02/02/2017 House of Commons

and it has its rights quite properly, but I would expect the

upper house to respect that will. SPEAKER: I'm grateful to the

Secretary of State and two colleagues. We come now to the

Select Committee Statement. In a moment the chair of the public

administration and Constitutional affairs Select Committee of the

House, Mr Bernard Jenkin, will speak on his subject for up to ten minutes

during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of

his statement the chair will call members to put questions on the

subject of the statement and call Mr Jenkin to respond to these in turn.

Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be

questions and should be brief. The front bench may take part in

questioning. I call the chair of the Public Administration and

Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr Bernard Jenkin.

I'm very grateful for this opportunity to prevent the House,

the seventh report of the session entitled, will the NHS never learn

which is a follow-up report to the pHA so reported learning from

mistakes on the NHS in England. Over the past decade, written complaints

regarding NHS services have doubled from just over 95,000 in 2005-6 to

over 198,000 in 2015-16. Investigations into these complaints

have frequently failed to identify the root causes of any mistakes that

occurred. And even more frustrating, they have failed to prevent the same

mistakes being repeated over and over. This is despite multiple

reports, both by the Parliamentary and health service and the public

administration of Constitutional affairs committee which have

highlighted this is a critical issue. In its reports, learning from

mistakes, published last year, pHA so highlighted the fear of blame

which is pervasive across the NHS, this fear drives defensive

responsibilities and inhibits investigations -- PHSO. Which in

turn prevents organisations understanding what went wrong and

why. It also undermines public trust and competence because the public

can see that NHS organisations are failing to learn from mistakes.

Which would then drive improvement. The combination of a reluctance on

the part of citizens to express their concerns or to make

complaints. And a defensiveness on the part of services to address

concerns has been described by PHSO herself as a toxic cocktail which is

poisoning efforts to deliver excellent public services. Madame

Deputy Speaker, to further understand these issues on what more

needs to be done to tackle, we recently undertook this enquiry

which followed up learning from mistakes on the own reports. The

report which was published earlier this week concludes that if the

Department of Health is to achieve its policy to turn the NHS incident

learning organisation, it must learning organisation, it must

integrate its various initiatives to tackle this issue and to come up

with a long term coordinated strategy but this strategy must

include a clear plan for building up local investigative capability since

this is where the vast majority of them take place. We will hold the

Secretary of State for Health accountable for delivering this

plan. This report also considers the potential impacts which is in the

process of being set up. The creation of this originates from the

recommendations as the public administration select committee in

2015. The Government accepted our recommendation and it is due to be

launched in April. It will conduct investigations into the most serious

clinical incidents. It is has intended to be a safe space to allow

those involved in these incidents to speak openly and frankly about what

has happened and in so doing it is hoped that it'll play a crucial role

in transforming the expectation and the culture in the NHS, from one

focused on blame T1 emphasised on learning. It should be a key part,

albeit a part in the wider strategy of what we want the Government to

adopt. Unfortunately there is a long way to go to the Department of I am

Willett health's aim is to be achieved. Most importantly it is

being asked to begin operations without the necessary preferences to

ensure the safe space for investigations is indeed say. This

undermines the whole purpose and it is essential that the Government

brings forward the necessary legislation as soon as possible. To

ensure that the learning leads to an improvement in standards, PACAC also

reiterate its previous recommendations, one made in our

report PHSO which we published in 2016 but the Government should

stipulate in the legislation, one, that it has the responsibility to

set the national standards by which all clinical investigations are

conducted. Tuque, local NHS providers are responsible for

implementing the standards according to the serious incident framework

and three, that the Care Quality Commission should continue to be

responsible as the regulator in assessing the quality of clinical

investigations according to the standards at local level. The

purpose of complaints is not just the redress of grievances, which I

have to say in the NHS is extremely unsatisfactory anyway. Although this

is clearly important, complaints are a tool by which public services can

learn and improve. When medical professionals are forced to be

concerned with avoiding liability and responsibility and are trapped

in a culture of blame, there can be no learning, there is an acute need

for government to follow through on this commitment to promote a culture

in which the staff feel able to speak out in which the emphasis is

placed upon learning and not blame. I very much hope it will implement's

recommendations as soon as possible. Doctor Angie junior ricin. Can I

congratulate my friend with his work and that of the committee to

producers, he is absolutely right. The need to underpin the problem.

The Government has said it would cap litigation fees, costs at ?100,000

and I think he would accept that there will always be litigation even

if we get a more satisfactory means of addressing grievance in them than

the way he suggested, does he think that is an appropriate thing, since

motor costs for example are capped and does it mean people who have

grievances would would not be? I confess I am not scientific cap

litigation costs but people resort to litigation because they feel

their complaints are not being heard and that the problems they have

identified in the service not being addressed. People resort to

litigation because they feel they are not being told the truth. Most

who complain, we know this, they come in and say I only want to make

sure this doesn't happen to anybody else. I don't want compensation but

people, because this public spirited attitude towards complaining is so

often rebuffed in the health service, people resort to litigation

because they feel there is a cover-up. In other fields like

aviation, and Marine where we have this investigative process

re-established, designed to find accident causes without blame, there

is litigation at the outset that doesn't preclude it in the final

analysis. But discovering the truth without blame is the first step

towards reconciliation. Thank you Madam Deputy chair. I greatly

welcome this report. As to my constituents, that might seem

surprising because my constituency is in Wales. But all of my

constituents want specialist and elective care hospitals in England

so it is important for the people of Wales as it is the people in England

and I've been involved in many complaints myself. Does the chair of

the committee acknowledge that a position of Welsh constituents is

key because while they are in another administration as far as

health is concerned, they actually depend on hospitals in England for

treatment? I am most grateful to my Welsh honourable friend for his

question because it gives me an opportunity to highlight not only my

agreement with the point he makes but of course this is not just about

health care safety investigations in England, the Government has embarked

by setting up this aren't a very major and significant reform which I

can ensure my friend is being watched all over the world,

different countries in different jurisdictions have tried various

bodies to deal with this question, I don't think any country before

England has embarked on reform the scale and nature. And I very much

hope Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will set up their own

equivalent or indeed when employed this is the pinnacle of their

investigation systems as well. With the chairmen agree that each of us

receives many more golden letters in the health service and they do

complaints but when there are complaints or questions, that

openness and responsiveness matters the most, and this would be the

pinnacle of the hardest cases where it ought to be resolved locally by

hospitals? I certainly agree that the vast majority of the

constituents who experience the care of hospitals were GP practices are

extremely grateful that I don't think we know how corrosive the

blame culture has been in the health system and the whole mid

Staffordshire crisis, other crisis like the Morecambe Bay, the

maternity unit crisis, all of these arise from the defensive culture

that exist in the NHS and if we're going to change this into a much

more open declarative system then we need this to set the tone throughout

the entire organisation and it is not just about dealing with a few

complaints, it is about setting a whole new standard for a whole new

profession about how complaints and clinical incidents I investigated

and I am most grateful to have this opportunity to prevent this report.

We welcome this constructive reporter would like to thank all of

those who were involved in producing it, it highlights worrying

statistics, the most recent NHS staff survey found 40% of staff

committing errors and from the contribution this morning there is a

long way to go before we eradicate the culture of defensiveness

described. In order to give them the strongest start, it was the clear

view that legislation is needed. As of date no legislation is

forthcoming so given this with the chair of the committee agree it

might be better to delay implementation to allow for this? I

am most grateful for his question and for his support and for my

committee to him I am extremely grateful to work on this. I hesitate

to lose the progress we have made, we approved the appointment of the

chief investigator of HC who is himself 25 years chief investigator

of the air accident investigations Branch of the Department for

Transport, he brings with him the wealth of experience and perspective

about how this organisation should work. I think the answer is is to

bring forward legislation as quickly as possible. Thank you Madam Deputy

Speaker, I would like to add my thanks to those honourable gentleman

for the considered report which she has described the simply to the

House this afternoon on what more needs to be done systematically to

transform the way the NHS plans from errors to improve patient safety. We

support the main thrust of the recommendations and will offer a

detailed response to the report in due course. This is right at the top

of our agenda which we share with the committee to change this culture

within the NHS of which he has spoken so eloquently about today. We

are committed to making our hospitals and GP surgeries the

safest in the world, supported by the NHS as the largest learning

organisation. The only way we can achieve this is through learning and

not a blame culture characterised by openness honesty and candour.

Listening to patients and their families, finding and facing the

truth and learning from errors. As my Right Honourable friend

indicated the government has accepted PACAC's conclusions force

of the investigation Branch will be up and running from April. I welcome

the appointment of the former chief inspector of the accident

investigations Branch who has a strong track record of delivering

high-quality investigations in aviation. The committee has again

called for it to be statutorily independent and we agree it should

be as independent as possible to discharge its functions fully and

effectively and we would not rule out the option of legislation. Is

committee has also raised in this week's reports various suggestions

for the potential role in setting standards and we will respond to

that formerly in due course. We are committed to ensuring the NHS

becomes an organisation that learns from mistakes. The Care Quality

Commission's report learning, accountability and candour from

April this year, all NHS trusts will be required to publish how many

deaths they could have avoided had the care being better along with

lessons learned. Before posing my question, I'd like to thank the

committee for its response to the Government's recent consultation

providing a safe space for health care safety investigations and we

will respond to that shortly. Improvements in safety, incident

handling and learning in the NHS will not happen overnight but does

my honourable friend agree that the shared programme of work

demonstrates a commitment across the care system to improve the way all

serious patient safety incidents are viewed and treated and is this the

crucial foundation for lasting change? I am most grateful for the

Minister's question and get it at the dispatch box today with his

opposite number from Her Majesty's official opposition because I know

his presence underlies the commitment of the Secretary of State

to this programme of change. I very much welcome the shared programme of

work to which he refers. But we found in taking evidence for this

particular report there was some dislocation between the various

bodies involved in this work and we conclude that it is ministers, and

only the minister, and indeed probably only the Secretary of State

that can actually draw this together to ensure there is a coherent

strategy and plan, which is what we emphasise very much in this report.

Finally, he refers to the legislation in passing. I hope a

valiant effort is being made in order to, I hope, perhaps even

include something in Her Majesty's royal address later this year. I do

point out that it's not just about statutorily underpinning the

independence but the safe space to which he refers and thanks the

committee for its consultation, contribution and consultation on the

scum of the safe space has to be legislated for without legislation

there is no safe space. The marine accident investigation Branch for

the AAIV or equivalent bodies couldn't function unless they could

provide people with protection so that they can come and talk kind of

off the record about what has happened and openly. That has

transformed safety culture in other areas and that is the transformation

we need in the health service. I leave with him would legislation

echoing in his ears, if I make and very much look forward to making

further progress with him on these matters. Most grateful, Madam Deputy

Speaker. The House is grateful for the chair of the committee for

bringing his report and answering questions. We now come to the

backbench motion on the Armed Forces Covenant report 2016. Mrs Anne-Marie

Trevelyan to move. I beg to move this House considers this covenant

report 2016. It is a great privilege to be able to lead this debate today

at my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us

the time and opportunity to discuss this most important of national

issues in the chamber today for so as the world in which we find

ourselves at present is unsettled and tumultuous, more than ever we

must be mindful there are some 150,000 men and women who stand

ready to defend our nation and take on military challenges with our

allies around the world to help maintain peace, safe seas and safe

skies. And standing firmly behind them their families, silent spouses

and children, parents and siblings who given the strength to take on

whatever challenges we ask of them. Our Armed Forces personnel, their

families and our veterans are all citizens and they deserve a voice. I

have an RAF base and largest army training area in my constituency and

I'm deeply mindful of the role of MPs in sending troops to war when

required. As a new mph struck me that we needed to do more here in

this House to talk about the Armed Forces Covenant, more to understand

what it means in practical terms and help grow the nation's commitment to

our Armed Forces Covenant. I'm pleased we are able to discuss the

2016 report and the covenant's impact for those it affects. What I

have not expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, was in putting myself

forward as an advocate for the covenant and finding ways to spread

the world, that military families feeling disenfranchised and unable

to raise issues of concern by virtue of their service gave me the honour

of contacting me to talk about their problems with schools admissions,

housing maintenance and other issues from car leasing contract problems

when deployed at short notice, to the challenge of spousal employment

or lack of support for mental health, or physical challenges which

must service has left them with. Big and small problems adding great

pressures to the lives of service personnel and veterans, creating

disadvantage which would not happen if they were civilians, and making

them question whether to stay or leave. What shocked me, Madam Deputy

Speaker, and what I have not identified before was that sense of

this empowerment many of our military families too often feel.

Most importantly, that they feel unable to talk to their MP about

welfare issues in the way that civilian constituents do all the

time. So the first issue I would like to raise with the Minister,

perhaps the first item in next year's report as a successful change

to help our military families, is the question of changing the defence

infrastructure notice which sets out the rules and regulations on when

serving personnel can or cannot talk to their MP. In my Public Accounts

Committee hearing last summer a Lieutenant gave a verbal indication

it was fine for personnel and their families to talk to their MP about

any non-military matters of concern. This was great news and we have

taken that as an active commitment to the covenant vision of helping to

reduce disadvantage for military families. The reality is not quite

so clear. Because the note is still does not reflect this sentiment. So

I would ask the Minister to look again at this which affects all

military employees military and civilian. The hierarchical command

based rules. I will give way. I don't intend to respond to all

questions as I go on, as the debate goes on, but I think this is of

significant importance so I wish to make it absolutely clear that any

member of the service family who wishes to approach their member of

Parliament can do so as any civilian would, and if the change is required

I'm happy to commit to doing it. I thank the Minister very much for his

intervention and I hope we can look at that in detail. The hierarchical

command based rules needed for military discipline in war should

never create a barrier to military personnel and their families feeling

free to raise concerns about issues which affect them day-to-day.

Bennite related family housing matters which come under the MOD's

oversight or school ones which come under the purview of education, or

health matters which come under the Department of Health's purview. You

make a powerful point, although the point that puzzles me, my 20 years

in one of the most military constituencies in Britain I service

people day in and day out in my surgery dealing with all kinds of

issues on their behalf and never has there been any restriction on them

speaking to me. That is very encouraging, but the reality of the

postbag I have received in the next 18 months, not only locally but from

service personnel across the country through the covenant work we're

doing has been that there is often a of real anxiety about stepping

forward, and sometimes when wives have there has been repercussion in

terms of their husbands being challenged to have stuck through the

chain of command rather than step outside it into the civilian arena,

that is to say their MP's office. So, I hope very much that the

experience of my honourable friend can be something we can encourage

other soldiers and their families to do. I must commend her for securing

this debate, she is making a powerful contribution. It is not

just a case of those currently serving but those who have served.

Lately in my surgery, and McCue, came to mean difficult circumstances

because she was denied a war widow's pension because she remarried. We

know those still in receipt, or have remarried after 2015 have been

protected, but will she agree with me that the Minister should again

that those who were married to servicemen, in her case married to a

serviceman who lost his life in 1973, it is only right and proper

that we look at restoring the pension rights we should have? I

thank the honourable gentleman for his point. It is interesting and I

will leave that with the Minister to consider. The question of war

pensions is one that, again, if there is real hardship caused Winnie

to be continually mindful of. The covenant is there to support not

only young men and women coming back from recent wars but those who have

supported and those who have served over the many decades that we have

seen go before us. We will that with the Minister's list. The Minister is

going to answer that question. I am very grateful for the honourable

gentleman raising the point. It has been raised on a number of is. I am

very pleased that in principle the government recognised this be when

it made its correction back in 2015, I think. We're looking very

carefully at this issue. Honourable members will accept there are,

however, questions over retrospection which we do need to

look at very carefully because of the principle it may set but I wish

to reassure the House, as I have done, to some individual members

before, this matter is currently being looked at. Thank you, Madam

Deputy Speaker. I'd like to take the opportunity to commend the Minister

and his devoted team of civil servants in the MOD working

tirelessly to build on the original direction set out in the Armed

Forces act of 2011 on the covenant. The act calls on the Secretary of

State for Defence to publish this annual report setting out what has

been done in the last year to help reduce disadvantage for service

families and veterans, not only the work done in the MOD itself but also

other government departments and the wider business and community

networks across our nation. This year's report highlights some of the

great work done during 2016 in a number of areas, including to build

up the corporate covenant and encourage more private-sector

visitors to get involved in the practicalities of what being a

corporate cabinet secretary means. To improve regional representation,

especially to the community covenant, to improve on

communicating but the covenant is and what it does and who it

supports. And most critically, to continue to prioritise issues which

are known to be creating disadvantage for service families

and veterans. I would like to take a few minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker,

to look at each of the areas in the report. Firstly, the corporate

covenant. The team in the MOD whose focus is building up a number of

businesses and organisations who sign up to the corporate covenant

have been working hard as ever and I believe we now have over 1300

businesses signed up to make their organisations more military

friendly, more understanding and to be able to benefit from the great

skill sets which service leavers and reservists can bring to businesses.

Last year our Armed Forces covenant asked what these organisations were

doing as part of their commitment, from the big boys like BT, Google,

Hewlett-Packard, to small companies in Merthyr Tydfil, those who have

signed by changing the way they do business and seeking out staff to

support the covenant concept. I mention the company in Merthyr

Tydfil because their reply was my favourite, a decorating and building

refurbishment company, they decided they would ask the whole supply

chain to sign up to the covenant. They drafted a covenant on behalf of

each supplier encouraging them to sign up to the bronze employee

recognition scheme, the first ladder on the scheme, and formally ask them

to commit to provide one week's work placement towards the Armed Forces

employed witty pathway scheme. In this way they were able to create

with their suppliers a much greater number of work placements in that

part of Wales. Just imagine if every large business which had signed up

to the corporate covenant drove a commitment through their supply

chain, the impact we could have. Would you also agree it is small and

medium businesses who have signed up to the corporate covenant who can

also play a major part in other parts of the United Kingdom? I thank

my honourable friend. I am keen that MPs from across the House become

more involved and spread the message about the benefits of businesses

signing the corporate covenant in their own constituencies. We are

perhaps more connected as MPs to the local business community than anyone

and we have a great opportunity to evangelise about the importance and

life changing impact for military families and businesses committing

to the covenant. We have over 5 million SMEs, businesses employing

less than 250 people, making up 99% of the businesses across the UK, so

we have a long way to go to make every business covenant friendly, we

have 1300 signed up so far committed in their small or large way to

supporting our military families. We look forward to working with the MOD

to increase participation in the corporate covenant scheme

exponentially in the year ahead. A key area in which businesses can

benefit themselves and help service families is in looking to employ

military spouses. It has been a long-standing challenge for military

spouses to find employment which matches their skills and

qualifications because too often employers see a military address and

decide a potential employee, even though often the best candidate,

will not be around for more than two years. A committed military spouse

could certainly have a two-year posting and more often longer

nowadays and should be as valued as any civilian candidate. In my

conversations with military wives the key block to getting the right

job is often when an employer sees the applicant's address as a

military base. I would ask the minister today if you would consider

working with me and his colleagues to change the conduct of job

application forms to remove the address requirement, perhaps in

favour of the distance from work or some such criteria which ensured no

unconscious bias against military spouses. Work ongoing at Stanford

University is showing gender neutral applications onto employer choices,

removing a marked bias towards the male applicants. In the same way it

would be fantastic as part of our continuing real commitment to the

covenant to lead a trial on removing addresses from job applications to

see if this can help increase successful employment opportunities

for military spouses. Turning to the community covenant it

is great news that every council in England and Scotland have signed up

and colleagues continue to make progress to improve the commitments.

It has one of the greatest potential impacts for military family serving

and after service because we are dealing with housing allocation

policies, briefing GPs about the needs, setting out web pages,

supporting local charities and schools admissions policies.

Colleagues will no doubt share more details swirled like to raise one

key area in relation to this which is schools admissions policy. I

called on the Department for Education to change the policy so

that military families moving a short placements can get the right

school places at any time. I hope the MoD will support this, my

postbag led me to bring in my bill because too many families moving at

short notice could not access a school place without ending up on

the appeal system creating more stress. The excellent work from the

University of Winchester shows a marked impact on higher education

outputs for military children. We must reduce the stress to help these

children to reach their potential. Lastly and a key part of this is to

look at the prioritisation of key issues which are creating stresses

on serving families in order to reduce the very real retention risk

which we are now experiencing. Having brought our Armed Forces

numbers down to a leaner peacetime force, this is an urgent challenge.

We must always remember that without the human capital, all of the ships,

submarines are no use to us. Which makes up our world-class military

resources, we train them to the high standards in the world and we must

ensure that we do all we can because notwithstanding the moral component

but speaking as an accountant, we want to make sure we are getting the

best value for money. If we lose a pilot then woo failed to assess the

implications... And we are failing to enact the spirit of the covenant

in practice. This highlights the brilliance work done, to rebuild a

more robust infrastructure, substantial work has taken place to

tackle hearing loss issues and this be interesting to see the treatment

guidelines which have changed. ... The launch of the e-learning for

health care programme to help GPs get greater understanding and

awareness will be useful but insuring the transfer of all medical

records works across the country will be key to helping GPs knowing

their patient's history and work with them when crisis arise. The new

Gateway is a great step forward is to help families and local services,

we have high hopes for this but there are concerns that gaps in

mental health care will provide a stubborn block to give real support.

Perhaps the Minister in his closing remarks can give us a little more

detail on how the supplies at the other end of the Gateway will be

supported by relevant departments so there is capacity to meet the well

identified need. The report also talks about developing an

alternative approach for service personnel. I would be failing our

dutifully did not mention today the crisis in the housing which is a

real and present danger to the retention of our highly trained

personnel. I have tackled the problem is in a number of forms

already, the Minister has been helpful in getting a hotline set up

to help us sort out practical problems for families in service

family accommodation but the problems are extensive and causing

enormous frustrations to too many. I have challenged the Minister and

would say here that is not a single family I have spoken to mind is that

their rent is going up but it will reflect normal housing rates, their

homes really do need to be DH plus. Too many are not and the system has

been wasted against families not getting a fair home, there is more

to do on this to rebuild the trust loss we are facing. The most

challenging part is the future of accommodation model. Aiming at

supporting families in the private rental market or enabling them to

own their own. I'm grateful for the Minister to publish these and we're

looking at them very closely, I would ask him to publish the

additional notes that personnel wrote which he said he would do

which do not see an the statistical sets online at the moment. I hear

what she says about military accommodation and I think that we

all genuinely share her concerns but would she agree with me that it is

particularly worrying that the report indicates satisfaction has

decreased, the satisfaction levels are very low indeed. I thank the

honourable gentleman for his comments and I think we should be

extremely mindful of the continuing low morale and or services, Royal

Marines have the noble exception because they are very busy on a

great number of operations. He raises a critical point that we must

be mindful of. The key concerns in the debate that as a drive towards

universal housing allowance which has been set out in document since

2009, this is a smoke screen to bring in this policy anyway, no one

disputes the aim to provide good quality access and affordable

housing as the offer but he must get it right. Whatever the changes, the

reality is that when deployed in small numbers or large and we can

never predict the future, our military families need to be looked

after in decent and well maintained housing and have a framework of real

support around them and their children. If we fail in this we will

lose more and more of our personnel at a much earlier stage in their

careers to the civilian world. This is not value for money, not good for

the capability nor for the morale and corporate memory needed to

maintain the unique quality of the Armed Forces. I'm grateful for

giving way. She said the surveys are a smoke screen to bring in this

policy. I do slightly take offence at that, the purpose of the survey

is to have an informed opinion, that survey will form the evidence base

as to how we move this forward. Issue suggesting we should not have

survey had Armed Forces personnel, it is something I disagree but let

me clear no firm decisions have been made and to suggest that we

shouldn't have survey is fundamentally wrong. My suggestion

is the feeling that is felt amongst military families that there were

four questions asked and the existing SFA opportunity was not in

there, it was in a separate question to suggest that they've thought SFA

was a good thing. The survey had in it the different choices that they

might want to do with private rental owning their own home but I reflect

the boy still voices which have been shouting at me that there is a deep

sense of anxiety and all of the family and federations. As much as I

respect my honourable friend on the front bench, reading the questions

in the screenshot you can see how they are designed to produced a

particular answer. To take one example, the most common reason why

people are for change is to live in a better house, it doesn't tell them

anywhere that once they are in the private sector then they will be

totally responsible for persuading landlords to do something about the

maintenance. Not the expensive Australian model where the MOD has

kept that responsibility. I thank my honourable friend and he reflects

the deep concerns about the way the survey was put together and the

framing of those questions leaving a lot of personnel feeling unable to

give the answers they wanted to. The ministers mindful of this and I'm

glad there are no formal decisions yet. I don't want to get involved in

a dispute but would she agree with me that the survey which matters

most of all published recently is that on the 19th of January this

year, which is the monthly services personnel statistics and their they

show otherwise. I thank my honourable friend and that is the

reality that I talk continually about. I think the risk is very real

and we are suffering from it. The survey talked about choices but no

one felt it was a choice the MOD wanted to keep on the table and the

Minister and I will continue to discuss this I'm sure but that is

the reality of the completed survey. The choice of live where you want is

fine as long as it is real to live with your family but the likely

reality of an allowance is that the housing costs and too many parts of

the country bar too high. It means families spread across the country

would be unsupported and we cannot plan for a peaceful world when all

of our troops are at home, we are in demand and our recruitment numbers

are a challenge. We need to hold up recruits to remain serving once they

have families and a key component is getting the housing rights. Choice

is a great thing but driving it this way is just not going to work. This

annual report shows the continuous work which the team working on to

help reduce the disadvantage and it is commendable and there is a great

deal to prevent that there is more to do. There is not a single person

here who would want to hear the words that this is just too hard and

we're going to leave. This attitude survey shows a stopgap between 76%

who are proud but 40% to suggest one would join, that is a gap we cannot

fix I hope very much that in the year ahead we can focus on actively

encouraging service families to talk to MPs when they have problems. So a

new dialogue can begin. This is one of the most powerful tools we have

two drive-through good decisions and reduce the capability gap which is

looming. I fervently hope we can get a dialogue across the House in 2017.

The question is this house is considered the Armed Forces

covenants report 2016 I apologise for the in audibility but I will

attempt my hand signals to explain what I'm trying to say. Thank you

Malik Deputy Speaker and it is a pleasure to follow the honourable

Member of Berwick-upon-Tweed and I welcome the publication on the

military government. -- covenant. On previous occasions I have raised the

points on the concerns about the implementation of the covenant in

Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware and can I at this stage

commend the Minister that he is totally committed to his work as

Minister for veterans dealing with the military covenant and we

appreciate the interest he has shown and we look forward to further

visits in the near future can I draw the House attention to a letter I

received recently in pursuit of the case that I had been dealing with

our behalf of a constituent who is a fracture and of our Armed Forces. I

had written to the Minister of health in Northern Ireland who is

now the leader of Sinn Fein having replaced the former Deputy First

Minister Martin McGuinness. In her response and I want to quote from

this, the Minister for health says As you are aware the Armed Forces

Covenant is not in place here. Ex-military personnel therefore do

not have the 13 YJ code, which is the code that identify someone with

a history of military service, added to their clinical records for GP

referrals. She goes on to say the Armed Forces Covenant has been

adopted by England, Scotland and Wales. Note, not Northern Ireland,

to provide equal access to health care where it can linked to

military service at the I do not include the Minister in this but I

have to say there are some associated with the Ministry of

Defence are in denial about the problem we face in Northern Ireland.

The reality is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that after over 30 years we

have literally tens of thousands of veterans living across Northern

Ireland. Indeed, I would argue that in our region we probably have a

higher proportion of veterans than in most other regions of the United

Kingdom. It is worth bearing in mind that many of those veterans served

with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment home

service, serving in the communities in which they lived, and with that

brought much added pressure for them and their families. To the extent

that recent reports have indicated that there is a very high incidence

of post-conflict trauma amongst veterans in Northern Ireland.

Indeed, the University of Ulster is undertaking a study into this very

issue to try and evaluate the level of mental health illness amongst

veterans in Northern Ireland. But it is known to be quite high. And quite

frankly, we are faced with a problem where those veterans seeking help

for their mental illness are being told by the Department of Health,

I'm sorry but if you are a veteran in Northern Ireland the Armed Forces

Covenant doesn't apply here. So we cannot deal with you on the same

terms as you might be dealt with by the health service in England,

Scotland and Wales. We know that the Armed Forces Covenant does not give

preferential treatment to veterans, it merely seeks to ensure that those

veterans are not disadvantaged by virtue of their military service.

And yet, the Minister hides behind this notion that somehow applying

the military covenant in Northern Ireland would disrupt, would

undermine the basis of equality that is at the heart of the Belfast

Agreement and a section 75 of the Northern Ireland act 1998. I do

think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we in this House and the department

need to do more to challenge this kind of muddled thinking. This

wrongful approach. I know the Northern Ireland affairs committee

has investigated this matter and in evidence to back committee we had a

government minister saying there isn't a problem, section 75 applies

but it doesn't interfere with the cementation of the covenant. There

we have it in black and white from the Minister of health in Northern

Ireland clearly demonstrating that there is an attitude prevailing that

they don't even believe the military covenant, the Armed Forces Covenant,

applies in Northern Ireland, that it has been adopted in Northern Ireland

yet my understanding is clear. The Armed Forces Covenant applies across

the United Kingdom, ought to be fully committed across the United

Kingdom and it is wrong that veterans in Northern Ireland are

suffering from a lack of recognition for the covenant. We need to do

something to put that right. In giving evidence to the defence

committee, the Minister in response to my colleague the honourable

member for East Belfast stated that it was the view of the Department

that the military covenant in Northern Ireland was being

implemented to the extent that some 83 or 84% of the provisions of the

covenant applied in Northern Ireland. Now, I can't evaluate that

assessment. But all I can say to the Minister and to the Department that

if we have the Department of Health saying the covenant doesn't apply,

since health care, access to health care, is such enormously important

part of, an enormously important element of the covenant, the

Department of Health says, sorry, the covenant doesn't apply, then I'm

not convinced that the figure of 84% of the covenant being intimated in

Northern Ireland is actually accurate, an accurate reflection of

where we really are. I will give way. I'm grateful for the Right

Honourable gentleman giving way. I will not try and evaluate 83 or 84%

of the covenant but I am clear in having given evidence to the Select

Committee and in this House is that whilst progress is being made in

Northern Ireland and the covenant applies in Northern Ireland but I

fully accept more work needs to be done to ensure we have an equitable

status for veterans who reside in Northern Ireland as they do in the

United Kingdom. I placed that is one of my priorities during this year to

achieve. I appreciate the intervention of the Minister and we

will work with the Minister towards that end. Because in the end we are

not interested in party politicking about this. We are interested, as he

is, in ensuring the best outcome for veterans across the United Kingdom.

I am also pleased I am joined on the bench here by the Honourable member

for South Antrim and he and I work very closely together on matters

relating to the covenant and to the welfare of veterans, and that is an

indication that this issue transcends party politics in

Northern Ireland. I suppose he and I must redouble our efforts to make

sure other political parties recognise that this is about a

humanitarian approach to welfare, to the welfare of those who served our

country and that we shouldn't allow politics to get in the way of

ensuring that when men and women need help they get the help that

they require. On the positive side, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to

report that we have now an appointment to the Covenant

Reference Group which advises government on the covenant and looks

at coordinating actions related to the covenant the United Kingdom. I'm

delighted my colleague Mrs Brenda Heal who was, until the assembly was

dissolved, a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly representing the

same constituency as myself, has been appointed to represent Northern

Ireland on the Covenant Reference Group and I were to thank the

Honourable member for South Antrim for his support. Her husband was

tragically killed on active service in Afghanistan while serving with

two rifles and Brenda knows on a personal level the challenges faced

by veterans in Northern Ireland and I believe she will be a very able

representative for those veterans on the Covenant Reference Group. I'm

pleased to report that a number of the new councils in Northern Ireland

have adopted the community covenant to which the Honourable member made

reference in her opening remarks. In my own constituency both the

councils that cover the Lagan Valley area are now signed up to the

community covenant, that's the Lisbon and Castlereagh City Council

and Armagh, Bhambri chant Glenavon, and I'm pleased they are taking the

link to the community covenant and that is positive progress. One of

the areas, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think further progress could be made

on is an effort to coordinate better the very valuable work of fall of

the agencies and veterans charities that operate in Northern Ireland. I

would personally like to see the establishment of something like a

hub for veterans in Northern Ireland that would be a one-stop shop where

a veterans group Tadhg Enright could contact this hub to receive

information about where to get help, whether it is with welfare issues,

health care, pensions and other issues that impact on veterans. We

would like to see this type of hub established in Northern Ireland to

draw together and coordinate the work of the various organisations

and charities. Of course I will give way. Thank you to the Right

Honourable member for giving way to me. I thought that we were going to

set up a national hub one-stop shop and I actually presume that regions

would have a sub one-stop shop as well, it makes sense. I thank the

honourable member for his intervention. A good friend of

veterans in Northern Ireland, he is. I would share his expectation and

indeed his hope that that is exactly what will happen. I just want to

ensure that Northern Ireland doesn't lose out on this and that ministers

will be able to cooperate with the Northern Ireland Executive and with

local organisations representing veterans to ensure this does happen.

I also want to raise, Madam Deputy Speaker, a concern about a recent

decision by combat stress to withdraw their regional office at

service from Northern Ireland. I received contact from a number of

veterans across Northern Ireland who have benefited from this very

valuable service offering support to them at a great time of need, many

of these veterans suffering with mental health problems. I met with

the chief executive of Combat Stress and I was very impressed by what

they are doing in Northern Ireland. I am impressed by what they do in

Northern Ireland. Sue Freeth indicated it would cost ?63,000 per

annum to retain this welfare support service and I hope I have written to

the Secretary of State about this issue and I really hope that funding

can be found. It's not a big amount but it has a big impact. I am

grateful to the Right Honourable gentleman for giving way and he is

raising a really important issue which is not of course just an issue

for Northern Ireland but of course for the mainland in the UK. Perhaps

the Minister when he comes to respond might address the issue that

the Right Honourable member has made, but for the life of me I think

it is extraordinarily important that that welfare contribution from

charities such as combat stress which I have been a very strong

supporter of, is continued. The link is very important and I hope the

honourable gentleman would greet is not simply a matter of medical care.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can add to what the honourable

member said, he is right and I would urge the Minister to look at this.

Madam Deputy Speaker, two points I want to make in drawing my remarks

to a close. First of all, the after-care service provided by the

Royal Irish Regiment is absolutely crucial. We have many thousands of

former soldiers in Northern Ireland who served with the Royal Irish home

service and Ulster Defence Regiment and that after-care service is

undertaking very valuable work in Northern Ireland and I hope that the

Minister and his colleagues will ensure the after-care service, much

needed as it is, will be retained. The final point I want to make is an

important one, Madam Deputy Speaker. Together with the honourable member

for Aldershot and the Honourable member for South Antrim, on Saturday

I attended a rally in Westminster, a rally of veterans from across the

United Kingdom, veterans of the longest running military operations

in the history of the British Army. They are concerned about recent

arrests and prosecutions of former soldiers who served in Northern

Ireland. Some of them in their 60s and 70s. We share their concern. We

share their concern that after years of service to their countrymen and

women who ought to be enjoying their retirement are waiting for the knock

on the door. And in circumstances where it seems that the focus is on

what the Armed Forces and the police did in Northern Ireland, much less

on what the terrorists did and it is worth bearing in mind that of the

3000 unsolved killings in Northern Ireland, the vast majority of those

were carried out by terrorist organisations. Yet, the vast

majority of the resources currently are going into investigations in

relation to alleged killings by the Armed Forces and the police and this

is unacceptable. I close Madam Deputy Speaker, by encouraging the

and his colleagues and their colleagues in other departments that

are involved in this issue, to give serious consideration to the

introduction of a statute of limitations that would protect the

men and women who have served our country and who deserve that

protection. I recognise that no one is above the law. But when cases

have been investigated, in some cases not just once but twice

previously and when the men and women who served our country have

been exonerated, only to find years later that those cases are being

reopened then I think there is something wrong. It is having a big

impact on recruitment to our Armed Forces. Young men and women are

looking at what's happening and asking themselves, why would I join

the Armed Forces if I faced the prospect in the future that I might

be prosecuted? I repeat, no one is above the law but I really do think

the Government needs to act on this, they need to protect the men and

women who protected us in our darkest hour.

I hope we can manage this afternoon without a formal time limits because

this is a pleasant debate, in which there would be a lot of agreement

but if it would be courteous if members would speak for under nine

minutes thus giving everybody else a chance to contribute. I'm delighted

to follow the right honourable gentleman with whom I did alongside

the Member for South answer share, it wasn't exactly a platform but a

plinth of the King George statue, over a thousand troops were there

and I endorse everything he says. It is absolutely immoral that those men

who fought in that filthy war wearing the Queen 's uniform facing

an enemy wearing civilian clothes lurking in the shadows, having done

their best for their countries are now being dragged from the beds at

six in the morning in dawn raids to Northern Ireland and it is

unacceptable and I'm afraid to say this is not matter simply the police

force of the prosecuting authorities, it is as I've told the

Prime Minister a matter for ministers. This is a matter of

public policy and must be addressed and I strongly endorse the case made

by the right honourable gentleman for a statue of limitations and I

know many of my honourable friends would have been on that plinth with

me had they... On a similar and related points, it was in the

Government 's remit, the allegations team for Iraq which is also

outrageously criticising four and half thousand soldiers, it looks to

be as few as 60, even less, this is an absolute disgrace. I felt at the

time Phil Shiner was a disgrace, he was a dreadful man engaged in a

cowardly activity of trying to find people who would stand up and accuse

his fellow countrymen who went to relieve people of the suffering and

I'm very pleased to hear he has been struck off, frankly I don't think

that's enough but then I was a supporter of capital punishment. I

with agree what he has said, would he also agree to find something nice

which I appreciate is difficult that at least it has the benefit of being

relatively contemporaneous unlike operation Banner where people are

dragged out of their beds metaphorically and many decades

trying to work out what you are doing five decades ago is very

difficult indeed. At least it is investigating within a relatively

short space of time. I agree with my friend who succeeded me and I

endorse that. I would like to say more about this but you have asked

us to be brief. Let me congratulate the honourable friend for

Berwick-upon-Tweed who introduced us to this and for the incredible work

she has done this issue, the military government is not specific

to any particular party, this is an issue which we can all embrace

across the House. It is a covenants not between the Government not

between the Government and Armed Forces but the Armed Forces and the

people and we as members of this house, they are acting on behalf of

the people we feel this acutely. And Project Allenby Connaught which is

the largest PFI in the country, nobody knows anything about it, it

is the largest PFI in the country, nobody knows anything about it, it

isn't ?19 billion PFI nobody knows anything about it, the reason

because it is hugely successful and I would like to put on record the

fantastic job aspire are doing running this, admitted it has

thousands of units of accommodation to sell but nevertheless the result

has been a complete transformation we have some of the finest

accommodation there and we have new headquarters for the home command

recently Montgomery house, and the whole garrison has been transformed.

Jeff opened a fantastic sports facility in Aldershot, home of the

Army sports board, world-class tennis courts and it really is a

great garrison and I would like to page should be to all of those who

have contributed. I really get complaints about accommodation, a

minister who I met in my constituency when he was a supper at

the Royal School of military engineering... The picture he paints

is a really excellent one. But I think he can confirm that the cost

of housing to buy and rent in his constituency is extremely high,

isn't it so much better to have the arrangement he describes that the

people out on allowances in the private sector? If I looked quickly

at my device it I could tell him the cost of housing in Aldershot, the

average cost is ?259,000 which illustrates the challenge of people

finding their own homes from the military. He is biting into my

time... Can I? I don't want to test the patience of you madam Deputy

Speaker. The council signed up to military... Is doing a great job, we

have a tremendous relationship between the garrison on the council

and a deed recently the council has met with the garrison commander, who

is doing a great job, they are going to carry out a workshop to discuss

how better they can implement the covenant in Aldershot. I think that

is good news. They have quarterly meetings with the words and I very

much hope that will be a success forum by these matters can be

discussed. Mike Jackson has, if any honourable members know this it is

doing a stunningly good job supporting and providing supported

housing to single merchants who are either homeless or at risk. If

anyone in the House knows people who could benefit from that please do

get in touch. The garrison and the town are working together, it is the

community partnership project which are signed up to and the new

chairman of that is none other than the garrison commander. A lot of

good work has come out of this and it is important to recognise what

the covenants has delivered. I'm bound to say the choir are of course

the finest military wives choir in the country. I can confidently say

that without fear of challenge. When they come to sing here I hope

honourable members will accept my invitation to this. In conclusion I

would like to say that the House is a tremendous job to engage with the

public the need to support the Armed Forces. I think there is a lot more

to be done and the issue of accommodation, I do understand

people have left the Army and sometimes marriages have broken up

because of PTSD and other difficulties and they have no

connection with the Aldershot area and have served their hand whilst

the council does not put them at a disadvantage, the council does not

put them at the top of the list. I feel that these feel to go to the

top of the list of social housing against some of the young ladies who

come and see me and say they need social housing because they feel

this way. That is a big challenge we face but another challenge is that

we will not rest until those who served under operation Banner no

longer face the risk of prosecution whilst the terrorists are getting

away scot-free. It is a pleasure to follow the honourable Member for all

the short although I did not agree with the last comment about women

but we are here to discuss the military. Can I start, my son-in-law

is serving in the Army in Cyprus as inactive reservists and my daughter

has received some leaflets from those of supporting families who

have partners are serving with the forces abroad. I will say there just

in case somewhere along the line it changes. I think it is incumbent

upon us to debate these matters, all of us agree that the Armed Forces

deserve great credit for what they do and a huge respect for those who

serve and are currently serving and indeed their families. When I toured

in the 1980s we were or in some respects did not commemorate Poppy

Day and sometimes it was regarded as, I cannot find the correct word

but was often found is not appropriate for military personnel

to come into school and it is a great step forward for a country

over the last few years, whatever that means that the military are

welcome in our schools, that we celebrate Poppy Day and a proper way

to teach our children and young people importance, ... And the

freedoms which were hard-won and need to be maintained. It is

important that we discuss things like this today and just to finish

on that, I'm sure this is the experience of all of us, to see so

many... Other events through the year. I think that is a huge Tom

Ford for us all. It is very good across the whole country including

in Northern Ireland when I have seen that happening there. Can I say I

agree very much with other remarks The Right Honourable friend made for

Gedling and know-how for... Madam Deputy Speaker, can I just say to

the Minister that I will make a couple of remarks which will

challenge the Government but I want to set it in the context that the

reports that were here today are generally a very positive report

about how progress is being made. I think all of us from eight

consensual point of view would believe progress is being made. But

what we do want to see, we've heard about accommodation and other points

being race but what we all want to do is try to accelerate that

progress and try to say to the Minister these are the challenges

that still remain so one makes all the comments I do make it is within

the context of recognising the progress so to be fair to the

minister and the evidence he gave on the 17th of January to the defence

committee, he recognised that himself and some of the messages. I

think madam Deputy Speaker that the covenants as it is set out, whatever

aspects he sets out and we look at, it does show huge progress. One of

the problems is if you look at local authorities then yes every local

authority has signed up as I understand it to the covenant that

the variation between implementation and action is variable. And we have

to find a way of how we hold local authorities to account. Where they

have signed up to things, how do we hold them to account in support of

them delivering the outcome that they have set. For example a local

government Association report found that still whatever efforts we were

taking, 40% of those who served in the Armed Forces felt that it still

left a disadvantage. And that isn't good enough and we need to find

That the government thought it is not by. Have you raise awareness of

the responsibilities, it. And you could

clarify that in his closing remarks. There are lots of other bodies below

that that are responsible for it, for the delivery of the covenant but

the interministerial group is important that I would say to the

Minister, is meeting twice a year sufficient? I would question whether

that is. Secondly, the issue of housing has been raised and there

can be no doubt that accommodation frankly in some examples that could

be given by any of the Oval Office this is frankly a full. Has

beautiful if you for all of us Rafa Silva caliph to sort that out

Filtsov it simply isn't good enough, some of the accommodation of our

service personnel are having to live in. There is massive reorganisation

taking place with respect to the defence estate reorganisation, some

27,000 families out to be reorganised. There is a real

opportunity as well as a challenge there for the government. I agree

very much with the comments by the honourable member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed about school admission policy. It raises the

issue which I think the minister might want to address in his closing

remarks about what actually does the government, what is the Government's

view of not disadvantage in the service personnel as opposed to

giving preferential treatment? My own view is that the public except

in certain circumstances that you do actually advantage service personnel

because of their service to the country on school admissions is one

example. I am grateful. In Aldershot and finding that Hampshire County

Council are being incredibly enlightened about this. They make

allowances for the schools in their budgets to allow for what they

called turbulence and I'm not having many complaints at all. May I

suggest to the honourable gentleman have a word with his local education

authority. I'm trying to make a more general point that varies across the

country. I'm sure sure in some authorities it is really good and

elsewhere it is not so good. Maybe because of the experience of

Aldershot within Hampshire it is particularly good faith because

there are lots of service personnel and therefore they have experience.

What the government must consider is as they disperse across the country

to areas where there are lots of new service personnel whether that same

quality is given to them. The last point, Madam Deputy Speaker is the

issue of mental health will not go away. There are still significant

numbers of veterans who are struggling to access the service

they need. We can all debate why that is. The frank reality of it is

that it has to be improved and more needs to be done. Madam Deputy

Speaker, this is hugely significant debate, almost discussion, and I

think all of us want the very best for our veterans. Lucy Wood service

they do for the country and to make sure the country does the best for

them. -- we see what service. The honourable member for Gedling has

maintained his interest in the Armed Forces and military despite the fact

he has no formal responsibility for it. I disagree with his last point

about positive this cremation in favour of the armed services but I

will come back to that. Apart from that I endorse what he had to say.

I'm grateful to my honourable friend, the member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed, who has drilled down to this report with tremendous

care of those enormous work with the all-party group on behalf of the

armed services and has entered into the Armed Forces scheme with

incredible enthusiasm and dedication and comes all party group. Her

commitment is not just because she fancies Royal Marines. My honourable

friend from South West Wiltshire who I hope we will hear from later on,

who some years ago wrote the seminal work on the Armed Forces Covenant. I

have a copy from the library at the moment but I can recommend it to my

colleagues across the House later on. It was a seminal work and at

least partly as a result of his work the Armed Forces Covenant was

written into law in 2011, the Armed Forces act. We owe him an enormous

debt of gratitude. The same applies to work he did with regard to mental

health care for veterans and he the seminal report on the matter, most

of his recommendations have been carried out by subsequent

governments and I think we should mark my honourable friend's huge

service to veterans in that way. Madam Deputy Speaker, all of us here

are agreed on the lead for the Armed Forces Covenant, no question about

that, we all realise that. Some of us had doubts as to whether it would

be written into law but nonetheless it was. I welcome the fact we have

annual report that comes out. It is important we should hold the

Government's feet to the fire, although I would say to the

government that in this context, alongside other defence debates, it

would be useful if they have annual debate on the matter, brought the

report before the House and invited debate rather than relying on the

good offices of the backbench committee to do so, the government

should save this is our report and please ask questions about it. I

have the Minister will do that in the future. We all support the

principles behind the Armed Forces Covenant, no question. I think the

principle of the contract between the people and the Armed Forces,

epitomised perhaps in my own constituency by the 200 odd

occasions when the people of Royal Wootton Bassett turned out to mark

their respects for the returning coffins from Afghanistan, epitomised

perhaps all good things the people of Britain think about the Armed

Forces Covenant. We realise they do things we would not do and we must

therefore look after them, respect them and honour them for what we do

and I'm glad we do that. And of course, the things we do for them is

important. We must make sure their health, physical and mental, is

looked after both when they are serving. The covenant is not just

about veterans and families but about serving soldiers as well. We

must look after them not only when they are serving but of course if

they are injured or if they die, or in the rest of their lives we must

look after their health, of course. Of course we must look after their

housing, their children's education, these things are absolutely right

and we must do so. This is where I come on to disagree with the

honourable gentleman from Gedling. In a large constituency such as mine

where some of the schools are virtually entirely military, if we

were to give a disproportionate access to the schools, put them to

the top of the housing list, for example, that would be

disadvantaging civilians by definition. I'm not certain I could

go to my constituents and say I'm sorry, your children cannot get into

that school, or you cannot have a council house because we are giving

it to military children. I'm not sure that is right. The point behind

the government should be the military are not disadvantaged

because of their service but not necessarily given excessive

advantage either over the rest of the community, otherwise the support

for the government would quickly disappear. Wiltshire has been

outstanding in support for the covenant over the years. We of the

civil military partnership in 2006 first of all and we have 15,000

serving personnel, 15,000 dependents, 54,000 veterans and

growing. My honourable friend for Aldershot said he revisited the home

of the British Army but I rather think Wiltshire is the home of the

British Army, we have an enormous number of serving personnel in the

area forced council has done a huge amount in implementing the military

covenant in Wiltshire and I pay particular tribute to my noble

friend, who has taken the lead on this matter as the leader of

Wiltshire council. Madam Deputy Speaker, nonetheless, I think in

addition to the community covenant and the local government covenant we

must not let ourselves forget those great people who make contributions

to the welfare of our soldiers and veterans. I'm glad the Minister and

I do not forget the charitable side of things and the huge number of

charities doing useful things, I was proud recently to be made a patron

of the operation Christmas box which sends 25,000 Christmas boxes to our

armed services on deployment around the world every Christmas and it is

hugely appreciated by the soldiers. These things are very important that

that form part of the military covenant but they achieve many of

the things that the military covenant does. Let's not forget the

charitable sector and local government sector and business

sector alongside all that government does for our armed services. So far

there has been largely consensual and agreeable debate. I mean to

reduce that that I have two or three questions I would like to ask about

the way in which the covenant is operating the Minister might like to

reply to, or possibly take into consideration in the year ahead as

he applies the covenant. The first thing is I'm concerned about the

decline in interest. Ten or 15 years ago there was political warfare

around the world and people were concerned about the Armed Forces.

Today that is rapidly declining as evidenced by the level of donations

to charities, Help For Heroes was up to ?40 million a year at one time

and donations have sharply come down, the same with the Royal

British Legion and elsewhere. My concern is that if as we all hope we

do not see a return to warfare for many years to come, my concern is

that this paper will become a dusty documents and people forget about

the literary covenant and it becomes ancient history and the military

will disappear from the front lines of headlines, disappear from the

public's awareness. I would be interested to know what the Minister

thinks he could do to avoid that occurring. The second thing is that

those of us who represent military constituencies are aware of these

things, the footprint of the military across Britain is

increasingly small, the permanent basing structure we have with the

five super basis of the Army needs large part of the country have no

military involvement at all. I think the military covenant should be a

way of spreading the word throughout the population of Great Britain that

these are things we must care about. I wonder if the Minister has

thoughts about the ways in which that could be done. Secondly, I'm

concerned about the fact we have written the military covenant into

law, that's a good thing, that structure for everything we have

discussed today. There are two problems with it, the first is that

because it is written into law we might be able to tell ourselves we

have done something about it, to assuage our conscience and the much

greater things we would do not in law. In other words the law must not

become the lowest common denominator and it must become the level to

which we must not fall below but we should do many more things even if

it is not enshrined into the covenant. I'd be interested to know

from the Minister how many legal cases there have been in the last

year or two macro which have used the covenant as evidence in cases

against the Ministry of Defence. Are the Armed Forces and spouses using

the British Government to sue the MOD? It would be interesting to know

whether or not the covenant has become part of the law in that sense

This report contains flash photography. Using the covenant sue

the MOD. Finally, the fixation we have which is important with

veterans, with housing and all of these things. Of course those things

are important, the Honourable member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was right to

say that if we don't get those things right the levels will go

down. We have to get right the way we employ these people, often in

appalling circumstances we often wouldn't contemplate doing. It's not

just about the wives, the children, although these aims are important,

it's about the soldier. That is where my honourable friend from

South West Wiltshire's book comes into the matter. The great Tommy

poem, if I may just quote a couple of lines from it, which absolutely

ghost of a heart of the military covenant. Its Tom Davis and Tommy

Stack and Tommy go away, but it's thank you Mr Atkins when the band

begins to play. It is Tommy this, Tommy that, Tommy, how is your soul

but it is the thin red line when the drum begins to roll. Tom Davis,

Tommy that, falls behind but please walk in front when there is trouble

in the wind. We will wait for extra rations, don't mess around that

prove it to your face. For it is Tommy this, Tommy that, chuck him

out the route, but the saviour of his country when the guns begin to

shoot. Can I add my congratulations to those Honourable members, the

Honourable member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, not just for

securing the debate but for what I thought was an outstanding

introduction showing the real depth of her knowledge and work in this

area. I wasn't aware of the APPG and I am now. I pay tribute to its work.

I want to come to some of the issues she raised in my contribution and I

welcome the report very much and wish to look with respect to the

honourable gentleman from Wiltshire and talked about the importance of

servicemen, perhaps if we could talk about the support for veterans and

their families and in particular about service accommodation. The

covenant is and surely must continue to be a lifetime guaranteed for all

those who have served our country and now it's as good as time as any

to offer my gratitude to those who have served. It was my pleasure a

couple of months ago to open the annual conference of the new

Westminster Centre for research and innovation in veterans will be at

the University of Chester, not named after this place but after the great

Duke of Westminster who was a great supporter of the armed services. The

centre is led by Colonel Alan Finnegan, formerly of the Royal Army

Medical Corps and has links to the veterans community and regional army

brigade. During the opening session I recounted a story that happened in

Chester early in my term where as one of the city's MPs, where one of

the apparently homeless people begging on the streets, one of the

regulars in the city centre we recognised, and a sign that said he

was an ex-serviceman, ex-army, and that great 21st-century phenomenon

up a social media storm. People were getting extremely angry at what they

saw was a crime of impersonation and even asked for the police to be

involved. They were not suggesting it was a crime of impersonation, and

wasn't really homeless, the anger of the people was the fact this person

was claiming to be an ex-service personnel and they believe he

wasn't. I don't know whether he was or wasn't that this goes to the

point made by the honourable gentleman from Wiltshire talking

about his constituents in Wootton Bassett and indeed from my

honourable friend from Gedling that there is a real sense of pride in

the service of our members and it is a welcome change from the atmosphere

that my honourable friend talked about all those years ago when we do

hold that pride. It goes to show that in Chester and more widely

across the country the Armed Forces should be able to wear that service

as a badge of honour. Never mind that in the husband the

70s and 80s Armed Forces personnel were specifically ordered not to

wear uniform in public because of the provisional IRA and other

terrorist threats. That is one of the reasons why we did not see

people wandering around in uniform. I most grateful to that and of

course there is a terrorist threat today but I do believe that

atmosphere has changed and it has changed for the better. When I was

at that conference at the University of Chester perhaps the most

important reminder for me was that for all the important work we have

referred to on mental and physical health, which I will refer to later,

most of our service better and are not needy and suffering but have

benefited greatly from the training and experience in the comic chip

that service gives them and they are continuing to contribute to society

--, chip. Discipline and personal response ability and ingenuity from

a young age are all huge benefits to the individual as well as the

community. The report talks about some of the successes in the

succession that the section on covenant in business. I worried that

we don't highlight enough the contribution of exurbs Bussell to

society and we can't allow them to be seen again as burdens on society.

My honourable friend mentioned their art needs that need to be met. We

note military veterans present in about health issues including the

pressure in the PTSD and obesity. We also note that a larger than average

number enter into the judicial system for violent crimes associated

with alcohol abuse. Money is allocated to the Armed Forces

government that is less clear if the measurable outcomes regarding the

impact of these initiatives. As a government grant should include

measurable outcomes in the applications and where appropriate

and perhaps this is a shameless plug for a university in my constituency,

the government might consider using academic partners to shape how valid

and reliable information is collected and reported on some of

these schemes. I understand the MOD covenant is looking at this and has

invited if Britain is of interest and I welcome that. The honourable

lady made a long section on servers values referred to in chapter eight

of the report which I welcome and the role of the family can be

overlooked sometimes but clearly not today. When signal to support our

forces and veterans could any stress on the service man or woman also has

an impact on the family. One way of achieving this and she referred to

this is to add as much stability to family life as possible in welcoming

surroundings and possibly, this is also reflected in retention rates.

That leads and begin the honourable gentleman from Welch talked about

the consensual nature of the debate -- Wiltshire. The government has

decided to sell off the Dale barracks in Wiltshire. The decision

I believe is myopic and damaging and it will do nothing to maintain

morale amongst the servicemen or families and the popularity of the

barracks is reflected in the number of service families to stay in the

Chester area after leaving the Army. The local schools are well used to

dealing with service children. This doesn't just mean making extra

effort to welcome and integrate new arrivals to give as much stability

as possible. Primary schools in the area where the barracks are based

are skilled at dealing with the pressures on the children when that

mums or dad are deployed awake and I say to the honourable lady on

Berwick, I was not aware of a ten minute rule Bill that this is an

area of great importance to three of four schools in the area I will be

looking at that bill to see what support I can give. Closing the Dale

is unpopular and wrong and it has been done because land values in

Chester are higher so they can be sold off more easily. I don't think

it will assist... I will give way. Speaking as someone who has lived in

the Dale barracks and white regiment was based there, can I remind the

house and the honourable gentleman of course we'll know this, that the

whole barracks was modernised only about 20 years ago and was

considered them to be a future base for infantry. Most grateful to the

honourable and gallant gentleman who I consider a friend and whose

service in the Cheshire Regiment we should never fail to recognise and

the experience he brings to this house should never be

underestimated. I have to say, the house may wish to know is still held

in extreme the high regard in my constituency. I don't think the

closure of the barracks will assist the Army in its effectiveness and I

ask the government to think again. Before I put a close can I touch

briefly on two issues? The first is what was mentioned by the Right

Honourable for Lagan Valley concerning Northern Ireland. The

criminal investigations into every death in the British Army during the

troubles is wrong. If evidence of a crime can be presented it should be

investigated. The honourable gentleman from Aldershot has talked

about a statute of limitation, I don't know about that. But a blanket

inquiry cannot be justified. As I mentioned, many former members of

the Cheshire Regiment which served with distinction in Northern Ireland

are either originally from all have since settled in my constituency.

Their servers should be their honour and I will defend them. There's a

good service. Some may be integrated in the new inquiry do so in the

specific terms of today's debate on the Armed Forces government if the

government has not already done so, and if it has I apologise, could be

ministers consider it guaranteeing full legal support to any X service

man or woman that is dragged into this unfair mess? The final point to

make is again about veterans and ex-servicemen. Ray Tindall, my

constituent, along with John Armstrong on Nick Dunn, Nicholas

Simson, and Billy Irving, remains incarcerated in a prison in India

convicted wrongly of a crime they did not commit. I will give way. I

thank him for giving way and also for raising this incredibly

important point. Woody agreed that our service veterans, they are owed

even more of duty of care by the government which be doing anything

possible to get them home where they belong? I certainly agree and if I

might form a a close on that very themes, which are all ex-servicemen.

Ray was in the Indian Ocean with the other men to raise money, in his

case to be able to raise extra money to grosses business in Chester. I

will make the case of the Jennerich six at every opportunity because

with the greatest of respect MOD ministers, I don't believe the

Foreign Office is helping their cause with the Indian government to

release them. Ray has seen active service in recent conflicts and if

the government meet anything to them and to me, it means that we must

continue all our efforts to bring him and the lads home. Sir Julian

brazing. Thank you madam that the speaker and

I congratulate my honourable friend on obtaining this debate. It is a

particular pleasure to follow the member for Chester is praise for my

honourable friend and for the late Duke of Wellington I would very

much, Westminster, I would very much like to endorse. It is an

unavoidable fact that that body of men and women who we asked to do the

most difficult and dangerous task for us have, for obvious reasons, no

public voice. There is a particular duty as members of this house have

alluded to us as a house to take an interest in their concerns. I'm very

glad to see my honourable friend in his place, a man who has done three

operational tours, and the growth and the flowering of the covenant is

in no small part thanks to my honourable friend. It grieves me

greatly that I shall spend almost all of my speech on subjects where

profoundly disagree. Last year the MOD won a settlement which committed

us to 2% of GDP, a welcome move, and to a very modest but positive growth

path. It was still the lowest proportion of GDP since before the

Second World War and at the same time we committed ourselves to an

equipment programme which has left the amount of money left to pay for

our personnel themselves badly squeezed. This debate on the Armed

Forces government gives us an opportunity to discuss the position

-- covenant. The Armed Forces have felt the same pressures as the rest

of the public sector and rightly so, the same pay squeeze them the same

large-scale reductions in pension rights, but on top of that they have

already severed in a number of additional ways, large rises in

rents, restrictions in availability of various alliances, even a

noticeable decline in the quality of food for the single personnel. And

the effects can be seen in the numbers. The Army, in my view, as

the best senior management for a generation or two, a new breed of

generals who came through middle ranking command positions in combat

and are putting in all sorts of reforms and yet the regular Army

today is 3600 short and shrinking. The Evalds is nearly 2000 short and

we have the smallest number of private ever since the service was

founded -- the air force. Mabil numbers have stabilised, quite close

to target -- naval numbers. It is a remarkable achievement by the

seniors is that with the greatest budgetary pressures of all and a

colossal level of operational Cuskin,

-- operational tasking. Regular surveys of those leaving the Armed

Forces show each year that the largest single factor is the strain

on family life. It is in this context that I would focus

exclusively on chapter three of the covenant, the new accommodation

model. Many colleagues will be aware of the recent report by the video

and talks about the condition of the housing stock in the long backlog of

repairs but I'm much more concerned about what goes on to say about how

short-term thinking over the past generation is setting is on a

downward spiral. I quote, diminish the estate within its budget, the

Department has made decisions that subsequently offer poor value for

money in the long term including the 1996 decision to sell and lease back

the majority of service family accommodation which is now limiting

the department's ability to manage this element of the estate cost

effectively. Of course the next problem on that arises in four

years' time. It is a matter of record that I opposed that sell-off.

Against this unpromising background I have much sympathy for my

honourable friend in 20 find a new way forward on housing. Even that

that is that the survey just published suggests that 55% of the

20,000 odd people who responded were broadly in favour of the proposals,

almost twice as many as those against. Nevertheless I hope to

persuade the house in the next few minutes that this is a profound

mistake. 4-2-4 reasons. First, geography. -- for four

reasons. The majority of our garrisons in RAF stations are not

near a supply of affordable housing to buy or rent. Catterick and

Tidworth, the two largest bases, or in the middle of nowhere. My sister

lives in a Catterick. Our RAF bases in Oxfordshire are among some of the

most expensive housing in the country, all three of our fast jet

fighter bases are in remote locations and even where housing is

plentiful, as in my honourable friend's constituency in Aldershot,

it is unaffordable. In the second reason why the

accommodation model is wrong is on officers. Let me just for a second

diverged. America has gone down a policy of saying, let's have

alliances in some cases rather than family accommodation, where you have

affordable accommodation in the area. But it is strictly based on

rank. In contrast, the Government's statement is, the accommodation

allowance of tomorrow will be provided based on need, regardless

of rank. Now, I want to focus the house's mind on the group who will

lose most out of this. The critical group where we are losing people,

coming up to the captains who are about to be majors, the company

commanders and squadron commanders, the backbone of the regimental

system, those people, their counterparts in the RAF, just coming

up to the first break point for fast jet pilots after all those millions

we have invested will be told that unless they have a large family,

instead of a substantial house, they will be given a small allowance in

order to be able to fund a more generous arrangement for junior

ranks with large family. Any civilian business that try to follow

those principles would be bust within a year or two. The regimental

Sergeant Major, the backbone of the regiment, the special arrangements

for him, brushed aside. The third reason why I believe it's profoundly

wrong is the continuing need for mobility. As long as I have been a

member of Parliament, every Government has committed itself to

greater stability. There is some evidence that mobility has slightly

increased. I believe my honourable friend may introduce a bit more

stability, but all staff training and all the best staff jobs for all

three services are in suburban England, but the majority of army

units and almost all the RAF are not. So, officers will continue to

have to be posted up and down the country from those two services, and

from the submarine service, too, who are in a different position from the

rest of the Navy. Yes, of course. Does my honourable friend not also

agree that it is a complete nonsense that senior military personnel

should have to go by second class public transport? I had a general in

Aldershot who had a national command, and with a helicopter, he

could brief his staff at 7:30am in Aldershot and could be up north by

10am. I think my honourable friend makes a very important point, and

the minister had better listen to him. I am grateful to my honourable

friend for his endorsement, and that is an important additional point. It

is not only officers being posted around staff jobs, the centres of

excellence where we train the next generation of people for the Army

should get the cream of the senior NCOs from all over the Army. How are

we... Are we going to say that Brecon, with no army unit

shortly,... And all the other corresponding schools. RAF Valley -

crucial that you get the best instructors there. There is in a

healthy housing market there. The fourth reason is the question of