Stephen Kinnock
MP for Aberafan Maesteg · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her.”
“Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon.”
“I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,341 lines we hold for Stephen Kinnock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 74 of 107.
“Over the last few years, we have seen how Wales being part of the Union is good not only for Wales, but for the Union. The NHS is one of the great examples of this—an institution with Welsh roots that has benefited the whole of the UK. It has been at the frontline of the pandemic, and the vaccine roll-out has been a resounding success in Wales, which is a testament to the hard work of our NHS staff. However, let us remember that they have also been able to call on the support of the UK armed forces to help with the roll-out, when needed.”
“Britain remains a significant economy and world power, and Wales benefits from being part of that. It gives us a much stronger voice on the world stage, and it allows for money from wealthier parts of the UK to be redistributed to Welsh communities—in principle, if we had a Government in Westminster who were actually delivering on that. As we live in an era of great power competition, with increasing threats, Wales is safer and more secure as part of the UK, protected by UK-wide national security organisations and our armed forces, which include Welsh regiments. To overcome the forces that want to break up the Union, we need a positive and patriotic vision for Britain —one that does not take reckless risks with economic and national security but instead promotes reciprocity, co-operation and solidarity across our nations and regions.”
“It is not a coalition—that is the first point. The second point is that we are delivering a progressive agenda for the country under the leadership of a Welsh Labour Government. Together, we are so much more than our component parts. Being patriotic and acting in the national interest is very different from nationalism. Nationalists do not have an answer for how they would plug the funding gap if Wales were to leave the UK, or for how Wales would protect itself from external threats. Nationalism does not automatically mean decisions being made closer to the communities on which they have an impact, as we have seen with the Scottish National party, which has centralised power in Edinburgh, leaving Holyrood one of the most centralised Administrations in Europe.”
“None of this makes me any less British, and being British does not make me any less Welsh. George Orwell said that patriotism “is a devotion to something that is always changing and yet is felt to be mystically the same. It is the bridge between the future and the past.” If we cherish the Union, then we must be willing to change and modernise it.”
“Belligerent behaviour by the UK Government, disparaging comments from Ministers about the nations and regions, and a Prime Minister who has described devolution as the “biggest mistake” of the last Labour Government are doing much to damage and undermine the Union, while nationalists cheer from the side lines. Like other proud Welsh men and women, I will cheer on Wales when the Six Nations begins next month; I will be right behind the Welsh football team when they take on Austria in their bid to qualify for the World cup; and I will cheer on Welsh athletes competing in the Commonwealth games this summer, as I cheered them on at the Tokyo Olympics last summer, when they represented the United Kingdom. I will also proudly wear a daffodil to mark St David’s day.”
“The Union needs to reflect the desire to have power closer to the people. It should encapsulate common beliefs and ideals, and it needs to celebrate the rich histories and identities of different nations and regions, because Britain cannot have a shared future without having shared values. We need to build a positive and patriotic narrative about what it means to be both Welsh and British—now, and in the future. It must reflect the values, aspirations and experiences that we all have in common, while also recognising and celebrating the uniqueness of being Welsh. A well-functioning Union must include everyone, with no one person or group left behind. The future of Wales is best served by having strong devolution, so that decisions about Wales are made in Wales, and by being an equal partner in a strong and revitalised United Kingdom.”
“This may seem like a political argument, but it goes to the heart of what many see as what is wrong with the Union: a sense of unfairness and inequality. The inequality runs much deeper. Despite the UK Government’s talk of levelling up, there remains an economic divide in the country that is continuing to grow. With wealth and power concentrated in London and the south-east, many people in Welsh communities feel that they have been left behind and that the system does not work for them. It has led to growing disillusionment with Westminster, which is seen as being out of touch with large swathes of the country. In turn, that plays into the hands of the nationalists. If the Union is to continue, it needs to modernise. It must mean something tangible to people now and in the future.”
“The UK Government should never have run short, but that is how co-operation should work within the Union. The Union is far from perfect, and Brexit and the pandemic have exposed the cracks in our constitutional settlement. They have revealed a central Government in Westminster who have not been listening enough, and nations and regions feel that they are, at best, not consulted and, at worst, ignored. The relationship between the four Governments should be based on a partnership of equals and mutual respect, and it should be fair. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which seeks to prevent the emergence of unwanted barriers to trade within the UK, ended up undermining powers devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments.”
“I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary of State, but I am afraid his intervention has encapsulated the problem with this whole debate, which has been about a blame game and throwing mud. I am making a case for the value on which our Union is founded, and it is the responsibility of us all in this room to stop the blame game and to work together in the national interest. As I have already said, we have a Government in Wales who are delivering a progressive Welsh Labour agenda. That is absolutely clear, and it is based on the resounding victory that we secured at the last Welsh Senedd election. When the UK Government recently ran short of lateral flow tests, it was the Welsh Government who came to their aid, providing 4 million tests.”
“The Chinese state holds a 33% stake in Hinkley Point, a 10% stake in Heathrow airport, and a 9% stake in Thames Water. Moreover, a number of the UK’s top universities have ties with Chinese military-linked research centres. For more than 18 months now, Labour Front Benchers have been calling on the Government to undertake a comprehensive audit of every aspect of the UK-China relationship, so that our businesses, universities and public figures are aware of the risks and the threats to our national security. Will the Home Secretary now agree to get this audit underway as a matter of the utmost urgency?”
“10. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on ensuring that the power supply for Baglan energy park remains connected until a permanent connection to the national grid is secured.”
“The Minister knows that in just three days the official receiver is due to turn off the power on the Baglan energy park. The intransigence of the official receiver is putting huge pressure on local businesses and also creating massive environmental and public health risks. Section 400 of the Insolvency Act 1986 clearly gives the Business Secretary the power to direct the official receiver. Why will the Minister not step up, take urgent action and direct the official receiver so that the potentially catastrophic consequences for these businesses, houses and communities can be averted in just three days?”
“I think of the factory workers and steelworkers in my Aberavon constituency who kept the show on the road, and of the pride that they feel in powering our country forward. The Labour party will always stand up for those values: dignity and respect for workers, opportunity for business to grow and flourish, and a commitment to building a higher growth, more resilient Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet. The British people are tiring of low-growth Tory Chancellors. Labour has a plan to get Britain firing on all cylinders. Labour is truly back in business.”
“Ours is a fully costed, focused economic plan that can support businesses throughout this crisis and, in so doing, protect workers and their families. That is what the Opposition is all about—what a contrast with the complacency and inaction that we see on the Government Benches! The Labour party recognises that long-term, sustainable businesses can provide those good jobs that not only provide a pay cheque at the end of the month, but offer dignity, meaning and purpose for working people—a sense of being part of something bigger. We rightly cheered and applauded key workers on our doorsteps throughout the pandemic; let us never forget that many of them work in the private sector.”
“We need a more resilient Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet, because we have had 11 years of offshoring our good jobs and selling off our strategic national assets. Over the past decade, we have become over-reliant on countries that do not have our best interests at heart. That includes our reliance on China for personal protective equipment, lateral flow tests and even our nuclear power stations. A Labour Government would do things very differently. Through our fully costed plan, we would create a £600 million contingency fund to support struggling firms, including in energy-intensive industries. We would pay for it with a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers, which have profited hugely from recent price rises.”
“As the party of growth and enterprise, Labour will help British business to weather this crisis and bounce back stronger than ever. As a passionately pro-business and pro-worker party, we recognise that private enterprise is the lifeblood of the British economy, which is why we would help to create 100,000 new businesses over five years and boost the start-up loans scheme. In our commitment to boosting productivity and growing the economy, we recognise the critical role of British manufacturing and the foundational industries that underpin it, such as steel. That is why Labour’s plan to make, buy and sell more in Britain will not only get our economy firing on all cylinders, but build our sovereign capability and help to achieve our net zero targets.”
“I associate myself with the tributes to Jack Dromey. He was a true friend and a credit to the House. The Minister spoke about the future soldier programme in general terms, which connects to the Armed Forces Act. He made a welcome concession by agreeing to publish data on both investigations and prosecutions at all stages of the service justice system. What will the Government do if conviction rates for one or more of these serious crimes are concerningly low? Will the Government reconsider their approach and finally recognise that these cases should be dealt with by the civilian judicial system, and what impact does the Minister think that the Armed Forces Act 2021 will have on the Government meeting the target they have set themselves for 30% of Army recruits to be—”
“Last month the President of the United States signed off the National Defense Authorization Act, which will ensure that US atomic veterans receive a medal and an official day of recognition for their service. Does the Minister agree that it is time to end the UK’s shameful position as the only country not to provide official recognition or compensation for nuclear veterans, and to mark the 70th anniversary of Britain’s first nuclear test by finally rewarding our courageous nuclear veterans with the medals they so highly deserve?”
“The Minister made a welcome concession at the end of the debate on the Armed Forces Act 2021 to publish data about investigations and prosecutions. What will the Government do if the conviction rate for one or more of these serious crimes is concerningly low? Will they reconsider their approach? What impact does the Minister think the Act has had on meeting the target of 30% of Army recruits being female by 2030, particularly given that the current trends mean that that target will not be met until 2063?”
“6. If he will take steps with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to help ensure ongoing power supply for Baglan energy park until a permanent connection to the grid is secured.”
“In just nine days’ time the supply of power to Baglan energy park will be cut off by the official receiver. Not only will this leave businesses in the area in a completely untenable position but the power supply also feeds the energy park’s waste water pumps, which could have a massive and catastrophic effect on businesses and homes in the area. The UK Government are in a position to work with the official receiver to keep the power supply on. Will the Secretary of State engage with the official receiver and with his colleague, the Business Secretary, to avert potential catastrophe for my constituents and businesses on the Baglan energy park?”
“As I set out last week in this Chamber, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel and veterans, and their families. To that end, we have worked closely with hon. Members in this place, noble Lords in the other place and service charities to amend the Bill in the interests of our service personnel.”
“The Bill is a missed opportunity. It was a one-in-a-Parliament opportunity to ensure that our world-class armed forces are supported by world-class legislation, but glaring gaps at its heart mean that it will fall short and fail to live up to its full potential. If the Government had chosen to support the Lords amendments, we would have been guaranteed a more robust approach to dealing with serious crimes committed by service personnel, and we would have had clear accountability and transparency about the role of central Government in delivering the armed forces covenant. Labour supports the Bill, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure that its content matches the ambition.”
“At the heart of those four principles lies a commitment to our armed forces personnel: the men and women who are the lifeblood of our defence and national security; those who serve to protect us. The Conservative Government have been complacent when it comes to our armed forces and our national security more widely. Just as threats against the UK are increasing, the Prime Minister decided to break an election promise and cut the size of the Army by 10,000. Under the Government and this Prime Minister, our country is becoming less safe and our brave service personnel increasingly undervalued and under-rewarded. I was only recently appointed to the shadow Defence team, but standing at the Dispatch Box to highlight the weaknesses that sit at the heart of the Bill is already starting to feel like groundhog day.”
“In February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, set out the Labour party’s core principles for our defence and national security, which are based not on party politics but on Britain’s strategic national interest. They are: an unshakeable commitment to NATO; non-negotiable support for our nuclear deterrent; a resolute commitment to international law, universal human rights and the multilateral treaties and organisations that uphold them; and a determination to see British investment directed first to British industry not just because of how we think about defence and national security but because we seek to build a more resilient economy and a country that can stand more firmly on its own two feet.”
“I therefore assure the House that Labour, as the party of the armed forces, will robustly hold the Government to account. I put the Minister on notice that he has not heard the last from us on these matters.”
“The Opposition have been clear throughout the process that the Bill must become statute, not least because we must provide our armed forces with the solid and stable legal basis that they require to be able to operate. Although we welcome the concessions that the Minister has promised today, we remain profoundly disappointed that the Government have continued to resist the Lords amendments, thereby running the clock down. Let me be clear that it is unfinished business. The Minister knows full well that there is deep unhappiness about the way that the Government have handled the process and profound concern about the way in which the weaknesses in the Bill will ultimately lead to it failing to serve the best interests of our services personnel.”
“The Government’s concession of a review of the operation of the duty and whether central Government should be added is welcome, but ultimately, it is a recognition that the Bill is drafted too narrowly. How will parliamentarians be involved in the review? I recognise that the Minister mentioned that, but we need a clear assurance about it. Knowing the strength of feeling on the issue, I encourage him to ensure that parliamentarians from both Houses and the Chairs of relevant Select Committees are involved in and can give evidence to the review. We will keep a close eye on the review process, but we still believe that the due regard principle should be broadened to cover all areas of potential disadvantage for servicepeople.”
“As I said at the Dispatch Box last week, we are left with a Bill that will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water; the veteran struggling with their mental health and waiting times for treatment that are more than twice as long as Government targets suggest they should be; or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting into work. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable national standards that local authorities and agencies are held to. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.”
“Organisations such as Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities, alongside Members from both sides of this House and in the other place, have lined up to criticise Ministers for shirking their responsibilities. The Bill was an opportunity for the Government to lead by example and to demonstrate that credible leadership depends on accountability and on practising what they preach, but they appear to be intent on palming off all the responsibility to local government. Social care, pensions, employment and immigration are on the long list of areas not covered by the legislation, and the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies means that the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. The Government are already hitting many servicemen and women with a real-terms pay cut this year.”
“The Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, so it is impossible to understand why on earth those responsibilities should not apply to central Government. We are faced with a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not. As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national Government based on national guidance.”
“104.] We therefore hope that Ministers will reflect again on the recommendations from the Government-commissioned Lyons review, as well as the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Select Committee on Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us”. We must improve conviction rates, and moving these offences into civilian courts offers us the best chance of doing so. Perhaps the most unfathomable aspect of this Bill is the Government’s decision to offload responsibility for the armed forces away from central Government and on to overstretched local authorities—it is utterly illogical and indefensible.”
“This matter is not closed; our concerns have not been allayed. There remain many unanswered questions, so I ask the Minister: what will the Government do if conviction rates for one or more of those serious crimes is concerningly low? Will the Government reconsider this approach? Why will they not commit to a performance review, based on this data? We view this issue as unfinished business, and we know where the weight of opinion lies in this House. As the Conservative hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) clearly stated last week in this Chamber: “Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact…The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court.” —[ Official Report , 6 December 2021; Vol. 705, c.”
“We do, however, welcome the fact that the Minister has today acknowledged the need to publish data on all the offences listed in this amendment—murder, manslaughter, domestic abuse, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration; for that data to include under-18s for the first time; and for that data to cover both investigations and prosecutions at all stages of the service justice system, including reports of incidents, how many are referred from service police to service prosecution authority, how many the service prosecution are able to prosecute, how many go to court martial and how many convictions there are. But I must tell the Minister that Labour remains committed to moving these serious offences into civilian courts, and we will continue to push the Government on this issue.”
“By rejecting Lords amendment 1B in lieu, the Government are not only letting down women in the lower ranks, but undermining their own policy of seeking to recruit more women to the armed forces. The Army has committed itself to a 30% target by 2030 for female recruits, but has not yet produced a clear plan of how that will be achieved. The Government therefore need to think carefully about the message they are sending by resisting this amendment, because until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a minority will continue to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces and will continue to have a chilling effect on female recruitment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Labour party has been pushing the argument strongly that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration, should be tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK. The case for that is overwhelming, because the investigation and prosecution of those crimes within the service justice system simply does not work. The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under court martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. Moreover, more than three in four of the victims were women, and seven in 10 held the rank of private.”
“As I will address a little later in my remarks, the huge disconnect here is between the level of accountability that local government will be held to compared with that for central Government. So we end up in an absurd situation where a school governor has a greater level of accountability for the covenant than the Defence Secretary. I am not sure what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) thinks about that, but it appears to be a bizarre state of affairs. I pay particular tribute to Lords Mackay, Thomas and Craig for their efforts in working with us in our attempts to improve this legislation.”
“It was an honour and pleasure to serve with my hon. Friend on the Bill Committee. Does she agree that the strategic purpose of a Bill such as this must be about supporting areas of greater economic deprivation and that therefore there is a glaring hole at the middle of this Bill, which is that it does not have that clear, proactive strategic purpose?”
“Foreign policy begins at home—our ability to project influence around the world depends on the credibility, integrity and transparency of our Government and our economy here at home—and yet London is awash with dirty Russian money, and the Government have failed for almost two years to implement the recommendations of the Russia report. Will the Minister explain why the Government are dragging their feet on that, because it connects directly to our ability to achieve the objectives that she set out on Ukraine and beyond?”
“Lords amendment 1 directly addresses the treatment of women in our armed forces, which is rightly receiving public attention, and it is an issue that disproportionately affects women in the lower ranks. Until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a tiny minority will be allowed to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces.”
“Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK, except when the Attorney General has given consent. For too long, it has been clear that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes within the service justice system simply does not work. The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that, from 2015 to 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data available suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. More than three quarters of victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private.”
“I know they are held in the highest regard by Labour and by all on both sides of the House. For them and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make this legislation provide the very best. Labour supports this Bill in principle, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure they match their lofty rhetoric with tangible action. As it stands, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel, veterans and their families. That is why I am pleased that the amendments passed in the other place so closely mirror those that Labour pressed during the Bill’s Commons stages. I therefore hope the Government will take this opportunity to think again.”
“This House, our country and the free world owe a huge debt of gratitude to those service personnel who, for 20 years, prevented terrorist attacks from being launched from Afghanistan and who secured opportunities for women and girls that would never have been possible otherwise. I thank them for their heroic service. I look forward to engaging with the Minister. I assure him that I will support him when his Department is doing the right thing, but I will also hold him robustly to account when the Government fail to stand up for our armed forces or to act in the national interest. As the Opposition have noted throughout its passage, this Bill is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to tangibly improve the lives of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families.”
“It is truly an honour to be standing in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my new role as shadow Minister for the armed forces. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who recognised the essential contribution made by our armed forces to the safety and security of our country and who played such an important role in scrutinising this legislation. In my previous role as shadow Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I recently stood at the Dispatch Box to commend the courage, dedication and professionalism shown by our armed forces in the most challenging of circumstances. Two weeks ago I was pleased to pay tribute to those who served in Operation Pitting when they visited Parliament.”
“It will encourage more service personnel to report crimes. It will mean we have some protection from the appalling consequences we suffer when we report rape within our units. “I am urging the government to accept this amendment. As service personnel we are citizens of this country and we deserve justice just like everyone else.””
“Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”? Most importantly, will they listen to service personnel and veterans themselves? More than 4,000 actively serving women and veterans contributed to that report and its recommendations. Today, a serving member of the Royal Navy whose court martial rape case collapsed due to a number of basic errors made by a service prosecutor called on the Government to back this amendment. She was one of three women who launched a judicial review of the Defence Secretary’s decision not to adopt the recommendations of the Lyons review. She says: “The value of this amendment for women like me cannot be overstated… This amendment will make the process independent.”
“The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area is clear for all in this House to see. He is absolutely right that, given the chain of command, ensuring protection for witnesses and victims is essential. We clearly have more confidence in the civilian system to guarantee those. He asks whether the service system could provide those protections, but that seems a very odd way to go about it when the capacity and capability already exist in the civilian system. Why reinvent the wheel? Will Ministers take this final opportunity to listen to the recommendations of a Government-commissioned, judge-led review, which expressed surprise that these cases were still being handled by courts martial? Will they listen to the expertise on their own Back Benches, as we have just heard, including the proposals made by the hon.”
“How can it be that social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this legislation? The exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies also means the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. Our armed forces have gone above and beyond both to support our frontline response to the pandemic in the past year and, as I have mentioned, in Afghanistan. What a contrast between the selfless service of our military personnel and a Government who are missing this crucial opportunity to make long-overdue improvements to the standard of service accommodation, while at the same time handing most of them another real-terms pay cut this year.”
“This Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but, mysteriously, those do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments—including the Ministry of Defence—do not. As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, “many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance.” Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities know this too, as do Conservative Members, both in this House and in the other place. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for delivery.”
“I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s experience and expertise, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. However, I think her proposal does not really make sense for where we are right now in this Chamber. We need to see a Government showing leadership. Those brave ladies who have come forward are showing that leadership, and I hope this Government will pay heed to it. The moment of truth is upon us, and we need to see that vote and that leadership now. These women have courage beyond their service to our country. They are showing this Government the way. I urge colleagues across the House to support the amendment. I turn now to Lords amendment 2, which places the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant on central Government as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies.”