Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Westminster Hall

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

May I first of all pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—?

[Danny Kinahan]

South Antrim.

[Mr Gray]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. If I may say so, Mr Hanson, I wish that the screens in Westminster Hall better indicated who is speaking here and what the topic is here, rather than who is speaking in the main Chamber. Currently it is rather hard sometimes to follow the debate here. That is a point that is perhaps worth making.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I particularly respect what he has had to say because standing up for the armed forces or serving the armed forces in Northern Ireland is a significantly more difficult thing to do than for those of us who are in areas such as mine in Wiltshire, where almost the most natural and easy thing to do in the world is to stand up for the armed forces. To do so in Northern Ireland, in the way that he has described, is particularly difficult, so I pay particular tribute to him and the points that he made, and I know that the Minister and the Government will listen very carefully to them.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) and her two male colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—for having the initiative to call for this outstandingly good and useful debate. As she said, it is very important that we discuss the armed forces covenant. We should be doing so on an annual basis and I was astonished to discover—perhaps it is my fault and I should have called for such a debate myself—that we have not done so after the previous three annual reports on the covenant. So I respect and pay tribute to the way that she has done that, and very much hope that this example will be followed in future years. We could actually debate every year what progress has been made in the implementation of the covenant.

I should first of all say that the covenant itself is an outstandingly useful and worthwhile document, and I pay tribute to the then Labour Government, which first created such a document. They did not write it into law, but it was their idea to write down a contract that had been in existence for many centuries—that invisible contract between society and our armed forces. It was the Labour Government that said, “This time, we ought to codify, write down and make it plain, create a metric of it”. It was then a Conservative Government that wrote the observance of the covenant into law, which again was a very worthwhile thing to do, and the annual reports that we are now producing are extremely good.

No one in the debate today—indeed, no one in the Palace of Westminster and probably nobody in Britain—would disagree with the fundamental principle behind the covenant, namely that we ask our armed service people to do things that we ourselves would under no circumstances consider doing, and that in return for that we provide support for them. That is support of every kind. I will come back in a moment to talk about veterans and support for people who have suffered as a result of their service in the armed forces, but that support is not the purpose behind the covenant.

The covenant is about supporting people in our armed services every day of their lives, and their families. There are about 200,000 people who currently serve in our armed forces and do a brilliant job of doing it. There are also their families. If we take 200,000 people and consider regular turnover, probably a million people, or something of that sort, in Britain today have served in the last 20 years. Add their families to that number and we are talking about 2 million, 3 million or 5 million people who are being affected by service in the forces. The purpose behind the covenant is to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as a result of that service. It is about enabling them to go off to places around the world, to serve in the way that they do—they do so superbly well—and to ensure that their families are given education, housing, medical support and all the other things that they deserve. Those are things that they must have as service families.

I pay tribute to the variety of charities that do those things so extremely well. I am proud to be a patron of Recruit for Spouses, which provides jobs for the spouses of armed service personnel. I am also a patron of Mutual Support, which looks after service people with multiple sclerosis, as the initials indicate. A whole host of other similar charities of one sort or another do all sorts of things to help the families of our armed services.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments and comments on the charities that do so much good work. Would he join me in sending the wonderful volunteers at HorseBack UK all our best wishes as they try to deal with the flooding affecting their premises in Aberdeenshire?

[Mr James Gray]

I was not aware of the particular circumstances that the hon. Lady mentions, but if that is occurring in west Aberdeenshire—I know the area extremely well—I of course wish them well in their work, and I hope that they successfully rehabilitate their premises.

An enormous number of military charities across the board are doing all sorts of good work for people who are serving, for their families and for veterans. I am glad that they do that work. I am proud to be wearing the SSAFA tie this afternoon. Such organisations, which include the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes—we spoke about them earlier—are outstandingly good charities doing outstandingly good work for our armed services.

One or two of the speeches this afternoon have focused on those who are disadvantaged because of their service in the armed forces, but that seems to misunderstand slightly the nature of the covenant. Of course it is right that people who have been injured in warfare, whether physically or mentally, should be looked after properly. Of course it is right that when people have come back and have all sorts of difficulties—whether they find themselves in prison or have problems with drugs or drink or other issues—we should look after them properly. That, however, is a very small part of the covenant.

The covenant is a broad document that concerns every aspect of the armed forces and every aspect of how we look after those who we ask to do jobs that we ourselves would not do. It is right that on such an occasion as this we should celebrate the triumph of the magnificent armed forces, their fantastic work and how we in this place are duty-bound to look after them and say, “Thank you very much” for what they do.

The covenant usefully covers what happens during a person’s active service. In North Wiltshire we have a huge military presence, and a great many cases come to my notice, including bullying in the armed forces, failure to be promoted and all sorts of other things that might go wrong in a serviceman’s career. The covenant says that we must look after our armed servicemen and what they are doing on the ground. We must encourage them in their careers and help and support them. They have a difficult job to do. Often they are away from their families and are asked to do all kinds of things that we would not normally do ourselves. Their career path must be encouraged and supported by what we do, and the covenant must take account of that.

I will focus on one particular aspect this afternoon in my brief contribution. I must be careful about my language, but it is what the press have called “ambulance-chasing lawyers”. That issue does not really appear in the armed forces covenant, but perhaps it should. Lawyers have been trawling around Iraq in particular, finding people who allege some form of abuse by our armed forces in Iraq 10 or 15 years ago. That has been highlighted in particular with the lawyers, Leigh Day, which behaved very badly in the al-Sweady inquiry, wasting £31 million of public money in pursuing a case that should not have been pursued in the first place. A whole variety of other lawyers are doing similar work in Iraq today.

We must be very aware of that issue because it does not only affect our veterans. It must be terribly worrying for large numbers of our veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan when they did things perfectly correctly under orders and behaved naturally, but some lawyers for their own financial reasons are seeking to investigate what they did. That must also have an effect on the operational capabilities of our forces today. Any soldier doing something might have to think, “What would happen if I got this wrong? What would happen if I breach some rule? What will happen if, in 10 or 15 years’ time, the law changes and the law comes back and haunts me and seeks to arrest me or prosecute me for something that I should have perfectly happily been doing under the law?”

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, who wrote a magnificent paper about “lawfare” called “The Fog of Law”. He wrote it with Laura Croft, if I remember rightly. That fine paper lays out precisely how the law might interfere with operational effectiveness on the ground, and we have seen that issue become a great deal worse in recent years.

I would not want what has been a consensual, pleasant and important debate to become party political in any shape, size or form—it would be quite wrong if it did—but it is none the less worth noting that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who was appointed just yesterday, is in receipt of £45,000 of cash from this particular bunch of lawyers. It is she who, among other things, described that firm as a “great firm”. Our armed servicemen, who are worried about whether they will be picked up by that “great firm”, might be worried by her attitude.

[Mr David Hanson (in the Chair)]

Order. If I may offer some gentle guidance, the points that the hon. Gentleman is making are perfectly within order, but the subject of the debate is the military covenant, and I hope he will reflect on that when making his remarks.

[Mr Gray]

You make an extremely good point, Mr Hanson. If I were in your place, which I often am, it is a point I would be making myself to speakers of my kind. None the less, it is worth reflecting on the fact that people serving around the world are taking difficult and often instant decisions. If there is a flicker in the jungle, they may fire at it. Was that the right thing to have done? The difficulty with these cases is that servicemen do not know whether someone will come looking for them in 10 or 15 years’ time, saying, “You should not have done that. You are arrested.” There are a number of particularly high-profile cases at the moment. We took part in a debate in the Chamber not so long ago on Marine A.

The simple point I make is that our contract with our armed forces asks them to do things that we would not. Part of that contract must give them the freedom, the rights and the ability to carry out things—to close with the Queen’s enemy and kill them if necessary; they do not want to do that, but if they have to do that, they have to do that—without excessive intervention by the law courts, whether domestically or even in the International Criminal Court. One thing that we might consider writing into the covenant is some approach to the whole question of “lawfare”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling described it.

Leaving that to one side, the document is superb. I am pleased that the annual report that we produced recently demonstrates further work and further advances in a whole variety of areas. That is good. The covenant is incredibly important and I am glad that we are reviewing it every year. I hope very much that there will be debates in this Chamber in years to come, and that in those debates we will be able to record for posterity that every year we are giving our armed services greater respect and looking after them and their families in an ever better way.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) for his kind words on my paper, “The Fog of Law”, which was published a couple of years ago. That paper is only more relevant, sadly, given that various trials—we warned of them several years ago—are coming to fruition. Young men who took decisions on our behalf are being unfairly pressured into answering for actions that were fundamentally of the Government and therefore of this House, rather than their own. When considering the covenant, it is important that we consider the individuals—they are carrying out requests not on their behalf, but on ours.

I should immediately declare an interest, as I am still serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces as a reserve officer. I have many friends who continue to serve in uniform, and I am proud to say that they do. The points I was going to make on the military covenant have already been made, so I will limit my comments a little more than others may have needed to.

The fundamental point of the covenant is that it is not just something that we give to those in the armed forces: the possibly 1 to 4 million people that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire referred to; it is actually how we ensure our own future. All relationships and human interactions are fundamentally reciprocal. In the give and take of the armed forces covenant is the extension of the commitment we make to our troops. It is the extension of buying a proper uniform, of making sure the troops are properly armed, trained, paid and motivated. Part of that is the covenant. If we get that wrong, we not only fail to look after those who served us with great honour and courage, but we weaken ourselves, because we discourage the best and the brightest of every generation who have served with great fortitude in our armed forces. Indeed, everyone from the grandson of the monarch to the grandson of anybody else has served in our armed forces.

We discourage people from serving, and in doing so we weaken ourselves. I therefore argue that the military covenant is not an act of generosity or normalisation, but of self-defence. We must look at it very clearly as such, because self-interest in this area is sometimes the way to get the best result out of the Exchequer. The Chancellor has already been generous, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) identified, but it is important that we do not see the stories, which we occasionally see, about servicemen having to sell homes to fund the purchase of prosthetic limbs, and it is important that other veterans are not forced out of the family home in search of medical help. We need to make sure that such duties are taken on by society, not only because it is the right, moral and honourable thing to do, but because it is the best, safest and most sensible thing to do.

I look forward very much to our covenant coming to fruition and the reports building one upon another, so that we get to a state where what we are really arguing about is tweaks and turns and not substance, because, as we build up that covenant, we build up our own defence. That covenant is not only about the individuals, but about the families. When I speak to serving members of the armed forces today, I know that part of that covenant is also about the way in which we treat the serving families. I am particularly struck time and again when people—my friends in the armed forces—talk to me about things such as continuity of education. Some people have seen it as a luxury; some have said it is a way to support various families to continue a form of education that has long gone from most people in society. It is not. It is a way of ensuring that families who move around—men and women who serve overseas at the drop of a hat, who leave home and family and go away—can continue to ensure that their children are properly cared for; that they enjoy the opportunities that they rightly deserve; and that, where the family is staying at home in one location, they enjoy it.

How do I know that? If we look at any large employer or any of the large multinationals that regularly move people and take staff and say, “You were a director of X in London; you are now a director of Y in Paris, New York or Nigeria,” one of the essential parts of the package of employment is always education. No father or mother will accept to impoverish their children’s future. It is wrong that we should ask serving members of today’s armed forces to do that, which is why I strongly support the continuity of education allowance. It is essential not only in terms of recruiting and maintaining the quality of personnel—officers and other ranks; many apply for it—but to guarantee the commitment to maintain that we have the best and the brightest for the future.

I want to talk a little about the law. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has spoken extremely eloquently about it. The law can be used in both ways. It can be used quite rightly to support the actions of our armed forces and to defend them. That is exactly what the Geneva convention is for: to control and regulate the conduct of operations in battle. However, it is also right that we use the appropriate law. Sadly, in recent years a legal doctrine has grown up in which we have started to use inappropriate legislation, and we have started to treat soldiers as policemen. Once again, this is not just a nicety and choosing which element we like or do not like; this is fundamentally about the security of the state and the liberty of the individual. If we start to view people who are not policemen but soldiers and treat them like civilians, various operations become impossible.

It would be wrong to ask the police to storm a building knowing that they would take casualties of 5% or 10%, and yet we asked young men to do that on the beaches of Normandy. It would be wrong to ask the police to go into a riot situation knowing that five or 10 of them would probably be killed, but that is exactly what we did at Mount Tumbledown in the Falkland Islands. We do it again and again, because what we ask servicemen to do is not the job of a civilian. It is not the job of a policeman, a doctor or a fireman; it is something more than that. We literally ask them to put their lives on the line.

The deal is up to death, and that deal makes the covenant different, but it also means that the legal protection that is required to enable soldiers to act and to operate is also different. They must have the right to act. They must have the ability to act in a sensible and reasonable way. This does not mean that they must have the right to break the law; they do not and should not. This does not mean that the Geneva convention is irrelevant; it is not and it should not be. This does not mean that they should be allowed to commit murder, rape, looting or anything else. They are not and should not.

What it does mean is this: soldiers take split-second decisions—hard decisions—that young men and women were taking every day when I was in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 18 and 21-year-olds—junior commanders; sometimes more senior—were taking split-second decisions and then, 10 years later, in the cool of the courtroom, were being asked to justify to people who had never walked on to a beach without getting into a sweat how they could have made such a decision, evaluated the situation they saw before them, and taken a call. What was actually happening was that the serviceman or woman in question was being asked to justify the decisions of this House that sent them there, and that is wrong. That is why it is right that the appropriate law, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire put it, is the law that should apply, and not the European Court of Human Rights. In this case I have argued against various articles, in the paper “The Fog of Law”.

There is another point I want to make about the covenant: it must apply as widely as we can make it. Many have served our armed forces with huge honour and distinction around the world, and I include the enormously courageous interpreters I served with in Afghanistan. I include the Iraqis who sadly lost their lives serving next to us, but in the Queen’s uniform—they were dressed as we were—as interpreters. We owe them a duty of care, too. This covenant does not cover them—I understand that—but the generosity of Her Majesty’s armed forces and Her Majesty’s Government must include them. Only by doing so will we ensure that we get the best people to serve alongside us in our time of need. Those interpreters were not extras. They were not a luxury. They were not an add-on to our fighting capability; they were integral to it. Only by getting that right will we maintain the fundamental combat power that the British armed forces deploy on operations. It is absolutely right that we extend the covenant rights, as much as is possible and is reasonable, to those who have served alongside us.

[Mr Gray]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the interpreters, and we are making some steps in the right direction there, but there are of course large numbers of other contractors of one sort or another, who in many cases serve right up at the frontline. To a greater or lesser degree they, too, should be covered by the terms of the military covenant.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree entirely with what he just said.

I want to bring in one other aspect: the fact that many, many young men and women from various other countries have served in Her Majesty’s uniform. Our recruitment system is blessed in having young men and women from all over the world who want to come and serve in our armed forces. My information may be out of date, but when I joined the armed forces, more men and women from the Republic of Ireland were serving in the British Army than were in the Republic’s army. Those young men and women, who serve in the Queen’s uniform, deserve as much protection as we can give them. Ireland is an independent state, and quite rightly so, but it is absolutely right that Her Majesty’s Government should recognise their service and, where appropriate, offer the same support through the covenant that British servicemen would enjoy anywhere else. The same is true of Nigeria, Nepal or South Africa. Young men and women have come from those countries, sometimes in great numbers, and served alongside us. I urge the Minister to look very closely at how, through the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, Her Majesty’s Government can support communities that have sent young men and women to fight alongside ours.

Finally, I should say that the covenant is not always essential, because some of us have benefited disproportionately from our armed service. I have benefited massively from the camaraderie. I have benefited hugely from the education and the training. I have benefited completely from the moral ethos and the integrity that has, quite rightly, been rammed into us all. Military service is not a disadvantage. It is not a handicap. It is in no way something that should hold one back. It does not. In the vast majority of cases, military service empowers, enables and liberates people. It takes young men and women, often those who have been failed by the civilian services in our society, and gives them the leg up that they always needed, and a sense of discipline and purpose. The covenant is not a negative. It is not always about correcting a fault. It is about recognising where we can do that little bit more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. Governments ask a lot of those who serve in our armed forces, so we need to ensure that both regulars and reserves, and their families, are well served by Government. It is therefore vital that the Government respond to their needs. I welcome the fourth report on the armed forces covenant, which Labour was so proud to instigate when in government, and I welcome today’s debate, called for by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). The armed forces covenant is on a journey and is constantly in development. It is right on such occasions that we take stock of where we have come from and consider where we can travel to.

Before I respond to the debate, I want to pay tribute to the work of our armed forces, not least this Christmas when they played a vital role at home in supporting flooded communities. I can give testament to the excellent service they provided in my constituency of York Central through the height of the floods. I thank Brigadier Gerald Strickland, commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade, for his leadership and also York’s local signal regiment. Many men and women are also serving in the most dangerous parts of the world, and we pay tribute to their professionalism and skill as they serve their country.

Ensuring that the families of personnel are supported with good services, from housing to health, is one of their greatest concerns when serving overseas. We have all heard stories from personnel about how, before taking part in operations, they are concerned more about whether the shower at home has been fixed than about the dangerous, high-risk situations they are about to face. As we debate the armed covenant and as we look forward, we must ensure that we focus on our service personnel’s peace of mind and ensure that they can be focused in times of duty because their families are supported at home. From spending time with service personnel, with their families and with many charitable organisations, including the services families federations, we know that more needs to be done to ensure that both regulars and reserves receive the very best support.

The armed forces covenant is a mechanism to ensure that no detriment is suffered by our service personnel, but we have also heard in today’s debate about whether we should take the opportunity to champion their needs. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned the scope of the covenant and whether it should be increased, bringing in interpreters, contractors and those who have come from overseas to serve in the British forces, so that we can work out how best to honour their service.

The armed forces covenant is a covenant for four nations. We heard about best practice in Wales, including representation on all health boards, bringing in awareness of the needs of service personnel, and the mental health self-referral system for victims of PTSD. At a time when so many people have ongoing mental health needs, it is important that we take that into account. We also heard about some of the challenges raised so articulately by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), including ensuring that the covenant is applied without representation on the reference group. We all want the hon. Gentleman to have as much support as possible so that he is able to further the covenant in Northern Ireland. Speaking of best practice, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) mentioned the work being done in Scotland with the first Scottish Veterans Commissioner and some of the specialist services in mental health, prosthetic care, education and housing.

Let me turn to healthcare, specifically mesothelioma, which is a pressing issue, as many with the disease may not have long to live. Labour tabled an amendment to the current Armed Forces Bill to ensure that compensation for those with the disease matches what all other civilians receive. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that, and I would welcome an update ahead of the Bill’s Third Reading next week on the progress made.

The covenant report rightly highlights the investment in specific services, from audiology to wheelchair provision, but one of the challenges faced by charitable and specialist organisations when providing healthcare is navigating the NHS, which has become far more complicated since the reorganisation following the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Instead of trying to engage in dialogue with over 200 clinical commissioning groups, there must be a smarter way for specialist services to deal with the NHS. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether NHS England could be the focal point for organisations that are trying to provide such services. Many organisations, whether they deal with physical or mental health, have said that they are having multiple conversations, and it would be helpful if we could find a smoother way.

Continued reports of expedient access to treatment—which we have heard a lot about today—are also an important part of the challenge. We have received reports that people are waiting, whether for a transfer from one service to another due to relocation or just on waiting lists. We must ensure that dealing with the needs of both veterans and serving personnel, and their families, is expedited. It would be helpful to get more reports on the waits that people are experiencing in prosthetic care, wheelchair adaptation and access to mental health services, which can vary across the country. The current waits are unacceptable and can make situations worse. If someone receives an injury, they should be prioritised, not only for the duration of their service but for life, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) highlighted in his contribution. What mechanisms are in place for monitoring veterans’ waiting times and what more is being done to help them to access services?

The Minister has done much to focus on mental health, and Combat Stress is playing a vital role in providing information and crucial research for better understanding of mental health needs and how to address them. Key to that is securing good tracking of veterans, which is a real challenge. What progress has been made in tracking those who have left the services—for example, by maintaining a database of their information to allow for continued communication?

[Mr James Gray]

The hon. Lady has been talking a great deal of sense—up until now. I take slight issue with her on the notion of a database. So many bureaucrats love to come up with databases, but we are potentially talking about many millions of people who are constantly changing their way of life, address and everything else. Trying to keep any kind of updated central database is therefore virtually impossible. It would be much better to rely on regimental and local support services to keep track of the people from their own units.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but tracking veterans and providing a continuum of service to those who have served is a real issue about which I have spoken to many organisations. I am not saying that the mechanism for doing so has to be at a governmental level—it could be regimental—but it is important for data access, research, and monitoring and overseeing the welfare of former personnel. Too many are slipping through the net, often because of constant changes of address due to their having no fixed abode or having to change locations. It is really important that, as part of our duty of care, we are on top of who they are and where they live.

Much needs to be done to support the mental health of service personnel, as has been highlighted today. We are asking for all serving and former members of the armed forces and their families to have better access to mental health assessments and services. The health service, in particular for mental health, is challenged at the moment, as we know from our constituencies, whether in delivery, capacity or prioritisation. Further investment is important, in particular in personnel.

We cannot depend on an individual presenting themselves for support, because that is often late in the day, when further treatment is needed and further damage has already happened because of the delay. We are changing attitudes to mental health culturally, with better understanding coming more to the fore, but it is vital to take a more proactive approach towards mental health, moving upstream with it and ensuring that the needs of service personnel and their families are seen as a priority. We should provide the opportunity for assessment continuously, because early intervention can make such a radical difference to outcomes.

The public health agenda, although not mentioned in the report, should be a focus of Government attention. Alcohol use in the armed forces is a major concern and many veterans experience difficulties with substance abuse, so far more needs to be done to address public health concerns. Will the Minister develop a public health strategy for the armed forces to focus on the main pillars of public health? I was heartened to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said about the free swimming initiative in her constituency, but a public health strategy right across the services would be helpful, because so many people would benefit. Prevention of poor health is vital, and with the right investment we can save lives. Again, it is time to move upstream and to be proactive about the health agenda.

Much is being done on education, as the report highlights. The itinerant nature of work in the armed forces, however, has an impact on young lives. Moving families from base to base has consequences. In discussion with service personnel, I have found that many appreciate the benefits of their itinerant work and enjoy living in different communities, but many families find it disruptive, not least for their children’s education. One solution is highlighted in the report, but it is also important to think about other opportunities for families to have stability in a community.

Many service personnel have asked me—and I ask the Minister—whether it is necessary for their work to be as itinerant as it is currently. Can more stability be provided, so that families stay far longer on one base? If so, children could have greater stability in their education and social networks, and spouses and partners could have greater stability of employment. Education is a lifelong issue and something on which the armed forces are very focused. Beyond the plans in the report, will the Minister also look at increasing opportunities for spouses and partners to engage in lifelong educational opportunities? They give so much to support those in the services and their children, but they should also be given a greater opportunity to develop their own careers. The itinerant nature of the forces militates against career opportunities for the wider family.

Transition issues are also vital. Many leave the services and find that their plan for the future fails, so they might need to revisit their opportunities for an exit or transition strategy. I am therefore asking for continuous access to educational opportunities for veterans, so that even if their plans go wrong, they can come back to get back on course. We want those transitional opportunities to be seen as longer term.

Many points have already been made about housing, but there are so many service personnel who want security for a home. Increasing demand for home ownership has been addressed with the Help to Buy scheme, which we welcome, but for some it is still inaccessible because of the level of income necessary or because of priorities at their stage of life. There are equity share schemes, but will the Minister also consider a rent-to-buy scheme? That is very much part of Labour’s wider housing agenda, but I suggest it as another option in this housing portfolio.

The maintenance of service housing has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Companies have sometimes not been as good at fulfilling their contracts as perhaps they should have. What mechanisms are in place to monitor such contracts to ensure that they are fulfilled and that work is carried out in a timely way? Government need to provide scrutiny of the process, because so many personnel are concerned about what is happening at home when they are away.

I want to touch on the corporate covenant and then the community covenant. Engagement with the corporate covenant has increased. Seven hundred companies are now signed up, so the momentum is picking up, but that number is quite small in the scale of things. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also made that point, but engagement with the corporate covenant cannot be seen as tokenism either. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View was right to say that it must go beyond that and have real meaning.

In addition, all commercial companies that the Ministry of Defence procures from should be obliged to sign up to the corporate covenant under a mandatory social clause in MOD contracts. If a company is to gain from the MOD, it should also make a commitment to the services through the corporate covenant. I have been given examples of companies employing people working on MOD contracts that have not served reservists well on their return to the company. I would like the Minister to look at that. We believe a social clause would strengthen relationships and understanding of service personnel and bring greater synergy between service-provision companies and the armed forces. We think it should be extended to subcontractors, too.

The community covenant has received support from all local authorities, although I note the exception in Northern Ireland and hope for progress there. The vague nature of the relationship needs to be developed. I note the review due in March, which will be vital to assess the covenant’s effectiveness. On top of that, sharing best practice among local authorities and promoting greater dialogue between them could place the covenant on a stronger footing. That is what we want to see, so that a real community of people oversee the covenant in the future.

The report emphasises the work that the Government have done with veterans who end up in the criminal justice system. It highlights how the needs of veterans appear to be akin to those of the general population, yet we know that the exposure to trauma and other trigger factors can be significantly different. We would therefore like services for veterans to be more proactive in supporting vulnerable veterans who have additional needs by providing for relevant early interventions to assist with managing the challenges in their lives, whether those are mental health issues, substance and alcohol-related issues, or issues relating to their conduct and behaviour.

That point also holds true for conduct within the family home. Many who serve in the armed forces can experience or be at risk of experiencing challenges in their relationships, and tragically that leads on occasions to domestic incidents. Instead of taking a reactive approach to such incidents, a proactive support mechanism could benefit families and would enable greater recognition of the risks that can arise and more support to be provided at an early stage.

Finally, I want to turn to advocacy. While we very much welcome the increased role of the armed forces ombudsman—that is really important—we know that many still do not raise concerns that occur as a result of their duty. I would therefore like to know how the Minister sees the advocacy framework developing in the future. We have heard clearly from the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and for Tonbridge and Malling about the changing nature of the challenges facing service personnel after their duty. It is therefore important to understand the advocacy support available to individuals now and in the future to take forward issues, from a first instance of bullying through to serious accusations about the situations they have dealt with in combat.

To conclude, I have raised a number of issues to help take the covenant forward, but there has not been time to raise everything today. This has been an excellent debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. Following the example set by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), I remind the House, as I occasionally do, of my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), for Tonbridge and Malling and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on securing this debate to discuss the armed forces covenant annual report 2015. I thank hon. Members for the valuable contributions made, to which I shall return shortly. Some hon. Members raised constituency casework and I simply ask them to write to me on that, as I will then deal with those cases rather than attempt to deal with them in the debate.

I am sure I am on safe ground when I say that we all agree that we owe a debt of gratitude and a moral obligation to all members of the armed forces, wherever they are in the United Kingdom, both past and present. It is for that reason that in 2011 the Government enshrined its commitment to the armed forces covenant in law. With that came the commitment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the then Defence Secretary, to report annually to Parliament about progress on upholding the covenant principles. As we have heard, the armed forces covenant has two main principles.

[Mr James Gray]

Before we move off the annual report, is there not an argument that the Government should hold this debate annually to highlight good work done and analyse whether the armed forces covenant has been adhered to?

[Mark Lancaster]

There probably is an argument for that, but my hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that the previous Government made the proactive move to change the nature and structure of debates in this place by allowing much greater flexibly for Back Benchers to dictate what should be discussed. However, in so doing, that equally restricted the amount of time for the Government to deliver their business. It is therefore down to the will of Parliament to have such debates and today is a fine example of that genuine need and will. Therefore, on balance I am fairly content with the situation, because that Government gave Back Benchers greater flexibility, which is something that previous Governments did not. That is my view—I hope that is clear.

The principles are: the armed forces community should not face disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and bereaved. The armed forces covenant annual report 2015 is the definitive document of what we have done to uphold those principles and is the fourth such report. It sets out what we have achieved, but it is also an opportunity to explain our priorities for the coming year. Let me be clear that it is certainly not an opportunity for us to rest on our laurels; it is an annual report of the continuing efforts to strive to improve on the military covenant. I view it simply as a starting point for further progress.

I will say a few words on contributions to the report and the implementation of the covenant. Delivering the covenant is a national responsibility involving the whole of Government, local authorities, industry, service charities and of course the public, who provide vital support and recognition for our armed forces. It is only right that I pay tribute to the representatives from all of those groups who have helped meet the commitments in the armed forces covenant in the last year. I genuinely thank them all. However, I would particularly like to recognise and thank those charities who work so tirelessly in support of our armed forces. Their efforts are indicative of the whole nation’s support for our armed forces community.

Our priority this year was to tackle the areas where the armed forces felt most disadvantaged: family healthcare; children’s education; spousal employment; housing and local services; and commercial support. The report sets out the measures we have taken to address concerns in those areas.

A common theme in contributions and perhaps that which hon. Members focused on the most was the relationship with the national health service and access to healthcare. Indeed, I will happily say that that is the area on which I have spent most of my time. I am delighted to say that I now meet the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), on at least a quarterly basis to discuss areas where we can work together on that. Of course, the national health service in England and in the devolved parts of the UK is responsible for delivering healthcare to veterans, but equally the MOD has a duty to engage constantly.

To some extent we are asking whether we have proper buy-in. I think that we do, certainly to the extent that we have managed to embed the covenant’s principles into the NHS’s constitution in England. That positive step will hopefully ensure that veterans and their families are not disadvantaged in accessing health services where they live. It remains the case that veterans should receive priority treatment, subject to the clinical needs of others, relating to a condition resulting from their service in the armed forces. I can only say again that if any hon. Member has evidence that that is not happening, I encourage them to get in contact, because I would like to hear from them.

A couple of other issues relating to health were raised. With regards to osseointegration, I am pleased that through close collaboration with Blesma we have now moved to establish a pathway for veterans who can now go back to Headley Court. That is a positive step and I look forward to seeing how that develops over the coming months and years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who opened the debate, referred to updating electronic records. While I am pleased that since, I think, 2013 the armed forces have had an electronic record system, we are seeking to upgrade that system to allow an easier transfer of those records to the national health service. As part of that process, veterans will effectively be flagged so that they are easily identifiable. I cannot give her an exact timetable as to when that work will be complete—we all understand that Governments have faced challenges in the past on electronic systems—but I understand that work is progressing well, so I hope that we will not have to wait too long for that.

Equally, mental health was raised by several hon. Members. That is an area of particular interest to me: the first charity I visited when I became the Veterans Minister was Combat Stress. While there is some debate, there does not seem to be any particular evidence that veterans or members of the armed forces suffer a higher rate of mental health problems than the general population. However, we recognise that that is an issue and, where mental health problems do occur, I am determined that the highest standard of support should be made available. Indeed, it is.

To that end, I am delighted that we have implemented every recommendation of the “Fighting Fit” report, written by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). In addition, more than £13 million from LIBOR funds has been awarded to programmes supporting mental health in the armed forces community. That is an area I intend to continue to focus on and on which I would like progress to continue to be made, because I recognise its importance for colleagues across the House.

On children’s education, we have amended the school admissions code to prioritise service children and service families, so that they can now apply for and be allocated school places before they move to the area. That positive step is helping to reduce the effect of short-notice deployments on children’s education.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised the issue of spousal employment. She will be delighted to hear that we have launched a two-year trial to give service spouses additional employment training and support. Indeed, I visited one such trial in Cyprus recently and was very impressed. There are now also dedicated armed forces champions in every jobcentre region.

On commercial disadvantage, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, he was slightly dismissive of our recent progress in getting the four main mobile phone providers to agree that service personnel and their families can pause their contracts when posted overseas. I was very much involved in the process to get that agreement, and it did not seem like a minor step. I am delighted that we are now in this position and can only thank the providers for their support. These small steps, when taken slowly and added together, provide the progress we all need. I know it does not simply stop here; we need to continue to improve the support we offer, and I am determined to do so.

The annual report includes unedited comments from key representatives of the armed forces charities sector and the three service families federations, which I meet on a regular basis; I enjoy that, and it is a valuable experience. That ensures the report is accurate and gives a clear indication of where those groups think further action is required. Ministerial colleagues are due to meet with representatives from those groups next week, to discuss their feedback. This is a cross-government effort.

I have listened intently to the points raised today and hope to demonstrate to colleagues that their points will be taken into consideration as we move forward. To that end, I would like to update Members on our priorities for next year. Improving delivery of the community covenant will be key. While I do not favour legislative targets, we have committed to review delivery in order to identify best practice and robustly promote that across local authorities.

Recognising the importance of independence in the review, we are collaborating closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Local Government Association and the charitable sector to meet our shared objectives. I addressed local authorities at the community covenant conference in November, and I will continue to work with the chair of the LGA, Lord Porter, to ensure that local authorities understand their covenant commitments and are committed to improving the support they offer their local armed forces community. Equally, as Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities in our constituencies are doing their bit.

To respond to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who is no longer in her place, I understand that many local authorities publish their reports online and help to share their best practice. I certainly encourage all local authorities to do that. I intend to speak at next year’s LGA conference in order to do just that and to raise many of the points that Members have raised today.

I will move on to Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) looked up when I said that. I was impressed by and enjoyed listening to his very moving speech. Delivery of the covenant extends, of course, to the whole of the United Kingdom. The annual report includes input from the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important that we continue to work together to ensure there is universal support for the armed forces wherever they work and live, and that must extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.

I have listened to the concerns regarding delivery of the covenant in Northern Ireland. I was delighted that two local authorities in Northern Ireland signed a community covenant last year. That is clearly a big step forward, but we need to ensure that support extends across the region. In 2013, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs assessed that over 93% of covenant measures applied in Northern Ireland. It is sensible that in 2016 we update our assessment of how the covenant is being delivered in Northern Ireland and look at the areas where we could do more. That will be a priority. However, I do not believe Northern Ireland should be treated any differently to Scotland, Wales and England; our focus must be on improving delivery for all. To that end, I intend to visit Northern Ireland shortly to see what more I can do.

I have regular meetings and discussions with the hon. Member for South Antrim, who is a dear friend, colleague and veteran—I was going to say he is a fellow veteran, but I am still serving—of service in the Province. I am equally pleased to see on the Order Paper the Armed Forces Covenant (Implementation) (United Kingdom) Bill—the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling—which highlights that we need to make progress on the application of the covenant in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased that there are now 785 corporate covenant signatories. Next week, the Defence Secretary will present awards to 16 employee recognition scheme gold award winners, recognising the very best support for our armed forces. We will continue to tackle the key areas of commercial disadvantage and look at how the finance and insurance sector can do more to support the armed forces community and tackle the effects of overseas postings. I expect to announce new commitments later this month.

We must also continue to build on our work to support employment opportunities for reserves, veterans and spouses. The MOD has set up a relationship management team to engage with employers, which has not only encouraged an increase in the rate of new signings but, crucially, enabled us to work with existing signatories to deepen and enhance their pledges.

I hear the call from the hon. Member for York Central to look at effectively forcing, through contracts, companies that deal with the MOD to sign up to the corporate covenant or, indeed, to employ reservists. I am happy to be corrected, but I fear she may be unintentionally making an argument for leaving the EU, because I believe what she calls for is not possible under European procurement rules. I am happy to check that.