Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Stewart

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall explain very clearly. The publican’s argument is that these personnel will cause trouble, which is an absurd argument to put forward. I am sure that the Minister and I will agree that there is no reason to expect that men and women who are proud to be wearing their uniform at a civic event will cause trouble. The Bill is narrowly drawn—I am grateful to the redoubtable Kate Emms for her assistance, as ever, in drafting it—and very clear: it would amend existing legislation. Under the Equality Act 2010, a publican can still turn down somebody if they are drunk or if they have a genuine reason to believe they are likely to cause disruption. I stress, again, that this is not a debate about whether there should be exemptions under the 2010 Act, but whether those exemptions should be extended to cover members of the armed forces.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my friend—he is my friend—for giving way. I support him totally. When soldiers, sailors or airmen go out in uniform, particularly dress uniform, they are under a remit to behave in an exemplary way. By wearing the uniform, those boys and girls go out knowing that they are representing their unit, and there is no way, normally, that they would get drunk.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman—who, of course, gave his service to the country for 30 or 40 years —has made a compelling point, on which I hope the House will reflect. As a member of the Defence Committee, he has taken a close interest in this issue, and has championed me and supported my aims. He is entirely right: as the Minister would surely agree, it is ridiculous for a publican to say, “These young men and women in dress uniform are going to cause trouble.” As I have said, the Bill amends an existing Act. Safeguards already exist to enable a shop owner, publican or restaurateur to turn down someone’s custom if there is a genuine fear of trouble. All that we seek to do is extend the umbrella of protection to members of the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is making a consensual speech. On the point about signals, the MOD has previously said that service chiefs have indicated no desire for this measure, but during my time on the Defence Committee and in my many visits to military establishments, and indeed when members of the armed forces come to this place, I am constantly being thanked by personnel who say, “You’re the MP bringing in that Bill. It’s great that someone’s doing it.” My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill has been hugely welcomed by members of the armed forces who no longer wish to be discriminated against.

[Bob Stewart]

It is a signal.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is a signal, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

If the Secretary of State had been paying a bit more attention, he would have heard me say that it is quite clear that he does not intend to respect any such vote in Parliament. I am sorry, but this Parliament, not Ministers of the Crown, should be sovereign. If he is not confident of carrying his plans for the Army in Parliament, something is fundamentally wrong.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In the time that it will take the Bill to travel through the other place, could we have a report similar to the annual report, so that when the Bill comes back to this House for final approval we would have an idea of the real situation? We could thereby avoid this problem completely and, frankly, it might get the approval of my good friend the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).

Maritime Surveillance

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Stewart

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I commend the Committee for its excellent report; I too have had the pleasure of serving under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I would probably bow to no one in my respect for the knowledge that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has of ageing military capabilities. [Laughter.]

[Bob Stewart]

I take that personally; I will get you later.

[Thomas Docherty]

I look forward to being shepherded out safely by the Doorkeepers later.

If the decision about the carrier was the largest financial decision, the break-up of the Nimrod aircraft is probably the most visually impressive one to come out of the 2010 SDSR. I do not think that there is anyone who did not watch those images of JCBs tearing up a multi-billion pound project with incredulity. I shall touch briefly on the lessons that the MOD must learn and things that the Committee has discussed in our subsequent report on defence acquisition.

Quite a lot has been said about the Nimrod model and its role, but other capabilities were deleted as a result of the SDSR. The most notable for maritime surveillance was, of course, the Type 22 frigate, which the hon. Member for Beckenham also mentioned. The Type 22 was, as the report says, originally designed and constructed purely as an anti-submarine warfare vessel during the cold war. In its latter years, it took on a broader role, and the Committee was, I think, unconvinced by some of the MOD’s arguments that that capability had been fully covered. Perhaps the new Minister for the Armed Forces will say something about how that matter is being addressed. I should probably take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to his new role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful comments. I respectfully disagree, in this sense: I was having a private dinner with members of the defence community last night, and we were talking about lack of intellectual curiosity. There were examples that I shall not go into today, but I think that far too often there is a lack of the intellectual curiosity to challenge defence procurement decisions, among those in uniform, politicians—both in the Committee and perhaps in Departments—and civil servants. Too often, Governments have simply gone along with what they are told. But I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that BAE Systems is a major villain in this play. Nevertheless, the current Government need to take some responsibility, and I will explain why shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), who has had to step out briefly, talked about Nimrod and the deterrent. I was actually wondering at one point if I had wandered into a deterrent debate. She mentioned Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has been a friend of mine for more than 15 years. I typed up—I will not say that I wrote—his maiden speech for him, back in the days of 7 Millbank, Mr Brady, when you, too, first entered the House. You will remember—it is not so many years ago—Mr Browne, as he was then, as a new MP. I have a huge amount of respect for Lord Browne, but I respectfully disagree with his analysis yesterday in The Daily Telegraph. It was a thoughtful piece, but Lord Browne—who, as I say, I have known for many years and regard as a friend—has a habit of treating a conversation as a one- way talk, and I hope that what he has actually done is to help to stimulate a broader debate.

[Bob Stewart]

He was a friend of yours.

[Thomas Docherty]

Much in the same way that the hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine, probably.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock made a thoughtful contribution this afternoon, but again I must respectfully say that her logic is back to front. We need to make a decision about the deterrent and then decide, in effect, the relatively minor costs of providing maritime surveillance; maritime surveillance needs to come second. We do not say whether or not we will have a maritime surveillance capability and therefore whether or not we will have the deterrent, but I suspect that we will have that debate on more than one occasion in the next two to three years.

[Bob Stewart]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not just need maritime patrol aircraft for the deterrent; we need maritime patrol aircraft because of our international responsibilities of oversight out to 1,200 nautical miles, and we cannot do that properly at the moment.

[Thomas Docherty]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to that very point shortly.

There has been some discussion already about the joint equipment programme and the whiteboard, and we have touched on the balanced budget. Without prejudging what the Minister might say in response to the debate, I suspect that that might be one of the arguments that he seeks to advance. He knows well my view—and, I think, that of the Defence Committee—and that is a healthy scepticism about the claims that have been made about the size of the so-called black hole and whether or not, in the space of eight months, it has been balanced.

One of the things that concerned us in producing our report was an issue that was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Beckenham: the long-term replacement for the maritime surveillance capability is sitting on the whiteboard, without a funding line and without even a probable time line for moving off that whiteboard and into the joint equipment programme. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will clarify for the House what the status is of the whiteboard. The Minister shakes his head. With the greatest of respect to him, it is difficult for the Defence Committee to believe that the Ministry of Defence has a fully funded JEP and a clear idea of what is on the whiteboard when they will not tell us what is on the whiteboard.

HEALTH

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Stewart

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)

- Hansard -

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who spoke so eloquently about issues relating to the Border Agency.

I would like, if I may, to raise four issues before the House rises. The first is about a constituent who was recently subjected to a serious assault in his own home. There had been a dispute between neighbours and the perpetrator came round and head-butted and assaulted my constituent, leaving him with a broken nose and requiring ongoing treatment for post-traumatic stress. He obviously had to have his broken nose repaired, but he also had to attend a head injury clinic.

It is regrettable, to say the least, that as a result of the changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, my constituent is no longer eligible for compensation, despite all the trauma he has suffered. It is worth pointing out that under Scots law, the serious assault charge brought against his neighbour is the second most serious of all after attempted murder. I hope the Minister will say whether the Government will reconsider such important cases.

Secondly, it is right that we have heard such eloquent words across the House about the Arctic convoy and Bomber Command. Some men and women will not be spending their Christmas with their families and their loved ones because they are serving our nation, often in very difficult and dangerous places. Not the least of those places is Afghanistan, but we have personnel around the world who are away from home in Germany, Cyprus, the Falklands and elsewhere.

Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of the financial challenges that many of those personnel face. I shall use the example of one of my constituents who is posted in Germany. This soldier is now a sergeant, and she has been in the Army for going on 20 years. When she was first deployed to Germany in 2009, she received £650 a month from the living overseas allowance. At that time, she was mother to one child. While she was a single parent, she received the married/accompanied plus one child element and one “get yourself home” claim for her and her child each year, amounting to £180 for a flight or a ferry. As a result of changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence in the last year, she now receives just £350 a month in allowances, although she now has two children and is married. She is more than £300 a month worse off.

Frankly, there is little difference between the rate of support my constituent receives in comparison with what a single soldier receives. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the Government view that as entirely equitable. She receives slightly more in travel allowances with three “get yourself home” payments, but each one has dropped in value. Rather than getting £180 for her and her children, she gets £150, which anyone travelling will know does not really cover the cost of travel from Germany back to Scotland. As she rightly points out, this makes it difficult for service personnel to serve our country overseas. It is particularly difficult for those with young families to volunteer for service in places such as Germany.

On the issue of housing for ex-service personnel, we greatly welcome the military covenant as a step in the right direction. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, which took the legislation through the House of Commons. I welcome the fact that many local authorities are now doing more to support service personnel who are leaving the military. I would like to praise Councillor David Ross, convener of housing in Fife council, as he has taken a particular interest in this matter.

We have a problem, however, in that someone from Scotland whose last posting was in England, Northern Ireland or Germany, will not, on leaving the Army or the other two services, go to the top of the housing register. Such people are effectively at the very bottom. Despite giving perhaps 18 or 22 years of service to this country, such people are treated iniquitously. I hope the Minister will talk to his Ministry of Defence colleagues and write to let me know whether the MOD is going to work with English local authorities and the three devolved Administrations to ensure that, no matter where someone’s last posting is—in the UK or overseas—they will receive equal treatment for housing. That is the least we can do for our servicemen and women.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of the regulation of postal services. The Royal Mail continues to be regulated by Ofcom, as you will be aware, yet its rival services do not have the same level of regulation. Local representatives of the Communication Workers Union have met me, as they have done right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to flag up this concern. The current position allows a firm such as TNT to cherry-pick its services. Whereas Royal Mail has to deliver on six days a week, come wind, rain or—certainly in Scotland—a bit of snow, other companies are not subject to such regulations. The CWU has therefore rightly asked Ofcom to consider taking on a regulatory responsibility for the rival services. They should not be subject to any additional burdens, but they should have the same level of regulation as Royal Mail. Will the Minister write to me, outlining what he is doing to correct this anomaly?

Finally, may I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your colleagues and the whole House a very safe and prosperous Christmas and new year, and may I also thank all those who support us, including the Hansard writers who turn our utterances into something a bit more coherent, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and in particular those in the private office of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House, who do so much good work on our behalf, and who have helped the Deputy Leader in getting his responses right for today?

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). He talked about the military covenant and, as it is Christmas time, I wish to carry on that theme and remind Members of what is happening to our soldiers in Afghanistan. I shall talk about current operations there. We have lost 438 people so far, while 2,000-plus have been very seriously injured, and a considerable proportion of them are triple or double amputees. This year alone, we have lost 43 men killed in action.

The enemy in Afghanistan—the Taliban—is deadly and skilful. When we first went into Helmand in 2006, the enemy took us on very strongly. The Taliban tried to take us on conventionally, face to face. We had our troops in what were called platoon houses, which were isolated and unsupported. That was a mistake. The Taliban surrounded them and tried to take them out in bitter slugging matches. Some of our troops had to spend very long periods in stand-to positions—their sentry positions—and even had to sleep in those positions. In the case of several platoon houses, it was touch and go whether they would be taken out, and only massive bombardment—which was not good, as it destroyed so much around the bases—prevented that. In the end, however, through the long summer of 2006, the Taliban were defeated.

The Taliban then changed their tactics. They turned to improvised explosive devices and hit-and-run tactics—guerrilla tactics. That proved devastating, because our vehicles were not equipped to take hits from land mines. More important, we did not have the helicopters to fly in and get our men when they were hurt or resupply troops. After a while, however, we again got our response right: we got better vehicles and more helicopters.

The Taliban’s tactics therefore changed again. Now they are coming in close to us, using uniformed Afghan national security forces personnel, some of whom are Taliban, but others might just be people with grudges. They are coming in close to our soldiers, who are trying to mentor the Afghan forces to get them as good as possible, so that when we leave they will be in a great position to carry on and secure their country, which is in our interests. Nine of the 43 men killed in action this year were victims of what is called insider murders or, euphemistically, green on blue attacks. We are paying a very high blood price, therefore, and the people responsible are hiding among our friends.

The situation is very difficult for our soldiers, but they have an incredible generosity of spirit. I have spoken to a number of them and the vast majority say, “We can’t do anything else, because if we don’t mentor and keep close to the Afghan national army and police, we will not be doing our duty by them and we will not be supporting our friends, because the majority of the people who come to kill us are not the people we work with. They are usually strangers—strangers in uniform.” Most of our soldiers say, “We’ve got to continue with this dangerous activity. The dilemma is that if we stay close to the Afghan army and police to mentor them, we stand a much greater risk of being killed, but if we leave them, they will think we are deserting them, and we will fail in our objective, which is to help the Afghan national security forces get up to speed.”

Thomas Docherty

- Hansard -

I have the privilege of serving on the Defence Committee with the hon. Gentleman. On the issue he is discussing, I recently had some correspondence with the Minister for the Armed Forces and I would be happy to share that with the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that those responsible for these attacks are a tiny minority of the population. Does he agree that we should recognise the incredible bravery of the men of the Afghan national forces, as many of them face intimidation for having joined up?

Bob Stewart

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Yes, I agree. In the last month, some 700 members of the Afghan national security forces have been dismissed as they are considered unreliable, and the Afghan forces are taking a very high casualty rate, which is greater than our own.

It is extremely tricky to withdraw from a military operation. There are two years to go now, and I am sure our Army will be up to it, because we are good at tricky operations. I want our soldiers to leave with their heads held high, feeling that at least some of the sacrifice has been worth it.

When we went into Afghanistan in 2001 and again in 2003, the mission was simple: to stop the threat that emanated from that country against our country and our allies. Other missions that have been talked about—bringing democracy, countering drugs, improving the lot of women, education—are extremely laudable, but they were not the mission our soldiers were sent into Afghanistan to achieve.

I want us to leave Afghanistan having got it into a condition whereby it will never hurt our country or our allies again. That is the mission I want us to achieve by the time our soldiers leave. If we do that, we will have achieved something. If we do that, at least it will be some compensation to those 438 families who have lost their loved ones. If we do not succeed in doing that, it will not be the fault of our courageous and gallant sailors, airmen and soldiers who have fought this bitter conflict for 11 years. We must not blame them if we do not succeed.

I want to end by sending my personal best wishes to our soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting at the moment. On behalf of everyone in this House, I wish them the very best at Christmas. When we go on recess, their job does not change. They are still mentoring the Afghan national police and Afghan national army, they are still patrolling and they are still putting their lives at risk. I spare a thought also for the families at home who remain terrified that the people from their family who have been sent, at our behest, to do their duty in Afghanistan might not come back or might be hurt. God bless them all, and merry Christmas to them.

Ministerial Statements

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Stewart

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a low opinion of his party’s Prime Minister that he does not consider him to be sufficiently fleet of foot to outfox a handful of Fleet street’s finest, but we are discussing something more substantive than a Prime Minister’s arrival from the tarmac to make a major policy announcement. We are discussing the habit that the Government have fallen into, after just 18 months, of considering no announcement too big or too small to be given to the media before they can be bothered to get around to giving it to the House.

We saw an example of that only a few days ago. The Department for Energy and Climate Change contacted The Guardian’s twitter feed more than half an hour before it was known that a statement was to be made, let alone what the contents of that statement were to be. It is a matter of great regret to many Members on both sides of the House that the Secretary of State and his cohorts have such a low regard for this place that they cannot even be bothered to tell Mr Speaker or the Opposition that a statement is to be made before they tell the media.

[Bob Stewart]

What worries me is that Ministers are supposed to govern, that “governing” sometimes means making decisions, and that there are a heck of a lot of decisions that Ministers must make. Given the flood of decisions that would end up in the House if every single matter had to be referred to it, we should never be able to do anything. Ministers should be allowed to get on with things, and then come to the House to announce particularly important decisions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is proper for a Minister to be allowed to make a quick statement and come to the House as fast as possible in such instances.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contributions. I know that he has had some experience of the perils of leaks in recent days, and that he shares my concern about leaking. However, there are two types of statement.

The hon. Gentleman will not need to be reminded that today’s Order Paper lists no fewer than eight written ministerial statements. We are not talking about the need for every statement to be made orally on the Floor of the House; it is perfectly legitimate to place written statements in the Library of the House of Commons. Some of them are quite important. For instance, the third on today’s list is a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the single payment scheme, a vital subject that is of great concern to many farmers throughout the country. As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I know that the Government have repeatedly failed to meet their obligation to ensure that our farmers receive the money that they should receive, and that is a subject to which the Opposition may choose to return. The key point is, however, that such statements should be made to the House—in either oral or written form—before being punted not just to the “Today” programme, not just to “Daybreak” or the programme that follows it, and not just to “BBC Breakfast”, but to the new media. The constant leaking suggests that it is almost a case of “Anywhere but the House of Commons”.

I believe that the reason is quite straightforward. Let me return to a point made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. This is actually about softening bad news—about trying to get the Government’s version out there. As was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for North East Somerset, there are hundreds of press officers, employed at taxpayers’ expense, whose job is to try to soften that bad news. Unfortunately the country will be given a great deal more bad news over the next three and a half years as the Chancellor’s economic policies continue to fail, as the economy continues to flatline, as the Government refuse to accept the need for a plan B, and as week after week the Chancellor is forced to come back and downgrade his growth forecast. That is why the Government do not wish to come to the House: they do not wish to scrutinise themselves.

Those of us who are historians, or history buffs, often enjoy taking our constituents around the Chambers of both Houses. One of our great pleasures, which I am sure you have experienced, Mr Deputy Speaker, is taking our constituents to the Chamber in the other place and showing them the table at which Winston Churchill stood during the years when the House of Commons Chamber was unavoidably out of action following the bombing in May 1941. We can see the mark on that table that was made when Winston Churchill, who I would argue had more on his plate than any other Prime Minister—not just his Sunday lunch, but all the matters with which he was dealing—banged his hand on it. He came to the House, made himself available for scrutiny and answered questions for hour after hour, because it was important for the country to feel confident that the House of Commons had exercised due diligence and scrutiny.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford—in one of the most creative speeches that I have heard for some time, during which he tried to justify his former flatmate’s leaking of the whole autumn statement the previous weekend—claimed that this was about the public interest.

Volunteering Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Stewart

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

And I will get on with it. I am a 61-year-old father of young children, and I want to take my children from school to sports matches, but I am told by the school that I have to have a CRB check to take two or three people in my car. I am hoping that this sort of red tape can be done away with. I think that I am a fit and proper person.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

You’re a Tory MP.

[Bob Stewart]

I resent that remark from the hon. Gentleman. I hope that this sort of red tape will stop.