Military Covenant

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Jim Murphy

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Murphy]

I have a choice. I have already given way to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about what happened in the past. Will he take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous Government for sending our troops to war without the correct equipment in 2003 because he did not want to alarm his own Back Benchers that his Government may have already decided to go to war in Iraq?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman is confused. The fact is that his party was demanding ever more spending on the armed forces in the midst of the recession and the financial crisis.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman so I shall make some progress.

On the military covenant, the amendment to the Armed Forces Bill that the Secretary of State and his friends were intent on rejecting said:

“The Secretary of State must by Order through Statutory Instrument establish a written Military Covenant (henceforth referred to as “the Covenant”) which sets out the definition of the word “covenant”, used in Clause 2, line 6 of the Armed Forces Bill. The definition would set out the principles against which the annual armed forces covenant report would be judged.”

That is the amendment that the Government have found so dangerous and refused to accept in Committee. That is the amendment that they claim would create a whole set of new justiciable rights when it would do no such thing.