Defence Reform Bill

Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2013.

Clause 42 - Renaming of Army Reserve and Territorial Army

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am delighted to see you back in your place, Mr Brady, and to see the Committee here today. I welcome the hon. Member for North Durham, who is leading for the Opposition on this part of the Bill. No doubt he will keep the Committee busy today.

As we begin our consideration of part 3, I shall make a few remarks to set the scene for the proposed changes. The clause will change the name of the Army’s volunteer Reserve force from “the Territorial Army” to “the Army Reserve”. We are changing the name because “Territorial Army” does not reflect the planned future role of the Army’s Reserve force, which was set out in the White Paper published in July.

The name “Territorial Army” suggests a force based in this country whose main duty is home defence, but that is not how the Reserves are used now, or how they have been used for several years, and we want to use the opportunity presented by the Bill to put in place a more appropriate name as part of a wider package of changes to the Reserve forces. The name “Army Reserve” better reflects the more significant and operational role that will be required of the Reserve. As an integral part of the armed forces, Reservists will be required for almost all military operations, often as small numbers of individuals, but also—principally in the Army’s case and as the situation demands—as formed sub-units. That will range from short-notice contingent operations to longer-term enduring operations, as well as other activities supporting wider foreign policy aims or to meet standing commitments at home or abroad.

The clause also changes the name of the Army’s ex-Regular Reserve force from “the Army Reserve” to “the Regular Reserve”. The ex-Regular Reserve force is made up of ex-Regular personnel who, on leaving the Regular forces, retain a liability to be mobilised, so the proposed new name better reflects the composition of that force.

The clause also makes necessary consequential provision with respect to references in legislation to the old names. After the name change, references to the Army’s volunteer Reserve force, the Territorial Army, are to be read as “the Army Reserve”, and references to the Army’s ex-Regular Reserve force, the Army Reserve, as “the Regular Reserve”. We expect the name changes to come into force in the latter half of 2014.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

What is the proposal for the Navy and the Royal Marines? Will they have similar names?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking about the other forces; he no doubt represents many members of the Royal Naval Reserve. The intent is for the name changes to affect only the Army Reserve, and the RNR and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve will remain named as they are. It is unfortunate for readers of the Bill that we are using “Regular Reserve” in its new form, changing the name from one type of Regular Reserve to another. That is confusing and it can be difficult to understand which Regular Reserve we are talking about. However, I hope to make that clear today, but if anyone requires help in ascertaining which Regular Reserve we are discussing , please do not hesitate to ask.

The changes made by the clause relate only to the Army Reserve and other Reserve forces will have no changes in name under the Bill. Renaming the Territorial Army might seem a small change, but it has importance. In particular, the new name “Army Reserve” will better reflect that force’s integral place in the whole force and therefore be important in promoting the required integration with the Regular forces under the whole-force concept. The change, therefore, is not cosmetic; it is part of a package that is required to modernise our Reserve forces.

As part of the consultation following the publication of the Green Paper on the future of the Reserves in November 2012, we received more than 2,500 responses on the proposed name change, with nearly 1,700 in favour. In particular, the Committee might wish to note that it was clear from the consultation that those in the Reserve forces who responded strongly support the change of name, with 1,259 of the 1,750 Reservists who responded in favour.

We all recognise and value the service that the Territorial Army has given—not least by serving Members of the House, some of whom are on the Committee—over the past 105 years. We applaud them for their service. The name change is meant not to belittle that heritage, but to emphasise the more prominent role that our Reserve forces now play, and indeed have played during periods of crisis throughout their history. With the exception of one or two individual units, the change will not affect the historical and traditional titles borne by different elements of the TA. With those remarks, I would like to offer other members of the Committee an opportunity to speak.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Brady.

As the Minister outlined, clause 42 is a sensible measure to bring up to date the title of the TA to reflect exactly what it does. That is a little more than a rebranding exercise, but we will talk later about the subsequent changes in how the TA is organised. He mentioned the issue of tradition, and he will know that something a Minister changes at their peril within the military is the name of a regiment or anything associated with it. It is therefore reassuring that members of the TA are embracing the name change.

As the Minister said, the clause reflects what has been evident for quite a while—certainly since 1967 when the TA was first tasked with overseas deployment. The traditional role, back in 1908 when the TA came into being following the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907, was homeland defence. However, that changed very quickly with the advent of the first world war, in which the TA served with great distinction. We must also recognise the contribution that the TA made in the second world war and many subsequent conflicts. One example from the second world war is the disastrous invasion of Norway, where the TA played a gallant role, coming up against considerable German forces. In 1967, it was put into law that the TA could be deployed overseas, although that had been done over many years. The clause is a similar sensible move reflecting what the TA actually does.

When the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) was Secretary of State for Defence, wanted to reflect the fact that the TA would be on a par with the American reserve forces. We will discuss that later, along with some other issues, but although there is a name change, I think that the forces are very different in how they are organised.

I have a few questions to ask. First, there is the issue of the overseas territories. The Falkland Islands has a volunteer defence force that is paid for by the Falkland Islands Government. Although there are secondments from the Royal Marines to that unit, it does not come under the Army list. However, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment became part of the Army list in 1991 and its soldiers can be deployed on UK missions. When I was a Minister, I met members of the regiment in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I pay tribute to the contribution that individual soldiers from the Royal Gibraltar Regiment made in both those conflicts.

As I understand it, the regiment’s structure is that it has a Regular headquarters company and two other Regular companies, G company and I company, but also a Territorial unit, B company. Will that company have to change its name under the clause? What consultation has there been with the Government of Gibraltar about that name change? Having dealt with Gibraltar, I know that any matter that affects it is very sensitive.

Do the changes that the clause makes to various other Acts change the role of the regiment? Individual soldiers from the regiment have been deployed to Iraq and to Afghanistan, alongside and as part of UK forces. The regiment has also been on joint exercises with UK forces in north Africa. Will changes under the Bill lead to changes to the deployment of the regiment’s soldiers? For example, will a member of the B company Reserve force in the Gibraltar Regiment come under the regulations such that if there is, for example, some civil emergency in the UK they may be called up for deployment here? What is the status of soldiers in that regiment and what consultation on the matter has taken place with the Government of Gibraltar?

A related issue is the cost of the changes. The Government have earmarked £1.8 billion for changes to the Reserve forces, but anyone who has been through a rebranding exercise knows that there is a cost involved, so what will that cost be? It will involve not only letterheads, but uniforms, signs and everything else. Again, appertaining to Gibraltar, where will the cost fall for the changes that the Royal Gibraltar Regiment will have to make if its B company is to be classed as a Reserve unit rather than a Territorial?

Aside from those issues, overall, the provisions make sense as regards the general thrust and direction of travel of the Bill and we shall not oppose them.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

This is my first contribution under your wise chairmanship, Mr Brady. I support the clause and what my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see leading on the clause, and the Government are trying to do with regard to the Reserve forces.

You have been indulgent from time to time, Mr Brady, both in our scrutiny and in the more formal phases of the Committee. As the clause is effectively the first of the rather separate section of the Bill on Reserves, I hope that you will allow me a little breadth when discussing it. I shall partly be following the lead set by the hon. Member for North Durham with his historical material, but will look specifically at the governance that arose from the 1907 Act and the lessons it has for today.

My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have great ambitions for the Army Reserve, as it will be called—I support the new name. The Territorial Force was, as the hon. Gentleman said, established by Haldane’s famous Act and came into being in 1908. However, there was disappointment at the recruiting outcome, because it had recruited only 250,000 by the outbreak of the first world war, so there were frustrations even then.

The Territorial Force brought the militia, the yeomanry and the fencibles together in a single organisation. At the heart of that arrangement were considerations of governance. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me for saying this, but of the six strands of the original commission report, governance has fallen through the cracks. However, I strongly welcome the pledge of the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, which he partially repeated in a letter that the Committee has just received, to look again at the arrangements for appointing senior Reservists.

The Territorial Force was set up 1908 by people who had been across the Atlantic five years earlier to see the foundation of the National Guard Bureau. It was clearly understood that an assimilative structure run by the Regular Army would not work, and would not attract the best and the brightest from the civilian world. The county associations—now called reserve forces and cadets associations—were established and put in charge of recruiting and looking after the property of those organisations. That arrangement lasted for almost 100 years, until 2006.

The Reserves delivered 71 Victoria Crosses in the first world war, and in the second world war were involved in many exploits. An Army Reservist in the first world war, Bill Slim was our greatest general in the second. In the second world war, an Army Reservist, David Stirling, established the Special Air Service. More recently, in 2003-04, the Reserves produced a fifth of our soldiers in Iraq at the peak point for the big push there, and an eighth of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

In 2006, recruiting was taken away from the RFCAs and given to the Army recruiting group in an assimilated structure, which was mirrored by other assimilative measures. Two or three years later, all use of formed units and sub-units stopped, and it became an organisation that produced only augmentees, which demoralised the officer corps and led to the exodus of the brightest and best. The commission report referred to that.

In considering how the Army Reserve is to be organised, it is important that we realise that it will fail if it slides back to the assimilated model of the past few years. We must be clear on that. We can see where the Army recruiting group is failing. It has effectively assimilated part-timers into an arrangement designed with Regular soldiers in mind, but Reservists need different arrangements.

I shall try your patience beyond belief if I take this much further, Mr Brady, but, if Mr Speaker allows, I would like to return to the matter on Report. I suggest that we need a clause that goes just one step back to the arrangement that lasted nearly a century, as the commission’s report recommends. We should not return control of recruiting to the RFCAs, but should put in statute its annual report on what is going on with the Reserves. It is still the organisation that best understands the Reserve forces, and its first report to Parliament, which was prepared with just a few months’ running time, contains a number of extremely shrewd comments on what is going on.

We should also ensure that the organisation’s control of property is not assimilated into the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which sadly has a parlous reputation on the wider estate. It is orientated towards large, expensive property deals, not the large number of small ones that the RFCAs have managed efficiently and with a low overhead over the years.

I strongly support the clause. The name change is right and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, most people in the Reserves want it to happen. The Royal Naval Reserve is called just that, and there will be an Army Reserve and a Royal Marines Reserve.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

One problem is that, although the RNR was renamed, people still know it as the RNVR—the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve—and it will take some time before they call it the Royal Naval Reserve.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Two organisations were amalgamated—the RNR and the RNVR—to form one. Owing to economies of scale, it was not worth running two separate organisations, and one name had to be chosen.

I support the clause and what the Government are trying to do. I welcome the movement we have already had on the very important subject of the appointment of senior Reservists. We have so few compared with America, Canada and Australia, which have been much more successful at retaining Reservists, with much lower turnover rates and so on.

I want to end with two quotes. The first is from Field Marshal Sir John French, a commander at the beginning of the first world war:

“Without the assistance which the Territorials afforded between October 1914 and June 1915—

the very beginning of the first world war-—

“it would have been impossible to hold the line in France and Belgium.”

The second comes from Brigadier—now Lieutenant-General—John Lorimer, who commanded a brigade in Afghanistan. He made this remark about a TA-formed infantry sub-unit from the London Regiment, which went out to serve under his command:

“Somme Company was an outstanding body of men: well trained, highly motivated and exceptionally well led.”

I rest my case.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Brady. I join others in paying tribute to the work of the Territorial Army. This is certainly one of the simpler clauses in a technical Bill. The name change will have a profound impact on our armed forces. It will be a brand under which we hope to increase the size of our non-Regular forces. Although I support the clause, I want to ask the Minister about the increase in size of the new Reserve forces, but I will leave such questions for later clauses.

I want to join others in paying tribute to the Territorial Army, so will the Minister confirm that when the name changes takes place—he hinted it would be in 2014—there will be an appropriate event so that others, such as my distinguished colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who has done so much work on the Reserve forces behind the scenes, can pay tribute to more than 100 years of the Territorial Army as we move into a new chapter? We should remember that the Territorial Army has not only served abroad to support the Regular forces, but has done work in this country to provide support during natural disasters and so forth. I welcome the name change and hope the Minister will recognise that it would be useful to have a significant event to honour it.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I thank hon. Members for their constructive contributions to the discussion on the clause. I will start by responding to the hon. Member for North Durham, who raised questions about the impact of the Bill on overseas territories. Indeed, an amendment that we will come to later covers such aspects. In response to his specific questions, I will refer also to the similar question regarding Gibraltar raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who also touched on Bermuda.

The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that it has not escaped our notice that there are overseas territories with Reservist units, so we have looked carefully at the extent to which the Bill might apply to any of those. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the Bill does not apply to Gibraltar. The Government there have been informed of the Bill, so they are aware of the arrangements we are making. There will be no change to the Gibraltar Regiment, so there will be no cost to the Gibraltar Government from the Bill.

Where Reserve forces are raised in overseas territories—we will come to this issue when we discuss the relevant amendment—we have been careful to ensure that the amendments and repeals made under part 3 of the Bill to the Reserve Forces Act 1996 do not extend to either Bermuda or Gibraltar, because the 1996 Act does not form part of the law of the British overseas territories. Its predecessor, the Reserve Forces Act 1980, did not either. Although members of the British overseas territories forces, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the Bermuda Regiment, may serve with United Kingdom forces, British overseas territories forces are raised under the law of those territories and the Bill does not apply to them.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful for that clarity. I accept the situation with the Bermuda Regiment, but is the Gibraltar Regiment not slightly different because it is part of the Army list? Will the Territorial Army survive in one form with the Gibraltar Regiment? Is that regiment, which is treated differently from those in other overseas territories, exempt from other provisions in the Bill that affect the Regular Army?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

No, because the Royal Gibraltar Regiment is the name of the regiment. It was established by the Gibraltar Regiment Act 1998, which covers the call-out powers for its members. It has its own law, which governs its own arrangements, so it is not affected by the proposal.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

In 1996, the regiment was incorporated into the structure of the Army by being added to the Army list. How does that fit with the 1998 Act? Is the regiment a hybrid unit, whereby it is part of the British Army but has exemptions as outlined in the 1998 Act?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Under the clause, we are discussing the name of the new Army Reserve. As I have already explained, the name of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment does not include the words “Territorial Army”, so the clause has no application to the regiment.

Mr Jones rose—

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Order. Before the hon. Member for North Durham intervenes, I point out that he will have other opportunities later on in proceedings to pursue this point.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I will, Mr Brady, but there is a TA unit in the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, and I wonder what its status will be. Will it survive as a TA unit, or will it be called a Reservist unit?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that it is not described as a TA regiment. The name of the regiment is the Royal Gibraltar Regiment. It has a Reservist unit, which will be called an Army Reservist unit in the British Army list.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

But in Gibraltar, will it still be a TA unit? If it will be renamed, did the Government consult the Gibraltar Government on that?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

As I have already said, we have discussed with the Gibraltar Government our plans under the Bill, including our plans to change the name of the Territorial Army to the Army Reserve. The unit will be a Reservist unit within the Royal Gibraltar Regiment. When we come to the relevant amendment, I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s persistent question on whether there will be any use of the words “Territorial Army” within the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the costs of the exercise in the UK—although he focused on the costs in Gibraltar, which shows a touching regard for the finances of that overseas territory—and we have undertaken an exercise to look at that. He rightly identified that many incidental changes will be required to units that use the Territorial Army. He referred to letterheads, signage and badging. Many of those will involve some expense for individual units. I cannot give him a precise figure at this stage because this will be quite a long exercise. We estimate that it will cost in the low millions of pounds and will come out of the Ministry of Defence budget.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been a stalwart supporter of the Secretary of State’s plans for the Reservists. I again pay tribute to his work on the commission, which has been invaluable in helping to form the plan. I also thank him for drawing the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the six years leading up to the first world war, the British Army was able to recruit 250,000 Reservists into our armed forces. I should not like to draw other parallels between our current circumstances and the run-up to the first world war, but it highlights the numbers and how it was possible to generate much more substantial interest in the Reserves in times gone by. I am pleased that he has noted the letter from the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in response to his specific query about the extent to which senior officers can be properly recruited and retained within the Reservists. That was a helpful contribution. I note his continuing concerns about publishing an annual report about the Reserve estate. We may come on to that on Report, and I look forward to discussing that then.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, whose service in the Reserves is and has been distinguished. That allows me to point out to the Committee that the newly appointed Minister of State for the armed forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), calculates that currently 59 Members of Parliament have either served with Her Majesty’s armed forces or are serving in a TA capacity. It might interest the Committee to learn that 54 of those 59 serving Members of Parliament sit on the Conservative Benches, three sit on the Democratic Unionist Benches and two sit on the Labour Benches. I believe I am right in saying that none sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I stand ready to be corrected. I think that shows the sincere commitment of many Members of Parliament to our armed forces.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am sure that many members of both the Regulars and the TA will be astounded at what the Government are doing to numbers and support for our armed forces.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I have concluded my remarks.

Clause 43 - Call out of members of reserve forces

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 43, page 28, line 36, at end insert—

‘(7A) After Section 62, insert—

“62A Deferral of call-out liability

(1) A member of the Reserve Forces who is self-employed may defer liability for call-out for a period of up to 12 months if they show to the satisfaction of the Defence Council or any authorised officer that there is good reason why their liability should be deferred.

(2) A member of the Reserve Forces who is employed by a company, organisation or person whose main business is in the manufacturing or provision of equipment, works or services for defence purposes may defer liability for call-out for a period of up to 12 months if they show to the satisfaction of the Defence Council or any authorised officer that there is good reason why their liability should be deferred.”.’.

It is important to note that, although the hon. Member for Canterbury rightly gave a good history of the TA and the valiant role it played in times of danger for this country, there is the idea that, in the context of the cold war legacy, the TA did not make the contribution that it did in the first and second world wars. That changed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the TA made valuable contributions. I pay tribute to the Defence Medical Services, because people are alive today who would not be without its help. TA medical volunteers—not just the doctors and surgeons, but the nurses and other medical professionals—made tremendous contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan; in some cases, med teams put themselves directly in harm’s way.

The major changes will change what is asked of Reservists. In the past, people would not be called up or deployed often, but now we take a more proactive stance. Someone who joins the new Reserve force, the old TA—it will take a while for people to ditch the TA title for Reservists and, knowing the British Army, it will probably adapt to that after about 50 years—will be asked to do a lot more and the chance of being called up will be greater, not just for deployment overseas, but for national emergencies. In many ways, that is a return to the TA’s origins, which is an advantage as it will make the Reservists seem more relevant and put them on a par with Regulars on contribution.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, individuals and units contributed to support deployments of Regulars. Many Regular commanding officers and soldiers say that, when in harm’s way, they could not tell that they were working with Reservists because of the expertise and training that those people brought to their roles, and they found out only later, when they were told.

The Reserve forces put pressure on individuals, not just companies and employers who allow their staff to join. When individuals think about whether they want to be members the Reserve forces, they have to consider the effect of that and how they will be deployed, because some might be called out more regularly than before.

The amendment would deal with self-employed people. They can make great contributions, but might be employed in very small businesses or be a sole trader. It would provide those individuals with some flexibility. If we are to appeal broadly to get individuals to join the Reserve forces, flexibility around the edges will be needed, but the amendment does not suggest an opt-in or opt-out, which might be used as an excuse.

It is important to look at the recruitment that has taken place so far. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East tabled a parliamentary question in February on the companies that TA members come from. The answer, given by the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who was then an Under-Secretary, is broken down into categories. Large organisations, which are classed as having 500-plus employees, contribute 15%; medium-sized organisations, which are those with 50 to 499 employees, contribute 17%; and small organisations, with one to 49 employees, account for 17%. The self-employed comprise 5% and the unemployed, including students, make up 42%. The mobilised TA account for 4%. Those figures demonstrate that the self-employed or those in small organisations face problems joining the TA now and might have problems joining the Reserve Forces.

I attended a fantastic event in the Members’ Dining Room last week—organised by the Government Whip on the Committee, hon. Member for Milton Keynes North—for the launch of the Royal Engineers Reserves. The more such events we have in Parliament, so that the tremendous role played by such organisations can be explained to Members of Parliament and so that Members can interact with them, the better.

The event championed the commitment of Carillion, among other large companies, and the target that it has set to recruit 300 employees—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—to the TA over the next few years. It was refreshing to hear that that target was aimed not only at the coal face, but at board level down. That is good and welcome, but how we reach small and medium-sized organisations is also important.

The amendment would provide some flexibility. One hindrance of the current situation is that sole traders or people in small companies may think twice about joining the TA if there is no facility for the deferment of deployment.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I have two questions about the hon. Gentleman’s interesting amendment. First, it is recognised that deployment is tougher for the self-employed or those from small businesses, because the scope for replacing such people is smaller than in a large business, but if such people could defer their deployment for 12 months, the challenge would be that they might not be deployed with their unit. I believe that the idea is that units of the TA—or the Reserves, as we now need to call them following our agreeing to clause 42—will be deployed, but if an individual deployment is deferred for 12 months, that person might miss out on being deployed with their unit.

Secondly—I beg your indulgence, Mr Brady—why should there be special exemption for those in the defence industry? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why they should be treated differently from others.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

If the hon. Gentleman holds his water, I shall come to the second part of the amendment in a minute.

The fact of the matter is that people already defer their deployment for medical and other reasons. The amendment is not a get-out. We want to try to attract the self-employed and those in small businesses, and the amendment’s purpose is to provide some flexibility. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but without that flexibility to defer mobilisation we will write off a large number of people who will not be attracted to join the Reserve. Taking a two or three-person business, for example, if one person was to be taken out, deferment would at least give the operation some chance to do that. The thinking behind the proposal is that it is about not only large companies—such as Carillion, which is doing its bit—but other, smaller companies.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the matter also involves looking after not only small and medium-sized companies, but families who are part of the Reserves? They need the same support as some of the Regulars, although that can be much more difficult for Reserves as they live off-base or in a different place. Those families need to be looked after too, in a very big way.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although I do not want to go down that route because the point will be covered when we discuss my proposals on how we look after the mental health of members of the Reserve forces. A challenge in this new Reserve organisation will be how we look after people, because although Reserves are doing the same job as Regulars—we are asking them to that same job—their circumstances are different. I shall address that issue later.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way, but I am slightly confused. His amendment says “self-employed”, but he has been speaking about people who work in businesses with three or four people. Therefore, does he wish to amend his amendment?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

No, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are situations in which two or three people in a business are self-employed or they own that business. I can name—

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Then they are not self-employed.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Well, they are, in the sense that— [Interruption] If someone is a sole trader, for example, and comes together—

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Then it is one person.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

A sole trader is a sole trader, but there are situations in which people are self-employed and working together, but as individuals. The point is that the amendment is about trying to ensure that there is flexibility—I thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that—so that we get the figure of 5%. It is about not having a situation where the only people who get into the Reserves are from the Carillions of this world and others, although I am not criticising them at all and such companies are very welcome, as is the work being done by the Minister and others, including the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North, to try to attract such businesses. I have spoken to the Minister about trying to write to some of my major employers, including councils and others, to try to get them to encourage people to join the Reserves.

Penny Mordaunt (Conservative, Portsmouth North)

I understand exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with the first part of his amendment, but does he not consider that the appraisal process for Reserve forces, which is different as between each force, is the more appropriate way to manage the issue and to direct what type of career a Reservist might go into within their branch, with them dropping to different lists if they are unable to make particular commitments? That is probably the more sensible route to manage the problem he identifies.

Secondly, I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on the second part of the amendment. As he pointed out, a lot of Reservists come from the defence sector, but does he agree that people might be deterred from coming forward and joining the Reserves—people do so because they want to be deployed and want do the job—if they thought that the few opportunities that they might have to do the job might be taken away from them by their employer?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I shall come to her second point in a minute, but I note, on the record, her service in the Reserves and thank her for it.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

As the hon. Gentleman has placed on record the thanks of the Committee and the House for my hon. Friend’s service, he might want to congratulate her on her recent promotion to serve as the Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I have already said well done to her personally, but I put it on record that this is a vast improvement on her predecessor—

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Which one?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I have already said on the Floor of the House that the hon. Gentleman’s successor should have listened to him a little more. If she had listened more rather than spoken, she might have made a better contribution to the job she was doing. I am happy publicly to congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, although I congratulated her the other day— [ Interruption. ] The Whip is chuntering from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he wants to intervene and make a comment.

Mark Lancaster (Conservative, Milton Keynes North)

I am grateful, but no thank you.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I wish the hon. Member for Portsmouth North well in her promotion. Let me respond to her first point. I think the question is, what we are going to ask the Reserves to do, and the type of people who will be attracted. One area the Government want to address—and it makes sense—is attracting people with specialist cyber skills. Many of those people will be self-employed, with highly technical skills and will bring a lot to the capability of the new Reserve forces.

I hear what the hon. Lady says about trying to direct people into different lists and streams at selection. However, how will we attract those specialist people to a specific role if there is no flexibility? That is what the amendment is aimed at. Cyber is just one aspect. The Bill would allow a change for which the hon. Member for Bournemouth East has argued for many years. Members of the Reserve forces have a suite of skills that were not used when they joined the old TA—or they were used as an afterthought.

On my first visit to Iraq in 2003, it was helpful, for example, to have a TA soldier who was a bank manager suddenly running the local bank in Basra. With the development of the Reserve forces, that match of civilian skills to the Reserves will be a benefit to the armed forces. That was certainly the case with the presentation that we had the other day from the Royal Engineers, who clearly have transferable skills from what they do at Carillion. Skills such as those, and those of a bank manager, will no doubt be useful.

The second point is about the defence industries. Clearly, a number of individuals who work for defence companies at the moment make great contributions, not only to the Reserve forces but as civilians. Anyone who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan will have seen the tremendous contribution that defence companies’ employees are making in theatre to the deployments of our forces. Encouraging members of those companies to join the Reserve forces will not only enhance the relationship between those companies and the armed forces, but will bring them added value.

One message that we should get out to employers—a message that was being pushed hard by the Royal Engineers—is that this is not a one-way street. The employers are gaining some benefits in skills that individuals will learn when they are on deployment on behalf of the Reserves—I have a terrible habit of calling them the TA; I must try to remember that they are Reservists, not TA. The managing director of Carillion said clearly that people will come back with skills. However, there is going to be an issue in times of crisis when people in the TA who work for a defence company, or one that does defence-related work, are taken out at a crucial time when we need that expertise within the company. It might lead to a deficiency in that company’s ability to provide that support for the armed forces.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument. I do not know if he attended the SSAFA charity dinner last night, as many of us did. It was a great event. It became apparent that these large corporate sponsors involved in the defence industry are not allowed to be aware of or to determine whether part of their work force is in the TA. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, they are not allowed to make that inquiry, therefore they cannot even bestow that support and say, “We want to help you”. It is up to the individual to come forward to say: “I am going to be deployed” or seek permission to be away. Will the Minister take that away and see whether the Opposition would agree that there could be some form of pledge of support by businesses that, if they are signed up to supporting the TA, it is in order to be aware of who on their books wants to be part of the Reservists and therefore is given that support?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Unfortunately, I was not at the dinner last night, thanks to East Coast trains. My journey yesterday took seven hours from North Durham to London.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

They cannot keep the lights on.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The Minister talks about keeping the lights on. It was not that. I think it was an overhead power line which dropped near Peterborough and closed the north-east line. I cleverly thought that I would go via Sheffield, which I did, only to find that someone then jumped in front of a train, with another delay of an hour and a half. I was fated not to get here until nearly 8 o’clock last night.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Lest the hon. Gentleman think for a moment that the weather is politically biased, a road accident brought about by the weather conditions in east Kent converted it into a car park yesterday, so I arrived halfway through a Royal United Services Institute conference.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

That is one of the things sent to try us at this time of the year. If you have to travel a long way to get to Westminster, our travel arrangements are sometimes interrupted.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East makes an interesting point. I have an innate suspicion, which I had in local government and certainly when I was a Minister, that, when someone talks about data protection, there is obviously another reason for it. It is one of those catch-alls, like health and safety. If you want to stop somebody doing something, you say: “Oh, health and safety says”. I would be interested to know what data protection this is. No disrespect to the civil servants in the room, but I suspect it is being used by some civil servants to stop something.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not know whether this could be possible, but if companies have a contract with the MOD—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bournemouth East want to listen to my suggestion? I know that the Whip, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North, is a very engaging individual.

Would it be possible, as part of the contracts with defence companies, to say that they should promote the Reserve forces among their employees? That is not to say that there should be a quota and that they should produce so many, just that they should be committed to and actually promote the Reserve forces among their employees. It would be interesting to know the reason, because it is strange that, when there are individuals with a skill set that in many cases is useful to our Reserve forces, they are not able to be members of them.

The point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East made would come up against my suggestion too, because if employers did not know who in their company was in the Reserve forces, how could they second-guess the situation? It may happen only on a few occasions, but, to come back to a company providing cyber, a certain piece of electronic equipment or some specialism, if it suddenly finds that somebody has been taken out, the individual will be pulled two ways. Obviously, the MOD will want the company to provide that piece of equipment because of vital operational need, but the individual wanting to be employed by the Reserve forces will be pulled the other way. We should give the individual that opportunity. If we are going to crack harder-to-reach areas, such flexibility will be required.

I am not sure what the Minister’s reply will be, but one answer might be that deployments could be deferred because the MOD or the armed forces recognise that such cases create a problem for a company. As I said at the beginning, if we are to attract a broad cross-section of individuals, flexibility in call-outs will be important. When I was at the MOD talking to Reservists who had been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, I asked them often, “What did your company think of that?” Most companies were proud to have a staff member with their armed forces. I suspect that there will be a big difference between that and somebody deployed to look after flooding in a certain part of this country, or to meet some other capability gap in the UK. Flexibility will be needed if we are to attract the broadest possible cadre of individuals to the new Reserve forces.

Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)

When the Minister responds to the debate and the remarks by the hon. Member for North Durham, will he pay particular attention to the notice given to small and medium-sized enterprises? I ran a business employing about 35 people, and if I had had a staff member who wanted to join the Reserves, I would have been pretty sympathetic and wanted to take advantage of their skills and benefits, but I would also have been concerned about how much notice would be given so that I could make provisions for that staff member’s absence. The hon. Gentleman’s proposal for deferral, whether or not it extended to businesses of the size I mentioned, would simply put off the fateful day. The businesses would have to make provision at some point. From my point of view, up to six months would have been helpful.

We recognise that, in times of national emergency, such provisions would no longer be appropriate. I think that most businesses would respond to the challenge facing the country. The clause discusses the lengths of time served. For a business the size of the one that I ran, effective notice is much more important than the length of service.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend has made a significant part of my point. In the first half of the amendment, the hon. Member for North Durham has got hold of a significant point. He is right to be concerned about the small number of self-employed people—there used to be rather more—in the Reserves.

I do not think that his amendment is right, and I hope that he will not press it to a vote, for two reasons. The first is as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said. I said earlier, during the debate on clause 42 stand part, that it would succeed or fail depending on whether we ended up integrating the two forces or trying to assimilate them. A good example of where the Government have gone down the integrated route is on notice, which my hon. Friend mentioned. An American-style system in which people try to give long-term notice of rotations provides employers with the kind of notice that is essential to a small business’s ability to adjust.

The specific problem of self-employed people needs closer consideration. There are two categories of people who have contributed disproportionately over the years. One is barristers, of whom there used to be a large number in the TA. It is no accident that the current Deputy Commander Land Forces is in fact a barrister, although not a practising barrister. He is the company secretary of a medium-sized company. There used to be a lot of self-employed barristers. Another example is British Telecom engineers who, once they got the qualification, could easily dip in and out of work. They work to British Telecom, which trains them, but they are not employed by BT.

In the long run, if we find self-employed numbers do not pick up, we should look at some of what we are doing for small businesses and apply that to self-employed people, as they do in Australia. The arrangement that is being suggested would not be helpful, for the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East gave: the aim is to make it easier to use capability in formed sub-units or units more frequently, as was the case up until four or five years ago, and it would militate against that if some people were there on a different basis and could defer their service.

On the second part of the amendment, it would be quite wrong to pick out one group of soldiers, but I would like to pay tribute to some of the underlying thinking of the hon. Member for North Durham. He mentioned Carillion; the role of sponsoring companies is important. I do not often bore members of a House of Commons Committee with family history, but my grandfather fought as an Indian Army Reservist in the first world war. Between the wars, he raised his own Territorial Army unit, which was sponsored by the forerunners of Blue Circle Cement, the Associated Portland Cement Company. He ran the largest cement works in Europe. That unit was sponsored by the civilian company that employed it.

Although there are examples of areas, such as cyber and medic, where there is a direct read-across of skills, there was no read-across for members of that unit, the Kent Fortress Royal Engineers, except for some knowledge of explosives through their civilian job, which was quarrying. With the generous support of the company, they were able to survive in the very lean period of the 1930s. There was more than one year when there was no money at all from the War Office to get them to their annual training, and the company and the officers between them found the money to pay for the rail tickets. By Christmas 1940, they had won eight major decorations for gallantry. The book is still out there on the internet and in Waterstones, if anyone wants to buy it.

Again, as I said in relation to the first part of the amendment, I urge the hon. Member for North Durham, who made some very good points in his speech, not to press his amendment to a vote. We really cannot create a separate category of people in the Reserves who are there on a different basis from the others. The whole business of being able to use formed sub-units and units would fall away if we did.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham for tabling the amendment. I sense that it was a probing amendment, although he may wish to put it to a vote. It has given us an opportunity to air many of the issues about extending the period for mobilisation. It is important that we discuss this, and some interesting points have been raised. I will start by giving a few pointers as to why we have sought to introduce the new powers in clause 43.

The clause expands the circumstances in which members of the Reserve forces can be called out. It replaces the call-out powers in section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 with a new, broader, call-out power. This new power allows Reservists to be called out for any purpose for which Regular service personnel may be used. The clause also aligns the limits on the periods for which Reservists may be called out under the new power in section 56 with the limits that apply to call-out under section 54, which covers warlike operations.

Clause 43 permits a Reservist to be called out under the new power for up to 12 months. Being able to call out Reserves for any purpose for which Regular personnel may be used will help to make Regulars and Reserves more integrated and interchangeable within the whole force concept. As an integral part of the armed forces, the Reserves have been successful in theatre in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they cannot currently be called out for the full range of operations for which Regular forces may be used.

For example, the existing call-out powers may not allow call-out for activities such as defence engagement, conflict prevention, security sector reform and capability building in priority countries. The strategic defence and security review of 2010 indicated that there would be an increasing focus on such activities, particularly when we move to a contingent posture. We have many skilled Reservists who would undoubtedly be very capable in those areas. The hon. Member for North Durham referred to bankers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred to barristers and BT engineers, who can bring specialist skills; and of course we are increasingly looking to our Reservists to provide medical services and for the cyber Reserves unit.

We need to extend call-out powers so that we are better able to draw on the skills and capabilities of all our forces, both Regular and Reserve, serving together. That is the purpose of this clause, which is important for the Reserves whom we have, and fundamental in facilitating the changes that we are making to our armed forces, as in future Reservists will be required for almost all military operations.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

Does the Minister recognise that another of the great benefits that will accrue to the Ministry of Defence is that people will come from the private sector to do their job as Reservists and will bring with them private business practices? At the weekend, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a Reservist, and he said that he wanted to have meetings on one day rather than two days, but unfortunately it appeared that someone could not get up at 7 o’clock in the morning in order for that to happen. I think that it would be helpful for us to recognise that the private sector and the flow of information between the two sectors is quite an important part of all this.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It ties in with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Durham about the range of employment types that Reservists come from. They come from a whole range of industry and private sector occupations, but interestingly he also made the point that 42%—I think that was the figure—are unemployed or students. That is the largest category that he referred to, and it is testament to the fact that a Reserve occupation makes the individual that much more employable for the outside—for the private sector. I was interested to hear that statistic, and I would strongly encourage those who are currently looking for work to consider joining the Reserves as a way of improving their prospects of finding full-time employment in the private sector or, indeed, in the public sector outside the armed forces.

It is important that we can use Reserves alongside the Regulars, as I have said. It is also important to be able to mobilise those Reserves for sufficient lengths of time to cover the critical pre-deployment training, the deployment itself and post-deployment activities. I appreciate that this is quite a complicated subject. In relation to this clause, I have made available to the Committee a Keeling schedule that identifies the impact of the changes—how the Bill affects the 1996 Act.

Amendment 48, proposed by the hon. Member for North Durham, would provide for two categories of Reservist to defer their liability to be mobilised. As we have been discussing, the two categories are, first, self-employed Reservists and, secondly, Reservists employed in the defence industry. I have to say to him that the effect that he seeks to achieve with his amendment is already achieved by provisions in section 78 of the 1996 Act, which provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations enable a person liable to be called out to apply for a deferral of, or an exemption from, call-out. The regulations may also allow a Reservist’s employer to make the application. In addition, regulations under section 78 may provide for a Reservist who is mobilised to be released from service.

As the Minister with responsibility for veterans in the 19 months running up to the last election, the hon. Member for North Durham would clearly have been pre-occupied, but he may have found time during his service to study the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Exemptions Etc.) Regulations 1997, which were made under section 78. They allow single-service adjudication offers to grant deferrals or exemptions from call-out. I will go into those in some detail, as that will provide him with the reassurance he needs that we already have provisions for the circumstances that concern him and have been raised by other Members. Before I do that, however, I will pick up on some of the other comments made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East is regrettably not in his place at the moment, so I will return to his point once I have dealt with others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, was concerned about effective notice on employers. I draw their attention to paragraph 2.27 of our White Paper, in which we specifically said that the intent would be to give as much notice as possible before mobilisation, obviously depending on the lead time for planning for that task. For enduring operations, the intent is to mobilise Reservists according to the underlying organisational model, giving at least three months’ notice to maritime and Royal Air Force Reservists and nine months’ notice to Army Reservists. That should give any employer sufficient time to manage the loss of that individual. For unplanned contingent operations, the White Paper says that

“the aspiration will be to give at least 28 days’ notice.”

That is not as much time, but if the operation is unplanned, one cannot give an extended notice period.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

If I may say so, that is one of the strongest parts of the White Paper. That approach, based on the American model, is exactly what employers asked for. It is just what we needed.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s endorsement.

Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East has returned, in response to his concern about the Data Protection Act 1998 restricting companies’ ability to become aware of whether their employees are Reservists, I alert him to paragraph 4.33 of the White Paper, which states that we intend, “subject to security considerations”, to

“mandate and oversee notification by Reservists of their Reserve service to their employers.”

We encourage those who sign up to the Reserves to have the responsibility of telling their employers that they are Reservists. We see that as the way around that concern.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

My only concern is that some companies—small or large—may not necessarily warm to the idea of employing potential Reservists. If somebody has to declare that they are a Reservist, and that they may be deployed for a year in a given five-year period, prior to any agreement of contract through a recruitment process, that could prevent them from securing a job, unless a guarantee is in place that their Reservist status cannot be used to prejudice their ability to gain employment.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

If I may, Mr Brady, I will defer further discussion on that point until we debate the hon. Member for North Durham’s amendment, which covers precisely that issue. We will have a good debate on that in due course.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I do not suggest mandatory Reservist quotas, but will the Minister say whether the MOD, when it gives contracts to defence companies, has considered making them aware that people should be encouraged to join the Reserve Forces?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, because it allows me to explain my role. As Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, part of my role is to engage regularly with the defence industry through various forums—the defence suppliers forum chaired by the Secretary of State, and the small and medium-sized enterprise sub-forum, which I chair. I have raised that point with defence companies at every opportunity, encouraging them to notify the MOD of their policy for Reservist recruitment and retention. We are looking for them to play their part in building Reserve capability.

Many companies that are already engaged in sponsored Reserve programmes supply, particularly at present, a number of employees acting in a contracting role in theatre, supporting our forces in their work. Much of that work is already being done, and it is high on our agenda of things to raise.

I want to explain what provisions there are in the existing regulations, to which I referred earlier, to allow for deferral or exemption on application by either the Reservist or their employer. A Reservist may make an application for deferral or exemption on one of six grounds. The first is that they have primary responsibility for the care of a person with a severe physical or mental disability who requires frequent attention or supervision. The second is that they have parental responsibility or sole parental responsibility for a child. The third is that they are engaged in education or training that is intended to prepare or qualify them for a vocation or job, and that would be seriously disrupted by their absence on relevant service. The fourth is that they are working in a family-owned business that would suffer serious harm as a result of their absence. The fifth is that they have entered into a contract of employment but have not yet started work under that contract, and the other party does not agree to postpone until after the period of relevant service the date on which the Reservist is due to start work under that contract. The sixth is any other grounds that an adjudication officer ought, for compassionate reasons, to consider. That is a pretty wide range of opportunities for an individual to resist mobilisation.

An employer of a Reservist who receives a mobilisation notice may make an application for deferral or exemption if the absence of the Reservist for a period of relevant service would cause harm to the business or other undertaking in which the Reservist is employed, or to a partner, proprietor or employee of that business or other undertaking. The categories of harm are also widely drawn. They include loss of sales, markets, reputation or goodwill, or other financial harm; impairment of ability to produce goods or provide services; and harm to research into and development of new products, services or processes. Applications may be made under the regulations by Reservists and employers in all sectors, including self-employed Reservists or defence industry employees.

To complete the picture, hon. Members might like to know that we looked at the call-outs last year, because we have been through a period of active mobilisation. From more than 4,000 call-out orders, 383 applications for deferral were made—66 from employers and 317 from Reservists. Of the 317 Reservist applications, 198 had their call-out order revoked; 103 had their call-out order deferred; three were exempted from call-out; and only 13 had their application refused. Of the 66 applications from employers, 53 had their employee’s call-out notice revoked; eight had their employee’s call-out deferred; and only five had their application refused.

I think the hon. Member for North Durham has recognised that his amendment is unnecessary. We have had the opportunity for a good debate on the issues, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

We have had a reasonably wide debate, and I propose to treat this as a clause stand part debate. I say that for the information of any Members who might wish to make further contributions at this point before I ask the hon. Member for North Durham to respond.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

We have had a good debate. The amendment was probing in its intent, and I wanted to have the discussion because it went to the heart of some of the issues that will be faced in the new world of Reserve forces, as does the next probing amendment. The hon. Member for Canterbury and others mentioned that we are going into a new world. The likelihood is that people who join the Reserve forces will be called up, which possibly was not the case in the past; that is a fair point.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I made it clear throughout my comments that I am sympathetic to some of the underlying points that the hon. Gentleman is raising, but I think we can over-egg the pudding when we say that it is a new world. If we look at what happened in 2003, when a huge number of Reservists were called out at very short notice—some in small groups, many in formed sub-units and, in the case of the Royal Yeomanry, as a formed unit—they responded magnificently and performed very strongly.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but that was clearly a time of national emergency. The issue is that the role that Reservists will fill—and traditionally always have in this country with regard to, for example, civil emergencies—might change the mindset. I come back to a point I made earlier. My experience from discussions with employers and employees is that most employers were proud and supportive of employees who were mobilised for Iraq and Afghanistan. The issue is whether that encouragement and support will be there for the new way that we will be using the Reserves. It is important to have reassurance.

The Minister is correct in his outline of the regulations. They are there, but when this Bill is implemented, it might be necessary to communicate more widely to employers the ability of both employers and employees to defer. Coming back to the point about small businesses and the self-employed, people might think that they have no choice, whereas if there is flexibility, employers might feel a little more supportive, knowing that there is a possibility that, as the Minister rightly points out, for legitimate business and personal reasons individuals can be deferred.

We need clarity on the point raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. I am a little uncomfortable if the onus is on the individual to inform the employer that they are a member of the Reserves. We will come on to employment protection, but the onus being on the employee rather than the employer might lead to difficulty in cases where people have been a member of the Reserves or the TA for a number of years and suddenly tell people. We need to discuss later, or the Government must give some thought to, how that system works.

Another issue, proven by the figures I read out earlier, is that if the bulk of the membership of the TA comes from the unemployed and students, there is a big task in trying to get employed people to join. I do not demur from the point made by the Minister that people who are unemployed or students can make a great contribution. Membership can add to their skill set for future employment. We need to emphasise that to those individuals.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I wanted to make. Following the TA commission and the changes we are about to embark on, there will be a cultural change in what the Reserves do for our armed forces and for this country, which will attract a different level of interest from what we currently see. People have a mindset as to what the TA does today, and we in this place have an obligation to underline how it will be very different in future. Comparisons have been made with Australia and the United States. The picture will be different, which will drive a larger number of people to consider participating in the Reserve forces.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and Members of Parliament have a role to play in trying to encourage employers in their constituencies. As I said earlier, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North is getting me some contacts in the Royal Engineers, and I shall be writing to local authorities and companies in my constituency to make them aware of the opportunities in the Reserve forces and of the benefits to both the Reserve forces and individual companies. The Minister might want to think about trying to encourage all Members of Parliament to do that. In my area, Durham county council employs a lot of people, including many with engineering skills, which would be ideal for the Royal Engineers, for example.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East referred to the cultural change, which it is important to communicate to not only individuals but companies and public bodies. As always, I have one caveat. On making a comparison with the United States, it is a little simplistic to think that we can just replicate what the National Guard do. There are lessons to be learnt there. Anyone who has visited a National Guard unit or seen it on deployment knows it is a completely different beast in terms not only of equipment and finance, but organisation. The general thrust is right, and I am not opposed to the idea of formed units, but we cannot draw direct comparisons, because they will be very different beasts.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s caveat. However, Canada and Australia are smaller than us in this respect, just as America is larger, and until relatively recently they were less well resourced. Australia is now arguably better resourced. Where all three are following a clear practice, the point is probably right. Historically, they have all had a much lower level of turnover in their Reserves than we have, and better recruited officer structures. Although I accept the hon. Gentleman’s caveat, if we look across the board, it is worth doing something.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I agree that Canada and Australia are perhaps more relevant, but the United States is different. The air wing of the California National Guard has more aircraft than the entire UK. I remember being in Baghdad when the air wing of the Atlanta National Guard arrived in two huge C-17s. That shows the difference in the resources and equipment available, and the different mindset. I do not think for one minute that we envisage the Hampshire Reservists having an air wing with C-5s or C-17s. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

We clearly have a challenge, and we should be tasked with ensuring that employers and individuals know the benefits involved. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 6 - Call out of members of reserve forces: transitional classes

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I will be brief; however, it is important to explain the schedule’s provisions to the Committee.

The new mobilisation powers will not automatically apply to existing members of the Reserve forces, whether volunteers or ex-Regulars, or Regulars who will become Reservists. Reservists serving when the new powers come into force will be asked whether they want to be subject to the new powers. If they do not, they will continue to be subject to the current call-out powers. That approach is taken because it is not considered appropriate to require Reservists, volunteers in particular, either to accept the new terms or to leave. The same approach was taken in 1997 when the Reserve Forces Act 1996 extended call-out powers beyond those in the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

In 1997, the vast majority of existing Reservists elected to be subject to the new call-out powers, and we are confident that will happen again. Those who do not agree to do so will be known as the second transitional class. The original transitional class comprises those serving in 1997 who have not elected to be subject to the call-out powers in the 1996 Act. Although that may sound like a bureaucrat’s ideal creation, it is significant, as a number of personnel are affected, as I will go on to explain. Individuals in the second transitional class could still be called out under the powers in sections 56, as currently drafted, 52 and 54 of the 1996 Act. There are still 7,675 personnel in the original transitional class; of those, 7,511 are ex-Regular Reserve and 164 only are volunteer Reservists. Ex-Regular Reserves are former Regulars who have left service but are accepting a commitment to Reserve duty representing their remaining liability under their original sign-up.

I hope that helps hon. Members to understand the provisions in schedule 6.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I have two quick points. First, although not related to the schedule, I want it on the record that I am grateful that the Government have dropped the proposal in the Green Paper that would have left the armed forces free to call people out without the approval of the current political process. While I hope that the political process will always be speedy—we can point to several instances where it has not been—the basic discipline whereby a Reservist must be called out as the result of an explicitly political decision is a feature of legislation across the English-speaking world and is important in maintaining the essential Clausewitzian relationship between people, Parliament and the armed forces.

Secondly, I entirely understand the rationale behind protecting people’s existing rights and I welcome the fact that almost all volunteer Reservists have chosen to transfer to the new conditions, but may I ask the Minister a question about something I do not fully understand? I completely understand what he said about what used to be called the Regular Army Reserve—which entirely comprises individual reinforcements, by definition, as it contains no units—and those who choose to stay with the old conditions of service. I can even understand why people joining now may want to stay under the old conditions. I hope, however, that we will not find that new transferees—ex-Regulars who, under the Government’s welcome scheme, will accept a payment for transferring into the new Army Reserve, as we must get used to calling it—somehow retain a privilege and can join on a basis different from everybody else. Anybody new coming into the Reserves from the Regular Army should do so on the same basis as everybody else. If that unit is called on to provide a sub-unit, for example, or even a whole unit for a task, having a collection of ex-Regulars there on a privileged basis—bearing in mind they will have received a substantial extra sum for transferring—would be rather unsatisfactory.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

My hon. Friend raises an important point. My sense is that we are not creating an extra class, but I need to check, so I will write to him before Third Reading.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Clause 44 - Payments to employers etc of members of reserve forces

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 44, page 29, line 23, at end insert ‘, or

‘(d) undertakes activities as a special member of the reserve forces (“Sponsored Reserves”).’.

The amendment and those in the next group are probing amendments similar to those raised in the debate on the previous group of amendments, which goes to the heart of how we not only get people to join the new Reserves but encourage employers to allow them to do so. The Government have rightly recognised the pressures on some small and medium-sized businesses. Those pressures will be alleviated by the payments referred to in the clause, which have not been available before, to support such companies. Section 84 of the 1996 Act gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to provide for payments by him to employers in respect of financial losses.

The amendment deals with sponsored Reserves. Increasingly, we have used sponsored Reserves to carry out tasks in theatre that we would not allow civilians to do. Legislation allows support tasks, mainly, to be carried out by trained professionals in theatre, and the air tanker contract, for example, included sponsored Reserves. Individuals do not need to be military personnel to carry out functions in operations that are not in harm’s way, but on occasion tasks necessitate it—for example, flying into combat zones or high-risk areas. Individuals and civilians can turn round and say, “No, I’m not going to fly today, because you are flying to Kandahar.” Sponsored Reservists have an obligation to do so. That has been useful in performing functions that need to be carried out by military personnel and functions that in peacetime are normally covered by civilians, but need to be carried out at times of risk. Certainly, it would be uneconomic for military personnel to carry out such tasks day to day—I gave the example of the air tanker contract. For example, flight attendants on personnel flights in peacetime do not need to be military personnel, although, having travelled on some of them, I think it might be helpful in controlling some individuals who are, quite rightly, relieved to be travelling home after a hard tour. It would be uneconomic and unnecessary to have military staff doing that. However, those going into harm’s way should be military personnel or sponsored Reserves. There is a debate about getting the balance right between sponsored Reserves and military personnel. We do not want to see military personnel taken out of the front-line theatre to perform functions that could be carried out by Reservists or sponsored Reserves.

The amendment asks whether special payments could be made to sponsored Reserves. I do not think it would cover contracts such as for the air tanker, which is obviously more familiar. There are smaller contracts, companies and individuals who provide services to the military under the sponsored Reserves scheme. Has thought gone into how to expand the idea of sponsored Reserves? Knowing where the front line is in conflicts is difficult now. We had a big debate about the air tanker contract. I know the arrangement is used effectively on the roll-on, roll-off ferry contract, where most of the time those ships are used for commercial activities. In times of crisis or need the sponsored Reserves who man them can be called upon as assets to be used in areas where it would be considered unacceptable to ask a civilian to operate.

As we see the development of this area, the purpose of the amendment is to understand and expand the role of the sponsored Reserves, and to see whether payments should be made to them.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendments, in particular amendment 49, as it allows us to discuss the purpose of the clause.

The Bill proposes granting the Secretary of State a power, through regulations, to make payments to the employers of Reservists over and above those that may currently be made. The current scheme allows employers to recover costs incurred in covering the work of employees who are mobilised.

It might be helpful to the Committee to spell out in detail the current payments to employers. Some hon. Members on Second Reading wrongly thought that this proposal was for the only payment to employers, which is not the case. The costs that employers can currently claim in relation to mobilisation of an employee comprise what is known as the employer’s award, which is up to £110 a day, or approximately £40,000 a year. It essentially covers the replacement costs incurred by the employer, to the extent that they exceed the Reservist’s earnings. The replacement costs are currently limited to the pay of a replacement for the Reservist or, if appropriate, any overtime payments to existing employees and, if relevant, an increase in salary for an existing employee who has to cover the work undertaken by the Reservist.

In addition, there are certain non-recurring or one-off agency fees, such as advertising costs, excluding VAT which can be recovered by the employer. An employer can also claim the cost of retraining a Reservist on return to work, in the event that the business has moved on during their absence and such training is needed for the Reservist’s re-employment. There is no provision for additional administration costs or for the extra costs of training an external replacement for the Reservist or an existing colleague who is asked to do the Reservist’s work.

This capped amount is intended to represent the quantifiable extra costs, over and above a Reservist’s normal pay, of employing a temporary replacement. The employer is not, of course, paying the Reservist during their period of mobilisation, as they are paid directly by the Ministry of Defence. The employer incentive payments in the Bill are additional payments over and above the current claims that can be made for financial loss. Our intent is to target those payments at small and medium-sized businesses.

The new power for the Secretary of State is intended to allow him some flexibility in making regulations under the clause, for example, on which employers may receive a payment and which Reserve activities trigger entitlement to a payment. However, the current intention is that the regulations will authorise the making of payments only to employers in small and medium-sized enterprises whose Reservist employees are mobilised. The Secretary of State will be required to consult various bodies before making the regulations, including a body representing the interests of employers and the reserve forces and cadets associations.

I turn now to the specifics of the amendment. There was a proposal to include sponsored Reserves in the payments. The sponsored Reserves concept enables the Ministry of Defence to enter into a defence contract on condition that an agreed proportion of the contractor’s work force undertakes a Reserve liability. Those Reservists can be trained and called out to undertake the contracted task as members of the armed forces, as we mentioned in our earlier debate. As commercial contracts are in place between those employers and the Secretary of State in respect of the service of those Reservists as sponsored Reserves, we do not consider it appropriate to make additional payments to the contractors in relation to those services: in our view, that would be a misuse of taxpayers’ money because the contractors are already under contract to provide the service through the sponsored Reserves. On that basis, I encourage the hon. Member for North Durham to withdraw the amendment.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As I said, the amendment was a probing one, designed to highlight the vital role that sponsored Reserves play in our defence capability. The debate has demonstrated not just the contribution that the sponsored Reserves make now but the one that they will make in future alongside existing Reservists under the new structure. I take on board his point about not wanting to make additional payments, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

We now come to the second group of amendments to the clause. I expect that the debate on this group, along with that on the previous group, will have given us sufficient opportunity to discuss clause stand part, so I do not propose to have a separate clause stand part debate.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 44, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(5A) Regulations under this section may provide for variation in payment size on the basis of the recipient company, specifically including provision for larger payments to be provided to companies defined as “small” or “medium” under Sections 382 and 465 of the Companies Act 2006 or individuals who are self-employed.’.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 51, in clause 44, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(5A) Regulations under this section may only provide for payments to be made to employers which meet the definition of a “small” or “medium” sized company under sections 382 and 465 of the Companies Act 2006 or individuals who are self-employed.’.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Again, these are probing amendments, tabled to allow the Committee to debate the role of Reservists and the new role we are asking them to perform. They are also designed to raise the issue of recruitment and how we not only encourage individuals to join the Reserves but make sure that employers are not put off allowing staff to be members of the Reserves, especially as regards financial support.

We have already debated the difficulties that some small and medium-sized enterprises have in allowing people to be members of the current TA. Clearly, if we are to get the broad cross-section from society that we require—including barristers, to whom the hon. Member for Canterbury referred—we will need in some cases to make payments to support employers.

It is worth returning to the parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East in February 2010, in order to show where current TA members come from. Fifteen per cent. come from large organisations employing 500-plus people, 17% come from medium-sized organisations of 50 to 499 and 17% come from small organisations of one to 49 employees. Self-employed people make up 5%. We already discussed the difficulties that self-employed individuals have in committing themselves. Unemployed people, including students, make up 42%, and the mobilised TA make up 4%.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has read that list. It is a great shame that students and the unemployed have been put together. Some of us believe that recruiting people while they are unemployed does not necessarily make for long-term commitment. Students, on the other hand, are the backbone of the Australian Reserve and many of the best elements of the National Guard. For the record, when my former regiment, the Artists Rifles, went to war in 1914, more than half its ranks were composed of students, many of them from the Royal Society of Arts, and I believe that I am right in saying that it was the most decorated regiment in the Army, with eight Victoria Crosses.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful for that. [ Interruption. ] My colleague says, “Artists.” It shows the history of the TA. It came from the first world war, when groups came together to meet the national need at that time. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, they made a great contribution not only in numbers but in terms of the action that they saw.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

As part of my hon. Friend’s argument in favour of the amendments, he has given figures specific to the unemployed. However, it is not entirely clear how Jobcentre Plus would view unemployed potential Reservists going off for long periods, given the demands on them and the expectation that they turn up to sign on and apply for jobs on a regular basis.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps the Minister can address it. Again, we want to encourage people to join the Reserves, but we make payments to employees but not the unemployed. My experience of the Department for Work and Pensions, both as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament, does not fill me with a great deal of hope for joined-up government in encouraging people to take up the initiatives. Will the Minister tell us what initiatives the MOD is taking with DWP to encourage people and show them that there is an opportunity not just to contribute to the Reserve forces but to engage in career development? With reference to some of the more restrictive new regulations requiring people to make job applications and turn up for interviews, will he assure the Committee that the DWP has taken it on board that if people are mobilised, that will be viewed as a productive attempt to make themselves more employable and a key contribution to the defence of their nation? It is an important point.

The figures demonstrate that we have a long way to go in increasing recruitment in some sectors. The Government’s top-level engagement with large companies is welcome. That will clearly produce a large number of recruits to Reserve forces. The type of people the forces will get from these large companies, which put a lot of training into individuals, will be good. Carillion must spend a fortune on employing and training people to get their skill sets right, and those people will be able to transfer into the TA.

My concern on smaller SMEs is not only that we encourage people to join, but that we give the impression to employers that the TA will not be a hindrance to their business. That is why we tabled amendment 50. I am also concerned about the variance of payments for small and medium-sized businesses. That £500 might seem a lot of money, but for some companies it might need to be more than that. It might be better if we target more money at some of these smaller businesses, rather than giving money to some businesses that possibly do not need it.

It is important that the Committee has a better understanding—I know that regulations will be produced on how the money will be allocated—of what the criteria will be, particularly on covering costs for smaller businesses. As the Minister has said, it is not a problem for the individual, because they will be getting paid when they are deployed. If we have a limited amount of cash, which we clearly have for the support of our Reserve forces, it is important that the money is directed to those businesses and enterprises that need it. We have to encourage smaller businesses to encourage their employees to be part of the Reserves, as well as encourage the individual, so that they do not see some hindrance to their ability to make an active contribution to the Reserves.

That brings me on to the issue with small and medium-sized businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses undertook a survey in 2012, and it does not make for good reading. I accept that it is a snapshot of the present situation and, obviously, with a lot more publicity of what is happening with the Reservists, along with the dynamic approach that the Minister and his fellow Ministers will take on selling the benefits of the Reserves to employers, it might change. The survey shows the task that the Government and the MOD have in persuading small businesses to employ Reservists. The report said:

“The majority of members (76%) would not consider being a reservist. 8% are currently or have previously been a reservist; 7% would consider becoming one.”

That 76% represents a large number of individuals. It goes on to say:

“7% of members currently or have previously employed a reservist while 38% would consider doing so in the future.”

That shows that we need to put some effort into this area.

I accept that we can make arguments to small businesses on how the Reserves are great for career development. I also accept that the extension of learning credits and other things will help both the individual and the employer, which will see that the individual is not only making a contribution to the defence of the country, but developing an extra skill set. The amount of effort made, however, will come down to finances.

The Government rightly listened to small businesses on the financial support proposals that were put forward, and I welcome that. One of the things that small businesses do well is innovate. Some of the skill sets that we want for the new Reserve forces will come from small and medium-sized enterprises. We have already touched on the issue of cyber. Most small computer companies—I cannot remember the figure off-hand; I should have looked it up—are one, two or three-people businesses. It is important that we attract those individuals and get them to come forward with their skills. According to the Federation of Small Businesses survey, the vast majority of small businesses have not heard of the MOD’s employer awareness work. The task that the MOD now faces is to ensure that employers know about the benefits of joining and the financial support that is in place.

Amendment 50 seeks to explore the Government’s thinking on the £500 payment when it comes to small and medium-sized enterprises. How did we get to that figure? Can it be changed to ensure that the money is directed towards those sectors? As has been said, the difference between “small” and “medium” can be quite large—“small” can mean up to 49 employees. Is that necessarily the correct way of directing the money? This is about targeting the assistance at the companies that need it, although I do not want to give the Minister the impression that we oppose the clause, which is a welcome move. However, it will take more than just money to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to employ Reservists; it will take a lot of effort from the MOD to ensure that they do not see it as a barrier to their businesses.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

When we discussed changing the name of the Reserve, I asked the Minister to say whether he supported having a single event to mark the change. I would be grateful for the answer to that.

The hon. Member for North Durham raised some interesting issues about the make-up of the new Reserve force and whether it will come from a full spectrum of small to large businesses, but what will this larger force—this greater number of soldiers—actually do? We have not yet discussed that question in this Committee. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of the Defence Reform Bill. However, if it is not appropriate to discuss it here, I would ask the Minister for another opportunity to debate in more detail what the make-up of the new Reserve force will actually do.

We have discussed our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan at length in our debates on the Bill. I would argue that the war fighting was completed quite quickly in both cases, but we fell foul of stabilisation, peacekeeping and nation-building. We did not succeed in those arenas. In my view, that will be no different from some of the challenges we will face in the future.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned one small aspect of the need to increase our cyber-security capability, which the Army does not necessarily have and which it would need to lean on the civilian sector to gain.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

In relation to cyber, there might be advantages from using Reservists. As the hon. Gentleman and I know—I think we all do—technology changes so rapidly in that sector that the best people to deal with it might be those working on it on a day-to-day basis.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I absolutely agree, but that applies not only to cyber, but to the full range of capabilities. General Charles Krulak wrote a study about what he called the “three-block war”. In the late 1990s, he proposed that any infantry soldier needs to be able, on one block, to conduct warfare; on the second block, to conduct stabilisation or peacekeeping activities; and, on the third block, to conduct humanitarian tasks. Therefore, in comparison with the Regular soldier, the TA soldier or Reservist, in bringing their civilian skill sets to the fore, is better placed in the post-conflict world. That goes for cyber, as the hon. Gentleman says, but also for banking, which has been mentioned, setting up local councils to ensure accountability of the democratic process, engineering and every other aspect of civilian society.

That was missing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our soldiers went in and removed the enemy very swiftly, but then there was a pause, while they looked over their shoulders, waiting for a wave of civilian capability to take over responsibility for building society in ways that the military is not trained for. I would argue that the military should take on a greater role during the window of opportunity that exists after the enemy is defeated and before it can regroup, while soldiers are seen as liberators, not occupiers. I therefore pose the question: what are the people we are looking to recruit from the wide spectrum of civilian forces actually expected to do? If they are expected to do more post-conflict work, we should recruit exactly such people. I am concerned that in simply saying, “Let’s increase the size of the Reserve,” we are not saying what we expect it to do. I urge the Minister to say when, if not today, we can have that important debate.

Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)

On support for businesses, will the Minister say something about the idea of a charter mark or some other type of recognition for those businesses that take on Reservists, so that they can make that known to customers and the wider community?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I will endeavour to respond to hon. Members’ comments. [ Interruption. ] As the hon. Member for North Durham chose to leave the Committee Room just as I rose to speak, I will address the points raised by other hon. Members first. I think that it is a first in this Committee for a Member to move an amendment and not be here to listen to the response. We could proceed more rapidly, but I am sufficiently friendly with him not to embarrass him further by seeking to move on.

I will start with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who asked what the Ministry of Defence is doing, with the Department for Work and Pensions in particular, to encourage the unemployed to consider Reservist occupations, and about how that would fit in with their requirement to sign on for benefits. She makes a perfectly reasonable point. I do not have the answer to that here, but I shall write to her about it, because we are in discussion with the DWP precisely to ensure that those who receive benefits are not disadvantaged.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I thank the Minister, and I look forward to the response from him and the DWP. The title of the clause is “Payments to employers etc”—I assume that the “etc” means other partners or people who may be disadvantaged financially. Potentially, the DWP could be slightly disadvantaged financially, because it will have additional administrative costs if it is managing someone who may or may not go into the Reserves or be called up. Have there been discussions or any consideration given to how that element of working with the unemployed will be managed?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

As I said, I intend to write to the hon. Lady about how we will work with the DWP. I have to say that using the word “etc” in a title gives rise to questions about what might be covered. I assume that it covers partnerships—other organisations that are employers, but are not necessarily businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby asked about a charter mark for good employers who employ Reservists. The corporate covenant that has been established is the way in which a charter mark might be developed. He makes a good point, and I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is responsible for personnel and veterans and has responsibility for introducing the corporate covenant, takes it on board.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made the point that we should consider having a further debate on the whole scope of the use of our Reservists. I draw his attention to the White Paper—which I am clutching in front of me—which was debated on the Floor of the House in July and has a clear exposition of the intended use of Reservists. As we have discussed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury described earlier, the intended use runs the gamut of activities that the Regulars undertake and will do so increasingly in conjunction either with individuals or with sub-units or formed units of the Reservists. I am sure that there will be opportunities for further debate in the House, whether through Backbench Business Committee debates or debates called by others. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will know, only last week a debate covered, in part, the role of the Reservists, and that was responded to by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury also asked whether we should mark the end of the use of the name “Territorial Army” in some way. During 2014, a large number of events will be held to recognise the centenary of the start of world war one. It might be appropriate to consider whether some of them should have an element specifically related to the name “Territorial Army” coming out of use. I shall raise that with my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is responsible for international security and strategy and who also has the Prime Minister’s special envoy status for the world war one commemorations. It is a good suggestion on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

Perhaps I can save the Minister time on what the “etc” means—it appears to be in the regulations set under the 1996 Act, which allow the making of payments to partners for the person carrying on the business. However, I come back to my question of how the DWP fits in if it has administrative costs.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I think I said that I assumed that partnerships would be covered, so perhaps we are thinking along the same lines, but I will respond to the hon. Lady’s point about the DWP.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Durham for tabling the amendments that allowed us to have this debate. He referred to the survey undertaken by the Federation of Small Businesses as an illustration of why we need to raise awareness, particularly among small businesses, of the role of Reservists. He is right to refer to that survey. I congratulated Mike Cherry when he gave oral evidence to the Committee about having undertaken the survey, which I think is the first such survey undertaken. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the survey’s conclusions and pointed out that 38% of respondents would consider employing Reservists and that 7% do. Taken together, a 45% positive response to employing Reservists is a strong indication of support for the position of Reservists in an employee base, even among small companies. I am perhaps more of a “glass half full” man than the hon. Gentleman, and I take that to be a positive endorsement of what we seek to do.

We may come on to what we are doing to raise awareness in the discussion on new clauses later today. However, the campaign that followed the launch of the White Paper in July was kicked off just over a month ago, on 16 September, to raise awareness of the new recruitment drive under the provisions we are discussing today. It is therefore early days, but we are absolutely aware that it is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence and all the armed forces—particularly the Army, whose target is the most challenging—to encourage all their units to play their part in raising awareness and recruitment.

Let me turn to amendments 50 and 51, which the hon. Gentleman said were probing amendments. It is important to discuss them briefly and explain why they are not necessary. In themselves, they seem to be alternatives, one for the other, depending on the size of the employer’s business. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is confirming that. It is important to recognise that although all employers might feel an impact from the medium or long-term absence of staff, those with the fewest staff are most likely to be affected. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have listened to employers during the consultation on the Green Paper, and we seek to reflect their concerns in the regulations.

Amendment 50 would allow the regulations to provide for the sums payable to vary depending on the size of the employer’s business. In particular, it would allow larger payments to be made to small and medium-sized businesses and to employers who are self-employed. In our view, the effect that the amendment seeks to achieve is already achieved by proposed new section 84A, taken together with the amendments made to section 85(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. They give the Secretary of State the flexibility to provide in the regulations so that the sums payable may vary depending on the size of the employer’s business. We therefore do not think that amendment 50 is necessary.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful to the Minister for that, but will he say how such a system will operate in practice?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I will come to that in a moment, when I explain exactly which businesses will benefit. Before I do, let me cover amendment 51, which would limit the employers to whom payments may be made under the regulations. It would mean that payments could be made only to employers in small and medium-sized businesses and employers who are self-employed. The current intention is that the regulations will authorise the making of payments only to employers in small and medium-sized enterprises and not the self-employed. That is because larger companies are more likely to be able to absorb the costs and disruptions associated with absences from work for Reserve duties.

The problem with amendment 51 is that it would give the Secretary of State no flexibility to provide for payments to be made to other employers, should there be evidence to support doing so in due course. That flexibility is important. We have not included the self-employed, as the payment is to be made in recognition of the impact on employers. The self-employed Reservist has elected to become a Reservist and so has accepted the risk of being mobilised themselves. Were we to pay them, we would in effect be handing the self-employed Reservist an additional £500 a month, as a pay rise when mobilised. We do not believe that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money nor do we think it would be well received by Reservists who are not self-employed or by the Regulars.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

What if the self-employed person had a business that he or she needed to continue? Obviously that would not be covered by wages, but such people might be trying to fulfil a contract that was halfway through when they were mobilised, for example. If they had to get in some resources to finish the contract, how would that be accommodated?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

In those circumstances, a business that was continuing to fulfil its contract would do so by hiring in resources, which could be remunerated under the employer’s award, as though the business were employing the individuals. In such circumstances, self-employed people could continue to fulfil contracts by taking on an employee or a contractor to undertake the work for them, and thereby become eligible for the employer’s award.

We intend to keep the payments under review. If we need to make alterations and adjustments in future, we should have the flexibility to do so. A draft of the statutory instrument will not be available until the Bill enters the House of Lords. The public sector should be providing a lead on the employment of Reservists—for example, by providing special leave for training. However, it is not appropriate for one Department to pay another simply for following Government policy, so the measure will not apply to public sector employers.

Payments are already available to employers of Reservists to reimburse them for any defined costs arising by reason of their employee being called up for service, as discussed earlier. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, the intention is to provide in regulations for payments to be made to employers in small and medium-sized enterprises for each month that a Reservist employed by them is mobilised, with payments being made at the rate of £500 a month. For these purposes, our definition of an SME is a business employing fewer than 250 people and having an annual turnover of less than £25 million.

The current thinking is that the new payments should be aimed at SMEs, and the Government are committed to providing them with support in general. The Committee has heard about the importance of SMEs to both Government and Opposition Members. We appreciate that the burden of Reserve commitments can fall particularly hard on small businesses, especially if they have few employees. The Committee might recall that the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed the payments during the oral evidence session, while the Confederation of British Industry took a similar position in its written evidence to the Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I would say that this measure is yet another example of this Government listening to small employers, so I am pleased that he recognises that we have responded positively to the concerns of small business.

A draft of the regulations that will be made under proposed new section 84A of the 1996 Act will be available early in November and will contain detailed rules governing the making of payments. I am sorry that the draft regulations were not available for consideration in Committee, but I will ensure that they are sent to Members as soon as they are produced. On that basis, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I thank the Minister, and I look forward to seeing the draft regulations. It will be important to get them right if we are to attract people from small and medium-sized businesses.

I am a little concerned that the upper figure is 250 people —that is a large company, certainly in my area. Once the regulations have been produced—for example, if they are available on Report—perhaps we can look at targeting the money more effectively at smaller employers. Getting the skill sets that we are looking for might mean paying more than £500 in some instances. For certain skills—I return to the issue of specialist cyber-skills and so on—that figure might not cover small companies employing two or three people. The flexibility in the regulations to pay more and attract certain skills sets—

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 51, in clause 44, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(5A) Regulations under this section may only provide for payments to be made to employers which meet the definition of a “small” or “medium” sized company under sections 382 and 465 of the Companies Act 2006 or individuals who are self-employed.’.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen. As I said before lunch, these are probing amendments. We have had a good discussion, so I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 7 - Payments to employers etc of members of reserve forces: supplementary

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

It is a great pleasure to have you back in the Chair for what, if we make sufficient progress, may be the final sitting in Committee, to which I am sure Committee members are looking forward. Certainly, on this schedule, I will try to keep my remarks brief.

Schedule 7 contains supplementary provisions in respect of the new power to make payments to employers of Reservists and persons in partnership with Reservists—the “etc.” that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, wanted to highlight—and transitional provision.

The supplementary provisions include measures extending provisions in the Reserve Forces Act 1996 that apply to financial assistance under regulations made under sections 83 and 84 so that they apply to regulations made under proposed new section 84A. Section 85 of the 1996 Act will be amended so that regulations made under proposed new section 84A may make provisions in respect of the description of persons who are entitled to claim payments under the regulations and the sums to be paid. The existing obligation in section 85 in the 1996 Act to consult various bodies before making regulations under sections 83 and 84 is extended so that it applies to the making of regulations under proposed new section 84A.

Section 86 of the 1996 Act currently provides that regulations made under sections 83 and 84 may be suspended where a call-out order under section 52 of the 1996 Act is in force. Section 86 will be amended so that regulations made under proposed new section 84A may also be suspended where a call-out order under section 52 is in force. The criminal offences created by section 87 of the 1996 Act will be extended to apply to claims for payments not only under regulations made under sections 83 and 84, but under those made under proposed new section 84A.

Schedule 7 also makes transitional provision in connection with changes made to penalties on conviction in a magistrates court in other legislation that has not yet been commenced. When it is commenced, the changes will affect the fines and the period of imprisonment available for offences under section 87 of the 1996 Act in connection with claims under regulations made under sections 83 and 84.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I have a general inquiry that I am sure the Minister’s officials can answer. How often have those charges been brought? How many people per annum are charged with an offence under those regulations?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

If I may say so, the hon. Lady shows her forensic ability to get to the bottom of the regulations. She may have confounded not only me with the level of her inquiry, but my officials. I will have to get back to her with an indication of how many times the measures have led to convictions, because the Ministry of Defence does not itself have responsibility for such cases, which are taken through the magistrates court.

In conclusion, provisions under schedule 7 will make it clear that, when commenced, the changes to penalties will also have effect in connection with claims under regulations made under proposed new section 84A. I apologise to the Committee for such a detailed explanation, but I hope that it was suitably brief and that we can now agree to the schedule.

Clause 45 - Unfair dismissal of reserve forces: no qualifying period of employment

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Employment of members of reserve forces—

‘(1) Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 shall apply to serving and former members of the reserve forces as if membership of such forces were a protected characteristic under section 4 of that Act.

(2) Members of the reserve forces are required to disclose their membership to potential employers upon application for employment.

(3) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this Act coming into force establish an employer engagement committee to act as an advisory body on the recruitment and retention of members of the reserve forces.

(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report of the Employer Engagement Committee detailing its activities and recommendations for the Government.’.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Reservists are currently at a disadvantage when making claims for unfair dismissal, as these claims cannot be made by those with less than two years’ service with their employer, and periods of call-out do not count towards those two years. The exemption applies only when the dismissal is because of, or is connected with, the individual’s service as a Reservist, so this minor change is proportionate within the current framework of employment law.

Clause 45 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the current two-year qualifying period for claims of unfair dismissal, where the reason for dismissal is, or is primarily because, the individual is a Reservist. I emphasise that there is already protection in place to make sure that Reservists are not dismissed as a result of any duties or liabilities that a Reservist has to undertake, such as mobilisation. This protection is provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment Act) 1985, section 1 of which gives a Reservist who is called out for Reserve service the right to apply to his or her former employer to be reinstated after they return from mobilised service. In addition, section 17 of the 1985 Act makes it a criminal offence for an employer to dismiss an employee solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities that may arise as a result of being called out.

Section 18 of the 1985 Act provides that where an employer has been convicted under section 17, the court can order the employer to pay compensation to the employee, but this is capped at five weeks’ pay. However, these protections do not help a Reservist who wishes to claim that they have been unfairly dismissed because they are a Reservist. It is not normally possible to bring a claim for unfair dismissal in the employment tribunal until an individual has completed two years of continuous service with their employer. Presently, periods of mobilisation for Reservists, such as service in Afghanistan, would not count towards the two-year qualifying period, and I am sure that all here would agree that someone being disadvantaged because of their Reserve service is simply unacceptable. We are seeking to redress that through a proportionate approach to the current framework of employment law.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

May I say, Mr Owen, how welcome it is to serve under you this afternoon?

My hon. Friend the Minister makes a very powerful case, but one of the areas that he and I have talked about in the past is to do with local councillors who may be called away on deployment and on operation, and who, if they are away for more than six months, might end up losing their role on the local authority. I think it is the same for school governors, and potentially for people called up for jury service who do not find themselves able to get out of it, because they potentially might not know about it, or whatever; they could find themselves being penalised as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps we need to look at this—perhaps not today, but on Report?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these concerns; as he points out, he has raised them privately with me before. I am led to believe that councils already have the power to overcome the standing orders in their byelaws under which a councillor would be removed, if the council deems Reserve service to be an appropriate reason to waive those rules, so I do not believe that that power is required in the Bill, but I am happy to clarify that in writing to my hon. Friend before Third Reading so that it is crystal clear.

We recognise and value the contribution of Reservists, and we need to be sure that their interests are properly protected. Part of that is ensuring that their Reserve service does not negatively affect their employment prospects. We are aware from the Future Reserves 2020 consultation, and from evidence provided by Reservists, of what we hope are isolated cases of Reservists not being offered a job because of their Reserve service. We are looking to develop an incentive-based approach with employers to resolve that issue, and if that is not possible, we will consider introducing further legislation in the next Armed Forces Bill, which is anticipated in 2015.

I draw the attention of hon. Members to a website that went live on the publication date of the White Paper, surveys.mod.uk/reserve-employer-issues?. It provides an opportunity for Reservists who feel that they have been subject to discrimination by an employer to register their concern. The website was launched on 3 July, so it has been up and running for nearly four months, and we have to date received four responses raising such issues. Of course, those issues are all being addressed by staff from SaBRE—Support for Britain’s Reservists and Employers—and the MOD’s delivery wing. We seek to raise awareness of that website among our Reservists so that anyone who suffers, or believes they are suffering, discrimination may access it.

To date, the evidence, such as it is, on discrimination being a serious problem is not compelling. I draw the Committee’s attention to the evidence of Mr Cherry of the Federation of Small Businesses. He anticipated that the issue of discrimination might be raised in Committee, and I asked him whether he had any advice for the Committee on whether it is a factor and, indeed, whether he had sought to establish that in the survey undertaken by the FSB, to which the hon. Member for North Durham referred earlier. On discrimination, Mr Cherry answered:

“We have heard the anecdotal comment, shall I say, that Reservists may feel that they have been disadvantaged if they make their employer aware of it. That certainly has not come up through our evidential base and nobody has been able to pin down that fact. I would treat it with a bit of scepticism”.––[Official Report, Defence Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 September 2013; c. 36-37, Q81.]

That reinforces our cautious approach to legislating further on discrimination. I am sure that we might address that when we consider the new clause, but the evidence we have gathered so far through the portal is not compelling. I encourage the Committee to support clause 45.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Labour Members welcome clause 45, in so far as it ensures that anyone who volunteers to be a member of the Reserve forces should not be discriminated against in employment. It is a little ironic that, when the coalition Government came in, the qualifying period for employment tribunals was one year; it has now been increased to two years, mainly at the behest of organisations such as the FSB. I will address the FSB’s comments in a minute.

Although we welcome the clause, if we are to attract people to joining the Reserves—there has been a sea change in the number and type of individuals required—including people from large, small and medium-sized businesses, they must be protected in law. The measures do not go far enough, although I accept the Minister’s statement that they will be under review, and that measures will be introduced in the Armed Forces Bill if there seems to be a problem.

I would put money on it that the present Government do not want to introduce legislation in this area because of their ideological position on employment rights, which they are inherently against. I am sceptical about whether any future Conservative-led coalition or Government would introduce any such legislation, but after the next general election, there will obviously be an opportunity for a majority Labour Government to do so.

I concur with the Minister about councils. Although a rule exists regarding people who do not attend for six months, councils have the ability to defer that for good reasons, such as illness, and I think that service in the Reserve would be a good reason. It would be a brave council that debarred any councillor from serving their nation, although there might be one idiotic enough to try.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

It is not just about local councillors; it is also about school governors.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The hon. Gentleman will see that exactly the same provision applies to school governors. Again, it would be pretty unusual for a school governing body to move that someone should be debarred for non-attendance due to service to their country. I should think that, generally, schools would consider it a good thing to have a member of the Reserve forces on their governing body. I believe that they are covered, but I would welcome the clarity that the Minister has promised the Committee.

On the complaints made, it is early days. As with a lot of such things, it will be important to ensure that everyone knows about the long web address that the Minister has just given, so that any complaints or concerns are received, but that will obviously develop over time as people learn that the complaints system is in place.

I take note of the comments made by Mr Cherry of the Federation of Small Businesses. My experience of the federation is that it is not actually a champion of employment rights or workers’ rights—it tends to want to reduce them—so his comments did not surprise me at all. However, discrimination may be an issue in larger companies, whether in terms of employment or of lack of opportunities for promotion or other things that are easier to hide in a large organisation than in a small one. Although we welcome the clause, we think that it should go further.

New clause 7 is about protection. If we are to encourage people to join the Reserves, which I think all of us on this Committee want, we must ensure that they have maximum protection. The new clause tackles discrimination against members of the Reserve forces in job interviews. It aims to amend section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 to

“apply to serving and former members of the reserve forces as if membership of such forces were a protected characteristic under section 4 of that Act.”

At the moment, the Act covers: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation. The new clause would add to that list to prevent discrimination against Reservists at the job interview stage.

This morning, we discussed the onus being on Reservists to inform their employers of their membership, as raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. It would be completely wrong if someone going for a job interview could be asked, “Are you a member of the Reserve forces?” and be told that that would debar or in some way stop them from getting a job because they will need time off for deployment. The Minister might say that that would be a remarkable situation, but, having represented people in employment tribunals in a previous life, some of the reasons why employers large and small, from multinationals to small businesses, discriminate against people never cease to amaze me. Being a Reservist could be used to stop someone from getting a job; the new clause would make that unacceptable.

We need to get across to employers that having Reservists as members of their work forces is a positive thing. As I said this morning, measures such as learning credits will help some employers to recognise that they will gain from not only the experience of those who serve their country, but their personal development.

The new clause also states that

“The Secretary of State shall within one year of this Act coming into force establish an employer engagement committee to act as an advisory body on the recruitment and retention of members of the reserve forces.”

The Minister and the Defence Secretary have said much about engaging with employers, but we need a forum that monitors these matters closely from the point of view of not only the employee, but the employer. In the light of recent stories in the press about the difficulty the Army is having with recruitment, to lay a report before Parliament every year to explore these issues would be helpful for oversight; it would also flag up whether clause 45 is sufficient protection for those who serve, which is the point that the Minister raised. Some may say that that is not a problem, but the Duke of Westminster, who is the most senior Reservist, I think—I worked with him in the Ministry of Defence—and who is committed to the new Reserve services, was reported in The Daily Telegraph in September 2012 saying:

“There is undoubtedly positive discrimination against someone who at interview says he is in the Territorial Army…It is the most outrageous form of discrimination…It has been mentioned to me by my soldiers on more than 100 occasions.”

If someone with the Duke’s experience of the Territorial Army is saying that, the issue needs to be addressed. We should be able to say to people who join the Reserve forces that they will be protected under the new clause; it should not be held against them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View mentioned unemployed people joining the Reserve forces. We all agreed that that would be good for those seeking employment as it would add to their CV and career development. On occasions, however, it will not, if we have employers who discriminate against them. The measure would prevent that by making it illegal to discriminate against people who are members of the armed forces.

People will ask, “Is there a problem here?” Members of our armed forces, whether Regulars or Reservists, are rightly held in high esteem at the moment, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan, for their commitment there. Some paid the ultimate price, their lives, while others came back injured. My concern, which is shared by others, is that once Afghanistan is out of the headlines, the British Government might be fickle about ensuring that members of our armed forces and Reserve forces are not discriminated against. That is not to criticise any individual or group of individuals, but it is a matter of fact that the subject will not be in everyone’s living rooms every night and in people’s consciousness. New clause 7 would be a way of reinforcing that point—that individuals who wish to serve their country and to make a positive contribution to the security that we all take for granted will not be discriminated against.

I give notice that I will want to vote on new clause 7. It is important not only because of the practical implementation, but because of the message it would send to members of our Reserve forces that they will be protected and not discriminated against.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.

I will not join the hon. Member for North Durham when voting, because the Government have taken a lot of trouble, and my hon. Friend the Minister gave a good source, but I put on record that I share some of his concerns. Discussions I have had have been divided, but the Duke of Westminster certainly made a similar point, as did two other Territorials, one of them an extremely senior one who has been—indeed, still is—a big employer, and the other a barrister by profession. This is something on which the Government should consult more widely, because it needs serious consideration.

The drawback of putting the provision on a statutory basis is that when the Government are doing a great deal to get employers’ organisations on side, any such measure would unquestionably be seen as a hostile act. We have all five of the main employer organisations on board—I congratulate Ministers—from the CBI onwards.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of view, but what would a good employer have to fear from the proposed measure? Nothing at all.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The short answer is nothing in theory, but it would be different in fact. The hon. Gentleman has been through this process many times in his previous life, so he understands that the problem is the same as with any minority—concern about one more category of people, Reservists, who, because they did not get the job, feel that they are being discriminated against. The Reservist will not always be the best candidate for the job. There is a difficult balance to strike.

The Minister has got all five main employer organisations to sign up to the package and has taken a series of measures, of which the financial stuff is not the most important part—by far the most important part is the commitment to work with employers on the notice periods and so on. I can therefore understand why, on balance, my hon. Friend has come down against the proposal. None the less, it is worth looking at closely.

The hon. Member for North Durham passed over new clause 7(3) and (4) rather quickly, but there is already a good body that does what is described in subsection (3), the National Employer Advisory Board. However, I welcome the proposal under subsection (4) to put it on more of a statutory basis. Perhaps the Government will think about that.

I have stayed non-partisan because of my work on the Reserves, but a lot of what went wrong did so under the previous Government. For a very long time, individual Reservists have felt, in a variety of ways, put upon and unloved—the commission that I sat on found a ghastly picture—having given so much in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I do not recognise that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem, which may persist today, is the difficulty with the Regular Army? I certainly found that in terms of relationships, sometimes—not always—that prejudice came from members of the Regular Army.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that last point. Many people, including the Chief of the General Staff himself, Sir Peter Wall, have really put their shoulders to the wheel and are doing everything they can to make this work. There remain—this comes out from time to time from a variety of sources—very significant numbers of people within the Regular Army who do not really understand what we are trying to do here. In some cases they are getting it wrong; in other cases they are actively hostile to this process. However, between being used as a part-time personnel service, as they were from 2009, and the cuts in the amount of money available for collective training, this is an organisation with a lot of individuals who feel put upon.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

People like to rewrite history, but the £20 million earmarked for savings there got lost in the fog of the last days of the previous Government. That recommendation actually came from the Army itself.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely true. I said at the time that I had considerable sympathy for Labour Ministers. The point was that the proposal was made by the then Chief of the General Staff, who is now retired as Chief of the Defence Staff, at the very last moment when it was too late for Ministers to find the money from any other source. The money had been spent on recruiting 1,100 Regular soldiers above the approved target. That is a good example of the point the hon. Gentleman made earlier.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

If I allowed the hon. Gentleman, with whom I largely agree on all this, to lead me further down this path, I would exasperate you, Mr Owen, and the Committee. My point is that an awful lot of Reservists have felt very unhappy for some time and the dwindling numbers reflect that. The Government are trying in a variety of ways to put that right and have put together a package to try to make the Reserve service more attractive, not just for the individuals but for their employers too.

New clause 7 neatly identifies one of the real dilemmas in trying to carry the employers with us: do we go this extra step, as quite large numbers of thinking Reservists would like us to do, or do we say that as we are doing quite a lot already and have employers on side, so let us see if we can carry this voluntarily? I respect my hon. Friend’s judgment on this, which is why I will not vote with the hon. Member for North Durham, but I urge my hon. Friend to keep an open mind and to be willing to return to it at a later stage in the light of events. Nevertheless, I think this has been a useful debate.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that, as I said earlier, we are keeping this under careful review, and I will go on to explain a little more of that in my response to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for North Durham. Before those general remarks, I will go through the drafting of the proposed new clause, because it has a number of problems. The proposed subsection (1) of new clause 7, would apply to section 39(4),

“as if membership of such forces”

—that is, the Reserves—

“were a protected characteristic”.

In my view, membership either is or is not a protected characteristic and the advice from the Government’s Equalities Office is that being a Reservist would not count as a protected characteristic defined in the Equality Act. This covers age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.

There have been occasional calls for various characteristics to be given protected status, particularly during the preparations for the Equality Act. Those mostly related to some form of physical appearance, ranging from extremes in individuals’ height and weight to the way people might choose to dress, apparently including as Goths, for example. However, after full consideration the list of protected characteristics was set out as I have already explained.

The Equality Act therefore does not seem to be a particularly helpful home for possible protection for Reservists. To include being a Reservist as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act would be to use a disproportionate tool to tackle the problem, and could give rise to the same argument being deployed successfully in relation to a number of the physical characteristics I mentioned. That could have the result of doubling the number of protected characteristics, which would have an exponential on-cost to businesses, public authorities and the courts.

As for subsection 2 of the new clause, individuals with protected characteristics do not need to declare them when applying for jobs, so it would seem to be an unreasonable request to make of Reservists.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

That runs counter to what the Minister said this morning. He said that he was trying to encourage Reservists to tell employers that they were members of the Reserve forces. Is the Minister suggesting that if a member of the Reserve forces went for a job interview and was asked the question directly they should not tell the truth?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

As I said earlier today, we are seeking to encourage Reservists to declare their service to employers, but we are not intending to do that in statute as the new clause proposes. Currently, Reservists can choose whether to declare their Reserve status in an application form, which seems to work well for both employers and individuals.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

If we do not agree to the new clause and the Government do not bring forward some type of protection, someone could go for a job interview, tell their prospective employer that they were a member of the Reserve forces and be told that that was the reason they did not get the job above someone who was not a member of the Reserves, and that would be legal.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

If that happened, we hope that it would be reported to the Ministry and form part of our consultation when we look at how to consider this matter in the future.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Yes, but if that person reported the incident, there would be no legal redress at all for them. Is the Minister saying that he is quite content with a legal right for employers to discriminate against members of the Reserve forces?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

We are concerned about the issue, but we do not believe that there is yet a body of evidence to suggest that the problem is as large as the hon. Gentleman seems to think it is. I heard what he said about the representations he has received from the former head of the Reserves, as well as what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has indicated he has heard from his contacts. However, we would like to see a body of evidence before we rush to legislate to widen the categories for discrimination. There are good reasons for that.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

There are two issues here. I have raised the remarks of the Duke of Westminster, as has the hon. Member for Canterbury.

Does the Minister not think that he will be waiting a long time for the evidence he wants? If someone is told that they will not be employed, they will surely be reluctant to come forward, as doing so might debar them from future employment with other employers. It is a little bit like declaring that you are a member of a trade union, for example—if you apply for work with certain companies that will debar you. The Minister could wait a long time for the evidence he wants. I cannot understand why he is reluctant to put the measure in the Bill.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

We are not anticipating a long wait. As I said earlier, we are looking at an armed forces Bill in 2015, which will be less than two years after the Bill becomes an Act.

Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)

As a former employer, I cannot conceive of any applicant who would not want proudly to tell a prospective employer that they were a member of the Reserve forces, and I think that most employers would consider that to be a great positive in their application.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is the attitude that most employers take. The proposals in the new clause would be for the errant employers. We think that they are few in number, but we are going to keep an open mind when drafting the next armed forces Bill in 2015.

I am going to make progress, if I may, Mr Owen. Existing policy outlines that Reservists must inform their employers of their Reserve service, except in cases where a security waiver, such as for Northern Ireland or Special Forces, has been approved by the chain of command. However, I acknowledge that awareness of that policy has been patchy.

The chain of command is also obliged to write to the employer informing them that they have Reservist employees, but again I acknowledge that application has been inconsistent. Those are two aspects that we are seeking, through the change in policy outlined in the White Paper, to tighten up.

Despite the existing policy, some Reservists have been unwilling to tell their employer of their Reserve status and so claim to be unemployed, or do not provide accurate employer details to their chain of command. While I acknowledge that application has been inconsistent, we are looking, through the White Paper, to take a more consistent approach.

As I have already highlighted, the White Paper gives an undertaking that the Government will ensure that employers are informed about their Reservists, subject to the security requirements I have mentioned. Work is under way with the single services to re-energise existing policies and ensure that Reservists and their chain of command implement them.

The White Paper also makes a commitment that employers will be notified of their Reservist’s training plans each year, and we are using that commitment as an opportunity to remind employers that they employ a Reservist, through an annual letter enclosing the individual’s training plan. However, the process will still rely on individual Reservists providing accurate and timely information. The focus will be on ensuring that the existing rules are communicated effectively and that senior Reservists lead by example, promoting and encouraging compliance.

Turning to subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new clause, we have already taken steps to develop our engagement with employers and build our relationships with them. We have already introduced a corporate covenant, which we touched on this morning, as the framework for employers to engage with defence on the full range of personnel issues, including Reserve service ones. By April 2014 we will have a national relationship management function to provide a single point of contact for the largest external stakeholders on defence personnel issues. It will establish a mechanism by which relationships can be managed and sustained across our departmental and tri-service boundaries.

Defence will continue to seek informed independent advice from the National Employer Advisory Board about how the MOD can most effectively gain and maintain the support of employers for Britain’s Reserve forces. Our employer support helpline and web pages have been updated to include a new employer toolkit. We also have an external scrutiny group for the Future Reserves 2020 programme, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is well aware, to review the change programme and the overall health of the Reserves. I believe that we are effectively and systematically engaging with employers and interested groups on the range of Reserves matters.

We are also aware, from the Future Reserves consultation and the website that I mentioned, of what we hope are isolated cases of Reservists being disadvantaged in their main employment because of their Reserve service. We have also informally canvassed the service chiefs for their views on making discrimination against Reservists a criminal offence. Their view is that they have been clear that they would not welcome that approach, as it would single out members of the armed forces for special treatment, which is something that the chiefs do not feel is appropriate.

We are looking to develop a partnership approach with employers to resolve that issue, but we are also gathering evidence through the portal and would encourage any Reservist who has been disadvantaged, or feels so, in the workplace as a result of their Reserve service to provide details through that channel. If a partnership approach is not possible, and the evidence were to suggest that we had a real issue, then, as I have already said, we will consider introducing legislation in the next Armed Forces Bill in 2015.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On that basis, I am happy to support my hon. Friend, who seems to have thought it through carefully. However, may I allude back to the exchange he had on the last clause with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View? It is quite a complicated area, as some of it is to do with employment tribunals and some with magistrates courts and so on. The complaint that I have had back is that it is all too complicated for a Reservist to get into and that it is not at all clear how Reservists get their rights.

My hon. Friend the Minister has announced this new website which I hugely welcome as a first step. Could he copy the whole Committee in on his answer to the hon. Lady about what cases there have been in the past, as I would be very interested to know that? The allegation I heard was that there had not been any in which the MOD had itself become involved. I do not know whether that is true. Let us hope that the website will change it.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I can certainly try to provide a little bit more information to members of the Committee on the responses we have received to the website. I am not sure that I made a commitment to the hon. Lady to do very much more than what I have said. I think we were talking about the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to benefits being withheld.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

The Minister did, in response to my—as he described it—forensic picking over of the regulations, promise to come back to me. It links into the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me about that. I will certainly write to the Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support in resisting the amendment, which I would encourage the rest of the Committee to do.

Clause 46 - Extent

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 46, page 30, line 21, at end insert ‘and British Overseas Territories’.

We touched on the overseas territories earlier and I tabled this probing amendment to explore the Government’s thinking on the matter. A number of overseas territories have defence forces, including Bermuda, and they are different in the sense that they are not part of the Army list. Gibraltar is slightly different in that in 1996 it was added to the Army list. That was at a time when Regular forces withdrew from Gibraltar and the main function of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment is the protection of Gibraltar itself. However, as we said this morning, members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment have served with distinction in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in other theatres, alongside members of the UK armed forces. They regularly exercise jointly with the UK armed forces, notably in north Africa, which is useful not just for the regiment, but for members of our own armed forces.

Gibraltar is also the only overseas territory that occasionally provides the guard of honour at Buckingham palace, which it did a few years ago. That is clearly right and shows the importance that we attach to Gibraltar and to the work of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment. The Royal Gibraltar Regiment comprises three companies: headquarters (Thompson) company, G company and I company. There is also B company, which is a Territorial company. I understand from the Minister that there is no proposal to extend the Bill to Gibraltar, but we talked this morning about the use of the word “Reserves”. We could still have a Territorial Army, but it would be based solely in Gibraltar. What consideration has been given to changing the name? Obviously, that is a matter for the Government of Gibraltar, but the Territorial Army would still be alive and kicking if the name was not changed.

The Royal Gibraltar Regiment, which I have visited, finds it useful for its members to serve with members of the UK armed forces—it served with distinction in Iraq and in Afghanistan—so what opportunities will there be for members of the Territorial, or Reserve, company in Gibraltar to train alongside our armed forces and get involved in deployments, abroad and in the UK?

I accept that the conditions in the Bill are draft conditions. If there was another flood in Whitehaven we would not want people from Gibraltar being drafted to help the good people of Cumbria, but we should try to ensure that the Gibraltar Regiment, which is small but very important, has consistency in training and the ability of its members to go on deployment with members of the UK armed forces.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that the amendment is probing; it gives us the opportunity to cover some of the ground we discussed earlier and he made it clear to the Committee why he tabled it. I shall first explain why the amendment would not work, then address the points he made.

The amendment would mean that all three parts of the Bill extended to, or formed part of the law of, the British overseas territories. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, Acts of Parliament may extend directly to the British overseas territories, but that is unusual, and when they do the locally elected territory Governments must be fully consulted. More commonly, if legislation must be extended to the British overseas territories, that is done through a permissive extent clause, which enables the extent of an Act to be applied in modified form through an Order in Council.

Extending legislation to the British overseas territories is unusual and done only when necessary. For example, neither the Companies Act 2006 nor the EU procurement regulations extend to overseas territories. The amendment is therefore unnecessary as there is no reason why parts 1 or 2 should be extended to the British overseas territories. Part 1 makes arrangements for a GoCo to provide defence procurement services, and provides specific rights and exemptions to enable the GoCo to operate effectively if those arrangements are made. If a GoCo is established, it will be able to carry out its functions, as set out in the contract, anywhere in the world. Any contract that the GoCo negotiated with, for example, a supplier based in Gibraltar would be made by the Secretary of State, and would be expressed to be under the law of England. Similarly, we do not need to extend part 2 to overseas territories. There is simply no reason why parts 1 and 2 should form part of the law in British overseas territories.

The amendment is also not needed for part 3. Subsection (2) provides that the amendments and repeals made by part 3 have the same extent as the provisions that they amend or repeal. Therefore, where part 3 amends an Act that extends only to the UK, those amendments will extend only to the UK. Where part 3 amends an Act that extends beyond the UK, those amendments will extend beyond the UK.

Clauses 43 and 44 and schedules 6 and 7 amend the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which does not extend to the British overseas territories, so it is not necessary or appropriate for those amending provisions to extend to those territories.

Clause 45 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996. Again, that Act does not apply to the British overseas territories, so it is not necessary or appropriate for those amending provisions to extend to those territories.

Clause 42 includes provisions that update references in legislation to the names of the Army’s Reserve forces. It replaces references to the current names with references to the new names.

Clause 46, “Extent,” updates references to the names of the Army’s Reserve forces for the purposes of all the jurisdictions where those references have effect. Legislation that contains references to those names includes the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which does not form part of the law of the British overseas territories. For that reason, the amendments made by the Bill to update references in the 1996 Act to the names of the Army’s Reserve forces do not extend to the British overseas territories.

The legislation that contains references to the Army’s Reserve forces also includes the Armed Forces Act 2006, which, by contrast, does extend to the British overseas territories. It might be that the hon. Member for North Durham alighted on the 2006 Act alighted when considering the amendment. It is therefore appropriate for the updating of references in the 2006 Act to the names of the Army’s Reserve forces to extend to the British overseas territories.

It is appropriate to consider why the Bill does not extend to Bermuda and Gibraltar, where Reserve force units are raised. The amendments and repeals made by part 3 have the same extent as the provisions that they amend or repeal. In the main, part 3 amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996, but those amendments do not extend to Bermuda or Gibraltar because the 1996 Act does not form part of the law of the British overseas territories, nor did its predecessor, the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Although members of the British overseas territories’ forces—including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the Bermuda Regiment—may serve with United Kingdom forces, British overseas territories’ forces are raised under the law of those territories.

The hon. Gentleman correctly said that the Royal Gibraltar Regiment forms the armed forces of Gibraltar. It is raised under its own law, the Gibraltar Regiment Act 1998. The regiment includes a reserve unit, as he correctly identified. Gibraltar has its own law governing the unit, which is officially called the Volunteer Reserve, although it is commonly referred to in Gibraltar as the Territorial Army.

The Reserve Forces Act 1996 does not form part of the law of Gibraltar, because of which the changes made by the Bill to update references in the 1996 Act to our Territorial Army do not extend to Gibraltar. Whether in due course Gibraltar updates references in its own law to its own Reserve to align such references with the new name for our Army Reserve is a matter for Gibraltar. By contrast, the Armed Forces Act 2006 does form part of the law of Gibraltar. Accordingly, changes made by the Bill to update references to the Territorial Army in the 2006 Act extend to Gibraltar.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he clarify the issue of Reservists being deployed with members of the armed forces?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Yes. Reservists may serve with members of the UK armed forces. The decision on whether it is appropriate for them to serve will be taken by the British Army in consultation with the regiment in Gibraltar. Nothing in the Bill prevents them from continuing to serve alongside British Regular or Reserve forces. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I thank the Minister for his reply. We have had a good discussion, which has put on the record the importance of Gibraltar. Given his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 2 - Code of conduct for relationship between defence contractors and MOD employees or service personnel

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Duty of Secretary of State to report increases in costs of defence contracts to Parliament —

‘(1) Where it is proposed that the total price payable for the provision of goods, works or services, procured from another person for defence purposes under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State, or a contractor acting on behalf of the Secretary of State under the provisions of section 1, should rise beyond that detailed in the original terms of the contract, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) lay before both Houses a report detailing the circumstances requiring the increased price,

(b) withhold approval of any adjustment of the total price for the contract until the report has been laid, and

(c) write to the chairs of the relevant parliamentary committees indicating that such a report has been laid.’.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I shall speak to new clause 2; my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View will speak to new clause 3. As hon. Members will know, we are back to what some people have referred to as the boring bit of the Bill. [ Interruption. ] I am glad I have woken up the Government Back Benchers. Throughout our consideration of the first parts of the Bill, most were asleep, doing their Christmas card lists or getting their correspondence up to date. [ Interruption. ]

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

Order.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Having been in their position, I know that the role of Government Back Benchers on these Committees is to be seen and not heard.

New clause 2 addresses conflict of interest, which we touched on a week or so ago. There is a particular issue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View referred, about the revolving door—the transfer of people from the MOD and DE&S to defence contractors. There has been a lot of publicity about whether something could be put in place to prevent the practice or to ensure that the information that individuals have learned while they work in defence procurement is not transferred to a competitor. Some of the industry rightly has concerns about that.

There has been a lot of concern about the existing arrangements. It has put particular focus on the GoCo, which will have access to a lot of information that might be of use to competitors, who might gain from those individuals moving from the GoCo to work for another company. Although the Minister gave assurances about intellectual property and criminal acts if information was divulged or used, without new clause 2 there is not a great deal of assurance that we will protect intellectual property or avoid conflicts of interest.

Reference has been made to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which most people think is a toothless tiger, although that is perhaps unfair to tigers. People have a period of grace before they move to an employment related to their former life, but that does not stop them moving during that period. Concern over that has been the subject of press speculation. Through a freedom of information request, The Guardian found that 3,500 former officials and senior military personnel have made the journey—it is, in some cases, a very profitable one—from the MOD to defence contractors since 1996. Between 2011 and 2012, 231 jobs went to former officials and senior military personnel, which was a rise of some 101 from the previous year.

The GoCo will be responsible for defence procurement. I have raised concerns about these individuals already and, if I were a company, I would be a bit more concerned. Stopping such a practice—for example, barring someone from working in a defence-related industry if they had worked for a GoCo—would be difficult without restraints on trade. That would be very difficult to do. The Minister needs to be clear that industry has raised the issue with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View and others.

I support the introduction of the code of conduct and the Minister’s involvement with defence industries. I do not think that Ministers should be sealed in polythene and not allowed to talk to anybody from industry. That would be a naive approach and counter-productive. Clear codes are laid down for how the Minister and his officials conduct such relationships. They are important for the GoCo, which acts on behalf of the MOD. It is important that a similar code of conduct is in place and is monitored. If it is not, a charge could be levelled, possibly unfairly, at individuals who were providing hospitality or who were in contact with the GoCo, that they were trying to buy undue influence.

The code of conduct that covers Ministers and senior civil servants is open. Hospitality, gifts and suchlike have to be published, which is right. It is important that that type of approach is applied to the GoCo, because, in effect, the GoCo will be acting as an agent—the Minister used the word—on behalf of the MOD. In many cases, it will be acting with delegated powers from the MOD, so the same rules need to apply. If we are to have openness and transparency, the new clause is important. In its absence, there might be suspicion, and contractors might fear that their confidential information and the way in which the GoCo works and operates would put them at a commercial disadvantage.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

This is the last measure with which I am involved. We tabled new clause 3 partly as a response to concerns that arose when we were considering the early clauses in part 1. We believed that there was a need for tighter ministerial oversight and parliamentary scrutiny of projects as they progressed. The Minister attempted to reassure us and spoke about the scrutiny and oversight provided by the major projects report and the National Audit Office, and by the potential role of the governor sitting above the GoCo. Our intention therefore was to find out whether the Minister has considered producing, for example, a version of the US Nunn-McCurdy Act, whereby a programme is terminated if it goes beyond the original baseline—for example, if it goes over budget by more than 50%.

The new clause does not specify such an outcome. It merely ensures that a moratorium can be called until such time as the issues within a contract have been fully considered. That would, of course, include a cost that the taxpayer would have to meet. It enables the Secretary of State to withhold approval for adjustments to the total price for the contract.

In responding to questions about the GoCo and the Single Source Regulations Office, the Minister assured us that the type of oversight and parliamentary scrutiny that we sought was already possible. If my memory is correct, he also pointed out that, in a crisis, the time required to go through the process that we suggested could be damaging and costly. What the UK tends to do and the US certainly does is pull contracts that exceed projected costs. Clearly, given the size of the US defence budget and range of defence equipment options, such a mechanism is much easier to apply in a US scenario than a UK one without significant loss of capability. We fully understand that, and that the UK does not have the luxury of some of those choices.

We do not intend to press the new clause to a vote. We rather wanted the opportunity to emphasise a couple of things: the need in future to monitor and scrutinise projects tightly while ensuring that the taxpayer receives value for money without excessive risks. There is something that all of us in this Committee come back to: making absolutely sure that our armed forces have the equipment they deserve to ensure that they can carry out the vital and dangerous work they do on our behalf, and that they have it in the time they need to use it. That is the logic behind having an opportunity to discuss the matter.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for North Durham and for Plymouth, Moor View for their new clauses. I have slightly more to say about new clause 2 than new clause 3, but I will cover them both together.

I fully accept the critical importance of protecting the interests and integrity of decision making in the MOD and wider Government by maintaining the highest standards of propriety of those Crown servants within the MOD, including civilian staff as well as members of the armed forces, who interact with defence contractors. I strongly believe that the integrity and propriety of those Crown servants who may be in a position to influence decision making should be seen to be beyond reproach. However, I must resist the new clause as I believe that the issue is already effectively addressed and that it is, therefore, not necessary.

I must also resist new clause 2 because it would make the proposed GoCo option, which relies on the TUPE transfer of several thousand existing MOD civil servants into the GoCo operating company, unviable. As hon. Members know, under the GoCo option, former DE&S staff will become employees of the GoCo if we go down that route. As that provides services for defence purposes, they could be caught by the definition of defence contractor in the new clause. The new clause would therefore, first, prevent the transfer of DE&S staff for up to two years and, secondly, prevent them from having any contact with the MOD. These two constraints would clearly make the GoCo option by definition unworkable.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not seeking to use this as a wrecking proposal, although it would have that effect. The code of conduct that the hon. Members wish to include seeks to address general concerns, expressed on Second Reading and during the oral evidence sessions, that some senior Government officials could be perceived to be in conflict, or have vested interests, when dealing with defence contractors in their day-to-day work.

Lord West of Spithead, in his evidence of 3 September, also referred to title 10 of the US code, the section of the code related to the armed forces of the United States. The code of conduct now being proposed, in our view, already exists within the MOD. It does so, not by name, but through two aspects of our governance rules. First, the Business Appointment Rules, or BAR. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the MOD uses acronyms at every opportunity. The BAR in this context means the Business Appointment Rules rather than any other kind of bar. Those rules govern situations whereby Crown servants wish to take up a relevant offer of employment within two years of leaving the MOD. The other set of rules governs gifts, reward and hospitality. Those cover situations where Crown servants are offered a gift or hospitality. Taken together, those two important rule sets are in place to set out the standards of conduct expected of Crown servants in the Ministry of Defence.

For civilian officials, both the business appointment rules and the gifts, reward and hospitality rules are contained within the civil service management code, which was issued under part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. For military officials, the rules are contained within the Queen’s regulations for each of the services, and the provisions of the BAR have been in effect since July 1937.

The civil service code states that civil servants must not accept gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party that might be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity. The Queen’s regulations lay down the conduct and procedure to be observed by service personnel on the acceptance of gifts, rewards and hospitality. In all cases, any offers of gifts or hospitality must be registered by the individual in receipt of the offer. The provisions of the BAR for both military and civilian officials differ depending on the seniority of the individual, with the most senior officials requiring permission from as high up as the Prime Minister to take up an appointment following the end of their service with the Ministry of Defence.

I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman has had representations from any former service chiefs or three-star or above generals about the application of the rules preventing them from gaining employment after their service in the MOD, because in my short period in office I have had such representations.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

In practice, that shows that the rules do not work. The GoCo will be different: it will create a set of circumstances in which what happens now could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman has already conceded that there is a quite proper and appropriate two-way flow between industry and serving personnel and the Ministry of Defence, which facilitates effective dialogue and conduct of business between the procurement function and industry. I do not think there is a principled disagreement about the efficacy of having such a flow. We need to ensure propriety and proper conduct at the most senior levels.

I will come to the GoCo aspects in a moment, but I want first to rehearse the provisions of the business appointment rules. For the most senior officials in the civil service—at three-star level or their military equivalent—the rules require them to submit an application, which the Department must refer to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or ACOBA, which will provide advice to the Prime Minister to enable a decision to be taken. Because of their role at the highest level of Government and their access to a wide range of sensitive information, all permanent secretaries will be subject to a minimum waiting period of three months between leaving paid civil service employment and taking up an outside appointment or employment.

As a general principle, there is a two-year ban on civil servants at three-star and above lobbying Government—for example, communicating with a view to influencing a Government decision or policy in relation to their own interests. For civil servants at two-star level and their military equivalents, the rules require that an application be made to the permanent secretary, who is responsible for making a decision and providing a written recommendation to ACOBA. Applications from one-star level and below, and their military equivalents, are considered internally within the MOD. An application at these levels is required only if the individual’s circumstances mean that they have been subject to one or more specific aspects of work in their last two years of service. I will not go into those in detail; however, for the benefit of the Committee, they can be found on the Ministry of Defence website.

The number of applications made under the business appointment rules is relatively modest and has averaged about 200 a year. The hon. Gentleman referred to a larger number, but that is the average over the last five years across the one to four-star grades. As he said, in 2012-13 there were 258 applications, of which 172 were approved with conditions. The rest were approved unconditionally.

The rules on acceptance of gifts and hospitality set out that, even where acceptance is not unlawful, it can still be improper and, in serious cases, may lead to internal misconduct action being taken. This can be a particular risk in the Ministry of Defence, where many areas of departmental activity bring Crown servants into regular contact with outside organisations and, in particular, defence contractors, who may regard it as normal practice or social convention to offer hospitality and sometimes gifts.

It is impossible to set out rules to govern every conceivable circumstance in which a gift or hospitality might be offered and accepted. Much will depend on the nature of the relationship between the Department and the organisation, and the role of an individual Crown servant in that relationship. However, a number of clear principles are applied to all cases and are intended to enable Crown servants to act with propriety when deciding whether or not acceptance is appropriate. If there is any doubt, the individual is expected to consult their supervisors before accepting any gifts or hospitality. This consultation can be elevated as necessary in the Department if there is any unresolved doubt. I do not intend to go into the categories of gifts or hospitality unless hon. Members press me to do so, but Crown servants should have regard not simply to whether they feel themselves to have been influenced, but to the impression that their actions could have on others. Where acceptance of gifts may be acceptable, they must be deemed to be trivial in nature and non-contentious, and must not exceed £50 in value. Typically, gifts include things such as calendars, diaries or pens—perhaps for signing ceremonies and the like.

To answer the concern about the application of the rules to employees in a GoCo, we are considering what provisions might be required to align employment terms in a GoCo to the business appointment rules. As the BAR formed part of the terms and conditions of service of civilian staff currently in DE&S, and as such provisions would typically transfer to a new employer under the TUPE regulations, we anticipate that the rules will be taken across in the event of employees transferring into a GoCo.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

That is very interesting; it is the first I have heard that those types of codes of conduct are covered by TUPE, which usually involves people’s remuneration, work hours and things like that. Because it is not part of the contract of employment, I cannot see how a code of conduct can be part of the TUPE regulations.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

As I have said, we believe that they form part of the terms and conditions of service of the civilian staff, but if the hon. Gentleman continues to have doubt about this, I would be happy to write to him to clarify before Third Reading. In our view, new clause 2 has the effect of a wrecking amendment and is unnecessary. I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to press it.

Let me turn to new clause 3. It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, speaking for the Opposition, in Committee once again, having a final outing in our last sitting, which is entirely fitting. Her new clause, which she has clarified is a probing amendment, seeks to require the Secretary of State to withhold approval on any price change within a relevant contract until a detailed report has been laid before both Houses setting out why the increased price is required. The new clause also seeks to require the Secretary of State to write to the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees—which I take to be the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee—telling them that the report has been laid. I fully support the principle of being transparent with Parliament about the performance of the defence equipment programme, but since the SDSR 2010 and the commitment to publish an annual 10-year forward-looking equipment programme, this Government are being more transparent with Parliament than any previous Government.

I do not believe that new clause 3 is appropriate, for a number of reasons. First, it would significantly constrain the operational freedom of the Secretary of State and the Department. Secondly, the performance of the equipment programme is already regularly reported on, as I have said. Those reports are reviewed and critiqued by the National Audit Office, whose reports can be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Defence Committee, should it chose to do so. Thirdly, new clause 3 would raise significant practical issues. Under the hon. Lady’s proposal, every change of price within a contract managed by the GoCo would require a report to be laid before both Houses. That is clearly impractical, not least given the thousands of contracts managed by the GoCo. The new clause also provides no mechanism for approving contract price changes while Parliament is in recess. The hon. Lady made it clear that she tabled new clause 3 to raise her concerns with the Committee. I therefore hope she will not press it to a vote.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I appreciate that we have rules, which the Minister outlined, on conflicts of interest. They are robust and are obviously there for very good reasons. I agree with him: it is not just that something might be a conflict of interest; it is the implication that it might put someone in that position. We are moving to a new situation with the GoCo. We will have a private entity acting on behalf of the Government, as Government agents. The Minister obviously sees the need to ensure that the GoCo has similar rules to those that the MOD quite rightly has in place, so I do not understand why new clause 2 should be considered a wrecking amendment.

This is the first time I have heard that these arrangements will be covered by TUPE. I might be out of date, but my understanding is that TUPE usually covers terms of employment for contracts, but would not cover codes of conduct, which will not always apply in all situations. When the Minister writes to me about this, I will be interested to learn whether the codes of conduct will be covered under the TUPE arrangements, which I do not think they are.

It is important to give assurances to industry and others about these arrangements. As the Minister rightly says, we now have more transparency in these sorts of relationships, so I cannot see what is wrong with adopting new clause 2. Whether we like it or not, openness and transparency are important parts of public life these days, and people expect them. If those aspects are not covered by TUPE and the new clause is not passed today, no doubt he will come back with an amendment at a later stage.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I would like to give the hon. Gentleman a little more reassurance. In the discussions we are having, in parallel to the passage of the Bill, about the GoCo competition, we have inserted an anti-poaching clause with respect to GoCo employees in the draft contract that has been provided to the consortia. Through the invitation to negotiate, we have also asked bidders to detail the arrangements that will be put in place to achieve the objectives of the BAR for the operating company work force, including for civil servants transferring under TUPE, new joiners and staff seconded, for example, from parent companies. However, I have committed to write to the hon. Gentleman about the TUPE point. I hope that will satisfy him; if not, he will have the opportunity to raise the issue again on Report.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, the Committee has been at a disadvantage in not being able to see those draft agreements. That has been part of the problem throughout our sittings, and certainly when it comes to the GoCo. A lot is still to be negotiated. This issue will be very important, and I do not think it is covered in the Bill. I do not think we can have just an assurance that it will somehow be added in the draft contract later; it needs to be in the Bill. I would therefore like to press new clause 2 to a vote.

New Clause 4 - Recovery of unpaid amounts

New Clause 5 - Single source contract regulations: time limits and determinations

New Clause 6 - Publication of data on reserves

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This important new clause seeks to ensure that the Government are held to account on the progress of recruiting Reservists. We had a good debate in the Chamber last week on Reservists initiated by the Backbench Business Committee. I counted at least 10 blue-on-blue attacks criticising the way the Reserve expansion is going. When the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) was Secretary of State for Defence, he made it clear that the reduction in Regulars would only take place once the Reserves came up to complement. This may not be an issue so much for the other two services, but it certainly is for the Army and the Government need to be held to account to ensure that these targets are met. The Opposition feel that the only way to do that is to ensure that information is in the public domain on a regular basis.

I do not want to give the Committee a history lesson but we started with the strategic defence review in 2010, when the Prime Minister announced that the Army would be reduced by 7,000. That obviously changed. The figure is now down to 82,000 Regular forces in the Army. What changed in that period? Clearly, the constraints that the Treasury has put on the Ministry of Defence, including the 9% decrease in budget, have meant that it has had to get rid of people. There are, unfortunately, only two ways in which defence can get instant cash: by getting rid of people or by getting rid of equipment. That has led, rightly, to a lot of cynicism among the Regular armed forces that the increase in Reserves is being used to plug that gap. I accept that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Canterbury and others, but it concerns those in the Regulars. That came across loud and clear from Conservative Members’ contributions on Thursday. In order to hold the Government to account, we must ensure that recruitment figures are regularly reported to Parliament, as proposed in new clause 6.

We know that the ambitious targets for recruitment of Reservists, particularly to the Army, are a gamble. I was pleased to attend the Royal Engineers’ recruitment event last week, and I am not sure that there will be a real problem in those areas, because specialist traits are needed and people might see some benefit from joining the Army or the armed forces. I am more concerned about infantry numbers. Will that type of recruitment be given the same importance, and will the same effort be put into it?

The other issue that the MOD faces is that, at a time when we are making people redundant—in some cases compulsorily redundant—we also want to recruit people, not only to the Regulars but to the TA. That might create a mixed message in terms of the public understanding that recruitment doors are still open. There is a good reason for that policy. I know that some journalists have been asking why the MOD is still recruiting Regulars while making people compulsorily redundant, but it is doing so to avoid the chaos that the previous Conservative Government created in the 1990s under “Options for Change”. Even when I was in the Ministry of Defence, that chaos was still being felt, because there were manning gaps throughout the armed forces, which created problems. I recognise that recruitment needs to continue, but the language that is being used sends out the message that new people are not welcome in the Regulars, and that is having an effect on TA recruitment as well.

If that was not bad enough, the other problem is that the Government are doing things in a hurry. I do not know whether they are doing so because they think they will only get one shot at government, and therefore it is better to do everything that they can and wreak complete havoc before the electorate decide otherwise in 2015. We have increasingly seen a number of initiatives across Government, from the green deal to universal credit, which are ill thought out and rushed, and which seem to have been put in place quickly and without much thought. There is a suspicion that the same is true of the defence reforms. They are very ambitious targets. With the green deal, for example, does it really matter if the targets are not met? No; the fact that somebody has not had a solar panel or a new boiler installed will not affect the nation’s defence. This initiative is different. We are talking about the nation’s capability to project power and defend itself.

There are clearly concerns at the senior level of the Army that the targets are too ambitious and may not be met. This is a difficult issue for some people to understand: the constraints were put forward because there is not enough money, but the Secretary of State for Defence announced a £1.8 billion surplus. I am not sure what his tactics are. In my dealings with the Treasury, in both central and local government, I never thought it was a good idea to tell the Treasury that I could not spend my budget because it always made it harder the following year to argue for an increase. I would love to be a fly on the wall when the Secretary of State argues with the Chancellor for an increase in subsequent defence budgets. My experience of local treasurers and the Treasury in Whitehall is that they are not exactly sympathetic with Departments that come in under spend.

The Minister may say that there are teething problems with the targets that have been put forward. However, in August, The Sunday Times reported that between April and June this year only 367 soldiers had enlisted in the Reserves—just a quarter of the overall target of 1,432—and an MOD source predicts that only 50% of the target of 6,383 will be recruited. Again, we must ask why. Partly, it is due to the eagerness of the Government to do new things and get things in place. Things used to be piloted to see whether they worked before resources and people’s time were committed to them.

I have been told that the use of Capita in recruitment offices is a reason why the targets are not being met. It must seem strange that at a time when we are trying to increase both Reserve and Regular recruits the number of Army recruitment centres is being cut. Some 62 have closed in England, seven out of 12 in Wales, and 14 out of 19 in Scotland. The Secretary of State said that we are going to regional geographical areas.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made a good point in the debate on Thursday. He represents a large constituency, whose population is in one corner and at the top. He said that people in Reserve units will be expected to travel not only to recruitment centres but to what are now going to be called Reserve centres. They may have to travel 50 or 60 miles, which will be difficult for them. We must give some thought to how much of a barrier that will create. Realistically, after a long day’s work, will people be willing to travel 40 miles there and 40 miles back, if not further, to attend a TA centre? In the rush to save money—that is what it is; we cannot get away from that fact—barriers may be erected that turn people off.

There is another school of thought on this matter. I understand that, as part of the Capita contract, armed force personnel were to be taken out of recruitment centres and redeployed. That has now been turned round and people have been put back in. I always thought that it was a strange decision, because the last person that a young man or woman wanting to join the British Army would want to see is someone from Capita with a clipboard and computer. They would rather speak to someone who has actually done the job. The same will be true for Reservists. They would want to meet and talk to individuals who know the opportunities that are there in order to make an informed decision on which part of the Reserves to join, but also to find out what some of the drawbacks are with regard to the work-life balance and the commitments that people are asked to make when they are in the Reserves.

There is another element. I am not sure whether this is the case or not, but I did refer earlier to resistance in the Regular Army, at some levels, to Reservists. I think that there has been anecdotal evidence that in some cases people in the Regular Army are not being as helpful as they could be in terms of ensuring that recruits to the Reserves—

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have a very good example of the last thing that he mentioned—it is a systemic example, not just an individual or anecdotal example. To this day, Army recruiting offices are open Monday to Friday from 9 to 5.30, which suits only those who want to join the Regular Army and the unemployed, instead of being open, say, Tuesday to Thursday from 9 am to 9 pm, so that part-time applicants who have civilian jobs can visit them.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is a tendency to think that the new generation of people who want to join will do everything by means of websites, Twitter and so on, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that face-to-face contact—talking to people about their experiences—is key. I think that the MOD realises the problem that it has. Certainly The Daily Telegraph of 16 October gave some evidence of that in giving details of a leaked report. I know that as usual the Minister will say, “We don’t comment on leaked reports,” but we read that the memo says that

“‘disappointing’ recruitment to the new Army Reserve means that targets for a larger part-time force will not be reached.

The recruitment crisis means the Army faces ‘increased risk to its structure and operational capability’, according to the document, which has been seen by The Telegraph.”

It goes on to say:

“The Army is currently failing to attract and recruit sufficient Army Reserve personnel. Reserve info numbers in Quarter 1 are disappointing. If this continues the Army will miss its challenging inflow targets both this year and next’”.

There is another aspect that I think it is important to understand. It is not just about numbers. It is about how these people are integrated, not just in terms of training but in terms of what the objective is—a seamless joining up with the Regulars. If there are these delays or there is this missing of targets, that prompts the question of how we will get the training strength that we need in certain areas. It is not just about people going for their initial training—about ensuring that they get that initial assessment. It is about the ongoing training and the very close working that the new formation will involve. The formed units will work alongside and very closely with Regular units. That is not just about ensuring that the unit is formed in the first place, but about ensuring that it works and trains with the Regular units.

I still think that this will be very challenging anyway, in terms of the task that the Army has set itself. I hear and have heard enthusiasm for this from senior members of the armed forces, including from General Wall when he spoke downstairs last week at the event involving the Royal Engineers. I do not doubt their commitment, but they have to do this because it is the only game in town owing to the budget constraints imposed on the MOD by the Chancellor. If formed units are not trained—and, more importantly, trained alongside Regular units—we could face the difficulty not only of not having the numbers but of not having enough trained individuals in formed units that can interact and work alongside members of the Regular armed forces.

There is a misnomer, as the Minister will understand. When Whitehall Departments ask the Army or any of the armed forces to do something, they sometimes expect—Prime Ministers fall into this error all the time, irrespective of political party—that the military can turn its capabilities on and off like a tap according to political necessity. However, the Minister understands, as do I and many members of this Committee, that it takes a lot of training and time to get that capability in place. One must work with individuals and ensure that people are retrained and refreshed on numerous occasions. As new equipment comes in—new Reserve members will be expected to have their own equipment—people will have to be trained in it, as well as training alongside Regulars. It is important that those targets are not missed.

Unless there is scrutiny and the figures are known on a quarterly basis, Parliament will not be able to judge whether the scheme is working, unless we have access to the leaked e-mails that seem to be issuing from the MOD like confetti at the moment. I am not suggesting that I condone that in any way, but people clearly have serious concerns. Those internal memos and documents raise concerns that might be embarrassing to Ministers, but it should be of concern to us all that something that this Government rushed into is not producing what it was aimed at producing. If it is the green deal, it does not matter, but this matters, because it concerns the defence of our country and our armed forces’ ability to deploy and protect the nation. That is their main reason for being, and we politicians sometimes take it for granted. It is no good taking it for granted if the numbers of people are not there to be deployed when we need them.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I express my pleasure at speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, for the first time apart from in interventions? I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have sympathy with some of what he said. I imagine that this is a probing new clause, although perhaps he will force a vote on the publishing of statistics. I will offer a few thoughts on the substance of the points that he made.

I said earlier today that the Bill will stand or fall depending on whether we end up with something integrated or something assimilated. Two examples of going in the right direction came up in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. One is our re-commitment to training to develop the capability to use formed sub-units and units. That is what makes it worth while for officers and NCOs to make all the sacrifices involved in Reserve service. I would not have joined the TA so that, at the end of a hard-working week, I could simply augment the teeth of the Regular army for the last few years. That is a good example of moving from an assimilated to an integrated model.

The second thing that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as moving in the right direction was the pairing of units. Oddly enough, one of my great military heroes—the 19th-century Garnet Wolseley, Gilbert and Sullivan’s model of a modern major-general and the victor in so many wars abroad—was director of Reserve forces. The Reserve had a different title then; I am trying to remember its name. He introduced the pairing of Regular and Reserve units for the first time. This was long before Haldane, but a number of elite Reserve units, including the one I mentioned, the forerunners of my regiment, the Artists Rifles, were very much part of that pairing process. Indeed, his name appears seven times in our regimental history in his relatively short tenure in that job. So those are both good examples of getting back to formed bodies, the pairing of Regular and Reserve units and integration at work.

The main business of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause addresses recruiting where we have gone in exactly the opposite direction. In 2006 it was assimilated into Regular recruiting and it is becoming more and more assimilated in a way that is frankly unhelpful. If we are going to break out of this, I suggest—I will not go back to this morning’s debate—that we give an enhanced inspection role to the RFCA and put it on a statutory basis. The RFCA can really get at the detail of what is wrong. It exposed the point about the recruiting offices and a whole string of other issues.

Given that the hon. Gentleman has taken us down this important and interesting avenue, it is worth touching on the central point about recruiting. To make volunteer Reserve recruiting work involves something that is fairly easy to describe but quite difficult to make happen. I was a recruiting officer for a TA unit for two years. It is all about getting together an enthusiastic body: in those days it was young men; in these days in some units it would be young men and young women. We get a critical mass of them together every, say, three months. We put them through a weekend when they get wet and cold and miserable together which is a sort of selection. It is as much a mental selection as a physical one. Out of that comes the comradeship which then persuades them to start phase 1 training and then phase 2 training and so on.

That is the heart of it. In Australia, Canada, the National Guard or anywhere, they all have that approach. The assimilation of our recruiting and phase 1 training into Regular training has been a disaster. What happens is they go off and they are then told at the end of the weekend, “Well, we’ve got to do security checks on you now. That’s going to take six weeks so don’t come back for six weeks.” I will not go into the nonsense over medicals and a system which is frankly unworkable: taking a chit along to a local NHS doctor and expecting him to fill it in and send it off without any guidance and it being a breach of the Data Protection Act if the unit rang up and tried to help. Fortunately, that was sorted out by Ministers last year but it caused a terrible dent in recruiting.

There are problems with security checks. There is a struggle to deal with the computer program. It is nothing to do with Capita but the interface with Capita has made it even more complicated. It is a computer program that cannot be reached online. It can only be reached from certain designated terminals, some of which are in the recruiting offices, which are not open at a time when potential recruits to the Reserves who have civilian jobs can access them. I could go on. I do not want to bang on. I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has worked enormously hard on this Bill. He has brought a great deal to it. I have huge admiration for him. He has already been extremely helpful on the important subject of senior appointments, which is being looked at. We will return to the RFCA issue on Report.

As the hon. Gentleman was setting out his concerns in this area, I thought it important to point out that these are not ambitious targets. The number is very small. Compared with any other English-speaking country, both as a proportion of working population and as a proportion of the total armed forces, it is right down at the bottom of the league. On both the measures, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland all have far more ambitious targets. The National Guard, astonishingly, at a time when most of the US regular armed forces were under strength, put out a press release to say that it had gone over strength. These things can be done. The problem is in the mechanism; it is not in the footfall or enthusiasm.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but this is a step change in what we accept Reservists do, so it might take longer for people to get up to speed. However, we cannot draw a comparison with the National Guard, because people join the National Guard in the United States—it is a long tradition and part of the constitution—and get access to certain medical and health-care benefits. That is a driver that we do not have in this country.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I entirely accept that, but as far as I know, the only English-speaking country that has integrated recruiting for Regulars and Reserves is Australia. The Australians saw a very significant drop in recruiting when they did so, and they stayed with the system but made it work by putting generous resourcing into it. It is not integrated in America, nor is it, I believe, in Canada, New Zealand or Ireland.

Before 2006, when recruitment was firmly separate and the RFCA controlled it, it worked a great deal better. I am not asking to go the whole way back to before 2006, but we need to go through all these detailed matters. One very simple principle underlies all this: to make the volunteer Reserves system work, essentially, people have to trust what the guy through the door says and do the checks afterwards. It really is just as simple as that. If the person can complete a run and a simple physical test, and if he says that he is fit, then we have to wait for the medical to come in later. If he says that he does not have a criminal record and he is told eyeball to eyeball that this is going to be carefully checked, and if he says, eyeball to eyeball, “No, I genuinely haven’t,” he should not be sent away for six weeks; he should be taken while the test is taking place. A bit of resource and effort would be wasted on a few people who came in and lied, but that is how we get that essential critical mass, which has always traditionally been the way to get volunteer reserves.

As three or four different units have said to me again and again—all people I know and respect—it is heartbreaking to see those guys come in, and we drop them into this new hopper and they do not come out the other end. They turn up weeks later and the paperwork is still lost; or in one case that came up only last week, it finally surfaced after four or five months in the wrong unit, somewhere the other end of London. That is the reason for poor recruiting; it is nothing to do with it being an ambitious target.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

The presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on the Committee has been really valuable—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—particularly in the context of this part. I had not appreciated, until he just told us, that he was a recruiting officer when he was serving, and he has given us a real insight, informing the Committee that the issue being raised in the press and in the outside world about the challenges in achieving the numbers is something that we have to address, but it is addressable. Some of the specifics that he referred to about improving the process are achievable and doable. We are working on that, and I share his confidence that we will be able to achieve the numbers that we have set out to achieve for 2018.

Taking us back to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for North Durham, it is important that we have this debate. It follows on from the debate that took place on the Floor of the House last week, where some of these issues were raised. It is therefore perhaps rather more topical than much of the rest of our deliberations on the Bill. For that reason, it is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the matter, so I am grateful to him for his new clause.

Our Reserves have always made an essential contribution to national security, and that contribution is set to increase through our proposals. We believe that we are offering exciting opportunities, not only for individuals, but for the formed units that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred to—one of the attractions of our proposals. Reserves will be an integrated plan of the whole force required for all operations, both at home and abroad. To do that, we plan to grow our Reserves to 34,900 across all three services by 2018, and we are investing an additional £1.8 billion over 10 years. Our plan is to grow the Army Reserves from the current 19,230 to a trained strength of 30,000; the Royal Auxiliary Air Force from 1,335 to 1,800; and the Royal Navy Reserve, including the Marines, from 2,526 to 3,100. As the Secretary of State said last week, this is a challenging target, but one that we think is credible and that we are committed to achieving.

These requirements are challenging, but as we heard earlier today, they are well within the historic levels of Reservists. While my hon. Friend took us back pre-first world war to give some indication of the scale in which Reservists could be recruited in those days, we do not have to look quite so far back to have seen substantially higher numbers of trained strength in the Territorial Army. In 1997, it was over 50,000 strong. It was reduced to around 40,000 by 2000; and by 2009, it was down to just 26,000. As I have said today, we have just over 19,000 trained Reservists in the Army.

We should not be surprised if the growth that we want to achieve is neither uniform nor smooth. It will be somewhat jerky. Given the time taken to train Reservists, the trained strength improvement will lag behind recruitment.

Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that, recognising the interest in the progress of Reserves recruitment, the Secretary of State made a commitment to the House on 16 July to publish quarterly Reserves recruitment figures. We intend to publish the figure for the quarter to 1 October next month. I am sure that everyone will agree that, with this commitment, there is no specific need to enact legislation as proposed in the new clause. In fact, by the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have had a further two or three iterations of this data release.

We are currently publishing trained and untrained strength data for each category of Reserves on a quarterly basis. The last figures were available in July 2013, released on 15 August, and this information goes back to 1 April 2012. So from the beginning of 2012 that was the figure for the first quarter. We have committed to publishing quarterly recruitment figures without any need for legislation. I recognise that the issue of targets was raised both in the debate last week and in the hon. Gentleman’s proposed new clause, and I can assure the Committee that the Ministry of Defence is considering carefully whether it is appropriate to publish recruitment targets as well as our achieved recruitment figures. We recognise that they may provide a fuller picture, but our fear is that the growth is unlikely to be uniform or smooth and therefore that individual targets for quarters may be as misleading and unhelpful as some hon. Members regard them as helpful.

This programme is still in its early stages. The hon. Gentleman said that I would use the expression “teething problems” and it is an appropriate expression to use as we roll out both the plans and the recruitment process. I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, most of the issues at the moment are in the administrative processing of the system that we are introducing. A combination of the change to the increase in the Reserves that we are planning and a change to the process in which we take on recruits is giving rise to the current year’s issues.

We are working with Capita, which is our delivery partner in this recruitment process, and the senior Army leadership actively to address these processing issues, and both Ministers with responsibility and the service chiefs—in particular, the Chief of the General Staff—believe that we can work through them. Temporary adjustments have been made to the application process to ensure that we can continue to process new recruits.

Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)

I am listening carefully to the Minister. He speaks of the work being done to increase the number of new recruits, but does he share my disappointment that the TA centre at New Bilton is unfortunately about to be closed, which will make it more challenging to find new recruits in my constituency?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Clearly, in the small number of cases where assessment centres are closing, or the small number cases where TA facilities are closing—less than 10% of the total—there will be some dislocation, but the plan was designed to allow recruits to find an accessible place not too far away. I am not sufficiently familiar with the geography of my hon. Friend’s constituency to alert him to the alternative centre, but I hope that his constituents will find somewhere to go without having to travel too large a distance in the future.

The recruitment campaigns, which we launched following on from the White Paper proposition, have only just started. The Army’s campaign began a month ago on 16 September. The Army is encouraging all its Regular and Reservist units to participate in the campaign of increased engagement.

The maritime Reserves have stabilised their numbers and are working both to ensure the retention of trained personnel already in the Reserve and to reduce wastage during the training programme by tailoring the training methods to suit the Reservist experience better. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, who is going through the final stages of her Reservist training, is not here at this point to give us the benefit of her experience. She is, however, a member of the pilot cohort of Reservists who are going through changes to their training regime as a result of these proposals.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I gather that the hon. Lady has gone off to a drill session, which is why she is not here.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out that, even as we discuss the significance of recruiting and training our Reservists, one of our number is undergoing training.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

The Minister makes a good point. From earlier on, we understand that a good 40% of Reservists come from student backgrounds and others like that. Does he therefore think that it would be a good idea to ensure a recruitment presence at universities at freshers fairs and similar events? I suspect that, in my constituency, Plymouth university would be interested in that.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Frankly, I am surprised to learn that there is not already a presence at freshers fairs at universities such as Plymouth from, in particular, the maritime Reserves. In fact, I think that my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour will enlighten us further.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

If I may offer some enlightenment, that does happen. Indeed, the young man who was in charge of Labour’s students was also a Reservist and had been at freshers fairs.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful for that. If I may crave your indulgence for a second, Mr Owen, when I attended freshers week at my university, I signed up to join the university air squadron at that very event. That was, of course, some years ago now, so I admit that that may be ancient history, but I am fairly confident that my university’s freshers fair would continue to have a strong representation from all services to recruit students.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

At the risk of overstretching a theme, it is significant that university units—university officer training corps, air squadrons and university royal naval units—are the last part left of the old system where people can still go in and get the paperwork, medicals and the whole lot all fixed in one weekend. That is a model of how it should be. I am sorry to say that the Army recruiting group has struggled to bring them under their new system, although I gather that that has been headed off.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am again grateful to my hon. Friend. I will bring the Committee back, kicking and screaming, to the topic that I was on, which was the Maritime Reserve. From the most recently published figures for the quarter to 1 July, the Maritime Reserve trained strength had increased by 10 over the previous quarter. I am pleased to say that the untrained strength increased by 90 over the previous year. That is just an example of how recruitment in some of our services is going to plan.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

The Minister is obviously about to move on, but before he does will he comment on the joint cyber-Reserve and how it will work? There was an announcement yesterday by the Secretary of State, including that people with a criminal record for hacking may be taken on. How does the Minister envisage that the Reserve will fit in around the other Reserve forces?

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I anticipated that a member of the Committee might refer to the joint cyber-Reserve unit, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady is not disappointing us. We intend to draw on specialist expertise from industry and civilian life, and we do not preclude individuals who have a criminal record from joining our Reserve forces. Once their sentence has been served they should have the opportunity to serve in any of our services.

The Secretary of State was last night responding to a question from a television journalist about whether there would be a particular role in the cyber unit for those who have been convicted of hacking offences; and he quite properly sought not to discriminate against that category of individuals, who may well have something very specific to offer. We look forward to raising the cyber-Reserve unit, and will look for suitably qualified personnel from civilian life, as well as Regular Reservists who have developed experience through their service within the armed forces.

I want to move on to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which had also increased its trained strength by the end of July. It looks likely to meet its end-of-year ambitions for its strength, and is seeking authority to allocate extra resources to marketing, to improve its recruitment rate even further.

Recruiting activity itself is better co-ordinated now, across the services, than it has been in the past, and that should ensure a much more joined-up approach to recruiting. The recruiting campaigns are carried out at regional level, following planning and guidance from the national level. We are developing links with other Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, as has been touched on, and the Cabinet Office; and those are being exploited to help achieve the maximum effect for the recruitment campaigns.

We are working hard to deliver the message through internal communications across Government that the Reserves are recruiting, and to demonstrate that the civil service is taking the lead in the public sector in recruiting Reserves from among our own ranks.

The additional costs of recruitment associated with growth of the Reserves are all factored into the Future Reserves 2020 programme. Should recruitment be slower than planned, some funding earmarked for paying the personnel who are not, in fact, recruited could be switched to increase the recruitment effort through marketing or other means.

The recently announced redundancies are not new. They were announced initially in 2010, and again in 2012. Following last year’s redundancies, which were 84% voluntary, it was clear that there could be a fourth tranche; but no final decisions have been taken. The Army started a major recruitment campaign on 16 September, which it is confident will begin to deliver the required numbers of recruits to reach our target for 2018.

Using data from a period before publication of the Reserves plan and before the recruitment campaign is fully under way, as the hon. Member for North Durham—mentioned in a newspaper article—did the other day, does not give a credible picture of the growth in our Reserves.

Those who leave the Army through redundancy are being encouraged to consider a part-time military career in the Reserves. For the Army, ex-Regulars who enlist into the Army Reserve within three years of leaving Regular service can enjoy a number of incentives and benefits such as a reduced Army Reserve commitment and training requirement or, alternatively, a commitment bonus worth some £5,000, paid over four years. There is a comprehensive information campaign to ensure that all service leavers, not just redundees, are aware of the opportunities and benefits of joining the Reserves. It would be mathematically completely possible for our entire increase in Reserve requirements to be met from those leaving the forces, whether through voluntary redundancy or requirement, over the coming years. It is a logical pool from which to seek to fill those places. We believe that the 3 July announcement will have a positive effect on Reserve recruiting. Our Reserve forces have always attracted highly motivated individuals, and the assurance that the Reserves will play a more routine and assured role within the whole force concept will act to broaden appeal and encourage those looking for such an opportunity, and their employers.

Achieving the combined SDSR 2010 and the three-month exercise reductions is likely to require a further tranche for Army personnel at a later date, which may include a small number of medical and dental personnel from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as the outcome of the Defence Medical Services 2020 project is implemented. Aside from those planned reductions, we expect to move the Future Force 2020 ambition and plans for personnel growth on to a much more positive footing. Ending the negative talk and commentary on what is happening to recruitment will start to have a benign and positive effect on recruitment and retention in the armed forces, which is so important for the continued performance of our armed forces and the defence of the nation.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

This has been a good debate, as was Thursday’s debate in the main Chamber. I have to say that I am a little disappointed in the Minister’s final comments, which strike me as shooting the messenger. They seem to suggest that people pointing out that targets have not been met and that the Government’s decisions are putting the capability of our armed forces at risk are the reason why people are not joining. A huge part of the responsibility must be laid at the Government’s door for their handling of not only Reserve recruitment but the defence budget since 2010. I am slightly concerned that more redundancies may be coming down the track later this year or early next year, which will do nothing to reinforce the point.

It is wrong to blame others. The Government must take a lot of the blame for the way in which the message has been communicated, and for rushing to use what they term civilian partners in recruitment. As has been demonstrated this afternoon, that has not been tested and has clearly run into problems. Even the Defence Secretary has commented that this is a risky way forward, and I do not think it is acceptable to take such risks with the security of our nation. In Thursday afternoon’s debate, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said that he wanted to stop the redundancies in Regulars until the TA strength had been built up.

I heard what the Minister said about the Defence Secretary’s commitment to publish the quarterly figures. I do not wish to doubt that commitment, but unless there is some change in the MOD or in the political settlement in this country, the right hon. Gentleman will not be the Defence Secretary for ever. That commitment needs to be in the Bill, so that the onus is not simply on him. The way in which he has dealt with the finances in the MOD suggests that his true calling is not in the MOD but in the Treasury. If he were to leave or if the Minister were to leave his post—not wishing to see that date, at least not until 2015. [Interruption.] Sorry, does the hon. Member for Bournemouth East want the job as well?

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

No, I am saying that he will be there longer.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Oh, that he will be there longer. The hon. Gentleman is more optimistic than many in his party.

The measure needs to be in the Bill. The Minister cannot give a commitment for future Defence Secretaries or in the case of a change of Government. Including such a provision in the Bill is the only way that we can be sure that this important change is not only embedded but continues in future. I have no faith that a future Defence Secretary or future Government will provide this information.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Is the hon. Gentleman willing to give a commitment in the event of a change of Government? If he or his colleagues took the position that I and my colleagues have taken today, whereby we are committed to publishing this material on a quarterly basis, would he make a similar commitment?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

That is an easy one, because in opposition, one can say anything. The Minister’s Government, when in opposition, promised a larger Army, more naval ships and a bigger Air Force. The only problem is that they were all broken promises once they got the keys to the door. We got a smaller Army, smaller Navy and a contracting Air Force. I can make that commitment, but I think it is better for it to be in the Bill.

It is not just about changing the political nature of the Government; it is about future Defence Secretaries. Unless the Minister knows something that I do not, that the Secretary of State will be in that role for evermore, I do not think we can have that. The safest place to put such a commitment—to get the commitment that the Minister clearly needs and wants, following the events of 2015 and a change of Government—is in the Bill. For that reason, I will press the motion to a vote.

New Clause 7 - Employment of members of reserve forces

New Clause 8 - Mental health provision for members of the reserve forces

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 8 calls on the Secretary of State to publish an annual analysis of the mental health provision for members and former members of the Reserve forces, and also to report the annual amount spent on such services. Subsection (3) speaks for itself.

The mental health of both Regulars and Reservists has been the subject of great media debate and interest over the past few years, particularly since our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, I was quite pleased that we made a sea change in the way we dealt with service personnel. We made some proper advances in treatment and in recognition, in that people felt not only that they could report mental illness but that they could access treatment.

I must congratulate the Government on following through on some of those issues and building on the work done by the now Minister for international security strategy, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who reported on mental health in the armed forces for the coalition Government in 2010. That built upon a lot of work. Mental health in the armed forces is not an issue on which there are any party political differences, and it must be addressed, although it is difficult on occasions. It is sometimes difficult to separate the facts from the headlines, which sometimes I am not sure are very helpful—certainly not those to do with post-traumatic stress disorder—in ensuring that individuals who suffer from mental illness and conditions such as PTSD get the treatment and support that they need.

A key issue outlined in the aforementioned 2010 report, and that I saw as well, is the interface between the MOD and the national health service. A lot of comparisons are made with how the Veterans Health Administration in the United States deals with mental illness issues. The suggestion is that somehow we should reinvent a similar system. I have never thought that that was the case and nor did the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire in his report. We must ensure that the health services provided in service can address the issues that arise, but also that the NHS can.

The issue is particularly relevant to Reservists because, unlike Regulars, after they are deployed—we heard this morning about the key role many of them played in Afghanistan and Iraq—and then demobilised, they do not go back to their units for a period of retraining. They go back to the civilian world. That can lead to isolation, so it is important that the NHS and the MOD are able to track those individuals and ensure that they get the support that they need.

The debate around combat mental health has been controversial in the past few years, in that people have concentrated on PTSD. PTSD is a personal tragedy for each individual who suffers from it, and their families, and we need to ensure that they get a diagnosis and treatment. That is important, but it is also important to put it into perspective. The King’s Centre for Military Health Research study is important in looking at what is happening. The incidence of PTSD among Regulars is less than 3%, but it is higher among Reservists. If anyone here has not read the study, I can tell them that it is worth reading. Anyone who has heard Professor Sir Simon Wessely speak on the subject will know that he deals with facts and the follow-through.

I have picked a snapshot of Professor Sir Simon’s study—I understand that he has done another one—“The Long-Term Consequences of Military Deployment: A 5-Year Cohort Study of United Kingdom Reservists Deployed to Iraq in 2003”. It is a great piece of work that looks at not only effects on Reservists, but the deployment of individuals to combat situations. It is good, in that it follows a cohort of 552 Reservists who were deployed to Iraq in 2003 and 391 who were not deployed, so there are two comparative groups, which is important in a clinical study. I have heard people criticise the work of King’s and say that the figures are not correct, but that view cannot be justified because the papers are peer-reviewed before they are published. It is the most comprehensive study. The advantage of such work is that it is ongoing, and I hope we can look over a long time at the effects of combat on mental health.

The study, published in 2012, shows that there is a significantly elevated rate among Reservists of common mental disorders and PTSD. The debate around mental illness must not only be about PTSD. The 2012 study and others show that the incidence of other types of mental illness is greater than the incidence of PTSD, and that is also true for Regulars. PTSD is a nice handle for the press and others to get hold of, but I want to concentrate on other things as well. The study also highlights the fact that Reservists have considerably more difficulty with post-deployment social functioning, and that such post-deployment difficulties appear to be important not only to mental health, but in fitting back into the family and so on.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned families this morning, and we should not forget them when talking about Reservists. In the Regulars, families are used to people going away on long deployments—I know they are in the Royal Navy—and that is part of life, but it is not part of life for Reservists. We ask, under Army 2020, for people to be deployed more regularly—not necessarily into conflict situations. We need to monitor the effects of deployment on not only the individuals’ mental health, but their families. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the excellent work being done at King’s will continue to be supported.

Oliver Colvile (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)

One of the lessons I learnt during the summer is that in some families, stepchildren also find themselves being excluded. They have to deal with the step-parent who returns from duty as well. Perhaps that area needs to be looked at.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government might also consider putting a letter after the national insurance number or the national health service number of Reservists, so that people who have served in the Reserves can be easily identified?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The hon. Gentleman’s remarks remind me of a proposal of the previous Government that has not been followed through by this Government. One plan for doing what he suggests was through the identity card system. ID cards would have been issued to members of the Reserve forces and the Regular forces when they left, which would have identified them as veterans so that they could access benefits and other services that this Government have brought in under the armed forces covenant. Alas, as we know, those proposals were thrown on the bonfire in the early days of the coalition. I do not want to reopen the issue of ID cards, but they would have been one way of ensuring that people could be identified as veterans.

In April 2010, along with Mike O'Brien, who was then a Health Minister, I announced a proposed system for flagging up medical records and transferring them to the NHS. There is a possibility, not just for Reservists but for veterans in general, that without that sort of system in place, many people will present to GPs without their full medical history. I have raised the matter with the Minister for the Armed Forces, whom I think has come up against the same civil service gobbledegook that I came up against, which was about data protection. If I remember rightly, we got around that by saying that all we needed was to get a tick in a box when someone left to say the record could be transferred. That proposed system is important, not just for mental health issues but for injuries that develop only after people have left the armed forces. The Government need to follow through on that proposal.

The new clause focuses on transferring the medical records of Reservists because they are in a unique situation. It will be difficult for the NHS to develop services and make sure that it responds to Reservists’ health needs without measures such as those in the new clause. As we have said throughout these proceedings, we are now asking for more commitment from Reservists and for a different type of commitment. We have made advances in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force with regard to mental illness. More effort is needed for the Reserve forces.

The previous Government introduced the medical assessment centre at St Thomas’s hospital. It was run by Dr Ian Palmer, who did some great work, and it was open to all veterans, including Reservists, to present there to get a medical diagnosis of their mental illness if they wished to. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that that centre ceased to exist in that form, but continues in some form at Chilwell.

There was an open-door policy for the centre: anyone could ring up, get an appointment and go along, so that if people were reluctant to go to their GP—I know a lot of people are when it comes to mental illness—they could get a professional such as Dr Ian Palmer to assess them properly and ensure that they got the right treatment afterwards. If that arrangement has ceased we need to look at it again, as a lot of Reservists used it. He dealt with not only Reservists who have been deployed in recent conflicts, but a whole host of individuals going back to conflicts in the 1940s and 1950s. Without such a measure in place, the mental health of veterans and Reservists will not get the priority that this Government have put such store by. Certainly, it is something I am personally committed to. If we are calling up people more often, we need to have a system in place, and the only way we can do that is by having some reference to it in the Bill. That will avoid mental health becoming the poor relation of other forms of health care, which it is and has been in the NHS.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to discuss the new clause. He has been a consistent champion of the issue, both during his time in office and subsequently. He spoke with great conviction on this sensitive subject, and I am grateful to him for that.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments about the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, in his review of mental health provision in the armed forces. The Government are absolutely committed to improving the mental health of serving and former members of the Regular and Reserve forces, and acknowledge the work that was done under the Labour Government, who had a similar commitment.

We have worked closely with the UK Department of Health, the NHS and third-sector organisations to implement the recommendations of the my hon. Friend’s “Fighting Fit” report. Our work has been backed by £7.4 million of Government money. Defence is already open about the mental health of the armed forces population and the provisions we make to address issues. A great deal of information is already in the public domain, including the covenant annual report, which contains a chapter on health care, and official defence statistics, such as those relating to the veterans and Reserves mental health programme. Defence is engaged with and supports ongoing independent research programmes in the health arena, which are publicly available.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, which has undertaken a further phase of its longitudinal cohort study that includes Reservists.

I do not believe that any additional benefit would be derived from providing a further annual report on mental health provision for Reserve forces, but we are not complacent and continue to work in partnership with our stakeholders to monitor the provision of services.

The Ministry of Defence has established strategic partnerships with other Departments, devolved Administrations and charities through, for example, the Confederation of Service Charities executive steering group and the Combat Stress strategic partnership. Such forums provide the opportunity to identify shortfalls in health care, support provision to Reserves and veterans, and allow us to work towards potential solutions.

On the annual spend, which is referred to in subsection (2) of the new clause on the mental health provision for serving and former members of the Reserve forces, it would not be practicable to produce meaningful financial data. In part that is because it would be difficult to separate that cost from the cost of provision for Regulars. Moreover, much of the provision for serving and former Reservists is provided by NHS bodies at local level, and extracting that financial data for a subset of patients would be problematic and potentially burdensome.

On medical records, once demobilised, it is a long-established tradition that the medical care of Reservists becomes the responsibility of their own local NHS services and the majority of their physical and mental health needs are met by that provision. However, the MOD recognises that we have an expertise to offer in certain specific circumstances, and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in November 2006 the Labour Government launched the Reserves mental health programme.

We are working closely with the Department of Health to ensure that the civilian GPs of Reservists have all the relevant information they require, when they require it. That can be done only in step with the NHS, and we will continue to work with it to improve the process. It also relies on the individual Reservist to engage with their civilian GP. We are actively encouraging them to do that, as part of our Future Force 2020 work.

As well as engaging with the Reservists, we have worked with the Department of Health to provide an electronic training package for GPs. That will help GPs become more familiar with the Reserve forces and the veterans community and allow them better to recognise and monitor the needs of their patients. In addition, current and former Reservists are entitled to attend the veterans and Reserves mental health programme, and can engage with any one of the 10 NHS veterans mental health teams that have been established across the country. Those services link back to the individual’s GP and together help to monitor their health and mental health.

The RMHP element of the veterans and Reserves mental health programme is open to any current or former member of the UK volunteer and Regular Reserves who has been demobilised since 1 January 2003 following an overseas operational deployment as a Reservist and who believes that the deployment might have adversely affected their mental health. Under the RMHP, we liaise with the individual’s GP and offer a mental health assessment. If the individual is diagnosed with a combat-related mental health condition, we offer out-patient treatment via one of the MOD’s departments of community mental health. If more acute cases present, Defence Medical Services will assist access to NHS in-patient treatment for those suffering. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the work we are doing, which follows the work he did when he was in office, obviates the need for the new clause.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It is important that we have this debate, because it highlights the specific issue of mental health services for veterans. The new clause was tabled to ensure that we debated the issue and that we could not only hold the Government to account on following through what has been promised, but reassure those who want to join the Reserves that there are programmes in place, if they need to call on them, and that the Government see those programmes as a priority.

I hear what the Minister says about medical records, but a more proactive approach is needed for Reservists and Regulars. I would be happy to talk to him privately about how that could be done. People are at a disadvantage once they have left the armed forces if that full history is not in place. The more we can get the information out and connect the NHS and the service history, the better.

On future reports on the Reserves, I hope the Government see fit to include mental health in the reporting mechanism. We have talked about reports on recruitment numbers. It is important that we ensure that the key work done by King’s and others is published and highlighted by the Government, so that if changes need to be made, either when someone is in service or when they return to their families, that support is in place.

Had we been sat here 10 years ago, the issue would not have been a high priority for many, either in the Government or in the armed forces. Change has taken place, not only with the recognition of the role we ask Reservists to perform in Afghanistan and Iraq, but more broadly in society’s attitudes towards mental health. That change means that people can more openly discuss these issues.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at revising and updating the welfare policy on the support for families of those service personnel who have had medical issues to ensure that support is available for all those who need it. That policy revision is due in the middle of next year.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I thank the Minster for that. I have succeeded in what I wanted to achieve, which was to get the subject debated. We may return to it on Report to ensure that it gets another airing so that people are aware of its importance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

On a point of order, Mr Owen. I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to you and to Mr Brady for the way you have chaired proceedings. We have not been particularly riotous, so I do not think your task has been altogether onerous, but there is certainly a knack to chairing a Committee and we have been fortunate to have two very good Chairs.

I thank the Minister for playing his part. He was patient, answered the questions and did not duck any issues, and the Opposition are grateful that he took time to answer our queries. I also thank the Hansard writers and the attendants and officials, particularly the Clerk. I might have gone slightly mad if she had not been there calmly to explain process and procedure and to offer advice on how to word amendments correctly. I am eternally grateful to the Clerk and to my long-suffering researcher, who deserves a medal. We look forward to consideration on Report.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Further to that point of order, Mr Owen. I want to echo those thanks. The hon. Lady spoke for us all, but I cannot resist saying the same thing. I thank you, Mr Owen, and Mr Brady, and I must make special mention of Mr Amess, who stood in one afternoon at a time when he had other things on his mind, which, unfortunately for him, did not come to fruition. You have all kept us to order very well and we have every prospect of finishing the sitting by the 5 o’clock deadline, which several colleagues were keen to meet. Colleagues have conducted themselves with great professionalism all round.

I also echo the hon. Lady and give thanks to the Clerk for keeping us in order and to the Hansard writers for, I hope, faithfully recording what we have said, even if some of us would wish that we had not said it. I thank the Doorkeepers for ensuring that the votes went the right way by keeping the doors closed at the right time. In particular, I thank my friends from the Ministry’s own Public Bill team, who gave me sufficient inspiration to keep going as required throughout proceedings.

I particularly want to thank the hon. Lady. She was gracious enough to admit that she had relatively little research support from her own side. Indeed, not many colleagues were helping her out—with one notable exception—on some of the more detailed elements of parts 1 and 2. She handled herself extremely well, if I may say so, and it was, as always, a pleasure to see the hon. Member for North Durham in Committee. He led on part 3, on which he has considerable expertise. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is not here for me to thank him in person, but we had the benefit of his expertise on that part of the Bill. Hon. Members from all parties brought to the Committee not only constituency interests, but detailed knowledge of aspects of defence, and I am grateful to them all for their contributions. I look forward to our debate on Third Reading.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I am grateful to the Minister. He is right—we probably will finish by 5 o’clock. I want to add my special thanks to the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk. Their guidance has been invaluable to me and everyone in Committee. I thank Front Benchers and Back Benchers, and give special thanks to the Whips—Government and Opposition—and to Hansard for recording what has been said. I also thank Mr Amess, who, as the Minister rightly said, stood in at very short notice to help us out.