Louise Sandher-Jones

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate. I am grateful for his contributions and those made by other Members. I know, and can see and hear, that the right hon. Gentleman is a passionate champion of veterans and reservists’ rights. As a veteran myself, I thank him for his commitment and hard work on behalf of those who have served and contributed so much to our armed forces. As the right hon. Gentleman notes, the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy raises important questions not only in law, but in how we recognise and support those who serve and have served our country, including through reservist service. Let me set out the Government’s position: on 29 January 2026, the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland handed down its judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy, in which it upheld the earlier tribunal’s findings in relation to Major Milroy’s service and the application of employment protections to reservists. That judgment is being carefully considered by this Government. This evening I will explain the principles guiding the Government’s approach, the work already under way and the position we are taking to support reservists and employers. First, I will speak on our commitment to reservists. Reservists are, of course, integral to the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring vital expertise into Defence, strengthen operational resilience and provide specialist skills that cannot be generated or sustained in the regular forces alone. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last month, our reserve forces are crucial to Britain’s security and, if necessary, “to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid…transition to war.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 644.] Their contribution directly enhances Defence’s capability. The Government’s position is clear: reservists must be treated fairly, lawfully and with proper regard to both their military service and their civilian employment. That principle underpins our policies and will continue to do so. Secondly, it is important to place the pension issues raised by this case into the correct historical context. The questions before the tribunal relate to an earlier policy framework and, since 2015, reservists have had access to the same pension scheme as their regular counterparts. Moreover, reservists have long been entitled to pension provision during periods of mobilisation, recognising the fact that they may be placed directly into harm’s way while serving on operations. That protection remains firmly in place today and should not be lost in the wider public discussion of this case. Thirdly, on the judgment and the Government’s considerations of next steps, we must be clear about the particular facts of this case before the tribunal. It was found that aspects of Major Milroy’s reservist service engaged employment protections in a way that had not previously been recognised. Both the employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal expressly acknowledged that the level of service days in question was atypical. That finding raises legitimate and complex questions about how certain forms of reservist service are characterised in law, and how they interact with employment-related rights, including questions of pay and pensions in this individual case. As such, the Government are carefully considering its implications for the judgment. That work is ongoing and it is being carried out while the case remains within the statutory period during which an appeal may be brought. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to prejudge the Government’s final position at this stage.