First World War (Commemoration)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Bob Russell

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Let me first say how appropriate it is to have this debate today as we look forward to Armed Forces day this weekend. I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on their opening remarks, and I pay tribute to the work in this area of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) as the shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport.

I congratulate the Minister not just on his speech today, but on the work he has done over the past few years. I remember meeting him shortly after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative for commemorating the first world war. I give credit to the Minister, because what he envisaged should happen over the four years leading up to the commemoration and what I discussed with him then has actually worked. I refer to the idea that this should not be a celebration driven centrally by the Government; it should be about local communities coming together at a local level to remember not just those who fought and fell in action, but all those who made a contribution in the widest possible sense. I think that he should be congratulated on that vision.

In April, I had the honour of visiting Gallipoli with the Minister. As has already been pointed out today, it is important to recognise that this is not just about the United Kingdom; it is also about the Commonwealth countries that made a contribution during the war—India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Canada—and the other European nations that took part.

I have the privilege to serve as one of the 15 Commonwealth War Graves Commissioners, along with the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). I might refer to the hon. Gentleman as “my hon. Friend”, because I consider him to be a very good friend. I pay tribute not only to the work of the commission and its staff, but to their tremendous dedication. Last year, a gardener in France asked me, “When you think about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, what is the main thing that you think about?” I said, as I always say, that it was the dedication and hard work of the individual members of staff who maintain cemeteries and organise commemorations around the world—in 150 countries, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

One of the projects in which the commission has been involved as part of the commemorations is intended to raise awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and I have been trying to ensure that people are aware of Commonwealth war graves that are in churchyards in their own communities. If Members have not taken the opportunity to visit those graves with the commission’s staff, I urge them to do so. They will find the experience very educational, and I think it important for them to try to involve their local communities in that way.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I would, but I am very short of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on a fantastic maiden speech. Not only did he deliver it with force and passion, but he rightly praised the beauty of his constituency. Having been born in Nottinghamshire, I know the constituency very well. I went there once during the by-election campaign, but I have fonder memories of fishing on the River Trent—with, I have to say, not a great deal of success. I was also pleased to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is so highly thought of in the area, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find out very soon that the same sentiment is not shared among members of the parliamentary Conservative party. I wish him all the best for his parliamentary career, and congratulate him again on his speech.

We have heard 24 very good speeches today, which have demonstrated not only the breadth of knowledge about this subject in the House, but the way in which Members of Parliament are engaging with their constituents, with volunteers and with others to ensure that the story of the first world war and the involvement of their local communities is recognised. The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to Members of Parliament who had fought and died in the war. I think it important to recognise not only those who died but those who fought, because they influenced the debate that took place a generation later in the House. It is clear from the memoirs of Macmillan and Attlee, who fought in the first world war, that their experience brought a certain understanding of the gravity of the decisions that were made a generation later as we entered the second world war.

Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), related personal stories about members of their families who had fought and, in some cases, died in the first world war. I expect that we shall hear more such stories from all over the country over the next four years, as Members engage in family research to find out what their forebears did.

Another important point is that in some contributions and commentary, there is an emphasis that it was all about the western front, but what has been good this afternoon is that a number of Members have recognised that the commemoration has to recognise the idea that it was a world war, with fighting across the globe. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) mentioned the dedication shown by nurses in parts of Serbia, and he raised an issue that we sometimes forget: people not only died of their wounds; a number died of typhus and Spanish flu after the war.

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said that this war was not only on the western front, mentioning the fighting that took place in Mesopotamia. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and it is important, certainly when looking at issues from the first world war and how they impact on our lives today. We can look back and see that the boundaries that were drawn up after the first world war have had and still are having a direct impact in the tragic events in the middle east today.

Many Members have said thanks to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and can I put on record everyone’s thanks for the contribution it is making, in terms of allowing local communities to remember the first world war? From speaking to the Heritage Lottery Fund and from visiting various constituencies, I have been struck by the variety of projects that it is backing: for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth mentioned the excellent Tynemouth world war one project. Also, school groups are putting on plays and villages are holding events about their village at war. In a few weeks’ time, in Sacriston in my constituency, I will be attending a village at war presentation done by the local heritage group. That shows the variety of ways in which we can remember the first world war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland raised the issue of controversy around the first world war, and clearly that continues. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) also raised that issue, and I think he was wrong when he said that this is about the glorification of war. The Minister and the Government have made clear that this is not about celebration or jingoism; it is about remembering what happened during the first world war and how it impacted not only on Parliament and the international situation, but on daily lives. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Heritage Lottery Fund, he will see that it is funding projects including those remembering conscientious objectors, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). The role of conscientious objectors, whether for religious or political reasons, is important to the lessons of and the stories told about the first world war.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), spoke about Belgians. Again, it has been forgotten that during the war, this country opened its arms to large numbers of Belgian refugees, who settled here, fleeing violence in their own country. In the north-east, they made a huge contribution at the Royal Ordnance factory in Birtley to the war effort. I am pleased to announce that later this year, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will be re-erecting a number of headstones in Birtley to honour Belgian soldiers who lost their lives during the first world war.

The home front also featured in a lot of today’s contributions, whether it was the changing role of women, or the contributions made by coal miners and factory workers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central mentioned. In the North Durham coalfield, a huge number of miners not only volunteered for active service, but kept the pits going throughout the first world war to provide the coal that was needed.

There are also examples of people in reserve occupations. One of my predecessors, Jack Lawson, who was Member of Parliament for Chester-le-Street from 1919 to 1949, was in a reserved occupation at the time as a county councillor. When his brother Will was killed at the battle of Ypres in 1915, he volunteered at the age of 39 for service on the western front. That did not stop the Liberals in 1918 accusing him, when he fought the next general election, of being a conscientious objector because he had been a member of the Independent Labour party. That shows the contribution that many communities made across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke about the civilian cost, and it was the first war that brought war to the home front, such as in the bombardment of Hartlepool or the Zeppelin raids mentioned by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

Another great change, which was illustrated in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), is the contribution made from Ireland. We heard stories of Captain O’Neill and Willie Redmond, and today this opportunity is being used to ensure that reconciliation comes into being. I saw that first hand last year when I visited Glasnevin cemetery, and I pay tribute to the group there who are ensuring that there is a fitting memorial and a recognition of the contribution made.

With time pressing I will mention just one other area: education. That has been mentioned by many Members, and is something that we must press not just this year but over the next four years. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is taking his grandson to France, and we must also ensure that children visit local cemeteries to see graves. We must ensure that the sacrifices made during the first world war are not forgotten, and that some of the lessons can be learned.

Armed Forces Personnel

Debate between Lord Beamish and Bob Russell

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I just do not accept that. It is all very well to say these are small matters. Why will he not publish the overall plan? He has set an ambitious target of bringing the Army back from Germany. Why will he not set out clearly what the investment will be and what the costs of withdrawing will be in compensation and reparation payments to the German Government? It is not good enough to say that these are preliminary announcements. Why stick out a press release this morning, stating that £250 million a year is going to be saved and that this will somehow boost the British economy by £650 million, when the Minister has just admitted that these are preliminary plans? It is not good enough for our armed forces to be treated in this way. [Interruption.] The new Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), chirps from a sedentary position to question whether this is the right tone. These are issues that will affect many thousands of individuals and their families, so we need to ensure that we have the answers. Without that, credibility will not stand much scrutiny.

As we debate the future of our armed forces personnel, it is important, as the Minister said, to focus on the military covenant and how it can be strengthened. I also think it important to take account of what we have achieved over the past 10 years. The Minister rightly referred to the service personnel Command Paper, which was published by the previous Government and which was the first piece of work to make the welfare of our personnel a mainstream commitment in Government Departments.

Like the Minister, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) for his championing of the policy, not just through the MOD but across Whitehall. I believe that it genuinely changed the way in which the armed services and their families, and veterans, are perceived in other Departments. It brought about, for instance, the armed forces compensation scheme, the doubling of welfare payments to those on operations, the advancement of education services for service leavers who have served for six years, increased access to the NHS—I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for continuing that work with the NHS—and improvements in accommodation, including accommodation in Colchester, as I saw when I visited the town with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Most important, it brought about increases in pay.

The Army recovery capability was another key achievement, and I am pleased that the Government are following it up. It will not just change the way in which we look after injured service men and women while they are in service, but enable us to ensure that they receive care and support throughout their lives. I want to record my thanks to the service charities, with many of whom I worked closely while I was a Defence Minister. They not only look after our veterans, but increasingly support men and women who are currently serving in our armed forces. We need to uphold the principles of the covenant, but we also need to ensure the upholding of the basic principle of the Command Paper that no disadvantage should arise from service.

I know that welfare support for the men and women of our armed forces and their families is a priority for Members in all parts of the House, and it is important that, on occasion, we speak with one voice in support of our veterans and service men and women. However, Labour Members will also scrutinise the Government’s policies carefully, and will make it clear when we think that they have got it wrong, and I think that the way in which they have addressed a number of personnel issues needs to be examined more carefully.

I welcome the Government’s progress in regard to, in particular, the enshrinement of the military covenant in law. Unfortunately, however, that was not done by choice, but was forced on Ministers by the Royal British Legion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester is chuntering, but he voted against the enshrinement of the covenant in law when the Armed Forces Bill—which became the Armed Forces Act 2006—was in Committee. He should remember what he did then, when it was open to him not to support the Government.

[Bob Russell]

I am sorry that, having embraced the unity of the House on the subject of Her Majesty’s armed forces, the shadow Minister should nitpick on the armed forces covenant—he should use the correct description—when he knows full well that members of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill were united. The Committee argued only around the edges, and that is what we are talking about here. The hon. Gentleman should not be churlish.

[Mr Jones]

It is not churlish to remind the hon. Gentleman what he did at that time. When we tabled an amendment to enshrine the covenant in law, he voted against it. I know that he is a Liberal Democrat, and thus can pick and choose and place a certain interpretation on what he does, but he must be reminded of the fact that he voted against that amendment. It was only after the Royal British Legion’s campaign that the Government were forced to change their policy and the covenant became law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I disagree. We put in place, with the Royal British Legion, support for bereaved families at military coroners proceedings. That was important, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East was very keen to do it. I simply do not accept that not having a chief coroner will help bereaved families to get the answers they want, and I cannot see why this Government have suddenly changed their position from the one they held when in opposition.

The RBL has said the change in policy is

“a betrayal of bereaved armed forces families”

and that it

“threatens the military covenant.”

The Government’s stated reason for the change in policy is deficit reduction, but the costs of the office are widely disputed and both the RBL and INQUEST are prepared to work with the Government to find a more cost-effective option. It is regrettable that Justice Ministers—not MOD Ministers, I accept—have not listened to the RBL’s well-founded concerns.

It is difficult to understand the Government’s deficit reduction measures, especially when we learn that a firm of consultants, AlixPartners, has been employed by the MOD on a £4,000 a day contract, meaning that it earns more in a week than a front-line soldier in Afghanistan earns in a year. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the RBL’s arguments about the chief coroner.

Substantial numbers of armed forces personnel have been made redundant in recent months. That is, of course, only the start of the service personnel cuts that are to be made over the next four years. When the strategic defence review was published in October 2010, we were told that 17,000 personnel across the three services would have to go. As of July 2011, however, as the Government prepared to issue their latest round of redundancies, we were told that the number had risen to 22,000. When outlining the further reductions, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, failed to offer the armed forces any clarity on what the precise size of the armed forces would be by 2015. We are still waiting for confirmation of exactly how many redundancies there will be on top of those sketched out in the strategic defence and security review, and of whether the new Secretary of State agrees with the statement made by his predecessor. The new Defence Secretary has said that he “regrets” cuts to our armed forces, but it is not yet clear whether he has the courage of his convictions and intends to act on those regrets.

The redundancies issue is not just about numbers, though; it is also about the individuals and the skills that are being lost to all three services. When I hear that some of the individuals I once worked with when I was a Minister are now leaving the services, it makes me concerned about whether our armed forces and this country can afford to lose those capable and well-trained individuals. Greater clarity is the very least our armed forces deserve. If there are to be cuts, we should know where they will fall. Service personnel must be allowed the opportunity to plan for their futures and the futures of their families.

One of the most worrying aspects of the latest round of redundancies last month was that 800 members of the Royal Navy actually volunteered to leave. They were not asked to leave by the MOD, but instead felt that they would be better off outside the service. They made that decision at about the same time as we learned that morale in all three services is in decline. It is essential that today we ask why that is the case. We must ask why 800 members of the Royal Navy believed they had better opportunities elsewhere. It is vital that our forces are able to attract the best talent and retain it, and I am worried that we may be left with skills shortages as a result of the short-term budget changes currently being put in place.

The Conservatives did exactly the same thing when they were last in office in the 1990s, and in the following decade we had to deal with the problems that caused—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Devizes chunters from a sedentary position very often, but does she realise that as a Parliamentary Private Secretary she should be the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, not his mouthpiece? A bit of quiet from the hon. Lady would be a better idea. She might want to take some lessons from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sat in the Chamber quietly while serving very effectively as PPS. May I put on the record my appreciation of the good job he did in that role? I was very sad to see him replaced, especially given what we have experienced today. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is obviously not listening: it does not help Ministers if she sits behind them whingeing and making snide comments. She should seek advice from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who might be able to give her some tips on how to do the job properly.

When he winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say what the MOD is doing to ward against the decline in morale in all three services?

[Bob Russell]

In the context of morale, the shadow Minister has not yet mentioned the condition of armed forces housing. Although I acknowledge the situation the last Labour Government inherited, they had 13 years to sort it out and those were years of relative economic prosperity, so can the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government did not modernise all the Army family housing in my constituency and across the country?

[Mr Jones]

That question is a bit rich—although the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, and we know we have to accept such things from them. I visited Colchester garrison with him, where we saw the investment that had been made not only in recreation and training facilities, but in housing. He knows as well as I do the problem we all grappled with and that the current Government are still grappling with. I understand, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at the Annington Homes issue, but to get to the bottom of that, we have to go all the way back to a decision made under the previous Conservative Government. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), is present, and his fingerprints are on that decision, which was not a good decision for the taxpayer and limited what we could do to improve armed forces housing. None the less, we made great strides in both married quarters and single-living accommodation in the Navy, the RAF and the Army, and it is now some of the best accommodation of its kind to be found.

Although the Minister hinted at possible future provisions, there is a question whether we should provide housing at all, or whether we should instead move to an allowance system, so that individuals have options in housing, rather than being wedded to a contract, which was also very bad news for the taxpayer.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Debate between Lord Beamish and Bob Russell

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I begin by associating myself and my party with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Liam Tasker? The work that he was doing was vital not only in securing and supporting his colleagues and comrades but in bringing peace to Afghanistan. We should think today of his bravery and the sacrifice that he has made, and also think of his family and his comrades who have been left behind.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on securing this debate. As the Secretary of State said, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, I had the honour of visiting Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. I concur with his view about the contribution that people from Northern Ireland make—not only servicemen and women but their families— in supporting our armed forces and making the valiant contribution that they are making today in Afghanistan.

Our commitment to the men and women of our armed forces is non-negotiable. As Veterans Minister, I was always very proud of the support that the British people gave to our servicemen and women and their families, recognising their courage, skill and dedication. We must do our best not only to honour them when they make the ultimate sacrifice but to support them while they are in service and throughout life.

I should like briefly to touch on what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said about the previous Government’s commitment to this issue and the contribution that we made to supporting not only our servicemen and women but their families. The Command Paper to which he rightly referred was a groundbreaking piece of work initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence. For the first time, it looked across Government and got different Departments working together. The Command Paper had two fundamental principles: first, to recognise and end the disadvantages created by military-style life—for example, where being moved meant losing one’s place on waiting or housing lists—and secondly, to recognise that at all times it is right and necessary to provide special treatment, whether in removing disadvantage or in recognising the sacrifice made by those who have been seriously injured in the service of their country.

That piece of work was a landmark document. It did not just gather dust; it was implemented through working across Government and, for the first time, getting other Government Departments thinking about veterans and servicemen and women and their families when they were developing policies. I hope that it has left a good foundation for the coalition Government to build on. I put on record my thanks to the Royal British Legion for its campaign and the work that it continues to do not only in highlighting our debt to our servicemen and women and their families but in ensuring that all politicians recognise that debt.

When we published the Command Paper, we were criticised in certain quarters for trying to ensure that we honoured the covenant. Unlike some Conservative politicians who were happy to take pot shots at us when we were in government, I never believed that the covenant was broken; rather, it was something that we were able to build on through the Command Paper. We did much to be proud of, in which I was directly involved, in improving the lot of servicemen and women and veterans.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned service accommodation. When I was a Minister, he was always knocking on my door to advocate and lobby for improved accommodation in Colchester. We made some great strides in improving accommodation, although that was made very difficult by the decision taken in 1996 by the previous Conservative Government to sell off Army housing to a Japanese bank.

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer the House to the disgraceful privatisation involving Annington Homes. Does he agree that every pound of public money that is spent on improving the housing stock increases the value of that property to Annington Homes?

[Mr Jones]

It is on the record that that was a lousy deal for taxpayers, our servicemen and women, and their families. The important point is that we invested in new housing. In some cases, it was difficult to negotiate around the Annington Homes deal because of how it was structured.

The new single living accommodation that has been put in place through SLAM—the single living accommodation modernisation project—is some of the best anywhere in the world in terms of quality. The millions of pounds that we spent to improve service accommodation were recognised in 2009 by the National Audit Office, which stated that 90% of service families’ accommodation were in the top two of four standards for condition and met the Government’s decent homes standard. I accept that there is still accommodation that is not acceptable, and that sometimes the way in which service families were treated was wrong. Sometimes they were treated as though they were in the Army as well. On occasions, we did not get that right and did not recognise that the families should be looked at as customers, rather than as simply part of their partner’s employment conditions.

Health care is another area that the previous Government can be proud of. The new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham has dedicated military wards, and we put money into Headley Court to provide first-rate and world-beating rehabilitation for those who are severely injured in the service of their country. One of the things that I am most proud of from my time as a Minister is the Army recovery capability project, and I am pleased that the Government are following through on that. We owe a debt to the severely injured. We must not forget them when the headlines go away, but must have a long-term commitment to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree. The danger with the system outlined in the Bill is that the Secretary of State will produce a report without any independent input. As I said in Committee, I do not question for one minute the Secretary of State’s integrity or his intention to ensure that everything that should be in the report is in it, but a future Secretary of State could decide that certain matters should not be. That is a missed opportunity, and I hope that when the Bill goes to the other place it will be amended to ensure that the covenant is enshrined in law.

[Bob Russell]

It is.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman chunters on about that, and I know he is doing his best to support the Conservatives now—I believe he is known locally as Tory Bob these days. I found it remarkable that he was the only member of the Public Bill Committee who was doing the Government’s heavy lifting. It is important that we enshrine the covenant in law, and if the Government reconsider the matter they will certainly have our support.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned Gurkha pensions. As Members know, I have form on that matter. I wish to dispel some of the myths that continue to be portrayed in the newspapers and media about the equalisation of pensions. A Gurkha can retire after 15 years of service, so in some cases they retire on a full pension at about 35 years of age, or even younger. If pensions were equalised, most Gurkhas would not gain anything at all, because their UK counterparts cannot access their pension until they are 60. Backdating would mean their getting not just equalised pensions but actually better terms and conditions than other servicemen and women in some cases. Before 1975, service people got no pension whatever unless they had 22 years’ service. It is important that the facts are examined in detail.

Military Covenant

Debate between Lord Beamish and Bob Russell

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I thank Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber for having retrieved the debate, as Hansard will record. The debate will be read by many service personnel and former military personnel and, as I said in an earlier intervention, it does not go down well to play party politics with our armed forces.

Having served on the previous Armed Forces Bill—now the Armed Forces Act 2006—and on the Committee debating the current Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to the previous Government for the many advances that were made regarding the welfare and interests of our serving personnel and their families.

I have no recollection of the military covenant—now known as the armed forces covenant—being mentioned in our deliberations on the previous Bill. That concept has been brought about by the efforts of the Royal British Legion, to which I pay tribute. I also thank the Secretary of State for praising reservists and for reiterating that praise when I intervened on him, because that is part of the one-Army concept. Serving reservists and their families are sometimes left out of the debate.

The armed forces covenant will be enshrined in law when the Bill is enacted because those words will appear in legislation for the first time and because the Secretary of State will be required to come to the House each year and make a report. I am pretty confident that any Secretary of State who for whatever reason tried to airbrush out matters of concern would be quickly picked up, and quite rightly so, by any Member who thought such issues were being ignored.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman says that the covenant will be enshrined in law, but he attended the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill the other day when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said of the covenant:

“As I have explained already, it will be a conceptual, philosophical statement, and it will have about the same legal position as the service Command Paper”.

To say that it will be enshrined in law is complete nonsense.

[Bob Russell]

I am not a lawyer; all I know is that the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, refers to the armed forces covenant. Should there be more than that, or should there be less? I do not know, but I do know that as the years unfold, that concept will be developed and built upon. Not only the Royal British Legion but other charities are involved. We have heard about the external reference group, but in fact a breakdown of that group has shown that the majority of its membership is within Government. It is more of an internal reference group, with a few very important external people added on.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Lord Beamish and Bob Russell

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I thank you for imposing a time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the first cut of this Parliament that I welcome, because it means that everyone who wishes to speak will have the opportunity to do so.

Let me start by paying tribute to the soldiers of 16 Air Assault Brigade from the Colchester garrison, who are currently deployed for the third time in Helmand province along with others from Wattisham, Woodbridge and various other bases around the UK who are part of the brigade. I also pay tribute to the people back at the garrison, including the families and all the support units. It is fantastic to see the Army welfare provisions and safety nets come into play when 3,000 men and women, but predominantly male soldiers, are deployed overseas—previously in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

Given the events of the past 48 hours in the United States of America, we should bear in mind that in two years’ time there will be another presidential election, which will be three years before 2015 and the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan. I have a real fear that the next President of the United States will be not so much a Republican as a Tea Party headbanger Republican. That is a serious issue for the United Kingdom in relation to our joint defence activities.

I welcome the fact that the coalition Government have increased the number of helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles going to Afghanistan. I urged the previous Government to do that, because UAVs are a very important part of the efforts to identify insurgents.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a bit rich to suggest that the Government have increased the number of helicopters, given that the order that had been placed for 22 new Chinooks has been reduced to 10—and I must add that the answer I got this week on that subject was wrong.

[Bob Russell]

I am delighted with whichever Government provides additional resources to 16 Air Assault Brigade. If the previous Government gave additional resources, I say well done to them, and if the coalition Government have given them, I say well done to them. What our troops need are more resources to help them. In that regard, I was delighted to spend some time with 16 Air Assault Brigade, before some of them went to Afghanistan on their third deployment, on their improvised explosive device training. That was a very worthwhile exercise.

The last aspect of domestic military policy that I want to address is the Army housing modernisation programme. This is an issue that I have been raising with the previous Government for the past 13 years. I sincerely hope that matters will be resolved during the lifetime of this coalition Government. We cannot expect to send our brave men and women to serve overseas when their families back at home live in accommodation that is not up to an acceptable standard. I praise the previous Government for Merville barracks, even though, like others, I do not approve of the private finance initiative. None the less, the barracks is of the standard that we should expect for all our military personnel, and its married quarters—an area in which we are lacking—are also of the quality that we would wish to see.

I shall conclude with the Falklands and related matters in the south Atlantic. The only air bridge between the UK and the Falklands is Ascension Island, but there is another island in the south Atlantic to which this country owes a debt of gratitude, and which has the same strategic importance in the 21st century as it did in the 19th and 20th centuries. I refer to the island of St Helena. There are plans for an airport on the island, and it would be of strategic as well as domestic and economic importance, because it would provide an alternative air bridge between the UK and the Falklands.

As we have heard today, the Argentines still cast covetous eyes on the Falkland Islands, and there is an economic case for placing all the islands of the south Atlantic in one economic and military federation. They are all British overseas territories, with British citizens, and just as successive Governments have protected the Falkland Islands, we should realise that there are other islands in the south Atlantic, too. Ascension Island is a crucial element in Britain’s interests in the area, and it comes under the jurisdiction of St Helena, so I urge the Government to give every support to an airport on St Helena, because of its strategic defence importance.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Lord Beamish and Bob Russell

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May I help the hon. Gentleman further, and ask him to confirm that the last Conservative Government reduced the size of the British Army, and that the Conservatives opposed the then Labour Government’s cuts in the number of infantry units?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman may be suffering slightly from schizophrenia nowadays as he tries to decide where he actually is.

[Bob Russell]

I know where I am.

[Mr Jones]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does, but I am sure that he will have some tough decisions to make over the next few weeks.

We must also ask whether the size of the Navy is sacrosanct. In the same article in The Sunday Times, the current Secretary of State asked:

“Have we cut the surface fleets too much in order to buy high-end capability?”

That suggests that somehow the size of the Navy is ring-fenced. We are therefore slowly seeing whole chunks of the review being ring-fenced or put off-limits, so I question what type of review it is going to be.

That brings me to the nuclear deterrent, where I must say we have got one whole of a dog’s breakfast. The Minister for the Armed Forces said before the election:

“The Labour and Conservative policy of like-for-like replacement of Trident is absurd”

and that

“Labour wants to press ahead with a £100 billion nuclear weapons system designed for the Cold War and won’t even consider Trident in the upcoming defence review. That makes no sense.”

I understand from the coalition agreement that Trident will be scrutinised to ensure value for money but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) ably pointed out, we are not quite clear what the value-for-money review actually means. Does it mean going back to the proposals of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife for a cruise-based alternative, or is it just about tinkering with the figures? The new Chief Secretary to the Treasury clearly did not have a clue when he addressed the House last week. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, he said:

“The hon. Gentleman has no doubt studied carefully the coalition programme…The value-for-money review will do precisely what it says on the tin: we want to get the best value for money from the project and not waste taxpayers’ money unnecessarily on the renewal.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 1049.]

Everyone would agree with that, but are we reopening what the Liberal Democrats were putting forward?