Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.

I have in front of me a four-hour speech because I did not quite manage to cover everything that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and the shadow Defence Secretary raised with me two days ago.

As hon. Members will know, in essence, our purpose in this debate is to agree that the Bill has been scrutinised by the House and to wish it well as it moves to the other place. The Ministry of Defence does not often introduce legislation, so this is a task that very few Defence Ministers have the pleasure of performing. As is the custom, I should like to use this occasion to pay tribute to a number of people who have helped during this House’s consideration of the Bill. Before I do so, I should like to discuss some weightier matters.

For the Ministry of Defence, the Bill represents an important step regarding the armed forces covenant. For the very first time, the armed forces covenant has been recognised in statute. Some 10 years ago, people did not talk about a military covenant; that is a relatively recent development. However, everybody, over centuries, has recognised what is meant when people refer to it. The Prime Minister said that the armed forces covenant would be recognised in law, and it will be so recognised through this Bill.

The Bill will have an enduring legacy. Under its provisions, annual reports on the covenant will be required. We are very serious about the covenant. It is not a political fad—something that will be allowed to wither away in a year or so as political fashions change—because the armed forces are far too important for that. We expect that Parliament will want to debate the issues that are highlighted in the report, and I certainly do not see any way in which anything will be covered up. It is right that Governments, of whatever political hue, should be held to account for the way in which they uphold the covenant.

We discussed the covenant at length during the Select Committee stage. Hon. Members have expressed differing views, as have people outside Parliament. The Government have listened to those views and tabled the amendments that were accepted on Tuesday.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware that many, if not most of the public services covered in the covenant are devolved. I am sure that he will join me in commending the work of Major-General David McDowall, the Scottish Government’s expert adviser on veterans’ affairs, for his efforts in this field. Will the Minister confirm that there has been correspondence between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm the delivery of the covenant in Scotland?

[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.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

If the review that is being carried out into the reserve forces comes up with recommendations that would need to be written into the covenant, would it be possible to update it in the yearly report, or would the covenant, as now written, have to await the five-yearly report under the Bill?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raises two points. First, should things change as a result of the reserve forces review that might give rise to something different, that would not necessarily be covered in the Bill as enacted but might require some other form of legislation. Secondly—I am delighted to see the coalition acting as one on this—we have argued all along that we want broad guidelines within the covenant report, not boxes to tick, so the Secretary of State can consider almost anything he likes when preparing his report. Furthermore, the external reference group, or anybody else, can raise whatever they like under the covenant report and our subsequent discussions about it.

To return to the protection of employment for reservists, the 1985 Act will apply to the amendment that we passed to widen the use of reserves in the UK and to all other current operations. I hope that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will accept that assurance as a response to her earlier point, and I will not send her a letter if that is okay.

I think that this is a good Bill. It is the first Bill that I have taken through the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

And the last.

[Mr Robathan]

I might concur. I am proud to have served on the Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill and would like to thank my fellow Committee members, most of whom are here, for the serious and careful way in which they went about their work.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Where are the Labour ones?

[Mr Robathan]

I will resist the cry from behind me to be partisan on this occasion, although I would not usually.

The Committee undertook visits to Chilwell, Headley Court and Colchester, which helped Committee members in their consideration of the Bill. I thank everybody who put themselves out to arrange those visits for us, both here and in those places.

I thank the Select Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his good humour and wise guidance and I thank the Committee staff for their work behind the scenes. There is a gap in my brief because my civil servants said that they could not possibly put in that I would like to thank them. I would like to thank the Ministry of Defence Bill team for the work that they have done on our behalf. Sometimes, they found things marginally fraught, but most of the time they just got on with doing their work in a good-natured way. One has to take tranquilisers if one works for me. [Interruption.] I thought I would get that in before anybody else. I still have not got the letter from the mayor of Bradford, by the way.

We have a good Bill, which has benefited from the scrutiny it has received. I believe that the Bill we send to the other place is in good order. Above all, it contains much that will benefit the many people who have served, do serve or will serve in our armed forces. I wish the Bill well in its remaining parliamentary stages, and I commend it to the House.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has surprised me by giving a much shorter speech than I expected, considering his contribution on Tuesday.

[Mr Robathan]

I am awfully sorry, but I think we need to get it on the record that my speech on the group of amendments on Tuesday was shorter than the hon. Lady’s.

[Gemma Doyle]

I think the Minister will find that I spoke for a shorter time than he did, but, on the basis that my speech was rather more engaging, I took a number of interventions. As such, my speech took up a greater amount of parliamentary time. I shall move on.

I very much welcome and support the Bill, just as I welcome all measures designed to improve welfare for the armed forces, their families and veterans. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment to this issue. As has been said by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, this Opposition will always act in the interests of what is right for our country and will always support the Government when they do the right thing by our forces. In this Bill and the amendments to it, the Government have made progress in the welfare of our armed forces and all service families. The Government have committed to stronger provisions to enshrine the covenant in law. As we have done throughout this process, we will work with Ministers whenever necessary to ensure that the path from rhetoric to reality is as smooth and fruitful as possible.

It is worth reminding ourselves that although the right decision has now been taken by the Government, they acted reluctantly, in the face of public pressure and following much denial from Government Members that any amendments were required. Indeed, on 10 February, at the first sitting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, the Minister stated:

“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c. 21.]

He went on to say that it is a “conceptual, philosophical statement”. I imagine he wishes that he could eat his words now. Although we support the Government, we will scrutinise and form judgments based on their actions and not their words, which have been proved in this process to sometimes be two different things.

Many provisions in the Bill concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in this area, not just through the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill in 2006, but by ensuring that the forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector; investing in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities; increasing access to the NHS for dependants; and introducing the personnel Command Paper, the first ever cross-Government package of benefits.

The military covenant is the bond between the nation and our services. It says that the United Kingdom’s commitment to its armed forces is made in recognition that a career in the armed forces differs from all others. The covenant recognises that service personnel agree to sacrifice certain civil liberties, to follow orders and to place themselves in harm’s way in defence of others. In return, the United Kingdom shall help, support and reward our armed forces, their families and, of course, former serving personnel.

I am still somewhat new to this place—I am not sure how much longer I will get away with saying that—but I firmly believe that one of the most difficult decisions we are asked to make is to ask our service people to put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of this country and to safeguard human rights around the world. I felt that responsibility strongly when we voted on 21 March on action in Libya. I know that Members who have been here longer than me have been even more greatly vexed about these issues in recent memory.

Upholding the covenant is now more important than ever. At a time of unprecedented cuts to the defence budget, when we have seen allowances and pensions cut and personnel made redundant in record numbers, and when there are warnings about the capacity of our forces to perform at the current tempo for 90 days longer, it is vital that all service people have the protection to which they are entitled. The principle that no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service and that special provision may sometimes be needed to reflect their sacrifices is vital. We support the introduction of that principle to the Bill.

It is important, however, that such principles apply to policy making and implementation in all public bodies to ensure that all action undertaken by public servants is in tune with our commitments to the armed forces. I am still concerned, therefore, that the Government amendments did not go as far as they could have gone. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State must only “have regard” to the principles in

“preparing an annual armed forces covenant report”.

That is a limited application of the principles, which we have all agreed are vital. Rather than applying across Government to all issues, the principles will apply to only those issues the Secretary of State deems fit to include in his report. There is, therefore, ministerial judgment about where the principles of the covenant apply, rather than an obligation on all public servants to take heed of them. I hope that the Minister appreciates the difference that I am pointing out.

I support the action that the Secretary of State is taking, and I believe in the Prime Minister’s desire for a genuinely enshrined covenant, but I fear that we will not fully achieve that unless the principles of the covenant are given due regard in all aspects of public policy making. As the Minister knows, I tabled amendments at earlier stages to try to achieve that. I am sorry that we have not persuaded the Government to go quite as far as we would have done, but as you would imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are delighted that the Minister has come as far as he has. Having stated in Committee, as I said, that the covenant would not be enshrined in law, he has now been forced to support amendments that ensure it will be.

When I asked the Minister on Tuesday what had changed his mind, he stated that he had engaged in a listening process. I have to say, we saw very little evidence of that in the Committee’s debates or evidence sessions. I am sure that everyone would be grateful if, at some stage, he provided an explanation of his change of direction.

To ensure that the ambitions that we all hold for the covenant are realised, it is vital that there is sufficient accountability between members of the armed forces and the public servants charged with its implementation. I fear that the Government’s proposed annual report, in which Ministers will report on what they deem fit to report on rather than being obliged to provide an update on all aspect of forces’ welfare, may still be somewhat inadequate.

An annual debate in the House on the covenant is very welcome, but it should not be at the expense of real scrutiny. For the report to be meaningful, the Minister knows that I believe that there needs to be a greater number of fields on which Ministers are compelled to report. I have asked the Minister to explain why he has chosen only the three subjects that are specified in the Bill for inclusion in the report, but he has not yet given a rational explanation of why other welfare issues for which the Secretary of State is directly responsible are not included.The original intention behind the introduction of a covenant report was clearly to allow Ministers to say that they were enshrining the covenant in law, whereas their actions now demonstrate that they knew all along that that was not what they were doing. As such, the Minister will forgive me for being concerned that the Secretary of State will decide which issues to put into and leave out of his report.

My bigger worry is that without a duty on public bodies to give regard to the principles of the covenant, and without a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on a wider set of concerns than is currently included in the Bill, there will not be a thorough examination of the possible issues of disadvantage that we have discussed, covering all relevant responsibilities of the Government.

On accountability, we welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the external reference group, which I understand may now have had a name change, will publish its comments on the annual report alongside the report itself, and that as such its terms of reference will be updated. It would therefore be useful if the Minister confirmed at the earliest opportunity that the change means that the group will now be a permanent body, charged with overseeing the implementation of all policies that relate to forces welfare. I also look forward to his advising us of when updated terms of reference will be ready, and whether they will be placed in the Library for Members to view.

For the enshrinement of the covenant principles to be genuinely meaningful, there must be a proper system whereby service people can report on whether those principles are being upheld. All would agree that the Bill must be about people’s lives, not simply about securing the safe passage of legislation. When asked in a recent parliamentary question who was the legal arbiter of any complaints by service people about the principles of the covenant, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), stated that the chain of command or the Service Complaints Commissioner was responsible. That is surprising, because in her annual report last year the commissioner said the existing complaints mechanism was a

“most ineffective system. It causes extreme delay and fails to deliver justice. It also leads to inconsistencies.”

The very arbiter whom the Government recommend that armed forces use to determine whether the covenant is being upheld says that the system is not good enough.

This is not about creating new rights, it is about the accountability of those charged with upholding the principles that the Government are enshrining in the Bill. The commissioner recommended that an armed forces ombudsman be introduced, and I would be interested to hear what consideration was given to that recommendation. As the Minister did not support amendments earlier in the week regarding the creation of an ombudsman to oversee these issues, I am anxious to find out what measures will be introduced to ensure that our forces have the opportunity to make their own judgments.

[Mr Robathan]

I just wish gently to point out to the hon. Lady, apropos our altercation at the beginning of her speech, that she has now spoken for rather longer than me on Third Reading as well.

[Gemma Doyle]

I am not really sure that that was a substantive intervention, so I will carry on.

The three fields specified in the Bill as being covered by the annual covenant report are devolved, so Scottish and Welsh armed forces or veterans are potentially excluded from any recommendations at all to be made in the report. We need clarification of whether the report will apply to all UK forces and what the devolved implications of the Bill are. On Tuesday, the Minister produced a letter from the First Minister of Scotland. I do not doubt the First Minister’s intentions with regard to this matter, but I know that the Minister will be shocked to hear that the First Minister does not always do exactly what he says he will. I therefore look forward to the Minister confirming his own view of what the devolved implications of the Bill are.

There was some confusion in Committee on Tuesday about the Government’s position on the reserve forces’ employment rights. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment, which he reiterated today. Indeed, I congratulate him on standing up to the Secretary of State for Defence, who refused to give such a commitment just a matter of weeks ago. However, it would be welcome if the Minister confirmed what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office to ensure that all his colleagues are on the same page.

As I said initially, the Opposition will judge the Government on the military covenant on their actions and not on their words. One of the Government’s first major acts since their U-turn on the military covenant is their decision to abolish the Chief Coroner’s Office. The Royal British Legion has called that “a betrayal” of armed forces families that “threatens the Military Covenant.” That very neatly demonstrates the need for accountability and the need for the principles of the covenant to apply to all Government policy.

The Bill would not have prevented that decision, and nor does it provide for servicemen and women who feel disadvantaged as a result to seek redress. The Minister said earlier this week that he could not speak for the Secretary of State for Justice, but I am asking the Minister to speak to him—I urge him to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to do the right thing for service families. However, the Minister should also look at this carefully as an example of why the Bill does not go as far as it could, or indeed should.

In conclusion, the principles of the military covenant ensure that we do our bit for the men and women of our armed forces who serve this country and their families. I welcome the Bill, which has been much improved since we started out. I am delighted that the Government have come so far on this issue, and I look forward to pushing them a little further forward at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I would like first to offer the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who spoke for the Opposition, and the Minister the opportunity to join the reserve forces, because if their combative skills in this place are anything to go by, they would both be welcome in whichever element of the service—

[Mr Robathan]

I am too old.

[Mr Hancock]

One is never too old to give service to one’s country.

I join the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in paying tribute to the two coroners who have dealt with military deaths up to now. I have assisted families who have been through that process, and they have always been very complimentary about the way the coroners have acted, the way they were treated by the court and the way the coroners—they believe rightly—tackled the very controversial issues that had resulted in the deaths of their loved ones. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone who is seriously dissatisfied with the behaviour of those coroners, both of whom rightly deserve to be congratulated and thanked on behalf of this House and all the families who have been through that process.

There are those Members who would like more written into the Bill than the three points in the covenant, but really the list is endless. The three issues identified were those that have been raised most consistently, but that is not to say that the others will be ignored. One benefit of having a yearly review and a report to this House is to give all players—those inside and outside the armed forces, whether former or serving members, and other groups representing them—the opportunity to put into play their points of view. Therefore, not writing things into the Bill is not as relevant as some would want to think. I happen to believe that Members from all parts of the House who have worked as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have tried to put the armed forces at the forefront of their endeavours to be fair.

I also criticise those who do not believe that the covenant is a contract. It is a contract: a contract between the British people, through this House, and the armed forces. Those who have criticised the idea that the covenant is not a written contract are mistaken. At a time when the armed forces have never been held in greater esteem, the people of this country believe that we have a duty not only to honour the covenant, but to make it work for those inside or outside the forces. The idea in the Bill of giving greater independence when complaints are made and dealt with is to be welcomed. However, I am slightly dismayed that we have not done more to introduce a proper ID card for veterans, to give them the same status that veterans have in other countries. I am grateful that the Minister and the Secretary of State have at different times conceded that further consideration will be given to that matter. We need to be sure that we honour our pledge to provide these services through the covenant and through the Bill, wherever they are asked for around the country. It should be irrelevant where the person lives at the time.

The Bill has a number of attractions for people in the armed forces, but it does not really satisfy those who have an interest in the way in which reservists who go on active service are treated when they return. The Select Committee on Defence has taken evidence recently on the way in which returning reserve service personnel are treated—by the health service or by employers, for example. The situation is unsatisfactory in that there is still a sense of exclusion. Returning reservists are not given enough support, for example, when they have problems with their employers.

We need to build into the review of armed forces legislation over the next five years, and into the covenant itself, greater support for reservists who are having trouble. It is often difficult for someone returning to the United Kingdom after serving abroad for six months to deal with problems arising from their employment. Where do they get the help and support that they genuinely need? In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get that sort of assistance, and we must look at that.