Military Covenant

Debate between Jim Murphy and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

I know that for the hon. Gentleman’s party it is always someone else’s fault. The sacking of soldiers by e-mail was the Army’s fault, then it was the civil servants’ fault and by the end of the day it was the Labour Government’s fault.

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

[Mr Murphy]

I give way again, but I hope that at least one Conservative Member will say whether they are going to vote to detail the principles involved in a definition of the military covenant.

[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]

The hon. Gentleman is confused. The fact is that his party was demanding ever more spending on the armed forces in the midst of the recession and the financial crisis.