B1357 - Military Veterans Fast Track Programme Bill 2018 (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1357 - Military Veterans Fast Track Programme Bill 2018 (Second Reading)

Military Veterans Fast Track Programme Bill 2018
A bill to offer veterans who served in the military, and who were not dishonourably discharged a fast-track into public service jobs

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1: For the purpose of this act:
(1) Veterans shall be defined as an individual who had experience through long service in the military
(2) Fast track programme shall be defined as a program provided by employers to accelerate the progress and training of workers

2: Fast Track Programme
(1) The police force, prison guards, security services and border force will offer fast track programmes to veterans who served on the front line and specials forces who meet the criteria of clause 3

3: Eligibility
(1) Veterans must have served at least 4 years minimum in the military
(2) Veterans must not have been dishonorably discharged
(3) Veterans must not have a criminal record
(4) Veterans should be mentally fit
(5) Veterans are not eligible for this programme if it has been 5 years of after leaving the military

4: Commencement, Short title and Extent
(1) This Act may be cited as Military Veterans Fast Track Programme Bill 2018 Bill
(2) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom
(3) This Act comes into force upon royal assent


Notes
Military veterans should be allowed to fast track on to certain jobs, given they have substantial military training and experience which is somewhat relevant to the jobs posted above.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
I like the improvements, still an aye from me.
0
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Section 3(4) should probably state mentally and physically fit, given the fast track career options listed.

I'll admit that I am still a little concerned by the lack of provisions for any veterans who will have been discharged from the military due to injury, and thus would be at risk of not possessing the necessary physical health needed for the above jobs. Those who have been injured and left physically disabled have made just as many sacrifices, and I do think they deserve our support in schemes such as this too.

The bill is a strong and positive step in the right direction, but I think the current specifics may be a little restrictive and could be more inclusive.
1
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Aye
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Aye
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Aye
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
The improvements that I personally pushed for have been made. Consequently, I am inclined to vote Aye.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Aye
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
I still don't see why, for instance, a military veteran should be eligible for a fast-track program, but someone switching from one of these professions to another shouldn't. Nor why all veterans should be automatically eligible whether they have particularly useful skills or not when there's obviously a very large variety of talents and roles in the modern army.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Aye, certainly a step in the right direction
0
Dafios9128
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Aye
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Disagree with Sec 3(5), but otherwise an aye.
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
I'm not yet convinced that a fast-track programme straight into employment is the right way to go about it. I do wonder that a better way to go about it might be to skill up as needed those who are leaving the military so they are competitive in the regular employment market.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
Why is it only should be mentally fit? Are we going to fast track people who aren’t into the roles?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
I'm in favour of this.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
You'll need to add a 'changes' section to stop me Abstaining but Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
Changes?

And the problems from the first reading remain, you give any detail on the fastracking itself
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
Yes, as I've said before this is a good idea. for thoses who question wherever ex military personnel have the skills to work in the police for example, let me ask you this. Would you prefer a unit of newly trained armed police officers who don't have very much experience handling firearms or would you rather the police prioritise thoses who have experience in handling firearms making up thoses units ?.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Hazzer1998)
Yes, as I've said before this is a good idea. for thoses who question wherever ex military personnel have the skills to work in the police for example, let me ask you this. Would you prefer a unit of newly trained armed police officers who don't have very much experience handling firearms or would you rather the police prioritise thoses who have experience in handling firearms making up thoses units ?.
I don't want any police officers handling firearms until they're trained, including in practical exercises and drills, to such an extent that they are as likely as practically possible to get it right. Equally, I don't want ex-soldiers to skip much of this crucial training when they're used to bearing arms in the context of assumed hostility rather than primarily dealing with British civilians.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Hazzer1998)
Yes, as I've said before this is a good idea. for thoses who question wherever ex military personnel have the skills to work in the police for example, let me ask you this. Would you prefer a unit of newly trained armed police officers who don't have very much experience handling firearms or would you rather the police prioritise thoses who have experience in handling firearms making up thoses units ?.
I would rather have people who have received the police firearms training to be handling police firearms, particularly the rules of engagement, over those who are used to military rules of engagement. Further you're talking about a handful of positions, not rank and file officers whose training will not be covered by military training, I suspect the closest you get in the military to having the training for police work will be the MPs, and even then I suspect the roles are different enough they would not be able to effectively transfer into the civilian police force without further training.

This is where the bill falls down, it seems to assume that just because somebody can blindly follow orders and shoot and people they have all the skills needed to be an effective policeman, or member of borderforce, or whatever else, even though most of the specific training will not be covered in their military training and, as already mentioned, rules of engagement will be very different.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (239)
14.86%
The paper was reasonable (897)
55.78%
Not feeling great about that exam... (352)
21.89%
It was TERRIBLE (120)
7.46%

Watched Threads

View All