Mull of Kintyre Review

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I have made it very clear that I accept the recommendation and that change will follow. We will review all current procedures. There is no doubt that that procedure was dangerous and wrong, to the detriment of this country’s security. We saw a similar phenomenon recently with the Polish Government. It does not make sense for any country to allow that amount of its national investment to be in any one vehicle, be it on the ground or in the air.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The military covenant was betrayed in this case, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing some redress. What will he do to ensure that the quality of legal advice, which is still relevant in Iraq and Afghanistan where there have been issues over such advice, is improved so that we do not see a repeat of this sort of thing?

[Dr Fox]

It is impossible to guarantee that the advice from any one human being will be perfect. We therefore need to look constantly at the quality of advice and at the sources of that advice, and to ensure that it is spread widely enough to minimise the inevitable risk of human error.

Armed Forces Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can be sure that my remarks will be brief.

I must confess to three interests. First, I am a medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. Secondly, I am a potential beneficiary of the naval medical compassionate fund, which is in clause 27—“potential” because one must decease before benefiting. Thirdly, I have a non-pecuniary interest in my book, which was published today, by happy chance, on the military covenant.

I am pleased to support the Bill, which has gone a long way. There are two authorities in this field that we should not upset: one is the Royal British Legion and the other is Joanna Lumley. Consecutive Governments understand the truth of that. It is quite something when the Royal British Legion writes to MPs, as it did on 9 June, to say that the Bill represents an historic agreement. Notwithstanding the reservations that it has expressed as the Bill has gone through the Commons, it is clearly of the view now that the Bill represents a positive measure that will materially benefit the welfare of the men and women to whom we owe so very much.

I should like briefly to address the subject of the chief coroner. I have an interest, in that Mr Masters has sat in Trowbridge in my constituency, and I have visited his court and discussed the matter of military inquests with him at some length. I gently point out to the Opposition that both Mr Masters and Mr Walker in Oxford have done a wonderful job over the past several years in highlighting the plight of men and women in the armed forces and in standing up for the families of those who have sadly deceased. It is not clear to me that an office of the chief coroner would have added to that process. Indeed, I would go further: there is every prospect that such an official could be more biddable than local coroners because he is more central.

The big thing that has stood out over the years from those inquests is their independence and their willingness to find out what is happening on the ground. I pay tribute to both those two gentlemen.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armed Forces Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the office of the chief coroner was set up, following a great deal of consultation, to address issues that were raised. Indeed, it was established with cross-party support. Those issues have not gone away as far as I am aware, although I respect his experience in this matter. There have been varying reports from around the country, and that may be where the difference lies.

The office of the chief coroner is to be abolished by the Public Bodies Bill as a cost-saving measure. The Royal British Legion calls this “a betrayal” of bereaved armed forces families which threatens the military covenant. That intention was confirmed today in a written ministerial statement. I understand that the Government say they are transferring responsibilities, but the improvements that the new chief coroner’s office would have brought about will now be lost.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being very generous. Trowbridge is in my constituency and it is where the military inquests have been taking place under the supervision of Mr Masters, to whom I have spoken on the issue. Does the hon. Lady accept that the main concern that families have expressed over the past several years is not to do with the lack of a chief coroner, who could easily be biddable in the way that local coroners have not been, but because there has been a disparity in the legal support given to either side? The MOD has been sponsoring—paying for—barristers in what is meant to be a non-adversarial situation, something which, happily, is no longer the case.

[Gemma Doyle]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The office of the chief coroner would seek to address some of the issues that he raises about the variations and the inconsistencies in families’ experiences. Each time that the office of the chief coroner has been considered by Parliament it has been supported—twice in 2009, and just last December the other place voted to save it. The Secretary of State for Justice does not seem to be listening, and not for the first time. He cites cost as an issue, but the Royal British Legion and INQUEST have been clear that they are prepared to open discussions on how the cost can be reduced. I hope that the Minister will listen to these pleas. This is exactly the sort of decision that must be subject to greater accountability and scrutiny. At present an issue so central to the armed forces community would not be covered by the armed forces report on the covenant, and that is why we tabled the amendment. I ask the Minister today to commit to making representations on behalf of the armed forces community to keep the office of the chief coroner. I hope that at the very least the Government will support this amendment to ensure that this vital issue is reported on annually.

As I have previously said, we were all entertained in Committee by the Minister with responsibility for veterans as he performed verbal gymnastics on the issue of whether the Government were meeting the Prime Minister’s famous commitment given on the deck of the Ark Royal. However, just as important as writing the covenant into law, the Bill should provide a form of accountability so that the principles contained in the covenant mean something in reality, and that is what new clause 14 seeks to achieve.

During the debates in preparation for Green Paper in 2009, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) tells me that he argued strongly, against the wishes of his officials, that parliamentary and local government ombudsmen should provide a system of accountability. The ombudsmen were happy to take on that work and it was included in the 2009 Green Paper—the nation’s commitment to the armed forces community: consistent and enduring support. The Opposition continue to believe that that is the right approach. In Committee, the Minister was at pains to point out that officials advise and Minister’s decide, but given the weak nature of what has been proposed in the Bill, it appears that his officials are more in control than he would care to admit.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the hon. Gentleman give the Government credit for including service children in the pupil premium, which will benefit his constituents as it has done mine?

Armed Forces Covenant

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Lady makes two valuable points. As regards the first, on IVF, it is bad enough that we often deny mobility and life chances to individuals, but to deny them the chance of producing another generation is worse, particularly when it is something that we can avoid. We should avoid it, and doing so sends out an important signal about the pastoral care that we are willing to give to our armed forces. Today’s announcement is a key one, which I think will be welcomed across the whole country.

On the hon. Lady’s second point, I think many of us will celebrate the fact that the care we give our armed forces is so much better than others might receive in the NHS that parity is being demanded. That is not a bad position for a country to be in, in terms of the care it gives to service people. The work we are undertaking with the Department of Health will set out to see what lessons the NHS can learn from the treatment of those who have been injured in military action and I believe that that is a very proud moment for the country.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making his statement and on its contents, and Professor Hew Strachan on his excellent work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the “no disadvantage” enjoinder within the military covenant establishes a floor and not a ceiling, and that the men and women of our armed forces will particularly welcome the special provisions that he has announced even more than the commitment to establish the covenant and its principles on a firmer footing, which has so exercised the Opposition?

[Dr Fox]

May I take this opportunity—I hope on behalf of the whole House—to thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the work he has done, particularly on mental health and prosthetics, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned? I am sure that his words will be much appreciated. It is important to set out these two provisions whereby there is no disadvantage to our armed forces, their families or our veterans in pursuing a military career, and whereby, if necessary, the rest of society accepts that special measures might have to be taken to recompense our armed forces personnel for the risks that they are willing to take for the safety and security of the rest of us.

Armed Forces Redundancies

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman played a very honourable part in the last Government explaining to the then Prime Minister how he was trying to increase operational capacity without increasing spending, and I know that he pointed out to the last Prime Minister that there was not enough money for our operational requirements. On the Royal Air Force in particular, as the Prime Minister said in October, and as the Chief of the Air Staff has confirmed and explicitly stated in his article, we wish to see an uplift in real-terms defence spending from 2015. The Prime Minister has said that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend outline the extent to which the rules on regular reserve liability will affect those being made redundant, and confirm that those who do have that liability will be kept close, up to date and informed, as they form a very valuable potential contingency in the event of a declining international situation?

[Mr Robathan]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The regular reserve personnel do indeed play a very important role, and I will make sure that they are kept informed.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Benefits)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

I will answer that question personally rather than as a representative of my party. As I have said, I am not an expert on this issue. However, having spoken to some senior officers in my local Army garrison only last month, I believe that it will have a detrimental impact on recruitment and retention in the armed forces. It is also about the morale of our troops, and I will touch on that subject a little later.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate and I declare my interest as a service pensioner. He underscores the importance of pensions and is right to do so. Will he note that pensions were perhaps the first manifestation of the military covenant since the Romans granted a pension to people settled in Britain after about 20 years’ service, so they have a very long history?

[Steve Rotheram]

I will touch on the Government’s position on the military covenant and what was said in the House a few weeks ago a little later in my contribution.

Military employees accept that many of their personal life choices will be determined, and often restricted, by duty to the military. Premature death and injury are occupational hazards and have lifelong and life-changing consequences that impact on entire families. Typically, armed forces employees have shorter careers; they retire at an average age of 40, which is much earlier than their civilian counterparts. For obvious reasons, many military widows and widowers are younger than the non-military average and thus more likely to be left to raise children alone. Injured or disabled retirees are frequently unable to work on civvy street following their discharge. For veterans, the quality of post-service support—medical, remedial and professional—remains patchy to say the least. Show me any other civilian public servant subject to this particular package of terms and conditions, and I will buy into the Government’s logic.

There is another way in which armed forces pensions and benefits differ from other public sector pensions. Yes, they are occupational pensions, but, as the Forces Pension Society has pointed out, they are also essentially a form of compensation for the unavoidable early cessation of a career. It is important, therefore, to consider why people join the armed forces. Individual motivations vary, but they include a yearning for travel and adventure, a desire for a structured career, an eagerness to acquire skills in a particular field and a desire simply to serve our country. None the less, let us not forget that a disproportionate number of young military personnel—men in particular—come from disadvantaged backgrounds. As we know, significant numbers are drawn from the care system. Let us not pretend that they are in it for the money. High-ranking staff may eventually find themselves comfortably off, but the vast majority of military personnel merely eke out a bog-standard living. For that, they sacrifice a great deal, particularly in the way of family life. For that, they risk permanent injury or death in the course of their duties. The theory is that as a nation, we acknowledge and value that, and that we guarantee that forces’ employees and their families will be looked after in return. In that respect, joining the armed forces is an act of faith. To change the terms and conditions of service—to move the goal posts—is to undermine that faith.

All the evidence suggests that serving troops already feel betrayed, disillusioned and frustrated. In a Sunday newspaper a few weeks ago, a British soldier serving in Afghanistan said:

“The British Army has no voice at grass-roots level. We have no union. There will be no strikes. No riots. Certainly no fire extinguishers thrown off buildings. We are just an easy target”.

There is the rub. In recent months, we have seen students protest, public sector workers strike and various interest groups demonstrate and engage in direct action. I suspect, and I say this with no relish, that we will see more and more people take to the streets as the Government’s excessive austerity measures kick in. Military personnel cannot do that. In the absence of civilian workers’ rights, they are particularly vulnerable and impotent in the face of damaging policy changes and cuts. Small wonder that they feel so beleaguered.

In January, Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore said:

“I have never seen a government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly”.

What a terrible and shameful indictment. The Tory-led coalition’s attitude towards the military is shaping up to be, at best, ambivalent and, at worst, perverse. Some would argue that blue-blooded conservatism has traditionally been a friend of the military. Sure enough, the Conservative election manifesto pledged to

“ensure that our armed forces, their families and veterans are properly taken care of.”

The commitment appears to have started and stopped with the rhetoric. The Prime Minister is never slow to spot a good PR opportunity and he is slick when it comes to lavishing praise on our troops. For all his new-found hawkish instincts, he and his slash-happy Government stooges seem hellbent on making military service as unattractive and insecure as possible. It is under-resourced, under-equipped and undervalued with little regard to meeting current and future military needs.

The defence budget has been slashed and major projects have been cancelled or abruptly abandoned, frequently at ridiculous cost to the taxpayer. Around 17,000 armed forces posts are to go over the next few years, 11,000 of which will go through redundancy. A range of other issues, including the unequal treatment of military widows, disadvantageous changes to income tax relief on pension contributions and the proposed cuts to educational allowances for armed forces families only compound matters by adding to the cumulative effect. Those changes all seem incredibly short-sighted and it is difficult to see how any of them will do anything other than damage recruitment and recruitment levels, which I have been told are already at crisis point.

It is equally difficult not to suspect that the pensions indexation switch is something more opportunistic and ideologically driven than a mere fiscal measure. There has been no suggestion on the part of the Government that they consider the current pension and benefit arrangements to be overly generous, so that leaves the deficit reduction agenda as the only possible explanation for the cuts. Let us examine that explanation, because the problem with it is that it does not explain or justify the decision to change the index link permanently. That decision will have long-term impacts that will be felt long after the economy has recovered.

By way of an aside, it was mentioned earlier that my colleagues and I are urging the Government to enshrine the military covenant in law, but we must not let that campaign blur our vision or distract from the specific issues that we are discussing today. Let us consider the dry and self-explanatory observation of the Forces Pension Society to the Armed Forces Bill Committee:

“We note the commonly aired reference to the Covenant but we do not see a coherent and comprehensive set of actions which would make the Covenant come alive; it avoids any mention of pensions.”

When all is said and done, the most powerful argument in favour of abandoning this callous indexation plan for the armed forces’ pensions and benefits is basic—it is a moral one. It is about doing the right thing by those who have done the right thing by us. In return for the immense courage, patriotism and self-sacrifice shown by UK armed service personnel and their dependants, we have an obligation to provide them with the highest levels of support and reward, during and after service. If that involves discriminating in their favour, so be it.

As I hope I have illustrated, to renege on the deal made when service personnel signed on the dotted line would be to betray an implicit trust. Those serving will feel let-down and bitter, and who can blame them? And potential recruits will think twice before giving so much for so little in return.

I purposely paint a bleak picture, but as yet none of these changes is a fait accompli. There is still time for the Government to see sense. My own party has a number of ideas about how the deficit reduction dilemma might be resolved without so brutally hurting armed forces’ employees. In our view, the ideal solution is entirely to decouple armed forces pension and benefit schemes from other such schemes in the public sector. However, we recognise that that is not a practicable or realistic option at the current time. The best way forward would be to make the indexation switch a temporary one that could be reversed in 2014-15, or at least once the Budget deficit has been pared down.

Others favour an alternative time limit measure, something along the lines of maintaining the current RPI link for the armed forces personnel or their widowed spouses until they turn 55, when the link would come into line with the rest of the public sector. Such measures, and variations on them, are all quite feasible but none of them is perfect, and they will not please all the people all the time. However, they represent carefully considered compromises, which the grown-up coalition Government profess to be big on, and they would go some way to alleviating the short to medium-term pain.

In addressing the Minister, I urge the Government to consider those measures carefully. I also remind the Government that this is a cross-cutting issue, which requires joined-up thinking. Defence, Treasury and Work and Pensions Ministers must all think again.

I have a final salutary point to make. Thomas Southerne was an Irish dramatist of the 17th century. In 1685, he served in the army of James II, which fought against the Monmouth rebellion. Southerne knew what it was to be a soldier. In later life, he reportedly said:

“Dost thou know the fate of soldiers? They are but ambition’s tools, to cut a way to her unlawful ends. And when they are worn, hacked, hewn with constant service, thrown aside, to rust in peace and rot in hospitals.”

I am sure that everyone will agree that the part about “unlawful ends” is open to debate, but some modern military adventures spring to mind on hearing that quote. Southerne’s bitter closing observations make uncomfortable reading. Do we want to entertain the notion that, 300 years on and at the dawn of the 21st century, we hold our armed forces in no better esteem?

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this important debate. As he mentioned, we have had a number of opportunities recently to debate these issues, including armed forces pensions and the military covenant. It is very important that we continue to debate them, because we have not yet received a satisfactory response from the Government Front-Bench team. Today we have a different Minister before us. Thus far, I have discussed these issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is the Minister with responsibility for veterans. I am hopeful that we might hear something from the Minister who is here today that pleases us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has already mentioned a quote from the Forces Pension Society, but it is one that merits repeating. The chairman of the society, Sir Michael Moore, recently said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly.”

That is quite a strong statement and the reasons for it stem from the wide-ranging promises made by the coalition partners to our service personnel, ahead of last year’s election and since coming into office. Their record of delivery has spectacularly failed to live up to their rhetoric.

In opposition, the Conservatives declared that the military covenant was “shattered” and they promised to rebuild it. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats made clear pledges to our armed forces, such as improving service housing, setting minimum standards for family welfare and maximising rest and recuperation leave. In government, they have so far offered very little to address those issues. Indeed, it is worse than that, because the measures that we are seeing now will roll back the military covenant. Accommodation has been identified as an area in which to make savings; tours of duty will be reviewed and there has been no guarantee that they will not be lengthened; and the Government have confirmed that armed forces personnel will be cut by 11,000.

The Prime Minister could not have made a clearer pledge than the one that he made to sailors on the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal just last summer:

“Whether it’s the schools you send your children to, whether it’s the healthcare that you expect, whether it’s the fact there should be a decent military ward for anyone who gets injured...I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land.”

However, nine months later, the Government have failed to enshrine a military covenant in law, or at the very least propose doing so in the Armed Forces Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. Instead, they have already changed their policy, as outlined to all MPs in a recent letter from the Royal British Legion.

As far as the armed forces are concerned, the Government’s time in office has been marked by broken promises and empty rhetoric. However, it is more serious than that. The actions of the Government are undermining the unwritten contract between the nation and our services in honour of the brave work that they do. In the process, as Sir Michael Moore said, the Government

“erode the morale of the armed forces”.

There is no better example of that than the impact of the Government’s planned pensions changes on the armed forces. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has outlined, the Government’s plans permanently to link public sector pension rises to CPI rather than to the usually higher measure of RPI will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces. I know that the Minister with responsibility for veterans does not accept that because he told me so in the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill, and I do not know whether the Minister for the Armed Forces will take a different approach today.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady puts forward an interesting case. Will she therefore commit any incoming Labour Government in 2015 to the measure that she appears to be articulating, namely, that the change will be temporary and, if so, how will that feature in the budget she intends to set? The armed forces will not be alone; others will say that they should be dealt with in a similar way.

[Gemma Doyle]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we proposed a much fairer, time-limited approach, and that would be a better way forward.

If the Minister will not listen to me, perhaps he will heed the concerns of the Forces Pension Society, which delivered a letter to No. 10 in December to explain to the Prime Minister the disproportionate impact of the pension changes on the armed forces. Many members of the armed forces leave the military by the time they are 40, or earlier perhaps, if they are injured, so their pensions start to pay out much earlier compared to those of other public sector workers, and the changes will result in their losing hundreds of thousands of pounds over their lifetimes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, we are not talking about small amounts of money—these are very significant amounts. For example, a corporal who lost both legs in a bomb blast—a horrific and serious injury—would miss out on about £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payment, a figure that is very difficult to justify. War widows, who disproportionately rely on their pension schemes, will also lose out enormously. According to figures from the Forces Pension Society, a 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would be almost £750,000 worse off. Again, that is very difficult to get one’s head around, and to justify.

There can be only two possible reasons for the changes. The Government might think that armed forces pensions are too generous, but I have not heard them saying that, so I can assume only that it must be about deficit reduction, which is indeed the argument that has been put forward. I am afraid, however, that that argument does not add up either because the impact of the change from RPI to CPI uprating will be felt long after the Government’s intention to pay down the deficit is achieved.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donaldson]

I am open to being corrected on the statistics. Undoubtedly, a significant number of service personnel find themselves unable to cope, through mental illness as a result of trauma, and take their lives. The hon. Gentleman is right that the point is not about the numbers but about the need that must be addressed. We estimate that there are about 11,000 people with post-traumatic stress disorder in Northern Ireland as a result of the troubles, and the current system is incapable of coping with that. We are having major problems with former police officers feeling the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder several years later. It is important to ensure that they get support and are provided with the care they need—and the same goes for our armed forces personnel. I take the correction that the hon. Member for North Durham has offered. Perhaps I am guilty of repeating something that has been said wrongly in the past, but the point can still be made that significant numbers of people suffer from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and mental illnesses that are directly linked to their service, and we need to prioritise that issue and ensure that those veterans are provided with the support they undoubtedly need.

That brings me to the military covenant. In the motion, we call on the Government to honour the commitments they have made publicly about the military covenant, and I seek the Secretary of State’s clarification on this point. Following the general election, the Prime Minister, on a visit to HMS Ark Royal, said:

“Whether it’s the schools you send your children to, whether it’s the healthcare that you expect, whether it’s the fact that there should be a decent military ward for anyone who gets injured. I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land.”

I know that there is some concern about what is meant by enshrining the military covenant in law. We welcome that commitment and I know that it is widely welcomed, particularly among the veteran community.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what is actually important to the veteran community is what they get rather than having the military covenant written into law? Would he prefer to see a no-disadvantage model of the military covenant, in which veterans get the same level of service as the rest of the population, or a citizen-plus model of the sort that endures in the United States, under which people are given more to reflect their service? That is the important point that the veteran community would like discussed.

[Mr Donaldson]

I merely seek clarification of what is meant by enshrining this in law. Yesterday, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), the Prime Minister said:

“we are writing out the military covenant and properly referencing it in law.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 296.]

We are anxious to ascertain what is meant by “properly referencing” the military covenant in law and what the Prime Minister meant by “enshrining” it. I accept the point that the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has made, but I draw his attention to a letter, which has been circulated to Members of Parliament, from the director general of the Royal British Legion to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is here. The letter expresses concern about what is meant by the commitment to enshrine the military covenant in law, so there are some in the veteran community, represented by the Royal British Legion, who want clarification. I seek that clarification this afternoon on behalf of my colleagues and I hope that the Secretary of State will shed some light on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

[Mr Jones]

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

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

[Mr Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

[Mr Jones]

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

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Work will always be ongoing. As well as the basing review, we have the Army returning from Germany and reform of the procurement process, on which I last week set out some additional measures. This is an ongoing process and there will be second and third order changes as a result of the SDSR for some time to come. The Department requires huge downsizing—it has an inherited budgetary deficit of £38 billion—and we cannot expect to do that overnight. Had we done things more quickly, I would no doubt have been accused of rushing the base review as well.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the past when we have managed headcount through redundancies, we have also turned off the tap on recruitment and training, with disastrous long-standing consequences. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will continue to try to attract the highest-quality young people to our armed forces and to train them properly?

Military Covenant

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The military covenant should not be whatever the Government of the day determine it to be. It should not be at the whim of Ministers to decide in a report what is and is not in the covenant. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

The Government say that it is not necessary to detail the military covenant, in principle, in law, because they are already taking action. They mention the covenant in the report and it was mentioned in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. All those involved in the debate today—except, perhaps, for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are free from involvement in these debates—will have received an e-mail from the Royal British Legion, which stated:

“As the nation’s guardian of the Military Covenant, we would be very grateful if you could urge the Government to honour the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last June to enshrine the Military Covenant in law. We do not understand why the Government is now claiming that the commitment to produce an ‘Armed Forces Covenant Report’ is somehow the same thing as enshrining the Military Covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all.”

I urge hon. Members from both Government parties to listen to the legion’s voice and vote for the motion today.

The military covenant cannot be whatever Government Ministers of the day deign it to be. It should be defined in law so that it is removed from the cut and thrust of party politics. If the Secretary of State is true to his word, which I believe him to be, he should meaningfully define the covenant in law. What is needed is specific legislation to put the definition of the covenant on a legal footing. In the words of Chris Simpkins, the director general of the Royal British Legion:

“To suggest an annual covenant report would be as effective as a piece of legislation is nonsense and would be evidence of the Government doing a U-turn on their explicit promises.”

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been talking for 20 minutes about putting his definition of the military covenant into law. Is he going to give us any form of definition before he winds up his remarks?

[Mr Murphy]

I know the hon. Gentleman understands that it is not for me to give a legal definition of the military covenant at the Dispatch Box. It is for the Government to define the principles of it in a legal sense, along with the armed forces and their families in public consultation. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is screaming at the top of his voice that there is no definition. If the Conservatives were in any way interested in the matter, we could arrive at a definition of the armed forces covenant on a cross-party basis, involving armed forces families across the entire nation. In truth, they have turned their back on their own manifesto, will not listen to the British Legion and refuse to act on the issue at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman has vast experience in such matters and I do not doubt his commitment, but there is limited validity in him brandishing last year’s British Legion document when he does not accept what it says in its e-mail today—it makes it very clear that it is unhappy with the Government’s position and that it would like a legal definition of the military covenant. Of course we should work on a cross-party basis on this, and I would be happy to do so—

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

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

rose—

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As I have already said, we will at all times do what is required to help those who are leaving the armed forces in every way we can. That will, of course, include following the procedures that are very clearly set out.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

An unintended consequence of the introduction of NMS—the new management strategy—into the armed forces 20-odd years ago was that too often officers may be encouraged to see themselves as managers rather than leaders. Will the Secretary of State satisfy himself that within the chain of command that he has inherited, the military covenant is being properly served, particularly in relation to the 38 electronically sacked warrant officers?