Arctic Convoy Veterans Medal

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and has worked extremely hard on this campaign, as we all have. There is a ready-made solution within the star framework. The complacency in relation to rewarding these extraordinary men is, in many ways, shameful.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Probably the most powerful point she has made is that the qualifying criterion for the Atlantic star was 180 days, which by modern standards is very long indeed. I think that for the Falklands it was one day. For the current operational service medal, it is only 30 days. In fact, if she were devilish, she could ask the Minister what the qualifying period was for his two medals.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I remind the House of my interests. In the light of the proposed future utilisation of reserves, does the Minister anticipate any need to change their terms and conditions of service?

[Mr Robathan]

May I first pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend, who continues to serve in the Territorial Army, for which I am grateful? As he knows, there are concerns following the Future Reserve 2020 study, which we are concentrating on, such as the under-recruitment of young officers into the TA, which is extremely important. We are yet to decide on changes to terms and conditions. People join initially for patriotic reasons of service, and secondly, quite rightly, for adventure, excitement and such reasons, but we must of course get the terms and conditions right because finance is also important. We are looking at that closely.

Armed Forces Personnel

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that that will be the outcome. I say again that what has been achieved at Headley Court is absolutely remarkable, and everyone involved deserves the highest praise and thanks from all of us for the work that they do. We must, however, take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the new facility to provide a national centre, which will be of lasting benefit. As I said earlier, some of those who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with serious injuries will need support for the rest of their lives, and I am sure that the new national centre will have a part to play in that.

Looking to the future, the strategic defence and security review has set the vision for our people, including the development of a new employment model, which aims to provide an attractive package that better suits the demands of modern life. Those who serve today, and their families, have very different expectations and needs from those of even a generation ago. Moving towards a new employment model will mean looking not only at the terms and conditions of service but at different approaches to basing, accommodation and supporting family life. It is clear that a large number of service personnel and their families would benefit from a more stable lifestyle, involving everything from schooling the children and buying a home to providing better stability for spouses’ careers. It is also clear that the defence budget would benefit from such a proposal, as it would enable us to reduce housing stock and relocation costs. It would also allow us to reduce spending on allowances that would be no longer necessary.

On the other hand, the predictability and stability that someone with a growing family seeks might not be the same thing that motivates a young man or woman to join the armed forces in the first place. Their motivations might include learning a trade, seeking adventure, seeing the world or serving their country. Getting the balance right in recruitment and retention at different points in a career will present different challenges for each of the three services. Succeed we must, however, because military effectiveness is not built simply on getting the right equipment; it is built on people. The men and women of our armed forces are the greatest asset we have, and we must ensure that we provide them with what they need to succeed in the dangerous jobs that they do.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Looking to the future, will my hon. Friend say a few words about how he anticipates members of our armed forces being used in upstream intervention, as outlined by the Government’s Building Stability Overseas strategy?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is perfectly clear that taking pre-emptive measures to prevent conflict can be very successful. It can certainly save many lives and prevent a great deal of suffering, and it will increasingly become part and parcel of our work. I am reminded of an analogy that the right hon. Member for Coventry North East used when he was Defence Secretary. He said that the logic of defence was akin to that of a football match. We do not defend our own goal by sticking all our players on the goal line; we do it by keeping our players at the other end of the pitch. Similarly, sending people out to try to the tackle problems before they arise is always the most effective approach, and it will be part and parcel of what we do in future.

At this time of year, as we pin the poppy to our jackets and coats and remember the great sacrifice that has been made over many years, it is a time for each of us to pause and reflect. The armed forces covenant is not just about what the Government can do; it is also about what the nation can do. That is not just about the financial support that is provided through taxes or directly to charities; it is also about the moral support that the nation provides to our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree, and I am sure that the Minister does as well. We must get that under control. Someone told me—again, the Minister probably has the figures at his fingertips—that the Army has some 1,700 lieutenant-colonels. If that is the case, they could man three battalions, and we have only 38 of those.

I will not go into the same details about the Royal Air Force, but the principle is the same: it remains quite top-heavy. I know that the Government intend to have a crack at reducing the problem. What we want in our armed forces are people coming in at the bottom—that is, people who actually do the business, rather than those who are in the background sitting behind desks.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument, with which I agree. Does he believe that the only solution to the problem is for us to slow down the career progression of officers in the Army?

[Bob Stewart]

That is the dilemma. We want to encourage people to stay in the Army; we want to retain the experience of senior officers; and, in the event of something that we may not care to mention—a general war—we will require those officers to expand the Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury suggested.

As for the basing of our troops, I am still worried about where they will go when they come back from Germany, if we have to get them all out by 2020. The details of how many will go to which places are yet to be planned. I am particularly concerned about where those extra troops will be trained, because the training areas already seem to be mightily over-booked. Cost is another issue. Converting Kinloss, which is currently an RAF station, to enable it to house, say, an Army battalion, will not be simply a case of “All out, one in”. We should also ask where the families will go. As was said earlier, it would be a good idea to try to enable them to live further away, but there will be a problem with morale when there is a deployment and wives and children are separate from the main unit.

Finally, let me say a little about Afghanistan. I have heard an increasing number of complaints—some as recently as this week—about the suggestion that a quota of reservists are going there while regulars are being left behind. That quota, which may not be formal, is nevertheless causing some resentment. I ask the Minister to check on that. It costs more to deploy reservists; as regulars are already being paid for, they do not cost as much.

I am very concerned about reports this week that the United States will be withdrawing from Helmand. That has manpower implications. The gains from 2007 onwards might be in jeopardy, and who will take up the slack? It must not be us. We have three years to go before we are formally committed to withdraw from operations in Helmand and Afghanistan generally, although we will stay there in a training role. If the Americans withdraw, the commander in Helmand will have fewer manoeuvre units and fewer available reserves. I do not want us to reoccupy bases we have occupied previously, such as Sangin, Musa Qala and Now Zad.

It is also crucial that we maintain our own security as we withdraw. I know the Minister realises that; I am not trying to teach him to suck eggs. Withdrawing from an operational theatre is very complicated, however. It is often much easier to go in than to come out, and that can be very dangerous. We do not want to take pointless casualties, and we must not repeat the mistake of 2006, when we allowed our troops to be put into isolated locations unsupported. When we are withdrawing, we must not leave a thin line at the front and thin out from there. We must withdraw properly. I will not talk in detail about the tactics, but we must not leave our troops isolated and in a precarious situation as we withdraw.

I shall conclude now, but I should first apologise to the House as I must beg leave to be absent from shortly onwards as there is a constituency event I must attend. I do not wish to leave the Chamber, but once I have done the decent thing by listening to the next speech, I would like to be allowed to depart. Please forgive me, colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I regret that I cannot make the same declaration of interest as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) as an Army pensioner, but that is probably because he is rather more senior than I am. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that, apparently, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) is an Army pensioner.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who made a very powerful case on behalf of veterans and especially their families, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has just left the Chamber. I must say that I am not convinced that his readjustment to civilian life is best served by becoming a Member of Parliament, but that is another matter.

In discussion just now with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), I realised that I first wore a uniform in 1983—that can probably be bested only by the Minister—when I joined the combined cadet force in Kimbolton school, where I hope to return briefly this weekend. Every year since then—so for some 28 years—I have either marched or worn a uniform on Remembrance Sunday. This Remembrance Sunday, I will be in Newport Pagnell in my constituency for the eighth consecutive year. Above its war memorial is a small plaque, which is easy to miss, commemorating George Walters’ Victoria Cross. He was born in the town on 15 September 1829 and earned his Victoria Cross on 5 November—appropriate for me as a firework manufacturer—in 1854, some 157 years ago.

In those 28 years of attending Remembrance Sundays in uniform, I have seen an interesting transition. In the early days in the 1980s, attendance was probably not what it should have been, but over subsequent years, it has grown and grown. There has also been a change in the perception of the general public, from imagining that veterans were old men, recalling images of the first world war, to realising now that veterans come in all shapes and sizes—I am not looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham when I say that—and some are very young indeed. I feel obliged to say that to my hon. Friend, as there was a suggestion earlier that reservists—I say this as I suck in my stomach—were being mobilised without passing their combat fitness test. I reassure him that that is not the case. The act of remembrance on Remembrance Sunday is now embraced by a far wider community than it was 20 years ago. That has to be a very good thing and one that I hope we all continue to encourage.

Earlier this year, it was an honour to serve on the Armed Forces Bill. There have been some comments about whether or not the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law, as well as some slightly party political comments about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, who voted for it and who did not. I take the view shared by most members of the armed forces: I do not really care one way or the other. I repeat what I said earlier in the year: this Government will be judged not on words, but on actions. In years to come, this Government and their successors will be judged on whether the armed forces covenant was effectively enshrined in law by what is done, not by what is said.

The Bill dealt with three principal subjects, the first of which is housing. I welcome the fact that £61.6 million will be spent on service housing this year, but if one goes to Lympstone, for example, one sees that an awful lot more money will have to be spent in future years if we are to get the standard of housing up to the level that our armed forces deserve. The £400 million Firstbuy scheme, which will allow some 10,000 service and veteran families to get access to housing, is equally welcome. That is very good news, but 10,000 families is only a start; the scheme will have to be continued in years to come.

Secondly, on education, I welcome the £3 million being put into the pupil premium to help service families. Some years ago, when I was on the Defence Committee, we had an investigation into education. Such a policy was suggested at the time, although it may not have been called a pupil premium, and it is good news that it has been implemented.

Thirdly, on health care, I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire is no longer in the Chamber, because he has done a tremendous job in highlighting the mental health issues of servicemen and veterans. I have seen for myself the very good work that is being done and it is right that we pay tribute to successive Governments for that work. It has not been done instantly in the past 18 months; it has been done over a number of years, and I trust that that will continue in years to come.

I turn briefly to the strategic defence and security review. I was on HMS Portland about two weeks ago, where I came face to face with a young sailor who had been told that he would be made redundant, not voluntarily, but compulsorily. Members of Parliament should come face to face with people in that situation. It was a difficult conversation, which put the whole subject to the fore of my mind. He accepted what was happening, and I found it deeply encouraging that a redundancy programme is being put in place over the next 12 months to ensure that that young man will have the training and resettlement assistance that he needs to go back into civilian life. That is vital and I urge the Government to do more. Under no circumstances can that resettlement package be cut.

In my last few minutes I shall look forward to the future composition of the Army. We are set to have some 112,000 members by 2020—82,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves by 2015. I am particularly interested in the future of the Army in the context of contributing to the Government’s building stability overseas strategy. As we slowly withdraw from Afghanistan and end our commitments in Iraq, there is an acceptance that in future we will have to look at upstream intervention in fragile states. The comprehensive approach across Government, with the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence all coming together like three strands of a rope, will be vital to this country’s future interests. If I am honest, though, I feel that the Government document is slightly light when explaining how that upstream intervention will be carried out.

We all know that every £1 spent upstream can save £4 downstream, and I am delighted that DFID is committing 30% of its future investment in fragile states, but how exactly will we do that? How will we increase defence engagement in future years and grow the capacity of other nations? Will it be done by setting up a series of courses that we can support? With our current UN involvement, only a handful of British armed forces members are in the Democratic Republic of Congo or doing UN monitoring missions around the world. I believe that once we draw down from our commitments in Afghanistan, we can begin to make a real contribution to upstream intervention, and in the months to come I would like exactly how that will be done to be fleshed out.

I will finish with a few comments on the reserves. It will be challenging to get 30,000 reserves by 2015, but it can be done. Of course, only seven or eight years ago we had well in excess of 30,000 members of the reserve forces, and in the 1990s we had 58,000. I am convinced that in our society people are prepared to join the reserve forces, but it will not be straightforward. We will have to invest. We also have to realise that often the only link between Members and the armed forces in their constituencies is perhaps a cadet unit or Territorial Army unit, but the footprint we currently have, which forms such a strong link to our society, might not be the exact footprint we will have in future. It will be hard to find that balance, so it will be testing for hon. Members to find out what that footprint will be in future. Just because we are getting bigger does not mean that the footprint will automatically get wider.

I want to pick up on a point my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made about mobilisations of reservists being almost compulsory. As a bomb disposal officer, I hosted a dinner here on Saturday night for 156 other bomb disposal officers. My old squadron, 217 Field Squadron (EOD), is now part of one of the hybrid regiments, 33 Engineer Regiment, which is a regular regiment. A couple of the young officers—I will not name them, because if I did they would be in front of their commanding officer next week—told me that they are under pressure to ensure that reservists are mobilised rather than their own regular forces, which is causing minor resentment. That is something that the Ministers needs to ensure we address, because the future of our armed forces must be as one Army, in which we work together without resentment between the regulars and the reserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell]

I am obviously grateful for that informed observation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have ensured that that has been conveyed to the Daily Mail and Mr Glover in particular so that the record can be put straight.

All Members can take pride in the armed forces covenant. We should be thinking not just of current members of the armed forces, but of those who have served in the past and their families. In that context, I remind the Minister that the Equality for Veterans Association is calling for pensions for all who have served in the forces, and has presented a petition to No. 10 Downing street.

I also think that we should link armed forces day, for which the last Government can rightly claim credit, with the armed forces community covenant and with the need for an armed forces service medal, which I mentioned earlier.

[Mark Lancaster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on 5 or 6 February next year—I forget the exact qualification date—some members of the armed forces will be potential recipients of no fewer than five different medals for non-operational service?

[Bob Russell]

I was not aware of that. All I am saying is that a campaign has been organised by people who are seeking recognition.

Let me say something about the work of the independent medical expert group and “The Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme—One Year On”, which refers specifically to the issue of noise-induced hearing loss. Earlier this afternoon, I had a brief meeting with representatives of the charity Action on Hearing Loss, formerly the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. They told me that the United Kingdom’s compensation scheme involved a high threshold, and that in the United States personnel with a level of hearing loss half that required in the UK were entitled to compensation. I sincerely hope that that will be addressed in the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the armed forces covenant.

I should like the Minister at some stage to make a statement to the House on the future of the Ministry of Defence police. The last Government slashed the size of the MOD force in Colchester from 30 officers to three. That has had a significant effect on the policing of the Army estate, because the burden has fallen on the Essex constabulary, who do not have 27 officers to pick up the slack.

As for anniversaries and special events, reference has been made to the need for us to prepare for a commemoration, in 2014, of the start of the great war. I hope that we can begin preparations for another commemoration the following year, that of the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. I am sure that—in a spirit of European unity—the French, who joined in our commemoration of the start of the great war, will also join us in commemorating the Waterloo anniversary in 2015.

We have all been shocked in recent weeks and months by the theft of war memorials listing wartime events and the names of those who have died. I cannot come to terms with how anyone could steal such a thing, but they would also have to sell it to someone, and there must be dealers out there who know full well that a memorial of that kind must come from a dodgy source. I think that Government and Opposition should come together to produce legislation preventing people from dealing in that sort of scrap metal, because metal dealers must know that a bronze plaque marked “1914” and listing names and ranks has been stolen.

The issue of the chief coroner has been discussed. It is my understanding that the MOD believes that there should be more specially trained coroners so that the military get a bespoke service by having multiple coroners. It is thought that that would be a better deal. I hope that we can work together on this issue.

I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, on its 90th anniversary, for all it has done, and to all the other veterans groups for all they do. I also pay tribute to ABF The Soldiers’ Charity—formerly the Army Benevolent Fund—the War Widows Association, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Veterans Aid, Combat Stress and Help for Heroes. Without them, the lot of our current and past military personnel would be much poorer. Let me finally say that it is a special pleasure to represent a garrison town.

Afghanistan

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I think that some of the gains already made, such as the education of girls, will be irreversible changes in Afghan society. We have made it very clear that we want to ensure that those gains are consolidated. However, it is not for us to dictate to the Afghan people their agenda for the future. It is for us to ensure that there is a climate of security and stability in which they can exercise their constitutional right to determine the future of their country in a way that does not threaten the security of ours.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

With all due respect to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), may I urge my right hon. Friend to stick to the strategy, and leave the tactics to the soldiers on the ground? Much work has been done in increasing the capacity of the Afghan national Government, but given the need for economic development, which has been highlighted, much more work needs to be done in provincial government, where capacity remains poor, if we are to leave Afghanistan in a stable state in the long term. Will the Secretary of State say a few words on how we will address that problem?

[Mr Hammond]

I am sure that the soldiers would thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will consider it carefully. The Government are very much aware of the need to reinforce governance at local and provincial level. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is focused on ensuring that the UK and the broader international package deals at all levels. I would say to my hon. Friend that the initiative to recruit Afghan local police, which is already bearing fruit in a number of provinces, will continue to help to stabilise the situation at local level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am a half-full man, and the Scottish nationalists seem to be talking about half-empty glasses. I think the hon. Gentleman is quoting extremely selectively from the answer I gave him and, for what it is worth, I share his disappointment about the SME performance. I do not believe the figures or trust them, because they are extraordinarily low. I have seen the vibrancy of the Scottish defence sector for myself on a number of visits and I believe that the share of business is much higher. I invite the hon. Gentleman to abandon his ludicrous plans for an independent Scotland and join me in building a still more robust defence industrial base in Scotland rather than talking it down all the time.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the steps he is taking to encourage more SMEs to bid. One criticism we often hear from SMEs is that they are lured into bidding for contracts, only to lose out to much larger firms at the last round with little or no feedback from the MOD. May I encourage the Minister to ensure that in such cases SMEs get full feedback on why their bids have failed?

[Peter Luff]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very powerful point. If any hon. Member has an example of an SME receiving inadequate feedback from my Department, I want to hear about it. SMEs deserve full feedback. They have an awful lot that they can bring to defence; their innovation and the cost savings they can offer are extremely important and they must be told why they have failed when they do fail.

Defence Transformation

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

It is impossible to give an exact number, but I would imagine that between 6,500 and 7,000, or something of that order, of the 20,000 personnel we currently have in Germany will be coming back to the multi-role brigades in Scotland. The precise number and lay-down will be subject to the plans that the Army will bring forward in the months and years ahead, assuming of course that we have the agreement of the local authorities and the Scottish Government.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I remind the House of my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I am confident that the reserve forces will step up and meet the challenge they have been set today. Indeed, the investment will be most welcome, in stark contrast to the measly £24 million that the previous Government attempted to save in 2009 when they wanted to cut all TA training for six months. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the practice of late mobilisation, which prevents some members of the TA receiving full deployment training with their attached unit, will cease?

[Dr Fox]

I will certainly look at the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters. He is right that we face a challenge with the reserves and correctly points to the fact that it will be a major feat for them to reach the time scales and budgetary spend that we have put forward. Like him, I am confident that they will meet that challenge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman asks a key question. How the transition occurs is of key importance. If there is some political settlement and an orderly handover to a new authority in Libya, the chances of maintaining order are much greater. We are working towards that with the contact group and others, and it makes sense for NATO and the United Nations to plan for all eventualities when we see the back of Colonel Gaddafi, as we all hope will soon happen.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to the work of the stabilisation unit on post-conflict security in Libya. Given the restrictions of the existing United Nations resolution, does he feel that a further UN resolution might be required to carry out that work?

[Dr Fox]

It will depend on the situation on the ground and how benign the environment is. At the moment we do not envisage the need for another UN resolution, and we believe that the orderly handover to the UN and a new Libyan authority should be possible without one. Of course, that is constantly kept under review by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I pay tribute to Major-General McDowall. Although I do not know him, I am sure that he does a very good job. I have of course met Alex Neil, as the hon. Gentleman will know. There has indeed been correspondence. That will not be a surprise to him, as he was in the House on Tuesday when I read out half the letter, but there we go.

The House has agreed that the amendments bring clarity about the principles that the Secretary of State must take into account in preparing his report. I was particularly pleased that they were accepted in all parts of the Committee on Tuesday without a Division, and that they have also been welcomed outside Parliament. The result is clause 2, which establishes the annual report as a route towards achieving real benefits for armed forces personnel, former members of the armed forces and their families.

As hon. Members will know, the Bill has been used to amend the legislation governing the reserve forces. This is an important change, because it will allow us to call out reservists for service in the United Kingdom in a wider range of circumstances than is permitted at present. For instance, we discussed on Tuesday the recent floods following snowfalls in Cumbria, where reservists would have been ideally placed—particularly medical reservists to deliver blood supplies. We also discussed the forthcoming Olympics. There are a huge number of occasions where we currently do not have the power to call out reservists, even should they volunteer.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is long overdue change, and that given the ongoing review of the reserve forces, it will make them much more relevant in years to come?

[Mr Robathan]

I do think it is overdue. It provides the opportunity to call people up in the same way that we can use the regular forces. It also fits in well with the reserve forces review, Future Reserves 2020, which we are undertaking to ensure that this country makes proper use of the reserves. The amendments that we made this week anticipate some of the changes that may be proposed in the review and that the study is likely to recommend when it is published later this year.

When we debated the amendments earlier this week, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire raised a point about the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. She rather threw me because I was not an expert on that Act, but I have now looked up the details, so I should like to take this opportunity to respond to her point. It concerned the Cabinet Office’s red tape challenge, which is a welcome initiative to look at legislation and identify where it is no longer required. One area of legislation to be reviewed relates to employment law. I gather that on the website, under the heading, “Managing Staff”, 127 pieces of legislation are listed for review. I congratulate her on having studied this website, or perhaps on having a very assiduous researcher who has done so for her. The list includes the 1985 Act, which appears at the top of the list only because that is how the list has been ordered, not because it is a particular target for rationalisation. Of course, we carry out reviews from time to time to ensure that our existing employment legislation is appropriate, and we will continue to do so. However, I can assure her that for the foreseeable future it is absolutely our intention that the protection that this Act provides for reservists and employers will continue to remain available.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle]

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

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I should like to speak briefly in support of new clause 12, but I must start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces.

My understanding of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is that it contains three separate sections under which a reservist may be mobilised: section 52, under which no one has been mobilised to date; section 54, which involves war fighting, and under which I was mobilised to Afghanistan; and section 56, to which the new clause relates directly, and under which I have previously been mobilised to Kosovo and Bosnia. I want to underline the points that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) made in his opening remarks. It might seem odd that I am supporting a new clause that could result in my being mobilised even more often, but this amendment to the Act is long overdue.

Speaking from my experience as an explosive ordnance disposal operator, I want to add to the examples that the Committee has already been given. During 2003-04, under Operation Telic in Iraq, we found that as the threat from improvised explosive devices continued to grow, the call on our EOD operators also increased. The Committee might be aware that, here in the UK, we continue regularly to dig up world war two munitions. That constant threat is covered by a 24-hour operation known as Operation Midway, which is based in Wimbish, in Cambridgeshire.

The problem that we faced in 2004 was that, as the threat of IEDs grew in Iraq, our qualified bomb disposal officers were slowly being drawn out into theatre and we were struggling to cover the UK threat. Under section 56, members of the Territorial Army were mobilised to go and sit in Wimbish to cover the Operation Midway threat. It might surprise the Committee that most munitions are normally dug up on a Friday afternoon. They are invariably found on building sites, although probably not on a Friday afternoon. No one wants to interrupt the works, however, so the munitions magically seem to turn up on a Friday afternoon, which is an ideal time for the members of the Territorial Army who come in to play at weekends to deal with the munitions.

The terms of section 56 are clear. Subsection (1)(a) states that a reservist may be mobilised only

“on operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property”.

Clearly, the UK disposal of munitions under Operation Midway does not count in that regard. Subsection (1)(b) states that a reservist may be mobilised

“on operations anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”

Now the problem was that although that might cover UK operations at the time, was it fair to say that the potential digging up of a world war two munition in London was a potential disaster? It was very much a grey area. What tended to happen was that people were mobilised under section 56; they sat in Wimbish for a number of months and then, right at the end of their mobilisation, they would be deployed out to theatre in Iraq simply so they could be “covered” under the mobilisation. That was obviously nonsense, which is why I believe it is so important for the Government to introduce the new clause so that in such specialised situations—along with examples that the Minister provided—we can allow reservists’ actions to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel from his personal experience that if people are constantly going to be asked to serve, it could act as a disincentive to joining the reserve forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am making the point that we must be careful how we use these powers. The point I was coming on to was that an employer might have to give the job back to an employee who has been away on mobilised service, but he does not necessarily have to promote him. Who is going to be promoted—the person permanently at work or the person who comes and goes every two or three years? I support the extension of these powers, but I add the caveat that we must be very careful how we use them. We should not use them in a manner that could act as a disincentive along the lines that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) suggested.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we should be careful how we use these powers. Does he agree that we should also be careful how we communicate them to potential employers, so that they know exactly how the powers might be used and will not disadvantage people in the reserve forces?

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like to commend both this Government and previous ones for the amount of support they have offered to SaBRE—the organisation that does so much to communicate with reservists’ employers.

My final point, on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister, is that the new clause will make no amendments to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which deals with the duration for which a member of the reserve forces can be mobilised. Although it is a fairly complicated clause, the basic point is that a member of the armed forces can be mobilised for a maximum of nine months beyond their enlistment. If I read it correctly, that means mobilisation could run for a period of three years and nine months. It is unlikely that that has ever happened—I know of no example of it happening—but given what the new clause is intended to do for localised UK operations that are likely to be short in their enduring operation, I would ask whether the Minister is happy about the absence of any amendment to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of the reserve forces. Some time ago I was in Iraq and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the commanding officer at Baghdad airport was a reservist. Much good work is done by the men and women of the reserve forces. No doubt there will be greater calls on their time in the future, bearing in mind the likelihood of an announcement in the coming week or two.

Subject to what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) said, I think the amending provisions are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, if we think of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they are perhaps overdue. Unfortunately, we in the United Kingdom are subject to increasing natural disasters, with which I am sure the men and women of the reserve forces are more than adequately equipped to deal. They may well prove a useful addition to the powers that we already have to deal with what are, unfortunately, frequently occurring natural events.

Subject to the points raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, I think that the new clause and amendments are perfectly reasonable, and that the Government were right to table them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. My concern is about how that will happen. I do not believe that the mechanisms have been fully worked through. That is why I want to strengthen the report and the fields that will be included in it.

On new clause 13, the nation demands a great deal from its servicemen and women, as is often stated in the House. They are required to follow orders without question. They and their families are often separated for long periods. Frequent moves, often at short notice, can disrupt family life. Forces accommodation is sometimes remote, making it difficult for partners and children to mix with civilian communities. Service personnel are entitled to expect as normal a family life as their military obligations permit.

Through the implementation of the service personnel Command Paper, the Labour Government worked to ensure that servicemen and women were seen not as ordinary citizens, but as people deserving the very best in public services. However, public services have not and do not always take account of their particular needs, and the Government should work across Departments to ensure that their needs are always taken into account. Major General John Moore-Bick from the Armed Forces Pension Society said:

“There is a unique nature to what armed forces families go through. This is not special pleading. In the armed forces you are asked to do things nobody else in the public sector would be asked to do. It is only right that they should have a special status.”

Governments of all parties must be committed to giving due consideration to the needs of servicemen and women, their families and veterans when it comes to public service delivery, working hard to create a level playing field so that forces families suffer no disadvantage.

Armed forces advocates were established by the Labour Government to identify and resolve policy or legislative issues that might affect the service community. They advise on how public services can best meet the service community’s needs. At present there are a number of armed forces advocates from various Government Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Treasury. This complements the work of organisations, associations and charities that offer advice and support to service personnel and their families.

The advocates network has worked well. New clause 13 would extend the existing network to ensure that all levels of government in the UK are represented and can therefore help to resolve the issues that may disadvantage our service community.

[Mark Lancaster]

What is the hon. Lady’s estimate of the cost of extending that body of advocates?

[Gemma Doyle]

I envisage that the advocates would be drawn from the staff already working in Departments, who are linked into the knowledge that exists and would be a useful point of contact for armed forces and their families interacting with those Departments and public bodies.

During the evidence sessions in Committee we heard time and again from charities that they wanted those with responsibility for the delivery of services to be involved in resolving issues, rather than the Secretary of State or a Minister directing from the centre. New clause 13 would ensure that those involved in service delivery at every level, including local government and NHS trusts, are aware of the special nature of service and of the need to tailor their services accordingly. We have talked a great deal about the need for accountability, and the new clause would ensure that accountability is enhanced by bringing into policy formulation and delivery those who are truly responsible for providing the service that people need.

Libya

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I do not accept that we are at stalemate, as I believe recent events in Misrata have demonstrated. The situation is still dynamic and fluid and we have to respond to the situation on the ground by making tactical decisions. The consideration of whether we should use attack helicopters will be informed in no small part by the tactical call of those closest to it, who make the judgments about what we face.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May I remind the House of my interest as a member of the military stabilisation support group? Will the Minister update the House on the post-conflict reconstruction planning and, crucially, does he believe that it will require a further UN resolution to implement it effectively?

[Nick Harvey]

We already have a stabilisation unit in Benghazi preparing the ground for the post-conflict situation. We would expect the UN to play the leading role in co-ordinating that and there might well be an appetite for EU involvement, too. We are laying the ground as best we can but we are taking these things a stage at a time. The overriding priority at the moment remains preventing Gaddafi and his regime from attacking civilians in Libya.