Military Covenant

Debate between Anna Soubry and Laurence Robertson

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It really is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), and I am very grateful for his speech. It might have looked as though those of us sitting on the Front Bench were muttering away, so I hope he did not think that we were doing so in some disrespectful way; in fact, we were listening to and discussing many of the very good points that he raised. I join him, and I am sure everybody else in this place, in paying tribute to all those who have served, especially to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and, of course, their families.

One of the most interesting parts of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—I confess freely that I had not thought of it in this way before—was when he talked about mental health, a subject that is dear to my heart. We are making very good progress, in all our armed forces, in how we deal with mental health. Certainly, the statistics show that we do not have a higher incidence overall of mental health problems among people who are leaving our armed services than among those in the greater population. I would like to discuss further all the matters he raised, but particularly his very good points about post-traumatic stress disorder. Many of these men saw traumatic incidents when they served, and that affected their families as well. Of course, they did not have the benefit of going back home, because that was their home. He made some very interesting and important points. As I say, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss everything that he advanced in his speech.

I welcome the support of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its endorsement of the armed forces covenant and the two key principles on which it is based. The first is that the armed forces community should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. We are therefore saying not “an advantage” but “no disadvantage.” I am sure everyone present understands that, but it is important that we get that message out. The second key principle is that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured or the bereaved.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Obviously, we carried out the report in great detail. Since then I have come across a case in my own constituency regarding a young lady whose father was based in Germany. They had a British forces post office address, but, on their return, she was unable to claim jobseeker’s allowance because she was not registered as being habitually resident here. That is a very clear example of how that family is disadvantaged. If that is incorrect I would be glad to take that back to her.

[Anna Soubry]

I would, of course, be more than happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend and see whether we can sort it out.

The armed forces covenant is a clear statement of how members of the armed forces community should expect to be treated, no matter where they live in the country. That reflects the moral obligation we have to all of those who have given so much for their country.

Over the past four years, the Government have delivered a comprehensive programme of activity to rebuild the covenant around the country. We have delivered improvements in health care—both at home and on operations—and in education, housing and, more broadly, the way we support all members of the armed forces community. For example, additional funding by the Government now ensures that our injured personnel have access to the latest world-leading prosthetic limbs, and that the high standard of care they receive in the armed forces continues after they leave. I am not suggesting that everything is perfect, but we have certainly made considerable progress.

Green Belt (England)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Laurence Robertson

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anna Soubry]

Again, I am grateful for that contribution. I may be wrong, but I think the planning policy framework and the Localism Bill will encourage councils to work together, which is critical. It might be asked whether Broxtowe is not working with the city of Nottingham, Erewash, parts of Ashfield and Gedling council to form the joint planning advisory board, and it is right that they are working together. However, it is a question of getting the balance right so that councils are not in the pockets of a metropolitan area or more powerful councils. It is about councils having equality among themselves and working together in the manner I tried to describe in relation to the development of the A453. It should be about the county council and the borough and district councils coming together and taking a broad, sensible view for their mutual benefit. They should look at how we can have housing and how we can improve our environment and our infrastructure—in other words, proper sustainable development.

To return to the issue of Broxtowe for a moment, whatever the council might say now, it has in effect accepted the 5,765 figure, which is in all the documentation, in the press releases and in the letters that were sent out to some residents. It has actually designated its preferred sites. There are to be 800 homes on the green belt between Toton and the town of Stapleford. If we look at a map, we see that that green belt perfectly defines communities and stops sprawl, but the borough council says it is the preferred site for the development of 800 homes. Another site is to the north of Stapleford, near the village of Trowell. Many say that Trowell has lost much of its wonderful village status, which could be seen in the 1950s, when the village was chosen to mark the festival of Britain celebrations. That green belt land defines those communities, as well as providing beautiful open green spaces and wonderful views for people to enjoy. The irony is that the borough council says this is a preferred site for hundreds of new homes.

My other beef is the complete lack of real consultation. In this day and age, authorities cannot just impose homes and new housing on people in an authoritarian way; they have to consult people and work with them. I went to a number of public meetings in my constituency, and people’s overwhelming cry was that the proposals were a done deal, and they felt cheated of any form of consultation. Real anger was expressed in those meetings, and rightly so.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not only where the homes go, but the assumptions behind why we need so many houses in the first place? Those assumptions or guidelines are never consulted on, but they are crucial.

[Anna Soubry]

Again, I am extremely grateful for that positive intervention. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hear stories of how different local authorities are stepping away from the figures and determining their own figures. One of the assurances I hope to obtain from the Minister is that local authorities will be able to determine their own housing needs and will not blindly accept figures imposed without consultation by bodies whose work those authorities have had no input in and no say over.

That is exactly the approach being taken by Rushcliffe borough council, which borders my borough council in Broxtowe. It is perhaps a surprise that Rushcliffe borough council is Conservative run. It has stepped away in large part from the Greater Nottingham joint planning advisory board, of which it was once a fully fledged member. Rushcliffe accepts that there may be some build on some of its green belt, because it is keen to have growth and sustainable development. However, instead of imposing that on people, as has, I am afraid, happened in my constituency, Rushcliffe has done the exact opposite; it has gone out to people and it has had workshops and full consultations with communities. It has not only consulted parish councils, but drilled right down into communities, so that people can come along, join the debate and take a real, meaningful part in the process of determining what communities want, not only now, but in the future.