Armed Forces

Debate between Bob Russell and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

There will be opportunities throughout the debate for right hon. and hon. Members to make their own assessments of the strength of the Government’s defence policy, but my intention today, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is to make constructive suggestions about how together we can do more to honour our armed forces and support their families.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In a comradely spirit, does the right hon. Gentleman think that military bands have a role to play in the future of our armed forces?

[Mr Murphy]

I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency a number of times and know how passionately he argues that case. Of course military bands play an important role, as we saw at trooping the colour a couple of weeks ago on Her Majesty’s official birthday. I think that the remarkable sights and sounds of military bands are celebrated by the entre nation.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

I will give way, as long as the hon. Gentleman understands that this will be his second and final intervention.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

Good luck!

[Sir Bob Russell]

The reason I intervened is that under the Labour Government the number of Army bands was reduced by almost a quarter.

[Mr Murphy]

I knew that I would enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s second intervention. Someone shouted from a sedentary position “Good luck” in relation to his not seeking to intervene again. All I will say is that I will not give way to him later in my speech. I am pretty proud of the changes and reforms introduced by the Labour Government with regard to our armed forces. Members today will offer their observations and criticisms, but on balance I am pretty proud of our record.

Our armed forces stationed overseas are rightly at the front of all our minds, including those stationed in Afghanistan. They operate in the dust and danger of a far-away terrain to protect security on our streets at home. Of course, after the pain of the past few years, many people understandably ask why it is in our interests to engage in such causes and to confront unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The answer, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward: we do so because we do not want it to visit our shores.

We have recently seen UK personnel operating in Libya and Mali, alongside the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, in a sign of the unpredictability of today’s security landscape. Today the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way do so in a rapidly evolving defence environment that will demand new skills, technologies and strategies alongside their timeless courage and ingenuity.

Military Covenant

Debate between Bob Russell and Jim Murphy

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House supports establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge of 25 June 2010 to have ‘a new Military Covenant that’s written into the law of the land’; believes that this commitment should not be diluted or sidestepped; and further supports service charities’ and families’ calls for a legally-binding Military Covenant which defines the principles that should guide Government action on all aspects of defence policy.

I start by adding my condolences to those properly offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition earlier today to the families of Private Lewis Hendry from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, Private Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. They will be loved for ever by their families, and I hope that they will be permanently honoured by our nation.

The motion before us has a straightforward purpose. It aims to fulfil the Conservative party’s pledge to introduce a new military covenant that is written into the law of the land. It will properly fulfil the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge to establish a tri-service military covenant. It aims to address the concerns articulated by the Royal British Legion and other service charities, and to set out in law the definition of the covenant so that there can be a legal basis for the principles that the Government must uphold in order to provide the forces community with the highest level of care and support. Inexplicably, the Government have already voted against an amendment in the Armed Forces Bill Committee that would have fulfilled the aims of today’s motion.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the points that he is about to raise were debated in detail in that Committee, and that clause 2 of the Bill bears the words “armed forces covenant”?

[Mr Murphy]

The clause contains the words “armed forces covenant report”. The hon. Gentleman discussed these points in Committee, and I will expand on them a little later.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Bob Russell]

The shadow Secretary of State opened his comments with a tribute to three soldiers from the Colchester garrison. Some 3,000 of my constituents are in Helmand province, and if any of them get to watch or read about this debate, I do not think they will be impressed with the contributions that are being made. I urge Members on both sides of the House to show respect. Playing party politics with our armed forces is not what they want.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Bob Russell and Jim Murphy

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I join the Secretary of State in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the whole House a happy and healthy 2011.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Bill. The Armed Forces Act 2006 was a watershed for the military disciplinary system and I am glad to have the opportunity to renew and improve it through this Bill. Before I do so, I want to do what the Secretary of State rightly did and make a comment or two about Afghanistan.

As we gather after the new year recess, during which we enjoyed the company of and time with our families and loved ones, it is a time for us to remember how fortunate we are for the peaceful lives that we and, for the most part, our constituents lead and to reflect on the sacrifices that others make on our behalf to enable us to enjoy the opportunities that we do. Upwards of 10,000 men and women serving in Afghanistan did not spend Christmas with their families but, rather, stood up against an enemy that wishes to destroy all that we hold dear. The whole House will rightly thank them and send them our deepest and best wishes.

Tragically, for some families that absence is now permanent. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died in the service of our country over the Christmas and new year period: Private Joseva Vatubua of 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland; Warrant Officer Charles Wood of 23 Pioneer Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps; Corporal Steven Dunn from 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron, attached to 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment Battlegroup; and Private John Howard from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. Their patriotism, courage and dedication are unsurpassed. They will always be remembered by their friends and family and should never be forgotten by this House.

On Afghanistan, I want to say to this House, our forces and, importantly, our enemies that the Government will always have the support of the Opposition when they do the right thing to support our service personnel. We will continue to conduct debates on Afghanistan, in particular, in a spirit of comradeship, for that is in the national interest above all party interest.

The Armed Forces Bill is important and I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the issues that arise from it. The 2006 Act consolidated and modernised all the previous service discipline Acts and replaced them with a single system of service law that amounted to a complete overhaul of legislation on military law and service discipline. The Bill is, as the Secretary of State said, an important continuation of that Act that makes some modest but sensible changes.

The Bill’s contents concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in that area, not just because of the introduction of the 2006 Act but because we ensured that forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector, invested in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities and increased access to the NHS for dependants. The previous Government also published the service personnel Command Paper in 2008—the first cross-Government strategy on the welfare of armed forces personnel. That doubled compensation payments for the most serious injuries, doubled the welfare grant for the families of those on operations, gave better access to housing schemes and health care, offered free access to further education for service leavers with six years’ service and ensured more telephone and internet access for those deployed in Afghanistan.

[Bob Russell]

I acknowledge that the previous Government did a tremendous amount for the armed forces, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even after 13 years of Labour Government there is still a long way to go to bring much of the married housing accommodation for our brave soldiers—and presumably for airmen and naval personnel, but I am talking about the Army—up to an acceptable living standard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

I do not think Madam Deputy Speaker would welcome an attempt by me to provide the House with a definition of independence, but the fact that the three armed forces families federations are on the expert group gives it authority, independence, clarity and sincerity that, with the best will in the world, the most capable and sincere Minister cannot of himself provide. It is important that that work is continued.

My most serious concerns are about the proposals on armed forces pensions. The Government plan to link forces pension rises permanently to the consumer prices index, rather than to the retail prices index. That is a serious misjudgment and an indictment of the Government’s claim to want to strengthen the military covenant. We are in no doubt that in the current climate there is a need for restraint in public sector pay and pensions, but that year-on-year change will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces and their dependants, who rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else.

The impact of the proposed changes will be devastating. A 27-year-old corporal who has lost both his legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. War widows will also lose out enormously. The 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would, over her lifetime, be almost £750,000 worse off.

There can be only two possible justifications for that policy. First, Ministers think it right to reduce year on year the support to forces personnel and their dependants, and support the policy presumably because they consider the current support to be unfairly generous. The Secretary of State did not support the policy on that basis today, nor I suspect will any Government Back Bencher.

The second possible reason for this heartless policy is deficit reduction, but that argument does not add up either. The impact of the measures will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth. I ask Ministers today to commit to rethink the policy or, in the absence of a full rethink, and if they believe that it is part of their deficit reduction plan, to consider a time-limited measure during the period of deficit reduction and spending restraint. That would be a fairer approach. There is no logical reason why the bravest British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan should see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives, or why war widows, who have had the person most special to them taken away, deserve to have taken away from them the support on which they so depend.

When challenged on the issue in November, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“It is not possible to treat the armed forces differently from other public servants.”

[Bob Russell]

The shadow Secretary of State heard me put my question to the Secretary of State. Was the shadow Secretary of State aware that war widows paid income tax on their war widows’ pension?

[Mr Murphy]

I was aware of that, and the hon. Gentleman will continue to make his case on it to the Government, but, with respect, although my point today is about the same issue, it is a slightly different one. Those who say, as the MOD spokesman said in November, that it is not possible to treat armed forces personnel differently from other public servants show a woeful and deeply worrying lack of understanding and respect for the unique nature of military service.

Service personnel, as many of us know, can be required to work unlimited hours in excessively dangerous conditions with no prospect of overtime or a bonus; they can be imprisoned for failing to show up; living conditions can, understandably, be very tough; they are often separated from family and loved ones for many months at a time; they can be compelled to return even after they have retired; they forgo several political freedoms and contractual rights that others rightly enjoy; and, as we know, they are at risk of being killed or horribly maimed as a direct result and an unavoidable consequence of their service. Often their pension is the only serious, tangible financial compensation available to them, and no Government should ever claim that it is not possible to distinguish in favour of our armed forces.