Armed Forces Bill |
|
Mr. Touhig: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who moved the new clause. Protecting the interests of members of our armed forces is, of course, a key priority for Defence Ministers and the service chiefs. I think that he and the Committee will have appreciated from the evidence given by the service chiefs how far they are prepared to go to ensure that that happens and how important it is. To that end, to monitor the welfare and well-being of our people, we commission regular surveys across all three services. They are confidential and ask questions on many things, including the state of accommodation, allowances and specific entitlements, and they also ask for views on subjects such as bullying, harassment and discrimination. They produce information about general satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life in the services, and we use the findings to shape and develop our policy. The welfare and well-being of our people, and safeguarding them, are an integral part of the duty of the chain of command—a duty that I believe is taken very seriously. When servicemen and women consider themselves wronged, they have a statutory right to complain, ultimately to the Defence Council. The Committee knows how the Bill will retain and strengthen that complaints procedure. Service personnel may join trade and professional associations, as well as organisations representing their interests, such as the Forces Pensions Society. The forces families’ federations represent the views of the wider service community. Those arrangements have evolved over time to meet the needs of servicemen and women. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North mentioned the families’ federations and the widows association. I have close contact with all those organisations and I am hugely impressed by the tremendous work they do. They are a point of contact for information when service families, and servicemen and women, need to get help and advice. In sum, we do not consider there is a distinct role and need for another body in the shape of an armed forces federation. There are sufficient avenues for soldiers, sailors and airmen to express their views on matters that affect their service or welfare. However, we are not complacent, and continual monitoring allows us to improve and shape policy to the best advantage of the services. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham expressed concern about how members of the armed forces can get help and advice if they need it. They can take independent legal advice; there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. He would confess that there are mixed views in the services about creating a federation, and particularly about a proposal to fund it by deductions from pay. We are not convinced that a federation is the right way to progress. We do not see such a body as one with which we would, or could, negotiate. My hon. Friend mentioned the British Army Rumour Service website—I will not use its colloquial name. We take notice of what is on it, and I am a
I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I hope that he feels I have given a reasoned response and that I have persuaded him to withdraw the new clause. Mr. Jones: That was a good discussion to have, because the issue is of concern to members of our armed forces. I still think that a federation would be the best way to ensure that they received the best support possible. I would like to pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Aldershot, who prides himself on—he wears a badge of honour for it—representing a garrison town. But when he raises such issues, I always think he is selective about whom he supports. He just told the Committee that he worked hard to support war widows, but during the previous Parliament, when the Defence Committee discussed the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, I proposed a recommendation to extend benefits to unmarried partners and he opposed it vehemently. A federation would be a way forward. This matter will return, although I understand that there is resistance in the MOD. Unfortunately, however, the MOD is too resistant to many things that are passing it by. It will, I hope, catch up with the rest of society some time in the near future. I shall agree with the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Howarth. I had intended to speak at length on new clauses 26 and 27, but I shall not do so. For the avoidance of doubt on the matter, I shall explain. We had proposed to suggest that there should be some equivalent to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that could audit the Royal Military Police and other service police. It arose from our visits that that would be a good idea: I felt that it ought to be a stand-alone organisation not employing directly Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. Yesterday, Nicholas Blake suggested in recommendation 24 that the Royal Military Police should be brought within the HMIC inspection regime. That has opened up the issue further, so it would be better if the Minister and I, as well as hon. and right hon. Members of the House, having had a chance to consider the very extensive report—it contains nearly 500 pages—produced by Mr. Blake and having benefited from reading it, returned to the matter on Report. New Clause 30 Reserve Forces discrimination
Column Number: 215
Brought up, and read the First time. Mr. Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would make it an offence to discriminate against an employee if he or she wished to be a member of Her Majesty’s reserve forces. The Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 requires employers to reinstate former employees who have completed called-out service. The Act also deals with the terms and conditions of reservists when reinstated to civilian employment. If an employer fails to take a reservist back into employment or infringes any of his or her rights under the 1985 Act, the reservist may apply to a reinstatement committee, which decides on the matter. The committee has the power to require employment to be made available to the reservist, or may order the employer to pay compensation, or both. However, the 1985 Act does not apply to those members of the reserve forces who have not completed called-out service. The new clause is designed to close that gap. I understand that a similar proposal was tabled by Baroness Turner of Camden, who sits on the Labour Benches, when that Act was being considered in the other place. The Government rejected it, arguing that a co-operative approach between employees and employers was the best way forward. 12.30 pmThe situation has changed since then, however. On 3 February 2004, the Minister’s predecessor, Ivor Caplin, announced that, from 1 April 2004, new recruits to the volunteer reserve force and applicants for re-engagement would be required to permit their units to inform their employers about their membership. If they change jobs, they must consent to their new employer being informed. By requiring them to inform their employers of their status, but not taking action to prevent bad employers from discriminating against them, the Government are doing the young men and women who want to serve their country a disservice. I am sure that it is not the Minister’s intention to treat our servicemen and women any less favourably than people who are discriminated against on grounds such as race, religion or sexuality, and I am sure that he can accept the new clause in that spirit. Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): I support my hon. Friend, because we owe not a debt of gratitude and full support to not only our regular forces who are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, but to our reserves and Territorial Army members who are doing a fantastic job there. I am deeply disturbed to discover that some—although not many—of the Territorial Army who served in Iraq are finding on their return that, regardless of the current law, rules and regulations, their employers are refusing to reinstate them in the jobs that they left so that they could do their duty for their country. There is a legal
I understand that there is, finally, a court case pending that will, in some ways, be a test case, but it is extraordinary that the law is not strong enough to deal with this problem so that there is no shadow of doubt. The grossness of the experience of someone who served in Iraq returning to find that their employer was not prepared to hold their job open, as is required by law, and will not reinstate them, and of that person then having to endure hardships—especially financial—and to seek redress through the courts, and for that to be a dilatory process, is incomprehensible. If the new clause in any way strengthened the protection offered to those who serve in our Territorial Army and who may have to serve abroad, I would welcome it. I hope that the Minister will look into this issue. I am sure that he will agree that it is totally unacceptable for employers not to observe the law and reinstate people when they return from serving their country abroad. Mr. Breed: I support the previous comments, and I rise to draw attention to the National Audit Office report that was published today—I do not know whether many hon. Members have it yet—on Ministry of Defence reserve forces. I have not been able to read it all, but I am a little surprised that pressure from employers was given as a reason for leaving the volunteer reserves in only about 23 per cent. of cases. Apparently, in about half of cases, the reasons given were that serving in the reserves was no longer fun or that there were family pressures. Nevertheless, the fact that in 20-odd per cent. of cases, people feel the need to leave the reserve forces because of pressure from, or the actions of their employers, means that we should take this issue seriously, especially considering the current difficulties with recruitment and retention. I strongly support the aims and objectives of the new clause. Mr. Touhig: I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Aldershot. I have total admiration for our reserve forces, who make a tremendous contribution to our ability to defend our country and our interests around the world. I pay tribute also to the overwhelming majority of employers, who do a fantastic job in giving reservists support and encouragement, and who recognise that a reservist who is called up brings something back to that employment when he or she returns. The Government do not support the new clause. It would affect the civilian employers of reservists, and it would therefore create a civilian offence. It would be inappropriate for a Bill that is primarily about service discipline and related matters to do with the armed forces to contain provisions that affect civilian employers. Furthermore, the Government do not believe that there is a need for the anti-discrimination provisions set out in the new clause. Legislation
I shall give a little background. Under section 17 of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, an employer is prohibited from terminating a reservist’s employment without his approval at any time if a termination is due solely or mainly to his reserve liability. If found guilty of such an offence, an employer is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standing scale, now £1,000, and/or compensation up to a maximum of five weeks’ pay. A reservist’s right to reinstatement to his civilian employment on completion of a period of mobilised service is found in section 1 of the 1985 Act. Should an employer fail to reinstate a reservist in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that reservist may apply to the reinstatement committee to hear his case. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of matters. I shall try to give him clarity and assurance. In 2003, 12,600 reservists were called out to support operations in Iraq. At the same time, reservists were called out in support of operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Of those reservists called out, only 28 have applied to have their cases brought before the reinstatement committee. Of those cases, nine were withdrawn, six were settled before the hearing commenced, and four were won by the applicant and three by the employer. The remainder have yet to be heard. I do not minimise the problem—one is too many—but I want to put it in perspective, given the tens of thousands of reservists who have been called out. Mr. Burns: I shall be brief. Could the Minister write to me, rather than taking up time now, about how and in what circumstances the three employers won their cases? Mr. Touhig: Yes, I can. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, so I shall ensure that the information is copied to the other members of the Committee. Those figures show that the overwhelming majority of employers are very supportive of our reservists. That is why the measures proposed in the new clause are not necessary. Furthermore, it should be noted that reservists who are dismissed because of their membership of a reserve force can use the normal safeguards found in employment law. For example, depending on circumstances of the case, a reservist can make a claim for unfair or constructive dismissal. Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend spoke about recourse to employment tribunals, but is he aware that compensation for unfair dismissal is capped at something over £50,000? Does he feel that that is fair, given that such people sometimes put their lives on the line, for their compensation to be capped? If he cannot reply now, I would be happy for him to include this point in his letter to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Column Number: 218 Mr. Touhig: I shall certainly add that information to my letter. The point that I am trying to get across is that, although I might have some sympathy for what my hon. Friend says, this is not the legislative vehicle to achieve such an outcome. The new clause is unlikely to achieve the desired result. For example, what is there to stop an employer refusing to take on reservists? Discrimination legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is complex for good reason. We also have doubts about the desirability of making the offence a criminal one to be heard in a magistrates court. Such provisions would need to be given careful consideration. The Government’s policy is to educate and encourage employers to support those of their employees who have reserve obligations rather than to rely on sanctions and litigation. To that end, we have introduced regional campaign directors to provide advice and guidance to employers and reservists on reinstatement. The measures proposed in the new clause would be counter-productive to the good relationship that we have with most employers. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot. It was a rather technical point about the 1985 Act. Whereas I do not support the new clause, I shall give the matter further thought. It will be another letter. I shall make sure that he receives a further response from me about it. With those comments, I hope that I have satisfied colleagues of the reasons why I cannot accept the new clause. Mr. Howarth: I join the Minister in saluting the willingness of so many employers throughout the land to give their support to members of Her Majesty’s reserve forces. He is right. The overwhelming majority of employers represented by the group SaBRE do a wonderful job. Without them, the Government would be in difficulty. He mentioned the extent to which our reserve forces have been deployed in recent years. Some 12,600 are involved in Operation Telic in Iraq alone. As I said on the Floor of the House the other day, the Government are relying far too much on our reserve forces to supplement what is, in my view, an inadequate standing Army. Unless there is some improvement in the recruiting of reservists, the problem will become worse. There should also be improvement in the retention of reservists, an issue to which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall referred. If the Government are to move away from their desire to ensure that people are not called up within five years and resort to the legal minimum of three years between engagement on operation to be called out under reserve forces legislation, I reckon that it will be even more difficult for some to return to their jobs at the end of their call-out period. Reserve forces legislation is much more demanding on a small employer than a large employer, because the large employer can absorb people who are away on operations. A small employer finds that much more difficult. Column Number: 219 I take the Minister’s point about having a further look at the issue that I have raised. I shall look forward to adding another letter to my growing file of billets-doux from him. Indeed, even as we speak, I am considering ordering a new filing cabinet to accommodate the many missives that he so delicately and so courteously wishes to send me. Mr. Touhig: Perhaps we might consider having them bound and published. Mr. Howarth: Provided that I might have the opportunity of writing back to the Minister and having my billets-doux to him recorded in a book rather than just on the pages of Hansard. It could turn out to be a best seller. Its sale may even not be confined to Waterstone’s or Ottakar’s; it might appear in our supermarkets. The Chairman: Order. I get a growing sense that the Committee is becoming a little demob happy. Mr. Howarth: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 36 Manual of Military Law
Brought up, and read the First time. Mr. Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I wish to speak briefly to new clause 36. As you mentioned, Mr. Howarth, we are indeed on the lap of honour. The new clause would put in the Bill a requirement that there should be a clear statutory foundation for the manual of military law. Such a document exists. It is much used in practice, probably
The heart of our proposal is that there should be a single authoritative document, kept up to date by modern methods of publication—I assume that means on disc as well as in printed form—to which those in command of units, those who advise them professionally on their duties under the law and those who advise those who find themselves in difficulties with the law can all turn for authoritative guidance. Such guidance would be couched in user-friendly language, rather than in the sometimes complex legalese of the statute book that we have to employ when we consider legislation. 12.45 pmWe are all too well aware that this vast Bill is far from the whole story—the body of military law, military regulation with the force of law, and international laws of war and armed conflict—according to which our armed forces are required and expected to conduct themselves. Therefore, it seems to be worth considering the possibility of a single document to which those in command could turn for that body of law. The new clause would enable that. Our commanders in the field have to cope with a hell of a lot these days. They must not just prosecute the battle, or hone their military tactics, but do everything in the glare of television cameras and with embedded journalists on operations with them. Something that eases their task and enables them to see their way through the minefield—that probably is the appropriate analogy—of military law must be of benefit. They need something to refer to that tells them in user-friendly language how to deal quickly and readily with an immediate situation, particularly if a journalist or television cameraman is looking over their shoulder. Mr. Touhig: Briefly, of course we recognise the importance of having such a manual, and understand how valuable it is to our people who have to deal with matters of service every day. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that work is progressing on the service manual. His new clause would make it rather prescriptive, because it would have to be produced on a statutory basis and the content would be regulated, which would remove some flexibility from it. Given that I can assure him that the manual will be ready when the Bill comes into force, I hope he feels able to withdraw the new clause. Mr. Howarth: On the basis of that offer from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 221 New Schedule 1 ‘POWERS OF THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
Column Number: 222
Column Number: 223
Column Number: 224
Column Number: 225
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 3 April 2006 |