Equality Bill

I would like to start by recognising the determination and commitment to this theme of the noble Lord, Lord Low, over many years. He wrote to alert me to his Amendments 101D, 101E and 101F and, predictably, wanted me to speak in support of his proposal. The noble Lord is aware that I am not going to speak in support of his amendment. I am not the first former Chief of Defence Staff not to be in favour of, or attracted to, this idea. Way back in 2000, the noble Lord, Lord Low, was very active in seeking to lift the restrictions on disabled persons from joining and serving in the Armed Forces. At that time, the then serving Chief of the General Staff—now the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie—spoke in a very public way against the idea, no doubt much to the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and others seeking honourable ways to eradicate discrimination against the disabled. The persistence and commitment shown by the noble Lord deserves acknowledgement but I share the reservations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. The Minister will be well briefed on the reasons for the policy of the Ministry of Defence, so I shall not attempt to cover all the points in her notes. Only a fortnight ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister responsible for veterans, Mr Kevan Jones, was reported as giving a number of cogent reasons why the Armed Forces must confine their search for recruits to those individuals who meet certain medical, physical and fitness standards. To do otherwise is to limit the potential for flexible and worldwide deployment, following training, of individuals for their particular roles. The Ministry of Defence’s policy is clear and robust, and with good reason. Noble Lords will recall that in recent years the Armed Forces have not only been heavily committed to operations but have been steadily civilianising posts where front-line fighting and operational capabilities are not required. This applies not only to HQ posts but also, through the use of public finance initiatives, to many other tasks once undertaken by men and women in uniform but now contracted out to civilian companies. So on a practical level, the opportunities that once might have existed for some disabled individuals are all but gone. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Low, is not expecting the Armed Forces to recruit disabled men or women to tasks that they are unable to perform satisfactorily, so realism as well as principle is at stake. As a good employer, the Armed Forces are rightly keen to do all that they can to retain trained individuals who have been wounded or injured while on duty and who wish to stay. For the very few who remain and cannot return to full time operations, there is, hopefully, still some small scope to use them productively. Indeed, I hope there always will be. It is both morally right as well as helping to amortise the cost of their training and experience to fit them in to a less demanding position—a position which could well not be available if the Armed Forces were to change their policy and recruit a uniformed element solely to fill such positions. We could offer no hope for those who have fought and recovered from their injuries. Surely that would be even more unfair. The less expensive alternatives of employing a civilian or contracting to industry have helped to reduce the size of the uniformed services, thereby cutting pay and pension provisions and easing pressures on the defence budget. I do not foresee any change in that position. There may well be opportunities for the disabled in these non-uniformed posts where they are able to integrate with and support the Armed Forces in their vital work, but for those who seek to become full-time members of the Armed Forces, the present MoD recruitment policy is realistic, rational and reasonable. I do not support the amendments.