Military Covenant

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gemma Doyle

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I welcome the motion before the House. I acknowledge the diligent work of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on defence matters, including his service on the Defence Committee, as chair of the first world war centenary committee in Northern Ireland, and as the local Member representing Thiepval barracks and the home of the 38 (Irish) Brigade. I recognise his unwavering commitment to our armed forces.

It does not seem too long ago that we last discussed this topic in the Chamber, but I appreciate the frustration that as yet no resolution has been found to the overall and full recognition and implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Today more than 1,800 military personnel are stationed in Northern Ireland, along with the veterans who live there, including those at 38 (Irish) Brigade at Thiepval barracks, which is the headquarters of the Army in Northern Ireland. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all our servicemen and servicewomen, their families and veterans who have, and continue to make, sacrifices of the highest order in defence of our freedoms and the freedoms of others around the world.

We are a couple of weeks away from our annual remembrance commemorations. The physical representation of our remembrance will soon start to appear on our lapels. I will be wearing mine following the launch of the annual Scottish poppy appeal this evening at Dover House. It is worth saying that whether people wear a poppy is entirely a matter of personal choice, but the wearing of a poppy is not a symbol of anything except remembrance. We should keep that in mind in the next few weeks.

The armed forces covenant is one of the ways we show our gratitude to our forces. It sets out the relationship between the Government, the people and the armed forces community, and the principles by which the service community should expect to be treated. It is the least the country can do to honour those who are prepared to make sacrifices every day on our behalf. I speak to many service personnel and their families, as I know does the Minister, and it is clear to me that they do not want to receive special treatment from anyone. They do not want special advantage because of their service. What they want is a level playing field, so that they do not feel they are a step behind everyone else because they may have spent the previous 10 years partially serving abroad or moving their families around from base to base. Importantly, one of the key principles of the covenant is that no member of the armed forces community should be disadvantaged as a result of their service.

I urge the Government again to get their own house in order. I say that gently, because I recognise the Government’s work on the armed forces covenant. As I understand it, there is no mechanism—I have asked this question before—in government for testing a policy against the principles of the armed forces covenant. As long as that remains the case, we will end up in the situation we had with the bedroom tax. Armed forces families were hit by the bedroom tax and it took months of our raising the matter with the Government before they finally made a statement that, from then on, service families would be exempt. The other issue that has come to light—[Interruption.] I hear the Minister saying that that is ridiculous. It is a fact. If he would like to intervene, he is very welcome to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me the opportunity. I cannot think she can sustain her argument. We have a Cabinet Sub-Committee dealing with this matter at ministerial level and we have the covenant reference committee dealing with it. We are looking at it constantly, in real time, all the while. I cannot possibly see how she can say that policy ideas are not tested against their potential impact on members of the armed forces, current or past.

[Gemma Doyle]

If the Minister is telling me that there is a mechanism in place—I do not think that there is—by which policies that are developed by the Government, Ministers and officials are tested against the principles of the armed forces covenant, I would be very happy to receive the details. All the points the Minister outlined are very welcome—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering, I will finish my point. All those things are very important in upholding the principles of the covenant, but if there had been a proper mechanism in place, we would not have had the ridiculous situation of armed forces families being hit by the bedroom tax. That is what happened, and that is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions eventually, after months of our asking him, had to come forward with an amended position. I therefore disagree strongly with the Minister on that.

We have also seen—I raised this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on Monday—the differential in the amount of money that veterans and civilians diagnosed with mesothelioma will receive. I appreciate that she said on Monday that that is now being looked at, and I hope that we can find a resolution, but if policies are tested as they are developed, we will not have to sweep up afterwards when a policy disadvantages a member of the armed forces community.

There might be times when special consideration is appropriate for those who have served their country, and it is incumbent on the UK Government and devolved Administrations to take that into account, test their policies and make special provisions where necessary or justified. I welcome the reports published by the Scottish and Welsh Governments providing details of how the covenant is being implemented in their respective nations, but it is disappointing that as yet we do not have such a report from the Northern Ireland Executive.

We do not necessarily need uniformity across the four nations in how the covenant is implemented and reported on. Indeed, one of the benefits of devolution is that we can develop local services according to the issues in each area. However, we need to know what is going on, because if the covenant is not being upheld in some way, it is a matter of concern and we should know about it so that we can look at the reasons.

I welcome the work done in Northern Ireland on the covenant and I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for highlighting some of that good work. In particular, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) mentioned the Royal Irish Aftercare Service. I know that the Minister has already offered to visit, but if it is welcome, I would be happy to come over and visit that service and anything else Members think would be useful. [Interruption.] We can come separately or together—whichever arrangement is best.

According to the Committee’s report, however, there remain several areas where the armed forces community in Northern Ireland does not receive the same level of benefits—I use that word in the broadest sense—in relation to health, housing and education as it does in the rest of Great Britain. I think we have heard some of those details already today.

As has also been mentioned, Northern Ireland is not a signatory to the community covenant, which is disappointing. I would be grateful to hear more from the right hon. Gentleman about why that is and how the matter could be taken forward. By comparison, 400 local authorities across the rest of the UK have signed up to that agreement.

The veterans transition review carried out by the noble Lord Ashcroft, which we have welcomed, also highlights some of the problems facing the armed forces community in Northern Ireland. It sets out how the history and political landscape have perhaps interrupted the focus on service leavers and veterans and covers the issue we have discussed of equality legislation and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 being a potential barrier to the implementation of the principles of the armed forces covenant.

I acknowledge that those are not issues that can be easily solved, but at its heart the armed forces covenant is about people and fairness, and it is up to us and, in particular, the two Governments, to find a way through it. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has said that there is no conflict between section 75 and the principle of no disadvantage for armed forces personnel and families, so it is concerning to hear that some officials might be using it as an excuse not to respect fully the principles of the covenant. To be clear, section 75 should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

I would also place on the record my appreciation and support for the many service charities, including but not limited to the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and Combat Stress, working in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Without their tireless work, our armed forces community would not be as well supported as they are now. However, as always, we should not expect the voluntary sector to step in and do the work of Government. Similarly, we cannot expect local authorities to bear the full brunt of responsibility.

It is worth looking back at the armed forces covenant report from last December—I appreciate that this year’s report is due quite soon—as it contained a quote from the families federations of the three services:

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

I have raised this point previously and I reiterate it: we must ensure that we do not end up with central Government pushing extra responsibilities on to local authorities, which might not have the resources or be equipped to deliver the commitments we make here. That might result in the service community being let down. I urge the Minister to undertake and publish an audit of what local authorities are being asked to deliver for the service community and what resources are being provided to them to do that. At the moment, I remain concerned that there is a gap, as reflected in the comment I cited from the families federations.

The armed forces community has made many sacrifices in defence of our country and continues to do so. We are grateful for its professionalism and dedication. We should recognise, too, the continued support of their families and the wider armed forces community. We know that Northern Ireland has faced particular challenges in taking the covenant forward, but I hope the Northern Ireland Executive will do all they can to ensure that veterans who have settled in Northern Ireland are supported, and that families and serving personnel there are treated in line with the principles of the covenant.

I note the Northern Ireland Committee’s particular recommendations for mental health provision and the appointment of an armed forces advocate. In line with the motion before us today, I urge the Government to ensure the full implementation of the armed forces covenant throughout the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gemma Doyle

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

We have not ordered warships from another country for 100 years, outside the two world wars. Article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union makes the situation clear: it would not be possible to order such vessels in the event that Scotland and the United Kingdom became foreign countries to one another.

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

There is not a single costed commitment to build or purchase any defence equipment in the SNP’s manifesto—or “White Paper”, as they like to call it—over and above existing UK Government plans. In fact, a letter from the Deputy First Minister indicates that the frigates they refer to are actually four of the 13 that we expect and hope the UK to order later this year. Are not the jobs of those working in the defence sector in Scotland, which are reliant on UK contracts, some of the most at risk if Scotland becomes independent from the rest of the UK?

[Dr Murrison]

I am not sure about the figures that the hon. Lady cites, which I think are optimistic. What I would say is that £2.5 billion is 7% of the £33 billion to £34 billion that we currently spend on defence, and Scotland represents 8.4% of the UK population. I think we can all do the figures ourselves and realise that Scotland gets a very, very large chunk of the defence cake; furthermore, it benefits from every single pound of the £34 billion that we spend on defence every year. It is inconceivable that Scotland would be better defended in the event that it became independent.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gemma Doyle

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle]

That is not an argument for not acting this evening. If the Minister will allow me to make a little progress, he will understand why we are supporting the amendment this evening. I have no desire to upset royal prerogative, and I respect traditions and conventions, but I did not come into Parliament to accept the status quo meekly—I stood for Parliament to challenge conventions that institutionalise unfairnesses such as this. As we have heard this evening, many Members in the House have recognised and acknowledged that unfairness in their support for holders of the PJM.

Colleagues on both sides of the House, some of whom have now moved to the other place, have campaigned on this issue for many years. I think that in the beginning they would have accepted the response that this was a matter for the HD committee, but now, after years of politely asking the committee to reconsider this matter, Parliament must stand up and take a lead. There cannot be many Members here who have not been contacted by a holder of the PJM who would dearly love to wear their medal. My constituent Moira Murray from Dumbarton, who served in the RAF and travelled to Malaysia to collect her medal, visited me during the summer to say how proud she would be to wear it. Moira is joined by thousands of other brave British veterans who served in Malaysia in the 1950s and ’60s who have been awarded the PJM by the grateful Malaysian nation, which was keen to recognise their contribution, but the HD committee decided that they should be allowed to accept it but not to wear it.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gemma Doyle]

I will give way, but I hope this is going to be a different point to the one that has already been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way but she really cannot get away with her synthetic outrage. During 13 years of her party’s Administration nothing ever happened on this. Will she at least give credit to this Administration for setting up a fundamental review of honours and decorations through the appropriate committee?

[Gemma Doyle]

I am not making party political points and this is not synthetic outrage—indeed, it is not outrage. I am putting forward quite a rational case for supporting the amendment that the Lords have put forward.

What kind of message does this send to our brave service people—“Go abroad for your active service, risk your life for others, sacrifice so much for your country and for the grateful people of another and be awarded a medal but not the right to wear it”? PJM holders might be able to accept this arrangement but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has already indicated, the medal has been awarded to veterans from other Commonwealth countries who took part in the conflict, and they do have the right to wear it, unlike their British colleagues who served alongside them. Australian and New Zealand veterans are allowed to wear their medals, but British veterans are not. Given that they are all subject to the same sovereign, the Minister must be able to understand why this is perceived as unfair and anomalous.

I have written to the Minister on this matter previously and he referred, as he has this evening, to previous consideration and decisions by the HD committee. He also explained why medal holders in other countries can wear the PJM:

“Each Government applies its own rules and judgement to its own citizens and no country is obligated to follow another. This applies to medals as it applies to other aspects of public policy.”

In that case, I urge him not to hide behind royal prerogative but to take his own advice and take a Government decision. It would be helpful if he could clarify whether the discussions on medals are the ultimate responsibility of the Government, as he indicated in that letter, meaning that the Government could indeed press ahead with change, or whether it is an issue of royal prerogative, in which case it simply does not make sense to have different rules for the same medal for different countries of the Commonwealth as they are all subject to the same sovereign.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gemma Doyle

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.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Benefits)

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gemma Doyle

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[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.