Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

As I have already emphasised, when there are allegations they need to be investigated and when there are failings they need to be put right, but what has emerged very clearly from the report is that all those serious allegations had no foundation whatever. My right hon. and learned Friend has made the constructive suggestion that we should discuss not just with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary but with the leaders of the profession how we can curtail some of the abuse and cost involved. His point is all the more powerful given that he is a member of that profession; it is good to hear such a suggestion from the profession itself.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I fully accept the report’s conclusions, and I am delighted on behalf of the individual members of the armed forces who were accused of these vile atrocities. They have been completely exonerated, which is good for them and good for the armed forces generally. However—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—while I recognise that instances of ill treatment are few and far between and are relatively minor in comparison with the awful accusations that were levelled at the troops, I trust that they will be addressed by the Secretary of State.

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. As I said earlier, we have already made a series of changes in our procedures, and we will continue to do so. The report makes some important points about retrieval of information from the battlefield, archiving and the use of information systems to make it easier to get more quickly to the truth of what actually happened. Let me emphasise again, however, that when there are allegations they will be properly and fully investigated, and when there are failings we should own up to them and put the procedures right.

Operation Herrick

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

First, I do not think my hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the six months’ training, together with a maximum theoretical deployment of nine months, would amount to 15 months away from home—certainly not all the training period will involve being away from home. However, I am quite certain that the chain of command will be sensitive to individuals’ circumstances in planning the next deployment.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about reservists. A period of service that might be extended may clearly be more problematic for reservists than for regulars. Again, we will take that fully into account when planning for individuals to be selected for deployment.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I associate myself with the earlier expressions of condolence?

As one who voted against the incursion into Afghanistan, I am obviously pleased that the deployment is drawing to a close. As the Secretary of State knows, history shows that periods of draw-down are especially dangerous. There will be an increased risk of people suffering from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and associated problems, as well as the possibility of increased periods in the field leading to fatigue and potential loss of life. I am sure he is aware of that and will do everything in his power to ensure that it does not happen.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and can tell him that not only those who voted against the operation but those who fully supported it are pleased that we are now drawing down and bringing our combat commitment to an end. He is absolutely right that the draw-down period is a critical phase of the operation with its own risks. One reason for the decision to change the rotation pattern is the importance of maintaining relationships with key Afghans as we have fewer of those relationships. Historically, we have been mentoring and partnering at battalion and company level, but we will not be doing that any more, so we will have fewer relationships with the Afghans. It is important for our own force protection and situational awareness that we maintain and build those relationships.

Military Covenant

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing forward this very important debate. I am pleased that we have some time to debate this issue. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who spoke with great authority from his experience of military life.

The failure to provide adequately for the needs of ex-service people stretches back well over a century, so I shall not make any political points today one way or the other. Kipling wrote of Tommy Atkins giving everything in service and returning to face virtually nothing in return. David Lloyd George, in a momentous speech at the beginning of the last century, poignantly referred to ex-service men returning from war as “broken men”—they mostly were men, then—and deserving of special treatment such as exemption from the payment of national insurance.

How much has changed in the intervening decades, and many conflicts later? The topic we are discussing today is the military covenant—the pledge to the armed forces that we will continue to look after the welfare of veterans after they leave the service. It is evident that the majority of armed forces personnel adjust to civilian life normally after discharge. Despite this, a significant and—alas—growing minority of veterans experience acute social rupture when discharged from active service, becoming homeless, cut off from mainstream welfare services and isolated. Unless they undertake further training or are fortunate enough to have completed relevant training prior to joining the forces, it can be very difficult for veterans to enter further education and/or employment.

If a veteran falls into a downward spiral, it is likely that he—and it is predominantly a male problem—will fall foul of the criminal justice system. Abuse of alcohol and drugs, and mental health problems, often act as catalysts. There is a lot of good work going on—it is not all downs—and next year, one of the main banks will announce a suite of financial services dedicated to ex-service people. I am pleased and proud that I have persuaded the bank to do that. It will be rolled out in Wales first and, if successful, then throughout the UK. One of the problems of people who have been in the forces for a long time is that they understandably get out of the normal money management routine that we all have to deal with every day.

I have campaigned for greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans over the years and have raised the issue in the House and elsewhere since 2008. In 2010, I published a paper entitled “Support for Veterans”, which contained detailed recommendations for increasing the support available to veterans, in particular those who came into contact with the criminal justice system. I chair the veterans in the criminal justice system all-party group, held under the auspices of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. The group comprises parliamentarians and representatives from criminal justice trade unions and charities, including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA Forces Help and others.

When our campaign began, very few were raising the issue, but I am glad to see that it has now become a core manifesto commitment for every party. The Armed Forces Act 2006 also enshrined the principles of the covenant in law. Much work has been done—and that is to the Government’s credit—but much remains to be done, and I await the annual report in the coming weeks.

As a matter of urgency, a thorough audit should be completed of the number of ex-service personnel who are in our prison system.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We did one.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not going to get involved in arguments about figures with the hon. Gentleman. We have tried that before—I do not accept his figures and he does not accept mine. NAPO and various other organisations do accept my figures.

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is like a broken record. As Minister, I got all the data for all three services, in some cases going back to 1968. The Howard League report accepted those figures. I am sorry that they do not match up with some of the figures that he and others want to keep perpetuating, but I do not know what else I could have done to get those figures or what the Minister could do now.

[Mr Llwyd]

I was an adviser to the Howard League report. The hon. Gentleman’s scoping exercise did not include women, reservists—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is not true.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, that is what the then Minister told the Howard League. It did not include reservists, those under 21 or those who had served in Northern Ireland—that is what the Minister at the time told the inquiry. [Interruption.] That is the evidence that we were given and some of the conclusions we reached.

[Mr Jones]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that to get the 25% figure that he often quotes—

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I never quoted that.

[Mr Jones]

Well, I think some of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have. The figure was about 3% or 4% of the prison population. Is he seriously suggesting that he could make another 23% by adding reservists to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I have never said it is 25%: 10% is the highest figure that I have ever canvassed, so I am not getting involved in a sterile figures argument. There are other issues to discuss.

As a matter of urgency, we need to have another look at those who are involved in the system. I became involved in this issue when I was working in courts in north Wales and Cheshire. I noticed that an increasing number of those appearing for very serious offences professed to come from a military background. Thus, I tabled some questions. At the time, in 2008, no information was held centrally. The shadow Minister says that a scoping exercise was thereafter undertaken—fine, I accept that.

[Mr Jones]

It was not a scoping exercise.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, an exercise to determine the figures was then entered into by the Government. I accept that. Whatever the figure is, it is quite substantial—that must be common ground.

I honestly and sincerely believe that more resources should be put into helping veterans with mental health problems. Many people who have served leave the forces without any trauma whatever. However, at present, as I understand it, veterans do not undergo a compulsory mental health assessment prior to leaving the armed forces, except for the more obvious cases that demand it. Because of that, it is difficult to calculate the prevalence of mental health issues most commonly associated with veterans, among them post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is a convenient umbrella term, but it is just one complaint. The difficulty with it is that it can become evident within a couple of week or after 12 years.

[Mr Jones]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get the figures, he should read Simon Wessely’s very good study, going back to the first Gulf war and before. It provides the figures for PTSD, which are between 3% and 4%. It is a very good study that is internationally recognised as a groundbreaking work.

[Mr Llwyd]

That may or may not be the case, but in the United States, for example, the authorities talk about 35%. There is a substantial problem and I hope that we are able to look not just at PTSD—that is just one thing—but traumatic brain injury and other conditions. We have yet to see the scale of the fall-out from the first and second Iraq wars and from Afghanistan. However, I think there is a tendency to focus on PTSD. There are literally dozens of other mental health conditions that can affect personnel, including traumatic brain injury and anxiety-related problems, such as obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. The idiosyncratic needs of the veteran community must be taken into account when providing funding for research and treatment.

A paper recently produced by Dr Ian Palmer of the Medical Assessment Programme of King’s College London reported that, based on the findings of a clinic-based study on a self-selecting group of 150 veterans, veterans involved with the NHS mental health service tended to be middle aged, ex-army and male. That demographic picture reinforces the view that mental health problems can take years to develop—from the time of discharge to up to 12 years later.

I gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, and, as I understand it, so did the Minister. The impression was given that the problem of alcohol misuse was being addressed, and that it was less of a problem than it had been. According to the report, however, 80% of those in this group had misused alcohol, and one quarter had encountered problems with the law. The barriers to seeking help included pride, guilt, shame and remembrance of lost colleagues. Obsessive compulsive symptoms were prevalent among many of those who reported problems readjusting to civilian life, while those not in a stable relationship were less likely to seek help, reinforcing the view that support from loved ones is vital for returning veterans.

Further research would have to be done, but the results are telling. Most crucially, it is clear that psychological assessments should be made mandatory for all those leaving the forces. The shadow Minister and the Minister talked about GPs flagging up patients who have done military service, but I understand that there might be a problem with data protection. I do not know whether that is right, but it needs to be cleared up. The flagging up is perfectly acceptable and a very good idea, but we need to address the data protection issue, so that we can provide a seamless service.

[Mr Francois]

There is a problem with data protection and patient consent, but we believe it can be overcome, and work on that is taking place.

I should declare an interest: King’s College London, to which hon. Members have referred several times, was my alma mater. I did my MA in law studies there. It is widely acknowledged that it has great expertise in the field of service mental health, and if it gives the right hon. Gentleman even slight reassurance, let me say that I am going there next week to meet Professor Simon Wessely and others to learn as much about this as I can.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and I am pleased with his comments. I know that a lot of work is being done, but I also know that a lot of work needs to be done, and I accept and appreciate his remarks in the tone they were given.

We need to address the huge dependency on alcohol and other substances that many armed forces personnel develop. Alcohol is frequently treated as a catalyst to unwinding by those on leave, and it can be no coincidence that many veterans leave active service displaying an overdependence on alcohol. Who am I to talk about that? I have never seen the hell they have been through, and one can understand why it occurs. Nevertheless, counselling on substance misuse must be a vital part of decompression.

During passage of the Armed Forces Act 2011, I tabled amendments based on the recommendations of a parliamentary group on veterans in the criminal justice system, as well as those made in the paper published in 2010. I was unfortunately prevented from sitting on the Bill Committee—the only time I have been unsuccessful in applying for a Bill Committee position in my 20 years in Parliament. I am not sure what happened. I was able to make a contribution on Second Reading and Report, however, and progress has now been made. As I stated, the principles of the military covenant are now enshrined in law, which is important, but we need to go further and ensure not only that we talk about the covenant but that it is a means of delivery for those who need these vital services.

I am pleased to have taken a brief part in this debate. There is good will among Members of all parties in the House to increase awareness of the problems faced by veterans, and the issue has now become popular with the media. We know, for example, that there are thousands of veterans charities doing fantastic work, but perhaps more could be done to link some of them together, to provide specialist services in some corners and add to the Government services being provided.

[Bob Stewart]

My worry is that once the Afghanistan campaign has gone in a few years and when these problems really start to present themselves, we will not have the public support that we have now, and we will probably not have the money to help that we have now. Then it will become primarily a Government problem; therefore, the Government have to understand that they must take responsibility for looking after these people until the time they die.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely, but there has been a problem historically. For example, I remember that there was a designated centre in north Wales dealing with PTSD that was run by a very experienced clinician called Dr Dafydd Alun Jones. I went to see the then Labour Minister at the MOD and asked whether he could put in a good word to secure funding for people to be treated there. He gave me a wry smile and said, “I sympathise with you, but unfortunately it’s a matter for the Health Department.” Some months later the Minister was transferred, as Secretary of State, to the Department of Health, so I went to see him. I got the same wry smile and words of sympathy: “It’s not my problem, guv. Have a word with either the DWP or the Ministry of Defence.” What that implies to me is that until very recently this matter was never taken as seriously as it warrants.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That may be his view, but I am pleased that this matter is now being taken seriously. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is now looking at it and the Welsh Government are doing good work, as are our colleagues and friends in Scotland—for example, in Edinburgh there is a one-stop shop, which again could be a model for all countries in the UK—so at long last stuff is happening.

I want to end on what might be a discordant note, by quoting from a letter I received a couple of weeks ago. It is from a gentleman who served in the armed forces who lives in Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan, and he says:

“I spent much of my working life as a member of the RAF as an aircraft engineer, completing over twenty years service. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, I suffered a spinal injury that eventually led to the RAF and I going our separate ways after a medical discharge. Some months later the spinal damage worsened and led to my being hospitalised for an emergency operation to remove a damaged disc. However, due to a delay, much of my nervous system was wrecked, although I did manage to gain some mobility…The upshot of all the foregoing trauma was that my mobility was curtailed due to nervous damage and continuous pain. Over the past 17 years my condition has worsened due to age, however I can just cope—or I could until recently, when I received a letter from the DWP which informed me that I had to go and play performing monkeys for ATOS.

The question is: ‘What the hell happened to the much trumpeted Covenant between the Armed Forces and the Government?’ And no it cannot just apply to the Army. From personal experience, those on the other side give no heed to the colour of the uniform worn—they will try to kill you anyway. As I understand it the Covenant promises to take care of those injured in the service of this country. Seems from my point of view to be failing big time—not a good thing for those lads and lasses putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan. Has the MoD told them this fact yet?

So what does the future hold for me and mine? Playing performing monkeys for ATOS, whose operatives are, as I understand it, under orders to fail 90% of all those seen. So given that I have a 90% chance of failure, this will mean that I will lose the use of the Motability vehicle that is my only mode of transport, however, now being housebound, I’ll probably not have a house to live in, as the loss of income will put our mortgage in jeopardy. Even so, I would launch an appeal against the ruling which, if the various stories I have heard are true, I will probably win. This has its draw backs as those that have won their hearings are then dragged back by ATOS to undergo the whole process again…as many as four times. Isn’t this illegal under the Disability and Equality Act?”

That confirms what the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was saying about the DWP, and about the need for extra care when dealing with ex-service personnel. The letter supports what has already been said.

We spend many months training these young men and women to the highest level to prepare them for active duty. Once deployed, they will often witness the kind of horrors that few of us, myself included, could ever comprehend. The least we can do for them is to spend a similar period decompressing them as they approach their discharge, and to ensure that no veteran is left to fend for himself or herself. As the Ministers know, there is a time-honoured maxim in the armed forces: “Leave no man behind.” Unless and until we can make the military covenant fully and positively deliver the necessary services, however, that is precisely what the Government will be doing.

Defence Reform

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Members may know of my concerns regarding the number of military personnel who end up in trouble after leaving the services, and sometimes end up on the street. The Welsh Affairs Committee is currently taking evidence on that, as well as on the regiments question.

Wales has traditionally provided more than our share of military personnel. It makes sense that returning Welsh veterans—and, indeed, returning English and Scottish veterans—should be treated as close to their families as possible and should have their fair share of resources from charities and the UK Government, to help them recover from their injuries. Having seen how the US treats its veterans, I am sure there are lessons we can still learn. Some of the earlier comments on the covenant are most welcome, however.

Certainly one lesson we can learn is the importance of ensuring that former members of the armed forces do not feel that they are left behind when they are discharged from the services. The cuts that have happened, and those that are currently taking place, must take into account the need for support networks to be in place for them.

In Wales, there is a great deal of concern about proposals to merge or disband Welsh regiments such as the 1st the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, also known as the Welsh cavalry, and The Royal Welsh, which includes battalions from the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Welsh Regiment—it was only recently put together, and one would have thought it would have stayed in place for a while.

The reduction in the number of Welsh regiments to three has already left a bitter taste, and further cuts will lead to a feeling that Welsh regiments are not being recognised and appreciated for their effort and dedication. Successive generations have joined the Queen’s Dragoon Guards and fought with pride, honour and determination. Some argue that this is due to the method of recruitment, with cultural ties and local knowledge being part of both recruitment and loyalty. New recruits should have the opportunity to choose an armoured regiment or infantry regiment in which they will feel comfortable and safe in the company of their peers while facing potentially dangerous circumstances. However, despite the Queen’s Dragoon Guards carrying out more operational tours in the past 20 years than any other armoured regiment, it is under threat of amalgamation. That is in spite of its being the only remaining Welsh armoured regiment. If these decisions are made, on the order of precedence under the Ironside/Levy rules, both the Queen’s Dragoon Guards and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will be maintained.

There are six objective criteria to be met in this regard: recruitment strength, or the number and quality of those who wish to join; regional or national identity; proportionality to all parts of the UK—we are not looking for favours; the right geographical spread, as the Minister who opened the debate said; capabilities; and operational output. I believe that, on these criteria, the case has been made for maintaining these important and historically significant Welsh regiments.

On Trident, last week the Government announced £1.1 billion of investment in infrastructure that will make the next generation of Trident missiles. Although the main gate decision will not be made until after the next general election, by investing so heavily, they are, in effect, pushing us towards the decision, so that, as with the aircraft carriers, it becomes a fait accompli.

This has been done without a proper discussion or a debate on the Floor of the House. Opponents of Trident object for a variety of reasons: some because they are pacifists, others because they do not believe that it represents good value for money or a meaningful deterrent. Large numbers of young men and women are being made redundant from the conventional armed forces over the coming years, and regiments will be lost, but there is enough money for these weapons.

However, in Wales Labour First Minister Carwyn Jones apparently wants these nuclear weapons based near the major international trade port that deals with 30% of UK gas and 25% of UK oil and petrol. The oil refinery was the reason why Polaris was not sited at Milford Haven in 1963, and it is unclear why a busier location would be considered today. According to Chalmers and Walker in 2002,

“it remains the case that refineries would have to close if submarines were relocated there.”

Therefore, this man is arguing for Trident to come to Wales, for weapons of mass destruction to be sited on Welsh soil and for there to be a net loss of jobs for Wales—not, I think, a very good deal.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am introducing a four-minute limit. I call Neil Carmichael.

Defence

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Ministerial Corrections

MOD Bicester

[Mr Llwyd]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost to the public purse was of spending by MOD Bicester on third party logistics organisations in (a) 2008, (b) 2009, (c) 2010 and (d) 2011; and what proportion of such spending in each such year was allocated to (i) Palletings, (ii) Hacklings, (iii) Metcalfe Farms Haulage, (iv) Kenyons, (v) Reason Transport, (vi) Andover Transport, (vii) Pertemps agency drivers, (viii) City Sprint, (ix) other private hauliers and (x) other couriers.

[Official Report, 30 April 2012, Vol. 543, c. 1143-1144W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on 30 April 2012.

The answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

[holding answer 26 April 2012]: The freight and courier contracts used by Logistic Commodities and Services Bicester to transport defence equipment are managed by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and are available for use by all Ministry of Defence (MOD) units. The cost of these contracts cannot be attributed to individual sites.

The total expenditure incurred in financial years (FY) 2010-11 and 2011-12 against each enabling contract is shown in the following table:

MOD Logistics (Bicester)

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate. I raised the issue last year when I asked the Prime Minister about a pair of £44 boots that MOD logistics at Bicester had shipped to Northern Ireland at a cost of nearly £800. That is not the only example of MOD Bicester’s excessive spending, excessive pricing and excessive commissioning that has come my way in the intervening months. The scale of management error is so large and so endemic that, to my eyes, it almost looks systematic. In a nutshell, we believe that the logistics operation is having its costs inflated in order to hive it off into the private sector. I also believe that MOD logistics is being fattened for that purpose.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman uses the word “we”. Unless he is becoming very royal, who does he mean when he says “we”? For whom is he speaking when he makes these attacks on my constituency?

[Mr Llwyd]

First, I am making attacks not on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but on some people who might not be completely open in the way in which they deal with matters at MOD logistics at Bicester. Secondly, those who advise me are included in the “we”—I do not pretend to be of any royal stock. I hope that I have made my position clear. The hon. Gentleman knows that my argument is not with him or his constituents, but with the MOD logistics department, which is the whole purpose of this debate.

I believe that the officials responsible for this are perhaps positioning themselves to make a fortune out of it in due course; and that, to make that operation less apparent, misled the Minister, who has in turn, unintentionally, perhaps misled the Commons. I have evidence and a confession from the head of logistics, who said on Monday night that all the information that I had been asking for over the last six or eight months was available, but had been declared to the Minister to be unavailable. There was a repetition of the word “unfortunate” when he said that the Minister had been misled.

The same official told me that there are plans to restructure the department, which may be announced in the coming weeks, so the debate is timely. I did not ask for this debate to make any particular political point, nor do I want to embarrass the Minister, who I know is a man of integrity and who may well have been placed in the unhappy position of unintentionally misleading Parliament on one occasion at least. He did indeed correct himself in due course, which is what I would expect of him.

This is a debate about administrative propriety upon which all parties in this Chamber agree, about a specific exercise in holding the Government to account and about the spending of public money. It is also a debate that asks, “Does Parliament have any power to hold the Government to account? Does the Government have the necessary control over their civil service in this area, or are we all to be treated as nothing more than a nuisance by officials who spend £27 million a year of the public’s money?”

I suspect that what we have here may be a fraudulent operation. It needs urgent and perhaps unusual treatment by the Minister’s office. My suggestion is that the Minister appoints a small team of two or three who will be given access for 48 hours to the TMS—transport management system—computer system that records the logistics operation and who will then report to him in due course. They should be the Minister’s own team, because there are some in senior management positions who are perhaps not worthy of complete trust. Information has been concealed, withheld and manipulated. Those people now have no incentive to do anything else. Most important, there is a proposal for further restructuring

“to bring together the component parts of the logistics organisation into site-based groups.”

That sounds like a return to the structure before the last restructuring. There is also a rumour of a management buy-out. The idea that the same management who created this mare’s nest can then profit from it will cause revulsion in anyone not directly benefiting from it.

Before I lay out a summary of the case, I ask the Minister for assurances that the people, however senior, who have supplied me with information will not suffer from proceedings by their managers or from other parts of the MOD hierarchy. I have no doubt that the Minister will respond to that in due course.

Military logistics planning is usually conducted in acronyms and the language of consultants. For the convenience of the House, I will present the case in layman’s terms. Ministry of Defence logistics is the term used for transporting equipment for the Army, Navy and Air Force round Britain and overseas. The main southern distribution hubs from which supplies originate are Bicester and, secondarily, Donnington. Bicester stores and sends equipment to our forces nationwide and worldwide, via RAF Brize Norton or Heathrow. It was from Bicester that the equipment for Iraq was delivered, for example. The main day-to-day task in peace time is resupply: Bicester transports everything from ship engines and heavy machinery to documents, toilet paper, body armour and ration packs and, yes, the famous boots going to Northern Ireland. There are flight steps from the Falklands, equipment, kit, documents, jiffy bags and pallets—all are ferried round the UK and round the world largely from the two centres.

Let me describe succinctly the operational structure before and after the restructuring—how it was done then and how it is done now. Before restructuring, supplies were transported out from Bicester in one of three classes of vehicle: a Luton van size; a removal truck size and a standard articulated lorry—a 44-tonne truck. Those vehicles carried supplies from Bicester to one of the regional centres around the country, from where supplies were sent on in smaller vehicles to their final destination. It is the hub system by which all major transport companies, such as FedEx, United Parcel Service and the Royal Mail, work. There is a universal logic to the system: the large trucks carry larger quantities of goods longer distances more cheaply, and the smaller vehicles conclude the delivery with a short local journey.

That conventional model was abandoned in 2008 and a new system was put in place. The managing director of Bicester was at that time, and is now, Steve Brannigan. He decided to close these regional distribution centres, to reduce the fleet and number of drivers, and to make up the shortfall in in-house capacity by greater use of private hauliers, contractors and couriers—generically called third party logistics, or 3PL for short. As a result of that new structure, it was said, the cost of the regional distribution centres—nearly £4 million a year—was saved. In a letter dated 28 July 2011, the Minister describes those as “net savings”, but my understanding is that that is very far from the truth. Again, I stress that I do not impugn the hon. Gentleman’s veracity over any action that he has taken. The crucial figure has been concealed and withheld.

What is the total sum paid to private transport? That figure is not yet forthcoming. We are told the total budget for transport, but not the total budget for private transport, and I believe that it is much higher than has been reported by senior people. The restructuring of the system reduced the number of in-house trucks and drivers and contracted their replacements from outside the Department. The idea behind the restructuring was to outsource much of the driving work and make efficiencies by competitive tendering. Palletways, the trucking firm, now does much of the work that the MOD used to do itself. Thus Bicester sends four or five articulated trucks carrying the supplies that it needs to have delivered to the Palletways centre in Staffordshire. Palletways then does the job that Bicester used to do in precisely the same way that Bicester used to do it, by sending the supplies out to its own regional distribution centres.

It is said that contracting out has a good reputation in management circles. The use of private contractors promises greater flexibility, lower overheads and more competitive tendering. Paid staff are not idle when there is no work. Contractors are assumed to have a commercial incentive to work harder than employees as their position is less secure. That is the theory. Often it works, but it does not translate into good practice automatically.

Has the restructuring of Bicester MOD logistics been a success? Has the evaluation process worked? The results should be apparent in the accounts, including the total operating sum spent on logistics before restructuring and the total operating sum afterwards. Those figures have been held very close by the Bicester MOD logistics management. In fact, they refuse to reveal them. Why is that? I believe that it is because the total cost of private transport makes a nonsense of the outsourcing, that total third party logistics costs show that no savings have been made, and that the restructuring has actually resulted in net losses.

It is easy to see how private contractors would struggle to match in-house costs: private sector drivers have a higher cost per hour than public sector drivers; there is the cost of operating licences and there is VAT on agency driver fees. Compare that with the defence infrastructure of bases and personnel, which can be used intelligently at low, or even no, marginal cost. There is also the need to transport MOD supplies to the main contractor’s depot 75 miles away from Bicester.

Those factors prompt questions that need to be answered. Did the restructuring work? Have the new arrangements saved money? Were the highly paid consultants who devised the new system worth their fee? The fact is we do not know whether the business operation has been analysed to show whether it works better or not. The figures have been arranged to show a financial benefit from the new structure. Real-time reports from the computer system, as well as common sense, present a very different picture.

The Minister will remember the question that started this process off last year; it was about the famous pair of boots that were transported from Bicester to Northern Ireland at a cost of almost £800. At that point, we were trying to establish the ongoing costs of the restructuring and we asked what those costs were. However, the costs of couriers were left out of the answer, when they are about a third of the total. The Minister said:

“I have been categorically assured about the omission of the courier costs.”

He also said that the error was

“a result of human error rather than any intent to mislead”.

That is what the Minister said.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

If I had let an inaccurate answer lie on the record, I would have been criticised. It was a genuine clerical error—a mistake. There is no conspiracy behind those figures at all. It was an error that we corrected as soon as we became aware of it. In my experience, it has happened two or three times. It was an error—no conspiracy.

[Mr Llwyd]

As I have already said, I do not have any real argument with the Minister about this matter, and I accept what he says. However, we are told that there was “a formatting error.” I must remind the House that the MOD is responsible for transporting nuclear missiles around the country and that “a formatting error” could have incalculable consequences.

The Minister has been assured that there was an “error” and I accept what he says. In addition to the “formatting error”, however, the bill for private contractors is not merely the bill for Palletways, private couriers and agency drivers from Pertemps. I know that there are as many as 25 private trucks a day coming in and out of Bicester MOD that are not Palletways trucks or trucks used by private couriers—25 trucks a day that have not appeared in any explanations or admissions.

As I have already said, the Minister has been told that there were £4 million of net savings from the closure of regional distribution centres. The figures given by Logistic Commodities and Services Bicester show that £7,535,000 was spent on private contractors, private drivers and private couriers in 2008-09, and in 2009-10 £6,305,000 was spent on private transporters. That is a palpable reduction, but those figures do not include the cost of private hauliers—those 25 trucks a day. Where do the costs incurred by those private hauliers appear? They include Hacklings, Metcalfe Farms Haulage, Kenyons, Newsomes, Reason Transport, Andover Transport—the list goes on. Who is paying for those trucks? Out of what budget are they paid? There is some “find the lady” trick going on here, or some accounting sleight of hand to hide the costs of between 6,000 and 10,000 trips a year. Where are those hidden journeys accounted for? Who has paid for them, and how much? What does it do to the net saving figure claimed by officials? These questions must be answered.

I tabled a series of parliamentary questions asking for basic management information. I was trying to determine whether the restructuring has been a success. I asked the pertinent questions about how many miles were driven, the number of trips that were made, the hours that were taken, the class of vehicle driven and the cost per mile. I was told that the information was not held centrally and was not available, except at disproportionate cost. That is not true. The Minister was also told that the information was not available, but he was misled. The information is available within half a dozen keystrokes on the TMS computer system, assuming it has not been deleted—I have evidence of deletions from the central computer, so I do not dismiss that possibility. The TMS system records every journey, every driver and every distance. All the information is there within half a dozen keystrokes and we would hope that it is there. Otherwise how could the Department know what it was actually spending and what it was doing?

I had believed that the information was readily available, centrally held and available at almost no cost—and so it was admitted to me by Neil Firth, the head of logistics, on Monday. He repeated that it was “unfortunate” that the information was not provided. First, it was a “formatting error”; then it was “unfortunate”; and next it will be “the dog ate it”. The Minister and Parliament are being taken for a ride. That is not “unfortunate”; it has put a Government Minister in the position of misleading Parliament. In my experience, that is a very serious matter. Again, I stress that I am not impugning the Minister.

I have other examples of that type of activity. People can see courier vans lined up on the A34 outside MOD Bicester in the dead of night waiting for a job to be called. They pick up, they drive to their destination before 6 am, the unit is shut and the courier drives back to Bicester with the parcel, saying that it was undeliverable. Then the courier gets to deliver it again in daylight hours. That means one job, two charges. It happens all the time. Couriers pick up at night and deliver before the depot is open. There are days, weeks and years of it. Every Christmas and every Easter, deliveries are sent out and returned on the first day of the holiday. They come back marked, “Unable to deliver”, as the unit is “closed for the holiday”, so the courier tries to deliver it the next day, and the next day, and the day after that. “Closed for the holiday”, “Closed for the holiday”—one job, three charges, every year.

There are many other examples of couriers being contracted at £100, £125 or £150 to take small parcels here and there, even though MOD trucks are going to the exact same destination at the exact same time—that, too, was admitted to me on Monday. It is suggested that half a trailer of failed deliveries comes back every night from Palletways to Bicester, to be redispatched and recharged again and again. We have seen examples of MOD trucks and drivers standing idle while commercial trucks and drivers are paid to do the work that could be done in-house.

I understand that the MOD units can pitch for MOD jobs, but they have to quote using a kerbside price for fuel, which is around £1.45 a litre. For the same job, Eddie Stobart can quote using his bulk price in Belgium of 80p a litre. Who made that decision? Why is the MOD systematically instructed to price itself out of competition with the private sector? I believe that the costs are being increased superficially and drastically, and that the goose is being fattened.

The Minister is categorically assured, and so assures the House, that there have been net savings of £4 million, but the evidence is not available, apparently, except at a disproportionate cost. I believe that there have not been net savings, but that the same people who carried out the disastrous restructuring are quietly trying to conceal their errors in another one. I repeat: it is also possible that the costs are being allowed to escalate through daily inefficiencies, to make a management buy-out seem like a good idea and demonstrate palpable savings. This might be straying into other forms of liability, but it is possible that the management are tolerating, and in some cases promoting, such inefficiency and cost inflation in order to buy out the business and make a fortune from it.

It is in the interests of good government, in the interests of the public and in the interests of accountability and transparency that a fast, urgent investigation is undertaken, perhaps with two or three investigators, with a report prepared for the Minister. If there is to be another restructuring, it is essential that it is done properly and openly, and in a way that permits challenge and scrutiny, especially in these days when cuts are being made in every service and the armed forces are at full stretch. I hope that this debate will put things right. I feel sure that the Minister will investigate the matter thoroughly and urgently, because nothing else will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry]

I do not think that the Minister or any of us would disagree with that. The point that I am making is that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this debate did so on the basis that systemic failures and abuses of practice were occurring at Bicester. My response is that he has not produced any evidence. Further, if there were any such evidence, I assure him that that it would have been drawn to the attention of management, politicians, the House and me by the trade unions and that it would have been investigated.

I understand, of course, that in the run-up to ministerial decisions about the future of defence logistics, there are some around the country who will have an interest in rubbishing Bicester, but I am sorry that it has been done in such a way. I will come to what I think would have been the correct way to deal with the matter.

[Mr Llwyd]

It is no part of my function to rubbish Bicester. I came across something that looked doubtful, and I raised it appropriately. Let us be fair: the hon. Gentleman was with me when I met the head of logistics. When I put the accusations to him, he said, “That may well have happened, yes; we’re not perfect,” and so on. They are not groundless. By the way, I am a Privy Counsellor.

[Tony Baldry]

I apologise if I did not refer to the right hon. Gentleman as such. He should not be quite so touchy. What Neil Firth said at that meeting was, as everyone would concede, that thousands of items go out from Bicester each day, and errors are always possible, particularly as priority is set not by Bicester but by the requesting unit.

A little while ago, a constituent of mine, who left Bicester shortly afterwards on voluntary agreement, made allegations not dissimilar to those made by the right hon. Gentleman, relating to boots and one or two other items. He did not assert that there were systemic failures at Bicester, but he thought that occasionally, boots and other things were made more costly than necessary. I immediately took up the matter with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, and the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) responded. In fairness, in response to my letter, a full investigation was carried out at Bicester. The Minister for the Armed Forces said, perfectly fairly:

“Every day, consignments and routes are developed to ensure that freight carriage is optimised and the use of commercial hauliers balanced against in-house resources. Of course, from time to time, routing errors do occur, but this must be placed in context. On a daily basis the JSCS”,

joint support chain services,

“handles between 8,000 and 10,000 transactions, of which the large majority are delivered on time and in the most cost-effective way. Indeed, the costs of transport have been reduced by £10 million in the past two years against 2008 operating costs and the level of service improved from a success rate of 80% of transactions completed on time based on 10 working days to a success rate of 95% based on seven working days.”

Suggestions were made about agency staff. The Minister for the Armed Forces said:

“Of course there are occasions when agency staff will be required to supplement existing staff resources, for example to respond to increases in demand and to meet operational needs. In such cases, existing MOD-wide commercial arrangements are used which ensure that agency staff are employed at the most cost-effective rate.”

He went on to conclude:

“JSCS is an operational organisation that exists to meet the often urgent requirements of the armed forces. The organisation, therefore, has to balance these demands against achieving value for money for the taxpayer. The 2009-10 annual report and accounts clearly demonstrate that operating costs are now 28% less than they were six years ago, but that service delivery has significantly improved.”

I suspect that if every public service could show a 28% improvement over six years, we would all be grateful.

There are two issues in respect of Bicester that I should like the Minister to hear. First, I genuinely believe that defence logistics should be consolidated at Bicester, for the reasons that I have said. I also suspect that, as part of that, the private sector will increasingly need to be involved, as it is currently involved, not least when investing in new logistics sheds, warehousing and equipment at Bicester. However, age is an issue. Bicester’s existing work force are loyal and have worked there for a long time, and being civil servants is an important part of their lives. I hope that if changes are made at Bicester, transitional changes will be possible whereby those with civil service status can retain it if new private sector investors and partners start to work more with the MOD on logistics handling, support and delivery. I am sure that that is possible.

I invite the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to come to Bicester. He is welcome to visit, and to come with me to meet the trade unions of Bicester, so that he can put his allegations and assertions to them and the work force at first hand. I think that he would be interested in their detailed response, but he would also see the huge land footprint at Bicester. It has a lot of surplus space that is not being used as effectively as it might be. I have no idea why, in the first world war, such a huge area of land was taken for those purposes at Bicester. The rumour is that it was to resist zeppelin attacks. That is a matter of history, but we have an enormous amount of space; we are at the heart of the country; and we have excellent rail and road connections.

Rather than an investigation into unfounded allegations about what is said to have gone wrong at Bicester, it would be more helpful to have a review of how to get the maximum potential for the country out of the Bicester estate, both for the defence industries and in terms of releasing surplus land for other commercial and residential use. The potential is considerable.

I do not think that the assertions made by the right hon. Gentleman have any substance. There is no smoking gun. In an operation as large as that at Bicester, things will occasionally go wrong, but I suspect that other logistics operations such as DHL, the Post Office and Amazon are not always perfect. I do not think that the percentage of error is greater in defence logistics than in any other major logistics operation.

To conclude, I return to the first line of the Library briefing for the debate:

“Bicester’s MP has called for the Ministry of Defence to consolidate its UK logistic operations in Bicester.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on securing the debate. He was kind enough to say some generous things about me, and I say them back to him. He is a gentleman whom I respect very much, and we have worked together for many years in the House—for more than 20 years, to be precise. All that I would say to him is that I think there is a scandal in logistics, but it is not the one that he thinks. I shall come on to that.

I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s underlying assumption. He sees a conspiracy where there is none. The suggestion of fattening up for some kind of killing is just wrong. We had an opportunity to discuss these matters yesterday, but he pulled that meeting, having had a meeting with Neil Firth and colleagues. I think that he has misrepresented what he was told at that meeting, although I was not there, so I cannot be sure. From what I heard, he got a very different story from the one he has reported to the House today.

[Mr Llwyd]

I do not accept that. I had a note-taker with me, and I referred to the notes taken.

[Peter Luff]

In that case, I will make the specific rebuttal now. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman was told that mistakes are likely to be made. There are 8,000 deliveries a day across the logistics operation. If 99% of them go right and 1% go wrong, that is 80 a day that go wrong. That is a lot of anecdotal attacks to make on an organisation that is basically being well run. He was told that mistakes are inevitably made, but against a background of 8,000 daily deliveries, it is unfair to assert some kind of systematic error, inefficiency or corruption. That is the problem that we have.

I will study the detailed assertions made by the right hon. Gentleman. I will not be able to respond to them all during the debate. I shall write to him and to the other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, as best I can, as I look at the matters individually, though I think that I shall be able to satisfy him on all questions—at least if he is prepared to be open-minded about the answers. I assure him that if any company or Ministry of Defence official has acted inappropriately, it will not be tolerated, and action will be taken. We have a zero-tolerance policy on those matters, as I know from several occasions during my two years in my post.

I would say to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) that there is an inefficiency and fraud hotline at the Ministry of Defence, so that anyone with a concern about inefficiency or fraud can ring up, completely securely—whistleblowing is entirely encouraged in the Ministry of Defence—and make the allegation. I am aware of no such allegation of impropriety in the logistics organisation being made on the hotline. If someone has gone to the right hon. Gentleman with specific allegations that is their democratic right—I do not want to stop them doing that—but I wish that they had come to me through the fraud hotline and enabled me to address such concerns sooner, if they exist.

Defence

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Ministerial Corrections

MOD Bicester

[Mr Llwyd]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money MOD Bicester has paid to (a) Palletways (3PL Contract), (b) Pertemps Employment Agency and (c) City Sprint and other private couriers since the decision to implement the closure of regional distribution centres; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 12 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 1-2MC.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

A further error has been identified in the ministerial correction given to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on 12 July 2011. I regret that because of an administrative error, the figures were incorrectly totalled.

The previous correction given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

[holding answer 26 April 2011]: The total payments made to Palletways, Pertemps Employment Agency and private couriers (including City Sprint) since late 2007 when the regional distribution centres were closed, are provided in the following table:

Defence

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Ministerial Corrections

MOD Bicester

[Mr Llwyd]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money MOD Bicester has paid to (a) Palletways (3PL Contract), (b) Pertemps Employment Agency and (c) City Sprint and other private couriers since the decision to implement the closure of regional distribution centres; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 28 April 2011, Vol. 527, c. 569W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on 28 April 2011. I regret that because of an administrative error, some of the figures for payments to private couriers were omitted.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

[holding answer 26 April 2011]: The total payments made to Palletways, Pertemps Employment Agency and private couriers (including City Sprint) since late 2007 when the regional distribution centres were closed, are provided in the following table:

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)]

On Bahrain, I can tell my hon. Friend that a cross-Whitehall review of export licences to that country was held on 18 February, and licences for equipment that could be used for internal repression were revoked—to date, 23 single licences have been revoked and 16 open licences have had Bahrain removed from them. On Saudi Arabia, I can tell him that, like all other countries, we subject all defence exports to a rigorous review against the criteria set by this country and elsewhere.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On 28 April, I received an answer from the Minister to a request for a breakdown of outsourced transport costs from the Bicester logistics centre. The response was that £4 million had been saved and that the amount spent by Bicester on private couriers between 2008 and 2010 was zero. In my office, I have copies of literally thousands of transport documents that show that the answer is millions of pounds. The answer I was given therefore could not be further from the truth. Will the Minister provide urgent clarification on this very important matter?

[Peter Luff]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, based on what he has told me, and would be delighted to meet him to discuss the matter in more detail. He has brought a very serious matter to the attention of the House and I look forward to meeting him to discuss it further.

Armed Forces Bill

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like to commend both this Government and previous ones for the amount of support they have offered to SaBRE—the organisation that does so much to communicate with reservists’ employers.

My final point, on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister, is that the new clause will make no amendments to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which deals with the duration for which a member of the reserve forces can be mobilised. Although it is a fairly complicated clause, the basic point is that a member of the armed forces can be mobilised for a maximum of nine months beyond their enlistment. If I read it correctly, that means mobilisation could run for a period of three years and nine months. It is unlikely that that has ever happened—I know of no example of it happening—but given what the new clause is intended to do for localised UK operations that are likely to be short in their enduring operation, I would ask whether the Minister is happy about the absence of any amendment to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of the reserve forces. Some time ago I was in Iraq and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the commanding officer at Baghdad airport was a reservist. Much good work is done by the men and women of the reserve forces. No doubt there will be greater calls on their time in the future, bearing in mind the likelihood of an announcement in the coming week or two.

Subject to what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) said, I think the amending provisions are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, if we think of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they are perhaps overdue. Unfortunately, we in the United Kingdom are subject to increasing natural disasters, with which I am sure the men and women of the reserve forces are more than adequately equipped to deal. They may well prove a useful addition to the powers that we already have to deal with what are, unfortunately, frequently occurring natural events.

Subject to the points raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, I think that the new clause and amendments are perfectly reasonable, and that the Government were right to table them.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and to other Members who have spoken for their generous support.

I do not know where the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) gets her ideas. As far as I am aware—and I have seen them together—the Secretary of State is on very good terms with the Prime Minister and, I am sure, with his other Cabinet colleagues. They are probably on better terms than the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), and the leader of the Labour party, although I am not sure about that. It is just what I read in the newspapers. Perhaps I am wrong, because one should not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers. When I last said that at the Dispatch Box I got into terrible trouble, not least because a newspaper correspondent was sitting in the Press Gallery. He wrote about me in a way that was not entirely polite. Anyway, I am sure that my right hon. Friends are on very good terms.

I can confirm that the new clause has been discussed with other Departments, and I understand that it has been cleared by the Cabinet, but it was discussed in particular by the Home Office, which deals with civil contingencies. I do not think that the hon. Lady need worry about that. As for the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, I will write to her about it, but I can tell her now that we have absolutely no intention of removing employment protection from reservists. Unlike the hon. Lady, I am not an authority on the Act, but I will write to her—I am looking at my officials now—to confirm that there is no intention of repealing the Act. The protection must, of course, continue.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), on the basis of personal experience. He gave the excellent example of Operation Midway, of which I had not known because, needless to say, it took place under the last Administration. As for the duration of deployment, I think that were we to deploy any reservist for three years and nine months, the House would have quite a lot to say about it. I am not minded to change the legislation, but I do not believe that circumstances would ever arise—apart from general war, which I hope we are not expecting—that required the mobilisation of people for that length of time. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is smiling. I hope that we are not expecting it, and I do not think we are, at least not in the review.

[Mr Robathan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his confirmation.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



Clause 31

Commencement

Amendment made: 14, page 29, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) Section [Call out of reserve forces] comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.—(Mr Robathan.)

Title

Amendment made: 15, line 4, after ‘Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915;’ insert ‘to make provision about the call out of reserve forces;’.—(Mr Robathan.)

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Armed forces covenant report

[Mr Llwyd]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert

‘Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—

(a) education;

(b) accommodation;

(c) healthcare;

(d) mental healthcare;

(e) pensions and benefits;

(f) employment and training;

(g) support for reservists and their employers;

(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;

(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and

(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.

Amendment 3, page 2, leave out line 11 and insert ‘including—

(a) the operation of section 359C (Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter),

(aa) the operation of section 359D (Former Armed Services Personnel Support Officers),

(ab) the operation of section 359E (Financial Support for Former Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups),

(ac) the operation of section 359F (Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum),

(ad) the effect of the following issues upon service people—

(i) welfare benefits;

(ii) housing;

(iii) healthcare;

(iv) education, including educational courses and training;

(v) employment advice;

(vi) budgetary and life skills;

(vii) debt management;

(viii) alcohol and drug treatment;

(ix) relationship skills/domestic violence courses for perpetrators and victims; and’.

Amendment 17, page 2, line 11, after ‘housing’, insert—

‘(aa) in the operation of inquests’.

Government amendments 11, 12 and 13

Amendment 4, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

‘(2A) The report shall include expert recommendations on improving the welfare of former armed services personnel.

(2B) Expert recommendations shall include a timeframe in which these recommendations should be implemented.

(2C) If the Secretary of State will not implement any of the expert recommendations as directed then he shall lay a report before Parliament explaining why they have not been implemented, within 40 days of the laying of the armed forces covenant report.’.

New clause 2—Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel

‘After section 359A of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—

“359B Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel

(1) A Minister shall be appointed within the Cabinet Office who shall be known as the Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel.

(2) The roles and responsibility of the Minister shall be set out by the Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office by order and shall include—

(a) Laying the Annual Armed Forces Covenant Report, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence.

(b) Conducting such activities as shall be seen to be positive for the well-being of former armed services personnel.

(c) Conducting detailed and independently verifiable research to establish a baseline on which future progress can be measured.

(3) The Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel shall be appointed within three months of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.”.’.

New clause 3—Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter

‘After section 359B of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—

“359C Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter

(1) A Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be published, indicating the rights to assistance that former armed services personnel shall expect.

(2) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be made by a Minister of the Crown by order made by statutory instrument and include—

(a) the requirement to undergo a psychological assessment immediately prior to leaving the armed forces,

(b) the requirement of a resettlement assessment, conducted approximately six months prior to the expected date of discharge,

(c) the requirement of access to advice from relevant voluntary organisations, approximately three to four months prior to the expected date of discharge, regarding the following possible needs—

(i) welfare;

(ii) housing;

(iii) educational course and training;

(iv) employment advice;

(v) budgetary and life skills;

(vi) debt management;

(vii) alcohol and drug treatment; and

(viii) relationship skills/domestic violence courses.

(d) the requirement of back up support and advice, provided in person, by telephone and other reasonable means, to all former armed services personnel at any point within the first six months following discharge,

(e) the requirement of tailored support for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system,

(f) any other relevant assistance considered necessary by the Minister in pursuit of the improvements in former armed services personnel welfare.

(3) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be published following consultation with relevant stakeholders.

(4) “Relevant stakeholders” includes members of veterans’ support agencies.

(5) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be introduced within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.

(6) The operation of the Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.

New clause 4—Former armed services personnel support officers

‘After section 359C of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—

“359D Former Armed Services Personnel Support Officers

(1) A former armed services personnel support officer post shall be appointed in each prison and probation service in England and Wales.

(2) The role of the former armed services personnel support officer shall be to ensure continuation of support in the criminal justice system.

(3) Former armed services personnel support officers shall be appointed within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.

(4) The operation of the former armed services personnel support officers shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.

New clause 5—Financial support for former armed services personnel welfare groups

‘After section 359D of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—

“359E Financial Support for Former Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups

(1) Financial support shall be provided for former armed services personnel welfare groups in each financial year to provided assistance to former armed services personnel.

(2) Former armed services personnel welfare groups eligible for such financial support shall be those approved by the Minister.

(3) The criterion for such eligibility shall be published by the Minister following an independent scoping study into the needs of former armed services personnel and the services currently available which will provide a baseline for future progress.

(4) The independent scoping study shall be published not later than one year after the Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.

(5) The operation of the Financial Support for Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.

New clause 6—Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum

‘After section 359E of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—

“359F Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum

(1) A Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall be created to ensure best practice in the treatment and discussion of veterans’ welfare issues.

(2) The Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall have membership comprising representatives of the statutory, private and voluntary sector.

(3) The chair and members of the Former Armed Services Personnel Policy forum shall be appointed by the Secretary of State following consultation with relevant stakeholders and shall include a government representative.

(4) The criterion for membership and responsibilities of the veterans’ policy forum shall be determined by the Secretary of State following consultation with relevant stakeholders.

(5) “Relevant stakeholders” shall include Ministers in devolved legislatures and veterans’ support agencies.

(6) The Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall report from time to time to the relevant authority.

(7) “Relevant authority” means Ministers responsible for the implementation of policies relating to veterans’ welfare, including Ministers in devolved administrations.

(8) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights’ Policy Forum shall be introduced within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.

(9) The operation of the Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.

New clause 13—Armed Forces Advocates

‘After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—

“359B Armed Forces Advocates

(1) The existing network of Armed Forces Advocates will be extended through the nomination of supporting advocates at regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services that may affect service people.

(2) In this section “Armed Forces Advocate” means public servant nominated to monitor and resolve policy or legislative issues that arise for service people.”.’.

New clause 14—Duties of ombudsmen and Covenant commitments

‘After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—

“359C Duties of Ombudsmen and Covenant commitments

‘The Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen shall have the duty to investigate complaints from service personnel that a public body or local authority has failed to meet the commitments outlined in the ‘The Armed Forces Covenant’ and ‘The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow’.”.’.

New clause 17—Duties of public bodies and Ministers

‘(1) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an armed forces covenant report, under subsection (2A) of section 359A of AFA 2006.

(2) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or particular descriptions of service people would be justified.’.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am pleased to be able to speak to the amendments, but also rather baffled by the fact that I was unable to raise my points earlier. Although I spoke on Second Reading and expressed a strong interest in being involved in the earlier Committee stage, I was unfortunately denied that opportunity. For the first time in the current Parliament, the number of Members dealing with a Bill in a Select Committee was reduced so that a representative of a minority party would not be present. I am sure that my disappointment is shared by my colleagues the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson). Be that as it may, however, I am very glad to have been given the opportunity to speak.

My amendments and new clauses focus on the need to strengthen the provision of welfare for veterans of the armed forces, an issue on which I have been campaigning in the House and outside for a number of years. They would establish a more robust structure of support for personnel leaving the forces, and would ensure that veterans were not disadvantaged in any way when trying to gain access to public services as a result of the service that they had given. They were heavily influenced by the recommendations made by the justice unions parliamentary group on veterans in the criminal justice system, of which I am chair. They also deal with the need to enshrine the military covenant in law, a move that I am glad to hear that the Government will be making in the coming months via the Bill. I hoped to see a little more detail about the covenant in the Government amendments, given that the devil is always in the detail, but the Government have at least acknowledged the need to uphold, maintain and develop further that all-important relationship between our armed forces and the public.

My amendments set out what we in the justice unions parliamentary group believe is a firm course of action to tackle the problems faced by vulnerable veterans, and it is my earnest hope that the Committee will give them due consideration. New clause 2 and amendment 2 seek to introduce a Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel, who would sit in the Cabinet Office and among whose responsibilities would be the laying of the armed forces report before Parliament each year. Most important, the Minister’s remit would extend across Departments, and he or she would therefore be ideally placed to tackle veterans’ issues, needs and priorities in an holistic way.

The Bill provides for the armed forces report to be laid by the Secretary of State for Defence. I mean to cause no offence whatsoever to the present Secretary of State in arguing that a Minister with such a wide remit cannot possibly hope to dedicate as much attention to that document as I believe it deserves, and that the report should therefore be written by someone whose sole ministerial responsibility lies with veterans’ welfare and who will not be unduly compromised—in the strict sense—by other vested interests.

Amendment 3 seeks to broaden the remit of the armed forces report, and is relevant to a number of new clauses to which I will return briefly later. Amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), makes many of the same points. My recommendations were made before the earlier Committee stage, from which I was excluded, but I am glad that they can be raised in the Chamber now.

As Members will know, the Bill specifies that an armed forces covenant report shall be laid before Parliament each year, and shall cover the effects had by membership, or former membership, of the armed forces seen in the fields of health care, education, and housing. Let me make the genuine observation that that is a welcome step, given that the regulation of the services available to veterans is a prerequisite for improvement of those services. I believe that the proposed report’s remits do not go far enough, however. My amendments demand that they inquire in greater depth into how having a military service background affects personnel in obtaining public services. The report should not simply discuss education, housing and health care; I have specified that it should also cover other subjects, including welfare benefits, employment advice, budgetary and life skills, debt management, alcohol and drug treatment and relationship skills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

For the record, I think it is a shame that the full range of views in the House were not represented on the Committee in question because a Member such as the right hon. Gentleman was unable to serve on it.

New clause 3 states that there should be a requirement to undergo a psychological assessment immediately prior to leaving the armed forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman that think there would also be value in making sure there is a psychological assessment on entering the armed forces, as many of the young men and women who enter the armed forces have psychological needs, and they ought to be met while they are serving members, and not considered only when they leave?

[Mr Llwyd]

That is a sensible suggestion, and I am pleased that it is on the record. The hon. Gentleman is right that such tests should be undertaken.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Having served on Committees with the right hon. Gentleman, I know that he always makes an important contribution. On the question of whether his proposal is the best way of ensuring all disadvantages are covered by the report, does he share my concern that by listing all the various areas, he may, in some sense, be prescribing them, and that it would be better instead to leave some discretion with the Secretary of State to be able to look at any disadvantage and report on that, because it is hard to predict exactly where such disadvantages may lie?

[Mr Llwyd]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman makes that point with complete sincerity, but the Secretary of State can look at further areas in any case; he is not limited to dealing with only certain areas. One matter is of concern to me, however, especially from having spoken to representatives of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Not so long ago, I spoke with a gentleman who told me that about 70% of the work he does is debt management, and, unfortunately, drug and alcohol abuse are also big issues. I felt that by specifying these areas, they could at least be identified. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, so the Secretary of State would not be prevented from looking at other issues. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes and appreciate the way in which he expressed it, but I do not think listing would necessarily cause any harm.

SSAFA suggests that debt management is one of the greatest problems facing former armed services personnel, since being in the military provides stable employment for them. Armed forces personnel are thus able to access relatively high levels of credit, although little or no training is given to them on how to control their finances. On leaving the forces without proper financial management training, problems with debt can easily arise, and lead to homelessness and crime.

When leaving the forces, an individual is officially made homeless. Former servicemen and women—although it should be pointed out that this problem is primarily associated with men—often end up relying on relatives or friends for temporary accommodation, putting strains on relationships in the process. If they are unable to gain employment, the patience of their relatives may wear thin, while, perversely, an inability to provide a permanent address decreases the likelihood of their finding a job. Ex-servicemen are thus catapulted into a vicious circle of social exclusion, which can be tackled only by strengthening the advice available to them prior to discharge. I shall briefly return to this point.

Equally importantly, the armed services report must give an account of how service life can increase the likelihood of people turning to drug and alcohol abuse. Post-traumatic stress disorder receives much attention in the press, but it is alcohol and other substance addictions that present the most significant threat to veterans’ mental health. Regrettably, anecdotal evidence suggests that at certain stages of Army life, alcohol is treated as a catalyst to unwinding—or, to use the fashionable phrase, self-medication.

[Chris Bryant]

Unlike in Parliament!

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, as the hon. Gentleman humorously says, unlike in Parliament, but let me return to my serious point.

It cannot be a coincidence that so many veterans leave active service displaying an over-dependence on alcohol. I hardly need say how quickly such a dependence can, if left totally untreated, feed into other habits, violent behaviour and crime. That is why I would like the report to address the point of counselling on substance misuse playing a vital part in, as it were, the decompression of personnel.

As those who have worked with or encountered veterans grappling with social estrangement will testify, these problems often do not arise singly, but are part of a package of social hindrances faced daily. It is thus only right that the report should take account of the multi-faceted nature of this rupture. Amendment 4 specifies that the report should take into account the recommendations of a panel of outside experts in the field, as well as specify a time frame in which they should be implemented. Proposed new subsection (2C) to clause 2 ensures that the Secretary of State is obliged to implement recommendations, rather than simply write things he or she has no intention of doing, by the fact that he or she must lay a further report before Parliament within 40 days of the laying of the initial report, explaining why certain recommendations have not been implemented.

Amendment 3 also specifies that the report should outline the operation of the former armed services personnel rights charter, the former armed services personnel support officers, financial support for former armed services personnel welfare groups and the former armed services personnel policy forum, all of which are explained in the Bill.

New clause 3 pertains to the former armed forces personnel rights charter, which would put in legislation an obligation on the Government to ensure that veterans undergo psychological assessment before leaving the armed forces—and possibly on entry, as has been said; that they have a resettlement assessment approximately six months before the expected date of discharge; that they have access to advice from voluntary organisations on how to combat potential problems after leaving the forces; and that they are given access to that advice in good time before they are discharged.

At the moment, many veterans feel when that when leaving the forces people are on their own. Regardless of whether that is the case, I think we need to intensify personnel’s awareness of the support that is available to those who need it.

[Mrs Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be able to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and take this opportunity to thank him for his incredible work for veterans not just in this Parliament but over many years, for which the entire House will commend him. May I put it to him, however, that his amendments are, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) pointed out, a little too prescriptive? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a simpler way to address the needs of our veterans would be for this country to have a veterans’ administration or Department, as every other nation in the English-speaking world does?

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very generous comments, but I visited the United States in September and I visited the veterans’ agency. It is the second largest Department of State in the United States and it costs an absolute fortune to run. It was put in place, I believe, because the United States had to deal with the fallout of Vietnam. There is a much smaller scale operation in Canada. In an ideal world, the hon. Lady would be right, but in these straitened circumstances, it would be rather unrealistic of me to make that call. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we, too, will have such a Department. I do not make that call now, because I do not think it is realistic so to do.

I take the hon. Lady’s point about my amendments being prescriptive and so on. It is a moot point: I may well be wrong and she may be right; I do not know. One thing we should consider urgently, however, as I have mentioned, is having a Minister in the Cabinet Office to cross-cut all available services and to consider everything in each Department that might or might not impact on veterans. I think that would be a useful step forward, albeit that it is not so dramatic a step as a veterans’ Department, which, at the end of the day, she and I would undoubtedly favour although it is perhaps unrealistic to call for it at this stage.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am a little uneasy about the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal about a Minister in the Cabinet Office and about the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mrs Mensch) for a Department for veterans’ affairs. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for Defence, the three services under him and under them the regiments and units to which people are attached are responsible for looking after veterans when they leave the services. To remove that responsibility from them and to give it to somebody else in the Cabinet Office or a separate Department would seem to me to be quite wrong.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman misses my point. That Minister would look at every single Department in turn, including the MOD, and when there was some form of engagement with veterans in that Department he or she would report accordingly on whatever he or she found to be the case. The responsibility would ultimately still lie with the military. I say, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman and those from the military who might be listening, that hitherto the military has not been very good at looking after veterans and that is why I am on my feet at the moment.

[Sandra Osborne]

I, for one, would love to see a dedicated Department for veterans in this country, notwithstanding the expense. If we feel that they deserve recognition, we should be prepared to put our money where our mouth is, perhaps not right now but in the future. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the huge step forward we are witnessing today is that the military covenant will be in law, which the Government previously resisted? That is a huge step forward.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady is right and I do welcome that. It is a step forward, for sure.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to drug and alcohol abuse, which is unfortunately prevalent among large numbers of those who have served in our armed forces and among some in the armed forces. Sometimes the solutions are not all state run, however. The most successful organisation in helping people with alcohol dependency is Alcoholics Anonymous and, sometimes, the state and the Ministry of Defence have been rather reluctant to involve voluntary organisations such as Alcoholics Anonymous in helping people out of their addiction.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am sure that is right—I have no argument with that—but what is to prevent signposting and sending personnel to be assessed? For example, just down the road from here is an organisation called Veterans’ Aid, which is run by Wing Commander Hugh Milroy. Under his good offices, very few ex-service people are sleeping rough in London. There were quite a number of them 10 years ago; now there are hardly any. He has done that work. There are numerous organisations doing excellent work for ex-forces personnel, but I am arguing for a more consistent approach across the piece—a more holistic approach. I could use the words “postcode lottery”: there are good services and good practice, but we need to ensure that they are accessible across the piece and across all the constituent parts of the UK, wherever veterans are, wherever they served and whichever regiment they were with.

[Mr Robathan]

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gale, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and all in the House would like to join me in congratulating Wing Commander Milroy on his richly deserved OBE in the birthday honours only last Saturday.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am delighted to congratulate Wing Commander Milroy on that—it is a well-deserved honour for a lot of hard work in difficult circumstances.

I do not want to take up too much time this evening, so I shall seek to truncate my remarks. Let me explain one or two more amendments. I will not press the Committee to a Division, because I want to make my points and to return to them at another time.

New clause 3 specifies that back-up advice, in person and by telephone, should be made available for the first six months following discharge. Finally, tailored support should be made available for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system. The issues surrounding veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system have been the subject of debates in this House and I shall not go into great detail about them now, but holistic support is required, I believe, for such veterans to ensure that they get the support they need.

New clause 4 would appoint a support officer for former armed services personnel in each prison and probation service in England and Wales. That might sound a bit airy-fairy and pie in the sky, but those people are out there. They are often people who are interested in the subject and who are ex-service personnel, but that turns on the question of whether we have the ex-services personnel in a prison, which is often the key to whether services are properly delivered for these people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I just want to make one comment, which is that a heck of a lot of people leave the armed forces and go on to lead perfectly normal, decent lives. They do not need help and I am a little worried that we are giving the impression that everyone needs some sort of help. They do not; only a small percentage of people require that help.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely and I do not want to give the false impression that the majority of service leavers are in dire need of help. That has never been true and never will be. I fully take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board and I agree with what he says. He, of course, comes from a service background and knows this patch rather well—probably far better than I do.

[Hon. Members]

But he needs quite a lot of help!

[Bob Stewart]

Thank you very much!

[Mr Llwyd]

I will move to finish my remarks fairly quickly because we are subject to some rather strange remarks at the moment.

The role that support officers would play would be to ensure that relevant individuals who came into contact with the criminal justice system received support while they were held within the system. Only a small percentage end up in the criminal justice system, but it is entirely possible that a goodly number of those people would not be in the prison system if they had been assisted in other ways when they came out of the services. That is my point. As far as the numbers are concerned, I am not saying that the majority are affected, as that would be absolute nonsense.

Concurrent with the need for support officers is the need to improve the recording of the number of veterans held in prisons, on probation or on parole. At no time hitherto has an individual been asked, upon entry to the justice system, whether they have a service record, but that is now changing I am pleased to say. I shall not go into this topic at length, but I note that a survey conducted by the Home Office in 2001-02 recorded that roughly 6% of inmates were veterans, whereas a survey carried out by the MOD in 2007 estimated the percentage in one prison, Dartmoor, at 17.5%. I shall not get into bandying figures around, as we have had this debate before. These are MOD figures, not mine or NAPO’s. I remember that the last time we had such a debate everyone clubbed together to denigrate Harry Fletcher, but these are not his figures.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Stop making them up then.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not making them up.

[Mr Jones]

I know that discussion of this issue can be a bit like “Groundhog Day”, but when I was a Minister, I—under pressure from the right hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in this matter—had the Ministry of Justice’s figures, going back to 1967 for the Royal Air Force, cross-referenced with service records and the figure came out at just over 3%. That is not to dispute the fact that there might be more of those individuals in certain prisons, but the facts were established independently and I do not know why certain people keep disputing them.

[Mr Llwyd]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman why, if we have time to talk turkey. They are disputed because of the scoping exercise that was recently carried out, which came out with a figure of about 5% or 6%. The figure does not really matter, but figures he mentioned excluded women who had served, the reserve forces, those who had served in Northern Ireland and people under 18.

[Mr Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Llwyd]

They certainly did, but the hon. Gentleman and I can argue about that elsewhere. I am sure that they did; I would not say so otherwise.

[Mr Gray]

May I make a subtler point, rather than disputing the numbers? Although some of the people we are discussing may theoretically be veterans, in that they may have served in the armed services at some time, the only ones we should be concerned about and who need special care of the kind being described would be those who have recently left the armed services, possibly having had combat experience, and those whose crimes can be directly attributable to their service. The mere fact that someone perhaps did national service 30 years ago should not necessarily distinguish them from other prisoners.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree. The only slight note of caution I would add is that, whatever the figure, there are a number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, PTSD can show itself within a month or can take 15 years to develop.

New clause 5 sets out that financial support shall be made available for ex-services personnel. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work of service charities. New clause 5 also sets out the importance of conducting a study of the services already available to veterans, which would provide a baseline for future progress. There is perhaps a little too much room for overlap in some services, whereas some needs are hardly catered for at all. Joining services together and learning from best practice would establish a holistic means to tackle the problem.

Finally, new clause 6 would establish a veterans’ policy forum that would draw its membership from the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. The aim of this forum would be to consult the Government on best practice in the treatment of veterans and their welfare. This once again rests on the vital importance of those with vested interests in this field working together so that no veteran will be made to feel abandoned by a system that is unable to tackle the peculiar problems they might face. I note that a number of amendments surrounding the military covenant have now been withdrawn. I know not what the reason for that is, but I conclude by saying that having the covenant in statutory form is a historic step. I hope that our debates on these clauses will lead to further action being taken in the not-too-distant future as well.

[Gemma Doyle]

I wish to move amendments 16 and 17—is that in order, Mr Gale?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I know that he takes the matter very seriously. We did not put forward the devolution settlement, of course—that was done by the previous Government—but we are working with all three devolved Administrations to try to ensure that there is no disadvantage to any ex-service person. However, I absolutely take on board his point and the particular circumstances that he mentions.

Rather than the system set out in new clause 17, I would prefer one in which I and my ministerial colleagues across Government continue to work with public bodies to ensure as far as possible that they take account of the armed forces covenant in their preparation of policy. Much progress has already been made, and the imposition of a new statutory duty would not be of benefit.

The Government look to the annual report to be a powerful, flexible tool to focus Parliament’s attention on the key issues of the time. I fear that the Opposition’s proposed amendments would make that task more difficult and impose a package of unnecessary processes. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I have only another 300 pages to go, but I shall leave it at that, and allow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not altogether happy with the Minister’s response—in fact, I am desperately unhappy with it—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 16, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—

(a) education;

(b) accommodation;

(c) healthcare;

(d) mental healthcare;

(e) pensions and benefits;

(f) employment and training;

(g) support for reservists and their employers;

(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;

(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and

(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.—(Gemma Doyle.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.