by reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand the importance of reserve forces.

The Government are undertaking a review into the future of reserve forces. If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, reservists are likely to be given greater responsibility in the coming years. Indeed, the logical conclusion to draw from the strategic defence and security review is that we must seek to make the most of the assets that we have, and that includes the reserve forces. In bringing forward these amendments, the Government are perhaps pre-empting the conclusion of that review. The amendments give the Secretary of State greater powers to call in reservists. That is something that, in principle, we are more than happy to support; indeed, the Minister gave some good examples of the circumstances in which such powers would be useful. However, the Government need to be honest with the men and women of the reserve forces. If they are to ask them to do more, they also need to provide the necessary protection and support in the workplace. We are talking about people who join up to serve their country, and we have a duty to protect their jobs when they are mobilised. It is in this area that there are some questions for the Government to answer.

We know that the Secretary of State is not necessarily on the best of terms with the Prime Minister and his other Cabinet colleagues. I wonder whether there is much joined-up thinking taking place in Government about the role of reservists and the duty of care that we owe them. The Cabinet Office has a Red Tape Challenge website, which consults the public on legislation that could or should be scrapped. When launching the site, the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers to say:

“We know we have inherited far too much costly, pointless, and illiberal government red tape.”

In the employment law section of the website, item No. 1 in the list of legislation up for being scrapped is the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. The Act states that reservists have a liability to be mobilised and provides two kinds of protection. The first is protection of employment, providing protection from unfair dismissal and making it a criminal offence for an employer to terminate a reservist’s job without their consent solely or mainly because he or she has a liability to be mobilised. Secondly, there is a right to reinstatement. The Act provides a legal right to the reservist to be reinstated in their former job, subject to certain conditions. When pressed on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) at the most recent Defence questions, the Secretary of State refused to deny that those provisions were under consideration. The Government are therefore considering scrapping legislation that protects reserved forces employment on a day-to-day basis and when on a tour of duty.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady is making a good point, but I have to say that I am unsighted of the 1985 Act. I thought that it had been superseded by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. She obviously knows a great deal about this, but I thought that that was where the current regulations sat. Will she illuminate the matter for the Committee?

[Gemma Doyle]

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State did not make that clear when asked about this matter. If he or the Minister could give the Committee a concrete commitment on the protection of employment for reservists today, that would be very welcome. It cannot be right for the Government to consider asking more of the men and women of our reserve forces while cutting the protection that they need in their place of work. Will the Minister make an unequivocal commitment not to scrap the vital protection provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 or, if he believes that it has been superseded, will he clarify the position? We support the new clause, but the Government must be clear about retaining the support and protection that the reserve forces expect and deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of the reserve forces. Some time ago I was in Iraq and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the commanding officer at Baghdad airport was a reservist. Much good work is done by the men and women of the reserve forces. No doubt there will be greater calls on their time in the future, bearing in mind the likelihood of an announcement in the coming week or two.

Subject to what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) said, I think the amending provisions are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, if we think of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they are perhaps overdue. Unfortunately, we in the United Kingdom are subject to increasing natural disasters, with which I am sure the men and women of the reserve forces are more than adequately equipped to deal. They may well prove a useful addition to the powers that we already have to deal with what are, unfortunately, frequently occurring natural events.

Subject to the points raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, I think that the new clause and amendments are perfectly reasonable, and that the Government were right to table them.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and to other Members who have spoken for their generous support.

I do not know where the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) gets her ideas. As far as I am aware—and I have seen them together—the Secretary of State is on very good terms with the Prime Minister and, I am sure, with his other Cabinet colleagues. They are probably on better terms than the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), and the leader of the Labour party, although I am not sure about that. It is just what I read in the newspapers. Perhaps I am wrong, because one should not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers. When I last said that at the Dispatch Box I got into terrible trouble, not least because a newspaper correspondent was sitting in the Press Gallery. He wrote about me in a way that was not entirely polite. Anyway, I am sure that my right hon. Friends are on very good terms.

I can confirm that the new clause has been discussed with other Departments, and I understand that it has been cleared by the Cabinet, but it was discussed in particular by the Home Office, which deals with civil contingencies. I do not think that the hon. Lady need worry about that. As for the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, I will write to her about it, but I can tell her now that we have absolutely no intention of removing employment protection from reservists. Unlike the hon. Lady, I am not an authority on the Act, but I will write to her—I am looking at my officials now—to confirm that there is no intention of repealing the Act. The protection must, of course, continue.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), on the basis of personal experience. He gave the excellent example of Operation Midway, of which I had not known because, needless to say, it took place under the last Administration. As for the duration of deployment, I think that were we to deploy any reservist for three years and nine months, the House would have quite a lot to say about it. I am not minded to change the legislation, but I do not believe that circumstances would ever arise—apart from general war, which I hope we are not expecting—that required the mobilisation of people for that length of time. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is smiling. I hope that we are not expecting it, and I do not think we are, at least not in the review.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We are not.

[Mr Robathan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his confirmation.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



Clause 31

Commencement

Amendment made: 14, page 29, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) Section [Call out of reserve forces] comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.—(Mr Robathan.)

Title

Amendment made: 15, line 4, after ‘Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915;’ insert ‘to make provision about the call out of reserve forces;’.—(Mr Robathan.)

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Armed forces covenant report

[Mr Llwyd]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert

‘Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I am sure that is right—I have no argument with that—but what is to prevent signposting and sending personnel to be assessed? For example, just down the road from here is an organisation called Veterans’ Aid, which is run by Wing Commander Hugh Milroy. Under his good offices, very few ex-service people are sleeping rough in London. There were quite a number of them 10 years ago; now there are hardly any. He has done that work. There are numerous organisations doing excellent work for ex-forces personnel, but I am arguing for a more consistent approach across the piece—a more holistic approach. I could use the words “postcode lottery”: there are good services and good practice, but we need to ensure that they are accessible across the piece and across all the constituent parts of the UK, wherever veterans are, wherever they served and whichever regiment they were with.

[Mr Robathan]

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gale, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and all in the House would like to join me in congratulating Wing Commander Milroy on his richly deserved OBE in the birthday honours only last Saturday.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am delighted to congratulate Wing Commander Milroy on that—it is a well-deserved honour for a lot of hard work in difficult circumstances.

I do not want to take up too much time this evening, so I shall seek to truncate my remarks. Let me explain one or two more amendments. I will not press the Committee to a Division, because I want to make my points and to return to them at another time.

New clause 3 specifies that back-up advice, in person and by telephone, should be made available for the first six months following discharge. Finally, tailored support should be made available for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system. The issues surrounding veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system have been the subject of debates in this House and I shall not go into great detail about them now, but holistic support is required, I believe, for such veterans to ensure that they get the support they need.

New clause 4 would appoint a support officer for former armed services personnel in each prison and probation service in England and Wales. That might sound a bit airy-fairy and pie in the sky, but those people are out there. They are often people who are interested in the subject and who are ex-service personnel, but that turns on the question of whether we have the ex-services personnel in a prison, which is often the key to whether services are properly delivered for these people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gemma Doyle]

The amendments tabled today are a vast improvement on the Bill as it stood. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, I wonder why he did not support my amendments in the Select Committee that would have achieved that. Instead, he voted down any proposals to strengthen the covenant or the Bill.

New clause 17 would fully enshrine—

[Mr Robathan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gemma Doyle]

I should like to make a little progress before the Minister—

[Mr Robathan]

We have plenty of time.

[Gemma Doyle]

I should at least like to finish my sentence if that is all right.

New clause 17 would fully enshrine the principles of the covenant in law, not half-heartedly but unambiguously.

[Mr Robathan]

The point the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was trying to make was that between 1997 and 2010 there was a Labour Government—new Labour, old Labour or whatever we like to call them—and nothing was done. I do not hold the hon. Lady responsible because she was not in the House then. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, when we took office a year ago there was no mention of the covenant, yet now we are putting it on a statutory basis for the first time. I think I first used those words in the House on 10 January.

[Gemma Doyle]

On frequent occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that plenty was done for veterans under the previous Government, including the creation of his job. If he wants to keep it, perhaps he should have got this right in the first place.

New clause 17 would place a duty on all Departments and public bodies to give consideration to service families and veterans in policy making and implementation. Although it is very welcome that the Secretary of State will report to the House, I would rather such matters were integral to the policy-making framework from the beginning and the new clause would ensure that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and I have debated that point before and, as he knows, I think he is confusing a list of prescribed entitlements with a list of issues on which the Secretary of State has to report. My point all along has been that the Secretary of State should not be reporting on the work of other Departments without reporting on the work of his own Department. It would be bizarre if a report criticised local authorities, or indeed the Department for Education, for disadvantaging the children of service people, but had no reference at all to the MOD’s responsibilities, such as pension provision for the armed forces. I cannot envisage a time in the near future when pension provision will not be an area of concern for our armed forces, so it should be included in the list.

The list does not limit the fields on which the Secretary of State should report; it expands them and makes provision for further relevant issues to be included as circumstances dictate.

[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]

Very unlikely, if I may say so—as the hon. Lady has already suggested.

Is the hon. Lady telling the Committee that, if she is still in her place and there is no mention in the report of pension provision or mental health care—on which we are doing a great deal of work, as she knows; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has done a lot of work for us and we are taking it forward—and she thinks that is an issue, she will not mention it?

[Gemma Doyle]

I give the Minister a categorical assurance that I will mention it. My concern is whether the Secretary of State will even consider those issues. As the Bill stands, he does not have to; he need only look at education, health and housing, and that is not good enough.

I should have liked to explore further with the Minister why education, health care and housing had been chosen at the expense of the many other issues that have been of great concern over the past 12 months. However, he declined to give evidence on his Bill.

I am also concerned that there is nothing in clause 2 that applies to Scottish or Welsh veterans. At the very least, the Bill should be amended to send a clear signal about the UK-wide responsibilities of the Secretary of State. If the family of a Scottish service person live off-base in local authority housing, their housing requirements are devolved. We have been advised that the Secretary of State will update the House even when those matters are devolved. It seems odd that such a thing could happen, because the Secretary of State is not responsible for the delivery of devolved services; nor is he or she accountable, and thus could not answer questions on the matter.

[Gemma Doyle]

I entirely agree, but the correspondence I have seen does not indicate that that is the case.

[Mr Robathan]

May I help the hon. Lady?

[Gemma Doyle]

Please do.

[Mr Robathan]

I think the Opposition are fishing in desperation for things to get excited about, but they do not need to. I have in my hand a letter from the right hon. Alex Salmond, who describes himself as the First Minister of Scotland, for that is indeed his post. The letter is dated June, although I cannot actually read the day. It thanks the Secretary of State for Defence for his letter about the armed forces covenant and states that the Scottish Government have and will continue to provide unequivocal support for the armed forces, families and veterans. I shall not read the whole thing out, but it welcomes the new armed forces covenant as an important step forward from the 2008 service personnel Command Paper.

There is no disagreement between us. We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations. We are interested in results, rather than the box-ticking that the hon. Lady describes.

[Gemma Doyle]

The letter that the right hon. Gentleman has read out does not address the point I just made. Constitutional issues are involved. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box here and report on devolved matters. My understanding is that if I were to secure an Adjournment debate on a devolved matter, it would not be taken on the Floor of the House. It would be ruled out of order, as indeed it should be. I am afraid that the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not address that point.

However the process with the devolved Administrations is handled, the inclusion of pensions and benefits as a defined area in the report would ensure that the report reflected issues for service people throughout the whole United Kingdom. As the Bill stands, Scottish and Welsh veterans in particular are being ignored. Fundamentally, I want the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and report on the matters for which he or she is responsible.

It is one thing to talk about the military covenant; the real test is how that acknowledgement is reflected in the decisions of Ministers. Their actions mean that thousands of servicemen and women will be made redundant, many more will see cuts to their allowances and all will be hit disproportionately hard compared with other workers by plans to downgrade public sector pension rises. These are just some of the many decisions taken by the Government in the past 12 months that have undermined the military covenant and given no cognisance to the unique nature of the work that our armed forces do. I am glad the Bill will recognise that through amendment 11, and I hope that Ministers will reflect that in their decision making, in which such recognition has been absent so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell]

I congratulate the coalition Government on bringing forward the armed forces covenant. I served throughout the Committee—

[Mr Robathan]

Very well.

[Bob Russell]

I am grateful. Thank you.

I would like to confine my remarks on this string of amendments to the narrow subject of housing and matters relating to the welfare of Army families. However, I hope that before we finish this evening the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that not a single penny will be cut from the wages of a single member of the Parachute Regiment or 16 Air Assault Brigade more widely.

The last Government can take a lot of credit for things that they did. I hope that what happened previously, under the Veterans Minister and so on, will be built upon by the coalition Government. However, when it comes to the accommodation of the families of our military personnel, successive Governments have failed. The last Conservative and Labour Governments failed. When it comes to single people’s accommodation, Merville barracks in Colchester is the best to be found anywhere in the country, but that only sharpens the contrast with the unacceptable housing for married families. Either Colchester garrison is unique or the accommodation there is typical of that which our military families are required to live in. What makes it worse, is that former Army housing in my constituency has rightly been modernised to a high standard through the Department for Communities and Local Government, while on the other side of the road Army families, looking out on these modern buildings, occupy what an Army wife described in a letter to the Essex County Standard on Friday as the worst in the country.

That unnamed soldier’s wife says:

“I have been married to a soldier for 20 years and lived throughout in services accommodation.

The married quarters in Colchester are the worst I have ever had to live in, and the system in place to rectify faults is laughable.

The direct line puts you through to a call centre in Liverpool, to talk to someone who has no idea of the conditions you live in or the stresses you endure while your husband’s away. They will then expect you to take a day off work so a tradesman can turn up, and it’s then a lottery as to the standard of the repair.”

The letter goes on at great length to describe the woeful inadequacies of the Defence Housing Executive. The soldier’s wife says:

“We’ve given up complaining to the Defence Housing Executive, as all we get are curt replies, from staff who seemingly have never served or been married to a serving member. It is apparent they have never seen inside the properties.”

There is a critical suggestion that perhaps things have got worse since the Defence Housing Executive took over.

We are talking here of the families of soldiers who only last week marched through the centre of Colchester in a welcome home parade and the next day had a thanksgiving and memorial service at Bury St. Edmunds cathedral. Yet we expect their families to live in accommodation that this soldier’s wife described as the worst in the country. If the Government can rightly find money to modernise former Army housing to accommodate civilians, the same Government should be able to find the money to modernise housing fit for the heroes who have just returned from Helmand province.

Allied to that, the armed forces covenant refers to education. I look at education in the broader sense—not just the education of serving military personnel but the education of the children of military personnel. Once the former Army houses are occupied by civilian families, the adjoining schools, the Montgomery infant and junior schools—that gives a clue to the military ethos—will be full up. There will not be room at the Army schools for the children of Army personnel. If anything, the armed forces covenant should look at the families of military personnel as well as the serving personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell]

I have no knowledge of that, but the hon. Lady has made the point and there will no doubt be a response.

[Mr Robathan]

Indeed there will be if I may intervene. Has the hon. Lady visited the headquarters of the MOD police in Suffolk?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. The Minister cannot question the hon. Lady because she does not have the Floor.

[Bob Russell]

This is a serious issue. To the best of my knowledge, the MOD police are an integral part of the wider military family. However, over the past 10 years the previous Government were determined, as I regret the coalition Government now appear to be, to reduce MOD police numbers to the point where I suspect at some future stage we will be told that they no longer have a purpose and can be done away with. All I can say is that where there were once 30 MOD police officers serving an exclusive Army estate in excess of 2,000 dwellings, there are now just three such officers. The expectation that Essex constabulary can suddenly conjure 27 police officers to fill that breach will not be met.

We now have a situation in which we have Army families and civilian families and the demarcation between policing is not clear. The lifestyle of civilians is not always compatible with the military ethos of the service families. I am trying to choose my words carefully. All I am saying is that the presence of MOD police officers brought a security and comfort to military families which has been lost at the same time as the ethos of a 100% Army estate has been dramatically reduced. I put it to the Minister that the Government need to look carefully at their proposals to reduce dramatically the number of MOD police officers. It will have little effect in Colchester because 27 police officers have already been got rid of and, with only three left, we do not have much further to go.

I welcome the armed forces covenant, previously known as the military covenant, and congratulate the Royal British Legion on all it has done. We should all be grateful to the legion. My only regret is that some people appear to be trying to turn it into a party political football.

[Mr Robathan]

I will respond initially to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I do not want to mislead him, but I am pretty sure that the pay will continue for all members of the Parachute Regiment who are able to parachute, and certainly for those in parachuting jobs, so we are not scrapping parachute pay. I think that I am the only Member in the Chamber who has received pay for jumping out of aircraft, and it was very welcome at the time.

[Bob Russell]

May I just point out that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I got not a single penny when we were thrown out at 13,000 feet?

[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.

[Gemma Doyle]

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the process by which the Bill has come about? What exactly changed his mind?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not regret the process at all. What has happened—I would have thought that the hon. Lady had spotted this, because she is a capable person—is that we have been discussing and listening to things and came to the view that we might enhance the Bill, which is what we have done.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Chaos.

[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.

[Christopher Pincher]

Does my right hon. Friend think that this is rather rich coming from Labour Members, and certainly from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)? Having had 13 long years with the time, the majorities and the money to introduce a Bill, they merely produced a Green Paper, whereas we introduced a Bill within 12 months. Is not my right hon. Friend rather proud of that?

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Our amendments do not seek to introduce new constraints to prevent the Secretary of State from using his discretion in preparing the report. They do not try to prejudge in detail exactly which subjects will be relevant—unlike, I fear, several of the amendments that we are discussing. Rather, they allow us to be clear about the principles to which the Secretary of State must have regard, especially now that the armed forces covenant has been published. The three ideas or principles contained in amendment 11 are, I trust, the subject of agreement in all parts of the Committee. The

“unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by”

our service personnel are matters of fact: the requirement to deploy anywhere in the world at no notice, to put themselves in harm’s way, and to use lethal force—all without question, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said. No other part of our society is called upon to undertake those obligations. The sacrifices made not only by those who suffer injury or death, but by those who give up the kind of family life which the rest of us take for granted, are also of a different nature from what is expected of others. We are not in danger of forgetting that, but we recognise that there should be no doubt that the Secretary of State will take it into account when he is preparing the annual armed forces covenant report and considering the effects of service.

The other two principles listed in the amendment are not statements of fact in the same way, but they should command the same level of consensus. They are at the core of the Government’s and the nation’s obligations under the covenant. We can never remove all disadvantage that results from membership of the armed forces—the very nature of the job prevents it—but we can, and must, do all we can to minimise disadvantages, particularly when it concerns access to public services. In preparing the amendment, I paused for a long time over the word “desirable”. Surely it is more than desirable to remove disadvantage. “Desirable” gets overruled by words such as “essential” or “important”. Nevertheless, we must recognise that it will not always be feasible to remove every disadvantage. Therefore, in terms of legislation, we must not express the principle in language which we could never achieve. Let the Committee be in no doubt, however, that where it is appropriate to take action, the Government see that as much more than “desirable”.

The question of disadvantage is dealt with more fully in amendment 12—an important new provision that clarifies how the annual report will deal with removing or reducing disadvantage. The first part requires the Secretary of State to make a judgment about whether the effects of service constitute or result in disadvantage when he is looking at a particular field—an element of the covenant such as health care or housing. He is also required to look at service people or

“particular descriptions of service people”.

In other words, he will be looking at individual elements of the armed forces community. That could be a very broad category including families or ex-service personnel, or it could be a smaller grouping such as those injured in service or foreign and Commonwealth personnel. The Committee will understand that this gives the Secretary of State the ability to drill down to find the real problems, which often do not affect a whole group but a small part of it. The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the responsibility of deciding who should be the subject of that comparison. In some cases, the right comparison will be with the ordinary civilian; in others, it may make sense to look at a rather more specialised comparison such as with members of the emergency services.

The second part of amendment 12 sets out what the Secretary of State must do with his judgment. He must go on to say in the annual report what is his response to the disadvantage that he has identified. Perhaps nothing can be done about it—it may be an inevitable result of the military profession—or he may be able to announce how the matter is to be resolved, or who has responsibility for doing so. In all cases, the House will be in a position to decide whether that response is satisfactory.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)]

Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to keep the noise down. We want to hear the response from the Minister. A lot of people intervened and asked questions. It is only appropriate, proper and courteous to hear the answers.

[Mr Robathan]

If Members have come in at the behest of the Whips because they expect a Division, they might as well go out for a bit longer, because I have a lot more to say that will delay the Division. They are very wise to do so.

New clause 4, which I was addressing, proposes a legal obligation to appoint a former armed forces personnel support officer to every prison and probation service in England and Wales. That would impose an unnecessarily legislative framework. The veterans in custody support programme focuses on the early identification of ex-service individuals who would benefit from extra support. It offers advice on a range of issues from housing and mental health to medals and war pensions. The voluntary sector provides excellent additional support.

New clause 5 would require financial support to be provided for a range of welfare groups. I pay tribute to the invaluable role played by numerous service and ex-service organisations in promoting the welfare of the armed forces community. Some have been doing so for a very long time. Only this month, we celebrated the 90th anniversary of the Royal British Legion. Indeed, there was a garden party—indoors because it was raining—at No. 10 on Friday, at which the Prime Minister spoke. Members of the Royal British Legion and its supporters, such as Vera Lynn, all appreciated it enormously. Similarly, last week I went to the service at the Guards chapel on the 40th anniversary of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, with which we are in touch a great deal. Many such bodies have an expert understanding of the needs of service and ex-service personnel. Their support sits alongside the provision of facilities from public funds and we have close working relationships with many of them.

However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give general financial support to such groups. Registered charities are and should remain independent. It is right that they raise their own funding, whether they are concerned with the armed forces or not. It is a long-standing practice that central Government do not provide funds raised through taxation to assist the core activities of individual charities. In any event, given the number of charities, the Government would not be able to do that in a fair manner. I pay tribute to the many charities that are raising a great deal of money at the moment, such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress—we have been discussing mental health. They are working to raise funds to support our armed forces and I pay tribute to them.

New clause 6 proposes the creation of a policy forum for former service personnel. Is there a need for another policy forum and, if so, do we need to legislate to create it? There are already a number of groups that help to shape the delivery of veterans’ welfare. The external reference group on the covenant brings together armed forces advocates from across Government and external members from ex-service organisations. It provides co-ordination for the effort across Government and oversight of the Government’s performance in rebuilding the armed forces covenant, and it allows ex-service organisations and other experts to influence the development of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations. There are regular meetings between COBSEO and senior MOD staff and Ministers, including myself. The annual welfare conference organised by the MOD allows many smaller organisations to debate these issues. There are 13 veterans advisory and pensions committees throughout the United Kingdom that provide assistance to the service and ex-service community and local public service providers. They raise awareness in public bodies and the local community about the needs of veterans. I trust that I have made my point that establishing another former armed services personnel policy forum would not offer any tangible benefit.

I now turn to the second half of amendment 3. [Interruption.] For the benefit of people such as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence who have just walked in, perhaps I should repeat what I have said.

[The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)]

Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members once again to be courteous and to listen to the responses. If they want to have conversations outside this business, they can do so outside the Chamber.

[Mr Robathan]

For those who have arrived recently, it would be discourteous of me to not respond to those who have raised points, such as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I have yet to achieve the same length of speech as the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. [Interruption.] Indeed, the night is yet young.

The second half of amendment 3 sets out nine headings that must be covered in the annual report. I do not deny the importance of any of those topics. Some are broad and some are fairly narrow, such as “debt management” and “domestic violence”. However, it is not a comprehensive list and I am sure that other hon. Members could add many suggestions. We would rather not legislate for such a list because it may change over the next few years. The question is whether we should cram all possible issues into the legislation and turn the annual covenant report into a box-ticking exercise, or whether we want to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to identify and investigate the problems that are actually faced by service people. Amendment 3 would deny the Secretary of State the flexibility to deal with the effects of service that are considered to be the most important or relevant at the time of each report.

Finally on this group of amendments I come to amendment 4, which we do not believe would add a great deal to the Bill. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will seek views and evidence in preparing each annual covenant report. If there are issues, he will respond to them and give a time frame for implementing any recommendations. The amendment would simply get us into questions about who is and who is not an expert in this field. This country is fortunate to have an active community of well informed, constructive and articulate groups that are committed to improving the welfare of service people and want to work with the Government to achieve that. Many are brought together in the external reference group, and I can assure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that they are not slow in coming forward. We have stated that we will publish their observations alongside the annual report.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I’ll take her out.

[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?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the “forward thing”, but we have to do the sums, and I am afraid his maths is obviously not very good. If he does not believe that the Ministry of Defence is short of money, he is wrong.

The Opposition’s amendment 16 represents a further attempt to reduce the discretion of the Secretary of State to consider which subjects to include when preparing his annual report. I have three difficulties with it, and they lead me to oppose it. [Interruption.] I can find more, if the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) would like.

[Lyn Brown]

I look forward to it.

[Mr Robathan]

Well, one is that the amendment, no doubt with the best of intentions, describes in more detail the subjects to be covered in the covenant report. As drafted, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to address accommodation, health care, including mental health care, and education. We have included those topics because it is pretty inconceivable that there would ever be circumstances in which they were not relevant. However, the list is meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive. Any attempt to be comprehensive in the clause would run the risk of missing out something significant, and it would be doomed to become out of date as circumstances change. All the topics listed in the amendment are important and deserve consideration by Parliament, yet the list leaves out many other important matters such as pay, recognition and how we treat personnel on deployed operations.

That leads to the second difficulty with amendment 16. Its supporters may argue that if they fail to make their list comprehensive, the gaps will be filled in by others, hence the reference to

“such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.”

I am a great admirer of the work of the external reference group, as I have made clear to the House on numerous occasions. By coincidence—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State obviously does not want to hear my response to his colleague the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, who has raised a great deal that needs to be covered in the debate. That is why we have a Committee stage in the House of Commons.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

No!

[Mr Robathan]

He obviously does not realise that.

By coincidence, the external reference group is meeting tomorrow. I offered to go to the meeting, but it wished to consider how it may respond to the covenant report when it comes out. After discussions, it was thought that I might be in the way rather than anything else. The group’s advice and expertise will be of huge benefit to the Government in preparing the annual report, but we cannot place on the group the duty of deciding what subjects the Secretary of State will cover. That must be his decision, so that he is answerable to the House for it.

Finally—[Interruption.] I mean finally on amendment 16. It would remove the reference to “particular descriptions” of service personnel. That is a vital provision, despite the slightly arcane language, because it allows the Secretary of State to distinguish between different groups rather than cover the whole of the armed forces community when there is no need to do so. Leaving it out would make the annual report unwieldy and less useful.

That leads us directly to amendment 17. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Two of my hon. Friends from Wiltshire mentioned the matter earlier. Although inquests allow families to learn in detail how their loved ones died, and help them to reach closure, they also bring home to all of us the tragedy of loss and the cost of the operations on which we are embarked. Ensuring that the inquest system is fit for its very important purpose is a responsibility that the Government must never forget.

However, the amendment makes for me precisely the point that I raised earlier. It is an afterthought. Having tried to list the subjects that the Secretary of State should cover, the Opposition realised that they had left one out. That shows the weakness of trying to come up with a comprehensive list in legislation. Next week, people might come up with another category, but it would be too late to amend the Bill. I hope that we can look forward to a happier time when the operation of the inquest system is of less concern to the armed forces community because we are not involved in deployed operations and there are no fatalities.

[Gemma Doyle]

It is somewhat rich for the Minister to say that it is we who are treating inquests as an afterthought, given that it is his Government who have scrapped the office of the chief coroner. How would he respond—I urge him to make it a brief response—to the comment of the Royal British Legion that it is a betrayal of service families to scrap that office?

[Mr Robathan]

Unfortunately, as the Members on either side of the hon. Lady—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the shadow Secretary of State—will understand, I cannot speak for the Ministry of Justice. It would be beyond my remit. May I also say that she spoke for longer than I have yet achieved? Don’t worry, I’m working on it.

New clause 13 relates to armed forces advocates. Advocates are an excellent idea, and in UK Government Departments and the devolved Administrations they face in two directions. They ensure that their own Department’s policies take account of the special needs of the armed forces community, and they communicate their Department’s perspective to my officials and external stakeholders.

I turn briefly to new clause 14, on the ombudsmen. I pay tribute to the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen for their work. I do not think any of us doubt the important role that they can play in helping members of the armed forces community, and they have welcomed the familiarisation events that my officials have organised. However, the new clause is unclear about what exactly the ombudsmen are intended to do, and we are not minded to accept it. The Government will continue to work with public bodies and local authorities to implement our commitments, and we will encourage them to help to remove the disadvantage faced by service people and afford them special treatment where appropriate. The ombudsmen have a vital role to play, but it is not the one described in the new clause.

Finally—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Yes, finally, I come to the Opposition’s new clause 17. Once again, the concept outlined in it is perfectly reasonable. I want, just as much as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire does, a world in which those who make policy take into account the needs of members of the armed forces community as a matter of routine. The best way of ensuring that we avoid problems of disadvantage is to prevent them from happening in the first place. The issue is how to achieve that. We must consider whether the right course of action is to create a legal duty to have regard to certain matters, or to adopt a more practical approach. In the Government’s view, placing a general duty on all public bodies and Ministers in the preparation of all policy would be unhelpful and unfocused. It would lead to more of a box-ticking culture and a cottage industry of assessments. As I have said throughout the debates on the Bill, we are interested in results and want the armed forces community to be looked after better, but that does not involve box-ticking.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I agree with the Minister that results and outcomes are the most important thing, but with reference to the earlier discussion on devolution, how will he ensure that all servicemen and women and ex-servicemen and women are treated equally in all parts of the United Kingdom? There may be some resistance at devolved level, particularly in Northern Ireland where vetoes are in operation.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I know that he takes the matter very seriously. We did not put forward the devolution settlement, of course—that was done by the previous Government—but we are working with all three devolved Administrations to try to ensure that there is no disadvantage to any ex-service person. However, I absolutely take on board his point and the particular circumstances that he mentions.

Rather than the system set out in new clause 17, I would prefer one in which I and my ministerial colleagues across Government continue to work with public bodies to ensure as far as possible that they take account of the armed forces covenant in their preparation of policy. Much progress has already been made, and the imposition of a new statutory duty would not be of benefit.

The Government look to the annual report to be a powerful, flexible tool to focus Parliament’s attention on the key issues of the time. I fear that the Opposition’s proposed amendments would make that task more difficult and impose a package of unnecessary processes. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I have only another 300 pages to go, but I shall leave it at that, and allow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not altogether happy with the Minister’s response—in fact, I am desperately unhappy with it—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 16, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—

(a) education;

(b) accommodation;

(c) healthcare;

(d) mental healthcare;

(e) pensions and benefits;

(f) employment and training;

(g) support for reservists and their employers;

(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;

(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and

(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.—(Gemma Doyle.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One thing that the Government have not yet fully grasped is that a lot of those service personnel will have been at their bases for significant periods, particularly those at Royal Air Force bases. Indeed, one of the differences between the Army and the Air Force is that those in the Royal Air Force tend to spend the vast majority of their careers based in one location. I was recently told the story of some aircraft mechanics who had been at the same base for going on for two decades. People make family connections. Their husbands or wives move with them permanently to the bases at which they are stationed, and they then seek local employment and raise their families in the area. There will also be local businesses that depend on work from those RAF bases, as the hon. Gentleman said. They now face a period of great uncertainty.

I say very gently to the Minister that we have seen the date gradually slipping back. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that our understanding now is that we will not get a decision until the very day that the House rises. I would not for a moment seek to besmirch the Ministry of Defence’s thinking, but some uncharitable people outside the Chamber might suggest that the Government were hoping to sneak out the announcement on the last day when no one was looking, although I am sure that Mr Speaker would ensure that the Secretary of State at least came to the Chamber.

[Mr Robathan]

Were any Minister to try to slip something out on the last day, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be here to ensure that they did not get away with it.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I am happy to confirm that I will not be going anywhere on the last day for that reason. However, I am sure that if the Secretary of State waited until the last moment and if it then slipped his mind to request an oral statement, Mr Speaker would ensure, for the probity of the House, that he found a suitable opportunity—

[Mr Robathan]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister shakes his head. I understand that there might be some vacancies coming up at the Department of Health shortly. I think that he might be up for promotion, so I could not possibly comment on whether he would be on the Front Bench next to the Secretary of State for Health—although the Defence Secretary is a GP, of course, and would be eminently suitable as a Health Secretary, if such a vacancy were to come up. However, having to wait until 19 July—the last day before the recess—is frankly not a comfortable position to be in.

I understand why the Ministry of Defence did not wish to make an announcement during the period of purdah for the Scottish elections. When the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife had a debate in the House on RAF Leuchars in January, the Minister of State made it clear that he did not wish to do anything that might upset the election results—I should point out to him that putting that decision off did not do the Lib Dems much good in North East Fife. However, we are now well past the Scottish elections. There is no particular reason why the Government could not come to the House now and announce the decisions that we know they have made.

The purpose of my new clause is to ensure parliamentary oversight of the decisions made by the Ministry of Defence. As I said earlier, we are talking about a unique set of closures. We have probably not seen anything like it since the days when Denis Healey was a Minister for the armed forces and we reconfigured and abandoned our positions east of Aden. Now, however, the decisions are being driven entirely by the Treasury.

The purpose of new clause 1, which thankfully I will not read into the record, is not to affect the way in which the Ministry of Defence gathers information. It does not seek to make the process more transparent or, as the Minister said earlier, to tie the hands of the Government so that they cannot carry out these processes. The new clause proposes that, once the Ministry of Defence has determined which bases it wants to close or realign—for example, by switching their use from the Royal Air Force to the Army, or, as we read in Scotland on Sunday at the weekend, by switching the Condor base in Arbroath from the Royal Marines to the Army—the decisions would be subject to two conditions. First, the Secretary of State would be required to lay a report before the House setting out not only his rationale for making the decisions but the weighting he has given.

Those colleagues who have attended the Adjournment debates on these matters here and in Westminster Hall will have noticed that there has been inconsistency between the views expressed by the various Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about what weighting is being given to each of the criteria: the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the other Under-Secretary of State—he is the Minister for aviation, as far as I can tell—seem to have different views. One Minister will tell us that the finances are paramount; another will say that defence needs come first; yet another will tell us that the RAF’s needs are the most important, while another says that the Army’s needs are the priority. Then we get back to the arguments about the socio-economic arguments and the wider impacts of the decisions that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has mentioned. Those are all valid arguments, and the Ministry is right to consider the socio-economic factors, the financial costs to the Treasury and how best a base can be recycled for use by another service. However, that all needs to be done in a transparent and coherent manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I have huge sympathy for those who have been put in a position of uncertainty and, perhaps, adversely affected by the closure of bases. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has stood up for his constituents a great deal, and he has made the point that it is his job to make. I take that entirely on board. I am afraid I cannot say that we will change everything, but I will deal with his points later. First, however, I will deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—and let me say for the avoidance of doubt that I do know who he is.

New clause 1 is very unwelcome at a time when we are trying to streamline the way in which the Government conduct operations. It would require the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament to any alteration in the function of, and any closure of, any of our bases anywhere in the world. As well as bases in the United Kingdom, it would affect bases in Germany, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Afghanistan. That would hamstring our operations. It would involve our revealing publicly our plans and, no doubt, a great deal of highly sensitive information so that the Houses could debate it.

Even assuming that the real intention of the new clauses and amendment relate only to bases in the United Kingdom, as I am sure is the case, I believe that the proposed action would be inappropriate. In practice, Parliament would be notified of any major base closures or realignments. The Department already undertakes a significant amount of consultation on stake sales with local authorities, interest groups, trade unions and local Members of Parliament. Notwithstanding the widespread view that we do not listen, I have undertaken consultation with local Members of Parliament about certain cases, not necessarily involving big bases but involving MOD sites. I have taken a couple of issues very much to heart, and am looking into them in detail. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not just a case of window-dressing.

Base closures and changes are already subject to a number of legislative requirements through, for example, planning consents and the need for sustainability assessments. Parliament already has ample opportunity to make its views about proposed major changes known to the Government, and Parliament and indeed the nation will no doubt hold the Government to account for the decisions that they make. We believe, however, that it must be right for the Government to make those decisions. Requiring advance approval would constitute an abandonment of the Government’s responsibility, and would make vital strategic decision-making impossible.

[Thomas Docherty]

I asked earlier what discussions the MOD had been having with stakeholders such as the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about school provision, which was clearly a huge problem. Are those discussions still taking place?

[Mr Robathan]

The Minister for the Armed Forces has been dealing with specific bases. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he has asked, but I should be happy for him to meet me or, perhaps more appropriately, my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. I shall mention that to my hon. Friend, although he will spot it in Hansard in any event. Amendment 1, of course, is linked to new clause 1.

I did not know that the hon. Member for Moray had engaged in a discussion that seems to have continued for longer than he may have wished, but I think it important for us to get this right. Contrary to what people think, we care what happens not just to our service personnel but to the people who work in and around service bases, because it affects their lives. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the review of defence basing and estates requirements over the last year, not only to represent his constituency interests but because RAF Lossiemouth has featured heavily in speculation. Given that the hon. Gentleman is his party’s defence spokesman, of course he is interested in what is happening in Scotland.

One of the problems with this new clause is to do with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in the United States. The hon. Gentleman may have offered that before as a model that we should follow, but we take the view that the Defence Secretary must act in the best interests of defence—that is what he is appointed to do—and where defence assets and personnel are based must depend on strategic considerations for the security and defence of the United Kingdom and value for money for the taxpayer.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the process used in the United States, but in our parliamentary system the Secretary of State for Defence is accountable to Parliament in a way that does not apply in the United States. Members of Parliament can, and do, make representations directly to Ministers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that those representations are heard. This is not pure window dressing, so I hope he, too, will not press his amendment to a Division.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will be brief, as an important set of new clauses are to be discussed next and I know colleagues wish to have a full debate on them.

I have been heartened by some of the Minister’s remarks. I did not agree with all he has said, but he nevertheless offered an eloquent defence of his position. I was particularly heartened by his offering me a meeting with his ministerial colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I will be delighted to accept that offer. In turn, I am sure he will be delighted to know that the Defence Committee has decided to undertake a review of the basing decisions in the autumn. I suspect he and his colleagues will therefore eagerly anticipate appearing before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee, along with his Select Committee colleagues, including myself.

Based on the assurances I have received and the good debate we have had this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Voluntary discharge of under-18s

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”’.—(Dr Huppert.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want, briefly, to support new clause 7 and I also want to express my thanks to the Minister for his statement about improving the system. He seems somewhat surprised to get unanimous support—

[Mr Robathan]

It is amazing.

[John McDonnell]

I can assure him that it will not last for long.

I also want to argue in favour of new clause 11. My new clause, like new clause 7, is based on the briefings that we have received from the Quakers and I pay tribute to them for the work they have done in raising the issues about the recruitment of under-18s into the military. I also want to thank Michael Bartlet for the work he has done in raising the profile of the issue over some time.

My new clause would simply end the recruitment of anybody under the age of 18, because I find it extraordinary that when it comes to military recruitment or their engagement in the military, we do not treat under-18s as minors. Legally, that is what they are. I therefore find it extraordinary that we allow children to sign up to involvement in the military, legally—currently—making a commitment for six years. They are minors, signing up to a process that could put them in harm’s way and which certainly puts them under a disciplinary regime and environment that has made a number of them vulnerable over the years.

For the record, I understand that there are currently 580 16-year-olds and 1,970 17-year-olds serving in the British armed forces. I have been surprised to learn from parliamentary answers and MOD information that between April 2007 and April 2010, three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq. I have also been concerned to learn, in answer to a parliamentary question, that on 1 December 2010, there were five under-18s serving sentences at the military corrective training centre at Colchester for having gone absent without leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I think that new clause 7 would bring an immense improvement to current practices and I support it, but I object in principle to the recruitment of children into the military. For 13 years, I was the part-time house father of a children’s home when they were run as family units and one could pursue one’s own career while also operating as the father of a family group. In that time we dealt with a large number of young people from extremely disturbed backgrounds and prepared them for fostering into ordinary homes. A number of those who came to us were extremely vulnerable and I remember many of them going into military service at a very young age, almost because they were looking for the security of an institution because they had, frankly, been institutionalised as a result of their lives in care. At the time, I thought those young people were extremely vulnerable and were making the wrong decision. At the age of 16, people are too young to make that major decision to go into the armed forces and put themselves under a disciplinary regime that can result, as it has done, in a number of youngsters being put in corrective establishments. As I have said, some others have been sent to war zones. I would welcome a careful rethink from the Government about this issue and I hope that they will consider coming back with proposals to accept the measures in new clause 7 and to follow other European countries in phasing out the recruitment of children into the Army.

[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.

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree more that young people should be in college or in education of one sort or another. If that is attached to a military establishment, that is fantastic. Will the Minister confirm, however, that three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq between April 2007 and April 2010? I know that that is not very many young people, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is no longer in his place, implied that in Committee he had heard evidence that that did not happen. I may be incorrect. Can the Minister clarify the position?

[Mr Robathan]

I think the hon. Lady has in her hand a parliamentary answer that I gave her on exactly this issue. Those cases occurred under the previous Government and it was a mistake in each case. Funnily enough, the young men involved wanted to go on operations. A mistake was made, out of 24,000 reservists, as we have just heard, deployed on operations Telic and Herrick. Thousands are deployed each year and I am afraid that mistakes are made. If memory serves me right without having the answer in front of me, I think that two of the individuals mentioned were within a few days of their 18th birthday, and one was found out and sent back. We try to rectify mistakes when they are made, but there are a large number of people and if they do not own up to their age, that can be a problem. We do not intend that that should happen and we will pursue the matter to make sure that it does not.

[John McDonnell]

So that we get absolute clarity, it is the unanimous view of the Committee, therefore, that no minor should be taken to a war zone. Let us get that on the record.

[Mr Robathan]

That has been policy since before I joined the armed forces, which I am afraid to say was in 1970. [Interruption.] No, not 1870. It was 1970.

I can assure the Committee that we recognise the need for special care in recruiting and training under-18s. There are currently no plans to revisit the Government’s recruitment policy for under-18s, which is fully compliant with the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may have been about to answer my question. What action has been taken since the UNCRC 2008 report, which asked the Government to look again at their proactive policy of recruiting under-18s? [Interruption.]

[Mr Robathan]

I hear from a sedentary position the suggestion that perhaps the previous Government did not take any great action on that. We do not intend to revisit our policy on the matter. However, it is important to say that all service in the armed forces is voluntary, unlike in many other armies around the world. Furthermore, no person under the age of 18, because such a person is deemed a minor, can join the armed forces unless the application is accompanied by the formal written consent of a parent or guardian. As I have just said, our defence policy is that no such service personnel are knowingly deployed on any operation outside the UK that could result in their becoming engaged in hostilities. We take very seriously the duty of care of all recruits, particularly those aged under 18, who, inevitably, can be more vulnerable than some older people. This is not a partisan position, because we have inherited this from the last Government and it has run through several Governments.

To this end, parents or guardians of all younger personnel, as well as the applicants themselves, are given comprehensive written and face-to-face guidance on the terms and conditions of service and the right to discharge during the selection process, and will be when it changes. This occurs at various times before the parent or guardian provides formal written consent for the child to enter service.

In the light of that and our clear determination to give good careers to young people under the age of 18, be it for three or 30 years, I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge will withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that everybody should understand. Providing the information is not difficult. Governments here have done it, and Governments elsewhere around the world do it. Frankly, we would be in dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians if we did not try to inform ourselves of how the Department that we are trying to hold to account is spending our constituents’ tax money. How that informs our political priorities is a totally different matter, but the coalition parties made an express commitment to everybody in the United Kingdom that they would seek and deliver transparency. When it comes to defence statistics, they have reneged on that.

This is an opportunity for both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—and Labour Members if they have found their conscience on the issue—to understand that this is an important problem that is easily remedied. The new clause would allow that to happen, as it would force the MOD to provide and publish the statistics that we all deserve. That is why, unless the Minister agrees to publish the statistics, I will force a Division on this important issue.

[Mr Robathan]

Having listened to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I have to say that I thought his indignation was completely synthetic. What is important is how the money is spent, not how statistics are gathered, and I will put on record what we feel.

The Ministry of Defence has no plans to reinstate the publication of annual estimates of regional defence spending or the employment effects of that expenditure. The Department decided to stop the compilation and publication of those statistics three years ago. Although the statistics were valuable in giving national and regional employment context to defence spending, the data did not directly support MOD policy making and operations. Furthermore, the compilation of the series depended on external sources that had not been updated for some years. The MOD had been struggling to maintain the quality of the statistics even to a basic level. To reinstate their compilation would cost the Department about £500,000 in the next four years.

The purpose of the defence budget is to maintain the armed forces so that they can contribute to our nation’s security—a nation that includes, I am glad to say, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Every pound that the MOD spends must contribute to the security of the United Kingdom, and it gets doled out not on a regional basis but on a defence-needs basis.

[Mr Dodds]

I stand as a member of a Unionist party in Northern Ireland that is proud to be part of the United Kingdom, but this is not about being part of the UK. It is about the information that is available to Members of Parliament and the public. Surely the Minister should recognise that distinction.

[Mr Robathan]

Information on employment is quite readily available with a little bit of hard work, but I am afraid that we must consider the cost of compiling inaccurate statistics. The previous Government took their view, and we support it. Decisions on where personnel are based and which contracts are let to which firms are based solely on what is best for the armed forces and the defence of the realm. It is the duty of Government to ensure that the defence budget is spent wisely, maximising the resources available on the front line and ensuring that every pound counts.

[Angus Robertson]

The Minister points out that because a caveat in the coalition agreement suggests that the publication of some statistics is more expensive than the publication of others, he has a get-out-of-jail card in respect of publishing statistics on defence and the MOD.

[Mr Robathan]

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. The point is that the Government do not have all the statistics to publish, and compiling them would be extremely expensive—and, as I just said, they are becoming increasingly inaccurate. We do not compile statistics on everything.

Those estimates were difficult and intensive to maintain. They relied on analytical tables produced by the Office for National Statistics that have not been updated since 1995. As I have explained, the statistics did not support the MOD’s decision making. I have looked into how much it would cost to reintroduce the estimates and the cost is higher than the benefit to defence. My main focus, and our main focus, must be on doing what is best for the armed forces.

I note from previous debates on this subject that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the cessation of those statistics will mean that a gap emerges in information on defence, particularly with regard to Scotland. It should be noted that assessments of the employment effects of MOD expenditure will continue to be undertaken for individual defence projects, and as part of the regional impact assessments that are conducted to inform MOD base closures. For instance, we know how many people are employed at specific bases—that is quite straightforward—but we do not compile huge tables of statistics that are of no great value. Decisions and policy in these areas will continue to use evidence about the employment impacts.

In the light of that, I hope the Committee rejects new clause 15.

[Angus Robertson]

I pointed out that the coalition parties made a pledge on transparency in their agreement. They said that they would provide all information on contracts of more than £25,000. I am sorry to say, however, that the Minister has suggested at the Dispatch Box that, somehow, the coalition does not have to live up to that commitment in defence matters. The commitment that the statistics would be provided was also given to me in this Chamber, but it has been reneged on. More importantly, Members of Parliament should have those statistics as a matter of course. The fact that the outcome of those statistics is unfortunate for decision makers in the MOD is no reason not to publish them. That is why I press new clause 15 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Queen Victoria School, Dunblane (Military Covenant)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs McGuire]

The Minister might be venturing a step too far if he answers that at this point, but the MOD should perhaps take the QVS model slightly more seriously, particularly in some of the discussions it is having about the continuity of education allowance, because there are perhaps some options there.

I have some brief questions for the Minister. Given the importance of the military covenant, will he make it clear that his Department recognises the contribution of QVS and does not see it as some anachronism from a bygone age? I use the word “anachronism” because it was used in a report by the Select Committee on Defence four or five years ago, although the Committee also recognised the importance of maintaining the school.

Does the Minister recognise that mobile service personnel who cannot afford to access the continuity of education allowance should have their children’s needs supported and that QVS offers a valuable resource to meet those needs? I am sure the Minister has heard the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire on the issue.

Will the Minister encourage his officials to work with the commissioners to look at options to expand the facilities at QVS and to use them and the school’s expertise to the benefit of a greater number of the children of mobile service personnel, giving them the opportunity to benefit from the stability and pastoral care offered by the school?

Next week, we will have armed forces day. On 24 June, QVS will have its grand day—a mixture of school prize-giving and end-of-term celebration. I hope that the Minister, before he perhaps moves on to higher offices in another Department—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Or gets sacked.

[Mrs McGuire]

I would never use that word to a Minister. However, I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to come to the school to see its grand day. It is a fantastic celebration of the school, and I have been privileged to be present at it for the past 14 years. In front of their parents and families, the students parade in their Victorian scarlet uniforms and kilts to the beat of their own superb, internationally recognised pipe band. It is a day of high celebration and some emotion, as the sixth-year pupils leave the school for the last time. Grand day is a public statement of this country’s support for these children, who allow us—the civilian population—to borrow their parents to protect our freedoms. Thankfully, most of the families will be reunited in safety. Sadly, some parents will not return, while others will be disabled for life.

I do not wish to see the school preserved in aspic. There are still ways in which it can develop its educational and pastoral potential, and I am obviously happy to discuss my views with the Minister on a future occasion. However, I want to leave him with some words from one of the pupils, which perhaps sum up why a facility such as QVS is so important to the children who attend it:

“Here are some numbers. The first is nine. Nine is the number of times my life has been loaded onto a lorry and taken miles away, sometimes across one border, sometimes across several. The next number is seven. Seven is the number of times I’ve had said to me, ‘So how was your first day?’”

That is why there is a continuing role for QVS and an opportunity to see it expand as part of the Government’s valuable commitment to the military covenant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) on securing this short debate to highlight the work of Queen Victoria school in Dunblane. She takes a close interest in the school and has presented prizes there—perhaps she will do so on grand day on 24 June. I congratulate her on her obvious passion and support for the school.

The school has a long and proud history, which the right hon. Lady detailed. Its work chimes well with the Government’s commitment to our armed forces and their families, which is part of the armed forces covenant. The right hon. Lady’s first question was whether the Government recognise the value of QVS and, anachronistic or not—the school is rather unusual—we certainly value its work. I will discuss that further later in my speech.

The history of QVS is unique, although there are similar, but different schools in England. As the right hon. Lady said, the school was founded in 1905 by royal warrant. I was not going to mention the “in perpetuity” bit, but, unfortunately, she has already mentioned it. The school was originally founded by public subscription, but the Secretary of State for War undertook to maintain it for the sons of Scottish sailors and soldiers. Those responsibilities are now vested in my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence. Responsibility for its day-to-day governance rests with the board of commissioners, and the right hon. Lady has told us who they are. I was glad that she did not want to attack the senior and distinguished commissioners from 1974. The commissioners report to the Adjutant-General on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Since 1908, the opportunity has been taken to widen and modernise the remit of the school, while staying in the spirit of its founding constitution. In 1919, just after the Royal Air Force was formed, the school was opened to children of RAF personnel. It became co-educational in 1996, when entry was extended to daughters of service personnel, and, as the right hon. Lady said, it accepted the children of officers in 1999. Its basic purpose remains consistent with the aims of those who contributed so generously to its establishment: to provide secondary boarding education for the children of Scottish personnel and personnel who have served in Scotland or are part of a Scottish regiment. Although parents are not charged fees, they make a modest contribution to ancillary costs, which is slightly more than £1,000 a year.

The two elements of the school—the fact that it is Scottish and for the services—have combined to give it the very special ethos and nature that makes it unique in the UK. As well as providing a sound academic education, the school offers its pupils the opportunity to participate in various Scottish activities, including Scottish dance and performing in a pipe band. I was in an English regiment in the Army, but the one thing that would have persuaded me to join a Scottish regiment was not so much the kilts—my legs notwithstanding—but the fact that I love marching to a pipe band. I am glad to know that that activity continues in Dunblane.

It is in understanding and meeting the specific needs of service children that QVS is most special. The recent Ofsted report on children in service families, which covered England and Wales but contains lessons equally applicable to all our service families, found that some service children’s learning slowed or receded with the frequent moves that service life requires. It should be pointed out though that that does not feed through to attainment and there is no evidence of underachievement. Indeed, in the paper, “The Armed Forces Covenant, Today and Tomorrow”, the Department for Education states that in England attainment in exams for service children is not below average. It also demonstrates that at some stages of their education, service children have better attainment than their non-service counterparts.

QVS offers full continuity of secondary education for the children who attend and most importantly it offers it in a secure and safe environment that recognises and understands the special pressures on children that their parents’ life in the services can bring. The disruption caused by service life can be worsened when parents are deployed on active service, and the operational tempo has remained high for over a decade. The Ofsted report to which I referred found that some service children were susceptible to social and emotional disturbance when a parent or family member was on active deployment. Those pressures are especially well understood and catered for in a school where the staff are alert for their signs and where pupils can understand and share one another’s concerns.

Over the years, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of education and the Care Commission, which inspect Scottish schools, have commented favourably on the supportive environment that QVS offers to service children. The school plays a valuable part in supporting elements of the armed forces covenant in Scotland, which provides an answer to another of the right hon. Lady’s questions. Against that background, the Ministry of Defence has continued to provide for the needs of the school. As well as financing its running directly, much support is provided by the local military. Headquarters 2 division, based in Edinburgh, offers practical help in a number of ways, such as security and transport.

The school has concerns about the state of its buildings, and it is not unique in that. The pressure on the estate, which has to support the wide range of activities for which the MOD is responsible, is unrelenting, and when distributing limited resources, the needs of the school, however worthy, must be balanced against other operational and welfare priorities for our people and the wider needs of defence. The fact that some of its rather beautiful buildings are listed adds to the attractiveness of the school, but also to the costs of maintaining it. Within that difficult environment, I am pleased to say that QVS has seen some £2 million-worth of refurbishment, improvement and maintenance works over the past couple of years, including the replacement of a significant number of windows within the grade II listed main school building.

I am aware however that not all the perceived needs and aspirations of the school have necessarily been addressed. Therefore MOD officials, some of whom serve as commissioners, are working closely with the school and the whole board of commissioners to develop a strategic plan, not just to preserve the achievements of the school, but to improve on them. That will include identifying the investment required in the infrastructure, but it is by no means confined to that. For example, with Her Majesty’s commissioners we are exploring closer integration with Service Children’s Education, which provides education for service children overseas. I am not suggesting that Scotland is overseas, because I know that doing so would get the right hon. Lady going, but there is a certain synergy in the provision of education. The school is unique, and it might be better dealt with by the SCE because it deals specifically with the education of service children.

[Mrs McGuire]

Does that mean that some of the criteria I highlighted would be lost? I appreciate that the Minister is looking at administrative ease, but the mobile service personnel element and the particular and unique support that QVS gives could be lost if it is absorbed into something that does not quite fit. He has just revealed this idea, and I am interested in the option.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Lady asks a very good question. We are examining the possibility, but it is not the intention to slot the school into a neat package. It is about where it would be best administrated and this is an administrative matter. I can already see that if we were to undermine the school, she would be back like a shot to ensure that did not happen.

Closer integration with the SCE could help to provide greater specialist support to QVS and greater integration with other service schools overseas, which some of the children will have been to already. Against the severe financial constraints we inherited, within which the MOD and the rest of Government are working, it is extremely challenging to increase the resources devoted to the school, notwithstanding the benefits it brings—and it does bring benefits—and the underpinning it provides in Scotland to our commitments under the armed forces covenant. Like everything else in our budget, it must compete with other extremely high priorities, but we are committed to working with the school and its commissioners to identify the most beneficial and cost-effective way forward through the development of a medium-term strategic plan.

The right hon. Lady particularly asked whether it was possible to expand the school, which is one of the things at which we will certainly look. It is not cost-free and we are strapped for cash, but if children go there rather than to other independent schools, where the continuity of education allowance has to be paid, it could be cheaper. I understand the value of QVS to those who are not in receipt of CEA, because it provides a different way forward for schooling.

Finally, we have delivered a scheme to provide scholarships to bereaved service children and a new fund announced by the Secretary of State on 20 May provides £3 million a year for state schools with service children. The new fund will assist schools and academies that have children with parents in the services or the reserves, to help mitigate the impact of mobility and deployment within the armed forces.

Before I close, I want to say that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic. I was interested in what the right hon. Lady had to say. I have not been to Dunblane, but QVS is obviously very good. I will correct one thing that she said: approximately 50% of CEA is paid to officers’ families and 50% is paid to others—I think that is right. If I am wrong, I shall write to her to apologise. I think that 50% is within 5% of the right figure, but of course it changes each year.

It is always nice to hear a Labour politician praising an independent school. It cheers me up no end, because we do not always hear it. I assure the House that the education of service children, wherever they learn—in state schools in this country, in service schools abroad, in independent schools supported by CEA and certainly at QVS—is one of our highest priorities. I went to Welbeck defence sixth-form college only two weeks ago and have been to the Duke of York’s royal military school in Dover, which are of course different from QVS, but I take an interest in this subject. I have been delighted to respond to the right hon. Lady today.

Question put and agreed to.

Defence

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Caroline Lucas]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to give persons entering the armed forces under the age of 18 the right to leave on attaining the age of 18 if they consider at the age of 18 that they have been mistaken in their decision to enlist.

[Official Report, 10 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 3W.]

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 10 January 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

There are no plans to change the current policy. Service personnel under 18 years who have completed 28 days of service have the right to discharge at any time before their 18th birthday provided they give the required 14 days notice. A service person under the age of 18 years three months who registered before their 18th birthday, their clear unhappiness at their choice of career can request permission to leave the armed forces. They do not have discharge of right at this age but it is exceedingly rare for such an individual to be refused permission to leave. These safeguards help to ensure that young servicemen or women under the age of 18 years may, if they wish, leave the armed forces and that any commitment to service is both considered and voluntary.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

There are no plans to change the current policy. Service personnel under 18 years who have completed 28 days of service have the right to discharge at any time before their 18th birthday provided they give the required 14 days notice, and are within six months of enlistment. A Service person under the age of 18 years three months who registered before their 18th birthday their clear unhappiness at their choice of career can request permission to leave the armed forces. They do not have discharge of right at this age but it is exceedingly rare for such an individual to be refused permission to leave. These safeguards help to ensure that young servicemen or women under the age of 18 years may, if they wish, leave the armed forces and that any commitment to service is both considered and voluntary.

For the sake of clarity, I should emphasise that neither the original nor the corrected answer reflects the current policy. In a written ministerial statement of 19 May 2011, Official Report, columns 24-26WS, I announced a change in the policy whereby the ability to be discharged should be a right up to the age of 18.