Military Covenant

Debate between Pamela Nash and Gemma Doyle

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on our armed forces and the military covenant. Our servicemen and women sacrifice so much in defence of our country, as do their families, and they continue to serve across the world, most notably at present in Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line. Even in recent weeks, some have sadly paid the ultimate sacrifice, including Corporal Channing Day of 3 Medical Regiment, about whom we have already heard. Sadly, she died alongside Corporal David O’Connor of 40 Commando Royal Marines. I understand that Corporal Day was from Newtownards in County Down. She will be terribly missed by her family and by all who knew her. Her death reminds us that no corner of the UK is untouched by terrible sadness and tragedy when our forces pay the ultimate sacrifice.

It is just a matter of days since the nation paused together to remember the fallen. From the thousands of people lining Whitehall to the events in all of our communities, it would appear that the number of people who participate in acts of remembrance is, if anything, rising.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for reminding us about the Irishmen who served in the first world war. My great- grandfather was one of those men—he was a Royal Dublin Fusilier—and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is extremely important for us to remember their service as part of the commemorations of the great war.

I welcome the new Minister to his post. I recognise his commitment to our forces, and I appreciate that, as a former reservist, he will have first-hand experience of some of the issues that we are discussing.

We must bear in mind that, at its heart, the armed forces covenant is first and foremost about people. Labour Members worked hard to strengthen the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2011. We supported the move to give legislative recognition to the covenant, and we will support the Government in seeking to enshrine it at all levels and in all departments of the public sector and, indeed, extend it further.

Today’s debate is timely, given the forthcoming publication of the Government’s first annual covenant report. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House read with interest the interim report that was published late last year. In my view, however, the Government have already done the easy bit, and the next steps will prove to be the real hard work. There is a small degree of scepticism in the services community about the enshrining of the covenant in legislation, and we must ensure that that is not just warm words, but is backed up by action.

None of us particularly wants to be in opposition, because we cannot do all the things that we would like to do, but being in opposition does not mean that we cannot do anything. I was delighted when, earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) launched the veterans interview programme, which involves a range of companies guaranteeing interviews to veterans with the skills that they seek. As Members will know, a number of different charities and organisations operate veterans employment schemes, and that variety is welcome, because we have not yet got it right.

A large number of service people will be “transitioning” in the coming years, and they will have skills and experience that we should use in business, in public service, in innovation, in problem-solving, in leadership, and in getting the job done. We need a better framework for their transition to civvy street, and we need better routes to work. Unemployment is higher among veterans than in the general population, and that should not be the case.

Earlier this month the Government announced the introduction of a kitemark for companies that support their reservist employees, and I think that it could be extended. That possibility was discussed at a recent event organised by Recruit for Spouses and sponsored by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). A kitemark could be awarded to companies that adopt a positive attitude to the employment of veterans, reservists and forces, spouses. If there is to be such a kitemark, it should be a badge of honour, and we should consider how to reward employers who have it. I urge the Government to consider again whether the kitemark could be taken into account in procurement decisions, because we do not agree with them that EU procurement rules would prevent that.

Some veterans, however, must deal with more pressing, urgent issues before they can even think of employment. Some of our veterans are living with extremely serious injuries. When we speak of veterans we tend to think of them as older people, but many are not very old at all, and they want to live their lives. We should ensure that if we can remove a hurdle, a worry or a barrier, we do so.

I welcome the guarantees on prosthetics that arose from the review conducted by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Now that he is a Minister in the MOD, he will be well placed to ensure that those guarantees are delivered. However, I urge Ministers to consider whether such guarantees could be extended to cover other types of health care provision and treatment. I should welcome any details about progress in relation to mental health services and IVF provision.

The whole point of the armed forces covenant is that no one who has served should be disadvantaged by that service, but I hope that we can also use the umbrella of the covenant to highlight examples of excellence in the way in which the forces community are treated, to raise the bar, and to end the postcode lottery method of decision making. Time and again, I hear about people leaving the forces being sent to the back of the queue for local authority housing. Someone who is leaving the forces—and many are not doing so through choice at the moment—and has been in service accommodation will need to find a new home for his or her family. It should not be the case that no local authority will take responsibility for them, or that they can only apply as homeless, or that they do not have a choice about where they can relocate.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will be as happy as I am that most of Scotland is now served by local authorities that are signed up to the community covenant. However, in Scotland that has been hindered by the Scottish Government cuts, which have been handed down to local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government, as well as the UK Government, have a responsibility for supporting local authorities to enact the community covenant and protect our servicemen and women and their families?

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are continuing to see a patchwork of provision across the UK, and it is to be hoped that we can address that problem through the community covenants.

Over the last couple of months a number of cases have been highlighted in Scotland by the Daily Record. Calum Grant served in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Highlanders. He has been told he is likely to be offered a house in about nine years. Scots Guard Jason Eadie also served in Afghanistan and his son has cerebral palsy. He has been told he will wait for about 15 years for a house.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government are sitting on their hands. They say they have issued guidance to local authorities and it is now up to them to sort it out. The Scottish Government housing Minister is also the veterans Minister, however, so he can no doubt arrange a meeting with himself to sort out a solution. He has said that

“the housing needs of those who have served in the forces should be considered sympathetically by local authorities. It is the responsibility of”

councils to ensure that families

“have all their options explained.”

However, knowing what their options are and being listened to sympathetically does not get families a house. It is not good enough to pass the buck to local authorities.

I read the evidence the Defence Minister gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee recently and I am concerned that he may share the Scotland veterans Minister’s view, because he said he wanted veterans to be given “the maximum possible consideration” by local authorities in respect of housing priority. Again, however, consideration does not necessarily get people a house. I say to him and the Scottish housing Minister that we need a framework that all local authorities and housing associations can sign up to. It has to be a framework that is stronger than just giving consideration to, or listening sympathetically to, veterans.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Debate between Pamela Nash and Gemma Doyle

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle]

There should be regret that this Government have raised VAT to 20% with no regard for people in my constituency. Never before have people in West Dunbartonshire been forced to pay £1.36 for a litre of unleaded or £1.43 for diesel, as they do now at some local forecourts. Every time they make a trip to the filling station, they find that it costs them a bigger share of their income to fill up their car.

As we know, the recent spike in the price of fuel has been driven in part by rising world oil costs, especially as a consequence of the crisis in the middle east, but the Government have heaped unnecessary extra pain on people by hiking VAT to 20%, adding 3p to a litre of fuel. It is astonishing that the Government have acted so callously in driving up the cost of fuel, given the pre-election promises made by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats last year. I am sure that I am not the only Member who saw leaflets promising action to keep fuel prices down circulated at the last election by one or both parties, although to the best of my knowledge, the Lib Dems did not even bother using their Royal Mail freepost in my constituency in the election last year.

That the price of fuel at the pumps is now at a record level as a consequence of the Government’s actions is an unforgivable betrayal, but that is of course something that we are getting used to from the Government. The attack on ordinary families’ standard of living goes much further than rising fuel prices driven by the actions of this Government. The VAT hike will cost families with children around £450 a year. Unfair cuts to tax credits, child benefit and housing benefit will further erode the incomes of families who rely on that support.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have failed to recognise the impact that the VAT rise on fuel will have even on products that are protected from VAT, such as food and children’s clothing?

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend makes a significant point. I was about to say that a number of factors are adding up to put intense pressure on family incomes. For example, 1,000 families in my constituency will lose a further £400 a year as a result of the Government’s cuts to the child care element of the working tax credit. What makes that all so much worse is that while the Government are choking off help for hard-working families and recklessly cutting jobs and services, they have given the banks a huge tax cut this year. I know my constituents find it hard to understand how that can be squared with the Prime Minister’s claim that we are all in it together—a frankly laughable claim from a Cabinet of millionaires. [Interruption.] I am sorry if Government Members do not like to be reminded of how many millionaires are in the Cabinet, but I am afraid that that is a matter of fact.

The Government have heaped pain on families, but they could have made a different choice and relieved some of that pain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, the Government could use the £800 million raised from the bank levy immediately to reverse the VAT rise on fuel. Just as the previous Government often postponed fuel duty rises when oil prices were rising, as they are now, the Chancellor should look again at the Budget—that is why he should be here today, listening to the arguments—ahead of the planned 1% rise in April.