Army Reservists: Employment Rights

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this topic for our Adjournment debate? I am very grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in her place. It is the first time that we have been able to engage in this way since she has been in her role, so I look forward to that exchange. I truly hope that we will not get a 15-minute elongation of the answer I got to my parliamentary question, which is that the Government do not wish to engage in this discussion at this time, but we shall see—there is plenty of time for it to develop.

I know that some will look at the title of the debate on the Order Paper, “Potential implications of the judgment in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy”, and ask, “What has this got to do with a Northern Ireland MP?” or with the colleagues of mine who have kindly stayed in the Chamber this evening. I do not know Charles Milroy, though I know of his service. This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with him for the first time, and I can recognise him as somebody who has served our country well over more than three decades.

Charles Milroy joined the Territorial Army in 1982, was commissioned in 1983 and retired in 2015, having served his time as a reservist, as a commissioned officer and major. When he retired, he sought to attain what his co-workers successfully already had: a pension. This House will remember that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), introduced a pension for reservists in 2015. But Mr Milroy was not entitled, he was told, to a pension. For almost six years now, he has been highlighting the legal entitlement that he has and pursuing that legal entitlement through the courts.

As the Minister and colleagues will know, the law that lies behind that is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, introduced into our domestic law by the previous Labour Government —an entitlement that assesses whether a part-time worker is being treated less favourably than their full-time counterparts. On two occasions, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, through the judgment of Lord Fairley on 29 January this year, have ruled that yes, Mr Milroy was being treated less favourably than his full-time counterparts.

Let me explain why I am raising this matter, and why I think it important for it to be raised. I served on the Defence Committee for eight years over the course of a number of Parliaments, and have taken an interest in defence issues and raised and championed cases not just for an individual, but for the collective endeavour placed in service in this country. I raise this matter because of the fundamental, important principles that lie behind this singular case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for initiating the debate. I met the Forces Pension Society guys on Monday. I did not know that he had actually secured an Adjournment debate on this matter, but when I showed them what he wanted to say, they were incredibly interested, and wanted to put on record their thanks to him.

My right hon. Friend understands, much better than I do, that Northern Ireland has identical legislation that provides the same protections for part-time workers, and that consequently this will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland’s reserves. I should declare an interest, as one who served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this process must be handled quickly, and that urgency is of the utmost importance to ensure that we right this wrong and stand with our ex-service personnel who should never have had to fight their Government—their Minister—for what should rightfully have been theirs?

[Gavin Robinson]

I want to come on to the scope of this in a moment, but I do not disagree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a brief conversation with Mr Milroy this afternoon. From the way in which he engaged with me and the way in which he outlined his experience in this regard, I recognised him to be a true gentleman. I recognised him as someone who, for the last six years, has fought to assert what is now a legal entitlement accepted by two courts in this land. I also recognised him to be a gentleman who, having served as a senior military leader, was more interested in those who lay beneath him, those whom he led, those for whom he still holds a pastoral and benevolent support. He told me that over the last six years of his quest—he won two years ago and won again in January—three of his colleagues, comrades, individuals whom he had led, had died.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

There were more than 40,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, half of whom—about 20,000—were part-time members. In the light of this ruling, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be entitled to a pension as well?

[Gavin Robinson]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will return to the issue of scope, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s point.

I lament the fact that someone who has been campaigning on this issue for six years, personally and with colleagues, has lost three comrades in the process who were never to attain their legal entitlement.

I imagine that the legal decision set by Lord Fairley, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal across England, Scotland and Wales and someone of legal standing, is engaging not only individuals in the Ministry of Defence but those who are engaged in finance. There is a scope issue here. I understand entirely, and I will always champion those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment most recently, in the Home Service Battalions until their disbandment in 2007, or indeed in the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, we cannot assert legal positions that did not exist at the time. The Ulster Defence Regiment was disbanded in 1992, some eight years before this legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom.

We can look, in particular, at those who served as reservists from 2000 or 1997 until 2015. We can look at the scale of that. We know that in 1997 there were 130,000 reserve personnel in the United Kingdom, that in 2000 there were 110,000, and that in 2015 there were 85,000. We know that in 1997, for example, when this legislation was introduced on a European basis, there were 1,870 reserve or part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. But we also know this: that is not the case before the MOD today.

The case before the MOD today is one of principle, in Major Milroy and those of his co-claimants who are already in the system. The Minister should also know well that there will be impediments through a statute of limitations to further and future claims. There is an opportunity for the Minister to consider this case and that of those who have travelled alongside Major Milroy, rather than worry about a scope that could be exponential but, sadly, for which time has already passed.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate. Whenever I wrote to the relevant Minister a year ago, the MOD confirmed that there were at least 310 people in Northern Ireland who fell within scope, but I agree entirely that there is absolutely no point in the Government deciding to fight this or seek in any way to curtail it. They should now accept that they have lost on this point of law and therefore allow anyone eligible to benefit.

[Gavin Robinson]

I think the time is coming, though we might not hear it this evening, for the Ministry of Defence to engage in the reality of what has been asserted in the courts. The Ministry of Defence is going to have to accept that, at a time when I, my colleagues and others throughout this Chamber are raising issues around support for veterans, particularly in the light of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the challenges that the Minister knows well and on which she has engaged in debate with me in the past.

The Minister will know that when I challenged this Labour Government and said they were not bringing forward safeguards for veterans, I was told that they were. I was then told that I was right and that the Prime Minister would bring forward amendments to the Government’s Bill, which they had already said included protections. We have not seen those amendments or the nature of them.

We stand here tonight with yet another opportunity for the Government to demonstrate recognition for the service of reservists and veterans, and to demonstrate that, though they recognise that there will be a financial implication, there is a moral imperative to honour a legal commitment that a previous Labour Government brought through and applied in this country. We hear from the Labour Government all the time about the need to adhere to international laws. What about adhering to the ones that they brought in themselves in our own country, and honouring and recognising the sacrifice and service of so many—I know that includes the Minister—who have served our nation? That is one of the challenges.

The second challenge is clearer: the Minister will need to provide an outcome for this process. If that is not today, then she needs to indicate that the Ministry of Defence is interested in a particular analysis and the implications of this case, and that Ministers have a fair understanding of how they are going to deal with it and that they will work towards a resolution. The last thing this Labour Government want to do is appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, not only giving the impression but establishing the actual fact that they will exhaust every opportunity to deny a legal right that is there and that has been asserted on behalf of our veteran reservist community.

It would be an indictment of this Labour Government if they were to exhaust ad nauseam every appeal mechanism and opportunity to frustrate the legal entitlements of our service veterans. I do not think that they can stand here today and honourably say that that is the position they wish to adopt, or stand here in three weeks’ time and talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and how much protection they afford to veterans, when they cannot get the basics right.

I know the Minister is not responsible for what has gone before, but she has the opportunity to address not only the perception but the reality that has been faced by Major Milroy, his co-claimants and those who have a legal entitlement, which they are asserting. It is an opportunity to redress the harm that has been caused over the last six years, and an opportunity to ensure that this Labour Government do not endlessly pursue appeals to thwart entitlement. It is similarly true of the McCloud judgment, which applies to the Ministry of Defence. That judgment is still being worked through unsatisfactorily and unsuccessfully.

I raise this matter this evening in the earnest hope but limited expectation that the Ministry of Defence will, through the Minister, give at least some certainty that this process will not be dragged out endlessly through each and every subsequent court possible—the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I understand that it is under consideration and that there will have to be an assessment of what to do, but that should not happen until there is a full understanding and analysis of the implications of the judgments thus far and the real prospect of any successful appeal. There will not be one. The entitlement is there; it has been asserted in so many other spheres and sectors and asserted here in these cases.

I can say clearly, as I heard earlier from colleagues across this House, that these guys did not serve for a pension. No—they served under the leadership and guidance of the Ministry of Defence and their senior command. This is an example of where they are saying, “Well, hang on a second. Maybe in service I took the orders I was given, but in retirement I am at least going to ask, ‘Were they lawful? Do the laws apply to us, too? Do we have legal entitlement and protections that we can avail ourselves of?’”

I think this is the opportunity for Government to say, “We recognise your service and all you did for us. We will not, by hook or by crook, deny you the legal entitlements and the recognition of your service that you so richly deserve.”