Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I do agree and I think that those who have been injured mentally or physically in the service of our country and of us all deserve due consideration. That is certainly what we look to give them. In the spirit of co-operation, let me say that I thought the armed forces compensation scheme, which was put in place by the previous Government, was a very good scheme.

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

Reports show that there is a higher incidence of mental ill health among reservists who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan than among those from the regular forces. Recent announcements make it clear that the Government intend to rely more heavily on reservists in the coming years. Will the Minister say whether the MOD intends to give greater importance to reservists’ mental health, and what measures he will put in place to analyse the reasons for the disparity and to improve their mental health?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady is correct, in that it is more difficult to keep tabs on reservists because they go out of the military environment back to their homes and jobs and so on. They also do not have the cocoon, dare I say it, of having their comrades around them. We are taking action, and I want to mention two things in particular. First, the medical assessment programme and the reserves’ mental health programme are currently based in St Thomas’s hospital. We are moving the medical assessment programme to Chilwell in the very near future—

Defence Reform

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It has been a pleasure to listen to this evening’s debate on defence reform, in which hon. Members have spoken on a number of topics. Let me say at the outset that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) posed some very pertinent questions to Government Front Benchers.

I am pleased that we are having this debate in the week before armed forces day because it gives us the opportunity to pause and reflect on the bravery of our forces and the sacrifices they make, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) among others. Our forces do what is asked of them without question or hesitation and they often place their lives on the line to protect others. I am sure that the national event taking place in Plymouth this Saturday will be a great success. In West Dunbartonshire we celebrated armed forces day on Sunday past with a march-past in Dumbarton high street and a service in Riverside parish church.

There is no doubt that the armed forces will face challenges in the coming years, not least as part of the new employment model and the Future Force 2020 plan. Some 30,000 troops will have been removed by 2020. That will have an enormous impact on the UK’s capability, and clarity from Ministers on the decisions they have taken about future capability would be welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made some excellent points about our maritime capability.

Recent reports have raised concerns that certain regiments are at risk of being scrapped. Belonging to a regiment is a very strong part of many soldiers’ identity. That is why the shadow Secretary of State launched our “Respect Our Regiments” campaign last month. I know that many Members are concerned about regiments and battalions being scrapped, including colleagues from Wales, Yorkshire, Scotland and Staffordshire. I apologise if I have missed anyone out. The Government intend to rely much more heavily on reservists in future, and the Minister knows I am concerned that he and the Government plan to scrap employment protections for reservists while asking for more from them.

[Mr Robathan]

indicated dissent.

[Gemma Doyle]

The Minister shakes his head but I raised this with him last year and again last week. I know he is going to write to me and I await that letter because our understanding of the situation differs.

Last year, we reached agreement across the House on the armed forces covenant. I will resist the temptation raised by the contribution of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). As he knows and as the record shows, his party and the Minister had to be dragged kicking and screaming into putting the provisions we now have in law into the Armed Forces Act 2011. Anyone can read the record of the Committee proceedings to see that that is correct. The hon. Gentleman’s recollection was frankly a little wobbly. The Minister knows that I do not think the armed forces covenant is yet being taken seriously enough across all of government and the public sector in accordance with the principles set down. I do not doubt his commitment but more work needs to be done to make sure that it is a reality and that it works in practice.

I want to raise the issue of discrimination towards our forces. This concern is highlighted in the recent report by Lord Ashcroft, “The Armed Forces and Society”, which states that one in five members of the forces reports have been refused service in a bar or hotel while wearing their uniform and that around the same number reports being verbally abused while wearing their uniform. That is clearly unacceptable discrimination and if we take the covenant seriously we should be looking at how to tackle such behaviour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

May I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the comments of the head of Army manning, who said that the 4,100 soldiers, sailors airmen and women facing redundancy this week should transfer to vacancies in the Army, Navy or Air Force? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how angry this comment has made those who are being rewarded for their years of service with a P45, and can he confirm how many vacancies are currently available?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I have read the article by the head of Army manning, and I am surprised at the newspapers’ interpretation of it. I recommend that the hon. Lady also reads it.

Those people who are being made redundant and who wish to apply for another job are, of course, encouraged so to do, be it in the Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy. When I served in the Army, there were people from the Air Force and from the Navy who had transferred and joined—and some from the foreign legion as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

If my hon. Friend would like to speak to me about that centre, I would be very happy to look into it. I have to say that I have not heard of it before. We work very closely with all the service charities in the voluntary sector to support ex-service personnel, and we also do a great deal of work through the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency and other organisations to support ex-service personnel.

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

I welcome the announcements in the Budget targeted at forces families’ welfare, but I hope the Minister occasionally reads the Army Families Federation website and blog. If so, he will see how the announcement on housing is being received. One blog post reads that

“it’s difficult to regard as new money and is still £40 million short of that allocated and withdrawn last year…it does not begin to answer the problems surrounding the rebasing of families from Germany.”

Is he embarrassed that the Chancellor’s announcement does not even make up for last year’s cut?

[Mr Robathan]

I really do think, first, that Opposition Members should remember that we are struggling in a very difficult financial situation caused by the last Government. Secondly, the hon. Lady should not believe every word that appears on every blog on the internet, because there are rather a lot of them. Thirdly, I was most interested to discover that the shadow team led by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) had been issuing joint press statements with service charities, which I have to say I find very surprising. I am rather disappointed if the Royal British Legion is sending out joint press statements with the shadow Defence team, as was said in a very reputable newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

My right hon. Friend raises an excellent point. There are schemes that we are taking forward to ensure that people can get priority in some ways. For instance, my right hon. Friend may not know that until recently—in fact, this is still the case—a BFPO address may not count as a proper address for creditworthiness; we are taking steps to change that.

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

The Daily Telegraph reported over the weekend that a further 150 trainee pilots may be sacked and have to go through the resettlement process. Will the Minister confirm that that is not correct?

[Mr Robathan]

I understand that the story to which the hon. Lady refers is, in fact, a rehash of a previous story. We very much regret making trainee RAF pilots redundant—but by reducing the number of aircraft we have reduced the number of pilots that we need. We have no plans for further redundancies from the RAF’s flying training pipeline.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes a very interesting point, and again the issue is that we do not have a bureaucratic official standing over coroners. Inquests in the past, as the Opposition know, were not always as sympathetic towards military families as they might have been, and indeed they were not particularly good with the bereaved, so we are allowing the Lord Chief Justice to set mandatory training requirements for coroners and their officers, including training in respect of military inquests, and we think that that is the right way forward.

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

Last month I asked the former Secretary of State whether he had reviewed the Royal British Legion’s proposals to deliver a reformed coronial system at significantly lower cost than the Government estimate. He did not answer the question. May I once again give the Minister, under the direction of a new Secretary of State, the opportunity to put on the record his views about scrapping the office of chief coroner? Will the Minister support the Royal British Legion’s campaign?

[Mr Robathan]

I think that I am still a member of the Royal British Legion; I certainly have been, and I think that I paid my subscription this year.

I am a great supporter of the Legion. It is a fantastic organisation with fantastic people, but that does not mean that it is right about everything, and on this campaign it has rather overstated its case. It said in its briefing, which I have with me, that when asked in the street two thirds of people thought that a chief coroner was essential, but I ask all Members, “How many of their constituents do they think have heard of the chief coroner?” The answer is not two thirds of the population, I can promise you that much.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this amendment, and I am very disappointed that the Government are objecting to it. Lord Craig of Radley made a strong case for his amendment in the other place, supported by Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, arguing that our veterans and service personnel should be permitted to wear Commonwealth medals that have been awarded to them. It is very humbling to talk to service personnel and veterans about the experiences that have led to the awarding of a medal, and they should have the right to wear proudly the medals that they have earned.

I support the need for the awarding of medals to be fully considered by the cross-departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, but we cannot continue to have anomalies such as veterans being awarded a medal but not being given the right to wear it. This amendment therefore seeks to address the specific issue in relation to the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal.

[Mr Robathan]

I know that—[Interruption.] Actually, I think it is quite gentlemanly. The hon. Lady cannot be held responsible for the actions of the previous Government because although she may have supported them, she was not in the House, but sitting next to her is someone who was doing my job not 18 months ago—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). This was not a matter of any concern to him then.

[Gemma Doyle]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The creation of the office of the chief coroner would make a significant difference to the families of fallen service people as they go through the very difficult inquest process. The Royal British Legion believes this is a matter of priority, not of cost. When will the Secretary of State stop passing the buck to his colleagues in the Justice Department and make this one of his priorities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As you will understand, Mr Speaker, this is not a question of passing the buck: the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the coroners department. This has been the subject of much consultation, and the MOJ must answer on it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) asks what it is doing: it is ensuring that coroners are better trained, as training was the problem beforehand.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister has surprised me by giving a much shorter speech than I expected, considering his contribution on Tuesday.

[Mr Robathan]

I am awfully sorry, but I think we need to get it on the record that my speech on the group of amendments on Tuesday was shorter than the hon. Lady’s.

[Gemma Doyle]

I think the Minister will find that I spoke for a shorter time than he did, but, on the basis that my speech was rather more engaging, I took a number of interventions. As such, my speech took up a greater amount of parliamentary time. I shall move on.

I very much welcome and support the Bill, just as I welcome all measures designed to improve welfare for the armed forces, their families and veterans. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment to this issue. As has been said by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, this Opposition will always act in the interests of what is right for our country and will always support the Government when they do the right thing by our forces. In this Bill and the amendments to it, the Government have made progress in the welfare of our armed forces and all service families. The Government have committed to stronger provisions to enshrine the covenant in law. As we have done throughout this process, we will work with Ministers whenever necessary to ensure that the path from rhetoric to reality is as smooth and fruitful as possible.

It is worth reminding ourselves that although the right decision has now been taken by the Government, they acted reluctantly, in the face of public pressure and following much denial from Government Members that any amendments were required. Indeed, on 10 February, at the first sitting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, the Minister stated:

“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c. 21.]

He went on to say that it is a “conceptual, philosophical statement”. I imagine he wishes that he could eat his words now. Although we support the Government, we will scrutinise and form judgments based on their actions and not their words, which have been proved in this process to sometimes be two different things.

Many provisions in the Bill concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in this area, not just through the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill in 2006, but by ensuring that the forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector; investing in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities; increasing access to the NHS for dependants; and introducing the personnel Command Paper, the first ever cross-Government package of benefits.

The military covenant is the bond between the nation and our services. It says that the United Kingdom’s commitment to its armed forces is made in recognition that a career in the armed forces differs from all others. The covenant recognises that service personnel agree to sacrifice certain civil liberties, to follow orders and to place themselves in harm’s way in defence of others. In return, the United Kingdom shall help, support and reward our armed forces, their families and, of course, former serving personnel.

I am still somewhat new to this place—I am not sure how much longer I will get away with saying that—but I firmly believe that one of the most difficult decisions we are asked to make is to ask our service people to put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of this country and to safeguard human rights around the world. I felt that responsibility strongly when we voted on 21 March on action in Libya. I know that Members who have been here longer than me have been even more greatly vexed about these issues in recent memory.

Upholding the covenant is now more important than ever. At a time of unprecedented cuts to the defence budget, when we have seen allowances and pensions cut and personnel made redundant in record numbers, and when there are warnings about the capacity of our forces to perform at the current tempo for 90 days longer, it is vital that all service people have the protection to which they are entitled. The principle that no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service and that special provision may sometimes be needed to reflect their sacrifices is vital. We support the introduction of that principle to the Bill.

It is important, however, that such principles apply to policy making and implementation in all public bodies to ensure that all action undertaken by public servants is in tune with our commitments to the armed forces. I am still concerned, therefore, that the Government amendments did not go as far as they could have gone. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State must only “have regard” to the principles in

“preparing an annual armed forces covenant report”.

That is a limited application of the principles, which we have all agreed are vital. Rather than applying across Government to all issues, the principles will apply to only those issues the Secretary of State deems fit to include in his report. There is, therefore, ministerial judgment about where the principles of the covenant apply, rather than an obligation on all public servants to take heed of them. I hope that the Minister appreciates the difference that I am pointing out.

I support the action that the Secretary of State is taking, and I believe in the Prime Minister’s desire for a genuinely enshrined covenant, but I fear that we will not fully achieve that unless the principles of the covenant are given due regard in all aspects of public policy making. As the Minister knows, I tabled amendments at earlier stages to try to achieve that. I am sorry that we have not persuaded the Government to go quite as far as we would have done, but as you would imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are delighted that the Minister has come as far as he has. Having stated in Committee, as I said, that the covenant would not be enshrined in law, he has now been forced to support amendments that ensure it will be.

When I asked the Minister on Tuesday what had changed his mind, he stated that he had engaged in a listening process. I have to say, we saw very little evidence of that in the Committee’s debates or evidence sessions. I am sure that everyone would be grateful if, at some stage, he provided an explanation of his change of direction.

To ensure that the ambitions that we all hold for the covenant are realised, it is vital that there is sufficient accountability between members of the armed forces and the public servants charged with its implementation. I fear that the Government’s proposed annual report, in which Ministers will report on what they deem fit to report on rather than being obliged to provide an update on all aspect of forces’ welfare, may still be somewhat inadequate.

An annual debate in the House on the covenant is very welcome, but it should not be at the expense of real scrutiny. For the report to be meaningful, the Minister knows that I believe that there needs to be a greater number of fields on which Ministers are compelled to report. I have asked the Minister to explain why he has chosen only the three subjects that are specified in the Bill for inclusion in the report, but he has not yet given a rational explanation of why other welfare issues for which the Secretary of State is directly responsible are not included.The original intention behind the introduction of a covenant report was clearly to allow Ministers to say that they were enshrining the covenant in law, whereas their actions now demonstrate that they knew all along that that was not what they were doing. As such, the Minister will forgive me for being concerned that the Secretary of State will decide which issues to put into and leave out of his report.

My bigger worry is that without a duty on public bodies to give regard to the principles of the covenant, and without a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on a wider set of concerns than is currently included in the Bill, there will not be a thorough examination of the possible issues of disadvantage that we have discussed, covering all relevant responsibilities of the Government.

On accountability, we welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the external reference group, which I understand may now have had a name change, will publish its comments on the annual report alongside the report itself, and that as such its terms of reference will be updated. It would therefore be useful if the Minister confirmed at the earliest opportunity that the change means that the group will now be a permanent body, charged with overseeing the implementation of all policies that relate to forces welfare. I also look forward to his advising us of when updated terms of reference will be ready, and whether they will be placed in the Library for Members to view.

For the enshrinement of the covenant principles to be genuinely meaningful, there must be a proper system whereby service people can report on whether those principles are being upheld. All would agree that the Bill must be about people’s lives, not simply about securing the safe passage of legislation. When asked in a recent parliamentary question who was the legal arbiter of any complaints by service people about the principles of the covenant, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), stated that the chain of command or the Service Complaints Commissioner was responsible. That is surprising, because in her annual report last year the commissioner said the existing complaints mechanism was a

“most ineffective system. It causes extreme delay and fails to deliver justice. It also leads to inconsistencies.”

The very arbiter whom the Government recommend that armed forces use to determine whether the covenant is being upheld says that the system is not good enough.

This is not about creating new rights, it is about the accountability of those charged with upholding the principles that the Government are enshrining in the Bill. The commissioner recommended that an armed forces ombudsman be introduced, and I would be interested to hear what consideration was given to that recommendation. As the Minister did not support amendments earlier in the week regarding the creation of an ombudsman to oversee these issues, I am anxious to find out what measures will be introduced to ensure that our forces have the opportunity to make their own judgments.

[Mr Robathan]

I just wish gently to point out to the hon. Lady, apropos our altercation at the beginning of her speech, that she has now spoken for rather longer than me on Third Reading as well.

[Gemma Doyle]

I am not really sure that that was a substantive intervention, so I will carry on.

The three fields specified in the Bill as being covered by the annual covenant report are devolved, so Scottish and Welsh armed forces or veterans are potentially excluded from any recommendations at all to be made in the report. We need clarification of whether the report will apply to all UK forces and what the devolved implications of the Bill are. On Tuesday, the Minister produced a letter from the First Minister of Scotland. I do not doubt the First Minister’s intentions with regard to this matter, but I know that the Minister will be shocked to hear that the First Minister does not always do exactly what he says he will. I therefore look forward to the Minister confirming his own view of what the devolved implications of the Bill are.

There was some confusion in Committee on Tuesday about the Government’s position on the reserve forces’ employment rights. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment, which he reiterated today. Indeed, I congratulate him on standing up to the Secretary of State for Defence, who refused to give such a commitment just a matter of weeks ago. However, it would be welcome if the Minister confirmed what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office to ensure that all his colleagues are on the same page.

As I said initially, the Opposition will judge the Government on the military covenant on their actions and not on their words. One of the Government’s first major acts since their U-turn on the military covenant is their decision to abolish the Chief Coroner’s Office. The Royal British Legion has called that “a betrayal” of armed forces families that “threatens the Military Covenant.” That very neatly demonstrates the need for accountability and the need for the principles of the covenant to apply to all Government policy.

The Bill would not have prevented that decision, and nor does it provide for servicemen and women who feel disadvantaged as a result to seek redress. The Minister said earlier this week that he could not speak for the Secretary of State for Justice, but I am asking the Minister to speak to him—I urge him to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to do the right thing for service families. However, the Minister should also look at this carefully as an example of why the Bill does not go as far as it could, or indeed should.

In conclusion, the principles of the military covenant ensure that we do our bit for the men and women of our armed forces who serve this country and their families. I welcome the Bill, which has been much improved since we started out. I am delighted that the Government have come so far on this issue, and I look forward to pushing them a little further forward at the earliest opportunity.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The new clause reflects the importance that the Government place on their reserve forces, and amendments 14 and 15 are concomitant with it. The new clause is designed to align more closely the circumstances in which reservists may be called out in the United Kingdom with those in which regular personnel may be used. It would enable reservists to be deployed in the UK more widely than at present so that their skills can be used in a wider range of circumstances.

Legislation has been in place for some time allowing our reserves to be called out to serve on warlike or humanitarian operations worldwide. Indeed, it is worth stressing that there have been more than 24,000 reservist mobilisations in support of operations both at home and overseas, including Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2003. I am sure that the Committee would wish to pay tribute to those reservists who have deployed on operations—with some losses, I fear. During those operations, 27 reservists have made the ultimate sacrifice.

In the UK, local reserve troops were mobilised under existing legislation to provide assistance during the Cumbrian flooding in November 2009, and helped to build Barker bridge—so-called after the tragic death of Police Constable Barker during some of the worst UK flooding in living memory. This assistance could not have been provided so quickly and efficiently without the excellent support of reserves from the local Territorial Army unit. However, we do not have legislation in place to allow us to use the numbers of reserves available or their specialist skills in all appropriate circumstances. The Secretary of State’s power to call out reservists in the UK is currently limited by the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to the defence of the realm or

“the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life and property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”

There are many circumstances falling short of “disaster or apprehended disaster” in which reserves could make a valuable contribution, but under the existing legislation, they cannot be mobilised. I have in mind a number of examples. The first is the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, when we could not call out reservists because the work that needed to be done was not to alleviate distress or preserve life or property. The second is a major disruption to the road and rail network, such as we saw at the beginning of this year, when reservists could not be mobilised to deliver vital food and blood supplies to a large number of people over a wide area, and when we had to resort at the last minute to volunteers. The final example is a requirement for unarmed, low-level support to the security operation for the London 2012 Olympic games. Currently in such circumstances, it would be possible to use regular forces because there is a power to use regulars for urgent work of national importance. This power has been used for a wide range of activities, such as dealing with the consequences of flooding, heath fires, severe snow, hurricanes and the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001.

I propose to amend the 1996 Act so that reserve forces, like regular forces, can be called out for urgent work of national importance. The amendment represents an improvement to the existing position, where there is one test governing whether regulars can be used, and another slightly different test governing whether reserves can be mobilised. Being able to mobilise reserve forces would offer a number of important practical advantages. First, there are more than 30,000 committed individuals in the volunteer reserves. Secondly, reservists are based in every part of the UK and can bring to bear important local knowledge in relation to local problems. Thirdly, this would enable us to draw on a range of specialist skills held in the reserves that do not exist in the regular forces—for example, medical skills, meteorological expertise, and rail and maritime expertise. Over the last decade, we have seen the ever greater integration of the reserves into our force capability. The new clause is proposed in that developing context. The Future Reserves 2020 study, which will report to the Prime Minister this month, is taking a wider look at the role of the reserves and making better use of their specialist skills. I expect the study to recommend that we should make more of the strengths and skills that reservists offer. The new clause represents a first step towards that.

Mobilisation is an essential tool for two reasons. First, it gives the Department the guarantee of the reservists’ service; secondly, it activates statutory employment and financial assistance safeguards for reservists and their employers. These help to minimise any disruption that mobilisation may cause. Under the new clause, as now, no reservist will be out of pocket as a result of mobilisation, and every employer will have the right to apply for financial assistance that will allow him temporarily to replace any member of staff who is mobilised. In addition, existing restrictions on both the length of mobilised service that an individual can be required to undertake and the frequency of mobilisation will apply. Furthermore, reservists and their employers will be able to appeal against mobilisation under the proposed new power, just as they can under existing powers. There is also a further appeal to a tribunal that will be independent from the Ministry of Defence. In reality, the MOD works with employers to identify potential concerns at the earliest stage and support the employer throughout.

I hope that I have covered the major implications and benefits of the new clause. Let me stress that this change to the legislation strengthens the role of reservists in our armed forces and society more widely.

Government amendment 14 provides that the provisions in the Bill relating to the call-out of reserve forces will come into effect two months after it receives Royal Assent. That is the standard period of time for bringing provisions into force, and we see no need to deviate from the norm in this case. Government amendment 15 changes the long title of the Bill. The amendment is necessary because the new provision about the call-out of reserve forces is a subject that would not be covered by the long title as it stands.

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

Let me begin by paying tribute to the men and women who serve our country as reservists. They show immense dedication to serving our country. As the Minister said, we have only to look at the vital role played by reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand the importance of reserve forces.

The Government are undertaking a review into the future of reserve forces. If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, reservists are likely to be given greater responsibility in the coming years. Indeed, the logical conclusion to draw from the strategic defence and security review is that we must seek to make the most of the assets that we have, and that includes the reserve forces. In bringing forward these amendments, the Government are perhaps pre-empting the conclusion of that review. The amendments give the Secretary of State greater powers to call in reservists. That is something that, in principle, we are more than happy to support; indeed, the Minister gave some good examples of the circumstances in which such powers would be useful. However, the Government need to be honest with the men and women of the reserve forces. If they are to ask them to do more, they also need to provide the necessary protection and support in the workplace. We are talking about people who join up to serve their country, and we have a duty to protect their jobs when they are mobilised. It is in this area that there are some questions for the Government to answer.

We know that the Secretary of State is not necessarily on the best of terms with the Prime Minister and his other Cabinet colleagues. I wonder whether there is much joined-up thinking taking place in Government about the role of reservists and the duty of care that we owe them. The Cabinet Office has a Red Tape Challenge website, which consults the public on legislation that could or should be scrapped. When launching the site, the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers to say:

“We know we have inherited far too much costly, pointless, and illiberal government red tape.”

In the employment law section of the website, item No. 1 in the list of legislation up for being scrapped is the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. The Act states that reservists have a liability to be mobilised and provides two kinds of protection. The first is protection of employment, providing protection from unfair dismissal and making it a criminal offence for an employer to terminate a reservist’s job without their consent solely or mainly because he or she has a liability to be mobilised. Secondly, there is a right to reinstatement. The Act provides a legal right to the reservist to be reinstated in their former job, subject to certain conditions. When pressed on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) at the most recent Defence questions, the Secretary of State refused to deny that those provisions were under consideration. The Government are therefore considering scrapping legislation that protects reserved forces employment on a day-to-day basis and when on a tour of duty.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady is making a good point, but I have to say that I am unsighted of the 1985 Act. I thought that it had been superseded by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. She obviously knows a great deal about this, but I thought that that was where the current regulations sat. Will she illuminate the matter for the Committee?

[Gemma Doyle]

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State did not make that clear when asked about this matter. If he or the Minister could give the Committee a concrete commitment on the protection of employment for reservists today, that would be very welcome. It cannot be right for the Government to consider asking more of the men and women of our reserve forces while cutting the protection that they need in their place of work. Will the Minister make an unequivocal commitment not to scrap the vital protection provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 or, if he believes that it has been superseded, will he clarify the position? We support the new clause, but the Government must be clear about retaining the support and protection that the reserve forces expect and deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gemma Doyle]

The amendments tabled today are a vast improvement on the Bill as it stood. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, I wonder why he did not support my amendments in the Select Committee that would have achieved that. Instead, he voted down any proposals to strengthen the covenant or the Bill.

New clause 17 would fully enshrine—

[Mr Robathan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gemma Doyle]

I should like to make a little progress before the Minister—

[Mr Robathan]

We have plenty of time.

[Gemma Doyle]

I should at least like to finish my sentence if that is all right.

New clause 17 would fully enshrine the principles of the covenant in law, not half-heartedly but unambiguously.

[Mr Robathan]

The point the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was trying to make was that between 1997 and 2010 there was a Labour Government—new Labour, old Labour or whatever we like to call them—and nothing was done. I do not hold the hon. Lady responsible because she was not in the House then. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, when we took office a year ago there was no mention of the covenant, yet now we are putting it on a statutory basis for the first time. I think I first used those words in the House on 10 January.

[Gemma Doyle]

On frequent occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that plenty was done for veterans under the previous Government, including the creation of his job. If he wants to keep it, perhaps he should have got this right in the first place.

New clause 17 would place a duty on all Departments and public bodies to give consideration to service families and veterans in policy making and implementation. Although it is very welcome that the Secretary of State will report to the House, I would rather such matters were integral to the policy-making framework from the beginning and the new clause would ensure that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and I have debated that point before and, as he knows, I think he is confusing a list of prescribed entitlements with a list of issues on which the Secretary of State has to report. My point all along has been that the Secretary of State should not be reporting on the work of other Departments without reporting on the work of his own Department. It would be bizarre if a report criticised local authorities, or indeed the Department for Education, for disadvantaging the children of service people, but had no reference at all to the MOD’s responsibilities, such as pension provision for the armed forces. I cannot envisage a time in the near future when pension provision will not be an area of concern for our armed forces, so it should be included in the list.

The list does not limit the fields on which the Secretary of State should report; it expands them and makes provision for further relevant issues to be included as circumstances dictate.

[Mr Robathan]

When the Secretary of State comes to the House to make his annual report and, if the hon. Lady is still in her place—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Very unlikely, if I may say so—as the hon. Lady has already suggested.

Is the hon. Lady telling the Committee that, if she is still in her place and there is no mention in the report of pension provision or mental health care—on which we are doing a great deal of work, as she knows; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has done a lot of work for us and we are taking it forward—and she thinks that is an issue, she will not mention it?

[Gemma Doyle]

I give the Minister a categorical assurance that I will mention it. My concern is whether the Secretary of State will even consider those issues. As the Bill stands, he does not have to; he need only look at education, health and housing, and that is not good enough.

I should have liked to explore further with the Minister why education, health care and housing had been chosen at the expense of the many other issues that have been of great concern over the past 12 months. However, he declined to give evidence on his Bill.

I am also concerned that there is nothing in clause 2 that applies to Scottish or Welsh veterans. At the very least, the Bill should be amended to send a clear signal about the UK-wide responsibilities of the Secretary of State. If the family of a Scottish service person live off-base in local authority housing, their housing requirements are devolved. We have been advised that the Secretary of State will update the House even when those matters are devolved. It seems odd that such a thing could happen, because the Secretary of State is not responsible for the delivery of devolved services; nor is he or she accountable, and thus could not answer questions on the matter.

[Gemma Doyle]

I entirely agree, but the correspondence I have seen does not indicate that that is the case.

[Mr Robathan]

May I help the hon. Lady?

[Gemma Doyle]

Please do.

[Mr Robathan]

I think the Opposition are fishing in desperation for things to get excited about, but they do not need to. I have in my hand a letter from the right hon. Alex Salmond, who describes himself as the First Minister of Scotland, for that is indeed his post. The letter is dated June, although I cannot actually read the day. It thanks the Secretary of State for Defence for his letter about the armed forces covenant and states that the Scottish Government have and will continue to provide unequivocal support for the armed forces, families and veterans. I shall not read the whole thing out, but it welcomes the new armed forces covenant as an important step forward from the 2008 service personnel Command Paper.

There is no disagreement between us. We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations. We are interested in results, rather than the box-ticking that the hon. Lady describes.

[Gemma Doyle]

The letter that the right hon. Gentleman has read out does not address the point I just made. Constitutional issues are involved. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box here and report on devolved matters. My understanding is that if I were to secure an Adjournment debate on a devolved matter, it would not be taken on the Floor of the House. It would be ruled out of order, as indeed it should be. I am afraid that the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not address that point.

However the process with the devolved Administrations is handled, the inclusion of pensions and benefits as a defined area in the report would ensure that the report reflected issues for service people throughout the whole United Kingdom. As the Bill stands, Scottish and Welsh veterans in particular are being ignored. Fundamentally, I want the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and report on the matters for which he or she is responsible.

It is one thing to talk about the military covenant; the real test is how that acknowledgement is reflected in the decisions of Ministers. Their actions mean that thousands of servicemen and women will be made redundant, many more will see cuts to their allowances and all will be hit disproportionately hard compared with other workers by plans to downgrade public sector pension rises. These are just some of the many decisions taken by the Government in the past 12 months that have undermined the military covenant and given no cognisance to the unique nature of the work that our armed forces do. I am glad the Bill will recognise that through amendment 11, and I hope that Ministers will reflect that in their decision making, in which such recognition has been absent so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I do not think that we want to revisit debates from 1996 and I doubt that you, Dr McCrea, would allow it—[Interruption.] Shall we revisit that debate from 1996? I have to say that I had words with Ministers at the time and was not entirely enthusiastic about the policy, but there we are. It is important that we continue to work on housing because we do not wish people to live in substandard accommodation.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) mentioned the Defence Police Federation’s annual conference, which took place up near the Clyde, next to her constituency. The head of the federation works on the floor above me in the MOD, and I have invited him to come to talk to me about the issues. I do not think that that is particularly unreasonable, especially since the conference is taking place today and I have to be here.

I will consider the large number of amendments in three chunks. I will speak first to the Government amendments, secondly to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and thirdly to the official Opposition’s amendments. When the Government decided to include clause 2 in the Bill, we had two main objectives: to recognise the armed forces covenant in legislation, as we are committed to doing; and to strengthen the Government’s accountability to the House through the mechanism of an annual report on the covenant.

The clause rightly places the covenant at the heart of our national debate on whether we are treating current and former members of the armed forces as they deserve to be treated. This is not a matter in which only the Government have an interest; right hon. and hon. Members are well aware that groups that aim to speak for the armed forces community, including the Royal British Legion, take a close and constructive interest. The legion has now made clear its overall support for what we are trying to do in relation to the covenant. I do not apologise in any way for listening to what it and others have said and, having done so, making changes to the legislation.

[Gemma Doyle]

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the process by which the Bill has come about? What exactly changed his mind?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not regret the process at all. What has happened—I would have thought that the hon. Lady had spotted this, because she is a capable person—is that we have been discussing and listening to things and came to the view that we might enhance the Bill, which is what we have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

He obviously does not realise that.

By coincidence, the external reference group is meeting tomorrow. I offered to go to the meeting, but it wished to consider how it may respond to the covenant report when it comes out. After discussions, it was thought that I might be in the way rather than anything else. The group’s advice and expertise will be of huge benefit to the Government in preparing the annual report, but we cannot place on the group the duty of deciding what subjects the Secretary of State will cover. That must be his decision, so that he is answerable to the House for it.

Finally—[Interruption.] I mean finally on amendment 16. It would remove the reference to “particular descriptions” of service personnel. That is a vital provision, despite the slightly arcane language, because it allows the Secretary of State to distinguish between different groups rather than cover the whole of the armed forces community when there is no need to do so. Leaving it out would make the annual report unwieldy and less useful.

That leads us directly to amendment 17. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Two of my hon. Friends from Wiltshire mentioned the matter earlier. Although inquests allow families to learn in detail how their loved ones died, and help them to reach closure, they also bring home to all of us the tragedy of loss and the cost of the operations on which we are embarked. Ensuring that the inquest system is fit for its very important purpose is a responsibility that the Government must never forget.

However, the amendment makes for me precisely the point that I raised earlier. It is an afterthought. Having tried to list the subjects that the Secretary of State should cover, the Opposition realised that they had left one out. That shows the weakness of trying to come up with a comprehensive list in legislation. Next week, people might come up with another category, but it would be too late to amend the Bill. I hope that we can look forward to a happier time when the operation of the inquest system is of less concern to the armed forces community because we are not involved in deployed operations and there are no fatalities.

[Gemma Doyle]

It is somewhat rich for the Minister to say that it is we who are treating inquests as an afterthought, given that it is his Government who have scrapped the office of the chief coroner. How would he respond—I urge him to make it a brief response—to the comment of the Royal British Legion that it is a betrayal of service families to scrap that office?

[Mr Robathan]

Unfortunately, as the Members on either side of the hon. Lady—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the shadow Secretary of State—will understand, I cannot speak for the Ministry of Justice. It would be beyond my remit. May I also say that she spoke for longer than I have yet achieved? Don’t worry, I’m working on it.

New clause 13 relates to armed forces advocates. Advocates are an excellent idea, and in UK Government Departments and the devolved Administrations they face in two directions. They ensure that their own Department’s policies take account of the special needs of the armed forces community, and they communicate their Department’s perspective to my officials and external stakeholders.

I turn briefly to new clause 14, on the ombudsmen. I pay tribute to the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen for their work. I do not think any of us doubt the important role that they can play in helping members of the armed forces community, and they have welcomed the familiarisation events that my officials have organised. However, the new clause is unclear about what exactly the ombudsmen are intended to do, and we are not minded to accept it. The Government will continue to work with public bodies and local authorities to implement our commitments, and we will encourage them to help to remove the disadvantage faced by service people and afford them special treatment where appropriate. The ombudsmen have a vital role to play, but it is not the one described in the new clause.

Finally—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Yes, finally, I come to the Opposition’s new clause 17. Once again, the concept outlined in it is perfectly reasonable. I want, just as much as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire does, a world in which those who make policy take into account the needs of members of the armed forces community as a matter of routine. The best way of ensuring that we avoid problems of disadvantage is to prevent them from happening in the first place. The issue is how to achieve that. We must consider whether the right course of action is to create a legal duty to have regard to certain matters, or to adopt a more practical approach. In the Government’s view, placing a general duty on all public bodies and Ministers in the preparation of all policy would be unhelpful and unfocused. It would lead to more of a box-ticking culture and a cottage industry of assessments. As I have said throughout the debates on the Bill, we are interested in results and want the armed forces community to be looked after better, but that does not involve box-ticking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I last met the director general of the Royal British Legion last Monday to discuss this very matter. There are many organisations involved and they all have their views to put forward. I think that the covenant is proceeding well. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has been written into law in the Armed Forces Bill and I hope that he will speak further about it on Report and Third Reading when they happen, shortly.

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

Ministry of Defence police do an essential and difficult job with a great deal of professionalism and expertise, but they face a potential cut of one third in their numbers. That would mean more than 1,000 officers losing their jobs. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of such a drastic reduction in the number of MOD police officers on the protection of military bases?

[Mr Robathan]

I pay tribute to the work done by the MOD police, and the protection of military bases is of course essential. However, we are constrained by the lack of funds left behind by the last Government. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members grimacing; it is true. For that reason, we are having to consider savings in all areas, and I am afraid that everyone must play their part.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Injured personnel have a high profile and the support of the country at the moment, but in 15, 20 or 30 years’ time, it might be rather different. We are putting in place a whole raft of initiatives. I pay tribute to the last Government, who put a lot of it together. We supported the personnel recovery centre, among others, and there will be such a centre in Tidworth. God willing, we look forward to opening it in the near future.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister announced a “health for heroes” scheme for veterans in a newspaper article on 23 January. How much funding has the Ministry of Defence dedicated to this scheme?

[Mr Robathan]

This is not actually an MOD but a Department of Health measure. As I understand it, the whole mental health package is worth £400 million and it will be announced in April. Some part of it will go towards assistance with mental health problems among members of the armed forces. We already provide a great deal of support to those with mental health problems, not least through the “Fighting Fit” report of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gemma Doyle and Lord Robathan

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I would say to all potential employers that most ex-service personnel bring with them a resilience and hard-work ethos that they may not find in every civilian. I would also say that we have very good resettlement packages for people going out into the civilian world, and we will certainly lobby employers to take disabled and other ex-service personnel on to their books. However, positive discrimination is illegal, and I do not think we are aiming to change the statutes. It is also unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.

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

The Minister has said in recent letters to Members that the Government have no plans to introduce a veterans card scheme, which many believe would assist in identifying veterans to ensure that they get the care they deserve. However, the report on the military covenant commissioned by the Government and published last week recommends implementing such a scheme. Will he now reconsider his view on this matter?

[Mr Robathan]

There is no point in commissioning a report without looking at it, and we are doing so closely—as the hon. Lady will know, we are already implementing one or two of its recommendations. The veterans card is a difficult one, because, as Labour Members in the last Administration will know, it is difficult to identify who has been in the armed forces over a period of perhaps 60 years, and to ensure that it is feasible. It is also difficult to identify what exactly would be the point of it. We should remember, for instance, that there is already a discount service for those people.