Army Reservists: Employment Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his point, and his comments have been noted. As soon as I have further details, I will provide an update.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. and gallant Lady. We understand that she has a personal intention to try to make things better. Whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they said that many part-time soldiers are not aware of their rights and the fact that they might be able to claim. Are the Government, and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try to contact all those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the longer this goes on, some people will pass away. The opportunity for money should also go to their relatives; it should be retrospective.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am not in a position to give details at this point, but I will absolutely take into account the hon. Member’s comments and ensure they are considered. I note his concerns.

Several Members have spoken about the importance of confidence—confidence among reservists that their service will be supported, and confidence among employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and predictable. The Government’s objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law. Where the Milroy judgment indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that. Where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly.

Finally, on the wider message to those who serve, reservists across the United Kingdom make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgment and the debate it has prompted reinforce the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.

The Government will give full and proper effect to the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications carefully and engaging with stakeholders, and we will act where action is required. We will do so in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East for bringing this matter before the House, and everyone who has contributed to this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.