Jim Murphy
Main Page: Jim Murphy (Labour - East Renfrewshire)Department Debates - View all Jim Murphy's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House supports establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge of 25 June 2010 to have ‘a new Military Covenant that’s written into the law of the land’; believes that this commitment should not be diluted or sidestepped; and further supports service charities’ and families’ calls for a legally-binding Military Covenant which defines the principles that should guide Government action on all aspects of defence policy.
I start by adding my condolences to those properly offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition earlier today to the families of Private Lewis Hendry from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, Private Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. They will be loved for ever by their families, and I hope that they will be permanently honoured by our nation.
The motion before us has a straightforward purpose. It aims to fulfil the Conservative party’s pledge to introduce a new military covenant that is written into the law of the land. It will properly fulfil the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge to establish a tri-service military covenant. It aims to address the concerns articulated by the Royal British Legion and other service charities, and to set out in law the definition of the covenant so that there can be a legal basis for the principles that the Government must uphold in order to provide the forces community with the highest level of care and support. Inexplicably, the Government have already voted against an amendment in the Armed Forces Bill Committee that would have fulfilled the aims of today’s motion.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the points that he is about to raise were debated in detail in that Committee, and that clause 2 of the Bill bears the words “armed forces covenant”?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving give way, because I am keen to interrupt him at the beginning of his interesting speech. We are grateful for his support for our proposal to bring the military covenant into law. If he casts his mind back over the past 13 years, can he remember any occasion on which Labour either put a proposal to do that in its manifesto or committed itself in any way, shape or form to putting any kind of military covenant into law?
Mr Murphy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his keen sense of anticipation for my interesting speech. I have already said that, on reflection, we should have gone further towards taking the covenant out of the cut and thrust of party politics—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I hope that all those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches who are now chiding us for not having done that will have the courage of their convictions and take this opportunity to vote for their manifesto commitment later this evening.
Many Members, of all parties, and most people in the country will be hoping that the Secretary of State will use today’s debate as an opportunity to reconsider the Government’s policy. This debate is important because the covenant is the unspoken contract between the nation and our services that guides us to serve with the utmost respect those who serve our country with incomparable courage. As our country continues to change, those values should remain constant. There is a tangible feeling up and down the country that that moral bond between the nation and the forces should be strengthened.
I want to make it clear from the outset that any criticism that I offer today is not mine alone. The Army Families Federation received 2,000 complaints about the Government’s cuts from its members by e-mail in five days, many of which expressed real concern. The director general of the Royal British Legion, Chris Simpkins, has said of the Government’s defence of their Armed Forces Bill:
“The Legion is concerned that this looks like the beginnings of a Government U-turn.”
In truth, if the Government fail to back today’s motion, that U-turn will be complete. Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, the chairman of the Forces Pension Society, has described the Government’s plan for the covenant as “incredibly wet and feeble”, stating:
“It is flute music and arm waving. There is nothing of any substance, with just a couple of no-cost ideas”.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Bridgen
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that for almost three years the last Labour Government were in complete denial about the adequacy of Snatch Land Rovers to protect our troops in Helmand? Does that not constitute a breach of the military covenant?
Mr Murphy
We massively increased the number of armoured vehicles going to Afghanistan, and that was the right thing to do.
The former commander of the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan, Colonel Stuart Tootal, said at the weekend:
“There is a real fragility of morale in the Armed Forces at the moment.”
It is regrettable that a Government so young should find themselves in a position so undesirable. That is of concern to Members in all parts of the House. These are real issues, which demand a more serious response than Ministers have given in the past few days and weeks.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Would that be the same Colonel Stuart Tootal who resigned his position as commanding officer of the Paras in disgust at the way in which his soldiers had been treated under the Labour Government?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman knows that not to be the case. Stuart Tootal made his position very clear at the weekend.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers’ words. I have made that plain at each and every turn when I have spoken from the Dispatch Box. However, there is real confusion and concern about their actions. The reason for the growing anger is that they know that the Government’s actions are sometimes enormously unfair, and, in the case of defining the covenant in law, utterly confused.
Let me explain why I think that the Government’s position is flawed. In the Armed Forces Bill, the Government have provided for an annual report on the covenant, explicitly using the term “covenant”. However, Ministers are choosing to overlook the fact that there is no legally binding definition of the term to accompany its use, which means that Ministers can themselves determine how it is interpreted.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee last month, the most senior official in the Treasury, Sir Nick Macpherson, said that
“there was a point in the middle of the last decade where the MOD lost control of public spending.”
Can the Minister explain what impact that has had on the military covenant?
Mr Murphy
At the same time the hon. Gentleman’s party was demanding more spending on the Army, more spending on the Navy, more spending on the Royal Air Force, more aeroplanes and more ships. When there was real concern about funding, his party was demanding ever more spending. He cannot be in denial about that.
I would rather rely on the evidence of one of the hon. Gentleman’s own Ministers in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill. He was very clear, and the Secretary of State must be clear as well in terms of meaningful commitment. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the veterans Minister, said that the Government had no intention of placing in law a legal definition of a covenant.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sense of responsibility enshrined in a military covenant must also reflect care for service communities that are threatened with base closures? Does he agree that lessons could be learned from the United States, where there is a “transparent” commission which considers base realignment and closure, and an Office of Economic Adjustment, which gives substantial funds and support to closure-hit communities?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman knows, as I think everyone in Scotland knows, that we do not agree on everything when it comes to the armed forces, but he makes an important point about the impact on wider societies and communities of any base closures. During the last two years or so of the Labour Government, we considered the future of the firing range in the Western Isles, and it was not until we had received a full impact assessment of the impact on the community and the fragile economy of the islands that it was decided to halt the closure.
In Committee, the veterans Minister said:
“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 21.]
The whole country will be simultaneously grateful to the Minister and disappointed that he has made the Government’s position clear. It seems that the Government’s main line of defence is to attack a non-existent threat. No one is arguing for a set of justiciable rights. No one really wants to campaign for such a thing.
The forces charities themselves said that they wanted the principles defined in law—they did not want new statutory rights—and that is what our motion sets out to achieve. In answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) in the Select Committee that considered the Bill, the Royal British Legion’s director general said:
“I understand the point about rigidity, specific definition and a detailed Covenant being included in law. I am not making that point at all. What I am saying is that the principles of which a Covenant should take account should be clearly stated and understood.”
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s pledge was not made before the election in the heat of a campaign, but after it. In June last year, he said that the Government would have
“a new Military Covenant that’s written into the law of the land”.
Given the clarity of that pledge, will my right hon. Friend care to speculate as to why the Government would not fulfil that commitment?
Mr Murphy
That is probably going to be the hardest question I am asked all day. Just why have the Government U-turned on this issue, given that it was not a pre-election promise, but a post-election commitment? It is for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to articulate the reasons for their Government’s action.
I come back to the point about principle rather than statutory obligations.
Alec Shelbrooke
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about what happened in the past. Will he take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous Government for sending our troops to war without the correct equipment in 2003 because he did not want to alarm his own Back Benchers that his Government may have already decided to go to war in Iraq?
Mr Murphy
The fact is that I am remarkably proud of much of what my Government did in office in support of the armed forces: we produced the service personnel Command Paper and the first ever cross-government strategy; we made improvements for dependants waiting on NHS waiting lists; we provided support for and investment in the NHS; we ensured better treatment in the allocation of public housing; and basic pay went up in line with recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body in full for 11 years in a row. That is a remarkable set of investments, of which I am rightly proud.
Charlie Elphicke
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to take a Maoist year zero approach to all this. Leaving aside the obvious exercise in shamelessness, he nevertheless left a £38 billion black hole in the MOD, which has made it much harder to look after our troops in the future.
Stephen Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Conservative Members were pointing the finger elsewhere. Does he not agree with his parliamentary colleague, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, agreed with the following finding:
“The Department has failed to develop a financial strategy identifying core spending priorities”?
The report in question also said:
“The Department’s poor financial management has led to a…shortfall of…£36 billion”.
Does he agree with his parliamentary colleague? Why was the military covenant not part of his Government’s core spending priorities?
Mr Murphy
No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman so I shall make some progress.
On the military covenant, the amendment to the Armed Forces Bill that the Secretary of State and his friends were intent on rejecting said:
“The Secretary of State must by Order through Statutory Instrument establish a written Military Covenant (henceforth referred to as “the Covenant”) which sets out the definition of the word “covenant”, used in Clause 2, line 6 of the Armed Forces Bill. The definition would set out the principles against which the annual armed forces covenant report would be judged.”
That is the amendment that the Government have found so dangerous and refused to accept in Committee. That is the amendment that they claim would create a whole set of new justiciable rights when it would do no such thing.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the deficit that the Government now blame us for was accumulated over nearly 30 years, so they are as responsible for it as anyone? Does he agree that they should not have signed up to a covenant that they never intended to carry out?
Mr Murphy
The fact is that prior to the financial collapse across the world and the banking crisis, we had pared down the debt. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] There is no point in that crowd on the Government Front Bench moaning about this: throughout that period they demanded ever more spending on our armed forces. They cannot deny that.
Returning to the military covenant—
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Murphy
In a second. So far, we have not had a single intervention from a Conservative Member who has said whether they are willing to back their own manifesto commitment. I do not mean that as a negative comment on the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) because I know he takes a keen interest in all these matters. I will happily give way to him.
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He knows that I have raised with Governments of different complexions issues from the treatment of the wounded to the state of married quarters. In my 24 years here, representing a garrison city, I have never once had a serviceman or service family come to me and say, “This is all about producing a legal definition of the military covenant.” What they want is to be treated decently and that is what the Government are trying to do.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that various issues of concern to military families will be included in the report on the military covenant and that the content of that report should be determined by the external reference group and not by the Secretary of State?
Mr Murphy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The military covenant should not be whatever the Government of the day determine it to be. It should not be at the whim of Ministers to decide in a report what is and is not in the covenant. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.
The Government say that it is not necessary to detail the military covenant, in principle, in law, because they are already taking action. They mention the covenant in the report and it was mentioned in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. All those involved in the debate today—except, perhaps, for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are free from involvement in these debates—will have received an e-mail from the Royal British Legion, which stated:
“As the nation’s guardian of the Military Covenant, we would be very grateful if you could urge the Government to honour the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last June to enshrine the Military Covenant in law. We do not understand why the Government is now claiming that the commitment to produce an ‘Armed Forces Covenant Report’ is somehow the same thing as enshrining the Military Covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all.”
I urge hon. Members from both Government parties to listen to the legion’s voice and vote for the motion today.
The military covenant cannot be whatever Government Ministers of the day deign it to be. It should be defined in law so that it is removed from the cut and thrust of party politics. If the Secretary of State is true to his word, which I believe him to be, he should meaningfully define the covenant in law. What is needed is specific legislation to put the definition of the covenant on a legal footing. In the words of Chris Simpkins, the director general of the Royal British Legion:
“To suggest an annual covenant report would be as effective as a piece of legislation is nonsense and would be evidence of the Government doing a U-turn on their explicit promises.”
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has been talking for 20 minutes about putting his definition of the military covenant into law. Is he going to give us any form of definition before he winds up his remarks?
Mr Murphy
I know the hon. Gentleman understands that it is not for me to give a legal definition of the military covenant at the Dispatch Box. It is for the Government to define the principles of it in a legal sense, along with the armed forces and their families in public consultation. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is screaming at the top of his voice that there is no definition. If the Conservatives were in any way interested in the matter, we could arrive at a definition of the armed forces covenant on a cross-party basis, involving armed forces families across the entire nation. In truth, they have turned their back on their own manifesto, will not listen to the British Legion and refuse to act on the issue at all.
Bob Russell
The shadow Secretary of State opened his comments with a tribute to three soldiers from the Colchester garrison. Some 3,000 of my constituents are in Helmand province, and if any of them get to watch or read about this debate, I do not think they will be impressed with the contributions that are being made. I urge Members on both sides of the House to show respect. Playing party politics with our armed forces is not what they want.
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I have responded to each point raised in turn, and I will continue to do so.
We are asking the Conservative party to maintain its manifesto commitment, and to vote for it. We will vote for its manifesto commitment today, and the country will expect Conservative Members to do the same.
Today’s debate also provides an opportunity for the Government to reflect again on their decision on the chief coroner’s office. It would give families who have lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and extremely difficult circumstances—the type of people whom the hon. Member for Colchester was talking about—the right to the best possible investigations and military inquests into those deaths. On this day of all days, when the constitutional relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is being considered, it is important that we listen to the House of Lords on that important issue.
I turn to the wider of issue of Afghanistan and its impact on the covenant. We have made it clear that we will support the Government on Afghanistan whenever possible, as we did on Monday. I welcome their continued commitment to update the House on progress there, particularly in the diplomatic effort, which seems far less advanced than the military campaign.
Those injured in Afghanistan face enormous burdens and a life of dramatic change. That places a huge responsibility on the Government and politicians of all parties to support them, so that the country fulfils its responsibility to them. Public services, public servants, charities, the private sector and Government must continually consider how best to support all our forces, particularly those who are injured. We should try to generate consensus on that at every possible opportunity.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Why does the shadow Secretary of State think that the wording in the Armed Forces Bill, which reflects the will of the country to honour the covenant, is not what the people want? How does he think it fails to cover all the issues that he is talking about? A lot of armed forces personnel and their supporters undoubtedly believe that it does cover them.
Mr Murphy
As I said earlier, the British Legion has been pretty critical and straightforward about that. The problem is the word “covenant” being used but not given a legal definition, which allows Ministers and Governments of all parties to interpret and reinterpret it in an annual report. That is why the principle of legal definition is important.
Mr Hancock
We had the same problem when the last Government refused to accept their duty of care responsibilities. They did that because nobody could clearly define, in rigid legal terms, what a duty of care was.
Mr Hancock
No, you didn’t. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister and before that was on the Defence Committee, will remember from his experiences on the Committee that the Labour Government’s big failure on the duty of care was that they were unable to define clearly what it meant.
Mr Murphy
I shall make some progress before giving way.
As I said, it is important that where we can, we should build consensus, such as on support for the operation in Afghanistan and on the treatment of those who return, but there is one matter on which it is difficult to support the Government: the switch from retail prices index to consumer prices index for forces pensions and benefits. That is a highly charged and emotional issue—rightly—but I shall make my case carefully, and I look forward to the Secretary of State being equally careful and detailed in his reply.
The impact of that switch will be felt by generations of our bravest, from those who jumped from landing craft on to the beaches of Normandy in 1944 to those facing the Taliban today in the Afghan desert sand. A corporal who has lost both legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments, and the 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan will be almost £750,000 worse off over her life.
There are only two possible justifications for that policy. The first is that Ministers think that the support that forces personnel and their dependants currently receive is overly generous, but I have not heard any of them say that. The second possible justification is, of course, deficit reduction, which Ministers do pray in aid. However, that argument does not add up. The impact of those measures will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth. The deficit is temporary, but those cuts will be felt for the rest of our forces’ lives.
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should reflect on the British Legion election manifesto and its 15 or 16 demands. The manifesto never mentions the covenant, but it does mention lots of solutions to help the welfare of our veterans and current serving personnel. What part of the Government’s progress is he unhappy with in relation to the British Legion’s manifesto, and what parts of the manifesto would he adopt sooner rather than later?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman has vast experience in such matters and I do not doubt his commitment, but there is limited validity in him brandishing last year’s British Legion document when he does not accept what it says in its e-mail today—it makes it very clear that it is unhappy with the Government’s position and that it would like a legal definition of the military covenant. Of course we should work on a cross-party basis on this, and I would be happy to do so—
Jim Sheridan
I concur with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that this should be a non-partisan debate, but my right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that during the Labour years, the then Opposition constantly criticised the Government on the lack of spending on protective equipment, as did the generals. We understand why the politicians criticised the Government, but why did the generals criticise them, and why have they suddenly gone quiet in the short period since the election?
Mr Murphy
I do not wish to reopen that debate, but my hon. Friend is free to make that point whenever he wishes to do so.
It is clear that to date, the Government’s policy on the covenant and their policy on the RPI-CPI switch are policies without a patron. No Government Minister has defended them, yet Ministers expect Back-Benchers to suspend their consciences and their sense of right and wrong to vote through a policy that they have not backed.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
If the change from RPI to CPI in relation to the armed forces is so iniquitous, will the right hon. Gentleman give an unequivocal guarantee that Labour will reverse it?
Mr Murphy
I remember being in the Government and playing that game of saying to the Opposition, “Name your next manifesto,” but it is a desperate tactic. It took me 10 years to use that tactic, but it has taken the Defence Secretary only a few months. Today, he is at the Dispatch Box but will not even stand up for his own policy. Let me give him another opportunity to do so. Does he think it fair that when the deficit is temporary, this cut should be permanent? I am giving him a chance to articulate his own policy.
Dr Fox
This merely proves the economic illiteracy of the Labour party. Even when the deficit is going down, the total debt is going up and the debt repayment is going up. It will take a very long time, even when we are into positive growth, to see the debt coming down. The Labour party knows no more about economics in opposition than it knew in government.
Mr Murphy
This comes from the right hon. Gentleman who, when in opposition, demanded more spending on absolutely everything; even in the midst of financial crisis, he was demanding more and more spending. If this move is driven by deficit reduction, the Government should come forward with a temporary measure rather than a permanent change.
Finally, the military covenant goes to the heart of the relationship between the military, society and the Government. It should never be the exclusive property of one political party, but these permanent cuts undermine the Government’s claim to be honouring the military covenant. Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces Pension Society has said:
“I have never seen a government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly.”
That is a worrying position—one that we all hope to see reversed.
The truth is that this Government have lost the courage of the conviction and conscience they had in their manifesto. One day in June last year summarises this Government’s approach to the covenant. On 25 June 2010, the Prime Minister stood on the decks of the Ark Royal, surrounded by members of the Royal Navy, with Harrier jets as a backdrop, and promised a new military covenant that was written into the law of the land. Parliament did not get a vote on the decision to scrap the Ark Royal and Parliament did not get the chance to express its view on the grounding of the Harrier fleet. Today, however, Parliament has the chance to make its voice heard. We should say it loud and clear, fulfil the Conservative party manifesto pledge and define the military covenant in law.