---

Armed Forces Covenant

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for my advance sight of it. I would also like to place on record the Opposition's appreciation of Professor Strachan and his sterling work. Today we are reminded of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make in defence of our country. They and their families are in all our hearts. Their actions overseas make Britain's streets safer, and we not only honour them, but celebrate their immeasurable professionalism and bravery. In that context we support the headline measures announced in today's statement, which can improve the well-being of service communities. However, in the military covenant it appears that the Government are doing the right thing for entirely the wrong reason. The Armed Forces Bill is currently going through Parliament, and was meant to be debated just last week. The Government faced concerted pressure in Parliament—along with enormous concern in the country—to amend the Bill and enshrine the military covenant in law. However, at short notice and in the face of almost certain defeat in Parliament, that was delayed so that Ministers could organise this retreat, which they are announcing today. As someone who has been open in saying that we should have gone further in the past to take the covenant out of the cut and thrust of party politics and put its principles in law, I congratulate all who played a part in the campaign. However, the Secretary of State today finds himself in the peculiar position of announcing a policy that he recently voted against. In February my colleagues and I tabled an Opposition day motion that called for"““establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister's pledge””." The Secretary of State, his Front-Bench team and the entire Cabinet voted against the motion. The Minister responsible for veterans has been the principal covenant-denier. In February he said in Committee that to ““write down”” the covenant and"““try to codify it by statute would be, frankly…surprising.””" He continued:"““The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.”” ––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c.20-21.]" Those were the words of Ministers in February. Although today's announcement is welcome, it is not an action of conviction by the Government, but an act of submission to the parliamentary arithmetic that was building against them. In the few minutes that I have, let me turn to the other measures in today's statement and strike a more bipartisan tone. Many of the announced measures appear to have their roots in the 2008 Command Paper on service personnel. We will want to look at the detail of today's proposals. Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions and invite him to offer the House, and forces families, direct answers. Can he say what criteria will be used to identify those qualifying for council tax relief, and whether they will be the same as for those receiving the operational allowance? Will those currently serving in Libya or Afghanistan benefit from the policy? The announcement on concessionary travel is welcome. The Secretary of State will know that the Command Paper announced that the bus concession in England would be extended to include service personnel and veterans under the age of 60 who were seriously injured. Can he share with the House whether his announcement today is the implementation of that policy, or whether it is an entirely new announcement? On housing, can the Secretary of State say whether today's announcement is in addition to or supersedes the introduction by the previous Government in January last year of the shared equity armed forces home ownership scheme? How many forces families will benefit from the scheme announced today? He has said that a new veteran's card will be introduced. We strongly welcome that, but again, the Minister responsible for veterans said in February that"““the Government still have no intention of introducing a veterans card,””" adding:"““I do not think that a veterans ID card is necessary, even in relation to access to commercial discounts.””––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 17 February 2011; c. 102.]" What role will the veterans card have if it is not to be used for commercial discounts? Will the Secretary of State say who will pay for the card and how much it will cost? My final specific question is to invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he would consider exempting the seriously injured and war widows from the impact of recent pensions and benefits indexation changes, which will lead to enormous financial loss on the part of those who have given so much to our country. I am sure that the House and the British people would like to know his thoughts on that matter. I have asked a number of questions in response to direct announcements made today by the Secretary of State. We will support today's announcement, but we will scrutinise it. We will want to know which of the announcements are genuinely new and involve new investment. However, the Government are entitled to widespread support in on setting out to enshrine the military covenant properly in law. If they set out to achieve what they have announced today, the Opposition will strongly support them in that.