Military Covenant

Debate between Pat McFadden and Jim Murphy

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman knows, as I think everyone in Scotland knows, that we do not agree on everything when it comes to the armed forces, but he makes an important point about the impact on wider societies and communities of any base closures. During the last two years or so of the Labour Government, we considered the future of the firing range in the Western Isles, and it was not until we had received a full impact assessment of the impact on the community and the fragile economy of the islands that it was decided to halt the closure.

In Committee, the veterans Minister said:

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

The whole country will be simultaneously grateful to the Minister and disappointed that he has made the Government’s position clear. It seems that the Government’s main line of defence is to attack a non-existent threat. No one is arguing for a set of justiciable rights. No one really wants to campaign for such a thing.

The forces charities themselves said that they wanted the principles defined in law—they did not want new statutory rights—and that is what our motion sets out to achieve. In answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) in the Select Committee that considered the Bill, the Royal British Legion’s director general said:

“I understand the point about rigidity, specific definition and a detailed Covenant being included in law. I am not making that point at all. What I am saying is that the principles of which a Covenant should take account should be clearly stated and understood.”

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s pledge was not made before the election in the heat of a campaign, but after it. In June last year, he said that the Government would have

“a new Military Covenant that’s written into the law of the land”.

Given the clarity of that pledge, will my right hon. Friend care to speculate as to why the Government would not fulfil that commitment?

[Mr Murphy]

That is probably going to be the hardest question I am asked all day. Just why have the Government U-turned on this issue, given that it was not a pre-election promise, but a post-election commitment? It is for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to articulate the reasons for their Government’s action.

I come back to the point about principle rather than statutory obligations.