D-Day 70th Anniversary Commemorations (UK/France)
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Astor of Hever, has made the following written ministerial statement:
On 6 June this year the United Kingdom, along with its friends and allies, will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings—the largest amphibious landing the world has ever seen. The landings, which were crucial to the allied victory in Europe in 1945, will be commemorated on both sides of the English channel.
This year is especially important, as it is the final one which the Normandy Veterans Association will officially mark. Later this year, they plan officially to disband, and lay up their national standards at a service at St Margaret’s church, Westminster.
The Ministry of Defence is working closely with a range of stakeholders including the Normandy Veteran’s Association, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Portsmouth city council and the French authorities in order to ensure that all commemorative events are a success.
Commemorations in the UK
In Britain, it is fitting that Portsmouth, which was one of the key strategic locations along the south coast and from which tens of thousands of allied servicemen left for Normandy, will be the main focus of commemorative activities. Portsmouth city council is organising an impressive line-up of events and activities, with the focus being on the 5 June. I would urge any veterans who are unable for any reason to travel to Normandy to consider joining the commemorations in Portsmouth.
Commemorations in France
In France, there will be three main events on 6 June. These are:
An international ceremony, organised by the French Government, on Sword beach. Heads of State will attend this event. A number of veterans will be invited to attend this event.
A United Kingdom/France service of remembrance at Bayeux cathedral, followed by a special event at Bayeux Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery.
A service organised by the local community and the Normandy Veterans Association at Arromanches.
UK military personnel from all three services will provide logistic and ceremonial support at these events. This work is being co-ordinated and led by the Army’s force troops command. Other events taking place in the Normandy region include ceremonies on 5 June to mark the liberation of Ranville by the British 13 Parachute Battalion—the first village to be liberated on D-Day. Members of 16 Air Assault Brigade will mount a mass parachute drop.
Travel to Normandy for the commemorations
As announced last year, veterans wishing to return to Normandy in June have been able to apply for financial support from the Big Lottery Fund, which has extended its Heroes Return 2 scheme until December 2015. The scheme helps second world war veterans and their spouses, widows and widowers, and accompanying helpers, to undertake commemorative visits.
Access to the commemorations in France
Given the scope of the commemorations, the security required by the presence of many VIPs, and the close nature of much of the countryside, the French authorities have decided to impose an anti-congestion zone in the Normandy area around the D-Day 70 commemorations from 0600 to 1900 on Friday 6 June. Access to this zone will be controlled by means of passes, issued by the French authorities. The Ministry of Defence is working in co-operation with the Royal British Legion, Normandy Veterans Association, regimental associations and others to register details of all veterans and those accompanying them in order that we can ensure that passes are available which will enable our veterans, and those accompanying them, to get to where they need to. This does not include members of the general public wishing to gain access to the area, who will have to apply direct to the French authorities.
Last-minute accreditation and travel
I would ask parliamentarians to do all they can to assist veterans who may come to them between now and June to seek assistance regarding accreditation or travel, firstly by looking at the website below: https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/d-day-70 and then by contacting the Ministry of Defence at: PersTrg-DSSec-CECTMailbox@mod.uk or by telephone on: 0207 218 1431/ 0207 218 7917.
While the Royal British Legion, Normandy Veterans Association and the Ministry of Defence will do all they can to ensure that all veterans are able to attend these important commemorations, please also note that receiving funding from the Big Lottery Fund to travel to Normandy does not automatically guarantee accreditation —this must be applied for separately. I would urge applications to be made as soon as possible to avoid any disappointment.
Armed Forces Pay Review Body (Triennial Review)
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
On 27 February 2014, Official Report, column 25WS, I announced in a written ministerial statement, the commencement of the triennial review of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The AFPRB plays an important role providing independent advice to the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary, and the review has concluded that the body remains fit for purpose, delivering relevant and beneficial functions for Defence, in an appropriate governance framework. The review report makes some minor recommendations to improve the governance arrangements for the AFPRB, which will be taken forward by the Department in conjunction with stakeholders across Government and with the AFPRB. The report also notes that as the management framework for dealing with service personnel issues within the Department undergoes significant change, the relationship with the AFPRB may also need to evolve over time.
The triennial review has been carried out with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders across the Defence community, including the AFPRB. I am grateful to all those who contributed to the review. The final review report has been placed in the Library of the House.
Service Complaints Commissioner's Annual Report
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Commissioner’s sixth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
I would like to thank the commissioner for her latest report, and for the outstanding contribution she has made in improving the service complaints process during her six years in post. More recently, her involvement in the work to draw up the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 13 March, Official Report, column 34WS, has been pivotal.
The report recognises the progress made by the services in 2013, including the introduction of a new monitoring and reporting process to identify and mitigate undue delay in the system. It also raises issues of concern, in particular the apparent increase in bullying and harassment complaints within the Army. I will respond formally to the commissioner once the MOD has considered fully the findings of the report and the recommendations made.
I can also inform the House that I have proposed, and Dr Atkins has accepted, that she should continue in office beyond her currently scheduled leaving date of the end of June. There are two reasons for this. First, it is now clear that the proposals announced on 13 March, including the creation of a service complaints ombudsman, will transform the role of the commissioner. Dr Atkins’ successor will, subject to Parliament approving the necessary legislation, need the right skills and experience to deliver that vision. I have therefore decided to restart the recruitment process, which means that it will not be possible to appoint a new commissioner by the end of June. Secondly, it will be important for the success of the proposed changes that we continue to draw on the considerable expertise and experience which Dr Atkins brings to this area, as plans are worked up in more detail over the coming months. I am grateful to her for her willingness to remain in post, to work in partnership to establish the role of the service complaints ombudsman on a sound and secure footing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
5. What plans he has to increase employment opportunities for the spouses of armed forces personnel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
We know that one of the most important factors in enabling spouses to enter employment is making sure that good child care provision is available at a good cost. In addition to the measures that the Government have taken to help all workers, I am pleased to tell the House that £20 million of the LIBOR funding announced by the Chancellor in the autumn will specifically go to help the provision of child care facilities for service families, particularly the infrastructure. We also have a number of excellent schemes to encourage people to go into employment and to support them to set up their own businesses, as well, of course, as the corporate covenant.
Mr Buckland
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I commend to her the work of the social enterprise Recruit for Spouses, which is doing so much to challenge outdated perceptions of military families always being on the move and to engage with businesses to unlock the potential of armed forces spouses? Recruit for Spouses is based in Wiltshire, and it does a lot of work in both Wiltshire and in Swindon.
Anna Soubry
As it happens, I have heard of Recruit for Spouses and I know that its aims are admirable, and of course we support all such projects. That is one reason why I mentioned the corporate covenant: it is very important that businesses recognise the real benefits they get when they employ people who are married to our excellent service personnel, because their spouses tend to be as good.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister not living a little bit in the 20th century rather than the 21st century? It is not just child care that spouses need, but a tailor-made system that allows them to use their enormous talent for a productive purpose. Could she not do something more adventurous? We are talking about not trailing spouses, but people who give a great deal to this country under enormous stress.
Anna Soubry
I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. I will happily go into more detail. We have programmes in place with the Royal British Legion Industries and the university of Wolverhampton, which run workshops specifically for spouses on finding jobs and on helping them to start businesses, so, on the contrary, I am far from living in a previous century. I do not underestimate the issues. I have spoken to various families’ federations, which told me in no uncertain terms that child care costs and the availability of good provision are absolutely critical. The hon. Gentleman should welcome my announcement of £20 million of LIBOR funding. I do not think that he matched that when he was in Government.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
19. As a graduate of the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the privilege of learning about all aspects of military life, including the ability to settle in one location thus enabling military spouses to find and to keep down regular employment. What estimates has my hon. Friend made about whether the return of British troops from Germany will help increase the opportunity for spousal employment in the future?
Anna Soubry
That is a good question. We believe that the return of units from Germany offers a major opportunity for more service families to lead more stable lives, and we also know that that is important. It is vital that Government, local authorities, employers, the Army and the other services work together and plan carefully. A good case in point is the great work that is being undertaken by Rutland county council and its partners. Let me give one quick example of that. Its latest initiative is to hold a job fair at Kendrew barracks next month.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
6. What recent progress he has made on the Army 2020 proposals.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
9. What progress he has made on using funding from LIBOR fines to benefit former and serving military personnel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
The short answer is that a great deal of progress has been made. As Members will know, in December 2012 the Chancellor transferred £35 million from fines levied on the banks following the LIBOR scandal. The whole of that £35 million has now been allocated to almost 100 projects that will provide support to members of the armed forces community. In addition, we can now look forward to the £40 million recently announced for the veterans accommodation fund, the £20 million about which I have already given details and, in perpetuity, £10 million each year for our service charities.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. Will some of the money from the LIBOR fines be used to deal with the awful mental illness that comes to those who have lost loved ones in conflict, and to help the families of those who have suffered mental health problems after spending time overseas in conflict areas?
Anna Soubry
I am happy to confirm that Cruse Bereavement Care, a wonderful charity that comforts bereaved people—not only service families but anyone who has lost someone—has received £500,000 of LIBOR funding. An additional £2.77 million has gone to Combat Stress, and SSAFA has a number of projects that have benefited, to the tune of £2 million. I hope that shows that we take this work very seriously.
Andrew Stephenson
Finding the right accommodation for veterans who have been wounded or injured is an important part of upholding the duty we owe them for their sacrifice. What assistance is the Ministry of Defence providing to ensure that veterans with a housing need are properly supported?
Anna Soubry
As I have explained, £40 million of LIBOR funding has been set aside specifically for what we are calling the veterans accommodation fund. It will make a big difference, and is available to fund the building of purpose-built accommodation and the purchase or refurbishment of existing housing. The bid criteria have been published and the fund is open for applications now.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the economic effects on west Fife of the Queen Elizabeth class carrier programme.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to strengthen the armed forces covenant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
We continually review areas where we can make a difference, from home purchase schemes and health care to transition and increased pupil premiums in schools, and our approach is making a difference right across the armed forces community. Upholding the covenant is not a matter just for the Government; it is the responsibility of the whole of society. Charities, employers, local authorities and individuals are all asked to recognise members of the armed forces community and give them the respect, support and fair treatment that they so richly deserve.
Mr Raab
A 2012 survey showed that one in five of our armed forces received abuse back home, and 6% were victims of violence. I do not think we need to legislate for new offences, but is my hon. Friend satisfied that the police properly investigate all allegations, and has she considered with other Government colleagues the case for raising the sentence for criminal violence harassment where it deliberately targets serving British troops?
Anna Soubry
As my hon. Friend will know, different offences relating to violence have different sentences attached to them. I do not think there is a case for raising those sentences overall, and the sentencing guidelines make it clear that if somebody is assaulted by virtue of their being in the armed forces, that is clearly an aggravating feature and as a result, in simple terms, the perpetrator receives a higher sentence—and rightly so.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
In opening, the Minister rightly mentioned transition. Given the concerns about members of the armed forces’ transition that were highlighted in the recent review by Lord Ashcroft, which of his recommendations will the Ministry of Defence be taking forward?
Anna Soubry
We are considering all the recommendations in Lord Ashcroft’s report. On balance, it was a positive report, and it shows what many of us know—that when our personnel transit out of service, they do so extremely well. They are more likely to find a job than other members of society, because of the remarkable skills that they have, often as a result of the experience that they gained as members of our military. On balance, things are working well, but that does not mean that we cannot do more. We are looking at that report and at improving things, and much of the work I am doing leads to that.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
On Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Service Complaints Commissioner would become an ombudsman, for which the existing commissioner, the excellent Dr Susan Atkins, and the Defence Committee have been calling for years. Does the Under-Secretary agree that this very welcome move will mean that the complaints system will be both quicker and fairer, and will help to bring in more aspects of the armed forces covenant?
Anna Soubry
Absolutely. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend in his assessment of the benefits of this new system. As he says, Dr Susan Atkins has welcomed this greatly, and may I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the great work she has done? I notice that the Royal British Legion also welcomed these changes. The new system will do exactly as he says: it will help to speed things up, and where there has been maladministration the service complaints ombudsman will not shirk from making recommendations to the Defence Council, and we will see huge improvements.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
12. What progress his Department has made on its procurement of three new offshore patrol vessels from BAE Systems.
Armed Forces Pay Review Body (Triennial Review)
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB), an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB).
Triennial reviews of NDPBs are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring, and improving, the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.
The AFPRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members of the armed forces.
The review will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing NDPBs, and will focus on the core questions of effectiveness and good governance. It will be carried out in an open and transparent way, and interested stakeholders will be given the opportunity to contribute their views.
I shall announce the findings of the review in due course.
Red Arrow Hawk XX177 (Service Inquiry)
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I wish to inform the House of the findings of the service inquiry into the accident involving RAF Aerobatic Team Hawk T Mk 1 XXI77 on 8 November 2011, in which Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham was tragically killed.
On the day of the accident, Flight Lieutenant Cunningham was undertaking pre-flight checks at RAF Scampton when the front cockpit ejection seat firing sequence was inadvertently initiated and he was ejected from the aircraft. The main parachute failed to deploy and he sustained fatal injuries.
A service inquiry was convened by the director general of the Military Aviation Authority to examine the cause of the accident and to make recommendations to prevent recurrence. The service inquiry panel has conducted an independent, thorough and objective inquiry and its report has been completed.
A copy of the full service inquiry report has been provided to relevant defence stakeholders to ensure the timely dissemination of these air safety lessons. The recommendations have all been addressed or are in the process of being addressed.
The coroner’s inquest into the death of Flight Lieutenant Cunningham has now concluded. As such, a copy of the service inquiry, redacted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, is being placed in the Library of the House today and on the gov.uk website.
Advisory Group on Military Medicine (Triennial Review)
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
On 5 December 2012, Official Report, columns 57-58WS, my predecessor the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, the commencement of the triennial review of the Advisory Group on Military Medicine (AGoMM). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
AGoMM plays an important role providing independent, specialist advice to Ministers and senior officials on the policy for medical issues within medical force protection, and for clinical treatments used on military operations.
The review concludes that the functions performed by AGoMM are still required; however, it should be delivered as a public sector working group rather than the current model of an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the body in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes a couple of recommendations in this respect, mainly around the publication of unclassified information about the work of AGoMM and its membership; these recommendations will be implemented shortly.
The full report of the review of AGoMM can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
6. What recent progress his Department has made on its study of the surrender of armed forces widows’ pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
Under the 2005 pension scheme, widows and widowers retained their benefit for life. The older schemes are of course subject to Treasury rules, which is no doubt one of the reasons why the previous Government did not amend them. If we were to make changes for our service personnel, we would have to do so for all public service pensions, and it has been estimated that that would cost about £3 billion. I know that this has disappointed many, but I can see no prospect of the rules changing.
Julie Elliott
I thank the Minister for that response, but there is real confusion among widows, with many unclear about which scheme they are under. What steps are the Government taking to provide widows with the information they need to make informed decisions on their future?
Anna Soubry
There are all manner of helplines and organisations available to any widow and widower who is in any way confused about what scheme he or she may be under. I urge the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who have constituents with such complaints to come my way, but an extensive system is available through the various charities and the armed forces to ensure that everybody is fully informed.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Lord Astor recently revealed that it would cost in the region of £250,000 a year to put this matter right, and that the Ministry of Defence spends about £50,000 a year enforcing the current rules. I appreciate that there are concerns about the impact on other pension schemes, but there is support and agreement across the House for special provisions to be put in place, where necessary, for the armed forces community. The Minister will appreciate the difficulties for armed forces spouses in building up their own pension pots, so may I urge her to look again at this matter?
Anna Soubry
I can assure the hon. Lady that this is a matter I am always considering, because I know of the representations from the Forces Pension Society and the War Widow Association of Great Britain. The difficulty is that this is not within our gift; it is a matter for the Treasury. The very important point to make is that if this is done for the armed forces, others will come forward. Presumably, that is why the previous Government did not do it. One could imagine that the widows and widowers of police officers and fire officers would make just the same sort of case.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the proportion of women in senior military posts.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
13. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the mental health of armed forces veterans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
This obviously remains a huge priority for me and other Ministers. One of my first actions after I was appointed was to go to the King’s Centre for military medicine and meet Professor Sir Simon Wessely and his team, which was one of the most enlightening and indeed informative visits that I have made. He discussed with me the state of health of our veterans, and in particular their mental health, which is actually as good as, if not better than, that of those in civilian life. However, when our veterans have mental health difficulties, they must remain a priority for treatment.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. My constituent Anthony Gibbs, who came to see me in my surgery, is a very brave young man who served in Northern Ireland and a number of other places. His service led in subsequent life to severe post-traumatic stress disorder, and he still has very severe mental health problems. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), wrote a report—which the Prime Minister told me last year was being fully implemented—on this issue, but it is quite apparent that things are still going wrong. I hope my hon. Friend will agree to a meeting with me and, if he will come, Mr Gibbs, so that she can have further conversations with her colleagues in the Department of Health and we can start to get this right for the brave young men and women of our armed forces.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend has written me a letter, which I have before me. All those proposals have been implemented, but we are conscious that GPs, for example, do not always refer people for the treatment that they need. We have discussed the issue at length with the Department of Health. I am not saying that this cannot be done, but it will be difficult, because we cannot tell GPs to make the referrals. I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
14. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans of nuclear weapons tests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
It is important for me to make clear that the Government continue to recognise, and be grateful to, all the servicemen who participated in the British nuclear testing programme. Like all veterans, they are entitled to a comprehensive range of support from the veterans welfare service at the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, which can also put them in contact with other organisations that can help with specific issues.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am sure the Minister is aware that, according to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, nearly half the descendants of those veterans have experienced some kind of congenital problem such as illness or disability, while the veterans themselves are particularly susceptible to cancer and other diseases. Will she consider establishing a benevolent fund to support those who are still suffering the after-effects of nuclear tests?
Anna Soubry
We had a lengthy debate in, I think, Westminster Hall on this very issue. I am aware of the argument that is being advanced by the survivors, but there is no evidence to support their claims, and I do not think that it would be right to set up a £25 million benevolent fund when no proper basis for it has been provided. I am always available to listen to arguments, but so far I have heard no good argument to support that case.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend ensure that the nuclear veterans data are shared with other parts of the national health service, so that it can deal with some of the issues that may arise?
Anna Soubry
I cannot see any difficulty with that. As long as people have given permission for their data to be shared, it seems to me to be eminently sensible.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty
If the hon. Gentleman shows a little forbearance, he will see where I am going with the argument.
A number of examples were cited. In the interests of making progress today and not getting bogged down, I will not talk about them all, but I want to mention one specific case. A young soldier from Bolton—coincidentally, he was also called Lee—phoned in to a Radio 5 Live programme on the morning of the BBC’s day of coverage on the issue. He said that he had returned from a tour in Afghanistan for a couple of weeks of well-deserved rest and recuperation and to see his family. It was the first time in three months that he had been home from deployment. He got off the train at Bolton quite late on the Saturday evening. He was in his uniform and had his bags with him. He was set upon by four or five drunken yobs. When the police caught them, the reason they gave for the assault was that they wanted to prove “how hard they were”. Those five brave yobs had attacked one soldier going about his business, having returned from service. I hope that answers, to an extent, the question the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) asked. While we see the attack in Woolwich as the most extreme and horrific example, there are examples reported every month.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
indicated dissent.
Thomas Docherty
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shakes her head. I would be grateful if, when she replies, she sets out why she so adamantly opposes providing support to members of our armed forces and protecting them from that kind of attack.
Anna Soubry
I was not shaking my head because of any desire not to give our armed services personnel all the support and protection they require; I was shaking my head because four or five yobs setting upon a soldier in order to prove, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, how hard they are is certainly not in the same category as the appalling murder of Drummer Rigby, or indeed in the same category as discrimination. I know that I am a lawyer, but those are different jurisprudential matters and there is a real danger, especially with this type of legislation, of confusing the issues. I will explain that later in my speech, but I wanted to set the record straight that I was not shaking my head for the reason that was alleged, but because I disagree that we can liken four yobs trying to show how hard they are and discrimination against armed forces personnel.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister for that attempt to clarify her position. I hope that she will have another stab at it later on.
The key point is that such attacks are too common, and that is unacceptable to this House and to the country, as I know from the feedback I have had not only from my constituents, but from the number of people who have contacted me, particularly since the summer. Indeed, there are people in the House service who have told me only this week how delighted they are to see the Bill coming forward. It is about sending a clear signal that we stand with those who risk their lives for our country to protect our freedoms and that it is unacceptable to attack, physically or verbally, a member of the armed forces because of that service.
I do not wish to try to take the Minister’s argument apart just yet—I will hear what she has to say first—but I suspect that on this occasion the Ministry of Defence, building on her point, will say that it is very difficult to look into somebody’s mind. With the greatest respect to her, this is an amendment to an existing criminal justice Act. Actually, the hon. Member for Shipley makes a valid point about this being a criminal justice matter. If the Minister wishes to go to the Library and get out the Hansard report from 2003, she will see that the debate was had then about how in principle to go about determining the motivation. The key point is that the Bill is a simple amendment of that existing principle. The Minister—and I forgive her for being a lawyer, as I am sure the whole House does—knows that it is the job of lawyers to prosecute and make their case. It will be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to set out why the motivating factor was the fact that the victim was in uniform rather than a general disagreement or some other factor.
Thomas Docherty
That is exactly the point I am coming to. The landlord said that the sailors were in uniform and therefore likely to cause trouble. I think the House will agree that that is absolutely absurd. Our young men and women serving in the Royal Navy, wearing dress uniform, in the middle of the day, when entirely sober, are not likely to cause trouble. The House will think that an absurd and ludicrous argument, and it goes to some of the prejudices regrettably still facing members of our armed forces.
On this point, the previous Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, made some valid points a couple of years ago. He said that our country was undergoing a cultural change and that the perception of our armed forces was changing. I am sure that a few years ago there was the perception that groups of young squaddies or officers were likely to cause trouble. The service chiefs and the chain of command have worked phenomenally hard— [Laughter.] The Minister seems to be chuntering something about this being ridiculous. If she wants to explain what she thinks is ridiculous about the debate, I would be happy to give way. I think this has been a good and thoughtful debate and I regret that she is not approaching it in the manner—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Anna Soubry
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conversation between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) had nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Thomas Docherty
I was in two minds about whether to mention this, and it is with some regret that I do so now. If I were being charitable to the Department, I would say that it had not entirely fulfilled the expectations that were raised at approximately this time last year. The hon. Gentleman was present at the time, and made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.
The Minister and his officials undertook to look into the issue, and to include their conclusions in the 2013 Armed Forces Covenant annual report. Earlier this year, during defence questions, I asked whether a Minister would meet me, but although I was given assurances, and although I chased the matter up several times, no such meeting, either with a Minister or with officials, was forthcoming. I find that very disappointing. Moreover, the 2013 report—which is, of course, available in the Vote Office—makes no mention of any study building on the work of Lord Ashcroft.
Anna Soubry
I should be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter in greater detail. However, page 54 of the report deals with precisely this issue of discrimination against members of the armed forces.
Thomas Docherty
It is true that there is a passing reference to Lord Ashcroft on page 54, but, with the greatest respect, it does not meet my expectation that Ministers would look into how widespread the practice was, although a clear undertaking to that effect was given last year. It merely restates the officials’ existing position. There is no examination of how often discrimination takes place, how widespread it is, or what types of discrimination are involved. Let me read the offending two sentences to the House:
“Our view is that, in the last year or so, the extent of public knowledge and sympathy for the Armed Forces has continued to grow—aided by the Community Covenant and the new Corporate Covenant. We therefore continue to believe that education, rather than legislation, is the key to eradicating the kind of behaviour that we all abhor.”
That is all motherhood and apple pie, but it does not meet the undertaking that was given last year to look at the Ashcroft report in detail and to follow it up. There is no mention of HMS Edinburgh, and no mention of any of the other instances of which we have heard from all over the country. The MOD claims that the figures cited by Lord Ashcroft—it is not for me to question the veracity of Lord Ashcroft’s figures—are not the whole picture, but no evidence is presented to show that those figures are wrong. There are no facts to back up the MOD’s assertions.
To finish on a consensual note, let me say that I do take the Minister at her word. I accept that she believes that that protection is sufficient, and I will take up her generous offer and meet her to discuss how to take this matter forward, but, 12 months on, this issue continues to be a problem. This is not a debate about how one measures the motivation. That is covered by the two Acts in 2003 and 2010. This is not about “Would the Crown Prosecution Service have an ability to demonstrate this in the courts?” That is already covered in the debates that took place a decade or so ago. This is a debate about whether we in this House believe that members of our armed forces and their families who risk their lives to protect our freedoms deserve to be given the greatest level of protection.
I commend this Bill to the House, and I look forward to it receiving a speedy passage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on bringing this Bill before the House. Like the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), I thank and congratulate all those who have contributed to the debate. I share his observation that this has been a very good debate. In particular, let me single out my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who made one of the best speeches that I have had the pleasure of hearing in this place. He said that he was not a lawyer, but he spoke with all the jurisprudential knowledge and understanding of one. I fully endorse all that he said but, if I may, let me make only one criticism. Every time he said soldier, I would add, “sailor, airman or airwoman” to reflect all members of our armed forces.
I disagree with my hon. Friend, however, about what he would call the downside of those great Acts of Parliament that have sought to end discrimination in our country. The Race Relations Acts and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are huge achievements that have changed our society. I was brought up in Worksop and I well remember what it was like when I was a child. I remember with some horror, watching a documentary—in fact, I think it was in Birmingham—in which signs in boarding houses said “No blacks.” It is inconceivable. My children cannot believe that that ever happened in this country.
Anna Soubry
We know that, sadly, there is still racial discrimination, but goodness me, the scale of it now is much smaller than the scale that we remember from when we were young. I think the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) is about the same age as me. Of course I will give way.
Mr Hamilton
I recall that when we went to Blackpool, which was a favourite haunt of the Scots, the signs read, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”, all on the same sign. It was outrageous.
Anna Soubry
Indeed. I do not want to dwell on it for too long, but my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made a point about those great pieces of legislation and why we introduced them. We did it because we recognised that there was a deep-seated long-standing discrimination, prejudice or intolerance that we no longer tolerated. In order to cure that great evil, those great pieces of legislation were properly passed by this place.
Rory Stewart
I just want to put it on the record that what I was hoping to argue—perhaps I was not articulate enough—was that that legislation has, of course, been one of the great achievements of our age and something of which we should be proud as a civilisation but it was also cumbersome, difficult, sometimes futile and sometimes perverse and should therefore not be extended too widely. As an achievement, it has been extraordinary. The change to cultural attitudes is something of which we should be deeply proud.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for that intervention.
Let me turn to this Bill and why I would argue against it. It is not that I do not share any of the sentiment and many of the concerns that have been articulated. If I thought for one moment that there was the widespread prejudice, discrimination or so on against members of our armed forces in our society in the UK that is being suggested, I would not hesitate not only to support the Bill but to introduce and make the case myself. As yet, however, I have not heard such a clamour at my door as the Minister responsible for personnel, welfare and veterans.
Thomas Docherty
I agree with the Minister that this has been a good debate. On the specific point about the evidence, if the MOD sincerely does not believe that the Ashcroft study is a fair reflection of the situation, will the Minister undertake that, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has already suggested, the MOD will do its own work to refute the Ashcroft evidence? That is the only study out there and it shows high levels of discrimination.
Anna Soubry
I shall deal with the Ashcroft study in a moment, but let me make it absolutely clear that I listen to any arguments that are made. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no clamour at my door at all. My understanding is that there is no demand among our armed forces for such legislation. I understand that we disagree, but let me explain one important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made an extremely important point about the law and protections that already exist. It is incredibly important that we remember that. Of course, an assault is an assault, and where the police believe that there is evidence to support a charge, they charge, and in due course the Crown Prosecution Service considers the evidence and decides whether to proceed to a full court hearing.
I remind the hon. Member for Gedling that the CPS’s own documentation makes it clear that the CPS has a duty, when it believes that there has been an assault on somebody because of their public service, to bring forward a prosecution and to do everything it can to ensure that that prosecution is successful. In its code of practice, the CPS recognises that it should pursue prosecutions for assaults on public servants.
That is reflected in the sentencing guidelines, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has already referred to. Perhaps this point is not understood widely and I hope to ensure that people understand it: when a judge considers sentencing, they consider the mitigating features that might be advanced on behalf of the defendant and then the aggravating features that might be advanced by the prosecution. It is absolutely clear that an offence against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public is an aggravating feature. That means that if the custodial threshold is passed, any sentence of imprisonment is automatically increased by the judge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has already made the point about people working, for example, in jobcentres or accident and emergency units, including nurses and security staff, who are sometimes assaulted. Indeed, there was a spate of assaults against nurses and other workers in A and E units, and the provisions about the aggravating features in the sentencing guidelines were highlighted, so that judges were left under no illusion whatever that if someone assaults an individual purely because of their public service—including, of course, members of our armed forces—that is a seriously aggravating feature.
In short, the law currently provides the special protection for members of our armed forces, and indeed all public servants, that we would expect, and there is no need to change it.
Mr David Hamilton
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. This is getting worrying; in my 13 years in Parliament, this is the second time that I have agreed with the Conservatives on something. Will she undertake to ensure that what she said is also the case under Scottish law? Scottish legislation was changed last year to do the same things that are being done in England. Can she ensure that what she has said also applies to the armed forces under the Scotland Act 1998?
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, what I have just outlined did not require laws to be changed. Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales are set by the Sentencing Council, and of course the direction to the CPS comes from the office of the Attorney-General.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me: although I worked in Scotland for about three or four years and had the great pleasure of appearing in the sheriff court—I digress—I am not entirely familiar with the Scottish legal system. However, as I say, establishing the aggravating features did not require legislation, and knowing that Scottish law is—with few exceptions, I would have thought—extremely good, I would be surprised if there was not provision within existing Scottish legislation to ensure that these aggravating features are set out.
A mistake that we often make in this place is to think that if we have not passed a law, we have not sought to cure an ill that we have identified. The hon. Member for Gedling made the good point that there are occasions when this place has rushed into legislation. The legislation on dangerous dogs is a really good example—that was created under a Conservative Government, so I am not making a cheap party political point.
There is a danger of rushing into legislation. I would even go so far as to say that at times in this House we become slightly over-sentimental. The sentiment in the House is absolutely right, because we all pay tribute to everyone who serves their country as a member of the armed forces and know of the huge sacrifices that they are prepared to make, but that should not cloud our minds into seeing people in our armed forces as a special category—other than perhaps that they are even dearer to our hearts than others who serve our country, such as those in the police, and the ambulance and fire services—although we know that they regularly put their lives at risk and we have great respect for them.
The hon. Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Gedling talked about current public opinion of our armed forces personnel, which I do not think will diminish. We see people turning out not just on Remembrance Sunday, but for home-coming parades. When I visited the home-coming parade at Stapleford in my constituency only last year, on a really wet, cold and miserable May day, I was staggered that one simply could not move as the streets were literally jam-packed.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was right to raise the important point of the Ashcroft report. I am told that the report was based on a survey of about 9,000 service personnel that was conducted at the end of 2011. Those people were asked to talk about their experiences over the previous five years—since about 2006—which is important because, as we have heard, there has been significant change in the attitude of some sections of society to our armed forces.
Some 61% of personnel who responded to the survey said that they rarely or never wore their uniform in public in everyday situations in the United Kingdom. More than half all personnel, including two thirds of Army respondents, said that strangers had approached them to offer thanks or support while they were wearing their uniform in public. I suggest that that figure would now be considerably higher, given when the survey took place and the fact that it investigated the previous five years.
Anna Soubry
I will, but first I want to conclude this important part of my speech.
Some 29% of respondents said that strangers had offered to buy them drinks or similar, while a quarter, including a third of Army respondents, had received spontaneous offers of discounts in shops or other businesses. With the work of the covenant and through various schemes such as the blue light card, an astonishing number of businesses—often small, independent ones—are offering special discounts to our armed forces personnel and veterans, which demonstrates the huge shift in public attitude.
Anna Soubry
I suspect that this is the bit that the hon. Gentleman will like. Actually, I do not mean “like”, because I know that these statistics trouble him, but they do relate to the purpose of his Bill.
More than a fifth of respondents had experienced strangers shouting abuse—that might not in itself, in any event, be a criminal offence—and 18%, including a quarter of Royal Marines, had been refused service in pubs, hotels or elsewhere. More than one in 20 had experienced violence or attempted violence while out in their uniform in the United Kingdom. Of course that is concerning, but the figure is one in 20.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister is sincere in questioning whether the data are correct, so will she give an undertaking that the MOD will carry out a survey this year so that we can have the updated figures?
Anna Soubry
I am absolutely not able to say that I will ask my team to conduct a survey, but I absolutely undertake, and I know that my predecessor did this, to ensure that we are alert to any increase in discrimination or prejudice towards, or assaults on, our servicemen and women. The reality is that since my predecessor gave such an undertaking, we have kept ourselves absolutely alert, as hon. Members would expect—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gedling suggests from a sedentary position—that is not a problem; it would be wrong for me to complain about him doing that, given that I did quite a lot of it myself—that that is not reflected in the report, but we are not aware of any increase or problem. We are not receiving from our armed services the various representations—
Reserve Forces
Anna Soubry Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McKenzie
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department provides to employers to assist employees who are army reservists; and how their skills will enhance the employer's company.
[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 15-16W.]
Letter of correction from Anna Soubry:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Iain McKenzie) on 6 January 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Anna Soubry
SaBRE-Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers-is an organisation supported by the Ministry of Defence which is positioned to provide support to both reservists and employers. It maintains a website
www.sabre.mod.uk
that provides information for employers including detailed advice on the benefits of employing reservists and examples for companies of HR policies tailored to reservist employees. SaBRE also operates a telephone helpline that is available for both reservists and employers to address specific inquires. Further, each of the 13 Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs) has a Regional SaBRE Campaign Director able to provide a personal, face-to-face service for employers at a local and regional level.
In the White Paper ‘Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valued and Valuable’ (Cm 8655) the Government pledged to improve the relationship between Defence and employers. Financial support is given to assist employers to recruit staff or to cover overtime to fill an absence left by a mobilised employee. An incentive payment of £500 per employer per month is also available to some small and medium enterprises. Under our fresh approach to the Reserves, employers will have greater awareness and predictability of when their staff may be mobilised.
Reserve Service will benefit different employers in different ways. For some, the improved skills, experience and training of the individual reservist will be beneficial. For some, where the reservist’s military role is close to their civilian one, there will be more benefit from transferable skills.
For some companies and sectors, Reserve Service suits and supports their business models. Reserve Service might support corporate social responsibility objectives and be part of their social action plans, alongside any wider volunteering policies.
The correct answer should have been:
Anna Soubry
SaBRE-Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers-is an organisation supported by the Ministry of Defence which is positioned to provide support to both reservists and employers. It maintains a website
www.sabre.mod.uk
that provides information for employers including detailed advice on the benefits of employing reservists and examples for companies of HR policies tailored to reservist employees. SaBRE also operates a telephone helpline that is available for both reservists and employers to address specific inquires. Further, each of the 13 Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs) has a Regional SaBRE Campaign Director able to provide a personal, face-to-face service for employers at a local and regional level.
In the White Paper ‘Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valued and Valuable’ (Cm 8655) the Government pledged to improve the relationship between Defence and employers. Financial support is given to assist employers to recruit staff or to cover overtime to fill an absence left by a mobilised employee. An incentive payment of £500 per mobilised employee per month is also planned to be made available to some small and medium-sized enterprises. Under our fresh approach to the Reserves, employers will have greater awareness and predictability of when their staff may be mobilised.
Reserve Service will benefit different employers in different ways. For some, the improved skills, experience and training of the individual reservist will be beneficial. For some, where the reservist’s military role is close to their civilian one, there will be more benefit from transferable skills.
For some companies and sectors, Reserve Service suits and supports their business models. Reserve Service might support corporate social responsibility objectives and be part of their social action plans, alongside any wider volunteering policies.